I had a look back specifically at the role ArbCom have played in this farce, and you have to admit, that's a tough spot to get yourself out of, if you are now an Arbitrator trying to excuse or correct the failings of your peers. There's no real way to ban without admitting one or more prior decisions were in error, but there's also no way to change the approach that will work. Rejecting the case and kicking the can down the road, is their best option.
Basically, by 2011 Eric was properly on the ban train, but at 8-2 was still being given the benefit of the doubt by most Arbs, paying no attention to the fact he was already making it clear he was an uncooperative subject. By 2014, their chickens had come to roost, and yet they still couldn't ban him, being deadlocked 5-5. By 2015, the wheels he properly come off the hopes he could be managed with sanctions.
That would have been the logical time to ban, even in the eyes of the most lenient Arb. But amazingly, they went into full retreat, going back to 8-2, but otherwise not having a clue what to do, all prior optimism gone, even a couple going quite mad with despair. Their only idea, to simply make it mandatory to report to AE and discuss it for 24 hours, set the stage for the next four years.
That is a period where we are supposed to think his unblocked status means he was being a good boy. He wasn't, the enforcement system as adjusted specifically just for Eric now just ensured most gave up trying to stop him, and those who did were thwarted even more easily than before, because the sanctions only work if everyone can agree the purpose of the sanctions is modifying Eric's behaviour.
Fast forward to now, and enough time must have passed, or Eric must have just pissed someone off that badly, that we are back to the situation that led to the 2015 Case - attempted enforcement leading to ckusterfucks achieving nothing, least of all the basic purpose of the sanction. He literally violated both sanctions he was blocked for, after the blocks, and the Administration are refusing to accept this basic fact, desperate as they are to keep pretending it works.
They really have nowhere to take this now, except the pretty ridiculous step of taking all enforcement in house, just for Eric. That would be an admission of the reality - it is the Administrators who never wanted them placed in the first instance, who have ensured the sanctions have failed. Arguably even that would fail, if there is this much genuine disagreement in the current Committee over basic and obvious facts, like whether the existing sanctions are working.
Key word being genuine, because it is clear the only reason the 2015 ban proposal failed, was because by then even Arbitrators were being less than genuine in their reasoning, either by denying basic reality, advancing absurd positions, or otherwise just shirking their responsibilities.
As one of the Arbs said at the time......
Contrasts well with what one of them said in 2011.......I give up. This is a dispute that is so intractable that the body that exists to solve intractable disputes can't resolve it. We are dealing with internal community insider baseball issues, not Israel, Scientology, and GMOs. We have no idea what to do here and it shows.
Give that man a medal for his foresight, because the amount of time wasted on Eric has at least tripled since then, but his positive contributions to Wikipedia have most definitely not. Whatever equation they were using to calculate net benefit back in 2011, to get the same result today needs a decimal point moving somewhere....this editor has been blocked numerous times for the same reason, and yet we're still here at arbitration dealing with it nonetheless. ..... I believe an editor who thinks such behavior is acceptable is incompatible with this project. I do acknowledge and thank Malleus for his valuable contributions, but that does not excuse the conduct that was the focus of this case. Until and unless it can be demonstrated that such conduct will not continue, I believe it is in the best interests of the project to require Malleus - or indeed any editor who engages in such incivil conduct - to step away from Wikipedia. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe that's what's taking so long? How do you make the miserable contributions of Eric over the last year, look like they were remotely worth the disruption of even the last month. If they can't, they shouldn't even risk being seen to oppose a site ban, because the question 'what benefit are we getting here' is sure as shit going to be asked, no matter how hard Cassianto tugs at his own testicles.
.jpg){kind=link}