Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Page format

I'm wondering whether I placed my new request in the wrong place. The instructions say to place the request template "below the first header" when editing–which I thought I had done, though the page is showing a repeated, red-bordered "To make an arbitration case request:" instruction block. I'm unsure whether it is supposed to have that block repeated, and apologies if my insertion broke something. • Astynax ^talk 02:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

GGTF

Noting that since the 13th it appears that an accept is numerically impossible, unless the "other" or a "decline" vote changes, can this be closed? Dedicated Wikipedians are welcome to visit the task force talk page and make postiivee non-confrontational contributions, which might help the underlying issues. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC).

I'm a bit concerned to see that this is being accepted. The issues seem to have calmed down, at least as far as that page is concerned, and we're getting on with things in a constructive way. Pinging Carcharoth, Newyorkbrad and GorillaWarfare (only because, I believe, you were the three accepts that changed the outcome). I know there are broader issues that could be examined (e.g. incivility, sexism), but the accept comments are quite a mixed bag, and it's not clear what direction is envisaged. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As can be seen from Carcharoth's accept comment, it would be a mistake to assume that the behaviour complained about by the original arbitation request is the only issue. It may have "calmed down". The behaviour of the complainants will also be under scrutiny. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa is correct. All those involved will be under scrutiny. My view is that things are not calming down. An example is this thread, where things appear (to some extent) to be escalating. SlimVirgin is right, though, to say that the accept comments are quite a mixed bag. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Carcharoth, and the link. I hadn't seen that discussion, although it's not really related to the GGTF. I'm worried because the GGTF talk page is meant to be a relaxed place where people feel comfortable swapping ideas. At one point a small group tried to stir things up, but they've either departed or they're interacting constructively now, so all is currently well there.

Some of the Arb comments imply that people might be sanctioned for having reacted poorly to the earlier situation. That would be an unfortunate outcome. If the committee has a particular direction in mind, that's one thing, but if it's "let's open this and see where it goes," it risks creating weeks or months of people being furious with each other for no clear benefit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I take your point that things are calming down at the GGTF talk page. My point in linking to that thread on a user talk page was that the dispute between some of those active in the previous dispute seems to have changed location (and people are continuing to react poorly and with a battleground attitude). I know that came off the back of an ANI thread where the message was 'people have leeway on their talk pages', but have things really got to the stage where it is acceptable to talk about another editor the way people are talking on that user talk page? If you have a problem with someone, you go and talk to them about it, or try and sort it out at some other stage of dispute resolution (the irony here is that the RfC/U option was mentioned in the previous section, but ignored). You don't engage in a 'what shall we do about this editor' discussion on someone else's user talk page, though I see the same sort of thing happening at Jimmy's user talk page. There's been too much of that sort of thing going on recently. Too much dispute escalation and too little dispute resolution. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

[Later insert: Thanks for bringing up the trashing people on talk pages issue. At that diff one woman felt the issue wasn't dealt with correctly and three of us explained to her evident satisfaction why it was, assuming such flagrant behavior doesn't continue such that someone has to complain. There was a lot of that trashing of people going on on talk pages and I'll find those diffs for you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with SlimVirgin here - this could get really ugly and we have to weigh up the benefits and risks - WRT role of conflict resolution vs governance FWIW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe this case should be limited to the issues that have occurred or are occurring on the GGTF page. It should discuss the behavior of those involved regardless of the venue. Although things may have calmed down at the GGTF page, I agree with Carcharoth that these issues have been cropping up elsewhere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with GorillaWarfare broadly as to my rationale for accepting. The issue is cropping up all over the place, and I think a review of all the conduct that's taken place is necessary here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me predict what will happen, whether those 6 parties are only ones or even if others are added). Three editors and hordes of their supporters will scream "It's all Carolmooredc's fault" and maybe a couple other gender gappers. Other more rational people will list those 3 parties faults and/or defend the attacked gender gappers. (Oh, yuk. I'm not even going to read evidence until right before the deadline.) Maybe a rational point or two will be raised, mostly about issues that are no longer relevant. Then a few arbitrators will slog through all the evidence and rhetoric, list some nice principles which admins largely will ignore and deal with a few people, leaving dozens of others out there unscathed to continue to fight the battles. IMHO, you should have taken the Civility Arbitration, cause this is just Civility Arbitration #2. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it would be great if this Arbitration could be used to set some boundaries on disruption of Wikiprojects, in case someone starts "CounteringSystemicBiaS/African-Americans Task force" or rejuventates Wikiprojects Latino and discusses things that attract vehement critics. Thus arbitrators should specify editors only present evidence on what happened on the GGTF page and previous outside discussions explicitly mentioning GGTF.

Otherwise expect long discussions of the uses of personal attacks like "stupid" and "idiot" and "f*ck you" in edit summaries elsewhere; or long discussions (as opposed to a few diffs) related to C*nt-gate or CMDC-Biography-gate or GunBarrel-gate or DogsPeeingAnalogyOnUserTalkPage-gate, or PornographyEditWarring or 4 year old Israel-Palestine ANIs, and this month's India Against Corruption ("IAC") ANI (bad rs or racist deletionism run riot?; socks or all those damned women recruited by the Indian Gender Gap project?; is Carolmooredc an IAC operative?) etc.

That's how absurd it is out there, so thus my heartily rejecting the idea of an Arbitration on this. Additionally annoying is that one individual (and his friends, no doubt) wants this Arbitration to focus on getting me site banned for being a rabble rousing female who's a "libertarian" just like that awful Jimmy Wales.(I have several such explicit diffs.)

Keep the arbitration tightly focused on facts of principles that should guide Wikiproject discussions (and critics of any project) and evidence on what happened on that Wikiproject task force. Then it won't be just Civility Arbitration #2 - or something far uglier. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Carcharoth, GorillaWarfare, Seraphimblade, thanks for the replies. Would you consider calling the case something other than gender gap task force? The issues at that page have stopped, and I'm concerned that having a case appear to focus on it will discourage people from getting involved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. "Disruption of Wikiprojects" better to deal with the issues of disruption of mere discussions of ideas or proposals. As several people have said, if anything ever gets to the stage it's going to have a wide community impact on En.Wikipedia, it will have to go to Village Pump or where ever. (Proposals that start on an En.Wikiproject but would be implemented by the Foundation are in the same category.) Keep it simple and general to Wikiproject decorum and it will be positive and useful. (Later note: Obviously specific examples from GGTF and GGTF related (hopefully now) historical discussions/incidents would be used, but the implications should be broader.]

Make it specific to GGTF and use it to try to site ban any individuals on the list and it could end up in the New York Times and other RS. And then there's the government funded study on sexism on Wikipedia that's monitoring Wikipedia right now. I strongly urge you to see the 50 odd RS articles and various outside research studies on Wikipedia/gender gap/sexism since this is a high profile topic. Draft GGTF Resources page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that, in my opinion, "Disruption of Wikiprojects" would not be a neutral case name, in that it would assume that the behaviour of certain editors has been disruptive even before evidence is presented – by the way, proposing to use that name also betrays a somewhat agonistical approach to the issue, which, again in my opinion, is part of the problem. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

More neutral would be "Criticism at Wikiprojects" or "Discussion at Wikiprojects". I'm sure arbitrators could come up with something more general, unless of course they want to focus on this actual project and its alleged nefarious agenda. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How about "battleground mentality 1" or "civility 3" or......"2014" plus a number as the nth case of this year? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that other Wikiprojects with gender gap groups include India, Editor Retention and Gender studies. (GGTF hasn't even discussed if it wants to propose something about that.) ) Also, if it's OK for Wikiproject critics to unrelentingly and often mockingly demand answers to questions about individual comments or barely noticed or discussed individual proposals, I think most Wikiprojects would like to know. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

However, I see now on Request page that Salvio believes the false assertion that GGTF supports "the proposal to make edits made by women harder to revert." This was something a MAN put up on the main page and no one noticed or discussed because there was so much else going on; I noticed and then removed it after a couple weeks. There have been at least two other dubious proposals like that by men. I hope Arbitrators will look at the evidence showing the falsity of such accusations. False accusations repeated over and over are certainly disruptive and battleground behavior. The diffs are legion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I can provide Salvio with diffs of entry and removal of MrPrincipe's proposal and two much later discussions where several us denied supporting this project. Perhaps he should then amend his statement as to not unwittingly mislead other arbitrators. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that it was a trolling proposal? See details in sub-section below. It was put in in early July and taken out by you at the end of July. It was discussed on the talk page 26-29 July. See this arcived version of the page, thread entitled "43. Affirmative action program...". The main objection to the proposal appears to be that it would compromise editors by having to disclose their gender to avail themselves of it. There was one post objecting to it because it would give women's edits an "unfair advantage over those of men". I don't get any sense from that thread that it wasn't treated as a serious proposal. DeCausa (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It was never proposed, DeCausa, but was something added to the main GGTF page by an editor who (as I recall) was only briefly active on the talk page. It stayed on the page only because we didn't notice it had been added. It was added on 5 July, someone wondered about it on the talk page on 26 July, and when Carol saw it she removed it, on 29 July. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, those are diffs I've already linked to on this page. Of course it was a proposal: someone put it on the project page, it stayed there a few weeks and then the proposal was rejected. Any addition aded to a WP page is a proposal until accepted by consensus. I don't see anything strange or unusual about that. Equally, in the talk page thread, the proposal was discussed and no one supported it, and it was clear that consensus was against the proposal. I don't see anything strange about that (or inconsistent with what any of the arbs said either). But, what is strange is the over reaction to arbs mentioning it. It's not as though anyone in that talk page thread said: "I've just noticed a ridiculous idea someone's posted on the project page. Obviously, let's delete it now because no one could support that". No, it was discussed over several days. It wasn't treated as trolling/vandalism/an idea to be instantly dismissed. It was given thoughtful consideration, and rejected by all the posters (although it's opaque as to whether the OP of that thread actually rejected it), and almost all of them did so on practical grounds; how would women maintain anonymity if they disclosed their gender? etc. Only one post rejected it on the ground of unfairness. That being the context, I see nothing wrong with how the arbs have referred to it. DeCausa (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I've just seen the ambiguity how we are using the word "proposal". I think you're taking it as a formal proposal from the GGTK, whereas I'm meaning it as a proposal to the GGTK to consider adopting it. It's clear to me that it's also in the latter context that the arbs are referring to it. DeCausa (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest case title: "Battleground behaviour that started at the Gender Gap Task Force then spread all around the 'pedia through forum shopping, canvassing and not spending enough time editing articles to the general annoyance and boredom of everyone else." DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

[Later insert: DeCausa, who I don't remember seeing posting on GGTF page, discusses a thread on the "two reverts" again; it should be noted I clarified that "Affirmative action" in our case meant more getting more women editing (or being admins) and supporting them continuing to edit when they face problems. These (as we call them now) "blue sky" ideas were just passing fancies, yet DeCausa et al want to continue focusing on them as if they were a major crime. While I know I'm posting this after the issues seems resolived, if behavior is the real issue, please try to make that clear to participants so we don't have to waste time explaining off the wall mere ideas that others broached (unless they seem purposively disruptive). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

But I don't think there should be any focus on them. My comments have been directed at the overreaction and misrepresentation of what the arbs said about the blue sky discussion and also how that discussion was subsequently describribed. Something that is not unrelated to the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes which will apparently be looked at in this arbitration. DeCausa (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully Arbitrators can see the difference between a defensive reaction to constant badgering and harassment on a non-issue (including recently here), as opposed to initiating actual battleground behavior. (GGTF defensive reactions do not rise anywhere the level of, say threatening other editors with violence, of course.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully they can; I don't think it will be too difficult for them to do that. DeCausa (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Really if any specific Arbitrator wants to hang Eric and/or Carol out to dry, then they should resign their Arb bit, and bring a case. Hijacking this case to further their own agenda (however noble) would be ethically bankrupt. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC).

This is a catch-22. The committee refuses to take the case because it has only been at one ANI, then when subsequent attempts are made to solve the problems piecemeal at various appropriate forums, the claim is made that "the problem is spreading beyond the project". In fact, some would say the problem is spreading into the project from outside the Wikipedia —Neotarf (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

OK...but doesn't everything start outside the Wikipedia? I mean...nothing is truly "inside" until it is typed out.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And is Wikimedia.org Gender gap project and it's gender gap email list considered inside or outside Wikipedia? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be off Wikipedia as it is at Meta, but they discuss Wikipedia concerns a great deal there as well as Commons and other Wikimedia related issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is there is some overlap between "Men's Rights" Reddit, some WP pornography group, and the disturbances at Gender Gap. —Neotarf (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegations made by arbitrators

• At the request main page, Salvio giuliano wrote "the Task Force are considering changes aimed at increasing the number of women editing Wikipedia and, assuming they are successful in proposing feasible innovations, these will have an impact over Wikipedia in its entirety. Case in point, the proposal to make edits made by women harder to revert." And Worm That Turned wrote "I've seen some "blue-sky thinking" on that task force, with "un-wiki" ideas such as requiring consensus of 2 editors to revert a female editor." No diffs were provided for this allegation, and I would request that such diffs are provided, so that we can see whether this was a serious proposal by sincere and core members of the task force, or if this might have been some male trolling as Carol's comment suggests. Since this includes arbitrators, we need to sort out this particular point before the case starts. Carolmooredc, I also request that you provide the diffs regarding the "2 editors to revert a woman" claim.
• (In my own statement, I presented diff for a different incident that I consider male trolling to bring the Gender Gap project in discredit; and as I said there, male ridiculing of women's issue is a very old and persistent phenomena. I will come back to that case in the evidence/workshop section.)
• Iselilja (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The two editors to revert idea was on the project page under the heading "Possible affirmative action program". See this version of the page. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit seems to have introduced it and this edit seems to have taken it out. It was in situ most of July it looks like. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, DeCause. The statement "there could be an affirmative strengthening of registered women editors by requiring that two editors be required to form consensus before being allowed to revert edits placed by women editors" was inserted by LawrencePrincipe in the beginning of July and taken out by Carol at the end of the month. Principe seems to be a fine and serious editor, so I don't suspect trolling anymore. Iselilja (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that something that just sat on the main page without anyone really noticing it or discussing it until it was removed has been used as a primary excuse for Arbitrators to accept Arbitration.

• July 4 LawrencePrincipe entry of two revert proposal on main page, buried in a mass of text.
• July 29th removal by me after I never saw it proposed or discussed on the talk page. I figured if he was serious he could bring it up there (and it would get shot down). He didn't.
• I'm sure there were some questions about it and discussion on GGTF talk page or somewhere else and a general dismissal of the idea. Maybe someone else can find them.
• Sept 16 Grognard Chess queried about the proposal and four editors expressed impatience with his bringing up something that was not a real proposal of the project and [bring it up] just looked like trouble making.
  

If admins were misinformed about these proposals and took the Arbitration on that basis, it certainly taints the decision. I haven't even read all the Arbitrators comments yet but will soon.
[Strike misunderstanding of comment as explained below: Also questionable is Salvio writing: The Task Force are considering changes aimed at increasing the number of women editing Wikipedia - Yes, that's the goal of the foundation and many women and men editors. I hope you don't have a problem with that. He then writes and, assuming they are successful in proposing feasible innovations, these will have an impact over Wikipedia in its entirety. So? Women don't have a right to a say in an organization they are a part of? Please explain. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused by this. If you're suggesting changes which will hopefully increase the proportion of female editors - a clearly laudable aim - why would you complain when someone points out that this might have an impact on Wikipedia - which it will? For example, your suggestion that only admins that have undergone diversity training should be allowed to close certain debates. Please feel free to explain this if I have missed something obvious. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I talked with a friend who said I misunderstood and I took a second look. The accusation that "two reverts/blue sky" is something central to GGTF has been made and debunked a number of times, in general and with specific diffs, so it was upsetting to see it show up yet again here as a central part of the rationale of two Arbitrators to vote for Arbitration. And it felt like a plant from opponents of the project, a trumped up accusations to get rid of the project and/or one or more of its members.

In that context, put at the end of the sentence The Task Force are considering changes aimed at increasing the number of women editing Wikipedia and, assuming they are successful in proposing feasible innovations, these will have an impact over Wikipedia in its entirety. it sounded like Salvio was saying: "Oh No! They want a lot of crazy women in here to do crazy shit like this." My apologies to User:Salvio giuliano for misunderstanding.

That User:Worm_That_Turned also seems to be under the impression this was some major interest of ours when it was a Straw Man set up by people who just don't like the project compounds the problem. It would be nice if both Arbitrators re-thought their reasons for wanting arbitration in light of the fact that what they heard or were told or mistakenly understood was not necessarily relevant. That editors' sound proposals were attacked in the past is certainly a good reason, of course. Though I keep hoping from evidence of last couple days things really are better now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

The group has no control whatsoever over membership, cannot even archive disruptive posts without getting reverted and edit warred, and then is forced to answer to the arbcom for whatever someone has posted on a wiki that anyone can edit? —Neotarf (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Allegations made by arbitrators (break)

The committee now has two chances to kill what little is left of this WikiProject. They can treat all comers to the project equally, whether they oppose women's participation in Wikipedia or not. If the arbitration committee forces the group to spend all its energy arguing about whether women's participation is a real issue, the group will soon be left with only those who wish to distract the group from the goal of furthering women's participation. The other opportunity to kill the project is to impose discretionary sanctions, as would be implied by naming the case after the project, and thus legitimizing the opponents of women's participation and legitimizing hostile modes of interaction towards the group. As research has shown that women prefer non-confrontational forums, defining the group as a battleground area and subjecting it to soul-sucking Arbitration Enforcement would quickly get rid of any women participants who did not wish to become battle-scarred. —Neotarf (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I wrote a piece about how blue-sky thinking should work as part of a process and mentioned in passing the only example that came to mind. I am not part of the Gender Gap Task Force, so I haven't gone through and looked at every proposal, but I did see a number of ones which I would consider "blue-sky" - for example, amending the Sexology or Bradley Manning arbitration cases to cover GGTF in discretionary sanctions[1]. I never said that the example was a "major interest" or even endorsed by the GGTF as a whole, I was explaining that when unusual ideas came up, criticism should be expected. I stand by that. Worm^TT(talk) 08:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, context coming clear now. At least no one anywhere on Wikipedia took seriously and complained about TwoKindsofPork's proposal that WMF hire a bunch of Filipino high school girls to edit to boost up the numbers of women on Wikipedia!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand the meaning of "blue sky" in this context. I took it for something having to do with citations, along the lines of the WP:BLUE essay. But if Carol is advocating for discretionary sanctions on women's topics, I can only say, be careful what you wish for, and if you need to reach for the "retired" template as a result, there's one on my talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a management speak term. The concept is that you come up with open minded ideas for improving a situation, not grounded in the restrictions of the present. See Wikt:Blue-sky thinking. Worm^TT(talk) 13:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My proposal about paying Filipinas (either directly or indirectly) was a real one. It sure wouldn't cost too much. I still think it would be a good idea, as there is a Filipino gap on Wikipedia as well. English is a major language in their culture, yet as we all know that here mostly UK and American topics dominate.

Despite the claims that we are toasting smores and singing kumbaya into the wee hours of the morning, problems are still occurring, mostly from Carol and Neotarf. The "two voter override proporosal" (2VOP), was not problem in of itself. It was the reaction of the criticism to the proposal that was the problem. In fact the appearance of any criticism, real or imagined caused a select few (mostly Carol and Neotarf) to circle the wagons which led to a flood of (poorly) drummed up ANI threads and user talk page discussions. Those editors in particular left a pall of "What are you doing here? This is for women only" over the place. The attitudes that are fostering such behavior are still on displayTwo kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 14:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Two kinds of pork: There is no truth in that. —Neotarf (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf: I'm arguing for No Arbitration. Period. Though I will sugguest topic bans on some editors if it comes to pass. And that I be allowed to see if Sitush's threat of gun violence which earned him whopping 24 hour block was directed at me as well as other editors, considering his overt hostility, crappy biography of me, the resultant ANI brought by an Admin, not me. He rev'd up the heat to force this ANI so everything he said needs to be scrutinized and not redacted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

TwoKindsofPork: The GGTF discussions allowed lots of editors finally to see SPECIFICO's constant, and Sitush's intermittent but nasty, year plus long harassment of me. That's one of the things that originally led to this request. Other people brought the ANIs that led to the interaction ban against SPECIFOC, Sitush's resultant acting out with the biography, and the Sitush interaction ban still at ANI. You want me punished for that, and the whole GGTF for not sitting quietly and taking several editors abuse. Just that simple. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone in this case wants to see any action taken against the GGTF. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I believe that anyone wants to see action taken against the GGTF; it's well meaning enough even if at times a little misguided, or perhaps over enthusiastic. I'm not permitted to post on Carol's talk page, so I'll take the liberty of replying directly to her here. Once the ArbCom steamroller starts to roll the inevitable outcome is that everyone will be found to be at varying degrees of fault, with varying degrees of admonishments or sanctions. It's not right, it's designed just for a quiet life, but that's the way it is. Eric Corbett 21:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You know what I want? I doubt that you do. But since you are asking, no I don't want you punished. I would like you to stop with the misrepresentations. Correlation does not imply causation comes to mind. I would like for you to AGF a heck of a lot more. As I recently said on your talk page, saying that people that agree with you are rational, is a cheeky way of saying everyone else is irrational. Yeah, you've been through the wringer lately. Sorry you had to go through that, but your interactions with others are partly to blame. I'm not saying you deserved the article Sitush created (if you recall, I voted to delete). If you take stock of the situation, you often seemed to be mired in conflict. For some reason you get under people's skin. You've got to work on that. Stop filing ANIs perhaps? Sure, you didn't file all of them, but those that you didn't were surrogates.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Then who do you think they're going after? I would remind you that even though I have never edited in this topic area and have never been a member of this group, my name was added as a party to the case on the secret instructions of an arbitrator. No reasons, no diffs. Who knows if someone behind the scenes is trying to keep me from participating in the case, but Chilling Effect, that's for sure. —Neotarf (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf: Obviously someone went through your contribution history and saw a problem. If you look on the request page, you will see that I provided a few diffs related to you.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, what's with all the cloak and dagger consiracy theory? The arb in question told you. Seems clear enough. DeCausa (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

So what were the diffs again? And the rationale? Do refresh my memory. And if TKOP is going to make accusations here, the diffs should be here as well. And someone is stalking my edits? No! I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked. —Neotarf (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What ever happened to RFC/User? Isn't that what Arbitration prefers? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Eric: Some individuals initiate and foment chaos to piss editors off whose views (or assumed views) they dislike. (Which reminds me, is Sitush going to be added here? He can return any time he wants and I'm sure he will return - at the latest - the day the Arbitration is over.)
Such instigators hope their antics eventually will lead to sanctions against those they detest. (If 1/3 the articles a person works on are reverts or criticisms of one editor, some might think that was their purpose.)
We can provide a dozen examples of individual editors at GGTF being pissed off by behavior that seems meant only to harass or mock. (If Sitush got 24 hours block for being baited into his "outburst", how long a block should the dozen of us get? 24 hours for each proven and equally severe outburst? Three hours for each temper tantrum? One hour for each request that people stop disrupting the project?) Probably another dozen diffs can be provided of others who kept their tempers and calmly protested behavior they disapproved of. In fact the issue is pretty much resolved - and Arbitration unnecessary now - because so many uninvolved editors agreed at 3 ANIs that disruption was happening. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hard to tell, as it's out of our hands now. We'll just have to wait and see. One thing I can promise you is that nothing that you, me, or anyone else says at the evidence or workshop pages will make the slightest difference to the outcome. Just look at the history of previous ArbCom cases. Eric Corbett 22:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not true. I've taken evidence and workshop proposals into account in drafting and voting on cases dozens of times. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We'll see. Eric Corbett 23:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is it that "we'll see"? I really wish you would try to assume good faith. You actually have an opinion that should be respected...but it is also clouded by your own negative opinion of too many things. That is fine but, if you cannot assume good faith....are you doing anything more than the same undermining you do at other projects? How about this...try not to taint this with what you feel is "absolute". I have come to understand you in only very certain terms about content and collaboration that I find positive , but...not by your actions that I see, but from the words of others. Here I see actions that make me think you are just more worried of the outcome that would apply to you. But don't worry too much about it or make too many negative comments. It also makes it look like you are trying to "poison the well". I hate to say this (and I do mean that...as I have come to trust what others say about you far more than I actually trust you, yourself) but this pattern of yours...just gives further evidence against you. Have you thought about that?--Mark Miller (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf: on the request page I provided a few diffs of problematic behavior. The arbitrator who added you to the case might have something else in mind. Why don't you just ask him? unsigned comment added by User:Two kinds of pork) 05:54, 27 September 2014 —Neotarf (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC) (...and BTW,"{{yo|Neotarf}}" does not produce a ping.)

@Two kinds of pork: If you find an interesting geology link, do you take it to the MilHist WikiProject? No, you take it to the Geology project, where it has a chance of some geologist seeing it and being able to evaluate its usefulness. So why on earth would you take a gender link to the RS noticeboard. If the arbitrators are wondering why more people don't respond to these blue sky ideas, maybe this is why, they'll have someone try to read something into it that isn't there, and end up wasting their life getting dragged off to ArbCom. And Miss(?) Pork, (or is it Ms. Pork?), why don't you sign your posts? —Neotarf (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be an analogy to the diff I think you're refering to in TKoP's request statement. I think a better analogy of the illogicality of what you said is someone taking a milhist link to the MilHistProject, someone else suggesting taking it to RSN and getting the response "Why don't you present it to them yourself if you think they may be interested. I posted it here as an FYI for serving military personnel in the context of their project". The background WP:BATTLEGROUND position being that only serving military personnel should opine on military history. DeCausa (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You specifically asked Does this raise some questions about the use of video as a RS?, did you not? It was a reasonable question IMO, and I gave you what I thought was a reasonable response; Namely when queations arise over a potential source, ask the people who work in these issues all the time for their opinion. You were apparently offended by this suggestion. I've no idea why.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So, Two-kinds-of-pork, let me get this straight. You don't agree that Wikipedia should have a Gender Gap project, so you hang out at their talk page acting as a sort of gatekeeper. When I dropped a link on the talk page about Anita Sarkeesian being driven out of her house over her "Tropes vs Women in Video Games" video series, you made the determination that the link belonged at WP:RS instead. Do you really think there is any wikiproject that does not know about RS? And you have continuously played with the archiving of the GG talk pages so that disruptive edits do not stay archived. In fact, after you were blocked for disruptive archiving, the first thing out of your block, you went over and messed with the archiving again. And now today you continue with the archiving disruptions. [2][3][4][5][6] (with an edit summary "quit stirring things up"). And as far as the comments you and Chess have been making on the project talk page today, not to mention past faux pas, you ought to check out WP:NOTDATINGSERVICE. —Neotarf (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Where have I ever said or even implied that the GG project shouldn't exist? This is one of those "diffs or strike" moments. And you continue with the ad hominem arguments? As for the archiving "disruption", that's just plain nonsense. I'd encourage anyone to visit the GGTF page in question and examine the section in question. It has nothing to do with the GG, and is tantamount to passing a bowl of popcorn while the fires burn. Discussions like those belong elsewhere. Is there a rule that only SlimVirgin is allowed to archive sections at GGTF? I'm not the first person to say you have a battleground attitude. The constant muckraking and sophistry on display sure supports that claim. I don't know what you aim to achieve by all of this. Your arguments at ANI and elsewhere have rung hollow. And that's not me saying this, but univolved editors. You really should strive harder to AGF and spend more time on substantive matters vs. trying to play the gotcha game. And I no idea what the hell you are talking about with this dating service business and Chess.mmi hope this sort of behavior will not be tolerated when this ARB request goes live. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So what happened when you asked the RS group to evaluate the Anita Sarkeesian video tropes series in the context of the Gender Gap? Or did you ask them. And why hasn't 123Chess456/Chess/Grognard answered Carol's question about interest in the Men's Right Movement? Also I find your recent comments on that talk page about thighs and double entendre and douchebags to have a huge creep factor, especially when taken in juxtaposition with various doxxing attempts to determine my gender on various talk pages, not to mention some personalized and sexualized invitations to me involving various parts of your anatomy. And now I see you have never written any articles. What's that about? Neotarf (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC) OH, and remind me again about your user name, what does it mean again, the two kinds of pork? And the rest of the sig...what is "makin' bacon", and why is it in your sig? —Neotarf (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ok...this is what I think. The arbitrator that made the statement needs to retract or strike them as this may well effect the arb com discussion and outcome. From everything I see from very well respected editors....this was never a true proposal from the Gender Gap Task force but just someone adding something for reasons...that seem less that reasonable and were removed when they were discovered. We can tell outside editors or those not members of the project that they cannot edit pages of the project...there is some precedence for that however, in practice and in discussion there is a rough consensus of the general community that even editors not signed unto the project, can edit the main pages of said project even though there is also some guidelines that state the priority of the main project page should be controlled by its members. I don't care what was meant by the "blue sky" comment. I took that to mean "dreaming" and therefore not reasonable in and of itself...but frankly that is just the opinion of that person and they can say the sky is purple and it wouldn't matter to me. I think the comment was "Brown feces" myself...but again...just my opinion and not likely to pursued the editor to think highly of my comment or opinion anymore than I think of theirs. But I am a little concerned that the accuracy of the stated facts be corrected.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, WTT struck the comment. Needlessly, IMO, since it was pretty obvious what was meant and pretty uncontroversial as well. But there seems to be boundless scope for people on WP to misconstrue the obvious and the uncontroversial. DeCausa (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close

Checking my watchlist after coming back from holiday, I was surprised to see that Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough was still open. The case was created 5 weeks ago and nobody has commented (I think) for the last 28 days. Forgive my ignorance if this is covered somewhere in published processes, but are time limits defined for stale cases, or does this come down to committee members stating that a case should be closed? --Fæ (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's waiting for the Committee to tell the clerks it's ready to be closed and archived. Last I checked they were wanting more arbs to comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. From this I assume that there is no fixed procedure with time limits, but the decision on what is an appropriate amount of time to leave a case open for possible further comments is left as a judgement for committee members. For anyone who stumbles across this observation, I would highlight that a month without comment is bound to feel like a long time left hanging in the wind for the subject of a case; it's probably an area where we should take care to be seen to be trying to be nice to those with cases created against them with the associated stress of worrying about pending requests for punitive action. --Fæ (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, in some cases it can also hold up the improvement of the encyclopaedia as people hold off making edits until the arbitration process finishes so they don't accidentally disrupt anything. At the very least a note from an arb or a clark indicating that this hasn't been forgotten but is waiting for X would go a long way towards mitigating these sorts of issues. Ideally, I'd like to see every open arbitration matter (cases, requests, clarifications, etc) receive at least one comment from at least one arbitrator every week - even if that is just a holding comment saying "we're waiting for a party to get back to us" or "we're deliberating privately about this currently" or "we're waiting for more arbitrators to comment" or "I haven't forgotten you, but I had personal issues take all my time this week. I intend to post some proposals for comment on Thursday.". Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the committee is a touch backlogged presently, a number of arbs (especially the hard working ones!) are much more inactive than usual, and that has put us behind. I can't say I agree with the idea of a weekly update, unless it were done by a co-ordinating arbitrator, a role which isn't really happening at the moment. Worm^TT(talk) 12:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Inactivity doesn't come easy to some people. They have to work hard at mastering it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Function

Is the Arbitration Committee essentially a court of law? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Limitations of Arbitration; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Wikipedia is not a court of law. The Arbitration Committee was created to resolve certain types of disputes on this website, which the editors cannot solve any other way. The Committee also serves as the appeal of last resort for indefblocked or banned users, appoints editors to certain roles, and looks into matters that cannot be discussed openly on Wikipedia because they involve private information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for clearing that up. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)