Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 139: Line 139:


*Doug Weller, Current banning policy [[WP:BMB]] and [[WP:TBAN]] not only does not support, it contradicts, the Jimbo page belief you articulate. The purpose of bans (which it should be acknowledged are arrived at after extensive consuming of community resources) is to draw a bright line, so a seemingly endless, yes, but discussion does not have to occur. Why T-ban? Well, for one, perhaps, if only the ban had been in place when the quote ''The Atlantic'' took issue with was made, Wikipedia and ''The Atlantic'' would not be dealing with this contretemps. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
*Doug Weller, Current banning policy [[WP:BMB]] and [[WP:TBAN]] not only does not support, it contradicts, the Jimbo page belief you articulate. The purpose of bans (which it should be acknowledged are arrived at after extensive consuming of community resources) is to draw a bright line, so a seemingly endless, yes, but discussion does not have to occur. Why T-ban? Well, for one, perhaps, if only the ban had been in place when the quote ''The Atlantic'' took issue with was made, Wikipedia and ''The Atlantic'' would not be dealing with this contretemps. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

*What are hoping to achieve with this resolution?''' The wide support for the unblock has already proven that the blocking Admin was in error and that the Arbcom are a bunch of dicks for passing such a half-baked, contentious motion in the first place. In this instance, the Foundation and Jimbo openly permitted the promotion of a defaming off-wiki article on a high profile talk page (one can only hope they didn't provide the erroneous material for it) - therefore, they can hardly be surprised if the victim responds. Is Wikipedia now such a place where the right to defend oneself has been abolished? We seem to be becoming a little Stalinist here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Giano|<font color="blue">Giano</font>]]</span> [[User talk:Giano|'''(talk)''']] 18:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:54, 24 October 2015

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban none none 12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort Motion (orig. case) 13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024
Motion name Date posted
Motion: Overlap of Sanctions 13 September 2015
Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions 13 September 2015
Motion: Eric Corbett temporarily restricted 22 November 2015

Motions

Motion: Overlap of Sanctions

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

To prevent confusion and overlap between existing sanctions,

  1. Remedy 2 of the Bluemarine case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case and the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case continue to apply in this topic area;
  2. Remedy 2.1 of the Election case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
  3. Remedies 4 and 5 of the Free Republic case are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
  4. Remedy 1 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience case continue to apply in this topic area;
  5. Remedy 1.1 of the Tea Party Movement case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
  6. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions or article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.
Support
  1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Striking my support until we resolve the Vivaldi issue. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC) restoring support now the Vivaldi case has been removed from this motion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 23:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 08:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK [•] 23:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I agree with all but the last bullet, and that one is enough to oppose this. Courcelles (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Courcelles: Could you explain your particular objection to it? Also, i'm camped here till my note about Vivaldi is resolved. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Courcelles: My understanding of the last bullet is that it is simply saying that all current sanctions issued under authorisations we are retiring continue as if the authorisation was still in force - i.e. the sanction is still valid and it may be appealed in the exact same way as it would be if the authorisation was still active. The only other thing it does is note that our retiring the authorisation is not grounds for appeal of an active sanction. What is it you disagree with about this? Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf:, my vote made a lot more sense before the Vivaldi bullet was removed. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted while the Vivaldi bullet was still in place. If you meant "penultimate" rather than "last" (referring to Vivaldi) your vote comment would make sense - if you really do mean last then I am still confused. Thryduulf (talk)
Abstain
Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (overlap of sanctions)

Proposed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: Hut is very much correct below as it doesn't cover probation was authorized on... -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having re-read the results of the Vivaldi case I'm inclined to agree. I think the simplest way to transition from article probation to a more modern remedy here would be to authorise standard discretionary sanctions for all pages related to Jack Hyles, specifically including Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College? Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Vialdi from this list and transferred it to the remove pile. They haven't been used in a decade and 50 edits ago is 2012. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments (overlap of sanctions)

  • I'm not sure that the sanctions in the Vivaldi case are redundant to the BLP ones. Although the articles in question do have material that falls under BLP there is plenty of material that doesn't. For instance Jack Hyles has been dead for well over a decade, it would be hard to argue that BLP applies to most of the article. Hut 8.5 19:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,

  1. Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;
  2. Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;
  3. Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;
  4. Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;
  5. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
  6. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
Support
  1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Yunshi's comment below, I think the small risk that this will flare up without the threat of sanctions is small enough and easily countered enough (cf our recent motion regarding Longevity) that we can take it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AGK [•] 23:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Enough of these have the potential to flare up that I think this is a bad idea. Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. LFaraone 17:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (removal of unused sanctions)

Proposed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to wait for any community comments before opining here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all pretty old, and a review of the relevant article histories suggests that they may no longer be needed; however I'm mindful of the fact that the sanctions may be the reason that the articles have been so quiet recently. I'm leaning towards supporting this motion, but like Thryduulf would be happier to wait until a few more opinions are in. Yunshui 雲水 08:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sod it, I think the benefits outweigh the risks. The option of reinstatement by request at ARCA does, as Harry points out, make this a reasonably safe gamble. Yunshui 雲水 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments (removal of unused sanctions)

  • Noting Courcelles' objection, but I would have thought that point 6 (allowing the sanctions to be reinstated by request at ARCA if necessary) covers everyone in the event that disruption returns. Some topic areas won't quieten down until real-world events do (the obvious example being Israel-Palestine), but we shouldn't keep discretionary sanctions lingering around where they're no longer necessary or useful. The alerts and warning notices that editors see whenever they edit an affected article potentially deter valuable contributions and give an impression of a dispute that is no longer there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the state of the US and its jaunts into the middle-east (as well as its treatment of Muslims at home) object to the waterboarding being lifted (no comment on the others). 'Closely related pages' effectively means anything involving state-sanctioned torture. Totally cant see how THAT might flare up... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the last sanction imposed pursuant to a remedy in that case was nearly five years ago (by strange coincidence, I was the admin imposing it), and the sanctions can always be re-imposed if necessary. Besides, most subjects to do with waterboarding as it relates to the United States' foreign policy would probably be covered by the discretionary sanctions on American politics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I would generally follow the school of thought that states 'Its calm because of the sanctions'. However you are right American Politics would (probably, someone will argue otherwise no doubt) cover any US based torture problems. Sadly the US does not have a monopoly in torture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to keep bringing up essentially the same thing every time, but once again we have a problem (a minor one this time, but entirely avoidable) this time caused by someone referring to the "last" item on a list that is still having items added and removed. This small issue and a number of large issues to come can be avoided by the simple idea of designing procedures and sticking to them instead of winging it every time. To be specific, in this particular situation, anyone commenting on a list item should refer to "item number 6" instead of "the last item. Anyone removing an item should replace it with "6. (removed) instead of deleting it and letting a new item take the #6 slot. Please Arbom, there are members of the community who are experts at designing these sorts of procedures. Let us help. We won't step on your authority and you will get to approve all procedures. Whether because of lack of skills, lack of time, or lack of interest, you really suck at this. Just give the word and I will start recruiting experts and drafting procedures (on-wiki, so you can comment and veto at any point in the process). --Guy Macon (talk)
Re "easily corrected"; it was corrected while I composed the above. My point about procedures still stands though. If anyone wants to dispute this, I can document previous problems that weren't so easy to fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: What are you talking about? You are the first person to edit this page in over two days --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. When I went back to look at the page I looked at "Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions" (which doesn't have the problem) instead of "Motion: Overlap of Sanctions" (which does have the problem -- in the oppose section) and assumed it had been fixed. Sorry for the error. Does anyone wish to comment on my offer? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't think so. See you next time the lack of procedures causes a problem, and I hope it is a minor problem like this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even after your post above, I still do not understand what your comment relates to. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Eric Corbett temporarily restricted

In lieu of reblocking following the out-of-process unblocking, solely to allow participation in the case request to which he is a named party, Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) is permitted to edit only the following pages:

  1. Any current arbitration case request to which he is a named party, specifically including Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use of external websites, block/unblock of Eric Corbett.
  2. The pages and talk pages of any case to which he is a named party
  3. His user talk page

Any breach of this restriction will result in a block of 1 month, which may be appealed only by email to the Arbitration Committee. Any administrator reversing any block placed under this sanction without the prior written permission of the Arbitration Committee will be summarily desysopped and blocked from editing.

Unless subsequently amended or repealed by motion of the Arbitration Committee, this restriction will expire at 20:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC) (when the original block was due to expire) or the expiration of any block placed as a result of it, whichever is later.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Support as proposer, Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. At this point, this may be the simplest thing to do, but I do not make the current assumption that the initial block was a good one, I think he might have been unblocked by admin consensus, and I therefore accept NYB's argument. Whether or not Eric needs to be indefinitely blocked or not at this time is something that I have not decided. At the moment, this seems to me a rather typical escalation over a technical violation that was not itself very wrong intrinsically but where the sequence of events is a consequence of what I have always considered our absurdly complicated and manipulable system of enforcement. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by arbitrators (Eric Corbett temporarily restricted)

  • Just got back to this whole mess. Was reviewing GMO evidence and now this... Regardless we've moved really quickly on the matter (quickly enough I was away for half a day and missed a desysop, second one I've missed...). I think we're acting hastily here. We've been too slow on cases and too fast to act on the last few desysops, at least in my opinion. The unblock was out of process, I myself am not quite sold on the original corbett block, especially of that magnitude but admittedly there have been ongoing civility issues which I"m sympathetic to, and the block seems to have adhered to the letter of the restrictions. Herein lies the problem with the current AE enforcement system, at least in my mind. Corbett is clearly demonstrating it but I think it's generally true for the process. I'm definitely sold on the fact that he should have the ability to appeal to uninvolved admins. Given the circumstances I'm sure hte entire thing will be a bit of a mess if it does happen but I think there's a reasonable chance it would be overturned. He should be allowed to appeal through that venue. We generally don't like to have users blocked during a case in which they are involved and I think that's the motivation for this motion but I'm still not sure on it, and I'm suffering from both fatigue and information overload. NativeForeigner Talk 09:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was around at the beginning of this but went off-line just before the vote, and I'm kicking myself for not asking that we not rush it through (thus I'm not blameless). Neither the desysop nor the unblock were that urgent that they couldn't have waited, which is part of the tragedy of this. We (ArbCom) and Yngvadottir could both have explored other avenues before acting. I don't at all like losing Yngvadottir as an Admin nor am I sure that the original block was appropriate, and certainly in this case the length seems overkill. As far as I recall Eric doesn't appeal his blocks so letting him appeal to uninvolved admins wouldn't work for him. And I'm at a loss about what to do about Jimbo's page [ making it a sanction-free zone has its own risks. Having a system where someone under sanctions can request the ability to post there might work, but it would have to guarantee a timely response and we aren't always good at that. I agree that we've been too slow on cases and too fast to act on desysops and I'm certain we haven't made the right decision in all the recent ones. Doug Weller (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DD2K: Maybe I was careless in my wording. By "work for him" I should have said "would have had no effect in this instance". As for Jimbo's talk page, we don't actually have a policy for it. I don't like the idea of it being a sanction-free zone, which is why I suggested we might need a special process if the community thinks there are times sanctioned editors should be allowed to edit his page. Whether the block was appropriate at all depends upon whether you view his talk page as sanction-free. Ignoring that, given the circumstances - an article which had numerous errors and named him publicly, I think it a month too long. If he breached sanctions in a different context, I might have thought it too short. Doug Weller (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just comment that As far as I recall Eric doesn't appeal his blocks so letting him appeal to uninvolved admins wouldn't work for him is entirely immaterial. The fact that Eric pointedly refuses to appeal his blocks does not mean that the rules no longer apply to him and anyone can unblock unilaterally. Eric is completely entitled to refuse to appeal, but that means he remains blocked. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never knew that it is acting hastily when we follow up on our word that we desysop anyone who unilaterally reverses AE blocks. It is one of the the brightest of the bright lines in the Admin policy. We don't need three weeks of political hand wringing to follow the policy that has been around since 2008. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments (Eric Corbett temporarily restricted)

Any comments not directly related to this motion will be removed by an arbitrator or clerk without further warning. All discussion of the pending case request must remain on the case request page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should make it clear that while unblocked to participate in a case request or case, that the DS still apply and that Eric Corbett's comments can't be generally be about gender issues and the gender gap eves if the people who are editing the same page are discussing issues related to them. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eric's existing sanctions are not suspended by this motion, so they continue to apply. However, people should not be discussing general gender issues or GGTF issues on Eric's talk page at all, nor on Arbitration case/case request pages except to the extent they are directly related to a case (request). Eric may discuss/defend his actions/statements he has made (or is alleged to have made) as part of the dispute resolution process. If this motion passes Eric may not edit any other page, so it doesn't matter what is being discussed on them. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see neither the need nor benefit for this motion at this point in time, other than to show the need for deliberation and not instant reactions, and the need for measured actions rather than emulation of Draco the beloved. Collect (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had Eric not been unblocked (by a then administrator whose longterm commitment to Wikipedia has been outstanding, in an action that was wikilegally out of process yet awkwardly seems to enjoy majority support so far), he would have had the right to request that there be an unblock review discussion on AE or AN. (Even if he didn't request it, someone might have requested it for him; such third-party requests normally aren't allowed any more, but stranger things have happened.) Would this motion preclude such a review? If so, it should not be adopted, because an editor should not be left in a worse position as the result of an action he was not responsible for and said he did not want. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a proposal. So, if Eric breaks this new rule someone will,... what? Block him? Good luck with that. He already broke a bright line restriction. Anyone who enforces your rulings gets a heap of shit and little support. No thanks. R. Baley (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slow down, you move too fast (The 59th Street Bridge Song) - Paul Simon, although the Harpers Bizarre 1967 cover [1] was a bigger hit. (Oh, and I was alive then.) What actual problem is this motion intended to solve?? We've had a toxic J Wales talk page conversation morph into a hasty block, hasty unblock, hasty desysop ... Wikipedia is not on fire, and we ain't legal system per WP:IAR and WP:NOJUSTICE. There is no urgent crisis, just a mess to clean up: once again, "the community" -- actually a tiny subset of 114,205 active users -- now being a great time to keep some perspective -- is dumping on ya'll a Gordian Knot mess. What we really need from the committee now isn't haste, it's wisdom. Be slow, be thorough, consider options, let the furor die down before acting. NE Ent 02:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Guerillero:Acting without thinking is always hasty, even if there's a rule, and that's been a rule so big we call it a "pillar" since 2002.
  • (Commenting in this section because I'm recused on this issue). I understand that it's difficult to hold an arbitration case when one of the parties is blocked, but this seems like more dancing around to avoid a block. Eric Corbett breached his restrictions, and was rightfully blocked. He was unblocked out of process by an administrator, and the Committee has acknowledged that this was an improper block by desysoping. So why, then, is he not reblocked? This reminds me of the similar dancing around we ended up with to avoid a siteban in the WP:ARBGGTF case, and look where that landed us. R. Baley has a good point also—if he breaches these restrictions, then what? He's blocked? And then when someone cowboy unblocks and is desysoped, will we go through this whole motion again? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: He might have been unblocked by admin consensus, but he wasn't. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The intent of this is that he is effectively blocked, but may participate only in the case request/case (his talk page access was not removed when blocking). If he doesn't stick to that then he is back to blocked and loses his chance to participate in the case. If anyone else reverses a block for this they get the one month block and lose the chance to participate in this case. It's a one-shot deal. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "lose the chance to participate in the case" is about the most (fill in the blank) solution to anything ever found (including the concept that a person who was physically out of the country loses the right to answer charges in a case) - the fundamental base of any rational system dealing with a "case" is that a person has a full chance at rebutting his or her accusers, and not "if he says anything at all, we will simply say he can say nothing at all " which is the apparent desire of at least one arbitrator. Newyorkbrad is "spot on" here. Collect (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose this on, maybe, awkward grounds. The proposal seems to preemptively declare Jimbo's talk page out of bounds. At least on that perhaps minor point, which is I think one of the points that the arbitration might address, I would hesitate to, basically, make a decision about it here before actually discussing the matter more broadly in the arbitration, if it comes to arbitration of course. Also, much as I hate saying this, given the amount of attention this discussion is having here onsite, I have a really bad feeling that Jimbo's page is going to be awash with comments of various sorts, some including possibly very remarkable unsupportable or unsupportable statements. If that does happen, I think it would be only reasonable to allow Eric to offer testimony in his own behalf there, although this proposal seems to rule that possibility out. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This whole mess is ArbCom and the current group of active admins fault. Just a quote from above(from an Admin I respect and an ArbCom member I voted for)

    losing Yngvadottir as an Admin nor am I sure that the original block was appropriate, and certainly in this case the length seems overkill. As far as I recall Eric doesn't appeal his blocks so letting him appeal to uninvolved admins wouldn't work for him. And I'm at a loss about what to do about Jimbo's page

    Once again, Eric is special, and we cannot have a normal process for him, so let's overlook the 7 fucking times he's been blocked for violating his ban, and blame the admin that blocked him. It's not Eric's fault that we have this inability to let Eric take responsibility for his own actions, when every time he tries some admin comes in and unblocks him and 'falls on their sword'. The admin is then congratulated for 'doing the right thing', despite Wikipedia rules. Time and time and time again. And what does ArbCom do? They look for more excuses not to act. Ohhhh...Jimbo's page is a sanction free zone and anything goes. For fucks sake. WMF needs to come in here and straighten this bullshit out. It's obvious the current group of admins and ArbCom are incapable. Anyone with one bit of maturity and common sense would say "ENOUGH!". Once again, this isn't Eric's fault, it's learned behavior. Dave Dial (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:The main problem isn't Eric Corbett, it's the community and the reactions to his actions that are the main problem. Eric could contact the Atlantic about any inaccuracies, he stated before he made any comments on Jimbo's page that he already knew he would be violating his ban if he went there and commented on the article.

Given the subject of that article I'm unable to comment.

He then and went to make comments that were a clear violation of that ban. If Eric wanted to challenge the block length, he could do so himself. Because others know that Eric has made threats about leaving Wikipedia 'forever', many admins take it up themselves to unilaterally unblock Eric without discussion or against Wikipedia rules. This happens time after time after time after time. The only way to put a stop to this endless cycle is to make the reactions the focal point of the problem. If Eric refuses to address blocking admins or ask for a review, then that's his choice. If an admin takes it upon themselves to act unilaterally, that's their choice. The actions of the admins are the problem, and make it possible for Eric and his supporters to continuously disrupt this project in an endless cycle of these childish antics over and over and over. If there are no adults on ArbCom that can see this for what it is, then WMF need to step in and put a stop to it. This isn't complicated, it's only made so because too many editors on this project have made it so. Dave Dial (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doug Weller, Current banning policy WP:BMB and WP:TBAN not only does not support, it contradicts, the Jimbo page belief you articulate. The purpose of bans (which it should be acknowledged are arrived at after extensive consuming of community resources) is to draw a bright line, so a seemingly endless, yes, but discussion does not have to occur. Why T-ban? Well, for one, perhaps, if only the ban had been in place when the quote The Atlantic took issue with was made, Wikipedia and The Atlantic would not be dealing with this contretemps. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are hoping to achieve with this resolution? The wide support for the unblock has already proven that the blocking Admin was in error and that the Arbcom are a bunch of dicks for passing such a half-baked, contentious motion in the first place. In this instance, the Foundation and Jimbo openly permitted the promotion of a defaming off-wiki article on a high profile talk page (one can only hope they didn't provide the erroneous material for it) - therefore, they can hardly be surprised if the victim responds. Is Wikipedia now such a place where the right to defend oneself has been abolished? We seem to be becoming a little Stalinist here. Giano (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=687310319"