m →Kirill Lokshin falls short of WP:ADMINCOND: trim log display (thanks Liz for "how to") |
|||
Line 407: | Line 407: | ||
=== Admins not using discretion === |
=== Admins not using discretion === |
||
[[:wikt:discretion#Noun|Wiktionary]] defines ''discretion'' as "The ability to make wise choices or decisions." As documented by WTT et. al. although the remedy clearly states: ''An uninvolved admin may remove any comments,'' every intervention has been blocking instead of removal. Based on past trends, removal would likely result in a "grumbling" thread on EC's talk page (e.g. something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&oldid=688461900#Five_years_ago.2C_but_what.27s_changed.3F]), but not a case request with [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2#Preliminary_statements |'''82''']] opening statements. |
[[:wikt:discretion#Noun|Wiktionary]] defines ''discretion'' as "The ability to make wise choices or decisions." As documented by WTT et. al. although the remedy clearly states: ''An uninvolved admin may remove any comments,'' every intervention has been blocking instead of removal. Based on past trends, removal would likely result in a "grumbling" thread on EC's talk page (e.g. something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&oldid=688461900#Five_years_ago.2C_but_what.27s_changed.3F]), but not a case request with [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2#Preliminary_statements |'''82''']] opening statements. |
||
=== The word === |
|||
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — [[Inigo Montoya]], [[The Princess Bride]] |
|||
Per [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence#Issue_resolved_before_initial_block_imposed|2011 evidence]], in 2011 EC used a moderate UK insult generally directed at men which unfortunately ([[WP:ENGVAR]]) is considered heinously misogynistic in the US, which resulted in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement|civility enforcement case]]. In July 2014 he repeated usage of the word [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=618319924]. Based on the prior experience, regardless of whether it was intended to be the US or UK usage, and regardless of whether it was targeted to a specific editor or the community at large, he knew, or should have known, that it was unnecessarily provocative. An editor with his demonstrated mastery of language (see [[User:Eric_Corbett]], "Significant contributions") is capable of making his argument without usage of the term. |
|||
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
Revision as of 14:49, 1 November 2015
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.
You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.
The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators and clerks may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by Black Kite
For what it's worth
I am not going to add much to what I have written above, for reasons which are explained on my talk page. Meanwhile, let's hope this case doesn't end up with such an incompetent outcome as GamerGate or GGTF. I shall not, however, be holding my breath. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Montanabw
Separation of issues
- Two issues were conflated in the Atlantic article: incivility and harassment. Corbett is uncivil at times, frequently to those who take an arrogant tone toward him, but rarely to innocent bystanders. He has taken his lumps when he's overstepped. However, he did not harass Lightbreather, and his editing and content work clearly shows that he is not a misogynist. He was prone to stick his nose into the hornets' nest of the Gender Gap Task Force and poke the hive with a stick. That said, he insults everyone, and the four-letter insult that LB claimed was directed at LB is a term Corbett has also used to describe Jimbo. Montanabw(talk) 01:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- In short, Corbett was not portrayed accurately in the Atlantic article, and had every right to make efforts to clear his name. Montanabw(talk) 01:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Dennis Brown
Arbs, individuals, admins and the community have failed
Arbcom and the community as a whole has failed when it comes to enforcing civility. Eric is merely the poster child, if not for him, it would be someone else. The more restrictions you put on him, the worse the situation gets as clearly, he has equal numbers of supporters and detractors. This escalating blocks scenario has failed worse of all, as has the "first block advantage" of AE when dealing with controversial people. I will be the first to say that Eric has clearly earned some of his blocks, but not all of them. Arb has given those that oppose him an advantage and powerful tools to de facto ban him for the most minor of infractions. While this wasn't intentional, if you unwilling to accept personal responsibility and your share of the blame, you have failed the community yet again.
Too many people intentionally misread his words, using the cultural differences in US and UK English as a weapon (and no, I'm not talking about the word "cunt" here, I'm speaking in broader terms). We've made it a blockable offense to be disliked. Some say that admin are afraid to block him, as if the admin corp is a bunch of cowards. That comes across as a passive-aggressive way to avoid the real fact, that admin don't fear Eric, but they do fear the long, sometimes overreaching arms of Arb. Admin are afraid of getting dragged into Arb and bit stripped for the crime of agreeing with him. Eric doesn't have the power to force an admin into 6 weeks of debate into their fitness and suitability, with the potential to be desysopped without good reason, and with only a majority vote; a popularity vote. Only Arb has this power, not Eric, so let us be realistic when we talk about fear and risk. Avoiding Eric's opinion of you is pretty easy: stay off his talk page, as that is generally the only place he voices those opinions.
We've created this monster with unworkable Arb restrictions, perhaps forged with the best of intentions but executed in a way that turns Eric into a pinata. Anyone can take a swipe, but he can't swipe back. If you really care about keeping Eric, and keeping disruption to a minimum, lift all restrictions and treat him like any other editor. If he needs a 72 hour block, give it. The short blocks have been effective and there is no time for drama to build up, no perception of an overreaction by giving a month block for the crime of politely and calmly replying where you were first addressed. I've been the first to support these short blocks when they were reasonable and proportional to the problem. I'm not blind to the fact that we have an ongoing problem, nor am I blind to the fact that Arbitration has made it worse, not better. Arb might be the final step, but it hasn't been the best solution.
Kirill followed the letter of the law, but in an overly strict way. We've desysopped someone recently for habitually doing this very thing, while edit warring. That would be overkill here, no one deserves to lose their bits (and one person should get theirs back without asking, simply because it is the right thing to do). What we need is LESS Arbitration when it comes to Eric, not more. Otherwise, just ban him so everyone who supports him can just retire and you can be done with this. That would be the easy thing, but it would be the most expensive and foolish. Surely you see that the more you do, the worse the problem becomes. I'm not asking for Eric to be above others, simply have restrictions removed so we can treat him like everyone else, so you don't have the impression (or reality) that others are waiting by the sidelines hoping he says "gender" and gets banned. Take away the fuel from both sizes, and admit that we (as a community) tried using restrictions in this one case and we failed. There is no justice and Arb is not a court. What this requires is being brave enough to try something that might actually work, instead of this futile attempt to continually spank and shame him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Gerda Arendt
First name of case not neutral
There is evidence that the present name, "Vested editors", is ambiguous and not neutral. I have nothing to say under such a name of prejudice. In the workshop phase, I will suggest to forget the GGTF case, completely, release all victims and their absurd restrictions instead of enforcing them, leading to more absurdity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the name change, a little step in the right direction of less bias. As there will be no workshop phase, I suggest right now a radical dream: forget the GGTF case completely: release all victims and their absurd restrictions. Assume in good faith that people can and will treat each other with dignity, if they are granted the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Today is reformation day. My heart swims in blood when I think of the amount of thought and writing skill going to arbitration enforcement (AE) instead of articles. One example (of sadly many possible ones): a user formats a malformatted infobox, helping a new user and thus Wikipedia. He should receive a thank you click. Instead, he is taken to AE, first reaction "clear violation of his restriction" (but compare), three noticeboards are busy for a while, in the end we have a female administrator less. - We need a reform of AE, to comply with the principles of "kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion". I tried in the first arb case about AE, on 30 June. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Carrite
Please stop attacking non-parties
@Kevin Gorman — Giano is not a party to this case, please redact your testimony against him. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you. Carrite (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Kevin Gorman
Kirill, Eric, Yngva, BK, & general
- Eric is perfectly aware of his restrictions and intentionally exceeded them an incredible number of times as evidenced by his block log. He could have either avoided violating his topic bans or approached AC asking for an exemption. He's repeatedly made it clear that he doesn't care about his restrictions and has no intention to abide bythem.
- Kirill is a well-respected former arbitrator who accurately enforced an arbitration remedy against an editor knowing the incredible backlash anyone sanctioning Eric receives. There's no question that his enforcement was accurate according to active arb remedies, and I have no doubt that he took in to account Eric's previous flagrant flaunting of sanctions and hesitancy of most admins to action Eric in taking action.
- Yngvadottir announced her retirement months ago. While acting out of her ideals deserves a measure of respect, she chose to use her tools in a way she knew was inappropriate to directly counteract the will of the arbitration committee. I hold nothing against her personally, but instead of pursuing an appropriate path to challenge Kirill's actions, she did something knowing it directly counteracted standing arb remedies and would likely result in her appropriate desysop.
- Black Kite has made multiple statements, such as [this] unfounded attack that lead me to seriously question his ability to act in accordance with the expectations of decorum and behavior expected from all administrators. I would suggest AC consider his actions and continued ability to function as an administrator.
Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Anthonyhcole
Some background and key diffs:
Lightbreather opened a WP:AN thread suggesting a new civility noticeboard
Corbett responded (indented once, so apparently addressing the OP) with
"The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. To give you just one example, it's my opinion that one of the most incivil people on WP is Jimbo Wales, and very few would have the balls to block him. Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me. Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. Eric Corbett 20:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)" [2]
The Atlantic published an article about sexism on Wikipedia
The original version called Corbett an admin
See the footnote to the current version linked above.
The article says
"In a page set up to discuss Lightbreather’s request [Corbett] told her, 'The easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.'"
See the current version linked above.
It was discussed on User talk:Jimbo Wales
Corbett contributed six comments to the discussion 21-22 October
- It's just the normal press hyperbole. It makes for a better story if I'm an administrator, so that's what they describe me as.
- No woman was called a cunt so far as I'm aware, and certainly not by me, admin or not.
- Let's be clear about this. The only person I've ever called a cunt on WP is Jimbo, who I have every reason to believe is not a female.
- That's my experience as well. I'm just not seeing this alleged misogyny.
- "All the time"? That's a pretty big lie.
- In fact, if I were to go just by the editors I've worked with, particularly on FA/GAs I'd be inclined to think that it was about 50/50 between males and females.
Kirill Lokshin blocked Corbett for a month
(Block log) citing two of Corbett's comments in the Talk:Jimbo Wales discussion:
- "That's my experience as well. I'm just not seeing this alleged misogyny."
- "In fact, if I were to go just by the editors I've worked with, particularly on FA/GAs I'd be inclined to think that it was about 50/50 between males and females."
as breaches of his gender gap topic ban; specifically, "Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from [...] making any edit about [...] the gender disparity among Wikipedians."
Corbett had been blocked four times before under this topic ban
- 48 hours (breach) (AE request). Sandstein 19:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- 72 hours (breach) (AE request) Coffee 18:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- one week (breach) (AE request). Callanecc 07:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
extended to two weeks (breach) Callanecc 02:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC) - one month (breach) GorillaWarfare 03:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Overturned 28 June 2015 [3]
Note to Salvio
Salvio, if you do anything more or less than confirm the one month block (taking into account time served - Eric has effectively stopped editing) and confirm the desysop, you'll blow this. Any less and you're feeding the disruption and not just looking but being weak. Any more (such as a site ban) and you're being needlessly punitive/vindictive. The existing sanctions are working. His incivility has dwindled to a triclke, if that, and he and those watching are learning you won't tolerate his ignorant sexist denialism. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Rich Farmbrough
Statement by Rich Farmbrough
I think this one should be thrown back to the community. Reason: the most involved party here is the Committee itself:
- The Committee is responsible for the GGTF case
- The Committee is responsible for the Lightbreather case
- The Committee is responsible for the Arbitration Enforcement case
- The Committee is responsible for the de-sysopping of Ygnvadottir
The intrinsic problem, is this: The Community is, by and large, pretty forgiving. However there are a significant number of admins who follow the "rules is rules" - operating on a shallow procedural basis, like automata. Due to the first mover advantage we get absurd blocks (and other absurd results).
In the previous Arbitration Enforcement case the Committee set this first mover advantage into stone (in order to nullify a perceived "second mover advantage"). This was clearly a mistake.
The wiki-way is consensus, not more and more rules. Of course had Kirill acted sensibly and blocked for 12 or 24 hours, the block would probably have stuck, and drama been avoided. But that doesn't mean the previous ruling was wise - it should have taken into account the ridiculous (i.e. punitive) blocks that some admins favour.
All the Committee can do here, is rescind or amend their previous ruling, and re-instate Ygnvadottir.
No case is needed for this- just motions.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC).
Evidence presented by Worm That Turned
Eric's recent block log
Interactions at GGTF was closed on 1st December 2014. Eric Corbett was banned from discussing the Gender Gap. He was also banned from "shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors". There was also an additional interaction Ban with Lightbreather put in place 28 April. He has been blocked about 6 times since. (I say about as there was a double offence in May, but the June offence was overturned)
- 25 January - 48 hours. No admin unblocked.
- 27 February - 72 hours. No admins unblocked.
- Diffs in violation of "belittling": [7]
- 27 May and also 29 May - 2 weeks (and 2 days) block, no admin unblocked.
- 26 June - 1 month. overturned at AN 28 June
- Diffs in violation of GG topic ban: [10]
- 20 July initially 1 month but reduced to 72 hours per Arbcom restriction. No admin unblocked.
- 22 October - 1 month. overturned without consensus by Yngvadottir.
Eric Corbett is still regularly being blocked. Arbcom, and the wider community, knows that each of these blocks is associated with grumbling at noticeboards, which is a significant timesink. That said, the diffs for which Eric Corbett has been blocked are significantly less problematic than those associated with his past behaviour, making the longer blocks look extraordinarily draconian. Proportional blocks are the right way to go with Arbcom enforcement of this case, however we have seen that proportional blocks are not being handed out.
Evidence presented by John Carter
Statement by John Carter
I was going to add to the PD page rather than here, but, that not being an option, I will say this here.
Eric's conduct can be bad. In many of the cases where it has been recently, including I think the circumstances leading to this case, that is at least in part due to his regularly being goaded by others and pointed out, I believe erroneously, as somehow the "poster boy" for harassment of women here by others. It is hard not seeing that conduct of others as a form of HARASSment against Eric, but there seems to be little if any interest in calling anyone on it.
In this particular case, the issue, as Anthonyhcole has pointed out above, much to my thanks, is a particularly trashy article in the Atlantic where, once again, he has been made the scapegoat for the "wikipedia harasses women" people. The article in its earlier versions, and possibly/probably still in the print version, contained at least some statements which were flat-out wrong and, considering Eric edits under his real life name here, almost certainly violations of one of our core policies, WP:BLP. However, there seemed to be no interest in anyone else in removing the comments. That being the case, and Eric probably knowing he would himself be blocked if he removed them himself, and also probably knowing that complaining to the noticeboards might get no results, considering the comments were on Jimbo's talk page, he took what might have seemed to be the only option available to him at the time and tried to deal with the errors in the only way he could. For this he was blocked. I consider that, frankly, under the circumstances, objectionable, but I suppose understandable.
I believe that, under the circumstances, even if the block was understandable, the unblock was more understandable, even if the issue wasn't maybe clearly identified, and Yngvadottir should have her admin tools restored to her should she want them without needing an additional RfA. We do not have, so far as I can see, any clearly defined mechanisms for dealing with problems of this particular type yet, or even necessarily identifying them, probably because it hasn't happened much if at all yet, and on that basis I would think WP:IAR should apply here.
To date, I do not know that we have ever really acknowledged that BLP applies to editors whose public identities are known, but I don't see anything in the text of the policy itself to say otherwise. I would think that the provisions most likely to qualify for editors other than the obvious are WP:NPF, and it is very arguable that the Atlantic article is not a "high quality secondary source" as indicated there, and, maybe, for accusations of the sort that we are most likely to see directed at editors here, WP:BLPCRIME, although I am sure that particular section will have to be adjusted if it is found, as I believe it must be, that BLP applies to comments about editors here where the real-life identities of those editors have been explicitly or implicitly acknowledged by those individuals themselves. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by StarryGrandma
The lingering issue
The case has now been renamed Arbitration Enforcement 2. There is an issue left over from previous cases which contributes to the atmosphere and short tempers leading to this case and other incidents. I am asking the committee to revisit Principle 13 from Civility enforcement and Finding of fact 3 from Interactions at GGTF.
In the English language a slang word for the most basic essence of being female, the birth canal and entrance thereto, is used as an insult to both sexes: "promiscuous woman" , "a term of abuse for a man", and "despised, unpleasant, or annoying place, thing, or task" according to the Oxford English Dictionary.
It is a "term of abuse for a man" to say that a man might show female characteristics and a complement to a woman to say "she has balls". "Virility, (manly) power or strength; substance, force, vigour. Also: courage, determination" as defined in the OED for those who live where this term for the most basic essence of being male is not in as common use as in the United States.
I am old enough to have grown up at a time when women’s equality was controversial in the United States. Using a term for the vagina and vulva as an insult is a reminder of a time when opportunities for women were limited. It is not necessary to call someone by the term to have a hostile effect. Just having it on a Wikipedia page sets a tone for an environment that we would like to make more accessible to women.
Among men the use of the term among friends can be an affectionate insult. The argument has been accepted at ArbCom that we should understand "local colloquialisms" and "cultural differences in certain expletives" but just be careful about using them. It does not matter how kindly it is used locally; the basic meaning is that female is being used as an insult. When men start using the term to mean a man has just given birth to a great idea, then maybe we can reconsider.
This is not a banning or blocking thing. Instead whenever it turns up it needs to be strongly countered by the community saying Wikipedia does not condone an insult that implies that having a female characteristic is a bad thing. Arbcom needs to make a strong statement that in this "locality" femaleness cannot be used as an insult. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The use of genitalia as a metaphor for undesirable behavior is decreasing and is no longer well accepted in the community
User:Rhoark observes that we have still have the classic essay WP:GIANTDICK. However its companion, WP:DBAD is no longer with us. It was moved to meta at m:Don't be a dick after a failed deletion discussion in 2006. The article became m:Don't be a jerk last year after much discussion. Links to the original here on the English Wikipedia now point to the new name. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Giano
I won't be presenting evidence; everyone else will be doing that ad nauseum and it will doubtless be very dull. However, as the mood takes me, I will make some observations:
- Firstly, We seem to be having a lot of mention of cunts (to date 15 times) - Not a word I care for and I'm beginning to wonder if certain people get a salacious pleasure from typing it. Eric Corbett has been tried and sentenced already for using the word; this particular case is about him defending himself in a debate concerning him on Jimbo's very high profile talk page. Perhaps we should bear that in mind rather than rake over very old, cold and tired coals. Giano (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Does anyone (on of off the Arbcom) really think that posting any off-site article containing errors on Jimbo's talk page that mentioned Eric Corbett, and then debating it was truly fair to Eric? Giano (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Mrjulesd
Preliminary statement by Mrjulesd
See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2#Preliminary_statement_by_Mrjulesd
No workshop, so I will give my views on your approach
I think there are a number of possible approaches that the arbitrators should consider in relation to these problems. Whatever this case is named, the central figure is Eric Corbett, but the case is more to do with how the community reacts to his behaviour rather then his behaviour per se.
1. Reduce or remove ArbCom sanctions.
ArbCom sanctions are designed to lessen disruption in the community. But I think EC's case it has proved the opposite. The majority of disruption occurs not from EC's behaviour, but instead from the response from the community to enforcement of sanctions. This means that the sanctions are a net negative to the project rather than helping.
I really think the easiest approach is to remove sanctions against EC. Sure this might mean that a case at a later date might be needed. But at least the case would be directed towards EC's continuing behaviour, while this case is in fact due to the community's response to sanctions against EC. Meaning that any further sanctions against EC, at another case, would be directly EC's fault, rather than the fault of his supporters and detractors.
2. Don't do much at all.
Well this problem may be unsolvable. Mainly because the case does not directly relate to EC, but instead relates to how the community reacts to problems concerning him. So this case is a reflection on difficulties in the community rather than directly with EC. If EC had been left blocked no case would probably have arisen.
3. ArbCom taking over sanction enforcement.
Earlier I thought this might help. But on reflection I've changed my mind. I think the main problem with this is that it would make ArbCom involved in any enforcement against EC. So, for example, if ArbCom blocked EC due to his breaking of sanctions, and another admin unblocked him, desysopping the offending admin would seem to contravene WP:INVOLVED.
4. Site ban of Eric Corbett.
Overall I think this would be a mistake.
Volunteer codes such as "If you cause disruption and ongoing controversy, whether or not it is your fault, and no matter what your contributions have been, your services are no longer welcome." (paraphrasing Jbhunley's preliminary) seem to support this approach. And to a certain extent WP:NOJUSTICE, as a general principle that the sites policies are geared towards collaborative contribution towards building an encyclopedia, whilst excluding elements that detract from this, even well meaning and good faithed contributors who edit poorly, and productive contributors with civility and other problems.
The main problems being:
(a) Is it enforceable? Most likely any block to EC it would be undone very quickly, by an admin with a WP:IAR approach. The only way around this a locked global account, which as far as I understand would need WMF support.
(b) Would another editor take his place? From what I can tell there are other editors with similar views and styles to Eric's, and they could become a similar bone of contention. In a way Eric's behaviour mirrors that of the Wikipedia community, as the way he has remained here is through a lot of support from other editors, in particular within the admin corp. In fact removing Eric could make civility issues here worse, especially if admins resigned en masse in protest.
So even if Eric Corbett was removed, it might not improve civility issues here, or even reduce the overall number of ArbCom cases on a year by year basis.
5. Increase sanctions.
Again I feel a mistake. In this case, the sanctions themselves are the primary problem, with EC's behavior being secondary to the communities reaction to sanction enforcement. So further sanctions are more likely to exacerbate problems rather than reduce them.
--Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Tryptofish
I'm going to watch this case, but I do not intend to be actively involved. This isn't really evidence, but I simply want to comment here that this idea from Gamaliel, made during the case request, strikes me as a very helpful idea that is worth serious consideration: [16]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Kirill Lokshin
Eric Corbett violated an ArbCom restriction
- Eric is prohibited from "editing any pages relating to or making any edit about ... the gender disparity among Wikipedians [and] any process or discussion relating to [the gender disparity among Wikipedians], all broadly construed" (Interactions at GGTF, "Eric Corbett topic banned", Interactions at GGTF, "Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope) - February 2015").
- On October 22, Eric made two edits ([17], [18]) which violate this restriction, as both edits (a) reference gender disparity and (b) were made as part of a discussion whose principal topic was gender disparity ([19]).
- On October 21, Eric had explicitly acknowledged that he could not comment on the topic of the discussion in question ([20]).
- Wikipedia policy defines "reverting obvious vandalism" and "engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" as the only exceptions that apply to topic bans (Banning policy, "Exceptions to limited bans"). Neither has been claimed as a defense in this incident, and neither is reasonably applicable to the edits listed above. Note that the policy does not include an exception that allows an editor to respond to comments about himself.
Eric Corbett’s block was consistent with ArbCom guidance
- The enforcement provision which the Committee chose to apply to Eric’s restriction states that a user who violates the restriction "may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year" (Interactions at GGTF, "Enforcement of restrictions").
- The Committee has previously ruled that "the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including ... the possible recidivism of the editor in question" (Arbitration enforcement, "Common sense in enforcement") and that "[e]ditors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors" (Interactions at GGTF, "Recidivism").
- Prior to the most recent block, Eric had been blocked 4 times for violating the restriction in question, with escalating block durations of 48 hours, 72 hours, 1 week (subsequently extended to 2 weeks), and 1 month.
- The selected block duration of one month ([21]) is compliant with the limits specified in the applicable enforcement provision and does not constitute an unreasonable escalation relative to the durations of prior blocks imposed for violations of the restriction in question (and given the failure of those prior blocks to elicit compliance with the terms of the restriction).
Eric Corbett's block complied with the policy on administrator involvement
- Wikipedia policy defines two principal cases in which an administrator is considered "involved" for the purpose of taking administrative action against an editor: (1) the administrator has had "current or past conflicts with [the] editor" and (2) the administrator and the editor have had "disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute" (Administrators, "Involved admins").
- No evidence has been presented to suggest that either of these cases is applicable here. On the contrary, several of the statements submitted in the current proceeding explicitly identify a lack of any such involvement: "Kirill Lokshin had never been involved in the situation before" ([22]), "[Kirill Lokshin] did not have ... past involvement" ([23]).
- The question has been raised as to whether merely having an opinion about an editor's prior conduct and/or prior enforcement actions taken against an editor could make an otherwise uninvolved administrator involved for the purposes of taking enforcement action against that editor ([24]). The policy on involvement does not address this question explicitly; however, other provisions of the policy, as well as prior Committee rulings, support the idea that this does not constitute involvement:
- The policy on involvement indicates that "warnings ... do not make an administrator 'involved'" (Administrators, "Involved admins"). An administrator who issues a warning to an editor must necessarily have formed an opinion about the editor's conduct. Per the policy, this does not result in the administrator being deemed involved for the purpose of future action in relation to that editor.
- The Committee's enforcement procedures indicate that "[p]rior routine enforcement interactions [and] prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions ... do not constitute or create involvement" (Arbitration Committee procedures, "Expectations of administrators"). An administrator who takes an enforcement action against an editor or participates in an enforcement discussion about an editor must necessarily form and articulate an opinion about the editor's conduct. Per the procedures, this does not result in the administrator being deemed involved for the purpose of future action in relation to that editor.
Evidence presented by Aquillion
Eric Corbett is frequently uncivil
Many of these are, individually, not huge things; but they are part of a constant pattern that has extensively defined Corbett’s interactions with others: [25][26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]
Eric Corbett rejects WP:CIVIL
He states this more or less explicitly here: [46][47]
(The first diff is old; but I think the others, above, make it completely clear that his views are unchanged since then.)
He has repeatedly rejected any sort of attempts to make him follow WP:CIVIL, and has expressed broad rejection of Wikipedia’s admins and non-content policies: [48][49][50][51][52][53]
This is the core of the issue. It isn't simply that he’s sometimes caustic; it's that he finds the very idea of being required to be less caustic to be intolerable. In the previous Arbcom case, an arbitrator wondered why he kept using a slur, pointlessly, when many many people asked him to stop; this is why. Corbett does not merely reject the idea of civility; he holds it (and anyone who enforces it) in deep contempt. Nothing is going to change this; no sanction can compel him to follow WP:CIVIL. He has made the deliberate decision to reject one of Wikipedia’s core policies, and any attempt to enforce it on him only engenders further contempt on his part. All of the problems in the previous ArbCom case stemmed from this; the current case is a direct result of his continuous rejection of those sanctions. Yes, the ban was harsh, but it was a direct result of the attitude you see outlined in the diffs above, spread out over his entire time here and building up over a sequence of smaller blocks, each of which had exactly zero impact on his rejection of WP:CIVIL and his refusal to follow any policy he disagrees with.
Of course, any user can have any opinion they want on policy, even a deeply-unpopular one; my point with this section is that he is both rejecting WP:CIVIL and constantly violating it, and that (because his violations are grounded in a deep-set opposition to it) there is no reason to expect that this will ever change. Editors can have whatever opinions on policy that they like; but they can't simply ignore whatever policies they like, and Corbitt has been doing so constantly.
This is, I feel, directly relevant to the current case, since to my understanding this incivility was the reason for the sanctions we're discussing. While the comment that directly got him blocked in this instance was not particularly uncivil, the core issue is that his sanctions have clearly failed, and I think the fact that he has made it clear that he will never change his behavior is central to that; his sanctions represented a last-ditch attempt to save him as an editor, despite an extensive pattern of behavior -- which he continues up until today -- that would normally get someone permanently banned.
Evidence presented by Knowledgekid87
Eric vs Jimbo
The main issue I feel is the ongoing feud between editors Eric Corbett, and @Jimbo Wales:. Eric has made it clear [54] that he wants nothing to do with Jimbo, but at the same time editors post on his talk page to take swipes at Jimbo. [55] Looking through Jimbo's archives I have also found Eric posting on his talk-page User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 195 more than once for whatever reasons. I suspect that supporters of Jimbo are doing the same in regards to Eric Corbett though on his talk-page. This to me hardly says "I've made my views on Wales very clear. I don't want to have anything to do with him". This being said, the paper should have never been posted on Jimbo's talk-page, or if it had there should have been no mention of Eric Corbett. Someone or some people are fueling this fire that needs to end, there doesn't need to be this back and forth indirect battle going on. In the end Eric isn't to blame, and neither is Jimbo I feel I speak for at least some of the community in saying enough is enough already. Move on to other things, I am so sick here of seeing Eric and Jimbo's names pop up it seems like everywhere.
Eric is not sexist, but his behavior is an issue
Eric's supporters have made it loud and clear that he is not sexist. I am convinced this is true based on how well Eric works with some female editors, the issue though is his behavior. As pointed out by Aquillion, Eric frequently is uncivil this may be a cultural things but there needs to be an element of respect in place. More later...
Evidence presented by Wehwalt
Kirill's block may have violated WP:ADMIN, but maybe not
I go up to the third level and take control of the spotlight to turn it on someone else, probably to the boredom of the large crowd watching the rock star of this case. KL is quite right in his evidence, there is no question in my mind this was at least a technical violation by Eric (and a technical violation is still a violation) and the sanction within that set by the AC. I consider the comment and subsequent colloquy between me and him in the preliminary evidence, and will conclude that a case can be made he violated WP:INVOLVED. That does not mean he should be desysoped, or anything drastic done, but if arb remedies included a good trouting, I'd be pushing for that.
I do not have the time, energy, or, frankly interest to run through all of KL's comments, and no one yet has bothered to put them in evidence. I focus on two, in the preliminary statements. First, this:
I don't do much admin work in general (as I'm sure you know). That doesn't mean I won't intervene when I see a need—for example, when someone has so frightened the admin corps that nobody else will step up to the plate.
In my preliminary statement, I questioned KL on this:here
Does that refer to your block of Eric Corbett? If so, could you please, pursuant to WP:ADMINACCT, tell me when you first began to think that Eric Corbett (or if some other person on his behalf) had so frightened the admin corps that no one else would step up to the plate. Please explain fully the events that led you to that conclusion, and how you tested it (if you did). A general timeline would be helpful, so long it relates the events and other matters requested in terms of time to a) Eric Corbett's first comment at User talk: Jimbo Wales at issue in this arbitration request, b) Eric Corbett's final comment at User talk: Jimbo Wales at issue in this arbitration request, and c) your block of Eric Corbett. Also if the person referred to as "someone" is not Eric Corbett, I'd appreciate it if you could say who it is. Many thanks for your time and candor in helping me understand this matter.
KL responded here:
My conclusion is based primarily on the individual testimony of numerous administrators, who have personally told me on various occasions (the earliest being sometime in 2010, as I can recall) that they deliberately avoid intervening in incidents involving Eric for fear of harassment. While these accounts are necessarily anecdotal in nature, they are consistent with the patterns of behavior I’ve personally observed at times when such matters were brought to arbitration, both during my time on the Committee[. Cites deleted]
DESiegel, an admin, denied he was intimidated or involved in his preliminary statement; former admin Hawkeye7 indicated he felt it was the committee putting the frighteners on. But it's not as relevant as to whether KL's statement (which I really wish he had discussed in his initial evidence here) is literally true, but that it reveals a view of "something must be done". That's all very well, but when "something must be done" becomes "I must do something", as it did here, then there is an issue.
But how much of an issue? That's rather more difficult. WP:ADMIN has varying guidance:
"Uninvolved administrators" can also help in the management of Arbitration Committee remedies and the dispute resolution concerning disruptive areas and situations. Administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with.
...
In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
Was KL involved? He did not have the past involvement, but his comment I queried him about certainly displays "strong feelings" about Eric's situation, that something must be done, and he must do something. But if you read the language strictly, it does not apply unless there has been past, actual, involvement. A legalistic reading of that, in the context of the whole issue of admin expectations, though, is discouraged by the bit about construed very broadly, and I would submit, trumped by the word "neutral", which is the key word of the section as regards arbitration enforcement. There's also a WP:BOLD argument in his favor.
The bottom line? As I said, a trouting, if you can climb off the dignity of formal arb remedies, which I suggested in my preliminary statement. That this would devolve into a destructive, time-wasting drama was foreseeable, fueled by the temptation to use the first-move advantage of AE. I would suggest that consultation, opening a thread, asking for advice would have diminished the opportunity to block Eric Corbett unchecked, but AGF says accept KL's word that he is experienced enough in such things that he felt no need to consult. But an attitude of "I must do something" is inconsistent with the expectation of "neutral". This is no court, but the expectation of a neutral magistrate runs through our legal systems.
I remind the committee of the nutshell description at WP:ADMIN, which I think enjoys broad community support:
The ones in columns B and C seem to have taken something of a beating here. But in the absence of contrary evidence, I accept KL's word. At heart, though, I don't think best practices were followed; this is a collaborative enterprise, and admins should remember that. I again urge the committee to place Eric Corbett beyond the temptation of single admins. It's abundantly clear that both blocker and unblocked felt something must be done, and that they were the ones to do it. As I agreed with Salvio in preliminary statements, we can't go on like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by David in DC
"The graveyards are full of indispensable men." In my view, if an editor, no matter how much content they have created, proves incorrigible, ArbCom should stop trying to correct the incorrigible and take the obvious next step. It's sad to part with old comrades. But it's misguided (and ultimately suicidal) to tell the rest of the community that we're not all playing under the same rules. I come late to this particular party, but I'm baffled as to how this whole kerfuffle ever continued beyond "cunt". It's now continued far beyond that. ArbCom, stop enabling this behavior. Stop it. Decisively. David in DC (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Rhoark
The purpose of sanctions is not to prevent candid discussion.
From the GGTF decision[56] Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.
This statement is not made in other cases, but the committee should clarify whether this is generally true of sanctions. Per ArbCom procedures this is generally true of discretionary sanctions. The committee should clarify if it is true of other remedies as well.
The use of genitalia as a metaphor for undesirable behavior is commonplace and well accepted in the community.
User:StarryGrandma's observations notwithstanding, the committee is invited to consider WP:GIANTDICK.
Black Kite has cast aspersions against Kirill Lokshin without evidence.
As seen in the main page of this case. This is not the most pressing matter in the case, but the committee should not neglect to comment on it.
Evidence presented by olive
Making the simple complicated
I'm not really sure what this case is about. I don't buy that this case is about Eric Corbett. From what I hear E C has had issues with incivility in the past. He wasn't uncivil on Jimbo's talk page. What he did per the blocking admin is defend himself against what I consider to be nasty accusations which is understandable. To do so he transgressed the conditions of a topic ban. He was blocked. Then he was unblocked and an admin was desysoped. That's it.
The temptation here is to use past behaviours to inform the present. In fact, the past behaviour, incivility, does not inform us in this situation. Corbett was not uncivil. We cannot in all fairness drag up the past even the recent past and use it now. If we do we are we are using a present situation as a trigger and an open door to punish for past problems. That is a punitive model not one that rewards improvement in behaviour. We must be able to discriminate between the past and improvement in behaviours which move us as a community, forward.
What we have to ask seems to me is what then, is this case about? What is the bottom line. I dislike cliche´s but this seems appropriate. What I come up with again and again is that this case is about the spirit of Wikipedia versus the letter of the law. I believe both Kirill and Yngvadottir behaved within those boundaries of Wikipedia, and I don't believe the job of an arb is to decide which is better. I think it is up to the arbs to point out, in the role of arbitrators, since they are not judges, how all of the parties could have reacted and acted in ways that were most supportive of the encyclopedia as a whole.
Another temptation will be to reject the simple now that a case has been accepted and some members of the community are clamoring for retribution for past transgressions. This isn't the time. In what appears to be the most complex systems in our universe the simple solution or understanding is often also the most elegant. I hope the elegant is what comes out of this, something that will clarify the kind of community, if not what we are then what we want to be as we go forward.
For most of us the punitive is the standard. It is not always easy to see the fine line between punishment and models which aren't punitive, and even harder to, given the ease with which we as human beings have designed multiple and novel ways to punish each other, come up with something that is not punishment based. (Littleolive oil (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC))
{Write your assertion here}
Evidence presented by TheRedPenOfDoom
"If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got." - Moms Mabley
The ArbCom has failed to do its job
- "Arbitrators are volunteer users—usually experienced editors and administrators—whom the community of editors at large elects to resolve the most complex or intractable disputes that may arise within the community, "
- The fact that we are here after the ArbCom's wonderful "resolutions" of Lightbreather, GGTF, Civility etc. amply demonstrates the ArbCom has not resolved a damn thing. The continued disruption is the result of their lack of competence in fulfilling their sole duty.
Evidence presented by Alanscottwalker
Yngvadottir appears to have disrupted Wikipedia process to make several points
User:Yngvadottir (Y) in the opening statement, in effect, acknowledges use of community tools to make several points, the points being, at least, that 1) she generally agrees with criticism relative to certain views on the gender gap; 2) that, although by community WP:Consensus, Arbitration is binding on every admin and User, including Y, Y knows better; 3) that everyone should have some unfettered right to speak on whatever, even though they have been found, after extensive expense of community resources, to be banned; and 4) that Y disagrees with the views of a writer for The Atlantic, so she wanted to post there but could not get it up fast enough.
Absolutely nothing in community policy, which is where Wikipedia records community consensus, supports Y in doing this act. Y's use of community tools is text book disruption, indeed she views it as so right, true, and just (hubris), she cannot even commit to clear, well established Unblocking|community processes. Over what? A block - blocks which many people sit out, or live through until appealed - blocks - that can be overturned or shortened using community process. Whatever it is, Y's argument is neither moral, nor actually community minded - it is self-indulgent misuse of power:
- The remedy is clear, and should be adopted here as a principle and remedy - in the future, out-of process arbitration enforcement actions will be summarily reversed by this committee, so that community process can then take its proper course. This will reduce the incentive to disrupt community process (protecting future admins from such error), and will instead actually honor the community's decision making.
It is, of course, incorrect that incivility and harassment are two separate things. According to WP:Civility and common sense, harassment is a subset of incivility. But The Atlantic article dealt not just with an act of harassment by a person not a party to this case, it asserted an example related to "hostility." That the English speaking world relates the use of "cunt", or defense of the use of "cunt" for strangers to hostility, is not in the least surprising, nor unusual, and that it also has sexual connotations is very clear [57] (offensive epthet for "stupid" is related by that word to part of a woman, so defending calling strangers that (man or woman), in reason, is also belittling to women).
If Eric Corbett, wants to debate with The Atlantic, he does not need Wikipedia to do so (although he can certainly tell the World here he is not an administrator - comments for which he was not blocked), and he does not need to make comments, here, related to the Wikipedia gender gap to do so. Indeed, on Wikipedia, after extensive expenditure of community resources, his individual contributions related to personal epithets, belittling, etc., or to the gender gap have been bindingly found so wanting as to be banned. (See also, WP:NOTAFORUM Wikipedia is not a free speech forum because that is not its purpose). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Wnt
I'm not a military historian, and I don't pretend to understand this regularly scheduled war. But I want to repeat the thought that I made in the original discussion Eric posted to: I think Wikipedia may be coming close to serious false light liability issues. The main fault is with The Atlantic, for posting a misleading article in a national forum; still, if it comes to a legal case I expect there will be a lot of blame to go around, and Wikipedia processes could be blamed for misleading them. (Indeed, The Atlantic's most obvious defense is to say that!) And I think Section 230 may be a very flimsy shield if top-level arbitration processes were involved in giving a wrong impression of his actions. To be clear, I'm not a lawyer, I don't know Corbett, I've never heard him threaten to sue - but then again, Wikipedia processes strictly prohibit him from threatening to sue, so I wouldn't have! Wikipedia can't expect a warning. What we can expect is that once a national magazine is involved, the potential dollar value of a suit could be much larger than it would have been without it. And when Corbett's comments in self-defense against a thread linking to this misleading story are deleted, that denies him a fair chance to respond, which I think introduces the "false light" issue.
What I know is that, whatever else is going on, we heard User:GorillaWarfare give an eloquent, detailed description of the ways in which she was harassed, ways in which women on Wikipedia are being harassed, and though they were eclipsed by this political battle, they were an all too common example that has nothing to do with Corbett or a certain dirty word or him making critical comments about a certain man most of us deeply respect. I want any further Arbitration action to come out and recognize that Corbett has been falsely maligned, and clarify that he is not even a part of Wikipedia's far-reaching issues with sexism, except inasmuch as (like myself) he doesn't want us to ban certain 'dirty' words outright [or at least, didn't at one point in time]. Please, ArbCom, try to get our site out of the defendant's box. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Kingsindian
- GGTF is a special part of Wikipedia, because "to some extent, it is political in nature", in the words of Salvio giuliano here.
- The original GGTF remedy made a hash of the remedy concerning Corbett, and it hasn't worked. Again see Salvio's comment in the latest case.
- In my opinion, the mistake was: instead of banning Corbett from the GGTF page narrowly, as Newyorkbrad stated and NativeForeigner concurred here, it was decided to ban Corbett from gender gap topic. Even at that time, people, for instance Carcharoth, noted that Corbett's talk page might be a special case. Also, note the "fair criticism" principle. None of the caveats made it into the wording, however.
- The result of this ill-worded remedy was a series of extremely petty blocks - all of which were correct - which have nothing to do with disruption at all, though one or two are arguable. For instance he was blocked for simply linking to a post on the GGTF mailing list on his talk page. The effect of the remedy was a bunch of people watching Corbett like a hawk, waiting for him to mention something about gender somewhere.
- There is the separate issue of the long-term hostility between Wales and Corbett - others have already covered this.
My conclusion: Ditch the silly remedy and enact something more narrow and more sensible. And enforce it strictly if you like. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by NE Ent
Kirill Lokshin falls short of WP:ADMINCOND
Has been leaning on the mop instead of pushing it. [58]. (This is not a violation of wp:admincond but helps establish context).
Despite not doing much actual admin work himself, calls those administrators who have been carrying the load cowards [59].
Disparges the community discussion of The Atlantic article "I generally have better things to do with my time".
Is attempting to mislead through omission in his evidence, [60] claiming arbcom guidance is "may be blocked, initially for up to one month..." linking to the more general provision, rather than the topic ban specific provision, which says " An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. " (emphasis mine).
By imposing an excessively long block under unique circumstances that could hardly have been anticipated by the committee when placing the topic ban. ("If, however, a national publication falsely accuses Eric Corbett...") rather than simply removing the remarks, he has created a mountain out of a molehill. -> this case
Admins not using discretion
Wiktionary defines discretion as "The ability to make wise choices or decisions." As documented by WTT et. al. although the remedy clearly states: An uninvolved admin may remove any comments, every intervention has been blocking instead of removal. Based on past trends, removal would likely result in a "grumbling" thread on EC's talk page (e.g. something like [61]), but not a case request with 82 opening statements.
The word
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Per 2011 evidence, in 2011 EC used a moderate UK insult generally directed at men which unfortunately (WP:ENGVAR) is considered heinously misogynistic in the US, which resulted in the civility enforcement case. In July 2014 he repeated usage of the word [62]. Based on the prior experience, regardless of whether it was intended to be the US or UK usage, and regardless of whether it was targeted to a specific editor or the community at large, he knew, or should have known, that it was unnecessarily provocative. An editor with his demonstrated mastery of language (see User:Eric_Corbett, "Significant contributions") is capable of making his argument without usage of the term.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
*****Before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person*****
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.