>>Kevin Gorman: "It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks.
I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's
certainly
a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with
essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the
participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing."
It bears repeating that what is a "severe gendered slur" in America is
approximately 83.6% less potent as a generalized term of abuse in the UK
and Australia.[1] I'm not going to defend Eric using the word "cunt,"
however, he's well aware that he's in the metaphorical room with Americans
and if he directs that word towards anyone again there will be
repercussions beyond the usual wheel-warring and melodramatic debate...
That's not the point I wish to make. Mr. Corbett's (virtually inevitable)
future civility blocks will indeed be non-appealable because they are of
specified length as part of an Arbcom ruling. Any reversal would probably
mean the loss of tools — either those of the bad-blocker or the reverser,
based on interpretation of the specific situation at Arbitration
Enforcement, where the matter would inevitably go.
Frankly, this approach would have solved the "Malleus problem" a long time
ago. Incivility should be a block of specified and reasonable duration
(viz., the one imposed on Carol Moore for her "gang bangers" rant). There
are offenses at Wikipedia far worse than blowing one's top and being a
jerk. Like systemic copyright violation. Like faking sources. Like mass
subtle vandalism. Like repeated insertion of libelous text into BLPs. Like
dramatic disruption of the project to score political points.
Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of
CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.
Tim Davenport
Corvallis, OR
==Footnotes==
[1] Yeah, I made that number up, but it's about right.