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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

As I have read the responses on this mail list, several people have made some very good points, but others not so much. Some focus specifically on Eric and others are more broad commenting on cultural issues within the project itself. Eric said some bad words, most of us are adults here, so deal with it. Its really not that big of a deal nor is it worth all the effort being put into it. There are far worse problems in the project doing far more to bring it down than Eric and a few cusswords. One point point for example by a couple folks indicated that Eric is responsible for running a lot of people off the project. Eric can be a jerk sometimes and use fowl language but I am not familiar with one editor who has stated they stopped editing because of him. I have met quite a lot that have stopped editing because of abuse by some admin. People are leaving, but Eric is not the biggest culprit, its the us and them mentality of some of the admins and their being exempt from the rules. So if folks are concerned about people leaving the project, I would suggest they start there. Some have also suggested some issues with the Arbcom. Sarah Stierch questions its legality (as do I and others) and some have indicated they intend to go around the Arbcom and appeal its verdicts. To this I say good luck. I really wish they would, and its high time they do get more involved with the Arbitration sanctions and verdicts, but its not likely that the WMF has any interest in doing so and its even less likely they will overturn one of their decisions. On the topic of sanctions against Eric at AE, he is as good as gone. The folks at AE have a long history of hounding and harassing editors to give them a reason to block. They do not care about admins baiting them or provoking a response and they do not care how far off topic the edit is, if they want to block someone, the "broadly construed" language gives them that ability. It also removes the Arbcom from the need to make a controversial decision by passing the buck to AE. This Arbcom decision is going to have one definite result. People are going to avoid gender related topics and Wikipedia is going to have even more trouble getting more women involved in the project. So I would encourage the WMF to get more involved with Arbcom and its decisions, because many of their decisions are directly responsible for the death spiral the project is in. The WMF needs to seriously start reviewing the conduct of admins if it wants to deal with editors leaving the site and they need to start addressing those abusive admin tactics like personal attacks, baiting, turning peoples talk pages into battle grounds and other tactics used to justify blocking them. Civility on Wikipedia goes far beyond Eric and a few swear words and if you want editors to follow the rules then you need to enforce them on admins as well as editors. Otherwise the editors see what the admins get away with and it makes the think they should be able to do it as well. Reguyla On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/26/2014 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman wrote: Since en.Wikipedia is the largest one and WMF in US, obviously large developments regarding the gender gap are relevant. I was content for the first six years to be on my best behavior (except for occasional outbursts when provoked) and work on topics of interest, though I wasted a lot of time in BLP disputes with people out to trash subjects of BLP. But for almost the last two years I've had to deal with insulting editors pulling outrageous numbers and no adults willing to tell them to cut it out. This Arbitration is just the culmination of it. So I feel no desire to associate with Wikipedia UNTIL the culture is changed so BLP violations and insults and harassment are taken seriously. And I see no need to be a well-behaved woman any more. If I'm ever allowed to edit my talk page again, I'll tell them I do not apologize for using the terms gang banger and gang rape to describe the goings on of the last six months. When I'm allowed to come back despite saying that, I'll know the culture has changed. Sitush said I'm a rabble rouser. All he did was pump up my ego and now I really want to rouse some rabble. This isn't the place, and Wikipedia certainly is not the prime target. However, as a former standup comic and long term satirist, I will have to have my satisfaction by making sure certain individuals and certain events go down in youtube history in song, photographs and screenshots. Hope I don't change my mind when I get the bees nest out of my sinuses. But then given my long history of exposes of B.S., not likely. In fact, I've got a couple I should have published in on-demand book form by now if I hadn't been messing around on Wikipedia. Call me disruptive, Tim. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn... CM