Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision

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.

Outcomes?

Does anyone have any idea when outcomes might be posted? I do realise that people are busy and that this has been a messy case almost from the day it was proposed. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

These are (when they are posted) still only proposed decisions. I expect that there will be a lot of "Joe Bloggs is reminded". I fear there will be unuseful sanctions. We shall see. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC).

They are proposed decisions followed by motions on this page, as far as I can understand. I'm not fussed about what these may be but I would like it to be resolved. I'm under an awful lot of stress at the moment regarding an unrelated issue and this thing is just adding to the burden. Not helped by continued needling involving some of the parties. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

All one can do is be patient. It's in the arbitrators hands, now. PS- Remember, the entire process started 8 days after the case was opened :) GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We're working on it ;) I'm sorry we've not met the deadline, it looks like we might be another day or two. Worm^TT(talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality of work is more important than meeting a roughly predetermined schedule in matters regarding arbitration IMHO. We can wait. :) John Carter (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can wait, probably because it does not directly affect you. I can already tell you the outcome (and I'm neither a genius nor clairvoyant) but I can do without the suspense. There really is an awful lot of crap flying around behind the scenes about another matter and I'm buckling, trying to retain good contributors who are at their wit's end and are ranting at WMF people who are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I could do without this additional agony, with its obvious conclusions. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Some people have made their beds and now must lie with it, ranting and raving at the WMF isn't going to solve anything neither are a select group of editor's mission to stage a silly boycott until they get their way. Good contributors are great Wikipedia has a-lot of them but that does not make them perfect and immune to faults. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You are completely ignorant regarding that to which I refer, Knowledgekid. Shame about your chosen name, given this fact. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome I will say this, I hope it changes things for the better. Arbcom is meant to improve things on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I share your hope, in a triumph over experience. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Once again we have "behind the scenes" stuff going on? I really wish people would be up-front about these things. Hidden decisions and discussions damage the whole spirit of Wikipedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

If the above comment is accurate that there are significant behind-the-scenes discussions taking place here regarding this decision, and I don't check mailing lists so I don't know, I too would regret that. In some cases, like those dealing with privileged information about individual users' identities and the like, I see that they would be a bit of a necessary evil, but I think even Jimbo has indicated that transparency in as many areas of wikipedia as possible is something we should seek, and I don't think that discussions in the ArbCom Star Chamber come close to meeting the standard of transparency. This is particularly true if the matters at hand get revisited in a few years when many or most of the current arbs are retired. At least, it might be indicated on the talk page that there is discussion elsewhere specifying what areas of concern or individuals involved are being discussed. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been behind-the-scenes discussions, yes. About the issue that I can't really explain further here and which have no relevance to this case. Those discussions have involved WMF and all sorts of admins etc and I've also had lawyers and the police involved. What I said, and what I meant, was that it takes neither a genius nor a clairvoyant to work out what is going to happen in this case. As Rich well knows, I deposited something with a third party a while ago: that something sets out some likely outcomes and also some critique of how this case has been handled. I did that to prevent accusations of "sour grapes" should I still consider it fit to raise the issues once this case is concluded. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course there are behind the scenes things going on, I have realized that one of Wikipedia's flaws is how involved editors can get in things that don't include just editing an encyclopedia and working with other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

We should be thankful that discussion is taking place behind the curtains. If done in the open, the same repetitive arguments would drown the conversation.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Not much on observing deadlines, are they?

I'm edging towards the perspective that ArbCom is an institution that needs to go away. Carrite (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors have lives of their own you know. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The average Proposed Decision is at least 3 days behind the expected time table --Guerillero | My Talk 04:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The last one I was in last winter was MUCH simpler issues, clearer and fairly similar statements, relatively little political BS behinds the scenes, and over all an easier decision and they got it done about 6 weeks after predicted. Of course they were relatively new group then. Maybe now they can just knock them out. Whatever happens, MOKSHA! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's it. I've been trying to hold my tongue against the continuous onslaught from you and Neotarf over the last few days but enough is enough. relatively little political BS behinds the scenes - Really? How would you know? Please provide a confirmed example of it in relation to this case (not just your own paranoia, which manifests itself in more or less every post you make). - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please consider this as advice from a well-wisher: a proposed decision has just been posted that includes "Sitush (talk · contribs) and Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions)." Since there's no guarantee of an interaction ban, neither of you is under that restriction yet ... but to avoid giving any ammunition to anyone in case that does become a reality, your best bet is to act as if the interaction ban is already in place. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely agree with that. Interaction bans are not necessarily evidence of wrongdoing, but rather that conversations that involve the parties are very likely to not have a positive outcome. Both Sitush and Carolmooredc are aware that this is the case and have made statements to confirm that they'd rather not interact with the other. Ignoring each other from now on would be a positve step forward. Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I had already been doing that, outside of this case. That said, I'm not happy with the proposals: CMDC should be sitebanned because this is just another part of her long-running general campaigning and she won't stop. She has already been making snarky inferences about English editors, editors from Manchester, imperialists who controlled India, etc. She is not here for the right reasons. And she has been following me around since this case began, as well as sort-of threatening some who criticised her in situations where she was clearly, if not explicitly, referring to me. That's my last word on it. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Understood that you don't think it goes far enough, but once someone is under any kind of Arbcom restriction or ban, it at least plants the idea that further restrictions may be necessary, if the things that were happening in one area begin to, or continue to, be a problem in other areas. The thing that you're worried will be a huge problem usually doesn't wind up being a huge problem in the long run, in those relatively rare cases where there's any kind of ban or restriction. Enjoy your vacation from dealing with this. I enjoyed reviewing your FAC, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorting out that FAC might well be the last thing I do. I am absolutely appalled. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm also considering my position. Eric Corbett 16:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of yas are pressing the panic button, too early. My goodness, the other arbitrators haven't made their proposals yet. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a panic button. It is a disgust button. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-discrimination policy

This finding of fact mentions legally protected classes. This should be expanded to note by which legal authority defines theses classes. I'm presuming it is the US, but it wouldn't hurt to explicitly state this.--Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The language was pretty imprecise, but it would be as big as a set of law books if it were precise. I don't have any expertise in either legal drafting or Arbcom drafting, but one might say something like "in general terms" or "many countries have certain legal protections". - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think it would hurt to say protected classes are under the jurisdiction of wherever the WMF is incorporated -- or however non-profits are declared if "incorporated" is imprecise. INAL. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The point here is that we (Wikimedia, and English Wikipedia in particular) do not discriminate on these bases. Let's not focus unduly on the phrase "legally protected," which defines minimum rather than maximum aspirations for this project in terms of treating users equally. (For example, our commitment not to discriminate based on sexual orientation does not vary geographically even though in some places that is a legally protected characteristic and in other places it currently is not.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In other words I assume this means something like policy wise you can't say "we don't want you women editing in controversial areas" but you can say "we don't want you editing in controversial areas" to a specific female editor. (Though individuals might well suspect misogynism there.) Of course, if an editor said it repeatedly to one woman or especially several women in a row or in a group, then that would be an obvious pattern of discrimination, among other policy violations.

Of course more difficult to define can be something like if editor(s) said "we don't want you GGTF women telling us that what you think about your own life and experience is more accurate than what we guys think about it." Something which some women have believe has been said in different ways or inferred repeatedly. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The grossly inaccurate assumptions in the statement above, and the rather obvious attempt to grossly misrepresent the statements of others to cast the speaker as a martyr, are I think one of the most obvious reasons why the single female editor in particular being discussed in the sanction, as a single female editor, and not as a member of a basically still poorly defined and less than necessarily productive GGTF, are themselves one of the best reasons I can imagine why this one editor, as an individual, should be banned from this topic, although I admit that phrasing the restriction in a more clearly comprehensible way would probably be an improvement. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

But since she does the same thing in other topic areas, a topic ban for GGTF will achieve little. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: First, I don't know if you are talking about paragraph 1, which merely seeks clarification. So you must mean paragraph 2.

Merely stating that someone makes "grossly inadequate assumptions" doesn't mean they did. You have to prove it. (If you'd read the evidence page, you'd have a few examples of where my assumptions come from, including from other GGTF participants' quotes.) And then there has to be a debate about your evidence. Otherwise you are just making a put down, aka Personal Attack. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Remedy 3.3 Eric Corbett restriction

I would eliminate or at the very least rephrase the restriction on Eric Corbett (3.3) as its way too vague and will only lead to problems.--MONGO 17:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not at all vague, any admin who doesn't like me can ban me. Seems clear enough to me. Eric Corbett 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with eliminate. Eric who made a few snippy comments and used a "rude" word has emerged as a scapegoat. J3Mrs (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That makes me #3 for elimination. The way it stands a rather biased admin could ban Eric from a topic if he adds a useful and relevant quotation from a reliable source which uses the word "bitch" or similar on the talk page. Admins make mistakes too, and sometimes they can act before they think, if they in some cases ever actually get around to thinking of course. :) The fact that this sanction is added here makes it possible for even admins outside of AE to place such sanctions and make them effectively permanent, even if they are made for less than reasonable reasons. This restriction looks very much like a disaster waiting to happen, and I think all reasonable efforts to avoid artificially creating such problems should be avoided. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We give the newbiest newb a chance to speak for themselves before passing judgment, so it seems reasonable to give Arbcom the same courtesy. There's really no telling what they'll say. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

For an admin not to like you, then you would need the proof that it was the cause that they banned you. The wording does say "Uninvolved" so I see no issue here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be reworded; it's just asking for random ANIs about Eric popping up all over the place. I don't mean to be rude, but this sounds like something from ArbCom in 2006. Stuff like this is too easily used against the person being sanctioned. --Rschen7754 06:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I won't labor it here as we've discussed this at length on my talk page. My opinion is that any restriction that allows a single admin to take action against Eric is going to be ripe for abuse. As an admin, I don't want this power. The new version is much better than the old, but not as good as none. Dennis - 2¢ 18:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would draw attention again to what Knowledgekid87 pointed out, that the restriction says "uninvolved administrator." 72.223.98.118 (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, because it is so easy to find an admin that has exactly no opinion when it comes to Eric... Dennis - 2¢ 01:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to drama

As an uninvolved observer of this arbcom case, I must say that the proposed decision as it currently stands is simply a recipe for further feuding and drama. The only remotely "actionable" items in the Proposed remedies are the "topic bans from the Gender Gap" (what does that even mean?!), which may as well be an invitation for envelop pushing writ large.

Arbitrators: Please think again whether the proposed remedies will (a) stop the disruptive conduct you have surely observed in this case's evidence and workshop (talk-) pages and (b) whether that conduct is conducive to encyclopedia building, which is this this project's raison d'être. Don't pass the buck to the idealized "any uninvolved admin" who spends 5-10 minutes on the issue and sees only the latest isolated edit(s), when you have had a chance to observe the conduct first-hand, and to weigh the issues, for over a month. Abecedare (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If the problem is uncivil behavior, an uninvolved administrator should have the right to impose a sanction explicitly approved of here. Part of what draws out the drama so much when Corbett is involved is that everyone starts dragging up past contributions and collaborations as a pass. Long arguments ensue, nothing happens, and his victims think, Why on Earth does this person get to act this way? This remedy will give admins explicit permission to do what they'd do (oddly, without any special permission) for almost any other editor acting so uncivilly. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia! While we all welcome input from newer editors, and the edit history of your IP here indicates the IP you are using is new to wikipedia, you may find it useful to create and account and edit using it. Alternately, if you already have an account which for whatever reason you are choosing not to use, it would probably be best to use it, unless there are some sort of existing restrictions on it which may be involved. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical Correction

Proposed remedy # 4 should read, "Sitush is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with." Mike V • Talk 19:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. → Call me Hahc21 21:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc comments

1. On a personal level, I have no problem with topic banning me from GGTF for a good while because as things are now even the most subtly disruptive editors will just keep pissing me off. (Later note: I don't agree with many of your interpretations of all the diffs, but don't really care enough at this point to argue about them.) However, on a political level, you are sending GGTF members and the world a bad message - angry defenders of GGTF will be dealt with harshly while its most insistent, insidious, snide and harassing critics mostly will get off scott free.
2. Do I have the correct understanding of "broadly construed"? I assume it means GGTF project, Gender bias on Wikipedia article, any discussions anywhere on Wikipedia about Wikipedia gender gap issues. I assume it does not mean a topic ban from articles about women in general, womens' bios (except Wikipedia Gender Gap activists), feminism/the Feminism Wikiproject, other Countering Systemic Bias taskforces, noticeboard items in which GGTF participants happen to be involved, etc.
3. The "Non-discrimination policy" section still fails to address disruption of Wikiprojects, including of those trying to end systemic bias. You are telling bigots to have at them and and if defenders of the project lose their tempers, critics should try and get them blocked or topic banned. In any case, certain GGTF efforts will have to be taken off En.Wikipedia, which really is not a good sign.
4. I am happy with the Sitush two-way interaction ban! I do think he deserves a stern warning for his repeated snide and nasty comments against me which I documented in detail. Plus his "twatt" joke at a GGTF participant's page.[1] I did write an annoyed reply to his latest snotty comment to me on GGTF a few minutes before I noticed the proposal posted. Now that it looks like there will be an interaction ban, I'll be on my best behavior.
5. I obviously am very aggravated in general right now after a year and a half of what I consider partisan and/or sexist harassment that cut my actual editing down to nothing. To see these issues magnified at GGTF was incredibly annoying. I do intend to take a nice long wikibreak to work on my own seriously neglected writing, music and video projects. But I still probably will add the occasional factoid into articles of interest.

Finally, note that during the last couple months Sitush has pumped up my ego about being an activist and thus I'm thinking my retirement was premature. Perhaps I should energetically go back to political organizing. In that case, there still will be lots of editing I can do here where no one legitimately can claim "pov" and "coi". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Diffs don't support Salvio's "site ban" proposal

Given User:Salvio giuliano's proposal I be site banned, I have analyzed the evidence against me and don't think it even supports a topic ban. (Note: all my diffs already were presented on the Evidence page, except those related to a past arbitration.)

• (A) During a previous Arbitration case, Carolmooredc has been found to make "certain insufficiently supported personal attacks on other editors"
  

The only thing referenced there is a Sitush ANI "Tendentious referencing of other people's motives" which had seven diffs. My reply here which I hopefully shared at Arbitration, shows they were mostly innocuous comments. Perhaps as important to the Arbitrators should be that after I complained about SPECIFICO's harassment at that Arbitration, he came GGTF to harass me, resulting in an interaction ban at WP:ANI. (Sitush also left a number of talk page comments at that arbitration.[2])

• (B) Carolmooredc has actively supported keeping articles[3][4][5] by in her words "playing the systemic bias card"
  

Throwing the bias card was a little joke, but I should know better than to make a joke on a serious site like Wikipedia. Those two examples came from that one day August 1st. I immediately was chastised for my AfD comments and took the hint to be more careful in the future.

• (C) Carolmooredc has made comments about other editors without basis[6] including accusations that editors who have never met are married.[7]
  

• [8] This complaint on Tarc's talk page about Sitush was after he had gratuitously brought me up in a frivolous ANI against Tarc.[9] Here's Sitush's insulting reply.[10]
• [11] Did no one read the evidence where I wrote: *Misunderstanding alliance psychology led me to believe User:J3Mrs's hostility towards me and GGTF[12][13] were due to her close relationship with Corbett.[14]. I ineptly asked her about a vaguely remembered (false) rumor was she was his wife, as a possible conflict of interest.[15] Since everyone was so agitated I did apologize for repeating a "nasty rumor", though that characterization is a bit exaggerated.[16]

Note that a) It is not illegal to be married, so asking someone about it when the two live in the same town and J3Mrs has left 300+ talk page messages for Corbett really is a misunderstanding more than a nasty accusation; b) this was during a period when I was recovering from extreme harassment via SPECIFICO, leading to his interaction ban at ANI, and then via Sitush's biography and the related WP:MfD and WP:ANI. So I was not thinking clearly; c) in comparison, after harassment by India Against Corruption people, Sitush made a redacted threat of violence against another editor, which was objected to by many editors. I'm to be site banned for a stupid question when another editor can get away with a dire threat? I'm happy to take a 24 hour block for my stupidity. A site ban would look like double standards run amok.

• (D) Carolmooredc has made unnecessary comments about Sitush[17][18][19], despite agreeing that an interaction ban would be positive.[20]

• [21] Here I summarize all the evidence that I already presented in the relevant ANI about a two way interaction ban between us. Am I supposed to provide every single diff all over again?
• [22] This is just a repeat of the Tarc talk page diff above.
• [23], despite agreeing that an interaction ban would be positive. Per the below, Sitush didn't even agree to an interaction ban, but Salvio wants to site ban me for not complying with a non-agreement in my comment at Arbitration evidence talk page about my evidence??
• [24] Sure, TParis' proposal sounded good to me at 11:53, September 18, 2014. But at 03:48, September 19, 2014 Sitush writes "no taking it, TParis"[25] I'm to be punished for not abiding by an agreement he refused?

Per my evidence which Arbitrators should look at, Sitush hasn't simply made unnecessary comments: Since 2013 Sitush repeatedly bad mouths me at my talk page[26][27][28][29] (including after I banned him, details here); his talk page[30], other user talk pages[31][32][33][34] and elsewheres.[35][36][37] Seven of Sitush’s 10 edits at GGTF were directed at me.[38]

In his original filing on the Arbitration request page, User:Robert McClenon identified me as the target of hostility.[39] Defenses of he following quote caused a lot of problems at GGTF: "Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one."[40]. Then its author and some of his friends joined to badger participants. Yet that seems less of interest to Salvio than the skimpy evidence provided above?

At the evidence talk page we already discussed Salvio's discussion of Sitush's biography of me and he's obviously had lots of interactions with Sitush who states he wants me site banned.[41] Now User:Salvio giuliano wants to use this paltry evidence, especially compared to that which has been presented about other editors bad behavior on GGTF, to get me site banned? And this is in an arbitration about a task force regarding systemic bias against women? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• For Carolmooredc's information and I think I've already said this, I don't live in the same town as Eric Corbett, we have never met, the 300+ talk page messages are mostly about content and, as an aside, married couples don't communicate with each other via Wikipedia, at least I don't. It wasn't a stupid question it was an attempt to discredit two editors. You have no idea how much damage that message could have caused in real life. I don't accept your glib apology because you started a rumour and on Wikipedia mud sticks and you obviously don't get it. J3Mrs (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

CMDC has retracted her commented and accepted that it was a misunderstanding stemming from some other people's comments. I do not see why this could be so much of an issue (for you), particularly when using a pseudonym, and when there is no chance of CMDC repeating the claim ever again. If that claim was indeed so troublesome for you, I would have expected you to avoid talking about it and urge people to stop talking about it, instead of bringing it up again and again and fail to object to people who bring it up again and again, only to have multiple people repeatedly blame someone for one mistake. Indeed, it seems that you like blaming that one person much more than you detest that wrong claim.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that from what I have read, this editor repeatedly makes unfounded allegations that are hardly ever backed up with evidence. With this in mind, retractions come easy, because their purpose had already happened, in so far as the mud has been thrown. The allegations should not be made in the first place, and if unsupported allegations continue to emerge from this editor, it shows a kind of unsuitability as an editor here. Also, I think the attempt to make the victim of these allegations into some kind of attacker is an action that merely perpetuated an attack upon them. I think you should mnot say such things on a public forum, but if you thought this was a concern, you should have raised it privately with that editor.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As someone else brought up, I would not have mentioned the issue again if it wasn't brought up constantly. FYI, I thought I was raising my concern in the appropriate "private" forum - J3Mrs talk page. I just wasn't fully aware of what "talk page stalker" meant and that all these people would jump into and start screaming about it. I know now that such things only should go to email. In my boggled mind state after weeks of harassment, I was trying to figure out if this was going to be another serial harasser and why. I did provide diffs showing my concerns when J3Mrs asked for them. (I didn't think at the time to look at interaction analyzer and just went by a couple talk pages I remembered.)

Now I can surmise why generally speaking questions being married to someone is seen here as a heinous crime. Perhaps because a lot of editors of indeterminate or non-proven sex are guys and they freak out if you ask if they are married to someone who they think is a guy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That is just nonsensical. pablo 16:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Question on "Non discrimination policy"

Does "gender" mean biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, all of the above? I've typically seen non-discrimination policies use the term "sex", as in biological sex. Most states and municipalities do not explicitly cover gender identity or expression. Because this case is about gender and sex, it would seem important to be clear here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As I indicated in another thread, it's not necessary to focus legalistically on the precise wording of the policy or of its paraphrase of the decision. I am sure that the list of personal characteristics that must never become the basis for discrimination is meant to be generally coextensive with the list we used here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: The wording you used here is much better (clear, inclusive, and concise). Might I recommend that language be copied into this proposal? While I understand that this might seem like nit-picking, the distinctions are important to some people. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I like that earlier wording, but we can't just swap it for the principle in this decision, because we rewrite the actual Foundation policy. Perhaps we should simply add this wording to the existing proposal. Let's see what the other arbs think. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Mildly confused. The wording you linked in the Manning case was WMF's old non-discrimination wording and the wording in this case is its current wording? (Seems odd that they'd go from more inclusive to less inclusive). Thank you for taking the time to explain all this to me. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The wording from the prior case was our (i.e. the Arbitration Committee's) statement, not adapted from a Foundation policy. In this case the drafter has used language from the WMF policy. As I suggest above, the best move may be to synthesize both. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification. I would love to see them synthesized. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Either adding both or synthesizing them would be fine. I do prefer the Arbcom written statement to the foundation-based one. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad on Non discrimination policy under Proposed principles:

The Wikimedia Foundation non-discrimination policy prohibits discrimination against users on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics.

Re "legally protected characteristics". This doesn't specify who has decided what characteristics are considered "legally protected".

Also, are these "characteristics" prone to be US-centric? The use of "states and municipalities" used above by EvergreenFir, as well as the three posts by Neotarf of an email from "a anonymous user" based on the US definition of a "hostile work environment"[42] [43](Jimbo Wales talk page), and the arbcom workshop page Proposals by User:Neotarf under "Comment by a anonymous user"[44] and Neotarf's diffs on the evidence page with her inclusion criteria[45] at the bottom: Note: criteria for choosing diffs loosely based on blog comments about a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. [46]) all suggest these editors may be assuming US legal and government views of pejorative or a profane speech etc. worthy of getting upset over is to be enforced on en:wiki.

The suggested replacement from another arbcom case[47] is very subjective. Examples: the diffs presented by Neotarf[48] don't seem like awful insults. Are all posts with humor or personality to be forbidden? (This will be a very dull place then.) Robert McClenon's evidence from EvergreenFir's "Evidence of disruption from Evergreen Fir" on ANI are all crossed out by Robert McClenon[49][50] [51] except one[52], to me more of an opinion about "our leader" who is a public figure after all and who has used "toxic" and "toxic personality" himself. Strangely, in the US, such a comment or worse about the President Barack Obama would be freely allowed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. So to me, calling out a small comment like this about this website's public leader in arbcom seems like a belief that wiki political dissent is to be suppressed.

Also, forbidden words vary from place to place. I watched a Canadian TV series episode that used (what's called here) the "C-bomb" more than once, and the characters didn't seem upset. And words that were verboten a few years ago are not so much now. EChastain (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@EChastain, do you feel similarly about racial words, like the "N-word"? Or what about words that were once widely used but now verboten? DoctorTerrella (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec)@DoctorTerrella I think forbidding words does more harm than good. If women used words we consider stigmatizing I think it would take away the words' power and defuse them. The only people who are allowed to use the "N-word" freely in the US now are those who felt the word stigmatized them. I've never used it, but I don't think stigmatizing was useful.

In the US there are so many people from various countries and skin colors that the "N-word" doesn't apply to, it's almost like "blacks" are worse off by being ghettoized as the only people who can use it. In a recent movie American Hustle, a New Jersey politician asks about an Arab sheikh: "Is he black?" And the main character is puzzled by the question and doesn't know. There is no forbidden word for Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans etc. Although there have been derogatory terms used, like for the Chinese, but they never reached the class of "forbidden" and now I don't hear them.

Native Americans object to the NFL football team name of the Washington Redskins, a Washington D.C. team, the US capital; they peacefully picket in Minnesota when the team plays there but more on the issue of pride rather than stigmatization. EChastain (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but I think your arguements about free speech are not relevant in all contexts. Not in the context of abuse. If I were to go around at work saying the c-word or the n-word, I'd be fired! And rightly so. Similarly, if we have abuse in the form of unacceptable use of deragatory language, then some penalty would be appropriate. I understand that this might be difficult to define, but as an idea it should be considered. DoctorTerrella (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr. Learn difference between free speech and restrictions by private companies. Also, it's US centric because this is a US company. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that this kind of language is necessarily "US centric." See Equality and diversity (United Kingdom). 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Spelling error in "Fair criticism" section

Please change demonstratinge to demonstrating. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I prefer "demonstratinge". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Error in Sitush's section

Error is in "working in positively in". I think that first "in" needs to be removed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles about opponents

It has been said that writing biographical articles about editors with whom one is in or has been in conflict is generally a bad idea. I am somewhat curious about that. There is one editor here who has been basically temporarily inactive for a month or so here (I'm not going to give any indications regarding his status as retired or not or any previous professional status) who seems to be basically a promoter of one of a number of at best questionably-notable-and-supported theories of early Christianity. He doesn't give his name per se, but if he had I have thought more than once I might write an article on him, because there is some evidence to think he might be notable, which might include his own statements here about how he has recently converted his religious views to those which he seeks to promote here. I would do this because, basically, I think it would be a good idea to have those views, presumably shared by multiple people, discussed here somewhere at some degree of weight, and I don't know if the largely "independent" churches which might adhere to ideas of this type are ever discussed collectively in such a way as to give the beliefs separate independent notability.

I acknowledge that this is a strictly theoretical point, because I do not know the real life name of the individual in question to know if he is notable or not, but I do think creating a fair, balanced and substantive article under such conditions might be considered other than a bad idea. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Mine would have been a fair, balanced and substantive article and I was happy both to have others edit it and to take on board any legitimate concerns of the subject. Despite my reputation for writing neutrally etc and never having any of my creations deleted previously, I've been given a telling-off for something that was only part-developed due to filibustering by the subject. Go figure. - Sitush (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If you can't understand why your "opposition research" on another editor was inappropriate, that's kind of a problem, and it's a problem that the drafting arbitrators have attempted to address. That you also participated - during the arbcom case! - in an off-wiki discussion that included some egregious personal attacks on the woman who was also the target of your drafted WP article, is kind of an indication that you're just not getting it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr Urge, if you cannot understand why I do not give a toss what you think, then you too have a kind of problem. And, no, I am not drunk. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, Demiurge is spot-on. Please think about how you are now behaving. Okay? DoctorTerrella (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad, take note of the above comments, and ask yourself if the message has gotten through! DoctorTerrella (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: I think that even with good intentions, it would be very difficult to write a neutral article about someone who you're involved in a dispute with. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Writing a BLP about someone you are in genuine conflict with - whether on or off Wikipedia - is simply a horrible idea. To cite the sometimes reliable encyclopedia Wikipedia "conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest. It exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by secondary interests." It is a particular bad idea if the BLP subject is only barely notable, a low-profile individual and/or where the biography per nature will include controversies or other sensitive stuff even in a neutral version. To say that an editor should stay away from a particular topic due to COI isn't an attack on that editor's integrity or their capacity to write neutrally; it's just to state that due to the circumstances (like a genuine conflict) they aren't in the position to appear impartial. I will also allege that if you create an article about a Wikipedian for the reason that you perceive it to be helpful in internal Wikipedia matters, then you are acting upon a secondary interest right there. Iselilja (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above, when making a personal article about someone that you are in conflict with is a bad idea. Even if you think you aren't doing anything wrong it would be better if the article was drafted by an uninvolved person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, @Demiurge1000. I was thinking it might be hard to come up with more egregious stuff off-wiki than already has been said at Wikipedia about me. I do see a slightly hyped up version of one old bio someone did of me on Encyclopediadramatica. Written by someone (obviously falsely) calling himself by a Wikipedia editor's handle. Probably not what you were referring to. Obviously someone green with jealously that they didn't predict four years in advance the exact month the Iron Curtain would fall. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "Gender Gap"

Recent comments by NYB on the project page indicate that there might be some question in the ArbCom about whether this term is to be applied to those articles and pages directly related to the Gender Gap Task Force, and thus related to the term "Gender Gap" by the "support" of the GGTF. There is also a question raised by him whether this might be about discussing the "gender gap" which has been widely acknowledged by wikipedia for some time. Then, I suppose, there is also the at least theoretical range of articles which deal with gender gaps in some way, such as, presumably, the gender gap among American test pilots and astronauts, for instance. As an ill-informed dweeb who dunt no much anglich, I think some sort of clear statement of intended scope of this restriction would be useful, particularly indicating whether it is to apply to one or all of the above areas. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable point. I think if we were imposing discretionary sanctions this would be a more important thing to emphasize. As it stands, it still wouldn't hurt to clarify. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, I actually am considering whether adding a form of DS remedy would be useful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

I thought the principle on casting aspersions

"It is unacceptable for an editor to accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. . . ."

was very sensible, since it addressed the very serious problem of relational aggression, though it might require more judgement in assessing intent. It talks of "egregious misbehaviour"; similarly, WP:NPA talks of "serious accusations". I'm less sure about the proposal to change that to the version

"Making allegations against other editors: An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. . . ."

since the suggested replacement version alters the emphasis and might make it more legalistic: it could be interpreted to mean that taking a low-level problem with another editor to their talk page could be interpreted as a personal attack, because "clear evidence of the alleged misconduct" was not provided. Some issues such as WP:IDHT require masses of diffs to provide " clear evidence", which means that lesser issues are quickly escalated to the noticeboards or it has a chilling effect on attempts to stop disruptive behaviour at a low level. If the principle needs to be re-worded, perhaps these concerns could be taken into consideration.--Boson (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your observation. I don't see the risk you describe as significant; we've used the alternate formulation in several prior cases, and I don't recall anyone's having misapplied it in the way you're concerned about. I agree it might be good to insert "serious" before "misconduct," however, to confirm that we are talking about significant accusations and not trivial matters. Let's see what the other arbs think. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with adding serious. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging some of the more problematic editors behaviors on this case. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What is "that word"?

You should at least mention what the word is. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It is the word inadvertently spelled by Malvolio during the letter scene in the second act of Twelfth Night. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Very erudite! What if someone used the Chaucerian queynte, the meaning of which is somewhat disputed? I do understand the general point, btw, but usage and abusage etc: things really do vary. A well-known cleric in the UK was on TV last week laughing about being referred to as #twatvicar in a Twitter doo-dah, for example. Offence can be relative, and context is vital. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said before swearing isn't and shouldn't be the issue. Someone can have a bad day, okay we all have bad days that can be forgiven, someone can have a bad week, maybe someone they were close to passed away, okay that is life it can be overlooked, but when you use cuss after cuss after cuss to multiple editors over a months long period then it becomes an issue and brings down the editing mood and everyone around you. Unless you think that editors like being called ... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Wikipedia is not censored. But I gather that a certain level of decorum is expected. It should be. Maybe I can just share my own experience. I used to use foul language. At times, back then, it gave me a temporary sort of exhilaration. Sometimes my friends also got a kick out of it. But in the long run, I felt diminished. Sometimes, after the fact, I regretted saying some things. It also reduced the effectiveness of my communication. Others who may not have been my friends, per se, were not persuaded by my colorful rhetoric. At the same time, I learned to appreciate that other individuals held themselves to a higher wordliness. Their communication, clean from all that unnecessarily and degrading expression, was more effective. People respected them. People listened to them. Maybe acquiring this awareness was just about my own maturation. Not that I'm perfect, but I know that I feel better if I use language that is respectful. And I know that my communication is more effective if I just simply choose my words more carefully. I know, I sound like an old lady, but those are my thoughts. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That depends entirely on culture and the company that you keep. I know plenty of people who, including in the fabled workplace, simply could not understand the issue of "higher wordliness". In fact, they might often laugh at it. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Really, Sitush? They wouldn't understand you if you use language that is respectful? They laugh if you don't use derogatory words? Curious, DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep. In fact, they often cannot understand me because of my choice of words. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, I'm sorry to see you descend, as you are now. The issue is choosing not to use words (yes, with context). DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I'm sorry that you are sorry. But I see no descent. Somewhere above, someone referred to a legal issue regarding "states and municipalities". That is a classic example of US-centricism and this usage issue is another. But the number of US-based editors far outnumbers the number of UK/Australia ones, so I guess consensus is systemically biassed. If you want to see real nasty wording, spend some time around the Indic topic area. I just ignore it, which isn't hard to do. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And it is good that you can ignore it. You bring much to Wiki, we've seen things similarly in the past, but you seem, right now, to be swept up by some kind of momentum. Shake it off. DoctorTerrella (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is some momentum. It is engendered by utter disgust at the proposals generally, which are already being nitpicked to death. - Sitush (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) The concern is not particularly with legitimate use of the word in mainspace contexts (such as in Mr. Corbett's FA about an English streetname derived from it), but about gratuitous use of the word on talkpages, where it has repeatedly proved a serious distraction. Relatedly, the point is not that we have or should have a list of prohibited naughty words à la the "seven words you can't say on television" or the rules of a junior high school; it is that, as Mr. Corbett frequently emphasizes himself, our fundamental purpose here is creating and improving content, so that mannerisms that consistently distract editors from that mission are bad manner(ism)s. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand that is the intended message. That message comes through clearly in the verbiage of the proposal. However, by dancing around the word, you send a different message: that the word is inherently incivil. If that were true, ArbCom would have been rather negligent in not stepping in before now. It makes sense that you wouldn't want to narrow the scope of the case to a single word, but I suggest that your position is clearer if you use the word. 76.72.20.218 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about gratuitous because context does matter but let's just accept that for now. The mannerisms that have consumed the most time and distracted the most people over the last year or so in relation to this entire circus are surely not Eric's but rather another party to this case. And that party contributes next to nothing to improving of content if you disallow multiple tweakings of their edits, multiple revert wars and masses of tendentious talk page argument. They're the one who raises the fuss, they're the one whom numerous respected contributors, such as @Drmies: and @TParis:, have gone on record as saying are gaming the system etc with multiple ANI reports and the like. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes because Eric is totally innocent here and has done nothing at all wrong is that what you are getting at? Where is this other party you speak of? All I see are Eric's constant bashing of other editor's with his opinions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not say that he is totally innocent and, yes, it is a word that I tend not to use. But I use words like "twat", "bollocks" etc frequently, and I have also brought Eric down from the precipice that others have goaded him to on more than one occasion. He is entitled to his opinions, surely as much as the soapboxer on the other "side" who (often incredibly wordy) snidey-ness is incredible. Want some diffs just from the last week or so? There is an example even on your own talk page. It is entirely possible to be very offensive without using certain words that certain people find offensive, and we have someone who is very adept at it in this case. - Sitush (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It reminds me of how black people use the N word among themselves but something that if used by a white person is a serious wrong. The basic rule here should be respect, if using certain words in your country is normal then please keep it to people you know wont be greatly offended by it. I know there are prob some words in the dictionary that people in the UK would take great offense to but less so here in the US but I am careful not to tread there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is that word "ownership" thing (I forget the academic phrase) and it often bemuses me. On the internet, no-one really knows where someone comes from, who they are, what their age is, what their gender is etc. And everywhere on the thing you will find this sort of language. I can remember as a kid even trying to look it up in a dictionary - "find the naughty words" sort of thing ;) I'm actually a transgender, late-40s person who edits in one part of the UK but actually lives elsewhere; I am the owner of a multi-million UKP turnover business, have a couple of mansions and a penchant for scatology. I really enjoy medieval-style jousting and I'm in a religious sect that approves of polygamy. Without outing me, is that true or false?

It isn't workable, is it? It is only workable if we actually ban certain words outside of a specific article-related context (such as the Gropecunt Lane thing to which NYB alluded). We either ban or we live with it. - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it is workable in the sense that you should treat everyone as they are not from the UK, there are ways of finding out via info-boxes here on Wikipedia for some editors, others who don't have that information you can always inquire about. yes it is the better safe than sorry approach but doing so lessens the drama and the negative reactions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That's stick to the cussing issue for now I know there are connected ones but it helps to tackle one obstacle at a time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

UK? What about Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, to name but a few? What about people in any of those countries who do in fact object rather than accept or ignore? Like I said, it isn't workable without a proscription. - Sitush (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well to those who object it can be seen as not willing to respect others and you shouldn't be surprised on the drama it creates from people in other countries here. In my view both sides should give a little. History has shown that people who object the social normal of other countries often don't fare well unless they are hoping to change the other culture somehow and even then it rarely succeeds. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

History has shown ... Indeed, And that is what is going on here with US-centricism etc. Tolerance works both ways. And I'm now off to bed to dream of Jimbo's Utopia. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Thank you for opening my mind to that fact, maybe there is a solution that can be worked out I am hoping so at least. Have a goodnight. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The bigger problem is, why is there no Eric Corbett block log section? It wasn't just a matter of one word, though GGTF participants awareness of his saying "Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one."[53] in direct response to a woman was well known at GGTF and elsewheres. It's a matter of his bringing his history of insulting people and getting away with it to GGTF to disrupt the project and angering a number of editors in the process. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You have completely misrepresented what happened. Eric was participating in a discussion, things were said. You have taken away the context but I think it was offered as advice, it wasn't aimed at anybody, you've brought it up constantly as some kind of anti-Eric mantra, but as advice goes and while I may have used another word, it's sentiment is worth noting. J3Mrs (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Different people can have different interpretations of any speific use of c*nt, tw*t, etc. When one set of interpretations is that they are hostile comments directed a or all woman, one must consider apologizing - or at least not using the term again. Especially if one has a sincere interest in GGTF. This point has been made over and over in a number of different forums (GGTF, Wales talk, Admin board, ANI board, talk pages) to Corbett, Sitush, you and others, but it just doesn't sink in. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There's something not sinking in, that's for sure. Eric Corbett 19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, if we consider (say) hypothetical conversations, implicitly suggesting that men/women hate women/men, or starting conversations off with assertions that women/men are human, when no one has asserted anything else, well, .... not helpful. DoctorTerrella (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, 'cunt' is in many environments a problematic word as everybody has their own view on whether it is being used to specifically target women. I don't like it being used as an "expletive" and only ever use it as a noun, but then rarely. But when I hear it I do not immediately categorise the speaker as a misogynist. There is a debate to be had about this word but it cannot be assumed to be used with misogynistic intent even if the word itself is inherently misogynist.
More importantly, use of the word has little to do with this arbcom case brought to you by R McLenon (disengaged) with additional padding from Patrol Forty (blocked) pablo 20:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It has absolutely nothing to do with this case, which was designed right from the start to be a coatrack for yet another tedious civility case. Eric Corbett 20:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Pablo. The women against whom the term was used because she asked about a civility board kicked up quite a fuss before quitting the project and then Wikipedia. Another GGTF woman participant left one angry post at GGTF and then quit for several months over the same issue. I've been pretty much driven out - and they want to topic and site ban me - because I won't back down on saying "c*nt" is a slur, as is "twat", just like all the other "words" that Wikipedia accepts are slurs. (Why don't the brits just use "wanker" and "tosser" - they don't mean much at all in the larger english speaking world?) The impact is driving women out, and Corbett's "C*ntgate" is known to only a small number of wikipedia women. What if they all knew? So it's highly relevant to GGTF. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The term was not used against any woman Carole, as you well know. Why do you persist with this fiction? And your "C*ntgate" invention is simply farcical. Eric Corbett 21:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Intent is important, Carol. Did you intend to write 'women' or 'woman' above? I am assuming 'woman'. I am not starting a case or offering evidence that you are exaggerating. pablo 20:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, some people don't like the word "Brit". DoctorTerrella (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ditto "wanker" and "tosser" , "dick", jerk" (and how is wp:jerk somehow 'better' than wp:dick I wonder? As a humble Brit who sees them both as referring to a) knobs and b) male masturbation) pablo 21:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But that's at the heart of the issue here. Those are male gender-oriented slurs, and nobody cares much for male editors, of which we apparently have too many anyway. Eric Corbett 21:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am grateful for the clarification of some slang above. I wonder how "tosspot" fits in with those, as it seems to me, maybe, to perhaps be an indicator that someone is a pot which is used to hold feces or similar until such time as it is "tossed" outside into the trash or other collection. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Toss=throw (possibly down your neck) pot=vessel containing beer hence Tosspot. hth pablo 21:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I must say, I'm still a little confused by what we have thus far in the proposed decision - are we allowed to use that particular word here, or not? StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Use the words that you need to communicate would be my advice. pablo 20:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Wanker" (synonym "tosser") means person who masturbates and obviously is gender neutral since women do it too. But I find it interesting that Eric is too offended to use a technically gender neutral term, while freely using and vehemently defending one that hundreds of millions of people think is a slur against women. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the word should be added to the Proposed findings of fact: "Over an extended period of time, and in a variety of contexts, Eric Corbett has used on Wikipedia a particular term that the word 'cunt,' which many users find highly offensive." 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

and many others do not. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Cultural sensitivity

I find it hard to believe that I of all people am saying this. But it seems to me that the essence of the problem with the C*** word is that it is used fairly regularly in a not unusually insulting way in one English speaking country, the UK, where I am told people regularly use more "colorful" language than many in the US would consider acceptable, and people in the US who are used to somewhat well bowdlerized language in some fields, although our own regular use of some sexual and scatological obscenities is perhaps even more frequent than similar usage elsewhere, and that, well, some people in what one cartoonist referred to as the "easily-offended community" in one country or another will blow a gasket when they encounter one of those words used about them, because they as individuals see the word as being much more insulting than it was intended to be. It is not really civil for me to call some arbs pin-headed egomaniacal under-endowed overcompensators, for instance, but it probably isn't the worst thing many of them have been called. But, if one really is, um, under-endowed, they might take much stronger exception to that particular generic putdown than others might consider merited.

Unfortunately, it is impossible for any of us primarily familiar with one country to really know if English-speaking people from some other country regularly call each other "goatfucker" or similar in what is more or less regular and normal usage, and some of us whose experience in matters of animal husbandry, broadly construed, is perhaps more extensive than others, not knowing of such possible common usage, might take more exception to the term than was intended.

Maybe one thing we need is some sort of essay page where we can list some relatively common insulting languages in various parts of the English speaking world, which can be linked to elsewhere which might make it easier for people to both defend themselves if they caught and also make it easier for them to realize that certain words that they might use are really not taken as lightly elsewhere and shouldn't be used except in those cases where really strong language is intended. Maybe it could be in some sort of chart format, with an indication of the various "grades" of objectionability by country included. Honestly, such a thing might even be useful as a standalone article, if it's notable, because most travelers would probably benefit from knowing which insults they regularly use should not be used in certain areas, like, maybe, calling the people of modern Germany a bunch of Nazis or holocaust deniers, for instance. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge the only person who's been called a cunt in recent times is Jimbo Wales, who so far as I'm aware isn't a woman. Eric Corbett 21:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The cultural excuse for continuing to use words that others protest, is an irrelevant excuse. If editors are asking you not to use a 'word', then you don't use. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Every possible scenario fits into one sentence. You should usually avoid saying the Seven dirty words out of context, but if you do use them, don't use them to the point of disruption, or use them as a weapon or personal attack or you will get blocked. All we need is common sense and tolerance. Seraph summed it up pretty good on the front page, so did Salvio. Dennis - 2¢ 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

All I wanted was the actual word to be added to the record

How much do we need to argue? It would be, "Eric Corbett's use of the word "cunt" is disruptive". Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The word shouldn't be used if editors are protesting its usage. However, its usage shouldn't be a problem 'here', if as an example for this case :) GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, although I might change it to "Eric Corbett's repeated use of the word "cunt" as a description of female or presumably female editors in wikipedia is disruptive and does not contribute to a collegial atmosphere." John Carter (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be true. Eric Corbett 21:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

But (oh shit why is this case about that word) I do not think that Eric Corbett knows or even considers gender whilst using the word 'cunt'. Why would he? I have no idea about the genital configuration of most of the people with whom I've interacted here. Nor much interest therein.  pablo 21:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely true. I have good reason to believe that Jimbo Wales is a male. Eric Corbett 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And for the record, in my eight years here I have only ever called two editors "cunts", both of whom I knew to be male and both of whom are. Eric Corbett 21:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

OK fair enough. pablo 21:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

North American editors really do need to take on board that in British English, unlike American English, the word "cunt" is generally applied to males or gender-neutral. Its usage in British English is completely different from that of the word "bitch", which is reserved for women. If you want to get a feel for it, please read the following Guardian article (now ten years old) on the time John Lydon used the term "fucking cunts" on live television: [54]. The Guardian article was written to remark on the fact that there were no significant complaints from the UK viewing public, while 30 or 40 years prior there would have been storms of protest. For those too lazy to click, the most relevant passage is, Lydon and ITV1 may have been helped by the fact that he was not using his taboo word with precision. He employed the word "cunts" as an accidental, casual expletive [...] he spoke it in a definition which has become almost meaningless. You can make many well-considered arguments that Eric should avoid giving offence, but the canard that Eric is a misogynist who uses the term to insult women has to be laid to rest for good. Andreas JN466 04:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jayen466: and "negro" doesn't have the same meaning in India. But if someone informs you that it's offensive, you stop using it. Corbett know full well exactly how that word is perceived by American and Canadian readers. Part of civility is taking others' into account. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not my point. My point is that Eric has been repeatedly slandered over the past few months as a person who calls women cunts, and that should really stop. As I said above, "You can make many well-considered arguments that Eric should avoid giving offence." I have no problem with it if anyone voices the opinion that Eric is stubborn, inconsiderate or obstreperous, because that at least would be a criticism based on events that happened in consensual reality. People can still take different views on that, but it is not asserting that Eric did things he did not do. Andreas JN466 04:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay if it is not cunts then it is other things, point is that it needs to stop, he has been told that and so far has refused to listen. It would be the same as if a Spanish or Indian editor started calling other editors niggers or negro's. Is that going to be allowed to happen next given the rationale that it is acceptable in another part of the world so it flies here on Wikipedia? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If an Indian editor used a word in a way that is unremarkable in India, but which comes across as offensive in an unintended way in North America, I would make allowance for the editor's domestic linguistic milieu and judge them according to the standards of that milieu ... and explain the differences between the two, much as I tried to above. "Taking others into account", as EF phrased it above, swings both ways: you're surely not expecting everyone on here to speak American English only. Andreas JN466 04:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No im not, I am expecting that editors know enough to treat others with respect and just watch what they say is all. Usually when someone is told what they are saying is offensive and to stop they stop or are careful in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jayen466: If someone genuinely does not realize a word is offensive, then education is the correct course of action. I don't think anyone would suggest that the banhammer should be swung at such people. So yes, taking others into account does swing both ways. For example, if a student uses "tranny" when we talk about gender, I inform them that it's offensive. Surprisingly, a lot of people don't know this but it's not their fault. But if they continue to do so, I ask them to leave. But that is not, and never has been, the case with Corbett. It's disingenuous to suggest that.EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Or, using the existing language, "Over an extended period of time, and in a variety of contexts, Eric Corbett has used on Wikipedia a particular term that the word 'cunt,' which many users find highly offensive." 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And in fact, as someone mentioned elsewhere, why not mention the other ArbCom? From this, one might get the impression that although Corbett has used the word "over an extended period of time," this is the first time that it has ever caused disruption. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I refer my honourable and right honourable friends to Etymological fallacy. As far as "bad words" go in general there is no need to use them. Carol is as incorrect with a sweeping assertion that "tosser" etc. are "OK in Britain" as anyone who thinks "cunt" is "OK in Britain". It is far more nuanced than a simple matter of nationality which words are "OK" and which are taboo - social setting, region, who is present (including a fairly widespread reticence in the presence of the other gender, older or younger people and strangers). Similarly I'm sure I have heard lyrics from America which include that word (Liz Phair for one), and I know I have read a book by an American feminist entitled "Cunt" and one of the Vagina Monologues is about 50% "Cunt". This, at least to me, demonstrates that it is not the choice of word, but the context that matters. And all this "you can say jerk but not twat" or "tosspot, but not tosser" is irrelevant. There is no need to use any of these words, though there may be a need to mention them.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

There is a genuine difference in the North-American and British usage of the word. Leaving the literal meaning aside, Merriam-Webster defines it as usually disparaging & obscene : woman, while Oxford defines it as An unpleasant or stupid person. That's a fundamental difference. As long as that is understood, I agree with everything you're saying. Andreas JN466 05:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: It's not just the context but also the user. The use of "cunt" in the Vagina Monologues and as that book title are examples of reclamation of the term by those its been used to oppress. It's not just how it's said or when it's said, but who says it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I know! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Prithee, Arbcom

Please IBAN carolmooredc from me. During the brief period in which the 1-way IBAN was in effect between us, Evidence in this case and her behavior in this forum have shown her abusing my muzzle by continuing her aspersions, accusations, denigration, deprication, and demonization of me. I hope that you will consider IBANning her from me. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Specific instances of such conduct being clearly indicated would probably be welcome. John Carter (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf availability and a query about voting time frames

I have just glanced at the newly posted proposed decision, and I would appreciate the opportunity to put some of the diffs presented into context. However because RL, realistically I have to be up at 4 am and won't have a chance to look at everything in detail much before Sunday, although I could probably manage some discussion within the next 24-48 hours. Is the committee in a hurry to begin voting, or is there time for me to go into some of these concerns in greater detail? Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As you will see, several arbitrators including yourself are holding off on voting on the items concerning you pending your response here. Please post your thoughts as soon as reasonably convenient. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As Arbcom has defacto made me a participant in this case with it's references I will rebut with my own evidence those things that have involved me. It's my opinion this particular finding is spot on, a rare thing in an Arb case I find.. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

drama avoidance

An editor who does not want to get involved has a valid concern: "I think we're just asking for more random ANIs about Eric if we do this. " Although I'm not an WP:AE fan -- but that's not important right now -- it does manage drama better than ANI. Therefore I suggest adding "editors wishing for administrative review of Eric's conduct per this remedy may only use the AE noticeboard." Something like that. NE Ent 11:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that helps. That would give us editor -> AE -> block -> possibly unblock -> ANI Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

AE blocks are protected - if an admin overturns it without consensus, they are likely to be desysopped. I'd say this is a reasonable modification, will add it as no one has voted on the remedy yet. Worm^TT(talk) 11:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hence the 'possibly'; I definitely don't rule out this chain of events happening with the unblock included, even if it would lead to immediate de-sysopping, but even if it wouldn't happen, I can't imagine it not ending up on AN(I) regardless. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The last thing Wikipedia needs is any more blocks on Eric. Possible sequences: editor -> AE -> admins determine no disruption -> end of drama, or editor -> AE -> admin agrees contributions disruptive -> temporary topic ban that area -> drama limited. NE Ent 15:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible loophole leading to what might look like gravedancing

A warning has been proposed that an editor should not "create" bio articles about another ed he is in dispute with. I suggest that the warning should also be extended to "editing"/"commenting" on such an article even if it was created by someone else, otherwise, the purpose of the warning would be completely defeated and might lead to what lots of people would see as gravedancing. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

An excellent example of this is Chip Berlet about retired editor User_talk:Cberlet, per this recent complaint. Just an FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

2008? Recent? pablo 20:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Changed to 2014 WP:BLPN link. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

but nothing actionable pablo 21:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious that the arbs want Sitush to write the bio article on you. I have no respect left for the arbs and see them as nothing more than a sham.OrangesRyellow (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

OrangesRyellow, how did you come to the conclusion that the arbs want Sitush to write a bio on Carolmooredc? I'm not seeing it. Ca2james (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh. The arbs are warning Sitush ONLY about CREATING the article. Not about WRITING it even after I have pointed out this loophole. QED.OrangesRyellow (talk)

Oranges, you have been butting in where I am involved ever since MangoWong (ahem, colours) ran out of options. It is already on record somewhere that someone asked me for a list of my sources around the time that the draft was deleted, and that I had refused to give it to them because it looked like it might be an attempt to rake it up. I was and still am confident that I could create a neutral article and that there was notability because of the Waco book etc but I've accepted that the community believes me to have been misguided. I've been under a phenomenal amount of stress and the CMDC issue was a massive irritant even though not the cause, a bit like having an abscess where a recently amputated limb might be. I've no intention of getting involved nor of assisting others in doing so. Drop it, please, and try not to follow me around. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I find it interesting that it was Carolmooredc who introduced the "opposition research" thing into policy a few years ago. I accept, though, that it has not met with complaint since, although I was unaware of it at the time of my drafting. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Off hand, I don't remember doing so, though if I did it was brilliant of me. It's always more credible to to provide evidence of statements about incidents which even the person you are talking about may not remember. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is your edit (16 February 2011) which added "opposition research" at WP:HARASS. You also mentioned the term at: 1 January 2011 and 18 January 2011 and 20 January 2011 and 8 February 2011 and 25 August 2011 and 16 September 2014. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) In the principles section we state (unanimously so far) that editors should not create or edit BLP articles about people they are in disputes with. We have said the same thing in several prior decisions, albeit the scenario of the BLP subject's being in an on-wiki dispute with the editor rather than an off-wiki dispute has not come up before. To infer from this that the arbitrators are acting in bad faith in this decision and that we secretly want Sitush to "write" (meaning "edit") the article about Carolmooredc because there is a minor discrepancy in the wording is totally without merit. In this case the inference is particularly absurd because the article on Carolmooredc was deleted (as also mentioned in the decision) and so there is nothing to edit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Really this is basic WP:COI and does not need stating, or indeed discussing if someone does state it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

It has actually needed stating in a surprisingly high number of our decisions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Carol and Neotarf

Carol and Neotarf have both been strong voices for women on Wikipedia. It seems unfair to ban them from the GGTF.

Carol helped to set up the GGTF. She has been active on the GG mailing list since 2011, and it's important to retain that link. She has created very helpful lists of gender-gap-related resources (here, here, here and here). She helped to set up archives, welcome people, create invitations, user boxes, etc. What seems to have happened is that people she was in dispute with elsewhere sought her out at the GGTF.

Would the committee consider making the GGTF subject to discretionary sanctions instead of imposing topic bans? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, no. I acknowledge the good work Carol has done at the GGTF page, but I do not believe it excuses the behaviour which has been evidenced during this case. Arbcom has no jurisdiction over the mailing list, though, so I'm sure she can carry on participating there. Worm^TT(talk) 14:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@User:SlimVirgin - It's worse, now they want to site ban me. Which means I have to spend a morning proving that the evidence is shaky and absolutely minor compared to that against editors who are not even being warned about bad behavior. Unbelieveable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You won't be site-banned, unless a majority of arbitrators support that proposal. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit, I find it odd that arbs are voting to ban Carol, and only Carol, on the basis of recidivism, when the findings of fact establish that at least one other party to the case has a similar was-sanctioned-but-is-still-doing-it history. If recidivism is a reason to ban someone, apply it equally. If it's not, then why are arbs selectively supporting a ban for one party on that basis? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the behaviour, I don't see the actions of both as equal, in my opinion the former's actions was far more egregious than the latter. What's more, other factors such as how central their behaviour was to the locus of the case and the length of time since the last Arbcom case are relevant factors. Worm^TT(talk) 16:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Worm, IMO it would make a lot of sense if there were a statement of principle/finding of fact that a mailinglist exists, and ArbCom has no jurisdiction over it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should be putting in principles on what we can't control, especially as it's written into Arbcom policy, but I'll let my colleagues comment on that. Worm^TT(talk) 16:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is no basis to make a negative finding concerning the mailing list. On the other hand the Evidence demonstrates that the mailing list was used for canvassing and solicitation which violate WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, SPECIFICO. When I did this WP:ANI on your canvassing 10 wikiprojects the administrator closer wrote: To the extent there was any canvassing, which is dubious, it did not affect the RfC. Although there technically is no limit on the number of projects to notify, I believe 10 is a bit much and would suggest in the future being more selective, particularly given the issue.

So if notifying 10 Wikiprojects on Wikipedia isn't a problem, why is doing two notifications about current issues (and one report on a past issue) on a Wikipedia Foundation Mailing list a problem? Shall we look ask all the other mailing lists what they think? Six odd weeks ago I asked the moderators of gender gap mailing list to tell me if they think that was too much and warn the list if so. They did not say it was. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

At WT:GGTF I raised the issue of whether canvassing a restricted-membership, off-wiki mailing list might potentially run foul of WP:MEAT. I cannot recall whether anyone responded but will try to find the diff when I have decent netty access again. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin, and if Carol and Neotarf are banned from GGTF, Sitush should be, too, which I have brought up in a new section below. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would be strongly opposed to Carolmooredc being sitebanned. It would be best to limit interactions between parties and/or the ability to participate in various venues than eliminate participation in the website altogether.--MONGO 02:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with SlimVirgin and Mongo. Glad to see a more realistic proposal has now been introduced for Carol at least. Andreas JN466 03:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Quousque tandem"

@Salvio giuliano: Having googled your Latin to figure out what you were trying to say (as I imagine many readers of it will be doing), I'm a little bit taken aback at the reference. Though I imagine you were just going for the "how long will you try our patience" sense, you're doing it by using an oration whose point is that the person being addressed is insane and participating in conspiracies. Would you consider rephrasing your reasoning to something a bit more comprehensible-to-the-reader and a bit less full of historical baggage? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

According to [55] it literally means "for how much longer?" which by itself is even more obscure in meaning. Richerman (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "quo usque tandem" is generally occasionally used to indicate that, in the opinion of the person uttering it, the recipient has abused of his patience, lenience or politeness. It's just one of the many historical phrases which are not meant to be interpreted literally, jsut like "tu quoque, Brute" (or "et tu, Brute"), which is not meant to accuse the other person of murder... In this case, I'm most definitely not accusing Carol of being involved in any conspiracy; I'm simply saying that she has used up all my patience. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this explains why you are opposing a sanction against her. Argumentum plus laudatur quando ratione probatur. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

I'm opposing it because I find it insufficient. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric's Proposed Remedies

I find it a bit odd that both Carol and Eric have been subjects of past ARBCOM, but only [Carol] is being considered for site ban (or harsher punishment in general). Though Salvio might have run out of patience with Carol, don't forget who has been the subject of many ANI and complaints (many relating to GGTF) and blocked by an admin over the course of this case for "gross incivility". Kinda feels like arbs are pussyfooting around Eric despite the "sanctions and circumstances" statement. Perhaps I'm premature in this comment, but there seems to be no hesitation with Carol but clear hesitations with Eric. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Could one of the differences be the relative length of time between the previous arbitration case and this one? Eric's previous arbitration case was in 2012 while Carol's was this past April.

I'm also seeing clear hesitation among admins and other editors with respect to the proposed remedies for Eric. However, I see that as a reluctance to implement the proposed remedy and also as a reflection of the number of supprters Eric has. I don't see that as negating any remedies for him. Ca2james (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I imagine that (1) the elections and (2) Eric's vocal supporters are playing at least some role in this hesitation, even if unintentional or non-conscious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric hinted at this earlier in this case saying something along the lines of "Remember the elections are coming up, lets make sure the result is what the community wants" now you can interpret this in any way you want but seeing we have a case that involves Eric's behavior why would he go and say something along those lines? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree there appears to be hesitation when it come to Eric, I am not looking for a witch-hunt here but find it odd that two arbs have abstained on the fact that they had "dealings with him in the past". Even if the remedies are passed here against Eric I doubt that they would have any effect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

They amount to "if you see him misbehaving, tell us and we'll smack his wrist. Might be harder slap each time". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The issues relating to Eric are very different from the issues relating to Carolmooredc. People in this thread seem to be comparing chalk and cheese. It isn't as simple as "who came first" etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Chalk and cheese ... Sitush that may be my new favorite phrase. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a common enough phrase in the UK. Maybe that too will become proscribed because it is a British thing? I'm getting a bit fed up of all the anti-British stuff that is doing the rounds, especially rants about imperialism etc that presumably would still be allowed if an IBAN is enforced because they would not name me specifically. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with EvergreenFir. Carol has problems to work on, but Eric's problems are every bit as disruptive - just in a different way. And I think Eric's problematic behavior is much more likely to drive away women editors than Carol's does. I could explain why I think so, but I'd probably just bring a rain of criticism down on my head, so I'll just keep it at that. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither of them are driving away women editors (and you'll have to back that opinion up with evidence if you want to keep saying it). But as someone who has never weighed in before at the task force but has been monitoring it closely, I can say that Carol is the main reason why I have not participated there yet. IMO, while well intentioned, her battleground mentality and inability to provide evidence that civility is a driver of the low female ratio have deterred me from even wanting to participate there. We can all tackle the gender gap together once we can have a clear conversation that doesn't demonize those who might disagree with you. I don't feel that the task force in its present form even allows that. Criticism is not the same as opposition. Regards from a woman editor, Ruby 2010/2013 02:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ruby2010: your anecdote does not mean it's not true. I've not been on GGTF much primarily because of Corbett and company. Don't speak for everyone. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a constructive tone. She didn't try to speak for everyone, only for herself. I founded Wikiproject Editor Retention, what you would think to be a perfect symmetry, two projects with common goals. I've never made a single edit for the exact same reasons Ruby clearly articulates. Some there will point their finger and declare you an enemy for the crime of only agreeing 96% with their opinion. I have no desire to get involved in that. I just feel the hate pour off, like heat from a stove. No thank you. Dennis - 2¢ 04:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither of them are driving away women editors is speaking in general terms. That is not speaking just for herself. I, for one, was not driven off by Corbett would be speaking for herself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I was just speaking for myself. I never claimed otherwise. One of the reasons, ironically, I decided to speak up now was because I felt you Carol, and Neotarf were presenting yourselves as speaking for all women editors when I know that not to be the case. Again, just one woman's opinion but I felt it was worth saying. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And this exchange proves Ruby's point. If someone disagrees, some people will pick it apart in what feels like an attempt to push them away, to silence them. I can't speak to anyone's motivations, I can only say that if this is not the motivation, it could easy be mistaken for such, and either situation is unwelcoming to many people. Dennis - 2¢ 05:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It works both ways though when you say someone doesn't speak for all of X editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am a female editor. I agree with Ruby One Thousand Percent!!! I will never go near Carole. I am astounded at the amount of rope she is given. She has been hanging herself and I will have nothing to do with her. On the other hand, I would eagerly welcome working with Eric or Sitush. I have full respect for them. <not signing in for obvious reasons>

There are quite a lot of declared women contributors who have said the same thing regarding Carolmooredc's involvement in GGTF. Nonetheless, she has continued to use the "we women" type of phrasing in her numerous contributions, even when "some women" or "many women" have been suggested as better alternatives. And contrary to what The Devil's Advocate seems to think elsewhere on this page, the problem here is not merely me vs her: she has attacked numerous other people, of which the "wife" one is high on the list (she never did find her alleged source for that). I'm afraid, though, that I am still in a mess with my web access. Perhaps someone else can provide some diffs. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as woman editor, I largely agree with Ruby2010 and the editor "not signing in for obvious reasons". Elsewhere on this page, both Carolmooredc and Neotarf have been described by SlimVirgin as "strong voices for women on Wikipedia". Those voices, with their battleground mentality and extensive use of insinuation, personal aspersion, and snide remarks as weapons, neither speak "for" nor "about" me. However, those voices (and likewise the often boorish behaviour of their opponents) are not the reason I've had nothing to do with the GGTF, although it may be for some. My reason is the way the WMF and the GGTF frame the "Gender Gap" and the entire discourse which surrounds it. I find it insulting, patronizing, and ultimately counter-productive to achieving their stated goal. And I'm not the only one. When all the dust settles on this, the active members of the GGTF might want to think about these issues. Happily signing my name... Voceditenore (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking for me, before supporting a ban, I must be convinced that no lesser sanction will be enough to stop the disruption an editor is causing, which is, obviously, a subjective call.

  In this context, I see Carol as a very tendentious editor with a disruptively pagnacious approach to disagreements. Topic bans are generally enough when a person is being disruptive only in one single topic area, one which can easily be delimited. When disruption is more widespread as is the case when it is caused by the way an editor chooses to interact with others, then the only solution is a full site ban (or an admonishment).

  As far as Eric is concerned, on the other hand, I'm not sure a full ban would be the least severe sanction capable of preventing disruption; after all, despite his reputation, I find that the level of disruption he causes is inferior as opposed to Carol and that it mainly consists of uncivil remarks (and, sometimes, a personal attack). And, so, tackling this problem through a limited sanction, in my opinion would be best. I like the proposal to allow admins to say "well, Eric, that comment was out of line", so I'll just remove it and ask you to avoid the discussion and have their decision stick; I think that it, if used correctly, this could potentially be a good solution.

  Of course, I have not made my mind up yet concerning Eric so there may still be a change of heart (and, in fact, I haven't voted on his FoF and on the remedies), but I wanted to reply to your question. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Two requests about the gender gap topic bans

1. The proposal "topic banned from the Gender Gap on Wikipedia, broadly construed" needs to be clarified.

2. Since it is proposed that Carolmooredc, Eric Corbet, and Neotarf should be topic banned from the gender gap, the same ban should also be proposed for Sitush.

Links were provided on the evidence page showing that Sitush is opposed to the Gender Gap Task Force.

• July 27 on Djembayz talk page: Ha! Carol, your comment just goes to further my impression that the task force itself, in terms of its present scope, has no place on Wikipedia. [56]
• July 27 on Eric Corbett's talk page: Which is why that Gender Gap Task Force is so dodgy, especially when what seems to be its primary cheerleader (see WT:GGTF), Carolmooredc, is indeed a militant feminist and social activist for "right-on" causes of the 60s and 70s. Far from being collaborative, it will end up being divisive.[57]
• July 30, 2014 on Jimbo Wales talk page: The sooner the misconceived "Task Force" (why not "Project", instead of a military-inspired term that implies official status?) is disbanded, the sooner harmony will be restored.[58]

--72.223.98.118 (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not opposed to it. I was opposed in its then form. Things are moving on and that should be evident from my contributions to that project's talk page. The likes of Rich Farmbrough have made good suggestions recently; there were also good suggestions earlier but the fact that they were seemingly dismissed by CMDC etc (and collapsed by someone I never did bother to work out) is precisely what caused me to have issues with it at that time. All of that last point is there in the evidence, I think. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

An editor should not be barred from the GGTF, for merely opposing it. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

... Which is why I do not really understand Eric's TBAN. I know that he has said that he will stay away regardless, but his contributions were minimal in number and there were all sorts of self-evidently ridiculous claims about misogyny flying around. It seems to me that his TBAN is a conflation with the language issue that forms a separate part of these proceedings. - Sitush (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"The sooner the misconceived 'Task Force' ... is disbanded, the sooner harmony will be restored," does not sound like mere opposition to me. Further, it should be up to the task force to decide its purpose and scope - not Carol... or Sitush. From his statements on various pages, not just at GGTF, it sounds like he already has in mind what he thinks it should be and do, or maybe that it shouldn't be or do anything at all. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly correct. People are incorrectly characterizing Corbett's behavior and comments as simple opposition instead of the disruption and incivility it was. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Rewarding the harassers and punishing the victims

I find it absolutely fucking ridiculous that the Arbs are seeking to ban Carol from this site over this case, which really should have never been accepted. There is an almost comical lack of self-awareness for Arbs who seriously think that is a good decision. Even more gobsmacking is that the evidence of misconduct in the "findings of fact" almost exclusively focuses on her comments about Sitush. Basically, you are voting to ban a victim of harassment for comments she made about her harasser. Anyone who honestly believes that is appropriate should have no business being on ArbCom. The fact that Specifico, harasser zero, is not facing anything is just further cause for condemnation. You kissing Sitush's ass in the findings only adds insult to injury. Bullies and harassers should not have all their wishes and dreams come true while you beat on the victims further.

You may peddle some bullshit about how this isn't about right or wrong, but there is no way that attacking the victim and rewarding the perpetrator is going to serve to minimize disruption or allow for improving content. The reality is that Sitush did not need to go after Carol, just like SPECIFICO did not need to go after Carol. Both of those editors made a choice to engage and their manner of engagement was simply unacceptable. All you are doing by pushing to meet their demands for removing Carol from this site is enabling harassers, which will assure them that they can feel more empowered to harass others in the future with the expectation they can similarly get their victims removed after enough effort. In the name of all that is holy, this is a case where ERIC is a party! Getting your panties in a bunch over Carol's remarks is laughable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush is citing cultural differences, it is a valid point he raises and should be considered even though I don't agree with it when it comes to Wikipedia. I agree though that a site ban is far too harsh here. When two editors don't get along, separate them, Wikipedia is a big place there are plenty of other areas to edit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the cultural standards are in the universe from which Sitush originates, but in this one following people around to throw vitriol their way and then trying to write a demeaning article to name and shame them is generally considered harassment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You're pressing the panic button, DA. It takes a majority of support, per each proposal to pass. Let's all relax & wait until the arbitrators have completed this Arbcom case. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@GoodDay: When DA wrote that Carol's site ban was proposed and had support and Corbett only had a topic ban. Thankfully someone proposed a site ban as well for Corbett. At least now there's parity. The fact that there wasn't to start with was telling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I am as much upset that Worm and Salvio support such a measure. Also, the fact is that, if the ban is passed, the only meaningful sanction imposed on Sitush will be a warning since the interaction ban will be effectively moot. Their findings about him are overly appreciative under the circumstances as well. If Carol is going to be sanctioned with anything but an interaction ban the evidence should definitely consist of evidence beyond her interactions with Sitush. A single inappropriate remark to a user other than one harassing her and some questionable AfD comments is not sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the evidence was presented in the, erm, Evidence phase. For the record, I've long had more than a passing interest in systemic bias issues because a couple of aspects massively affect the Indic topic area and I frequently have to explain them to contributors in that area. Explaining it does not equate to agreeing with it. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a real issue to do with "baiting" (for want of a better word). And at the moment, it seems that on both sides of this dispute, as well as in other disputes, there seems an imbalance of action taken. I know people will immediately demand evidence, but it takes time to get it, and people will always wrangle over it (especially those with vested interests), but it would be good to see some explicit policy somewhere that states that if someone is to suffer for committing some infraction, then any editors who seem to have deliberately pushed this editor into "snapping" should suffer at least the same penalty. It should be made clear that anyone is covered by this, and no one is immune.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing which compels users to behave in a particular way. If people are unable to control their own behavior, then they best disengage. Of course the occasional insurance of poor judgment or emotional flare up will occur, but if there's a pattern of inability to behave civilly and respectfully, then Wikipedia is not the place for that individual. The only exception I can see would be someone who tells with the intent of agitating users to get them to misbehave. That is disruptive and unacceptable. But even then, users who respond to the troll need to be responsible for their own actions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, up to a point, but people who set out to deliberately provoke someone into committing an infraction are, to my mind, just as guilty of abuse and incivility as the person who responds to that provocation. In other contexts, they might be seen as bullies, in fact.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That sort of deliberate aggravation situation is precisely why I got blocked when a known needler turned up on my talk page. I usually handle it ok but the stress is bound to get to me eventually. Given that Eric is a substantially bigger target for such baiters, it is no wonder that he also sometimes reacts. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you might have the baiter/baitee relationship flipped there... Regardless, if someone is bullying you, you tell the teachers. You don't fight them or engage with them. Same on Wikipedia with trolls. Is this not something kids are being taught masculinity socialization aside? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing flipped in my post and I have no idea how you could think otherwise because it has been generally acknowledged, hence so many overturned blocks. One thing that kids are taught and that is distinctly absent in this case is the notion of "sticks and stones". It really would be much easier if people just ignored stuff rather than immediately take offence and cause the use of any particular word to take on a life of its own, resulting in many hundreds more mentions of it than in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Harshly

Recidivism

6) Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behaviour may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviours.

(Apart from the fact that there is no need to pluralize "behaviours") I don't like the use of the word "harshly" here. Once again the canker of treating sanctions as punishment eats into the discourse. "Sanctions" can of course mean punishment, and is itself a bad choice of word for that very reason. But we have always argued (rather weakly) that we are using it in the sense of authority - "discretionary sanctions" giving the admin corps explicit permission to take steps at a lesser threshold than they normally would. It is hard enough to square this sense with "Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behaviour", without the use of the word "harshly". Would this not read better:

6) Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned to prevent disruptive behaviour may face more severe or different sanctions if repeated instances of similar behaviour indicate the previous sanctions were ineffective.

While this still leaves a lot unsaid, it is at least true to the basic spirit of Wikipedia as far as it goes.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

I'm not sure whether the point is substantive or semantic — perhaps it is both — but I'd support substituting "severely" for "harshly." Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well there are four points, and last night I thought there were only three:

1. The meaning of the stem word.

The Wiktionary definitions of the four words I have considered - there may well be better ones (I have discarded onerous).

Harsh : Severe or cruel.

Severe ; Strict or harsh.

Exacting : Making excessive demands; hard to satisfy.

Strict : Rigidly interpreted; exactly limited; confined; restricted. Severe in discipline.

I'm not sure even "severe" is that great, but harsh has the meaning "cruel" which we certainly want to avoid. But that is the headline, and in a way the least worrisome, because we could say (if we were Salvio) "We mean harsh sensu 'severe'. " Perhaps we should overthrow this sense altogether, and simply use a more neutral phrase like "greater sanctions".

2. Adjective vs adverb. It is the sanction that is more severe, not the action of the person imposing it. Certainly this is less of an issue with words other than "harsh", but still it is the sanction and the sanctioned editor that are the focus, not the person making it.

3. The whole thrust of the argument, while it might have the same effect in many cases, misses the crucial point: protective not punitive.

"[O]ccasional lapses of judgement from time to time" and "repeated violations of basic policy" is distinction without a difference. What we really mean, I hope, is something like "While the community is tolerant of occasional lapses of judgement, the community will use sanctions to protect the project, including the good functioning of the community." That lays the ground-work for the conclusion

The point of the sanctions is to protect the project, and that does not necessarily mean sanctions must be escalating. For example, suppose we have an editor known for loosing his temper. He is given a two hour cooling down block, and returns some time after, apologising (maybe) and editing constructively for a while, until it happens again. There is no value in giving him a 4 hour block, since the two hour block has worked in the past. We either give him a 2 hour cooling down block, or we give him an indef block/ban for disruption.

Now the context is important. If our editor is loosing his temper daily, it's gonna be an indef, sooner rather than later. If it's happening once a year it is (or should be) the 2 hour block. But let us consider someone who is extremely productive/active, they are working on Wikipedia 6 hours per day, 7 days per week. If they loose their temper once a month, the 2 hour block is a good solution (the previous sanction was effective, though the behaviour has recurred). Conversely someone who comes on once a month, gets into a discussion on the same article's talkpage and looses his temper, is in line for for an indef block.

That's why I don't like these sweeping statements, though there is a "may be" in there.

4. A minor but important point, different sanctions may be more effective than simply longer or more broad reaching version of those previously tried. For example a Tban or Iban instead of a longer block.

Proposed draft

6) While the community is tolerant of occasional lapses of judgement, it will use sanctions to protect the project against disruption. Editors who have already been sanctioned to prevent disruptive behaviour may face greater or different sanctions if repeated instances of similar behaviour indicate the previous sanctions were ineffective.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Discretionary sanctions

Discretionary sanctions

6) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.

Please fix so that it links to the appropriate page instead of Wikipedia:Deletion sorting. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Best point of the night. Fixing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, several gender gap/bias/issues wikiproject pages

While narrowing the topic ban area is a good idea note that the following exist: Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Women and gender issues,Wikiproject Editor Retention "Gender gap discussions" page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias. So "articles and wikiprojects or their subgroups related to the Gender gap or gender bias on Wikipedia" would be best wording. (This thus includes the Gender bias on Wikipedia article.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Scope

I oppose the topic bans. However the scope should be clearly defined if they are implemented. I would suggest:

"pages and discussions dealing with the Wikipedia Gender Gap, that is the gender disparity in editor numbers on the English Wikipedia and other WMF projects. The simple fact that content being worked on is primarily about one gender (for example a list of wanted articles) does not of itself fall within these sanctions."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

This edit of Eric's from today strikes me as deserving a block

This one. I'm far from being an expert on blocking, but I know I don't want Eric blocked while this case is going on (I don't want to stop him from speaking up in his own defense), so any block would come at the end of this case. So: Eric called me a cunt six months ago, and he's saying here that the people he's called cunts before still are cunts, in a more public forum this time, and at a time when many are talking about the fact that cunt is listed in many dictionaries (including British ones) as the most offensive word in the language. So, he just chose the biggest weapon available to him (in an online context) and smacked me with it, for the second time, and not just in a moment of passion. This is bullying behavior, but I want to be clear: there are two types of bullies I'm not accusing Eric of being a bully, someone who spends his time looking for weak people to beat up. Most of the time, Eric is productive and a valuable asset to Wikipedia. But there are also reflexive bullies, people who do But there is also a kind of reflexive bullying, exactly the same kinds of things real bullies do, that only happens when some people get agitated ... and some of those people get agitated a lot. It doesn't make a bit of difference to the kid lying in the dirt on the playground who smacked him, though. If this is going to be a productive workplace and not an unpleasant playground, then this kind of behavior needs to stop, regardless of who's doing it, and I welcome any discussion on the best way to accomplish that. Blocks are one option ... and obviously, something useful may come out of the current case, though there isn't any sign of that yet, which is disappointing, for the moment. For those who say "Blocks aren't punitive, and if you block weeks after the event, that can only be punitive", explain to me why it's a good idea to block someone while sanctions are being considered against them in an Arbcom case, or why it's a good idea to let it slide and do nothing at all. Eric isn't someone who knows nothing about language or never reads a dictionary; he knows the word is the most offensive in the language, and he uses it deliberately, repeatedly, in anger, as an insult, directed at individuals. He also knows that most of the discussion we've seen (including by some of Eric's supporters, including on this page) seems to be on board with prohibiting using the word as a deliberate insult. - Dank (push to talk) 05:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly, this isn't the right forum for it since it isn't new evidence, or a possible remedy in this case. ANI would be the proper forum if you must. Bringing it here, where the issue at hand is old behavior, might be seen as prejudicial in this matter as the debate is still ongoing, and this is a bad place to debate the merits of events that happened after evidence closed. Dennis - 2¢ 05:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? Old behavior? Eric called me a cunt today. "Bringing it here"? Eric brought it here, above. Prejudicial? It's exactly on point. Feel free to discuss this here, on my talk page, or by email. - Dank (push to talk) 05:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Correct. And this Arb case is about behavior that happened some time back, evidence has closed, the workshop has closed, and remedies are being discussed. New problems should be taken to ANI. You can't add it as "new evidence", and it can't be used to change the remedies on the board here. If you are asking for a block (a remedy that Arb isn't going to take up for this one instance) then you need to take it to ANI. We can't pile on evidence, even if similar, after the evidence is closed. Thus it is a community matter, not an Arb matter, and might be perceived as prejudicial to debate it here. Procedurally speaking, it is a new matter not yet ripe for Arb, nor properly filed or entered at Arb. It is an ANI matter. This needs hatting and filing there. Debating a non Arb infraction is distracting and ripe for drama. Dennis - 2¢ 06:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Dank: Curious, when/where did he call you that today? While I agree with Dennis Brown that it should be addressed at ANI, if he did indeed call you this term today, in the middle of ARBCOM deliberating and fact finding and discussing the very issue of him using this term, I think that should indeed be considered by the arbiters. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand that perspective, but as a matter of judicial procedure (and Arb is a quazi court), it would be considered inadmissible as the evidence phase has ended long ago. They would have to stop and start over on evidence, workshop and remedies, and first stop and hear both sides. Trust me, no sane Arb wants that. While I see the similarities, it is obviously a different event, which is why ANI is the right place. Unless it is shown this one event can't be handled by the community, Arb doesn't want it. Dennis - 2¢ 06:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis I have seen arbcom handle disruptive editors when it comes to arbcom cases, what should be a takeaway here if anything is that it is clear that a-lot of editors are upset at what Eric is doing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I do not agree with Eric calling others cunts but in this case "I knew to be male and both of whom are" I think he was referring to the fact that both of the people who he called that were male and not female. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• "... I have only ever called two editors "cunts", both of whom I knew to be male and both of whom are." "I know they're both male, and they're male" isn't something anyone ever says. Also, the last bit was tacked on in a separate edit. The message is clear, and Eric knew the message would be received. - Dank (push to talk) 06:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• You're far from being an expert on anything Dank. Eric Corbett 05:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've unhatted it. There are serious questions as to what he meant by what he said, and I'm not convinced it what the mind's eye would lead you to believe. Regardless, I jumped a bit quick with hatting this and likely should have asked a clerk for clarification first. That was my mistake, and it was certainly a mistake. I've actually met Dank in person and find him a most agreeable person. I feel similar with Eric whom I've worked with a great deal, so this wasn't about picking sides, as I have a great deal of respect for both. I'm still concerned about fairness here, but my action were in error and it wasn't my place to decide. To all whose time I've taken up, I'm sincerely sorry, and apologize, particular to Dank, whose feet I've stomped on a bit. I will leave note in all the relevant places pointing to this admission. Dennis - 2¢ 16:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision

WP:BUTT: Comments made by the parties during the Arbitration case may be taken into account by the Committee in setting any remedies, and continued evidence of disruptive behavior is often seen as evidence that milder remedies (warnings or probation) will not have the desired effect, leading to topical or general bans.

Eric's calling others "cunts" a year ago, [59], six months ago,[60] and even one month ago[61] - after this case was opened - even if he isn't a misogynist, this certainly shows gross insensitivity (at the least) toward the millions who consider the word misogynistic. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of poor behaviour from some people during this case. Contributing as an IP that appears to be WP:SPA might be a starting point. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Cunt, tosser wanker etc

Let's allay some misapprehensions about British English usage of words with a few explanations and references.

• Cunt is an extremely vulgar word which I personally use all the time with male friends but wouldn't use in front of a woman. For that reason it is not a word I would use here as you don't know who is reading your posts. Some people feel this is an odd position to take in these times of sexual equality but that was the way I was brought up. The word "cunt" in British English has, as has been said before, two meanings, the first of which we all know and the second of which is "an unpleasant or stupid person".[62] There is no misogynistic intent when it is used as the second meaning although it is mostly used about men in my experience. I've only once heard anyone use it about a woman and that was when an Irish veterinary surgeon I used to work with, was friends with a neurosurgeon who agreed to be his PhD examiner. When she failed him because she thought his work was not up to standard he said to me when we were alone, "She's a cunt, a complete cunt!" Most people I know would not use the word directly to a woman because it is offensive - not because it is misogynistic. As far as I know, Eric has never called a woman by that term although he has used it in posts in a more general sense.

• Twat is very similar in that it has the two same meanings,[63] but, in my experience it is in no way seen to be as offensive, or at all misogynistic and is used quite freely - even on mainstream British television shows (after the 9 PM watershed).

• Wanker means someone who masturbates but it is used almost exclusively about men.[64]

• Tosser means the same thing as wanker but again, in my experience, it is used almost exclusively about men. The dictionary definitions don't actually say that, but you will see that the examples in the first one are all about men.[65][66]

• Tosspot means a drunkard and is the name of a character in the old English Pace Egg play or Mumming Play. It has also probably come to mean something similar to tosser as the words are similar - although I can't find any reliable sources for that, so I've edited the article accordingly.

As for American English usage, the essay WP:Don't be a dick was changed to WP:Don't be a jerk. However if you look at this definition the term "jerk" probably owes something to the term jerk-off (masturbate) so it's not much better. Is the term jerk-off used about female masturbation or just male masturbation? - I don't know

I once saw someone on wikipedia call a British editor a "cocksucker". When it was pointed out that this was homophobic, the user quickly retracted it, saying how it wasn't meant that way. He obviously meant the second meaning here. To me, this illustrates how words can mostly lose their original meaning over time and come to mean something other than what seems to be the obvious meaning to an outsider. Richerman (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been humming the Pace Egging Song to myself for last day or so, I'm glad someone else is familiar with it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Phrases change, too. Eg: "quantum leap" is a significant change but at a minuscule level (physics); "steep learning curve" = quick to learn (graphs). - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That song takes me back to the folk clubs in the 60s. Perhaps I'll put some renditions of my own on youtube like The Barley Mow and The Rawtenstall Annual Fair. Then you will see and "owld tosspot" in full flight :-) Richerman (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Christ not this crap again. First, etymological fallacy. Second, "I meant it as an X type of insult" does not negate it's meaning. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)