This is written from my perspective as a newer user that started being active only in 2019 and has never never interacted with Eric before June 2019. Eric Corbett is not the most civil person I know. Some of these diffs were collected by Levivich for the recent AE thread except I obviously modified them and added my own. They all pretty much just quote Eric's edit summary at the time. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interactions with me

Comment on MJL's comment/says I can't read sources/uses wrong pronoun for me* — [1] (7 August)
seems OK to me/refers to me as "some clown" — [2] (7 August)
me & +/I have not even the slightest interest in the outcome of this case — [3] / [4] (22 June)

August

more insults** — [5] (17 August)
stupid has won/And herein lies the stupidity of ArbCom and its unpaid goons like Sandstein. — [6] (10 August)
[this is] beyond stupid — [7] (10 August)
stupid, stupi, stupid — [8] (9 August)
live by the sword, die by the sword/Gravedancers... ought to expect to have their graves danced on — [9] (9 August)
think again/gutter-snipe — [10] (9 August)
nothing will change/Eric's take on changing his ways — [11] (8 August)

Other 2019 diffs

why don't you **** off? — [12] (25 May)
ignorance is no badge of honour/BITting Medovar — [13] (17 May)
reply/a topic ban violation? Yes. — [14]

Footnotes

* If you think I need to actually correct every single user who does this, I don't know what to say. It's on my userspace under userboxes, listed as my preference using the gender magic word, and my username has no male connotations. The only reason I suspect Eric Corbett said he here is because I suspect he was trying to bait me. I willfully ignored it until now.
** Facts: Eric Corbett considers it insulting to be called by his last name...

Protracted dispute

I almost wanna say that it is a well known fact that if you block Eric that you'll get attacked. Though, of course I have to say more than that.

Cases involving Eric:

Interactions at GGTF - 4 findings of fact, 2 remedies, and 8 enforcements
Lightbreather - IBAN taken over by committee
Arbitration enforcement - locus of dispute was a comment made by Eric
Arbitration enforcement 2 - super involved Eric and created the special 24hr AE rule
Civility enforcement - 3 findings, 2 remedies, and 1 enforcement

Between these five (yes 5) previous cases, it's been found that time-and-time-again, the community just doesn't quite agree on how best to handle Eric. In 2019, it's consumed several weeks of our time already. In years past, by the looks of it, this issue has taken many months to discuss. We all agree on the fact that none of the previous remedies are working quite right, but that's where agreement ends and drama begins.

Trimmed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Parties Cassianto opened up the recent AN thread about Eric being baited. EEng's dispute with Eric is what let to the most recent 72 hour block. Cassianto and others have made it known they feel Scottywong baited Eric in the AN thread.

Within Arbcom remit?

Yes.

Final thoughts

There's been no signs that this dispute will end anytime soon. I know this request opens me up for criticism. I've never really been exactly admin material, though.

I never want to regret not doing something when I know I can; nor do I ever want to get complacent with our collective ability to handle incivility or harassment issues on this site and within the community. This dispute, no matter who is truly to blame, stands in the way of the constructive editing environment I feel we so desperately deserve.

Submitted, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eric Corbett

I know from experience how these affairs always end up with a proposal to ban me for whatever trumped-up reason, and that anything I might say will be twisted to suit the agenda of those whose single purpose is to hound me off Wikipedia. So I'll do everyone a favour by leaving voluntarily. After this post I will be scrambling my password, and you will never hear from me again. Eric Corbett 17:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EEng

[15]

Statement by Cassianto

I have nothing meaningful to say about this utter tripe. Cassianto^Talk 04:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scottywong

Statement by SN54129

I've added myself as a party, as I suggested MJL be indefinitely blocked for...I don't what, consistently generating more heat than light probably sums it up. This is not the first arbreq they've started only to see it fail, and I assume it won't be the last. ——SerialNumber54129 03:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: I apologise, I added myself, but I am very slow. Slow beans! ——SerialNumber54129 03:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv

I believe this case is necessary. The common refrain we hear around Wikipedia and elsewhere is, "If Eric were anybody else, he'd have been indeffed or banned by now." And, it has been stated, as a result of this attitude, there have been cases where people make sport of Eric, to the point that it has been claimed that there are individuals attempting to bait him into violating his GGTF civility restrictions. And I don't see this as an accusation of bad faith, in the same sense that I wouldn't see it as an accusation of vandalism—I believe that if there are people who seek to have Eric driven off the project, they believe it is in the project's interest to do so, that Eric is a net negative, and that it is appropriate to use means other than the typical ANI thread or Committee proceeding to drive him out. There are further allegations being made that Eric is being harassed. I have no opinion at this time as to whether there is any truth to these claims. Rather, I believe it falls to the Committee to perform factfinding to determine if there is any truth to them.

This matter extends quite a bit beyond the ongoing AN thread concerning Scottywong's rude, somewhat inflammatory comment at Eric's user talk. Just last week, we had an incident at AE where Eric was blocked for three months in direct violation of this Committee's directive that threads concerning Eric at AE must remain open for 24 hours (see AE2), and in violation of the rather unique escalation requirements for blocks of Eric under the case-specific enforcement in the GGTF case.

I believe this matter falls squarely within the Arbitration Policy as one requiring arbitration given the community's perennial impotence to resolve the problems that surround Eric Corbett. I believe the Committee's unique factfinding role is essential to resolving this, to cutting through the hype and the hyperbole, and bringing an end to this years-long mess. I urge the Committee to accept a case concerning Eric Corbett, scoped not only to him personally, but also his companions and detractors. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

This case is not needed. The sanctions previously held were enough and the next block triggers a review of the sanctions. EC is no saint but compared to previous times improvements have been made. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Softlavender, I've been on the receiving end of User:SlimVirgin disapproval for a situation similar to this and her conduct has been remarkably even in this regard both then and now and her consistency has made me gain a lot of respect for her, how is she an involved party other then she has commented on an ANI thread? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sandstein, I find actually reading the discussions and being familiar with the sanctions are very helpful, both seem to be a challenge to you but I do find it refreshing you've shown just enough courage to state you want EC banned. Been waiting for that a while. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies, possibly involved and only slightly interested

Why do I find weird comments like this, "I almost wanna say that it is a well known fact that if you block Eric that you'll get attacked. Though, of course I have to say more than that", in this case? What strange and redundant colloquialisms. And MJL, since you seem to be here in all your verbosity to enforce civility, would you please do Eric Corbett the courtesy of using his full name? I doubt y'all are on a first name basis, and that bit of formality is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

I don't really have a formed opinion on whether ArbCom should accept this case. However if it is accepted, then based on the statements by EEng, Only in death, David Eppstein, and Nil Einne in one or both of these two current AN threads: [16], [17], I would say that SlimVirgin should be a named party to the case and that her actions should be examined in addition to the actions of the currently named parties. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging MJL to inform. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, why is Serial Number 54129 a named party to the case, but he has no notification and no section for a statement? Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, you wrote: "my perspective as a user who only joined this project in 2019", but I think you meant 2016. Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Talk:Elizabeth Mallet#Elizabeth Mallet widowed at 11?!, Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games#Reliable source?, Talk:Moors murders#Recent edits, Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Moors murders/archive1#Moved to talk, the two AE cases at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive253, the one still unarchived at WP:AE#Eric Corbett, and yesterday's WP:AN#Further attempts to bait Eric Corbett... that's some of the disruption on the project since EC's return in May 2019. You'll see in the AE cases that there is disagreement among admin about (or with) the current sanctions. Perhaps just a clarification of the current sanctions, or some other motion, would be helpful, if not a full case. – Levivich 03:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

Oh dear. A single recent instance of baiting by Scottywong has now been escalated into a "let's all throw mud at the victim" case request by a (self-admittedly) somewhat clueless newbie. MJL can't even really work out what they want the case to consider - see this. Do we really need this? And if we do then surely it should by Scottywong's name in the title, not Eric's. After all, there is consensus in the current AN thread that Scottywong was baiting. - Sitush (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Sandstein's thoughts carry any weight then that is someone else who should be added as a party. An admin acting in cavalier fashion at AE, seemingly without even reading the comments of others, is a disruptive admin. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Leaky

This is all wrong. Too many people here have grabbed the wrong end of too many sticks - in some cases inadvertently in others perhaps with a motive. This title here is completely wrong. The AN report was in connection with a wholly inappropriate and deliberate jibe at Eric who had just returned from 72 hours off. AFAICS he had barely edited. There was no need to draw high profile public attention to the jibe by the Admin. at WP:AN. Words, justifiably harsh, should have been exchanged on his talk page, with a possible escalation under WP:ADMINACCT if required. This case, headlined in this way, at this time is wholly inappropriate. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

This should be renamed "Moors murders FAR" and widened to review the conduct of all involved. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

As one of the administrators taking part in the most recent enforcement request currently still at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric_Corbett, I ask ArbCom to take this case and resolve it in such a manner that no more enforcement by individual administrators is necessary – that is, either by lifting the existing sanctions or by imposing site ban(s) as deemed necessary. When attempting enforcement of the existing sanctions, I experienced – in addition to good-faith disagreement with how I went about it – an extraordinary amount of bullying and harassment by what I assume are friends of Eric Corbett, making clear that he is one of the WP:UNBLOCKABLEs. Under these circumstances, admins cannot be asked to do ArbCom's job, which is to deal with intractable disputes in a lasting manner. It doesn't help that the sanctions are now so encrusted with weird exceptions, special rules and codicils that any attempt at enforcement can be wiki-lawyered about forever. In view of the Fram case, the Committee should seek to resolve this case speedily to demonstrate that the community is in fact capable of dealing with longterm incivility and harassment by established users. Sandstein 08:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ComplexRational

From my (an outside observer’s) point of view, this case is unfortunately necessitated because it is evident that aside from the mandates of arbitration enforcement, various parties are given exceptional amounts of leeway, and some more than others. In concurrence with Mendaliv above, Wikipedia’s fundamental policies and guidelines should apply equally to all editors, regardless of their status. I’m not inclined to take sides on this case, as the real problem seems to be that there is no agreement on how to uphold these policies for vested contributors, who have a history of positive content contributions but also one of quarreling. Ideally, there should be no difference or prejudice. That said, I would strongly recommend that every editor’s comments, conduct, and interactions be imparatially reviewed, and any sanctions be entirely policy-based (i.e. such that no editor is exempt from basic code of conduct or otherwise treated differently). A review of past ANI and AE repors suggests that this has not been done effectively, and I hope that an unbiased agreement can be reached concerning every involved party. ComplexRational (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August

As far as I can tell the impetus for this case request is this ANI thread "Further attempts to bait Eric Corbett", criticizing the actions of the administrator Scottywong. Requesting a case against the victim is ... let's just say inappropriate. Accepting such a case would seem to reward such apparent bating. Paul August ☎ 10:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

I get the sense MJL is bored today and figured "hey instead of improving articles (which is why we're all here btw) I'll create fucking pointless drama for the sake of it :)", Decline this pointless no hope of a case. –Davey2010^Talk 11:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Serial Number 54129s comment here too. –Davey2010^Talk 12:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Haukurth

If we're going to discuss baiting Eric then maybe some comments by User:EEng could be examined. EEng has found some legitimate issues with the Moors murders article but it is both inaccurate and needlessly inflammatory to insist that it is some sort of "fraud":

"Featured article complete fraud!" [18]
"fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud" [19]

More generally speaking, it seems to me that EEng has a rather cavalier attitude towards policy and frequently engages in attacks and BLP violations. A handful of recent examples:

"You have proved yourself shameless and wholly lacking in honesty and integrity" [20]
"that you can't see that speaks to your ignorance and lack of sophistication. ... if you keep this up you're gonna get one of my patented beat-downs [21]
User:EEng/Museum Annex
My short-lived block of EEng on July 22 for what I still think was a wildly inappropriate (though, I concede, well-composed) schoolyard taunt. Note, however, that I accept the criticism presented at ANI that I was too rusty to be making blocks like that. [22]

I think EEng gets away with a lot because he has a lot of friends (understandably, he's a fun guy to be around) and he has a gift for comedy and good writing. But maybe ArbCom could offer him a little bit of guidance here. Haukur (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BabbaQ

All I have to say is that MJL is making a good case for a full arbitration review. At what point will enough be enough. The alleged baiting of Eric seems to have plenty of background which are not necessarily in Erics favour. For example the wording: For myself, I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire, is just one of the many examples of Erics complete disregard for a civil and normal tone on Wikipedia. BabbaQ (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Recommend that arbitrators reject this proposed case. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

(If someone feels I need to add myself as a party, given that I attempted to intervene at Talk:Moors murders, feel free to tell me so) I've said this already elsewhere, but for the record, the conduct of several parties at Talk:Moors murders was rather depressing, and escalated the situation quite needlessly. The storm appears to be blowing itself out, however; some editors have chosen to remove themselves from the proceedings (not what I would have wanted, but oh well); an AE discussion led to EC being blocked; an FAR has been opened; and after a quite unnecessary amount of wrangling, the content issues are actually being discussed. I don't see that there's much for ARBCOM to do. If you're so inclined, it wouldn't hurt to trout everyone involved by motion, and double-trout the OP for a quite unnecessary escalation in a situation they are not very familiar with. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case it was unclear; I don't see Scottywong's comment as anything more than an isolated matter for which they should consider themselves suitably admonished at AN. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

There's nothing in the AN report that triggered this that a) the community isn't handling and b) indicates any bad behaviour by Eric Corbett. Eric was baited, he didn't rise to it, and that should be the end of it as far as ArbCom is concerned. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Vanamonde seems to have summed up the Moors murders issue, which is being dealt with by the community. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

I do believe there is a general issue with trying to steer discussions to follow generally accepted behavioural norms for English Wikipedia. There is a tension between trying to avoid frivolous complaints by limiting who has standing to raise a complaint or proscribing specific methods to raise an issue, and encouraging valid issues to be dealt with, even in cases where the aggrieved party is reluctant to initiate a complaint. However I feel this matter would be better addressed in the Request(s) for Comments that the arbitration committee is planning to start. isaacl (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sphilbrick

Please reject this case request. (Ideally, unanimously, and quickly)

I can't help thinking of World War I where the assassination of an Archduke led to just barely related dominoes falling, and the entire world in flames. A discussion about an inappropriate comment by Scottywong has somehow led to a coat rack of Eric Corbett comments in a request for a case that doesn't even contain a coherent case request.

Can we stipulate that Eric Corbett occasionally says things that others don't like and move on? That places him in a category that contains far too many editors.

As a community, we need to wrestle with the problem of tone and style in interactions, but I'm not sure that ArbCom is even the right body to take that on, and this particular case request is not remotely appropriate as a way to address that issue.

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Eric Corbett: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Just a gentle reminder that case requests have a limit of 500 words per participant. MJL, your statement is currently 833 words — please trim it. – bradv🍁 03:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Recuse Worm^TT(talk) 07:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 Submitted, &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:black">MJL</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 === Statement by Eric Corbett ===
+I know from experience how these affairs always end up with a proposal to ban me for whatever trumped-up reason, and that anything I might say will be twisted to suit the agenda of those whose single purpose is to hound me off Wikipedia. So I'll do everyone a favour by leaving voluntarily. After this post I will be scrambling my password, and you will never hear from me again. [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] 17:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 === Statement by EEng ===

Revision as of 17:39, 18 August 2019

Requests for arbitration

Eric Corbett

Involved parties

Statement by MJL

Incivility