Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Black Kite (talk) at 19:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Keilana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Yngvadottir (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Gorilla Warfare: [1]
• Kirill Lokshin: [2]
• Keilana: [3]
• Yngvadottir: [4]
• Eric Corbett: [5]

Statement by Black Kite

On 21 October, the web news source Atlantic carried the following story. [6]. This was a story about issues in the Gender Gap in Wikipedia, involving certain previous (and now banned) editors. It was written in association with certain Wikipedia editors, and was designed to show that (a) a certain female editor was unfairly banned (which they may well have been, and it is certain that she was sexually harrassed, but this is irrelevant here), and (b) that editor User: Eric Corbett (EC) was misogynist and/or anti-female. Much of the "evidence" of the article revolved round a single diff by EC which in fact did not show any such thing. Previous attempts by involved parties to have EC blocked had been unsuccesful, yet this time, when EC protested his innocence, he was blocked by User:Kirill Lokshin for violation of a previous sanction. Kirill Lokshin had never been involved in the situation before, and indeed had not blocked any user since 2014, and so the inference is that they were induced by other editors to perform such a block. All of these issues are violations of Wikipedia policy. Later, and quite correctly in my view, EC was unblocked by User:Yngvadottir. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thryduulf: and any other Arb: If you're going to question Yngvadottir's unblock but not Kirill's block, you need to recuse. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Keilana: Yes, I only included you due to the conversation on Jimbo's talk page, and the fact you may have useful information to provide. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GorillaWarfare

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

On 22 October, I blocked Eric Corbett for a period of 1 month in accordance with Remedy #3 of the Interactions at GGTF case. The block was prompted by Eric's comments here and here, which I deemed to breach points (ii) ["the gender disparity among Wikipedians"] and (iii) ["any process or discussion relating to these topics, broadly construed"] of the amended topic ban. The duration of the block was based on the guidance provided in the standard enforcement provision in the case, and the fact that shorter prior blocks for violation of this remedy had proven ineffective in eliciting compliance.

With regard to Eric having some hypothetical "right to reply" to the Atlantic article, which is being advocated by certain commenters here, such a right would necessarily have to be limited to replying to the claims the article makes regarding Eric himself. Prior to the pair of edits which resulted in his block, Eric made several additional comments which did directly address these claims ([7], [8], [9]). I note that he was not blocked for these comments. Rather, a block was imposed only when the subject of his comments became the existence of the gender gap itself.

The allegation that I was somehow induced to block Eric is mere aspersion, easily made and impossible to disprove. For the record, I had no communication with anyone regarding this block prior to having placed it. The suggestion that my lack of prior involvement makes my action suspect would seem to fly in the face of the Committee's own requirements, which stipulate that only administrators without such involvement may apply sanctions in the first place.

I ask the Committee to (a) reinstate the block on Eric Corbett for the original un-served duration (or an alternate duration that the Committee considers appropriate), and to (b) appropriately sanction Yngvadottir for deliberately violating the procedure for appeals of arbitration sanctions by unblocking Eric. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Keilana

Given that I've barely been around (due to much, much more important commitments in my life), I haven't been particularly following this bit of drama, nor was I involved. I was interviewed for the Atlantic in August and only talked about my work writing content with WikiProject Women Scientists, which I will be returning to post-haste, since I try not to let wiki-drama stop me from actually writing articles. Keilana (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yngvadottir

Statement by Eric Corbett

Statement by Gaijin42

• Jimbo's page is generally a safe haven, where even site banned users can drop in and speak.
• The thread in question was substantially about Eric, so it would seem WP:BANEX might apply, or at least a warning in advance of action. A month long also may be somewhat excessive for this infraction
• On the other hand Eric has certainly intentionally flaunted his restrictions before, and the remedy calls for escalating blocks
• However once the block was applied it was an WP:AE block, so Yngvadottir's unblock seems to be out of bounds.
• Eric and related controversy (both those who support him, and those who would like to get rid of him) are likely to remain controversial, and a hot potato nobody but arbcom can deal with. Arbcom has declined to block in the past, certainly they may do so again, but the community cannot handle this. The committee should accept (though perhaps resolve via motion) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

I'm guessing User:Yngvadottir might need to be added as a party, as the person who lifted the block.

I guess I can see how there might, in this particular case, be extraordinary circumstances, such as false and misleading information about an editor being published by outside sources and that information being repeated here, about a person who, apparently, is editing under their real-life name here. Perhaps the committee might think it not unreasonable to request that policies and guidelines be adjusted to perhaps allow editors who are being lied about or to, possibly in violation of WP:LIBEL, to do something in a expeditious manner to have such misstatements removed, and/or allow for them to do something to in a sense clear their name, whether that might be somehow a violation of other existing sanctions or not. Alternately, it might be possible to impose DS on topics like this, involving misrepresentation of facts about editors.

Under the circumstances, maybe the foundation's lawyers might be reasonably consulted here.

Having said all that, I would really love to see this whole thing just completely and utterly disappear. This is a dramah overdose of the worst kind, and if nothing else just bringing an end to it as soon as possible might be the best thing to do. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

This would present several interesting issues:

1. Is Mr. Wales' an exempt zone - stated by him as such so that fully open discourse may take place? If so, then there is no "case" here.
2. Therefore if that user talk page is not open for free discussion, is the use of it to make claims about an editor who is barred from defending himself fully as improper as the editor defending his own position? I trust the committee would never make any claim that an editor should not be given an opportunity to deal with claims made about him or her personally.
3. If, rather, it is reasonable for any editor not under official "sanctions" (including "anonymous IPs who are quietly likely to be under a false flag of some sort, or who may be experienced editors who find it better to hide their true identity in order to wreak havoc and let loose the dogs of war) to make allegations about an editor who is under stricture not to respond, is a response then a violation of a reasonably interpreted sanction? Collect (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Clerk notes

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

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• I have been participating in the discussion on Jimbo's talk page, and have cautioned one other participant (not listed as a party here) about using personal attacks in that discussion. I do not think this makes me involved enough to require recusal, but I will reconsider this if asked. That said, it is worth making clear from the outset that we have no influence over what was published by The Atlantic, and we will not be re-examining the Lightbreather case here (yes, she was sexually harassed, no, that was not why she was banned. She was banned for her own repeated serious violations of policy). Pretty much simultaneously with the opening of this case request, we asked Yngvadottir to contact us regarding her unblocking of Eric, and I'm unsure if there is anything beyond that for us to do here. My gut feeling is that if there is, it is more likely to be a motion than a case, but this may change. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]