User talk:Eric Corbett/Statement

Looks good -- have you posted it to your talk to get feedback from others? What else before posting to Evidence page? I get 461 words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in here so that I could add links and so on. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment on a few points, while good this is not really evidence but (as it says) a statement. I'm sure the arbitrators will accept and read and take into account a statement like this, but everyone is free to make statements like this at any point in the case summing up their views, which in a way is part of the problem (it leads to too much noise). There are no word limits on such statements (though succinct and well-written statements will likely have more impact than lots of back-and-forth). There is also a question of timing and location (timing in the sense of not leaving it too late, and location in the sense that statements on case talk pages get lost in the crowd).

As a named party to the case, a statements from Malleus is likely to have far more impact and effect, providing you make sure all arbitrators are aware of it. A good way to ensure awareness is to ask permission for an extended statement (e.g. of 500 words in addition to the 500 words allocated for evidence) and ask where you should place it. The evidence page is not really the best place, but the arbitrators might suggest placing it there for lack of anywhere better. Might I suggest also that you say that you are willing to answer questions from arbitrators (these would be posted in the section reserved for that on the workshop page)?

If all three admins named as parties, and you, were willing to respond to questions from arbitrators based on what has been presented in evidence so far (and make statements like you have here), that would help to move things forward (you could remain focused on the civility policy issues, and they on the admin and blocking policy issues). The questions section of the workshop page rarely gets used, but this is case where I think it would help. Carcharoth (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really intend it to be evidence in my defence so to speak, but as a general statement of the problem that needs to be solved to make episodes like this one less likely in the future. The facts of the case are not really in dispute anyway, with the exception of Hawkeye's inconsistent explanations for the first block, which has been dealt with by others. And after all, the case is not nominally about me in in any event, although clearly many would like it to focus on me to the detriment of the bigger picture. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, popping in (partially because I see I'm mentioned). Just to offer my $0.02, some diffs would probably be helpful here, especially related to the issue of blocks issued by administrators for what appear to be relatively minor terms. Context can be important, to help third parties make up their mind on a situation. I've been seeing several charges around the case that boil down to something like, "This isn't fair, because Malleus was blocked for X, but other editors who said X and worse, weren't blocked." Speaking as a relatively uninvolved party, I'd be very interested in seeing specific examples of that. Not examples of other editors being uncivil (that's trivial to provide), but I'd like to see examples of administrators who clearly were aware of inappropriate behavior by editor 1, and didn't take action, but then saw similar language from Malleus and did take action. I, and I'm sure others, would take a very dim view of administrators who could be proven to have been behaving in that manner. Next, regarding the (allegedly) misogynistic comment, I think it might be worth expanding on this a bit, since it wasn't just the case that the term was used, but, per GRuban's evidence, that when someone objected to the term, multiple times, you (Malleus) refused to acknowledge their concerns, and when someone else deleted the thread, it appears that you, Malleus, reverted to put the term back on the page. So it's probably worth explaining a bit about your thought process there, and whether you agree or disagree with the way that GRuban presented the sequence of events? Lastly, in terms of the length of the statement, if you really want to go into things in more detail, usually what works is to put a summarized (within the limit) statement in the ArbCom pages, and then link to a longer statement in your userspace. Then later, when the case is archived, the page in your userspace can be moved to be a subpage of the arbitration case, and all will be well. --El on ka 17:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions, I'll give them some consideration. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]