Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:43, 16 October 2014

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Scope

What's the scope of this case? Is it strictly about the behavior of the parties, or given that multiple arbitrators cited the axiomatic existence / problem of, at a minimum, the ratio of the male / female contributions different than population from which Wikipedia draws it editors as a reason to take to case, one even suggesting (and then retracting) a change in policy -- are we allowed to discuss that postulate, and its implications for Wikipedia dispute resolution protocols? NE Ent 12:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily second that question. Given that the leading "combatants" on each side are in rare unanimity that they didn't want this case to be accepted, and adding to that the adage hard cases make bad law, I actually have no idea what ArbCom even thought they were accepting. Clarification would help all of us. Here are some possibilities and my thoughts:

If it's an attempt to resolve the entire gender gap and systemic bias issue on wikipedia, good luck with all that.
If it's because of the latest round of Eric Corbett insulting someone, well, equally good luck with all that.
If it's because Corbett specifically pissed off a couple of individuals who see it as a symptom of a hostile environment, that's not an ArbCom matter - particularly given that most of the people Corbett has insulted in the past have been either male or have not disclosed their gender.
If it's because some people other than Corbett (Specifico, et. al.) started trolling the Gender Gap talk page and derailing its mission, that might be a case.
If it's because the editor with the most edits to the GGTF page confuses incivility with sexism, that's also not an ArbCom matter.

So further thoughts and guidance from ArbCom would help me formulate my thoughts on whatever it is we are debating! Montanabw^(talk) 20:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it was obvious it would not/could not be about how to resolve the gender gap issue and that it was entirely about WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on the part of both "sides". (Which may go to explain why the desire of both "sides" for this not to proceed has been ignored). Apart from examining individual behaviour (and btw Eric Corbett seems to have had a minor role in all this so that really shouldn't be a distraction) what could usefully determined is the standards of behaviour in a "presure group" type WikiProject. Can "opposers" participate, how should "supporters" conduct themselves if they do participate? This would have broader application than the Gender Gap Task Force issue and it seems to me it is unclear at the moment. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Pressure groups", as you call them, seek changes that have repercussions for other editors, and so must be open to opposition. Hundreds of those discussing VisualEditor were entirely opposed to the tool or questioned the basic premises of its philosophy; I see no reason why this instance should be "protected" in some way. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but there appears to be a view that for some WikiProjects - if they are "worthy" enough that is - only broadly like-minded people should participate. And that for others to participate is automatically disruptive or trolling. Of course, there could still have been trolling, but some in this case have used trolling as a synonym for opposition. There is scope here for ArbCom to make clear the difference (or set the boundary between) opposition and disruption in these situations. (Btw, is "pressure group" just my ENGVAR? Not sure. Also known as Advocacy group). DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer, I'm not one of the drafters and these are just my opinions. That said, the gender gap is indeed a problem and it needs to be bridged; however, bridging it is not, per policy, within the purview of this Committee: as some love to say, ArbCom is not GovCom. We generally deal with behavioural issues and, so, I expect we will be examinining the conduct of all involved parties to determine whether there was any actionable misconduct. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Salvio has it exactly right, and I am one of the drafters . I'd like to see any evidence of actionable misconduct and suggestions for how to improve discussions in the future. The gender gap is a genuine issue on Wikipedia and it does need to be tackled - anything that we can do to facilitate that is a positive step forward. Worm^TT(talk) 10:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concern, having been someone who provided some statements and evidence in the infobox case, is that the danger here is that at the end of the day, a few people will somehow be banned or restricted, few to none of whom were the people doing most of the WP:BAITing, a general "be nicer" admonition will be issued, and nothing will actually change. What would help would be some actual guideline or policy discussions with a view to a overall look at ways to reduce trolling in general, which is usually beneath a lot of the problems with individuals rising to the boiling point and then behaving poorly. Montanabw^(talk) 03:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this case should have been accepted. The issues with Eric's comments are kind of meaningless and not worthy of an arbitration case. Only thing that seemed worthy of attention was SPECIFICO's interactions with Carol, which were addressed by the community some time back. Even if we consider the subsequent dust-up with Sitush as relevant to the case, he has not made any edits for nearly two weeks with no clear indication of when or if he might return so I am not sure there is any reason to accept a case over that issue. There was really nothing left for ArbCom to address.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This case would not have been accepted had my name not been attached to it. It's just another lynch mob. Eric Corbett 23:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten that this case was started by an editor providing a mouthpiece for Jimmy Wales, [1], who has made several unsubstantiated allegations against Eric. Nikkimaria and Carrite in the following section sum up exactly what was going on at the project page. J3Mrs (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental issue

Not diffable "evidence" exactly, but something that seems quite relevant to the case nevertheless:

"Today, Western feminism [as represented here by the GGTF] isn’t concerned primarily, as it should be, with civic action, but with overreaction to unsavoury elements in popular culture (sexist song lyrics, sexist TV writing) and a never-ending obsession with the identity politics of “privilege.” Every space where feminist theory and issues are discussed must be a “safe” one, which is to say a conformist one. According to the Geek Feminist Wiki, a popular online feminist forum, a “safe space is an area where a shared political or social viewpoint is required to participate.” Discussions, therefore, tend to end before they begin, unless they devolve into yelling matches" (Teitel, 2014).

This is what has happened here, and more importantly, this is why. This case appears to be framed as an opportunity to sanction those yelling the loudest, but doing so wouldn't solve the problem. Discussion is the wiki way, after all. Silencing the opposition is not healthy, and here it's not feasible. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that analysis is not "western feminism." Feminism is simply "the radical notion that women are people." The GGTF is a branch from the Countering Systemic Bias project, which should be addressing any number of related "invisibility" problems on wiki. (Any idea how many Native American wikipedia editors there are? Very, very few!) Most folks here know me and know that I am pretty good in an on-wiki street fight, AND I am a feminist AND I am a woman. I'm really tired of both anti-feminists and some people who claim the feminist mantle both making the ridiculous argument for fluffy pink bunnies and magic unicorns to appear before the girls can come play - and that we will be run off if we don't get them (utter nonsense). I also am frustrated that the GGTF has become a free-fire zone between trolls and people who confuse incivility with sexism (not at all the same). Whatever else happens, let's not let this devolve into some sort of feminist-bashing fest, because that is not helpful. We have horrible problems with trolls on articles such as Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn, that's the stuff that is the real problem. Montanabw^(talk) 05:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if you read the whole article you'll find it actually agrees with you ;-). The author makes a distinction between contemporary currents in Western feminism, represented by certain groups and trends (which I suggest include the GGTF), and what feminism is meant to be. I agree, and I expect the author would as well, that the "fluffy pink bunnies" movement is misguided, and at times borders on offensive (cf. VisualEditor being promoted as more accessible for women editors). That's not bashing feminism, that's bashing how it's being applied in the Wikipedia context. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the GGTF as a part of WP:CSB, not counter to it. I also think that is the spirit in which it was created. As for the "fluffy pink bunnies and magic unicorns" - perhaps we're in agreement there, although I don't really like the meme because I think it demeans the contributions of editors (male and female) who lean toward the less prickly, political subjects. If an editor would prefer to write about fashion or cats, they should be treated with every bit as much respect as he or she who prefers to write about labor or evolutionary biology. I also disagree that there are GGTF participants who "confuse incivility with sexism." That oversimplifies the connection and stops short of reducing it to a meme like "fluffy pink bunnies". Lightbreather (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... unless they devolve into yelling matches between men’s rights activists (a ragtag collective of angry virgins and divorced dads) and indignant feminists (a ragtag collective of angry everything) futilely trying to reason with them" is the end of the Teitel paragraph quoted above. I do think the ones who cause the most "heat" at GGTF (and probably everywhere else on WP where feminism and sexism are discussed) are these editors who cannot control their anger. Everyone gets angry, but that's no excuse for profanities and obstructionism. Lightbreather (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the words "feminism" and "sex" do not appear on the Main case page in its current (14:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)) form. Although the subjects of feminism and sexism come up in GGTF discussions, the task force is not about those things but about hows those things - along with other questions - effect gender gaps in general and the WP gender gap in particular. Lightbreather (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion page actually gets to what I believe to be the real issue with two phrases: "pressure group" and "identity politics." The Gender Gap Task Force is not a WikiProject like WikiProject Feminism or WikiProject Biography or WikiProject Mississippi or WikiProject Conservatism — a project focusing on encyclopedia content. It is a political pressure group. And more than that, it is a political pressure group making use of identity politics, which is the fundamental cause of the strife. I don't think the GGTF's goal is bad (increasing the number of women editors). I don't think a political organization of editors to defend and advance the cause of women is bad — or even to advance politically or to defend female editors simply because they are women. I just don't think such a political organization should have its locus of organization on Wiki. A Wikipediocracy type entity by and for women with restricted membership hosted and conducted off site makes far better sense to me, keeping Wikipedia itself apolitical. Carrite (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sound thinking. But please clarify: do you feel the GGTF mission s/b limited to "increasing the number of women editors"? What change(s) would you advocate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force#Scope? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the GGTF would be better used to promote addressing gender gap issues with CONTENT - if you build it, the editors will come - right now, I suspect articles on 21st century porn stars outnumber those on 21st century women writers by a factor of a zillion to one - and if someone doesn't see that as a gender gap problem, well, that is also a rpoblem...Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would think that WikiProject Feminism is already set up for that. The porn star issue is a separate one, I think — it's actually a pretty easy one to solve by wiping out the Special Notability Guideline for porn stars and forcing articles on them to face the normal standards which articles on non-pornographic actors must face, which is an idea that would have traction. Carrite (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good question, which is why the GGTF is a spinoff from the Countering Systemic Bias project... and why they aren't all linked to WP Feminism. Montanabw^(talk) 18:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another concern I have had, frankly, is that one editor (one of the parties to this case) kind of singlehandedly did make this an "identity politics" area, and at GGTF I did comment that places like the Geek Feminism wiki might be a more appropriate place for the community organizing aspect. To me "countering systemic bias" and addressing the gender gap IS a content issue - just like the problems on the Native American pages of making the modern people invisible is also a systemic bias problem. I don't want to see the GGTF disbanded because someone confuses wiki with wikipediocracy. Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing that individuals (including previously uninvolved ones) on this Arbitration page are trying to figure out the purpose and scope of Countering Systemic Bias/Gender Gap Task Force. Because of constant disruptions that will be evidenced, we never got around to having a decent discussion of purpose and scope ourselves!! Thus behavior remains the main issues here.

In fact, this page contains some of the same kinds of disruptions we had, with some accusingly claiming THIS IS WHAT YOU ALL OR SOME OF YOU THINK based on various ad hoc personal opinions on whatever. Then the accused get ticked off at the project or ourselves being pigeon holed before there even is a coherent discussion of what what the issues are.
Figuring out purpose and scope is slowly starting to happen now that the disruption has ended, if in a somewhat haphazard fashion. However, this arbitration is a whole 'nother layer of disruption that will put off a final understanding even longer.
In short, I'll be happy if we can focus on a) certain obviously disruptive and trolling behaviors and call them unacceptable and b) share a reminder to those who protested these behaviors to go to WP:Dispute resolution or WP:ANI sooner before things get so heated up. (It was at least 6 weeks after the first recommendation from an Admin we consider ANI - and several more recommendations and warnings about it - before anyone took the disruption there. Will provide exact diffs.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose and scope of Countering Systemic Bias/Gender Gap Task Force. Because of constant disruptions that will be evidenced, we never got around to having a decent discussion of purpose and scope ourselves!! Shouldn't said discussion occur before crafting Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force#Scope (as opposed to after)!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As written now and through much of last couple months, it's a draft based on ideas already generated by Wikimedia.org Gender Gap projects. Discussion of what en.Wikipedia GGTF scope and purpose (not to mention projects) is within that is what is ongoing. Maybe all we'll end up being able to do is, as individuals, support or reject ideas which are introduced as proposals. I don't know. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So says the person to whom I was referring. I seldom agree with The Devil's Advocate, but one can see from this discussion that this case is going nowhere because even the parties aren't sure what it's all about. Montanabw^(talk) 04:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is all about SPECIFICO and CMDC pissing on each other's toes for a long time, and with Eric raising some very reasonable questions about claims being made by CMDC, although Eric has been abrasive in his approach. Carol feeds off of this and plays the victim. Some like, Neotarf, want the GGTF to be a "safe harbor" first, and to address the gender gap second..Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have specific allegations to make against specific individuals, it's time to do it in evidence and not trash specific individuals with no evidence at all. I assume that a diff of someone claiming someone else said something should actually include a diff showing the person actually said it? So editors don't have to waste limited words asking for such evidence? I'm quite sure I've been accused of saying things that other people said. Perhaps the Arbitrators could make that clear if I am correct? @ User:Worm That Turned, User:GorillaWarfare, User:Newyorkbrad. Thanks Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me from reading this and looking over the GGTF talk page that the only real dispute now is over the purpose of the group and that is not a situation where ArbCom has any role to play.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps...and on that note, I motion to remove Eric Corbett and replace him with The Devil's Advocate.--MONGO 18:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"right now, I suspect articles on 21st century porn stars outnumber those on 21st century women writers by a factor of a zillion to one "

We have 822 members of Category:21st-century women writers and 733 living or recently dead members of Category:21st-century women writers (including 4 levels of sub-cats) - so some 1555 entries - these categories don't tell the whole story, though, taking out duplicates and adding in other women writers who lived past 2000 (for example Delia Sherman) and are not in these categories we get 11,620. List of pornographic actresses by decade lists 30 actresses in the 2000's and 18 in the 2010s, giving a total of 48 articles, however this list was eviscerated recently. The entire category Category:Pornographic film actors, including subcategories to a depth of 4 has only 1409 articles about actors (male and female), of whom at most 1353 were alive during the 21st century. Even ignoring the "zillion" and counting male pornographic actors (and not just "stars") we have eight times more 21st century women writers than 21st century porn stars

See WP:HASMORE. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

Noted and filed under "No hyperbole shall go unskewered by well meaning literalists". --regentspark (comment) 01:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get on with it

OK, people. It took almost a month to open this case and now the evidence phase is almost a week in and there isn't a shred of evidence of anything. And that's totally literal, as of this post there isn't even a single diff on the evidence page. Plenty of talk, but no substance.

At some point the parties are going to have to admit there is no case here and what little there was is long stale. If this page is any indication, the parties aren't even sure what to argue about so why are we here? If this keeps up, the only question that will be answered is "what if an Arbcom case was declared and nobody came"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence deadline is the 17th. There's no particular advantage in posting earlier in the process. NE Ent 01:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom is either too late or too early with this case. I hope nobody posts a word of evidence, personally. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The involved parties have 'apparently' worked out their differences & seem to consider the case un-neccessary. If no evidence is presented by the deadline, the case will likely be closed with 'no ruling'. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, one party is drafting something that I could describe in negative terms but will control self. Another party has been known to submit similar evidence one hour before deadline. So unfortunately the "no evidence" option is not likely. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is permissible to link to such drafts: User:Two kinds of pork/sandbox. Indeed, parties are encouraged to draft their evidence submissions before submitting them. Either on-wiki or off-wiki. If evidence is presented just before the deadline, that deadline can be extended to allow discussion and a limited amount of rebuttals. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submissions

I'm not one of the drafters, but hopefully some thoughts will help those considering evidence submissions. In my accept statement I said: "There is plenty of poor conduct that has taken place here, with issues of baiting, over-reaction to criticism, incivility, forum shopping, battleground behaviour, and possibly canvassing as well." It is examples of those that I would expect to be presented in evidence. If no-one presents evidence, it is entirely possible for arbitrators to go through the relevant contributions and find the evidence themselves (this happens in a number of cases, where evidence is added by arbitrators that isn't presented by the parties to the case). I don't think it has ever been the case that parties to a case have as a group failed to present evidence, but from the sounds of it (mentions of userspace drafting) that won't be the case here. I see there is now an evidence section of sorts. I'll comment on that separately, and will try and comment on some of the earlier discussions on this page later this weekend (though really, discussion here can only go so far, and evidence is more helpful). Carcharoth (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing patterns

I'm starting a discussion here on the evidence approach taken by Casliber (talk · contribs), putting up links to the last 500 contributions prior to October by the listed parties (the section named 'Editing patterns'). Looking at an editor's overall contributions is needed to get a feel for their approach to editing and to disputes, but that type of analysis only goes so far. Also, the 'last 500 edits' is an arbitrary approach - you also need to look at the timescales involved. And number and percentages of edits is only ever useful as a first approximation. The only way to really work out what someone is doing here is to look at each and every one of their edits. And that takes time. Casliber really needs to do the work himself, rather than putting up links and hoping that a crowdsourced editor review will take place (it could degenerate into the worse sort of RfC/U and generate more bad blood between the parties). It is worth reading up on the history of Wikipedia:Editor review and why that was marked historical. My overall view is that being listed as a party to an arbitration case isn't really sufficient for others to carry out the sort of in-depth editor review that Casliber is suggesting.

On the other hand, ArbCom have passed findings summarising in part an editor's history here. See here and here for examples from the Ebionites 3 arbitration case. Other examples also exist. If Casliber wanted to work up examples like that himself, he can, but throwing up links and asking others to do the actual analytical work isn't really going to work. Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My free time is limited. I hadn't really intended wasting my time on this case, but suspected that arbitrators might make some assessments of people's editing patterns based on assumption rather than observation. I hope that I am wrong on that. I am intending to look at the edits myself. I chose the most recent 500 edits up until the opening of the case as that was closest to the period of conflict. What were you proposing on doing Carcharoth? If you don't think someone's input warrants scrutinising then have a motion removing them as a party to the case. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The evidence page has been deathly silent. From my experience as an arb it means generally that arbs have been busy with other things, and that no-one has looked much at this yet, which makes me fear there'll be a hurried approach at the 11th hour to come up with some findings. I hope I am wrong though... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it proper for User:CasLiber to invite other editors to "fill in his blanks"? Parties to the case, GGTF participants and observers will have their own issues and reserve their 500 or 1000 words for their own section. In addition to points made by User:Carcharoth:

He’s used more than 400 of 500 words - his evidence is just a few links
It can lead to editors debating and even arguing within another editor’s section.
This just rounds up editors who might not post otherwise and might even let them support other’s arguments and diffs without presenting any, perhaps leading to the appearance of a false community consensus. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Casliber may be onto something. Relying purely on diffs leads to a skewed view of what's really going on and removes useful context from the process. What an editor is really contributing to the encyclopedia is perhaps more important than looking at a situation in isolation. What appears to be disruption in one situation may actually be helping the encyclopedia when considered in a larger context. Definitely an out of the box approach that should be considered rather than shot down on mere technical grounds. --regentspark (comment) 14:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this case so special that an out of the box approach is required here? Any suggestion that the conventional approach doesn't work is a waste of time anyway. I really hope you are not smuggling in the content contributions vs civility debate. 122.177.11.190 (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that this case is special. Rather, that the diff only approach may be fundamentally flawed and it is worth discussing a change in approach for all cases. And this is not about civility vs content (speaking for myself, not for casliber). I can also think of several long term content contributors whose strong content contributions did not save them from banning, and rightly so in my opinion. But, I can also think of long term content contributors who were pushed into apparently disruptive behavior by focused, but civil, pov pushers. So, no. This is not about content vs civility. Focusing solely on the present disruption narrows the focus when we should, instead, be taking a broader view. Asking questions like who, amongst the parties, has a broad editing pattern versus who has a narrow pattern around the area of disruption? Why is user X, an otherwise stellar wikipedian, apparently behaving disruptively in this situation? --regentspark (comment) 18:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 122.177.11.190, how about editing from an account rather than hiding behind an IP? Also, any draughting arbitrator would be doing the same thing - systematically reviewing conduct by looking at contributions and posting notable ones for the others to comment on. So there is nothing unconventional about it. All items have to be supported by diffs, so inferences and impressions are not sufficient. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of use edit from raw IPs. Ban me/us if you don't like it. I'm sure you can trump up some bureaucratic nonsense as justification. 12.249.243.118 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors hide behind monikers not IPs. There is nothing as transparent as editing from an IP. 122.177.11.190 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see any evidence of anyone disrupting anything. That might be a place to start. Asking pertinent questions isn't disruption. Eric Corbett 20:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I used to be able to click somewhere to find out what percentage of an editor's total edits over their career were in article/talk/user/project/etc space. Can't find that now. Does it still exist? Certainly presents a better picture than the last 500 edits since life and Wikipedia circumstances change. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User contributions, bottom of page, "Edit Count." e.g. [2] NE Ent 22:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So comparing, say, mine to some other editors... I've got 32% article, 29% article talk, because I edit in controversial areas where there's a lot of debate to get to consensus. (And lots of visits to noticeboards because so many of the articles I worked on were WP:BLPs.)

Another editor might have 75% article, 6% talk because they edit in areas of little interest to others (and with few page views) but where they can rack up edit counts and avoid discussion. (Of course, if in addition they insult and drive away editors who disagree with them, that also might account for the lower amount of talk page discussion.) So just another reason that User:CasLibers entry is irrelevant at best. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly didn't make those figures up out of the blue, as the history of your edit shows. Let me just give the lie to your hypothesis about my editing history by drawing attention to Margaret Thatcher, with 132,000 page views in the last 30 days. Or information technology, with 141,000 page views, ranked 2273 in article traffic to give you a sense of scale. I could go on, but I won't, in the hope that the next time you try attacking me you will at least do so with the benefit of having examined the facts, not simply relying on your prejudices and hearsay. Eric Corbett 00:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That general case -which probably describes a lot of people- as well as hundreds more scenarios that describe various editing patterns, make the relevant point regarding the irrelevance of listing the last 500 edits. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you actually used my name and my editing statistics, and went on to suggest that I confine myself to articles in "areas of very little interest". I suggest that you stop making stuff up, as you did recently when accusing J3Mrs of being my wife. Eric Corbett 00:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving your name in was a sloppy editing error. I decided the general description and similar statistics was better since it could fit a number of editors over time. As for whether J3Mrs had a COI of being your wife, I found out it wasn't and apologized. And analyzing it more per her request for relevant diffs I saw it was more a strong POV that led to her battleground attitude, though obviously you know each other from Manchester or editing about Manchester. But lets keep to the general principles. My apology an editing error derailed the train of thought temporarily. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make a lot of that general type of error, Carolmooredc, causing you to make fairly frequent apologies, retractions or amendments. An example would be your assumption that Montanabw was a man. If I could understand the scope of this case and wasn't in hiding, I might be tempted to list others where you didn't apologise/retract but obviously should have done. Would such a list be in scope, clerks?

Your analysis of article vs article talk edits also seems to have a potential flaw other than the obvious one that Eric mentions: it seems to me that some people are drawn to the high heat vs light drama of certain very specific topics. They are not "forced" to spend more time on talk pages than on the articles but rather choose to do so because they like stirring the pot, needling, tendentious promotion of an opinion or whatever. I think Cas Liber's suggestion may have merit in principle, although allowance does need to be made for things such as volume of contributions over time and I'm really not sure where we should draw the line in terms of absolute number of edits. As Cas Liber says, 500 is entirely arbitrary - it is a figure that I could quite easily hit in a couple of days, whereas others might take a month or more. - 2.125.151.139 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC) (aka Sitush: I have a good reason for not wanting to sign in here but feel free to email for verification that this is indeed me)[reply]

My interest was piqued and I've just looked at my stats, which show 75% article/8% article talk. I doubt that many of the articles I edit come close to those of Eric in terms of page views but they are chock-full of controversy and I'm probably among the most abused contributors on this project because of it. Some might argue that they are also far more subject to systemic bias than anything that the GGTF is likely to address; they are certainly among those that most desperately need experienced eyes upon them. Things like Gun Control, Palestine-Israel, Libertarianism and Feminism, on the other hand, already have hundreds of such eyes. The more I think about it, the more useful Cas Liber's proposal seems to be. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not too early to recommend Carolmooredc interaction ban with Sitush as one good thing this arbitration can accomplish. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until this, I had stuck to my promise not to discuss you outside my talk page and ArbCom proceedings. That lapse will not be repeated and follows from your obviously point-y contribution at that talk page, which is your only contribution to that article/talk and came immediately after my valid point raised above. - Sitush (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that "promise" to whom so ever. Any diff? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware, since the thread was mentioned in an ANI discussion and you referred to it, my thoughts were expressed at User_talk:Sitush/Archive_19#Two_Way_Interaction_Ban. I'm under a phenomenal amount of pressure relating to Wikipedia at the moment, some of which I cannot explain because it is sub judice, but in my opinion my single lapse as diff'd above is largely something that you have brought upon yourself. I've no intention of repeating it. There are extremely good reasons why a one-way ban (either way) would be inappropriate and a two-way ban would effectively make me yet another of your "scalps" (which is why you have been champing at the bit to see it enacted - note this and this). All we have to do is not jump on each other outside of some very specific circumstances; alas, you jumped and I jumped back before quickly remembering that I'd said I would not.

My point in commenting here was a response to Cas Liber's recent thoughts regarding potential evidence. You are the one who has turned it into a specific discussion and you are the one who, as so frequently, has highlighted how significant you think that is by both outdenting and bolding it. This is my last word in this subthread: I'm not letting you draw me in by hijacking something yet again. - Sitush (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've found the most specific diff, among a lot of revdel'd stuff in the aforementioned thread on my talk - see this. You have referred to me frequently since that time in numerous place; my references to you have been nil outside of the ANI thread, that specific talk page thread and my recently retracted comment diff'd above. - Sitush (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that is a diff from User_talk:Sitush/Archive_19#Two_Way_Interaction_Ban that was a discussion between you and TParis about a mutual interaction ban, which I supported. He was relaying your official position to me. He never reported back at User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_IX#Two-way_Interaction_Ban the final results. So I had to take it as being represented by TParis comment to you at the end of ~~that~~ your thread: Fair enough if you want to take your chances, it's not time wasted, it was a worthy effort.--v/r - TP 17:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

After I noticed some one claiming to be you, back and insulting me, I had to check out if it really was you. I thus read another editor noting your continued "pattern of hectoring and intimidation".[3] So it was just human nature to opine to a true statement with "Hear! Hear!"

You pushed for this Arbitration and have said you want me site banned[4]. Your now-deleted attack biography seems to have helped make this Arbitration happen. Why you haven't been added as a party is beyond me. But you don't have to be a party to be sanctioned to stop bad behavior, do you?

Since this is a discussion of CasLiber's strange "evidence" section, I guess that would be a great place for various editors who watch their buddies' edits to call for site banning editors, without having to put themselves on the line by creating their own evidence section. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolmooredc: Your above comments are extraordinary and it is time for some introspection. I wondered where you had apologized about "a COI of being your wife" and found this. That section shows you have no understanding of reasonable conduct. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found Carolmooredc's comments on my talk page to be very disturbing. Attempting to spread unsubstantiated, malicious rumours is far worse in my opinion that any "rude" words. That sort of remark could have caused damage to persons other than me. That she apologized is of no consequence to me because the damage was done. Her edits should be examined. She cannot let things go, seeks attention, gives out far too much personal information then plays the victim and scoots around misunderstanding comments and making wild assumptions. She is a liability to herself. J3Mrs (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too found CMD's accusation that you and I were married to be rather creepy, and her unsubstantiated claim to be simply repeating what she'd seen someone else write elsewhere to be completely unconvincing. She needs to learn that liars always get found out eventually. Eric Corbett 18:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather's "evidence"

I knew it was only a matter of time before this degenerated into yet another attempted civility putsch. Eric Corbett 01:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly find the massive claims of baiting to ring hollow. For example, consider this exchange which LB considers baiting:

Neotarf to EC: Is there anyone in the entire project who does not believe you have nothing but contempt for women?

EC to Neotarf: Let's face a couple of facts here Neotarf. If you had made that completely baseless comment about anyone else you would now be blocked, or at least warned. The fact that you are free to propagate such lies here tells its own story

Just how is Eric's response to Neotarf's despicable personal attack considered baiting? The rest of the diff's tell a similar story. Sharp-tongued != baitingTwo kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 01:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just those two comments, taken out of context, would not appear to be baiting, but considering what Neotarf was replying to in the first place:

Eric Corbett said: You misrepresent the issue. If a charge of "entrenched sexism" is made – nothing to do with the gender gap per se – then it is not unreasonable to ask for some evidence in support of said claim. Unless you're attempting to dishonestly push a feminist agenda of course. This project would do better to stick to the verifiable facts instead of hyperbolic rhetoric.[5]

The highlighted parts were unnecessary and uncivil (or impolite, if Eric wants to call it that). I think the the arbitrators will know to put these things in context. Lightbreather (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, despite Eric putting the words in quotes, no one had said "entrenched sexism" - at least up to that point - on that talk page, though SPECIFICO had accused (some) task force members of "outright sexism" [6] ~~against men~~, which was part of the disruption going on. Lightbreather (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, @Lightbreather:, but I was clearly stating that it is sexist against women to project cultural gender stereotypes on female WP editors. Please strike your misrepresentation of my statement. It is a personal attack. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted your meaning. Here's the quote,[7] which you made in reply to a discussion about WikiWand and Carolmooredc's comment about Sue Gardner's Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia.

This saddens me, to see such outright sexism on our own Gender Gap page. What's the point? Boys like to edit in a smelly locker room with pinups on the wall while girls like everything neatly in its place with lace curtains and potpourri? How can we promote closing the Gap when we perpetuate cultural stereotypes and slurs? A more productive effort would be to beef up articles about girls who've won Nobel prizes, academic honors, and national elections.

Maybe others thought you were saying that Carol (and others) were picking on "boys," too? Maybe not? Perhaps that will get discussed in greater detail in the days ahead, but not by me. (As an aside, beefing up articles about important women would be great, but the GGTF is about attracting more female editors.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the announcement that I made yesterday has been deleted,[8] which is OK, but just to correct the record. My evidence isn't nearly 600 words, as I first thought. Minus section headers and the bracketed diff links, it's only 513 words. Lightbreather (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather: "I'm sorry if..." doesn't constitute a retraction of your attack. You'll note that I outdented my statement to make clear that it was a comment on the entire thread, not any one editor. By repeating my words here out of context rather than, for example, linking to the entire thread, I believe you're reinforcing your attack. If you're not willing to redact it I will cite this matter in my Evidence. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get into an argument here about the minutiae. I don't think the arbs will balk at 13 extra words. And regarding the context of EC/Neotarf; of one feels someone is misrepresenting something, EC said it in the most civil way possible. Would you prefer "liar liar?"Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Objection by Scalhotrod

Ping: Salvio giuliano, Worm That Turned, et. al.

I've been trying to maintain a low profile lately, take a Wikibreak, and otherwise distance myself from these issues. But I was informed offwiki of being mentioned in this proceeding [9].

I object to being dragged into this as well as to NOT being informed of my inclusion.

I ask the arbiters to please to remove mention of me from this proceeding in the above referenced dif. Thank you, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's usually considered polite to inform editors you've mentioned in your evidence submission of said mention, but, to my knowledge, that's not really a requirement (people are only informed by clerks when they have been mentioned in the proposed decision). That said, speaking personally, I don't think we should remove those two references to you, because, for my part, I believe arbs should avoid modifying the evidence presented by parties, unless it contains personal attacks. If some bits of evidence are immaterial to the case at hand, then they are ignored.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 08:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My evidence over-run

Yes, my evidence runs a bit over because it is a timeline that puts incidents in context. It contains a lot of diffs from other GGTF participants criticizing parties to the case. These individuals probably will refrain from presenting evidence because of time constraints or to avoid nasty conflicts. Hopefully there won’t be too many non-obvious and/or seriously misrepresented allegations against me (i.e., those with actual diffs) that I will have to ask for more words to challenge. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert:I added two more sets of diffs LINK relevant to the “c-word” which has inflamed this whole GGTF debate from the start. Clearly there’s a gangup here of Eric Corbett and Sitush friends against editors presenting evidence which is even worse than what happened at GGTF. (Does this happen frequently at Arbitrations?) So I guess other GGTF people won’t feel comfortable presenting evidence. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

I just realized TKOP, Eric Corbett and SPECIFICO have used this page to challenge evidence for accuracy or to explain opinions. Can others do it too? It seems to me last time we had to put all such replies only on the evidence page. Have the rules changed? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have they? (I don't know; I haven't read everything above. I only have one life.) In my opinion, nobody should use this page for that purpose. There's a special area on the workshop page for analysis of evidence: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop#Analysis_of_evidence. It's part of the workshop template, i.e. it's a standard header on workshop pages. In my opinion it's in your own and everybody else's interest to use that designated area by preference; the workshop may not be very widely read, but this talkpage is positively obscure. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Insert: Thanks for the reminder about Analysis sections. Hopefully editor below and others will remember that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc, if you want to free up space in your evidence, I strongly suggest you remove:

Some diffs indicate Sitush blames Sue Gardner’s gender gap "initiative" for bringing unwanted “newbie” (i.e., women) editors into Wikipedia. (India's Gender Gap project is very active.) [10][11][12]

You have jumped to the conclusion that systemic bias=gender gap. You have incorrectly synthesized from Sitush's mention of serious problems in India-related articles in general (which are manifest) and his completely justified criticism of a failed and very expensive WMF initiative in 2011 to recruit Indian college students as editors—the Indian Education Program—to conclude that he called Indian women "unwanted newbies". Nothing could be further from the truth. This "pilot program" brought 900 poorly prepared, poorly supervised Indian college students (mostly male technology students, and many with a poor command of English) en masse onto Wikipedia to create articles as a mandatory class assignment. It was a complete and unmitigated disaster. The students flooded Wikipedia with copyvio which took literally hundreds of editor-hours to clean up and deal with, and the clean up is still not finished. Most of the articles that weren't copyvio were completely unusable. Voceditenore (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Evidence, I don't think Arbitrators are going to be reading you opinions and opinions aren't relevant to evidence. Save it for analysis, per above. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't know if Voceditenore will return to analysis and User:Johnunique has complained about my not answering here, let me say: a) I don't see the diff that I say system bias=gender gap; the connection is more subtle and still under discussion; b) sure, Sitush could have been mad about male "clueless newbies" coming in, too; but Gardner's best known "initiative" is closing the gender gap (numerous mainstream articles about her and Gardner-written articles here). So both can be true. And there's no doubt he didn't like the En.Wikipedia GGTF. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those three diffs supports your assertion that Sitush "blames Sue Gardner's gender gap "initiative" for bringing unwanted “newbie” (i.e., women) editors into Wikipedia." I gave you the background information to help you understand why. It's your choice what you put in your evidence. It's your choice to dismiss what I pointed out to you as merely my opinion. It's your choice to continue to make those false assertions. As can be seen in the section below, at least one arbitrator had already noticed and commented on them before I did. Voceditenore (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of evidence - including that provided against me - can be interpreted in different ways. (Look at all the excuses for using the word "c*nt".) I am saying how I interpret it. If Arbitrators disagree, they will ignore it. This is not a math quiz with one right answer. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way in which Sitush's statements can be read the way you want them to be read. The proper conclusion the arbitrators will draw from your accusation is that you're playing fast and loose with the evidence. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did Arbitrator encourage Sitush biography of me?

Ping: User: Worm That Turned, User: GorillaWarfare and User:Newyorkbrad

I left this out of evidence because it really belongs here. In September Sitush inferred an Arbitrator encouraged/approved of his writing a biography of me. “At least one member of ArbCom is aware that I am looking into the possibilities of sourcing such a revived BLP.” And infers further approval for his accumulating off-site material on me, writing “And if you'd like me to provide support for what I've said above then by all means I will do so via the Arbs and they can pass them to you if they deem fit.”[13]

I don’t necessarily need an answer to this, but I think other Arbitrators need to find out what it's all about. If Sitush’s statement is true and there was any discussion at all (pro, con or indifferent) between Sitush and an Arbitrator regarding the biography - and this Arbitration, that Arbitrator needs to forward the exact text of the discussion to the other ArbCom members and, if necessary, recuse him/herself from the proceedings. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In September Sitush inferred an Arbitrator encouraged/approved of his writing a biography of me, Your conclusion is not supported by the diff you link to. "Being aware of something" is very different from "encouraging".

This is far from the first time you've misunderstood (and this is me assuming good faith) something and then launched into a long tirade, making serious allegations and accusations of misconduct. You did the very same thing wrt the statement I made when I voted to accept this case, which you read as if I was saying "Oh No! They want a lot of crazy women in here to do crazy shit like this." (and then proceded to complain, without even asking for clarification or making sure that was indeed what I meant).

And you did the very same on J3Mrs's talk page, ditto for your accusation on the evidence page that Sitush is blam[ing] Sue Gardner’s gender gap "initiative" for bringing unwanted “newbie” (i.e., women) editors into Wikipedia..

These are all examples of what I consider disruptively pugnacious mentality and I do hope that, going forward, you may learn to assume good faith more and make unsubstantiated accusations less.

For the record, I was the arbitrator Sitush told, en passant, that he was thinking about creating a bio about you; my reply, verbatim, was I advise against creating a BLP for Carol. We didn't discuss it any further. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had no knowledge of Sitush's planning to write this biography and am not aware of any arbitrator who did. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info. Best to ask about it that ruminate about it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB, Salvio guilano has just identified himself as the arbitrator who communicated with Sitush about Carol's BLP, as he says, en passant, which must be ArbSpeak for "while we were chatting about other stuff". —Neotarf (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ArbSpeak, it's French.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 08:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its a chess move that gets you accused of cheating from people who think they know how to play. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the above two comments are jokes, but it would be a serious matter if an Arbitrator were counseling someone on how to push a case to Arbitration to get someone they (one or both) have a grudge against site banned. I doubt Salvio was doing that, but I assume (per my evidence) that's the info Sitush was after. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "the info Sitush was after". No info was sought and, as so often, your assumption is based on an extremely skewed view of the world. You are casting aspersions without decent evidence: please stop building big houses with poor foundations and then inviting people to view them ad infinitum. You were given an explanation and you should AGF, not go off on some flight of fancy that suits an ingrained pov. Another example is in your evidence: Alleged threats against Sitush are not an excuse - there was and is nothing "alleged" about the threats, as many people well know. 90.213.181.169 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert: Not knowing the evidence of threats and not seeing them presented in the community discussion of how the Foundation deals with threats, I don't want to say something is true that I do not know to be true. If I knew it to be true I would have said "Threats against Sitush are not an excuse." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AG-bloody-F. As it is, "alleged" is disingenuously snide. The India Against Corruption (IAC) thing is scattered far and wide on this project and you have even taken part in at least one discussion relating to it, ie: when you rather bizarrely popped up with this and, as is also common, turned it into something about you. I'm trying to avoid you, Carol, outside of this procedure but you have repeatedly effectively commented about me in odd circumstances since I said that I would do so, eg: here. Drop it, please: you are out of your depth. If you doubt my claims regarding threats then please at least accept that plenty of other people do not doubt it and that in fact there have been numerous legal threats made against me on-wiki regarding this specific issue and plenty of on-wiki physical threats regarding other issues, let alone the off-wiki stuff about both types. WMF are involved also and I can do without your pathetic attempts at semantic point-scoring. I've had to relocate and take legal advice because of this crap. It isn't some nutty troll mass mailing stuff but in fact very credible and it looks like someone else is also now being affected by it. This is not paranoia, although I think a lot of what you have said over the years might well fall into that category: everyone who disagrees with you is, apparently, out to "get" you. Sorry, but I'm really, really upset now. - 90.213.181.169 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An AnonIP infers he is Sitush, who pushed hard for an arbitration. If it is Sitush and he wants to comment on evidence, he should comment in the Workshop analysis section, per Bishonen's comment above. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Carol discerned more evidence from the above. She feared that Sitush's commentary that "at least one member of ArbCom is aware that I am looking into the possibilities of sourcing such a revived BLP” could imply approval, which is one plausible interpretation of why Sitush said it. And we've learned that said arbitrator said "I advise against creating a BLP for Carol" before Sitush proceeded to do so. Carol's "tirades" may annoy some, but she a right to due process without any appearances of impropriety, and it appears this question has been cleared up appropriately.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 ==My evidence over-run==
 Yes, my evidence runs a bit over because it is a timeline that puts incidents in context. It contains a lot of diffs from other GGTF participants criticizing parties to the case. These individuals probably will refrain from presenting evidence because of time constraints or to avoid nasty conflicts. Hopefully there won’t be too many ''non-obvious'' and/or seriously misrepresented allegations against me (i.e., those with actual diffs) that I will have to ask for more words to challenge. <small>'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]  ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|Talkie-Talkie]])'''</small> 16:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
+::::[Insert:I added two more sets of diffs LINK relevant to the “c-word” which has inflamed this whole GGTF debate from the start. Clearly there’s a gangup here of Eric Corbett and Sitush friends against editors presenting evidence which is even worse than what happened at GGTF. (Does this happen frequently at Arbitrations?) So I guess other GGTF people won’t feel comfortable presenting evidence. <small>'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]  ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|Talkie-Talkie]])'''</small>
 :I just realized TKOP, Eric Corbett and SPECIFICO have used this page to challenge evidence for accuracy or to explain opinions. Can others do it too? It seems to me last time we had to put ''all such replies'' only on the evidence page. ''Have the rules changed?'' <small>'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]  ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|Talkie-Talkie]])'''</small> 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 ::Have they? (I don't know; I haven't read everything above. I only have one life.) In my opinion, nobody should use this page for that purpose. There's a special area on the workshop page for analysis of evidence: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop#Analysis_of_evidence]]. It's  part of the workshop template, i.e. it's a standard header on workshop pages. In my opinion it's in your own and everybody else's interest to use that designated area by preference; the workshop may not be very widely read, but this talkpage is positively obscure. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 17:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC).