A second attempt at Arbitration enforcement
Another week, another case being accepted by the Arbitration Committee. This time we return to a topic that is still relatively new as a second Arbitration enforcement case is now open. And like before this is focused on Eric Corbett and his actions.
Background
Eric Corbett has been a named party in multiple cases in Arbcom, including the first Arbitration enforcement case back in August and the Gender Gap Task Force (GGTF) case from December 2014. The latter case resulted in two remedies implemented on Corbett: the first being topic banned from the Gender Gap topic, and the second having him prohibited from "shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors."
On The Atlantic
On 21 October, The Atlantic published a piece titled "How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women". The piece referenced the controversial Lightbreather case which saw Lightbreather site-banned indefinitely back in July. The article also mentions Eric Corbett, quoting him saying to Lightbreather, "The easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one." This quote was made back in July 2014, before he was prohibited from swearing at other editors. Due to the controversial topic of sexism on Wikipedia (and in general), this article was brought up at Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales' talk page. In the discussion editors talked about the article's inaccuracies, including the article's erroneously calling Corbett an administrator on the site. Corbett went onto the thread to defend himself but was blocked for a month by Kirill Lokshin due to violating his topic ban from the Gender Gap topic after making comments on the gender gap on Wikipedia. (It should be noted that Lightbreather was also a member of GGTF). This block was lifted by Yngvadottir a few days later, resulting in her being Level II desysopped by the Arbitration Committee "For reversing an arbitration enforcement block out of process". Corbett himself stated that he didn't want to be unblocked.
And that brings us to where we are now, with admin Black Kite being the filing party of the case. Black Kite was a named party in the first Arbitration enforcement case. In that case it was found that they found no grounds to block Corbett for a different incident but had the decision overruled by GorillaWarfare, who blocked Corbett for a month without discussion. GorillaWarfare, an Arbitrator, has recused herself from the current case. The remedy to that case was to delegate the drafters of the case to amend and clarify both WP:ACDS and WP:AE. This remedy doesn't seem to have been implemented yet, with the Discretionary sanctions page having little changed. With five open cases currently ongoing we may have to continue waiting for any action on the amendments.
- In brief
- Overlapped sanctions: The Arbitration Committee has rescinded remedies in multiple cases "to prevent confusion and overlap between existing sanctions".
Discuss this story
- I'm referring to Black Kite being the one who closed the AE request. See here. GamerPro64 19:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. When you say in today's piece, "it was found that they found no grounds to block Corbett" are you referring to this: "Black Kite's actions had the effect of interfering with the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision; in fact, since Eric's comment was a violation of his restriction and was not minor in nature, Black Kite should not have dismissed the enforcement request so quickly and without waiting for input from other uninvolved administrators" [1]? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That was one of the findings in the first Arbitration enforcement case: Upon reviewing the report, Black Kite (talk · contribs) closed it with no action. At the time, no other uninvolved administrator had made any comments and the report had been open for only about five hours. I don't understand what you're not getting at. Black Kite dismissed the AE request. Then GorillaWarfare blocked Corbett without discussion. GamerPro64 20:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. When you say, "it was found", found by whom? And when you say, "they found no grounds to block Corbett", who are they? Sorry for not putting it in those terms to begin with. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I already told you that "They" is Black Kite. The findings were by the Arbitration Committee. What more do you want that isn't the same circular conversation? GamerPro64 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaaaah. The singular they. now I see what you're saying. Thanks.
- One other thing: you say "Corbett went onto the thread [on Jimmy's talk page] to defend himself but was blocked for a month by Kirill Lokshin due to violating his topic ban from the Gender Gap topic." It sounds like Eric was blocked for the comments he made defending himself. Eric did more than defend himself there: he also made two comments, in two seperate edits, about the gender gap and misogyny on Wikipedia. It was the latter comments Kirill blocked him for. Not the comments where he was defending himself against the claim that he had said something rude to Lightbreather. Would you consider clarifying that point in your piece? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can point me to the edit I can see if I can. Also, apologizes for coming off as abrasive. GamerPro64 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like me to point you to where Kirill links to the two comments that triggered the block? I'll just go fish them out. I think it's in the block notice on Corbett's talk page. Yep. User_talk:Eric_Corbett#Blocked. I think most people, including Kirill, think Eric had a right to reply in that discussion on Jimmy's talk page. The problem arose when Eric used the moment to say a few gratuitous words about the gender gap. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to post my own take on the "AE2" case here, but I realize that we are at risk of relitigating the whole case on this page. That would be counterproductive; if, as I personally believe, the current case is probably unnecessary, then reliving the whole case on another page would be doubly so. (In the unlikely event anyone cares, my statement at the case acceptance state is now on the case talkpage, along with those of about 80 of my friends.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]