This is written from my perspective as a newer user that started being active only in 2019 and has never interacted with Eric before June 2019. Eric Corbett is not the most civil person I know.
Some of these diffs were collected by Levivich for the recent AE thread except I obviously modified them and added my own. They most just quote Eric's edit summary at the time. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interactions with me

Comment on MJL's comment/says I can't read sources/uses wrong pronoun for me* — [1] (7 August)
seems OK to me/refers to me as "some clown" — [2] (7 August)
I have not even the slightest interest in the outcome of this case — [3] / [4] (22 June)

August

more insults** — [5] (17 August)
And herein lies the stupidity of ArbCom and its unpaid goons like Sandstein. — [6] (10 August)
[this is] beyond stupid — [7] (10 August)
stupid, stupi, stupid — [8] (9 August)
think again/gutter-snipe — [9] (9 August)
nothing will change/Eric's take on changing his ways — [10] (8 August)

Other 2019 diffs

why don't you **** off? — [11] (25 May)
ignorance is no badge of honour/BITting Medovar — [12] (17 May)

Footnotes

* If you think I need to actually correct every single user who does this, I don't know what to say. It's on my userspace under userboxes, listed as my preference using the gender magic word, and my username has no male connotations. The only reason I suspect Eric Corbett said he here is because I suspect he was trying to bait me. I willfully ignored it until now.
** Facts: Eric Corbett considers it insulting to be called by his last name...

Protracted dispute

I almost wanna say that it is a well known fact that if you block Eric that you'll get attacked. Though, of course I have to say more than that.

Cases involving Eric:

Interactions at GGTF - 4 findings; 2 remedies; 8 enforcements
Lightbreather - IBAN taken over by committee
Arbitration enforcement - locus of dispute was a comment made by Eric
Arbitration enforcement 2 - super involved Eric and created the special 24hr AE rule
Civility enforcement - 3 findings; 2 remedies; 1 enforcement

Between these five cases, it's been found that time-and-time-again, the community just doesn't quite agree on how best to handle Eric. In 2019, it's consumed several weeks of our time already. In years past, this issue has taken many months to discuss. We all agree on the fact that none of the previous remedies are working quite right, but that's where agreement ends and drama begins.

Trimmed.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Parties

Cassianto opened up the recent AN thread about Eric being baited.
EEng's dispute with Eric is what let to the most recent 72 hour block.
Cassianto and others have made it known they feel Scottywong baited Eric in the AN thread.

Within Arbcom remit?

Yes.

Final thoughts

There's been no signs that this dispute will end anytime soon. I know this request opens me up for criticism. I've never really been exactly admin material, though.

I never want to regret not doing something when I know I can; nor do I ever want to get complacent with our ability to handle incivility/harassment issues on this site. This dispute, no matter who is truly to blame, stands in the way of the constructive editing environment I feel we so desperately deserve.

Submitted, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment

Edited to include:
Eric is an uncivil individual who has attacked me and others on various occasions. I've said as much before.^{[13][14][15][16][17]} The request is to review the matter in its entirety. Eric as an issue or as victim; irrelevant. I just want it settled conclusively by arbcom, please. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron11598: My apologies. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per feedback, I've renamed the case.^[18] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eric Corbett

I know from experience how these affairs always end up with a proposal to ban me for whatever trumped-up reason, and that anything I might say will be twisted to suit the agenda of those whose single purpose is to hound me off Wikipedia. So I'll do everyone a favour by leaving voluntarily. After this post I will be scrambling my password, and you will never hear from me again. Eric Corbett 17:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EEng

[19]

Statement by Cassianto

I have nothing meaningful to say about this utter tripe. Cassianto^Talk 04:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, your accept is disgraceful. What axe do you have to grind I wonder? Cassianto^Talk 18:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to turn into a peanut gallery, with people like WanderingWanda, who has admitted not even knowing Eric from Adam, but thinks it fit to not AGF and instead offer an opinion and character assassinations based on previous incidents that have already been dealt with. This needs to be quick closed now and MJL admonished. Cassianto^Talk 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just marking here arbitrator Joe Roe's inappropriate use of quotation marks as if to suggest Eric's departure is one that is designed to avoid scrutiny. WP:AGF and WP:GRAVEDANCING are two that spring to mind. Cassianto^Talk 18:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scottywong

Statement by SN54129

I've added myself as a party, as I suggested MJL be indefinitely blocked for...I don't what, consistently generating more heat than light probably sums it up. This is not the first arbreq they've started only to see it fail, and I assume it won't be the last. ——SerialNumber54129 03:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: I apologise, I added myself, but I am very slow. Slow beans! ——SerialNumber54129 03:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WanderingWanda: Please see WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. ——SerialNumber54129 03:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv

I believe this case is necessary. The common refrain we hear around Wikipedia and elsewhere is, "If Eric were anybody else, he'd have been indeffed or banned by now." And, it has been stated, as a result of this attitude, there have been cases where people make sport of Eric, to the point that it has been claimed that there are individuals attempting to bait him into violating his GGTF civility restrictions. And I don't see this as an accusation of bad faith, in the same sense that I wouldn't see it as an accusation of vandalism—I believe that if there are people who seek to have Eric driven off the project, they believe it is in the project's interest to do so, that Eric is a net negative, and that it is appropriate to use means other than the typical ANI thread or Committee proceeding to drive him out. There are further allegations being made that Eric is being harassed. I have no opinion at this time as to whether there is any truth to these claims. Rather, I believe it falls to the Committee to perform factfinding to determine if there is any truth to them.

This matter extends quite a bit beyond the ongoing AN thread concerning Scottywong's rude, somewhat inflammatory comment at Eric's user talk. Just last week, we had an incident at AE where Eric was blocked for three months in direct violation of this Committee's directive that threads concerning Eric at AE must remain open for 24 hours (see AE2), and in violation of the rather unique escalation requirements for blocks of Eric under the case-specific enforcement in the GGTF case.

I believe this matter falls squarely within the Arbitration Policy as one requiring arbitration given the community's perennial impotence to resolve the problems that surround Eric Corbett. I believe the Committee's unique factfinding role is essential to resolving this, to cutting through the hype and the hyperbole, and bringing an end to this years-long mess. I urge the Committee to accept a case concerning Eric Corbett, scoped not only to him personally, but also his companions and detractors. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with Joe Roe: The scope of this case would not be focused purely on the conduct Eric Corbett, and so suspension pending his return would be inappropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

This case is not needed. The sanctions previously held were enough and the next block triggers a review of the sanctions. EC is no saint but compared to previous times improvements have been made. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Softlavender, I've been on the receiving end of User:SlimVirgin disapproval for a situation similar to this and her conduct has been remarkably even in this regard both then and now and her consistency has made me gain a lot of respect for her, how is she an involved party other then she has commented on an ANI thread? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sandstein, I find actually reading the discussions and being familiar with the sanctions are very helpful, both seem to be a challenge to you but I do find it refreshing you've shown just enough courage to state you want EC banned. Been waiting for that a while. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

Why do I find weird comments like this, "I almost wanna say that it is a well known fact that if you block Eric that you'll get attacked. Though, of course I have to say more than that", in this case? What strange and redundant colloquialisms. And MJL, since you seem to be here in all your verbosity to enforce civility, would you please do Eric Corbett the courtesy of using his full name? I doubt y'all are on a first name basis, and that bit of formality is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

I don't really have a formed opinion on whether ArbCom should accept this case. However if it is accepted, then based on the statements by EEng, Only in death, David Eppstein, and Nil Einne in one or both of these two current AN threads: [20], [21], I would say that SlimVirgin should be a named party to the case and that her actions should be examined in addition to the actions of the currently named parties. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging MJL to inform. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, why is Serial Number 54129 a named party to the case, but he has no notification and no section for a statement? Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, you wrote: "my perspective as a user who only joined this project in 2019", but I think you meant 2016. Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Talk:Elizabeth Mallet#Elizabeth Mallet widowed at 11?!, Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games#Reliable source?, Talk:Moors murders#Recent edits, Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Moors murders/archive1#Moved to talk, the two AE cases at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive253, the one still unarchived at WP:AE#Eric Corbett, and yesterday's WP:AN#Further attempts to bait Eric Corbett... that's some of the disruption on the project since EC's return in May 2019. You'll see in the AE cases that there is disagreement among admin about (or with) the current sanctions. Perhaps just a clarification of the current sanctions, or some other motion, would be helpful, if not a full case. – Levivich 03:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick:

Can we stipulate that Eric Corbett occasionally says things that others don't like and move on? NO!
That places him in a category that contains far too many editors. NO! It's just a few. 99% of the thousands of editors here have no problem whatsoever with not saying terrible things to other editors.
As a community, we need to wrestle with the problem of tone and style in interactions ... Maybe, but we don't need to wrestle with "How about you fuck off?", "odious", "unpaid goons", "like some evil bird of prey", "incompetent gutter-snipe like yourself", or even the mild-in-relation-to-the-rest "some clown". – Levivich 18:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW SW's comment was in response to a thread on EC's talk page in which I and others were called "obvious fucking morons" and "fuckers" for our participation in the third 2019 EC AE. While no part of it is nice, I don't think any part of that particular thread is sanctionable–it's not an ongoing pattern of behavior, unlike the diffs above. – Levivich 18:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a suspended case is accepted, EC should be the only party. For the other currently-named parties (EEng, Cass, SV, SN), there's never been any other form of dispute resolution attempted yet. For SW, the AN thread is still open. – Levivich 19:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

Oh dear. A single recent instance of baiting by Scottywong has now been escalated into a "let's all throw mud at the victim" case request by a (self-admittedly) somewhat clueless newbie. MJL can't even really work out what they want the case to consider - see this. Do we really need this? And if we do then surely it should by Scottywong's name in the title, not Eric's. After all, there is consensus in the current AN thread that Scottywong was baiting. - Sitush (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Sandstein's thoughts carry any weight then that is someone else who should be added as a party. An admin acting in cavalier fashion at AE, seemingly without even reading the comments of others, is a disruptive admin. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems now that people such as WanderingWanda are keen to relitigate stuff that was dealt with years ago and which is arguably being taken out of context now. Eric was right in his comments here - it's just another excuse to throw the kitchen sink at him. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will the ArbCom be able to confirm that they have had no contact with Trust & Safety in relation to Eric? I'd hate this to be some sort of fit-up. - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Leaky

This is all wrong. Too many people here have grabbed the wrong end of too many sticks - in some cases inadvertently in others perhaps with a motive. This title here is completely wrong. The AN report was in connection with a wholly inappropriate and deliberate jibe at Eric who had just returned from 72 hours off. AFAICS he had barely edited. There was no need to draw high profile public attention to the jibe by the Admin. at WP:AN. Words, justifiably harsh, should have been exchanged on his talk page, with a possible escalation under WP:ADMINACCT if required. This case, headlined in this way, at this time is wholly inappropriate. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

This should be renamed "Moors murders FAR" and widened to review the conduct of all involved. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

As one of the administrators taking part in the most recent enforcement request currently still at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric_Corbett, I ask ArbCom to take this case and resolve it in such a manner that no more enforcement by individual administrators is necessary – that is, either by lifting the existing sanctions or by imposing site ban(s) as deemed necessary. When attempting enforcement of the existing sanctions, I experienced – in addition to good-faith disagreement with how I went about it – an extraordinary amount of bullying and harassment by what I assume are friends of Eric Corbett, making clear that he is one of the WP:UNBLOCKABLEs. Under these circumstances, admins cannot be asked to do ArbCom's job, which is to deal with intractable disputes in a lasting manner. It doesn't help that the sanctions are now so encrusted with weird exceptions, special rules and codicils that any attempt at enforcement can be wiki-lawyered about forever. In view of the Fram case, the Committee should seek to resolve this case speedily to demonstrate that the community is in fact capable of dealing with longterm incivility and harassment by established users. Sandstein 08:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ComplexRational

From my (an outside observer’s) point of view, this case is unfortunately necessitated because it is evident that aside from the mandates of arbitration enforcement, various parties are given exceptional amounts of leeway, and some more than others. In concurrence with Mendaliv above, Wikipedia’s fundamental policies and guidelines should apply equally to all editors, regardless of their status. I’m not inclined to take sides on this case, as the real problem seems to be that there is no agreement on how to uphold these policies for vested contributors, who have a history of positive content contributions but also one of quarreling. Ideally, there should be no difference or prejudice. That said, I would strongly recommend that every editor’s comments, conduct, and interactions be imparatially reviewed, and any sanctions be entirely policy-based (i.e. such that no editor is exempt from basic code of conduct or otherwise treated differently). A review of past ANI and AE repors suggests that this has not been done effectively, and I hope that an unbiased agreement can be reached concerning every involved party. ComplexRational (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August

As far as I can tell the impetus for this case request is this ANI thread "Further attempts to bait Eric Corbett", criticizing the actions of the administrator Scottywong. Requesting a case against the victim is ... let's just say inappropriate. Accepting such a case would seem to reward such apparent bating. Paul August ☎ 10:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

I get the sense MJL is bored today and figured "hey instead of improving articles (which is why we're all here btw) I'll create fucking pointless drama for the sake of it :)", Decline this pointless no hope of a case. –Davey2010^Talk 11:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Serial Number 54129s comment here too. –Davey2010^Talk 12:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Haukurth

If we're going to discuss baiting Eric then maybe some comments by User:EEng could be examined. EEng has found some legitimate issues with the Moors murders article but it is both inaccurate and needlessly inflammatory to insist that it is some sort of "fraud":

"Featured article complete fraud!" [22]
"fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud" [23]

More generally speaking, it seems to me that EEng has a rather cavalier attitude towards policy and frequently engages in attacks and BLP violations. A handful of recent examples:

"You have proved yourself shameless and wholly lacking in honesty and integrity" [24]
"that you can't see that speaks to your ignorance and lack of sophistication. ... if you keep this up you're gonna get one of my patented beat-downs [25]
User:EEng/Museum Annex
My short-lived block of EEng on July 22 for what I still think was a wildly inappropriate (though, I concede, well-composed) schoolyard taunt. Note, however, that I accept the criticism presented at ANI that I was too rusty to be making blocks like that. [26]

I think EEng gets away with a lot because he has a lot of friends (understandably, he's a fun guy to be around) and he has a gift for comedy and good writing. But maybe ArbCom could offer him a little bit of guidance here. Haukur (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BabbaQ

All I have to say is that MJL is making a good case for a full arbitration review. At what point will enough be enough. The alleged baiting of Eric seems to have plenty of background which are not necessarily in Erics favour. For example the wording: For myself, I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire, is just one of the many examples of Erics complete disregard for a civil and normal tone on Wikipedia. EricCorbett has been given more chances than most not to react to baiting or to not bait himself, the notion that Eric is always a victim of other editors baiting and that he is never at fault are absurd. Now Eric have apparently left the project in a as usual dramatic fashion for the 90th time or similar. I agree with Toa Nidhiki05 that Eric has no interest in following his sanctions and should be indefinitely banned until he does. BabbaQ (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Recommend that arbitrators reject this proposed case. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

(If someone feels I need to add myself as a party, given that I attempted to intervene at Talk:Moors murders, feel free to tell me so) I've said this already elsewhere, but for the record, the conduct of several parties at Talk:Moors murders was rather depressing, and escalated the situation quite needlessly. The storm appears to be blowing itself out, however; some editors have chosen to remove themselves from the proceedings (not what I would have wanted, but oh well); an AE discussion led to EC being blocked; an FAR has been opened; and after a quite unnecessary amount of wrangling, the content issues are actually being discussed. I don't see that there's much for ARBCOM to do. If you're so inclined, it wouldn't hurt to trout everyone involved by motion, and double-trout the OP for a quite unnecessary escalation in a situation they are not very familiar with. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case it was unclear; I don't see Scottywong's comment as anything more than an isolated matter for which they should consider themselves suitably admonished at AN. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: We've been here before, though, and ARBCOM passed an Eric-Corbett-specific remedy. Is there evidence that this remedy isn't working? I'm not seeing such. Then again, if the case scope you're looking at is broader, where is the evidence that other forms of dispute resolution have been tried, and have failed? Yes, civility enforcement has been a headache on Wikipedia, since longer than I've been here; but looking at it just after a civility restriction was enforced at AE seems...odd. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

There's nothing in the AN report that triggered this that a) the community isn't handling and b) indicates any bad behaviour by Eric Corbett. Eric was baited, he didn't rise to it, and that should be the end of it as far as ArbCom is concerned. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Vanamonde seems to have summed up the Moors murders issue, which is being dealt with by the community. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

I do believe there is a general issue with trying to steer discussions to follow generally accepted behavioural norms for English Wikipedia. There is a tension between trying to avoid frivolous complaints by limiting who has standing to raise a complaint or proscribing specific methods to raise an issue, and encouraging valid issues to be dealt with, even in cases where the aggrieved party is reluctant to initiate a complaint. However I feel this matter would be better addressed in the Request(s) for Comments that the arbitration committee is planning to start. isaacl (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sphilbrick

Please reject this case request. (Ideally, unanimously, and quickly)

I can't help thinking of World War I where the assassination of an Archduke led to just barely related dominoes falling, and the entire world in flames. A discussion about an inappropriate comment by Scottywong has somehow led to a coat rack of Eric Corbett comments in a request for a case that doesn't even contain a coherent case request.

Can we stipulate that Eric Corbett occasionally says things that others don't like and move on? That places him in a category that contains far too many editors.

As a community, we need to wrestle with the problem of tone and style in interactions, but I'm not sure that ArbCom is even the right body to take that on, and this particular case request is not remotely appropriate as a way to address that issue.

Statement by Toa Nidhiki05

I’m pretty sure this is Eric’s 70th time he’s said he is leaving so I take his comment above with a ginormous grain of salt. If Eric has no intention of following the sanction he agreed to, he should be indefinitely banned until he does; if the committee has no intention of enforcing his sanction, it should be lifted. Hundreds and hundreds of hours have been wasted on this and we need an actual solution rather than constant relitigation. The idea that Eric is always baited and none of this is his fault is quite frankly ridiculous and belittling of Eric, who is a real human with complete agency over his actions. Toa Nidhiki05 18:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom needs to decide, as soon as possible, whether or not his sanction is actually enforceable and establish whether or not Eric has any intention of following them. Eric has been blocked over 30 times. It is clear the blocks are not working and likely never will work. So ArbCom needs to make a choice because clearly nothing is ever going to change until them. Toa Nidhiki05 23:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

Not actually a "statement", but one of your clerks went absolutely batshit crazy last time I dared to use a non-standard header here.
@GorillaWarfare (and any other arb that accepts), if this is accepted—expecially in a suspended form—you need to clarify beforehand what the scope of the case actually is. This is possibly the most incoherent case request I have ever seen and at no point does it specify what the filer actually thinks the problem is or what an arb case is expected to achieve. It's not fair on Eric Corbett, Scottywong or EEng to leave hanging over them the prospect of an suspended case which could be reopened at any time; it totally disincentivizes anything potentially time-sensitive such as setting up an ILL to know that at any time one may be expected to drop everything at the whim of this or any future committee, and that any one of them could find themselves potentially sitebanned in future as a result of something that happened months or even years before. (The same applies to MJL, but on that count I'm not concerned—if someone gets their kicks from starting forest fires I'm less concerned how they make it out of the woods.) If you're going to accept this—which I strongly think you shouldn't, as the existing discussion is doing fine and I firmly consider this request a pointless and disruptive escalation—it should be held now when people can still remember the timelines and who said what to whom. ‑ Iridescent 19:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SC

Oh dear. Eric baited by Scottywong, but doesn't react and is now brought to ArbCom? I agree with Iri that this is one of the most incoherent case requests I've seen in a while, and some of MJL's 'evidence' seems to be based more on the fact that Eric doesn't make the project a sacred icon ("I have not even the slightest interest in the outcome of this case", "nothing will change": oh no - that's outrageous! How could he, the dastadly wretch!) If you decide to accept the case (which you really, really shouldn't), then you have to make it extremely clear what you are accepting and on what grounds.

Sometimes it's easy for people to cast Eric as the villain. I have never been an apologist for him (he's big enough to say what he thinks regardless of what my opinion is, and he's big enough to take on the chin any twisting of circumstances that make him out to be the pantomime bad guy). Personally I think him more sinned against than sinning: on the fairly few ocassions I've intereacted with him, I've found him extremely helpful, he's provided excellent advice and been generous with his time. There again, I've never tried to bait or poke him, or engaged in the bloodsports that many others do.

Use common sense ArbCom: reject this flimsy excuse for a case, move on and let a little normality fall once again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

I urge the Committee to reject this case, because the basis for it having been filed at this time, fails in a number of ways. El_C 20:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed to see members of the Committee opt to accept this case. As mentioned by multiple editors, I think they are not giving enough credence to the following: EC was baited, they did not rise to the bait. That's what precipitated the discussion at AN. The timing for facing an Arbitration case is just not right. Penalizing someone for doing what's right is not right, even if there's other persuasive context. Please reconsider. El_C 18:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IHTS

There s/b some filter before anyone with a computer can open an RfAR (or an AN or ANI for that matter). How does a third-party complaint re a Talk page drive-by insult by long-term EC harasser Scottywong morph into this?! (Answer: WP dysfunctionality + ECDS/Eric Corbett derangement syndrome.) --IHTS (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Neil S Walker: Not God, but EC's "gotta model <himself> after someone!" on YouTube. Seriously, A Clockwork Orange (film) lessons re wisdom of rendering someone self-defenseless. --IHTS (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yngvadottir

I write reluctantly since Mendaliv has spoken of "companions" of Eric Corbett, to urge the Committee in the strongest possible terms to have the wisdom not to be baited into taking this case, which cannot be formulated so as to be "settled conclusively" and will merely further entrench the divisiveness. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WanderingWanda

I've never interacted with Eric Corbett, at least as far as I can recall. Reading through this case, though, it's obvious he is someone who ignores our civility rules, with glee, over and over again. He literally called the co-founder of the encyclopedia a "cunt" on his own talk page, for chrissakes. I would've been indeffed for pulling even a fraction of what Eric Corbett has pulled, and, personally, I think the longer someone's been on the project, the more that should be expected of them, not less.

What's really troubling to me, though, is that some people (specifically: SN54129 and Davey2010) are calling for MJL to be banned for bringing this case forward. It's one thing to defend Eric Corbett, or to argue that this case shouldn't be taken up: that's fair play. But it's shameful to argue that someone should be banned for reporting another user's bad behavior. It's clear that MJL is acting in good faith, and it took courage for them to step forward.

In the end, the question here is what kind of environment do we want this community to have? Do we want this to be a place of mutual respect and cooperation? Do we want it to be civil? Non-hierarchical? Or do we want it to be a lion's den? WanderingWanda (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately after making my statement, Sitush popped up on my talk page and ~~asked me to retract~~ said I may want to retract the stuff about Eric Corbett calling Jimbo a, well, you know what. (diff1, diff2). In response I'll just say that I admit the the Jimbo thing was a long time ago, I don't know the context, and I don't know Eric Corbett. *Shrug*. It's also, obviously, far from the only piece of misbehavior that's been pointed to. My jaw dropped at this "fuck off" comment (made less than a couple months ago). And at his aggressive nose-thumbing when he was sanctioned for violating a topic ban. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Senegambianamestudy

Tone and style seems to be an issue here. Besides, there are other noticeboards that deals with civility issues on a routine basis. I do not believe the Arbitration Committee is the right place to bring this, at least not yet. As such, I urge the Committee to reject this case. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

I would urge ArbCom to reject this case as there is no nexus with an active issue. He's already been judged for his actions up-to-this date; the time to issue a more severe sentence for a career pickpocket is the next time they do something, you don't just get to pick them up based on things they were already busted for in the past. What little is actually new here is a scant skeleton indeed, mostly heated discussions that are clearly two-way or simply normal objections that contain an expletive, which aren't sanctionable in themselves. And stuff like "grave dancing is suitable for gravedancers" are ridiculous to be bringing to Arbitration. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

The only advice that I have is to rename the case if it is accepted, or accepted and suspended. The trend away from naming cases after individual editors is a trend that should continue. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Newyorkbrad

"As you value your life or your reason keep away from the moor." Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Cas Liber

Pretty much per Iridescent. The latest flareup(s) are some aftershocks of significant acrimony at the talk page of Moors Murders, which is (slowly) subsiding with some structure applied there (and FAR). Hence this is no last resort and opening this creates a truckload of extra work, straining resources that could go to encyclopedia-building. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched

Hmmmm ... let's see. You've got 4 ex-arbs saying decline, and 0 that I see saying to accept. You might want to let that sink in a bit. — Ched : ? — 01:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

There must be some reason why Eric Corbett (together with his previous account as Malleus) has the longest block log in history. He has been a very prolific content provider and improver, but I have learned to stay well out of his way for several years. Scottywong has also provided excellent service to the project - without it we would probably not have NPP as it is today, or ACPERM. That said, I wholly concur with Iridescent that this is " not fair on Eric Corbett, Scottywong or EEng to leave hanging over them the prospect of an suspended case which could be reopened at any time", and that "this request [is] a pointless and disruptive escalation. There should be no need to accept this case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Banedon

I think Arbcom should accept this case. WP:A/G says that arbitration aims to break the back of the dispute, and the fact that we're here means the dispute is not resolved, i.e. previous remedies were insufficient.
Accepting the case can also help settle what "baiting" means. This word has been getting thrown around a lot. If it unambiguously happened and is undesirable, then Arbcom can both clarify what it is and warn others off doing it (notably WP:BAIT right now even says baiting is "nearly risk-free").
Accepting the case makes things easier for AE admins (c.f. Sandstein's statement above).
Declining the case now because the dispute is over seems like a shameless cop-out. I would interpret it as illustrating how our DR process doesn't actually solve disputes if they can be shoved under the carpet (which in turn might make some use it less, c.f. the Fram case).
Accepting the case but suspending it also seems inappropriate. If other people involved have acted poorly, they should be judged together with Eric Corbett. Suspending it implies one and only one person can be sanctioned.

Based on a cursory look, I would examine everyone who participated in the talk page at Moor Murders. Presumably some people will have done no wrong. Arbcom has historically handed out far more guilty verdicts than innocent ones (has arbcom ever handed out innocent verdicts?) which has made arbitration an unpleasant place. This would be a chance to do so. Would recommend renaming the case regardless, to avoid anchoring.

Banedon (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr.K.

This has become a very politicised event. I am disappointed that otherwise intelligent and capable people/editors have chosen to dig into many places to find faults with Eric's behaviour but the very same people have not found many instances when Eric's behaviour merited at least some understanding given the particular circumstances of the incident. The opposition also somehow did not see fit to acknowledge cases where Eric was belittled and insulted despite his stellar record as a premier FA-level editor. This black-and-white approach is both simplistic and transparent. I know politics have a tendency to dumb-down intelligent analysis but in this case many of the cries of Eric's opposition sound particularly hollow. I am very disappointed. I expected better from a crowd involved in building the best 'pedia in the world. In any case, this may well become moot in the short to medium term. In the final analysis who really knows what Wikipedia may become. The writing is on the wall or, if you prefer, on more obscure places. Dr. K. 04:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nosebagbear

Multiple parties at some degree of fault - EC gets some degree of baiting, he reacts, quite possibly to a degree not accepted as reasonable. There may also be instances of baiting without response and uncivility by EC without baiting. Those should also be looped in. One of the issues that stopped this being resolved in the messy ANI thread was a failure for parties to engage.

I do not think the only legitimate results are "indef or remove sanctions, because it's too complicated for AE/community otherwise" - that encourages kicking out editors because the research becomes difficult, which is a weak argument.

Case would obviously need to be suspended per EC's return in any form, though looking at some parties' actions would still be worthwhile, it'd probably viewed as punitive/risking duplicating a case (one bit now, one further down the road) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

If this is accepted, I should probably be added as a party. I blocked Eric Corbett for 72 hours ([27]diff) for violating his restrictions and removed what I saw as baiting or provocation by ScottyWong from EC's talk page.

But I urge the committee to decline this request. There may be a case regarding EC to be had, but this is not it. EC was reported to AE. After the requisite 24 hours had passed, I blocked him for 72 hours, as my reading of the arbitration remedy required. Contrary to "unblockable" commentary above, I have experienced almost no push-back whatsoever from either side; I believe the only ones to have commented negatively are Giano (that it is pointless; diff on Eric's TP) and Levivich (that it's not long enough; diff at AN). As far as I can tell, the opposition Sandstein faced was because his action was precipitate, disproportionate and procedurally incorrect; in other words it was warranted. In short, the remedies arbcom put in place last time should be given a chance to play out as regards Eric Corbett.

ScottyWong posted what appeared to me (and to many others) to be provocation on EC's talk page; I removed it (diff) as provocation that at best could draw no response, and was in fact likely to inflame the situation. Again, this action has been almost universally endorsed by editors commenting on it (I believe Levivich is the only one to have commented negatively on this, in the diff above). SW's action was pretty disappointing for an admin and his response to concerns a fairly abject failure of ADMINACCT (as documented by others above), but AFAICT the community has made its views on this clear at AN and unless you think an IBAN or a desysopping is a plausible remedy for a single comment, there is no basis for a case here.

Why a completely uninvolved editor felt the need to post a case request here is beyond me. It certainly looks a lot like drama-mongering and the committee should not rise to it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

Indefinite block MJL, who is sadly devoid of any of the competency needed to be editing, is an entirely disruptive influence and who has little redeeming qualities to make their retention as an editor here remotely sensible. Nick (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I generally keep away from Eric-related stuff since that ArbCom case, and if this is accepted I won't take part in this one either, but the only person that needs to be looked at here is the filer, because this is the most incompetently-written case I have ever seen, and I'm amazed that anyone's accepted it. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Toa Nidhiki05: Excellent passive-agressiveness [28] (love the edit summary, by the way). Kisses, Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Govindaharihari

Agree with Black Kite and others, this is a case request even worse than the mistaken case I opened recently that was correctly roundly rejected. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giano

Amusing as it would be to see numerous bullying Admins, non-writing editors plus the usual Wikipedia vocalists and dregs wasting hours of their less than valuable time contributing their dull opinions as to why Corbett should be banished into the darkness for ever, regrettably, I don’t see how a case can be accepted based on Corbett failing to respond to clear baiting. Sadly, Corbett didn’t even tell Scottywong to take a running jump. Too bad! How immensely disappointing that must be for so many. Giano (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Reading and rereading the request leads me to believe that the goal of the case is only to be "a case" - that is, there is nothing to be gained by the perpetual rehashing of the same evidence in the belief that any real solution is being sought. This has been done successfully in the past on far too many editors by various and sundry "subgroups" of editors and "friends" thereof. As no solution will result dealing with a real and present possibility of a rational result, it ought be dealt with by a summary dismissal. Collect (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neil S Walker

To the best of my recollection, Eric and I have never crossed paths or swords. Likewise, myself and Scotty Wong. I have, however, looked at FAs written by Eric (and his posse - lol) for guidance and pointers in my own writing. This request is a joke, surely? Sanctions as previously agreed were applied - apart from Sandstein having a comprehension failure... - and then a thread is started about SW's behaviour; resulting in Eric being dragged back in to the Star Chamber. Get a grip. Are you all children in the playground, ganging up and settling old scores? Did Eric steal your lunch money? Or was it Cassianto? I urge the committee to decline this childish, pathetic, unwarranted and ill-formed (and ill-informed) request. Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, if Eric Corbett didn't exist, we would have to invent him ... Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Javert2113

I don't see a good reason for the Committee to accept this case. Quite frankly, MJL is wasting everyone's time, and should be admonished (at very least) for disruptive behavior. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think this case should be declined, but things should be looked into before this turns into a fustercluck, to put it mildly. Trouts should be given all around, and EENG should be reminded to watch his words. I do want to point out something odd about Toa Nidhiki05's statement here because it doesn't make sense to me at all. Eric, to the best of my recollection is not under sanctions at this point. He was blocked, and then he was baited and didn't respond. Why is the entirety of Toa Nidhiki05's section on how Eric has been behaving? To me that just shows how bad the case creation was written. We're here because an admin baited Eric, and Eric did not respond. While he didn't respond, other editors tried to ask the admin why he baited Eric, and got no response, and took the admin to ANI and continued to get no response.

To me, this just shows why the whole Eric situation is a minefield, it doesn't necessarily have to do with behavior, it has to do with teams and people have already taken sides. Even here where Eric has done nothing wrong, people have taken sides. So I don't think anything good will come of ARBCOM taking this case. A huge trout to the filer and admin for the baiting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Girth Summit

I think everyone on both 'sides' of this debate can agree that EC can be a grumpy so-and-so, and he probably has a long-term habit of being so? I just took a look at his recent behaviour though - i.e. since his last block. The only vaguely spicy comments I found were directed towards EEng - who, and I'm fairly confident that he would agree with me on this, seems pretty much flameproof, and who is quite capable of breathing hilarious-but-scorching flame himself when the need arises. His brief, eloquent post above, to my reading, suggests that he has no interest in pursuing this dramah.

What then led to this proposed case? A report about someone else leaving unnecessary snark on EC's talk page. Snark that EC didn't respond to in any way. That's progress, right? He didn't respond at all, and another user (the very admin who last blocked him) removed it from his page.

I am no friend, defender or 'enabler' of EC: we have never interacted at all, AFAICR. I am concerned though about what it would say about our approach to behaviour management if, when someone returns after a block and does not repeat their earlier problematic behaviour, we say "Ah, but we will block you again for things you did before your block!" The signs were there that if everyone had just left EC alone to do some content work, and not made their entire experience here about behavioural issues, this could have been avoided.

Sandstein and others make reasonable arguments about the need for clarification about how to deal with EC going forward, and so I do not ask you not to take the case. Just please don't make it a case where we relitigate behavioural stuff that took place prior to their last block, when it looks like they were making an effort to improve their behaviour. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:30, 20 August 2019 (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.

Eric Corbett: Clerk notes

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

Just a gentle reminder that case requests have a limit of 500 words per participant. MJL, your statement is currently 833 words — please trim it. – bradv🍁 03:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Since there has been substantial comment on this case already, it probably isn't wise to change the case name without consent of the Arbitration Committee. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. Thoroughly involved. GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/1/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Recuse Worm^TT(talk) 07:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept the case, with it to be suspended. If at any point Eric decides to return, we will reopen the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Putting aside the immediate background to this request, based on Eric Corbett's block log, the long list of AN & AE discussions, and the diffs above that show violations of his sanctions that were not followed up on, it's obvious that this is a long-term problem that neither the community nor previous ArbComs have been able to solve. I'm especially mindful of Sandstein's statement; highly personalised sanctions like EC's only work if they don't place an undue burden on other editors to enforce. The scope of the case should be Eric Corbett's conduct plus the issue of 'baiting' by other editors. I'm not sure about suspending: EC has 'left' the project before. – Joe (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I don't want to prejudge the evidence, but I would say that the fact that EC has been blocked at AE ten times, and that diffs above apparently show further breaches, is at least enough for us to reevaluate whether the current sanctions are effective – bearing in mind that an effective sanction is one that stops the disruption happening again, not just meets it with blocks. – Joe (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm persuadable, but on the request as currently presented I'm a decline. Nothing about the conversation on the Moors murders talk page does anyone involved any credit, but the content dispute, and questions about the article's featured status, seem to be being handled by normal community processes. The personal disputes touched off by that discussion - well, that doesn't do any of the participants any credit either, but I don't think it adds up to a coherent case needing arbcom intervention. I will say that the traditional judgment of "net positive" - the argument that someone's large amount of good content work should balance out their occasional annoying personal habits - really does rely on ongoing good content work. If you start to spend less time writing content and more time getting into fights, eventually that shifts the balance of that judgment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 345: / Line 345: @@
 To me, this just shows why the whole Eric situation is a minefield, it doesn't necessarily have to do with behavior, it has to do with teams and people have already taken sides. Even here where Eric has done nothing wrong, people have taken sides. So I don't think anything good will come of ARBCOM taking this case. A huge trout to the filer and admin for the baiting. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 23:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
-=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
+=== Statement by Girth Summit ===
+I think everyone on both 'sides' of this debate can agree that EC can be a grumpy so-and-so, and he probably has a long-term habit of being so? I just took a look at his recent behaviour though - i.e. since his last block. The only vaguely spicy comments I found were directed towards EEng - who, and I'm fairly confident that he would agree with me on this, seems pretty much flameproof, and who is quite capable of breathing hilarious-but-scorching flame himself when the need arises. His brief, eloquent post above, to my reading, suggests that he has no interest in pursuing this dramah.
+What then led to this proposed case? A report about ''someone else'' leaving unnecessary snark on EC's talk page. Snark that EC didn't respond to in any way. That's progress, right? He didn't respond at all, and another user (the very admin who last blocked him) removed it from his page.
+I am no friend, defender or 'enabler' of EC: we have never interacted at all, AFAICR. I am concerned though about what it would say about our approach to behaviour management if, when someone returns after a block and does not repeat their earlier problematic behaviour, we say "Ah, but we will block you again for things you did before your block!" The signs were there that if everyone had just left EC alone to do some content work, and not made their entire experience here about behavioural issues, this could have been avoided.
+Sandstein and others make reasonable arguments about the need for clarification about how to deal with EC going forward, and so I do not ask you not to take the case. Just please don't make it a case where we relitigate behavioural stuff that took place prior to their last block, when it looks like they were making an effort to improve their behaviour. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#294;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#42c;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 00:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
+<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->=== 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.
 <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->