Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:23, 13 November 2015

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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 or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

→ Important notes for all contributors to this case This case is contentious and has the ability to devolve very quickly. So, this is a heads-up on the procedures that have been adopted. First off, the clerks have been instructed to be very proactive in removing any inappropriate comments. These include: a. any allegation unsupported by evidence and b. any allegation (whether supported or unsupported) against non-parties. Furthermore, the case will use a "single warning" system: clerks are authorised to issue an only warning to any editor who posts inappropriate comments; if the warning is not heeded, the editor may either be restricted from participating in this case or be blocked at the clerk's discretion. This applies to everyone, which includes the parties, involved onlookers, semi-involved onlookers, and people who wander in randomly (whether truly random or not). Finally, to prevent "drive-by" attacks and attempts to devolve this case, the case pages will be semi-protected and additional scrutiny will be paid to accounts that haven't participated in this dispute beforehand. If a new editor or an IP editor genuinely has something that needs to be said, they may ask a clerk to post it on their behalf. For the Committee, Salvio 23:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sectioned discussion will be strictly enforced on all talk pages in this arbitration case. With the exception of clerks and arbitrators, all commenters must create a section for their statement in the form "'s section" and edit only within their own section. Threaded discussion may be refactored or removed by any clerk or arbitrator. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:: 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 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)

• "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)

@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 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)

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 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)

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 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages (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.

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 15:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ADPC's section

One of my favourite articles on Misplaced Pages 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 to see the sort of hard work that we should all be doing to reduce the Gender Gap on Misplaced Pages... Andrewdpcotton (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)