Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

NE Ent's section

I understand the committee's desire to focus the scope of this case to a minimalist set of editors, however such tunnel vision will not meet the goal stated on top of the evidence talk page: "Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision."

Meaning depends on context; this whole civility enforcement / gender gap / arb enforcement debacle has descended into Pythonesque farce. Part of the fundamental problem is there is entirely too much focus by many editors on trying to make EC some sort of misogynistic villain. Although Wikipedia:: is WP:NOJUSTICE Wikipedians have an inherent sense of, and desire for, justice, resulting in an acrimonious "not a villian" backlash, putting denizens of The Ninth Circle of Hell the arbitration committee in the middle. Volunteering for the committee has got to be the equivalent of the Monty Python "abuse" room.

In issuing the current "remove and escalating block" sanctions, the committee made a good faith attempt to "split the baby". That, in hindsight, we can see this hasn't worked doesn't imply fault on the committee, it implies it's time to do something else. Therefore, rather than "going moderate," I suggest the committee currently go big and go small.

Big: Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Evidence#The_word, EC should be significantly sanctioned, not for unproven personal attacks against anyone, but simply for WP:DISRUPT (drama mongering). I suggest something on the order of one to three month site ban. (The anticipated protests of "he'll leave forever!!!" should be met with "Not our problem.").

Small: Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Evidence#Admins_not_using_discretion, the ggtf sanction should be changed to "An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy; any editor reverting such a removal, except following a consensus of admins at WP:AE, may be blocked for up to 72 hours." NE Ent 15:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@DGG:, @LFaraone: Re [1], LFaraone is mistaken. There is a specific enforcement provision. "An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. ", which explicitly includes the less drama inducing provision of simply removing the comment. And you both should know that, given that you both voted for it. NE Ent 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The same line continues: The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.. LFaraone 02:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent:, there is much to be said for your view that the results from GG and related follow-ups have not been as good as hoped for. and we should have done something more drastic at the start. (Of course, if we had, there would have been bitter complaints just the same, though perhaps most of them from different people.) I have observed that it has been the usual practice of the committee in recent years, and I have myself seen it particularly this year, to try to do as minimal an approach a might possibly work, with the very correct justification that we are not here to punish anybody; I still think we should not view what we might do as "what someone deserves". It is however indisputable that too light action can sometimes escalate things further whereas drastic action would squelch it thoroughly; but I think human affairs in general show that it has also sometimes caused an explosion. I can't immediately think of any group or organization in the RW that has a particularly good record for getting this right; we have been operating on the assumption --an assumption that is the motivation for everything at WP --that ordinary people working together can sometimes do as well as those who have formal qualifications to be called an expert. You are probably right we need to try something different, but there is no way to be sure that whatever we do different will work any better. I think it's obvious at this point there will be further cases arising from this next year, and I hope the new arbs--who will be in the majority--together with those of us continuing--will be cleverer at it, or at least more fortunate at guessing. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Absurd response. LFaraone's linked statement explicitly says "his topic ban does not." (have specific enforcement) -- I've demonstrated via link that it does. It's the logic equivalent of a shepherd saying All the sheep are white, a visitor pointing out but that one is black, and the shepherd saying all those others are white. NE Ent 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Equality and Respect FoF

Given Etiquette finding, the Equality and respect finding logically is superfluous. Ya'll should consider exactly what you're trying to say by adding the second finding -- it is worse to treat another editor disrespectfully because of the listed attributes rather than because they're an IP, non an admin, part of the admin cabal or use the oxford comma? What about political affiliation? Is it okay to treat someone poorly because they are self-declared fascist?

Because I've learned original thought is highly overrated, and because she has more wiki-cred than I, I'll quote LilaTretikov (WMF) We need your support and your example of saying no to rudeness, disparagement and incivility when you come across it. Every culture is defined by the behavior it tolerates. We need you to unite in defense of our culture of collaboration. Without you WMF will not succeed. This is a critical time for public internet and with your support we can make it a better and more equitable place for all. ... emphasis on for all NE Ent 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

gaijin42's section

Salvio giuliano For the "arbcom takes over" remedies, what would the proposed process be? ARCA? email? ping to committee at AE? Do individual committee members have the authority to act unilaterally (as previously individual admins did?) or does action require a passing motion?

Where those remedies overlap with DS (GGTF in general) is DS enforcement for the relevant individuals also reserved to the committee? If not it seems like another likely source of drama/lawyering.

If the answer above is "motion", the extra layers of BURO may cut down of frivolous sanctions, but I also fear that they will discourage legitimate action, especially as the committee can be somewhat slow to move. It seems like this will put a floor on sanctions (eg, its not worth dealing with something that will result in a 24/week block, if it took 2 weeks to get there). Perhaps that is the intent (to stop the snipers?), but I fear that will result in de-facto permission for low level drama. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's under "proposed enforcement", but, yes, it would be a motion at ARCA. I thought of alternatives (an individual arb, or even three), but that seemed to be the simplest solution. My idea, when drafting this decision, was to propose three alternatives (from least to most onerous, enforcement only through AE, only by us or full site ban), to allow my colleagues to decide what they think best tackles this problem. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87's section

Is there a way to avoid a repeat at what happened at Jimbo's talk-page? In my opinion as soon as Eric Corbett was mentioned along with something to do with the GGTF it should have been hatted, and CLOSED. Assuming good faith even if a newspaper or something of the like is brought to Jimbo's attention or anyone else's about Eric Corbett, and the GGTFsomething should be done about it as it is essentially going behind an editors back, and talking about them when they cant defend themselves. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Giano: For once I agree with you in saying that I see it as a lure. Assuming good faith as I said, someone just happened to find the Atlantic article online, and posed it on Jimbo's talk-page hoping he would address the issue. Next up comes WP:WWJD/WP:YOULOSE which going by good faith again the answer would be NOTHING. So in conclusion the best course of action on an admin's part would to have closed the discussion saying it is better to either A. Address the Atlantic article about x editor, or B. Address the WMF which goes back to WP:WWJD or in this case "What would the WMF do?" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh and please comment in your own section, hey I don't make the rules here but it is a weight off the clerk's backs in having to manage these pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@AnonNep: The ones I blame most are the admin who refuse to or don't step up to the plate when needed, and the editors defending Eric by hurling insults/garbage at the opposite side. The Atlantic article fiasco was definitely avoidable, if editors didn't mention Eric on Jimbo's talk-page, and Eric or his "cabal" didn't mention Jimbo then maybe none of this would be happening. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyking's section

Some of these proposed findings and remedies are just laughable. "Having reviewed Kirill Lokshin's explanation for his block of Eric Corbett, the Arbitration Committee concludes that it was a reasonable exercise of discretion." Seriously? The only valid purpose of this case would be to desysop Kirill for abusing admin tools. Instead, the ArbCom excuses his outrageous misconduct and moves on to punish people who haven't done a thing wrong? Any of you voting in favor of this nonsense either haven't looked into the case before voting or lack the rational capacity to sit in judgment over others, and in either case you should resign. Everyking (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Awilley's section

@Salvio giuliano: Without a workshop phase in this case it was difficult to get specific drafts and proposals on the table. Some people proposed stuff on the talk pages, and I tried proposing a solution in a subsection of my evidence but in both cases it was hard to discuss these proposals because of the talk page restriction that nobody can edit outside their own section. The specific remedy I proposed would probably look something like this:

GGTF Remedy 3.3 is amended in that block lengths for civility violations shall not exceed 72 hours.

The last time I proposed this it was not clear to what extent it was considered by the committee, so if it's the same to you, I would appreciate if this proposal could receive formal consideration this time. If it is to be rejected, that's fine, but I'd like to know it was at least considered by committee members. You are welcome to modify it however you like, but please consider adding something like this to the proposed remedies. ~Awilley (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This block was not due to a civility violation, but rather to a topic ban violation, and the length was freely chosen by the blocking admin, applying the standard rules concerning recidivism. But, aside from that, I'd be against capping the block length in any case: after all, it's standard procedure that, if you repeatedly violate a rule, the blocks keep getting longer. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I'm not convinced by your logic on this. I can't see "standard procedure" as a reason to reject a creative remedy that satisfies policy and reduces drama. (After all, is it "standard procedure" for Arbcom to take over enforcement of the sanctions they place on other editors?) And I don't buy the argument that Eric's civility-related blocks are outside the scope of this case. You yourself are currently using this diff of Giano responding to one of Eric's civility blocks in Proposed Finding of Fact #7. If this were as simple as enforcing a rule it wouldn't show up at Arbcom every few months. It's a complex situation with multiple competing procedures, policies, and philosophies. Instead of doubling down on trying to enforce a status quo that most people are unhappy with, why not take a chance to nip future drama in the bud? ~Awilley (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if you got my previous ping Salvio ~Awilley (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ddstretch's section

I strongly support Knowledgekid87's comment, above, about the need to hat and close particular kinds of discussions on Wales' Talk page. Furthermore, I would like to see some possibility of a sanction applied to people who reverse the hatting and closing or attempt to open another section dealing with substantially the same material. Otherwise, one has a situation where gross violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPA take place under the excuse of tittle-tattle that has a disruptive tendency on wikipedia. I make no comment about any other proposed decisions in this case. I would also have liked to see some comment on the advisability of making statement's about particular named editors other than oneself to the media.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel's section

I'm in agreement with NE Ent on a lot of points. This case myopically looks at the actions of a very small set of individuals and does nothing at all to address the root of the problems. Not even a finding or a principle which merely states "Editors and administrators should be able to open and enforce sanctions requests without harassment"? No topic bans or DS for raging against EC's sanctions, even for repeat harassers? What in these proposed remedies would prevent this matter from happening again exactly the same way with a different cast of characters?

That said, you're already getting a lot of heat for this, which was inevitable. I don't envy you folks your jobs right now. Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That's because, originally, I had put in two alternatives: ARCA or a ban and, in either case, it would be superfluous. If Eric has been banned, there are not going to be any more enforcement requests; if we take over the enforcement of the restrictions, we could sanction those who disrupt the threads without the need for a specific remedy. However, the DS authorised for all gender-related edits could be used to sanction disruption related to the enforcement of Eric's restrictions. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, that makes a big difference. Maybe clarify this in the decision as well? Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish's section

In thinking about what Gamaliel just said directly above, it occurs to me that if ArbCom takes over the role of enforcing the sanctions, you could add to that remedy a statement about enforcing strict rules of conduct for editors who comment in those enforcements. I think that would be more manageable at this time than to try to topic ban some large but undefined population of editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt's section

I think proposed principle #8 answers my concern about the admin ready to throw himself under the bus. People are a lot less likely to do it for no purpose. You might want to clarify that "sanctions" includes a resignation of the bits.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, I don't understand your rationale on proposed principle #6. Can Jimbo override the committee's restrictions within his own userspace? Can anyone do that within their own? What's the basis for Jimbo being able to do that? He can't be acting on an appeal, since I see you have indicated there is no appeal to Jimbo (possibly because of his obvious involvement). It appears you are saying that Jimbo and his space are specially privileged in this regard, but the principle you voted for does not recognize any.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point that I hadn't fully thought of. Jimbo's talk page has historically been more than a standard user talk page, and my initial reaction is to say that allowing him to grant exceptions from bans is compromise necessary to prevent the free-for-all that has resulted in this drama while still recognising it as a discussion space important to the project. I'll think more on this though, and would welcome input from colleagues too. I presume though you have no issue with allowing users to ask the community for exemptions to post on Jimbo's page? Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thryduulf In principle I don't but, how does the community decide that without hearing what the proposed content is, which would presumably either break the topic ban, or else allow a rather glaring loophole?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the standard exceptions from topic bans allows the seeking of appeals, amendments and clarifications and so a request for an exemption for Jimbo's talk page would allow the discussion necessary for that purpose. What counts as "necessary" and what is using the request to evade the topic ban will need to be judged in each individual case, but this happens already so I don't see an issue. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Arbs: if your 3.2.5 distresses you, how about something like "Kirill Lokshin's block of Eric Corbett did not exceed the maximum scope of discretion entrusted to administrators?" It recognizes the fact without being approving.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I tend to think that's better. NativeForeigner ^Talk 13:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

As do I. Doug Weller (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What problem were you trying to solve in this case?

It's completely unclear from the proposed decision. You've weakened your own prior decisions, so it can't be intended to support administrators who do the AE dirty work. You've kicked out at one admin who's been "casting aspersions" while refusing to permit evidence against the multitude of administrators who've been aggressively supportive of Eric. You've modified your standing sanction against Eric so extensively that it has the effect of kicking one of the few admins willing to apply the sanctions (essentially saying "we guess this was within the rules, so we're going to change the rules so nobody else can ever actually apply sanctions against Eric again") - and your own decision pretty much falls in line with Giano's (far less diplomatic) position that admins are not doing it right. There are at least half a dozen other editors who were at least as offensive in voicing their opposition to Eric's block (the degree of misogyny and sexism in some of the statements and comments was truly mind-boggling, but this is not the first time Arbcom has been unable to recognize these problems) - so obviously offensiveness in respect of "gender gap" issues is not a factor in this decision. What, then, was arbcom's objective here? Because the posted PD comes across as "geez, maybe we shouldn't be so hard on Eric, but we're gonna whack anyone who says mean things about us". I can't see any problem having been solved here at all. Risker (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein’s Section

If I'm reading this proposal correctly -- and I see above (especially Risker) that I'm hardly alone in my mystification -- it contains a bill of attainder: one or two Wikipedians are to be subject to different laws than everyone else, and those rules are to be enforced through a separate (?but equal?) procedure.

Another interpretation of this proposal -- again, I may be misunderstanding its intended effect -- is that it creates an Order of Nobility, a class of Valuable Editors who are not subject to the whims of administrators and the caprice of the Community as other editors are, but who can only be sanctioned by bringing a complaint before The House Of Lords ArbCom.

This would, I admit, have the beneficial effect of regularizing the current situation, in which certain popular and influential editors are free to threaten, to be uncivil, or to take a stroll down mammary lane. Will other Unblockables eventually receive the same privilege of Direct Appeal To Caesar? How are they to apply for nobility?

One hazard -- doubtless overlooked -- is that editors having routine dealings with the Order Of Very Special Wikipedians ought to be reminded of their unique status, lest they (for example) inadvertently forget themselves in the heat of the moment and complain in the common courts of AN/I or AE. Perhaps ArbCom should also require persons subject to these Very Special provisions to indicate this in their signature -- “Baron Eric Corbett,” perhaps? Alternatively, the Unicode symbol ♔ might come in useful and save space. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Attn: clerks: Would @Giano:'s attacks on @GorillaWarfare: be permitted if Giano were an obscure editor? Would they be permitted in an article talk page? We seem permit astonishing liberties when those liberties are taken by our new nobility; I'd like a ruling on whether commoners may also call other editors Stalinists. Is Stalinist permitted but National Socialist verboten? Giano also says that the Gender Gap Task Force is looking “very dodgy indeed” in the wake of this case: the task force is not a party to the case. Should it be added as a party? In my reading, "dodgy" denote "of questionable honesty," for which I see no evidence in this case. Finally, is instructing an editor to "silence yourself before you damage your tarnished cause" consistent with WP:CIVILITY? Again, I would like formal instruction that it is, and that if (for example) I were to address another editor in these terms, I too would be in compliance with policy. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman's section

Problems with the proposed decision

1. Any editor wishing to remove Giano or Eric Corbett from any discussion could simply raise the issue of editors' gender in the discussion. The sanction is excessively gameable and should be recrafted not to be. Moreover, reasonable observers would frequently disagree about where the boundary lies. The sanction is too broad and too nebulous. It runs afoul of the due process clause. (Oh, wait, this isn't a real court...) Jehochman ^Talk 03:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
2. The gender topic ban sanction has been a failure with respect to Eric Corbett. Why then are you doubling the failure by applying it to Giano too? That is totally illogical. Try something different. Ban them outright, if you must. Leave them alone. Do something else. But for goodness sake, don't keep repeating the same failure. Jehochman ^♔ 03:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
3. You should add a statement saying that Gender Wars are not welcome on Wikipedia. I think everybody has thus far missed the fact that there is a large gender gap in the technology industry in general. Wikipedia is just a specific manifestation of a larger problem. Rathern than fighting among ourselves ("Gender Wars"), we should think about ways to get more girls and women interested in STEM education, and then in working on Wikipedia. Gender Wars distract us from the real problem. Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
4. Why is Giano being topic banned from gender issues? Why not just restrict him from commenting on the enforcement of Eric's sanctions, since that's the area where evidence has been presented. I see no diffs showing Giano being disruptive on gender topic, no more so than people on the other side of the debate. We do not ban people merely for holding a contrarian political view. Jehochman ^Talk 08:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
5. Wikipedia is a website; it is a tech enterprise. Has anybody looked at the gender inequality in Silicon Valley? We even have an article about it, Sexism in the technology industry. Anyhow, my thesis is that the gender inequality problem, the low participation of girls and women in STEM education and professions, is a broad social problem, not just a Wikipedia problem. We are in a position to help, and we should allow free discussion with all points of view in order to figure out how we can best help. This decision names two scape goats but does nothing to solve the real problem. Jehochman ^Talk 09:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
6. If a sanction is so contentious that you can't allow the community to enforce it, and you feel the need to enforce it yourselves, maybe the sanction isn't workable and should be redesigned. Jehochman ^Talk 17:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Salvio Giuliano: - I see the diffs you just posted. One thing that confuses admins and others is the difference between excessive rhetoric and personal attacks or harassment. I've always held that the latter is sanction worthy, but the former isn't. Do you have any diffs of Giano that constitute a personal attack or harassment, rather than mere polemics against a perceived power structure? Do you have any diffs where people asked Giano to refactor such comments and he refused to do so? We have to be careful not to sanction people merely for dissenting, speaking truth to power. I agree that Giano's comments with respect to Eric's sanctions could be viewed as disruptive, and that it may be appropriate to limit him from commenting on discussions of Eric's sanction. But I don't see him Giano doing anything sufficiently bad to warrant a broad gender topic ban, one that will become a huge drama magnet. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Nick's section

It's not a complete mess, which is something, I suppose, but the topic banning of more people from the Gender Gap Task Force is ridiculous. If the Gender Gap Task Force is to accomplish anything of value and use, it needs to hear from Eric and Giano. The entire Gender Gap Task Force is in danger of looking like it has been decided in advance what it will hear, from whom, and what the final outcomes will be. If that is the perception of more of the community, it will eventually die a slow, lingering death as people realise it's a waste of time - much like the Mediation Committee. Nick (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Giano's section

I can instantly think of at least three powerful, strong women who were almost unknown until I created pages about them, they now rightly have very comprehensive pages. The best way to combat a gender gap is to research write pages and solve the problem ie: by hard work. Sitting on one's derriere, shouting about on talk pages, and crying foul every time anyone challenges a view on the gender gap is unlikely to do anything but worsen the problem and cause discontent. The Arbcom and certain editors connected with the Foundation are pursuing a political and wrongly perceived social agenda, and anyone who thinks this is for the benefit of the encyclopedia is very sadly mistaken. Giano (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@User: GorillaWarfare, the solution to the Gender Gap problem is not to shut down all debate and discussion from those who do not agree 100% with those who ardently support it. Giano (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@]User: GorillaWarfare: The exaggerated perception of the size, severity and effects of a Gender Gap. You are going to find Stalinist diktats will alienate you and create more problems than they solve Giano (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@User: GorillaWarfare: How can I possibly be calling you "Stalinest" if you are recused? Surely these proposed motions can have nothing to do with you. It is a sad fact of life though that mud does tend to stick where it's often hardest to remove and most unwelcome, but that truth is hardly my problem or fault. Even the Arbcom would be challenged t lay that at my door. Giano (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@User: GorillaWarfare: Nowhere do I say that women should sit idly by and allow men to write articles about them. You seem to be very keen today to put words into my mouth. I say that instead of constantly bemoaning their lot and causing trouble on talk and wikipedia pages, certain editors should spend more time writing articles (that includes male editors too - one in particular) on a variety of subjects, if it's lesser known notable women, so much the better. I seriously doubt the size of the gender gap for the simple reason that so many editors do not identify as male or female - and why should they? I may even be a woman for all you know (I'm not). As it is, anyone who doubts or questions the gender gap is immediately labelled a misogynist bigot and now seems to be the target of illegitimate Stalinist Arbcom action. Now, I'm sorry that's a bitter pill for you to swallow, but as a result of this case, which I suspect you and your friends foolishly encouraged, the Gender Gap task force are left with egg all over their faces and looking very dodgy indeed. Now unless you have anything more constructive to contribute, I suggest you silence yourself before you damage your tarnished cause even further. Giano (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@User: GorillaWarfare Perhaps you should maintain a silence because you are again putting words in my mouth. I did not say there wasn't a Gender Gap. I just question the size and importance of it. Not allowing people to question or doubt is Stalinist whether you like it or not. Giano (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@[[MarkBernstein, like GorillaWarfare, you seem to be having a problem reading what I write. I do not say GW is Stalinist, I say Arbcom diktats banning criticism or question of a Government/Foundation/Jimbo approved cause is a Stalinist-like action. That such actions make that cause appear dodgy, is inevitable. I do not say it is dodgy, I say it is being made to appear so by this case. It seems some people here find it hard to accept the blindingly obvious, and damage this case is causing. I love nothing more than being able to say: "I told you so", and believe me, I am going to enjoy doing so. Giano (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Knowledgekid87: "as soon as Eric Corbett was mentioned along with something to do with the GGTF it should have been hatted, and CLOSED" would have rather defeated the point of the exercise. Which was to lure Eric Corbett into making a statement that would enable him to be blocked. Giano (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman asks above "Why is Giano being topic banned from gender issues?.....I see no diffs showing Giano being disruptive on gender topic, no more so than people on the other side of the debate. We do not ban people merely for holding a contrarian political view.?" Besides Oh yes we do; the answer is simple; this Gender Gap cause has been hyped by Jimbo and Foundation and become a worthy cause to promote and publicly show Wikipedia's caring nature. However, its size and severity is poorly researched and practically unprovable and doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Therefore, anyone daring to question it, is to be shut down. Josef Stalin would be proud of such actions. Unfortunately, this Arbcom is either taking its orders from above or too stupid to see the damage it's doing to what probably is a slight problem. Giano (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• GorillaWarfare: I am quite certain that there is a "gender issue" here; I acknowledge that in my statement, which for some reason, in best Inquisition style, is being used against me. I doubt though the severity of it, and even you have failed to convince me of its magnitude. As neither of us will ever know the true ratio of males to females here that will always be an uncertain fact. I also suspect (it's allegedly a free country, I am just still allowed to personally suspect) that some of those advocating the severity of the issue are here at Wikipedia with only that agenda - they are not here to write an encyclopedia, which I am. Shortly, I shall have my tongue ripped out for heresy and you and your friends will be free to pursue whatever agenda you like - rejoice. Giano (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Jehochman: while what you are saying here [2] is the truth and makes perfect sense. I can't help but feel you are wasting your breath. This case has little do with me and more to do with avenging old, perceived sleights to one arbitrator in particular. Salvio, for reasons best known to himself, has set himself up as Prosecutor, Judge, Jury and Hangman. The whole case must seem very bizarre to most people, and will seem even more bizarre when I continue to opine when necessary on the subject and we have to endure resultant mayhem. Fortunately, for Wikipedia, I seldom feel it necessary to opine on the Gender Gap, but no doubt others will tempt me, and I've never been a shrinking violet - as the Arbcom well knows. Giano (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare's section

I'm disappointed in this proposed decision. I was hoping it would succeed where the GGTF and GamerGate remedies have failed: helping to create an environment in which women and other minorities are welcomed and encouraged to participate. Instead it seems to be focusing on a few individuals, and even within that narrow scope imposing only more toothless remedies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Reading through this talk page, though, I have to disagree once again with Giano. The solution to the gender gap on Wikipedia is not for the women to sit down and shut up and allow the men to graciously write articles about them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Giano: Support... what? GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Giano: I think we're on different pages here, and I'm frankly pissed that you've just implied I'm Stalinist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Giano: Surely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Giano: Ignoring the Stalinist dig, I see you haven't actually addressed my concern with the larger part of your argument, which is the implication that the solution to the gender gap is for Wikipedians (generally men) to write articles about the women who would be unknown but for them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Giano: I am not attempting to put words in your mouth, nor have I encouraged this case. It is not the "Stalinist ArbCom" that is a bitter pill for me to swallow—rather the argument that there is not a gender issue on enwp despite plenty of evidence to contradict that assertion. I do not intend to "silence myself" on this issue, but thanks for your kind suggestion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Giano: I did not say that you said there was not a gender gap, I said that you argued there was not a gender issue on Wikipedia. Regarding your latest comment, where does the burden of proof fall? I'd be curious to see you show that the size and severity of the gender gap is a non-issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jbhunley on this. It's clear that the (unrecused portion of the) Arbitration Committee is unwilling to ban Eric Corbett, but the proposed alternatives are quite frankly useless. This is exactly what workshop phases are for. Despite the Arbitration Committee's current shortcomings, our clerks are fantastic, and I trust that they would have been more than capable of shutting down disruptive edits on workshop pages, which I assume was the concern that led to skipping that phase entirely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Man up boys – TheRedPenOfDoom
lol. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether it was the right decision or not, the reasoning behind a lack of workshop for this case was that it would essentially duplicate the workshop from the first AE case and so it was omitted here in the interests of expediency and non duplication. The reason I am not voting to ban Eric here is that his comments (on this occasion at least) were only borderline violations of his restriction and a ban would be massively disproportionate. The problem on this occasion was the overreaction of others to Eric - other people said far worse things in that discussion without anybody causing any drama about it at all. The drama hurts the project directly and by hindering the fixing of the underlying problem. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Gerda's section

This user believes ...

... that writing articles about women is a good way to close the gender gap.

I am not disappointed by the proposed decision because it had to be expected. I said often enough that I think to hold a few individuals responsible for the gender gap is as easy as it is wrong. My proposal stands to better revert all bans and restrictions of the GGTF case, for a more amicable relation between individual editors of all genders which I believe to be possible in mutual respect. A motion for that, please, assume good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi's section

Giano, GorillaWarfare, et al.:

The gender gap, which is the ratio of men to women on Wikipedia, is a manifestation of gender bias. The real issue is the latter. Gender bias is the institutionalised behaviours and tendencies that hamper the participation of women or make it extremely unpleasant. It is undeniable truth - a truism - that women are systemically discriminated against by virtue of the fact that they are women. This does not mean that women are not discriminated in other ways, or that it's only women who are discriminated. If you admit that gender-based discrimination is real and that it does occur on Wikipedia (there's ample evidence to that effect), it may logically follow that women would be inhibited from participating in such an environment.

As for the sanctions (about to be) enacted, I'm convinced that they're counterproductive. Alienating those who do not appreciate a certain issue or disagree with us on a certain issue by imposing sanctions will not lead to their enlightenment; it will not lead to an understanding. What will happen is that the factionalism that's manifested around this issue will take root. Alakzi (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Anonnep's section

At first look, oh of course, the goddess forbid anyone should ever ban EC. Maybe we could schedule another one of these each month just to make it look like there's an ongoing process despite no resolution? </END SARCASM TAG>.

• Don't get how 'DGG' can support 3.2/3/4 as 'findings as fact' but the on 3.2.5 support Kirill Lokshin's block not 'being reasonable'. Huh? What else is allowable against E.C.? A trout slap & stern, nanny voiced, 'You naughty boy!' *wags finger*, despite previous arbitrated sanctions & history? Mind boggling thought process displayed for all to see there. Ditto with 3.2.5 'Yngvadottir's unblock' - that sums up all the bloody obvious reasons why but whimpers out with 'Now, I don't like it'. *Headdesk* AnonNep (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Knowledgekid87: et al Rather ironic that those who trumpet 'free speech' should suggest Jimbo's page is hatted & closed in case EC *might* be even slightly, I don't know, kinda, really shouldn't, but maybe violate HIS restrictions (emphasis on his - since when did one individual's fuckup equal an automatic across the board ongoing interaction ban?). How many other pages will you progressively require this to be added to? Or, could someone just - I dunno - abide by sanctions already placed on them? AnonNep (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Knowledgekid87: (NB. Cross-post. Received your alert as I posted the above.) I do agree with you that swift action, in various ways, is the road ahead, but I'm seeing little of that, at present, in this.
• I'm sorry but this (above) is ridiculous "I can instantly think of at least three powerful, strong women who were almost unknown until I created pages about them...". If those women have RS sources the idea that they they only needed that all so-powerful manly-hero is truly laughable. This isn't about (Enid Blyton) or who expanded certain female focused pages to GA status. Its about what kind of behaviour is allowed. On my list I see far too many 'GA' pages patroled by troglodytes who don't know the difference between an academic publication and a popular history (especially when the 'popular history' is published by the commercial arm of an academic publisher). The latter are great as content adders but WP is chocked with history/biog GA's that are near plagarism book reviews. Far too many GA's are just footnoted 'pop hist' book summaries. Arbcom isn't protecting 'content creators' with any of this. AnonNep (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Truly boggled by DGG's statement that Kirill Lokshin's block was: "I agree it was permitted, and well-intentionned (and I should have said well-intentioned in the first place--my apologies to Kiril). It was however an act which made the situation worse. Doing something that unintentionally makes a situation worse is poor judgment." So KL following, in good faith, the previous Arbcom ruling was wrong? If ArbCom is going to make decisions it has to throw away the complimentary second-guess parachute. You make a rule - it is followed - don't later chickenshit-panic out of it. What ever it is. AnonNep (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

After 24 hour's of thought: Wikipedia bills itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but the whole behind the scenes structure of pillars, policies, guidelines, Admins, ANI, WP:BLP, WP:COI, WP:RS, etc, and Arbcom itself, demonstrates that isn't true. No-one can edit in any way they want. Despite the cheesy advertising those who stick around know & accept this. I'd like to see Arbcom stress the fact that - just as in content creation - there are rules about how we interact in any & all Talk spaces. This isn't a 'free speech' zone. Never was, never will be. End of story. The collective 'we' has rules on 'free speech' in articles just as we have them in Talk space.

I'd also suggest the more particular an editor is with their article work (content creation -such as to lauded GA standard) betrays the fact that this editor is more than able to hold their tongue in Talk space. They shouldn't be 'let off' but treated equally (I'm completely supportive of mitigating factors, including on & off wiki 'baiting' and abuse, they should be considered equally too).

If their content creation isn't trash then their Talk space contributions won't be either. If you have someone who produces wonderful content but regularly makes trash Talk page additions then you are looking at someone who is openly gaming the system. Their content work demonstrates their ability for self-control, they are just selectively choosing to ignore it. AnonNep (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley's section

I understand you all had a very difficult decision to thread but AbrCom taking over the enforcement of Eric's and Giano's restriction is the worst decision you could possibly make. You entrench the idea that some editors are 'to-big-to-loose'. This is a system analogous to 'to-big-to-fail' and we all know how well that has worked out.

This decision, in trying to focus only on narrow issues, has both failed to deal adequately with the narrow issue and far, far worse has failed to address the split in the community that has led to this situation - editors who are considered to important/prolific/whatever to be able to manage when they misbehave and even worse the factions which both "protect" and "persecute" them. By trying to find a moderate, middle road this decision, which could have ultimately reduced the tension in the community, has just kicked the can down the road while. at the same time, has the potential to make ArbCom's decisions unenforceable and administrators' management of problematic long term editors even more problematic.

I am very disappointed that the Workshop phase was omitted here. Managing it might have been a pain in the ass but there would be more community buy in on the decision and that might have made the outcome better address the issues the community thinks are the problem here. My advice would have been to open up the Workshop and case participation more. There are huge rifts in the community and while a Workshop could have devolved into a shit-storm it is always easier to get buy-in in this type of situation after a good cathartic shit-storm. In this case none of the pressure has been let off and, if you vote to have special enforcement provisions of "vested contributors" as a class, and make no mistake once the precedent is made is will expand beyond Eric and this case, a huge amount of elasticity will be removed from the system and the community will shatter in some unknown way.

ArbCom is here to manage tough decisions and that means the easy answers are usually wrong and trying to take half measures will almost always result in long term problems and instability. Follow the rules and principles of the community not one or more factions of the community. In decisions likely to have far reaching effects stick to the projects ideals - one of which, for good or for bad, is that all editors should be treated the same. Be very, very careful before you enshrine a change in that principle and if you do you must make a bright line for who is and who is not in this new class. Autoconfirmed=10 edits, then we have the 500/30 editors now Vested contributor=what?. If you show you are simply unable to handle a single Curate's Egg editor and simply cut out an exception for him you have shown you are in fact unable to manage the role the community placed its trust in you to manage and that would be very sad for the project. There are ways to deal with this issue but this is not a very good one. Jbh^Talk 15:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ADPC's section

One of my favourite articles on Wikipedia is Hannah_Primrose,_Countess_of_Rosebery. She was a fascinating woman about whom I would know nothing if it were not for this encyclopedia. You only need to examine this diff from 2006 [3] to see the sort of hard work that we should all be doing to reduce the Gender Gap on Wikipedia... Andrewdpcotton (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir's section

People seem to be using this talk page as a venue to air their complaints about the gender gap, the GGTF, etc. While that is the topic that precipitated this and other cases, it is not the subject. The subject is (1) the behavior of editors and (2) the enforcement of sanctions by other users. Given that, the scope and nature of the proposed decision seems reasonable enough.

Would I perhaps like harsher sanctions or position statements about the underlying topic of dispute, sure. But that's frankly beyond the rather clear purpose of this and related cases. This is a limitation of arbcom to an extent... unlike other political disputes that have arbitration decisions like Israel/Palestine or gun control, this topic is too ingrained into the community to expect topic-related restrictions to be enforced reasonably. Clearly even behavior-related restrictions related to the topic are too much.

It is fallacious to suggest that certain sanctions won't work because they have not in the past. The issue is not the sanction's content but the editors' reactions to them. If is perfectly reasonable to expect editors whose past behavior was disruptive who wish to continue with this project to alter their behavior in order to do so. Sanctions are a type of probation for problematic and disruptive users in lieu of outright bans. If they do not wish to continue with the project or cannot abide by the sanctions against them that allow them to, they should leave.

As was discussed in this case, the reason this problem as continued so long is not the ineffectiveness of the sanctions themselves but rather the ineffective enforcement of them because of the INVOLVED relationship with the disruptive users. Hopefully this decision will remedy that by removing this point of dysfunction. Hopefully it will work.

If you are commenting and only focusing on the topic, you are politicking. The topic is important but not the subject of this case. The subject is now and always has been the behavior of users. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker's section

Well, the truth is whatever the ctte does people will cry foul. So, should something's fail? Like the weird enforcement procedure for one user? (IMO, yes, but in truth, even that weird thing will not much matter to the world). What does matter, is that most everyone should know that everything, everything they do here, as a User, is public, and open to public comment (Like by, The Atlantic magazine). Nonetheless, if one actually listens to other User's where they say (or even block) repeatedly in hopes of 'stop, don't, please,' you should do, ok.

As for Risker's comment, it's odd, when Risker presented no evidence, that she now says, 'but you should know, and care about what these other people said.' Refering to these "other" "misogynistic" and "sexist" comments without identifying them is just wrong. At any rate, this ctte is always pulled in two directions: 1) you should make broad philosopher-king like impact statements, or 2) you should focus narrowly on the parties before you, in the understanding that the future is guided, incrementally, by the past.

Good wishes to you, regardless (and perhaps, listen to the wisdom of: 'good enough, for non-Govcom work'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The comment by In actu is so on point (The question is not "Would I make the same block?" or "Do I agree with the block?"; the question is "Could a reasonable person come to this this decision?". The answer is yes.), it is a wonder that DGG thinks thier own second guessing is good judgement. (DGG, in fact your comments are showing both hubris, and encouraging a system where every admin is at the throat of every other admin) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown's section

I was glad to see DGG opine and would prefer to see more of it. Personally, I think it is important to see where Arbs different in opinion and being in the minority should never be a bar to making a statement. I agree that while desysopping was a discussion worth having, doing it as an emergency measure seems overkill as there was no emergency, not even enough to revert the very action that led to the desysopping. This undercuts the "emergency" claim unless you really thought she was going to use the tools to do more actions. And if the majority disagree, fine. The consensus model requires that every reasonable position be heard. As for the outcome, one has to wonder if it was decided before the case started, so expressing an opinion about it seems pointless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD's section

Among the many glaring issues of the proposed decision so far is a complete lack of the ArbCom taking responsibility for the crucial role they have played in generating and nurturing this clusterfuck. Man up boys and show some clue that you understand what is going on. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Djembayz' section

Necessary level of decorum for broad general participation

• Comment As an example of the need for equality and respect, let's consider what it means to incorporate the comment above by TRPoD-- irreverent, colorful and direct-- as a suitable level of decorum for the administrative sections of the site. Does it inspire confidence that the interests of women are represented in our conflict resolution process, or that women are welcome at all? Does it inspire confidence that civilized people can participate in the administrative sections of this site? Would you want to turn to a group like this for resolution of a sexual harassment matter with possible real-life implications? --Djembayz (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Challenges posed by literary style of self expression

• Comment After endless reading of discussions on this site, I am finally ready to speak, though not without trepidation regarding the consequences.

• First, I was also baffled as to what Giano had to do with the case as initially presented, and share concerns above as to whether two people are being singled out for unfair treatment.

• However, upon reflection, if we view Arbcom as a place to resolve intractable site conflicts rather than as an amateur court of law, upon reflection I believe that Arbcom has correctly identified two centrally placed individuals who are part of the center of gravity of larger constellations of conflict on the site.

User Eric Corbett has proven uniquely talented at provoking controversy, and for better or worse, has become a leading voice in defense of the use of sexualized language in the user talk sections where editors interact. User Giano has an unusual gift for constructing personal commentaries on others even on the basis of very minimal initial information, and would be a true asset to any team writing for stage or screen that seeks to develop compelling and dramatic conflicts.

I don't know if people with these two individuals' degree of literary flair in their self-expression will be willing to restrain themselves enough to interact effectively with others on the site, but it is essential that they do so if they wish to participate. (The movie Trumbo (2015 film) provides some useful insights on the challenges of interacting with literary individuals.)

Enforcement necessary for a less sexualized and hostile interaction style between editors

Although it's not entirely clear, it appears possible that both of these editors simply do not support the idea of turning the ship towards a non-hostile editing environment, and they may be personally opposing efforts to enforce against a sexualized and hostile interaction style, just on general principle. Perhaps they could be asked directly, "are you willing to cooperate with efforts to enforce a less sexualized and hostile interaction style between editors here?" and see what they say.

Talk pages as a privilege

If current sanctions don't work, the next level isn't necessarily banning these editors, but rather revoking their access to user talk pages, and having them move their discussions to e-mail. Wikipedia talk pages need to be usable by the average, garden variety editor, by timid people, by civilized people, by women and minorities. It may be worth experimenting to see if restricting commenting to article talk pages only, rather than addressing other users directly, is a way to help productive but unacceptably contentious editors function on the site. We need to reconsider how we view the privilege of posting on Wikipedia talk pages, and consider the possibility that some perfectly competent article editors may not be able to function in a user talk page environment without creating disruption. --Djembayz (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A good point but as I've suggested it might have to be extended to banning comment anywhere, allowing only article editing. Although allowing participation on article talk pages with the proviso there should be no commentary on other editors (even indirectly) might be ok. Doug Weller (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Equality, respect, and non-discrimination

• It it not the fact that postings which are disrespectful towards women in general happen now and then that is the problem-- it is the community's response to these postings, of having endless discussions about what is and isn't disrespectful, often repeating gendered slurs in the process. This method of resolving gender-related conflicts creates an atmosphere conducive to personal attacks on other editors, and also has the unfortunate side effect of contributing to the creation of a hostile and discriminatory environment for women.

• We need to be more effective in the way we respond to disrespectful negative comments based on identity.

• We need firm but polite decisions that say "this is unacceptable behavior," and enforcement to ensure that people unwilling to abide by the required standards of behavior don't participate on the site. Hopefully this decision will be a step in that direction.

• The question of non-discrimination is explicitly addressed in the Manning case:

Equality and respect

5.2) Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions.

• Is Arbcom willing to apply similar principles regarding equality, respect, and non-discrimination in this case? --Djembayz (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Djembayz: I don't see a reason not to include it. Coppied over --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that anybody is violating this principle? Skipping the Workshop is turning out to have been a very poor idea. It's not a good idea to include extraneous principles. Are you suggesting that Eric Corbett and Giano are misogynists? If so, you better provide evidence to support that innuendo. Making accusations or casting aspersions without evidence is forbidden, as we have been told so many times. Jehochman ^Talk 22:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that either editor is a misogynist. What I was attempting to say, as respectfully as I could manage, is that based on my reading of many user discussions, Mr. Corbett and Mr. Giano appear to hold positions that represent a legitimate difference of opinion on the site with regard to two key points: 1) the use of sexualized language in user interaction pages, and 2) regarding what constitutes overly personal critical remarks and what doesn't. Having just watched the movie about the hotshot Hollywood screenwriters, I was really quite struck by how the literary abilities of people like Mr. Corbett and Mr. Giano impact the way they interact on the site, and realized that they use many of the same techniques as the screenwriters to generate dialogue that holds the reader's interest. You can see evidence of how Mr. Giano does not hold back in personal discussions further up on this page.

Unlike many here, I don't have a legal background, and so am very much at a loss on how to participate in these complicated site processes in my time available. I am hopeful that the final decision will move us towards a workable framework for dealing with the legitimate differences of opinion described above.

Adopting principles moving forward of equality, respect, and non-discrimination with regards to women, as well as with regards to race, would be consistent with the terms of use. Hopefully these principles are not considered totally irrelevant, given the number of women in the community. --Djembayz (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree. You are correct that demeaning comments are extremely disruptive and problematic. It just bothers me that you made physical threats of violence against me in DC (asking me if I "wanted to go" and raising your fists at me while standing threateningly) and then called me a punk, and now post about the necessity of equality and respect. For this reason I'll abstain on any and all business directly involving you. (Though there is currently none, and I do not foresee any in the near future) NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Burninthruthesky's section

@Doug Weller: You appear to be explicitly suggesting that if two admins disagree, to the extent of overriding each other's actions, about the legitimacy of a block on an editor, that editor should be banned. Is that your position? Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You've missed the context. That's about banning Eric. Doug Weller (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, when I said "that editor" in my above comment, I realize that means Eric on this occasion. I appreciate you have now acknowledged your mention of admins in this context was "probably not necessary", I think it was entirely inappropriate. Nobody should be held responsible for the conduct of others. To be fair, there may be some of your colleagues who are applying similar flawed logic, but it's hard to tell this from a bland "support". Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian comments

I will confine my remarks to the topic of arbitration enforcement which people have completely forgotten, including, in one instance, I am sorry to say, the committee itself.

If Giano's conduct regarding EC is bad why is he being banned from gender topics? Just ban him from participating in AE cases regarding Corbett instead of extending the broken remedy even further.

Now to the larger point. When will the cttee affirm that ggtf is special because it is explicitly political (and a good thing too) A political issue especially an emotional issue like this cannot be solved by muzzling people expressing opinions. Concentrate on DISRUPTION instead. How exactly is EC disrupting WP by simply mentioning gender on his or jimbo's talk page ?

How many desysops and disillusionments will it take for the cttee to realize that the fault lay in the remedy itself? Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)