So ArbCom fixed the woman problem on Wikipedia, right? Some men disrupted the women’s project page, so they topic banned the disruptors from the page, right?
Nope. They got rid of the ones who were complaining.
So that worked, right? No more complaints?
Unfortunately, no, because Eric Corbett.
So at least Eric Corbett is fixed?
Attempts to get admins to actually enforce the sanctions against Eric Corbett
Three separate requests for enforcement resulted in only one 48-hour block, which did nothing to stop the disruptions that promoted the next two requests for enforcement. The details:
Arbitration Request, January 25, 2015: request for enforcement submitted by Lightbreather, Corbett blocked for 48 hours
- For Corbett: NE Ent, Chillum, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Sitush, Go Phightins!, Buster Seven, Drmies, John Carter. Admins: Bishonen, HJ Mitchell
- Against Corbett: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. admins: NW (but phrased as a question about the topic ban), Guettarda
- Neutral: Go Phightins! (changed statement), Delibzr, Hafspajen,
AE request, 27 January 2015, submitted by Rationalobserver, request declined.
- For Corbett: DeCausa, MONGO, No such user, Sitush, Two kinds of pork, Montanabw, Giano, Ritchie333, EChastain, Hafspajen, Knowledgekid87, Davey2010
- Against Corbet: Lightbreather
- Neutral comment: Cas Liber, NE Ent, Georgewilliamherbert, GoodDay
And a nasty exchange on Corbett’s talk page
AE request, 7 February 2015: submitted by Gamaliel. Closed as stale. (diff from Feb 1 — “nearly a week”)
- For Corbett: MONGO, Giano, admins: Chillum, DDStretch
- Against Corbett: ChrisGualtieri (changed vote), Ironholds,
- Neutral: admin: HJ Mitchell
Retribution attempt against Lightbreather
But the Arbcom had their chance to get back at the one user who was successful in getting Corbett’s topic ban enforced, when Lightbreather requested an interaction ban with Hell in a Bucket, and the Arbcom proposed to ban her instead. Talk about shooting the messenger, and blaming the victim.
White knight Guerillero
The money quote here is from the new kid on the block, arbitrator Guerillero:
I am strongly opposed to any restriction of LB’s ability to use the DR routes because of a flawed narrative that does not follow the presented evidence at all. Compared to EVERY OTHER PERSON we deal with at arbcom, LB has been a saint; sure she made newbie mistakes, but lets give her some credit. All of her forays into DR have been for two things. (1) To get HiaB away from her because she sees his actions as harassment. (2) Trying to get admins to actually enforce the sanctions against Eric Corbett. I find both to be noble goals. Since the motion seems to eliminate 2, the removal of her from DR pretty much allows Eric to do what he pleases; no one else seems to want to report the infringement of his topic ban to AE. By passing this, we are continuing the saddening trend of removing women from wikipedia who buck the status quo while patting men on the head who do the same thing. I don’t like this and consider it sexist. –Guerillero | My Talk 05:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (bolding mine)
The nasty remark of the week, reverted several times, was by Giano to the new Signpost editor-in-chief, Gamaliel:
No, Gamaliel, I know exactly and precisely what vindictive means, for some reason (I don’t even want to ponder why) you are envious and resentful of Eric Corbett and want him finished here. Now that your fellow admins see what a nasty piece of work you are, they hurriedly close this ridiculous thread. Consequently, I hope you feel a compete fool because that is exactly what you are. Giano 20:53, 7 February 2015
The surprise of the week was the resurrection of Ironholds, who has a somewhat checkered past when it comes to gender issues, but who redeems himself a thousand-fold with several good rants on Roger Davies’ talk page:
But I’d ask you to look at the dispute in detail and ask yourself whether the escalation is because LB brought a meritless enforcement request, or because any enforcement request against this particular individual consistently, regardless of the person bringing it, leads to a tremendous backlash. I’m certain it’s the latter. I’d also ask whether restricting the ability of people to bring such requests is actually the solution; it’s a solution, certainly, but only in a very short-sighted way. Do the community and the committee a favour: look at Giano’s reaction on Gamaliel’s talkpage, and ask yourself three questions; is that reaction something that’s a surprise, with a sanction request against Eric? Is it something specific to the person who brought it, or the person who is a subject? And, as a corollary to that second question, is restricting people who bring requests really the equitable solution, here? Because to me it looks like the better approach is a motion to restrict the ability of those who consistently, inappropriately respond to sanction requests to do so. Ironholds (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested in the paper Ironholds recommends, “Towards a Feminist HCI Methodology: Social Science, Feminism, and HCI”, there is a free download here.
Sandstein proves his worth
Even the notoriously unimaginative Sandstein was in fine form, in resisting Roger Davies’ cowardly “de minimis non curat lex” (not all rules need to be enforced) theory:
Thanks for your advice concerning a ”de minimis” rule. If it is indeed the view of the Committee that violations of ArbCom decisions that are considered less severe according to some standard should ”not” result in enforcement action, then the Committee should articulate this standard explicitly. I currently work on the assumption that if you topic-ban somebody from “X, broadly construed”, this means that you expect this editor to be blocked in each and every case in which they make a X-related edit outside of the [[WP:BANEX|policy exceptions]], no matter what the circumstances may be. If that is not so, then you should tell admins which criteria they should use to decide whether or not to take action. I caution, though, that this (and any added consensus requirements) may have the effect that your sanctions against popular and well-networked users may be enforced much less effectively, if at all, than your sanctions against other editors.
Summary of arb voting
- Support interaction ban: Gorilla Warfare, Guerillero, Courcelles
- Proposing bans against Lightbreather: Salvio giuliano, bringing Roger Davies and LFaraone with him against Lightbreather, then Thryduulf , who calls Lightbreather “vexatious”.
- Adding bans against Hell in a Bucket: Courcelles, DGG
- Other votes. Refer back to community: Dougweller (this motion passed). Reiterating their support for interaction ban: Thryduulf, GorillaWarfare, DGG . Raw topic ban: Guerillero. Something “in a package”: NativeForeigner, who voted last on everything.
So the villain in this story, as well as the fly in the ointment, is Salvio–no surprise there–as well as the uncharacteristically incautious Roger Davies, who seems to have brought LFarone, Thryduulf, and probably NativeForeigner along with him, to block the i-ban proposal. But in the end it is Davies who drags the rest of the committee back from the brink, while TParis tries to rescue Hell in a Bucket on HIAB’s talk page (his final “gift” to Wikipedia before resigning as an admin), to close the proposal with no action taken.