yes ,

i would say that arbcom might be unaware of how negatively it will be viewed

clearly newyorkbrad was angling for block both sides,
to make it easier to block the "unblockable"
and the majority appears to have tilted in one direction.

keep in mind that a life ban worked real well on betacommand

as for "new regimen of non-appealable civility blocks"

i'll believe it when i see it, just as when i will believe Jimbo Wales' talk at wikimania.

at this late date, it is show me - soft is hard.

we can plan a culture change, off wiki if necessary, but the revanchism will be ugly.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman@gmail.com> wrote:

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.  I know there's been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be.

Best,

Kevin Gorman

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:

 

>Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.

 

One wonders if it’s really time for someone to just initiate a discussion on AN as to whether the community’s patience with him is exhausted enough to community-ban him indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of any ArbCom case. We have done things like this before—after one such editor prompted multiple suggestions that he be banned among the many opposes he received when he ran for ArbCom with the premise of effectively abolishing it by voting against hearing any new cases, I initiated that discussion, which led to the editor in question pretty much jumping before he was pushed.

 

And I say this as someone who has never interacted with him in any meaningful way, at least not for years, but sees and hears him increasingly discussed as the one user who represents all the shortcomings of our disciplinary processes. Whether he is a genuinely toxic person or not seems to be a matter of some debate, but I think there is no doubt that the perception that he is has increasingly mooted that question.

 

Of course we could also consider the suggestion Jimmy had in his closing speech at Wikimania this year that we deal with toxic people on the site who also happen to be good content creators by giving them their own wikis where they, and anyone who wanted to work with them, could develop and improve whatever content they wanted to.for reimportation. Maybe part of the problem is that we offer too limited a choice of

 

(And per other emails, this is really beyond the scope of this list, so any followups should probably directed to me personally or taken on-wiki. Besides I don’t want to ruin anyone’s Thanksgiving, regardless of whether you celebrate it or not—we all deserve a break).

 

Daniel Case

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap