Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
IPT		24 September 2014	{{{votes}}}
Issues related to Landmark Worldwide		20 September 2014	{{{votes}}}
Gender Gap Task Force Issues		8 September 2014	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

IPT

Initiated by Serialjoepsycho (talk) at 13:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Serialjoepsycho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme&diff=626899098&oldid=626804858

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive849#Violations_of_WP:Civility.2C_WP:NOR.2C_WP:SYNTH.2C_and_WP:BLPGroup_by_User:Serialjoepsycho
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#BLP_violation_on_IPT
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive855#And_the_hounding_continues
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism/Archive_1#RFC:_Does_the_use_of_the_Islamophobia_template_in_this_article_violate_wikipedias_policy_on_NPOV.3F
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive203#Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism&diff=614968871&oldid=614968567
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Serialjoepsycho_reported_by_User:Atsme_.28Result:_.29

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

This dates back to March. Atmse dislikes a template on the page. In disregard of the consensus in the above RFC [1] atsme deleted this template months later without receiving consensus based off what I find to be a convoluted argument [2]. Most recently made a claim of ownership that she was the "Lead editor" [3]. When another user pointed out WP:OWN in her defence she claimed right under and essay Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing#Suggested_remedies [4]. Of course under this essay the only mention of a Lead Editor is one that is appointed by you the arbitration committee. She has canvassed other editors to this in the past [5], [6], [7], [8]. This has went on abit long. I could wait for the fourth ANI, or the new what ever after the AFD closes. Perhaps another vague question on the Village pump [9]. This has been taken to many places and the only acceptable results seem to be those that do not end in a negative.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There is more but lets just see if this is enough. This is tiresome at this point. I'd like to also ask for an injunction between myself and Atsme from editing Investigative Project on Terrorism, Steven Emerson, and any related page until the arbitrators make a decision on whether to take this. Just article content.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't adamantly oppose the merger because the template couldn't be applied. I adamantly proposed the merger because it was solely about deleting the template without gaining a consensus to do so. The proposal was to Merge, delete, and recreate the article. This is made clear while the Merge proposal was running on the IPT page [10]. Here's some on the proposed collaboration that took place [11], [12],[13],[14],[15]. I could keep going but I'm to just go ahead and skip to the end. I'll just link this whole Convo Talk:Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism/Archive_1#Need_more_content_and_some_aesthetics...., and [16]. This made this seem that it was over. However on May 18 I returned to this wiki project and found [17] this a return of arguments from the previous IPT discussion. It wasn't until after her collaborator had went on vacation that she had returned to editing IPT and as one of the prior links show removing the template there was a consensus to keep. There's more.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

[18] This is a link that Atsme provides below. It contains links that disprove Statements Atsme has provided below in the same paragraph in which she provides this link. I'm also unsure how using the word Game is gaming the system.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, NewYorkBrad. Conduct is what brings me here. Atsme Canvassing others to the article, removing content there was a consensus to keep without a consensus, removing [19] content while trying to achieve consensus [20] and while others are trying to reach consensus on their behalf [21]. That's hardly all.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

[22] This is from 2013 when the article was created. You'll notice of course that the infobox Atsme claims I added is there. Why is someone who claims to be trying to be correcting misinformation providing misinformation? Hell the actual diff she provides to show that I added the infobox is of another user restoring the infobox.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by atsme

Joe's claims are terribly skewed, but I'll try to keep it short. I used the term lead editor because I lead the edit count with 59.2%, next in line has 25.5%, and Joe has 0.1%. It had nothing to do with claiming ownership as Joe alleged. I was the one who expanded the article from stub to starter in collaboration with another editor who is now on extended vacation. [23]. My agenda is and always has been to improve the article. Joe's agenda is and always has been to stop me. He proves it in his following statements: "My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia." [24] Here's another one: "Grief? To whom? You? It's justifiable. Like the "grief" I give you for removing the Islamophobia template when there is a consensus to keep it. Why would I put more energy in Roku achieving GA status?" [25]. Do I really need to include anymore?. I've got bigger fish to fry than to worry about the template. That's Joe's number one priority as self-appointed guardian of the template. In the interim he has done nothing to correct, expand or improve the article. He just wants it as a coatrack. He adamantly opposed a merge to Steven Emerson because then the template could not be applied, and that is his only concern. Considering his "intent and purpose", it is to his advantage to prevent me from improving the article. That way, it will remain a stub, and he'll be happy. [26]

Considering I have been the only editor who even attempted to improve the article despite the disruptions from Joe, and collaborated well with another editor who is now on an extended vacation, it would be an injustice to prevent me from completing my work just because Joe has an issue with the template, and doesn't understand the issues plaguing the article. He couldn't possibly know considering he has not contributed anything to expanding, correcting, or improving it. The only injunction should be against Joe, and not the only editor who has taken an interest in improving it, and has actually performed the work. Atsme☯^Consult 08:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell, if after the corrections and improvements are made, and the template is found to be justifiably placed, what is the issue? The real question is why is Joe so concerned that a merge, and a corrected article will void the template? How are my actions as an editor who recently expanded two articles to GA status, nominated one for FA, and another for GA in the past 4 months, and who has done most of the expansion for IPT, and attempted to correct inaccuracies in Emerson suddenly detrimental to the project? What exactly has Joe done to improve either of the articles, much less attempt to expand them? His misinterpretations, and relentless misinformation are why he should be enjoined from both articles. His relentless aggression in pushing his POV is disruptive. Here is further proof he has been gaming the system since May [27]. Also, he just created more disruption with his recent request to close GenQuest's September merge despite this ARB. He lied in his request to close stating the September merge was made at my request, obviously hoping no one would bother to check the dates, or review the situation, which is what happened, so the merge was closed by Armbrust. [28] My merge request was made in June - GenQuest's in September. I had nothing to do with GenQuest's request to merge. My ONLY involvement was a comment in the comment section Talk:Steven Emerson which is what Joe used to deceitfully have the merge closed. Of further relevance and importance to this ARB is the review summary that was given for the closure of my June request to merge (which Joe archived expeditiously so it would not be noticed): Talk:Steven_Emerson/Archive_3 Important excerpts by the reviewer follow: .....as suggested by User:Aircorn, a reasonable argument under the second category might be that the IPT is exclusively associated with Steve Emerson, if evidence to this effect is presented. Also the following: Note that this close does not evaluate whether the articles are compliant with policy (e.g. WP:NOR); it would be a good idea for the editors here to resolve these issues, but they would only have become relevant to the merger question if so much of the article was noncompliant that nearly all of it had to be deleted, and arguments to this effect have not been presented. The issues that provoked GenQuest's September merge request are here: [29]. Good faith editors are simply trying to follow the suggestions of the reviewer, improve the articles, and present good faith arguments that justify the merge. However, as long as Joe continues pushing his POV with his obsessive focus on the template, he will continue to disrupt the project and prevent expansion and improvement. Atsme☯^Consult 15:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I did a strike through on the merge issue above. GenQuest provided an explanation for the confusion - [30]. However, I still believe it is important for this ARB to take into consideration what the reviewer stated when closing the June merger, Talk:Steven_Emerson/Archive_3. The article has issues, and they need to be addressed. See the following diff, [31]. Unfortunately, Joe's limited experience writing prose, and the desire or incentive he lacks to try to improve and expand articles to make them GAs are plaguing both articles. His only focus is the template when he should be concerned over the NPOV, SYNTH, NOR, and possibly even BLP violations. Instead, he pretends they are a non-issue, and wastes valuable time hounding me. He stated his purpose, his actions prove he is serious, and he will twist the truth to make it fit his POV all the while hoping no reviewer will actually spend the time it takes to get to the root of the problem. He turns everything into a "he said, she said" child's game because he knows it distracts from the real issue, and creates confusion. I've done NOTHING to harm the project. I have expanded the project. The only harm that has come to both projects is so obvious, it's blinding. Atsme☯^Consult 03:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The following diff [32] is the infobox Joe recently added to the IPT article. It merges Emerson's work as an independent reporter and terrorism expert along with his think-tank called The Investigative Project, and his website domain which is titled, Investigative Project on Terrorism. To add to the confusion is The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, the only legally organized charitable foundation under IRS Section 501(c)3 of the Tax Code. The infobox is clearly synthesis, and does not fit under "common name" because the only commonality is Emerson which makes it exclusively Emerson except for the Foundation which didn't exist until 2006. Information prior to that date belong in Steven Emerson. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation solicits donations and performs the work (investigative and testimonial) of an actual group that is not exclusively Emerson with regards to potential legal ramifications. Organization and group are the key words here. Everything prior to 2006 is based exclusively on Emerson and his notability. Classic example, the entire History and Mission section of IPT: As part of his work, he suggested the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was the work of Muslim Terrorists. Key words, HIS work, so it belongs in HIS article, and has nothing to do with The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. The following is a classic demonstration of how Emerson's notability was inherited by IPT: [33] Again, it has nothing to do with the "organization" or Foundation which was legally organized as a charitable organization in 2006. As it stands now, IPT has no other purpose than to serve as a WP:Coatrack for the template which Joe has made clear is his only concern. Any attempts to correct the misinformation ends up in time consuming debates that go nowhere, or disputes that are listed on ANI, or BLPN, etc. Worse yet, Joe is WP:Hounding and denigrating me wherever I go to comment or share my beliefs about discrimination which makes it all the more important to fix the existing problems, and enjoin him from further impeding the article's progress. My striving to pass the scrutiny of a GA review is not what I consider disruptive editing. In fact, I'd like to see more editors at least trying to do the same. Atsme☯^Consult 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Binksternet

Atsme came to the the Investigative Project on Terrorism in February 2014, initially telling other editors that the (widely used) word "Islamophobia" should not be used because it was not a valid word,[34] then in March 2014 because it was being removed from the AP Stylebook, noting that "the same group of editors are usually involved".[35] This indicates Atsme's appreciation of the problem as being based not on reliable sources (which use the term) but on a lexical argument which few endorse. In that "same group" comment Atsme telegraphed her concern that she was outnumbered by editors who were her ideological opponents. This is an indication that she took a battleground attitude from the very start, which I think is the problem here, extending to the present. In my estimation, Atsme is the problem, and the solution would be a topic ban. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

IPT: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Neither the request for arbitration nor the response is easy to follow, and I would welcome brief input from other editors. The issues addressed may include whether including the prominent "Islamophobia" template on this article raises a BLP issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Issues related to Landmark Worldwide

Initiated by • Astynax ^talk at 01:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Astynax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• DaveApter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nwlaw63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tgeairn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• DaveApter
• Nwlaw63
• Tgeairn

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_2#RfC:_revert_or_retain_the_recent_deep_revert
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_2#Rfc_regarding_Landmark_Worldwide
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#RFC:_Has_the_neutrality_of_this_article_been_improved_or_degraded_by_recent_wholesale_changes.3F
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-21_Landmark_Education
• this may not be complete; there is a long history spanning several years

Statement by Astynax

Not all articles on Wikipedia attract enough editors familiar with the material to resist intransigent PoV pushing. In this case, the problem has been festering over several years and across multiple articles.

Landmark Worldwide (including its iterations over the past 4 decades) is widely discussed in Sociology, Psychology and New Religious Movements (NRM) fields. It is considered by many, though certainly not all, scholars as a NRM. Like many NRMs, Landmark disclaims any association with religion. Regardless, it is studied and discussed as a new religious form in academic works, often cited as a paradigm of new forms of religious expression. Landmark distances itself from its controversial origins, though these are treated as part of articles on Landmark in academic and encyclopedic sources. I became aware of a PoV problem when several editors arrived at List of New Religious Movements, having no history there; insisting that Landmark, The Forum and est were non-religious and should be excluded from that list. This group pushed through a "rough consensus" that Landmark/The Forum/est did not belong on the list, despite academic references to the contrary, and it was removed. They also decided that, rather than relying on what scholars say is a NRM, editors should create a novel restrictive definition that would exclude Landmark.

I first noticed at that time an ongoing situation at Landmark Education itself. I have made few edits there, as even minor article changes to broaden coverage or reflect reliable references are torpedoed. While I accept that the editors personally have not detected any religious overtones, that should be irrelevant for purposes of an article. An outside editor recently tagged what had become a puff piece with descriptions of the seminar products and other material sourced to Landmark itself forming much of the article, and this group of editors again reactivated to defend the corporate PoV.

Behaviors have often been on the edge of policies, and have included, but have not been limited to, wholesale blanking of referenced material, misuse of tagging, forum/admin shopping, pushing OR and syntheses, selectively dismissing (or poisoning the well) regarding solid sources on trumped up grounds, limiting citations (then later removing the supported statements and remaining reference); incremental reversion of material that differs from the view that Landmark presents of itself. Details will be added to evidence.

My concern is that if a small group in a relatively underwatched article forms a "consensus" to push a particular PoV or material at odds with what the literature on a subject says, they generally get their way. Rather than summarizing all significant points of view, such articles end up pushing the PoV of fans, employees, PR consultants, volunteers, members, etc., maintaining that WP:OR group consensus trumps WP:V and excluding/minimizing reporting of RS. It is a problem that transcends this particular cases. It is extremely frustrating to those trying to summarize what reliable sources say and at odds with Wikipedia's goals and pillars.

Replies by filing party

• Reply to Robert McClenon: Thank you for the warning. Yes, there is ongoing discussion, however the intransigent behavior has not changed. I raised this case because of a long history of misbehavior for which the following, non-exhaustive, set of diffs may help illustrate some of the problem:

• forum and admin shopping[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]
• involvment in deletion of articles related to Landmark[51][52][53][54]
• canvasing[55][56][57][58][59]

When a group of editors in forming a peculiar consensus, insists upon and enforces barring reliably sourced material and articles, then they are violating the community-wide consensus that requires verifiable, NPoV reporting of all significant and notable aspects of subjects. Mischaracterizing what eminently reliable references say in support of the PoV is also serious misbehavior which I am prepared to show. That these editors may simply have a blind spot when it comes to particular subjects is also a possibility. Whether or not a cabal exists, and there are certainly other possible explanations, the named editors, along with a very few others who drive by to comment, appear regularly when Landmark-related issues are raised, even after long absences on Wikipedia. Advocacy is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's pillars, regardless of whether a local "consensus" promoting PoV has been formed by a majority of editors participating on any particular article's talk page. • Astynax ^talk 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reply to Drmies with regard to forum shopping: When an editor contacts an individual admin requesting "help", then it may not rise to the level of shopping. However, when an editor contacts several editors, as happened at the time of the diff you posted, that is WP:ADMINSHOP. Nor was that the only instance of shopping. • Astynax ^talk 01:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by DaveApter

While I would welcome a decision on these issues by Arbcom, I would have thought that this request is premature, other forms of dispute resolution not having been exhausted. Regarding the list of links above:

1. This Rfc appears unconnected with any of the editors named here (except Astynax)
2. This Rfc was closed with a conclusion which Astynax did not like
3. This Rfc was opened by me on 6th September; Astynax and Lithistman refused to engage with it (the latter with insulting comments). I also notified it on the NPOV noticeboard.
4. This mediation attempt in 2007 did indeed appear inconclusive, although the line taken here by Astynax seems indistinguishable from the one taken there by several now discredited editors such as Pedant17 and Smee (aka Smeelgova, aka Cirt).

I have also attempted to discuss the matter politely with Astynax on his talk page, and with a couple of the other tendentious editors on their talk pages, without useful results.

IMHO it is Astynax who is guilty of the charges above that he levels at others. He appears to me to be genuinely convinced that his own perspective on the subject is a neutral PoV.

He also appears to me to be incapable of grasping the difference between acceptable and tendentious editing, or of understanding the policies regarding undue weight, reliable sourcing, edit warring, personal attacks, or civility.

Personally I am committed to the policies and objectives of Wikipedia, and I am always happy to discuss any of my edits on their own merits. In nine years of editing nothing I have done has resulted in my being sanctioned for policy violations.

I do not know why Astynax chose the three people named here to be included in this request, but if the case is to proceed, it should certainly also include Lithistman, AnonNep, and perhaps several other editors who have edited the article and/or its Talk page in the past month or two. DaveApter (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Responses to further remarks by Astynax and Lithistman

I would be interested to get feedback from uninvolved editors and (if they think it appropriate) from arbitrators on whether they agree with Lithistman's opinion of my RfC as "ridiculous", or his judgement that the questions are not neutrally worded. Also on whether Astynax's list of 24 diffs above do constitute "bad behaviour" or normal wikipedia discussion and advice seeking. Regarding my supposed canvassing by informing people of the RfC, I thought this was sound practice to let everyone who had recent involvement with editing or discussion or the previous RfC at the list of NRMs know about it. Since I did this for all, regardless of whether they had supported or opposed my position, I don't see how it can be described as canvassing. DaveApter (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Scalhotrod

Comment - assuming that you are referring to this RfC, I would not refer to it as "ridiculous", but it seems clear that you have an understanding of the situation that a casual observer or disinterested editor would not have an easy time comprehending or even getting the gist of it.

That said, I'll openly state that I have edited the article as well as have taken several Landmark courses. Do I believe that it is a religious organization of any type, not at all. But, do I know people who treat it as such, you bet your "no feeling left from sitting for so long by Sunday of the Forum weekend" rear that I do. There are people who regard Tony Robbins' instruction with "religious devotion", but that doesn't make him a priest either. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nwlaw63

The filer here asserts “intransigent POV pushing”. I suggest that those studying the edit history of these articles may come to a very different conclusion.

For instance, in the first and largest complaint, that of “blanking referenced material”, what happened is that the filer added a large mass of material to the article without gathering consensus on the talk page, material which had a variety of policy problems, including using unreliable sources and primary sources to make contentious sources in the article lead, mistakenly duplicating another paragraph and generally violating the undue weight policy. In the ensuing discussion, the filer argued at length for the use of the clearly unreliable source, including with a previously uninvolved administrator. Another editor fought to use primary sources to put controversial material in the article lead. The administrator removed this material; the editor who put it in then got into a contentious debate with that administrator (and later another administrator).

In fact, the previously mentioned administrator was responsible for removing most of the filer's "referenced material", not anyone involved in this case.

Attempts to discuss these policy issues with other editors have often been met with a lack of interest in the specifics of the sourcing or the policy or assertions of bad faith; indeed, sometimes lack of good faith in an editor has been used as the main justification for an edit.

Attempts to use the appropriate procedures and forums to resolve disputes on these articles have often been met with contentiousness, and in one case, contempt for the RFC process.

In other cases, the filer appears to misunderstand Wikipedia policy, such as when the appropriate notification of all editors who commented on a previous RFC on the same topic is described as “canvassing”. Given that the filer claims that the article is controlled by a small group of POV pushers, it is particularly ironic that many of the filer's complaints are related to attempts to get the eyes of other neutral editors and administrators on the article.

What I have noticed is pervasive in many of these articles is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s reliable sourcing and notability policies, and a lack of caution in using primary or unreliable sources in making contentious or extraordinary claims. One of my primary goals on Wikipedia is to keep the project from being tainted by such dubious or inappropriate material.

I welcome fresh eyes and new editors to these articles to give fresh perspectives about the content of these articles, and I welcome calm and open discussion using appropriate forums about the content of these articles inside of Wikipedia policies. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tgeairn

It appears that the issue being brought here is POV editing and general editor behaviour. As the submitter of this request notes, this issue relates to a series of articles mostly within the scope of New Religious Movements and opposition to NRMs with relatively few active editors and has existed for several years. As the committee may be aware, the majority of those articles were created by a single editor who has since been topic banned and desysopped. In many cases, the disputes in this topic area extend back to the same violations of NPOV and BLP that the committee established as fact at that time (specifically that the editor placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices). Those same views and same sources are (in many cases) what is at issue here.

The majority of recent editing and disputes have been surrounding Landmark Education and whether or not it is a religious movement. Those disputes have included a significant lack of good faith[60][61], edit warring, accusations of COI[62], disregard for RfC results[63], and repeated use of sources which had already been determined to be unreliable at RSN[64].

That some editors are simply cutting and pasting into articles without regard for discussion, policy, or content is clearly evident. For example, at Landmark Worldwide two editors repeatedly (at least eight times) inserted a large block of text that included an entirely duplicated paragraph (even after this was pointed out to them). 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. This would appear to indicate that the editors were not even reading the talk page messages pointing out the duplication, nor were they reading the material they were inserting.

With very few exceptions, I do not make mass edits (although I have reverted mass additions and removals). All edits have been accompanied by appropriate edit summaries, and I have then explained my edits and my reasoning on talk pages. Once my edits are summarily reverted[65], other editors and admins have generally then taken up re-making the same revisions (for example, see User:Rlendog’s re-revision here or User:Drmies’s edits here).

It appears that the submitter is also accusing me (and others) of canvasing. In every case where I have gone to talk pages to get wider review of an issue, I have posted the same message to a wide range of editors – usually the most recent editors to the article - and always consistent with appropriate notification. In the case of RfCs, I have posted to talk pages as described at publishing an RfC.

I request that the committee accept this case and review all of the existing evidence as needed to determine what (if any) actions are needed to break this dispute once-and-for-all and to benefit Wikipedia. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AnonNep

This is one of the strangest articles I've encountered on WP in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:RS interpretation. I suggested an RFC on 27 Aug after the placement of an 'advert' tag caused reverts and talk page chatter, with the reasoning 'new, uninvolved editors, to look through things with fresh eyes, and give their point on view'. Some discussion does continue on the talk page, other editors have contributed, so I'm not sure if its at an Arbcom stage but the same issues seem to keep circling around, again and again. AnonNep (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Lithistman

My history at this article (and related ones) is short. The first edit I made was on 26 July, to add a "promo" tag to the article, given my concerns that it read something like a press release for the company. My second edit was one month later, to switch that tag to an NPOV, after discussion on the talkpage convinced me that it wasn't so much a promotional issue as it was an issue with a slanted POV. Since that time, I've observed well-sourced information reverted en masse out of the article, causing serious NPOV issues with the article. At some point, DaveApter started a ridiculous "RFC", that was in no way neutrally-worded, and was seemingly designed only to gin up support for his own view, and opposition to those who were trying to bring balance to the article. Things have sort of "escalated" from there, and thus we arrive here. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• One further note: Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has now started an utterly frivolous ANI about me, mainly stemming from my description of the experience I've had in editing the Landmark article. He claims all sorts of personal attacks by me, none of which are true. Since interacting with him on the Landmark article, he has threatened to block me, left multiple complaining messages on my talkpage, and just generally caused me to feel harassed. Today, I finally asked him to refrain from posting to my talkpage, and thus far, he has complied with that request. I hope that continues, as at this point, I just wish I'd never stumbled across this stupid article, as well as the long-term editors associated with it. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Previously Uninvolved User:Robert McClenon

One of the RFCs cited by the filing party as evidence of previous efforts to resolve the problem is still in progress. The filing party hasn't cited any reason why the RFC shouldn't be allowed to run its course (such as personal attacks or disruptive editing in the RFC itself). Is the filing party complaining that there is something wrong with the RFC itself, or that the RFC is some sort of misconduct?

This is a contentious article, but it doesn't seem to rise to the level of needing discretionary sanctions, which would be the most likely result of arbitration.

The filing party appears to think that a cabal of three or four editors is trying to assert ownership of the article and to impose a POV on the article. If an article has only a few active editors, three or four editors may be consensus rather than a cabal.

In the unlikely case that the ArbCom accepts this case, the filing party should look out for the incoming boomerang.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

I edited the article recently, cleaning out a fair amount of fluff, promo and puffery. At that time I did notice that one frequent contributor regarding the subject - DaveApter - says that he has been a satisfied customer of the organisation. I'm not suggesting that DaveApter added that fluff etc but any neutral editor would have removed it pronto, not left it lying around. I don't know much at all about the subject matter but I noticed a lot of debates on the talk page over a prolonged period and they did seem often to have come down to two polarised groups, both claiming to be operating according to policy but, quite clearly given my removals, not doing so. It doesn't look like the material that I removed has been reinstated. Maybe it got drowned in the noise. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Zambelo

During the past week a number of articles connected to Landmark in one way or another, and more particularly to the voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous article (which was also nominated for deletion)

I raised this issue here and asked why the following articles were being nominated for deletion, or being tagged as not passing notability (I had raised this here earlier, and Tgeairn had responded)

Articles connected to Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous:

• Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous - proposed deletion by Drmies
• Jean-Pierre Jougla (participant)- flagged for notability by Randykitty
• Jean-Marie Abgrall (participant, anti-cultist)- flagged by Randykitty
• Jean-Pierre Brard (participant)- flagged by BayShrimp
• Christian Lujan (participant) - proposed deletion by Drmies
• Mona Vasquez (participant)- proposed deletion by Tgeairn
• Catherine Picard (anti-cultist, politician, head of UNADFI, commentator) - flagged by Tgeairn

Other:

• Ian Haworth (anti-cultist) - Proposed deletion by Tgeairn
• William V. Chambers (anti-cultist, psychologist)- Proposed deletion by Tgeairn
• Raffaella Di Marzio - (anti-cultist, psychologist) flagged by Tgeairn
• Michael Langone (anti-cultist) - flagged by Tgeairn
• Mark Sirkin (psychologist)- flagged by Tgeairn
• Cult Awareness and Information Centre (sued by Landmark) flagged by Tgeairn
• Jan Groenveld (anti-cultist sued by landmark) - flagged by Tgeairn

On top of these flaggings, large changes were made to several of the articles - for instance the Michael Langone article was gutted because it looked like a "resumé" even before notability could be established, or discussed.

Is there a pattern here?

Meanwhile, the editors who voted for deleting the article on the Landmark-critical documentary Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous are:

• Nwlaw63
• DaveApter
• Tgeairn
• Randykitty
• Drmies

Zambelo; talk 15:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Let's see:

1. An area historically associated with ideological battle.
2. A group of editors working together to frustrate consensus.
3. Prior history of sock puppetry in the area.
4. Serious damage to article quality.
5. Complex dispute requiring deep investigation; poorly suited to quick analysis by the uninvolved.

Accept because sending this back with an admonishment to "use other consensus-based processes" clearly isn't going to work, but a case probably will. Having administrated in this area in the past, I can assure you that the community will have problems dealing with hard-core, agenda driven editors trying to spin a niche topic. Jehochman ^Talk 12:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Mediation would be a poor idea. That process doesn't work with agenda driven editors utilizing sock puppet accounts. ArbCom should investigate to weed out any bad faith accounts. If after that there is any remaining dispute, mediation might be viable, but I feel the odds of that being the case are very low. Jehochman ^Talk 08:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

I'll be short, for now. The Landmark "stuff" is troubling. I'm not sure I'd have tagged this version as an advertisement--I think that scrapping all the "content" stuff would go a long way toward neutralization. I think in general these articles suffer from adversarialitis: those who appear to be "for" the club and those who are clearly against are too far apart. There is something of a walled garden here, and those who have read Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous and the AFD will realize from this edit just to which extent wikilinking was used to establish credibility/notability. The "flagged" and nominated articles linked above by Zambelo, that's a normal part of the process. I'll speak for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Lujan, since I nominated that one: community consensus is clearly headed towards deletion; I've not looked at all the other ones, and until I have, I can't really judge whether ArbCom is the way to go. But if it turns out that the Voyage article is kept, which is a possibility, and if a group of editors manages to keep clearly unrelated content in that article (see this edit), where I self-reverted immediately to prevent accusations of disruption), then I think we do have a problem. I'm glad a broader audience is looking at these articles.

And for clarity's sake: this is not forum shopping, pace the filer's claim. An editor asks me for my opinion--what's the problem? If I need someone's opinion I'll go ask for it: nothing wrong with that, and there is no way that CANVASS forbids that type of message. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• On this very page Lithistman sees fit to accuse me of starting "frivolous" threads about me after they accused me of POV editing and admin abuse in an unrelated matter, and refused to back this up in the appropriate forum, which is ANI. For the record, I don't care much for their slander here or elsewhere (see their talk page--"Drmies forum-shopped until he found a forum to get me blocked. Mission accomplished, Drmies. I'm gone."), but it should be pointed out that I simply can't be one of the "long-term" editors associated with this "stupid article", since my first edit to this article was 13 September, months after they started on it. Lithistman claims to be retired now; for this article, that is not a bad thing. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• To Zambelo's remark about a "pattern"--there is indeed a pattern here. A slew of articles (a walled garden of sorts) was created years ago, many in 2008. Some of these were valid, some were not, and some of the latter seem to have been created to add credibility to others. Some of the BLPs Zambelo listed are otherwise non-notable people who were given articles possibly with the intention to be allow more bluelinks in other articles (such as the "documentary" article). You know, because you can see this, who created some of these articles, and while I am not willing to criticize that editor more than they already are, it is true that some of those articles simply do not pass the GNG. That editor, for better or for worse, is still paying the price for edits in the larger anti-cult area, and on the one hand it is still causing them personal distress, with which I sympathize, but on the other hand we still have some fallout here from that business. I assume that's what Jehochman is pointing at; I don't know, since I don't believe I was involved in that business (was ArbCom?) and I don't know who all was on which side. I do believe it predates the involvement of most of the editors here.

  The Nouvel Observateur edit I pointed at above fits in that pattern, as does Template:Est and The Forum in popular culture. Feel free to check the history: I went through all those articles a few days ago and removed a few that were really undue additions--note that I didn't nominate the template for deletion, and my edits there are open to scrutiny, of course.

  This walled garden is not totally walled, but in my opinion there are articles and templates whose very effect is to strengthen other articles. Another prime example is Landmark Education litigation, an article with maybe three reliable, secondary sources; another is Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard, nominated for deletion here (and properly speedily kept, I suppose), but also properly gutted here and in other edits--the same "ubiquitous" background that was found in the documentary article. How that article is still a GA is not clear to me.

  Now, I don't have a COI in this, no hate for any editors, no involvement with the organization, no nothing. In fact, I was the one that placed the COI tag on the Landmark article since I was (and still am) concerned with DaveApter's edits. And I have no problem with edits like this, which seem properly verified and fair to me--but the overload on sourcing there strikes me as tendentious--in that version, starting at note 40.

  So, if all of this adds up to something ArbCom should look at, that's fine with me. I don't know what can come out of it, but I am not a bit worried about my edits, although the slanderous remarks about COI and clique-editing are offensive to me. True, Randykitty and I go back a long way, but usually we converge on BLP and scholarly matters--I may have asked him to look at an academic's article or some publications (like the French magazines that previewed the documentary) related to this matter; if that's what got Randy into this mess, I'm sorry. DaveApter, I don't know him from Adam. Tgeairn, I think we have run into each other, but I have no relationship of any significance with them: they asked me last year to look at List of new religious movements, and I advised them to start an RfC--I never edited the article or its talkpage, and haven't to my knowledge interacted with them until 11 September of this year. So there's no there there. If anything, this request has become a place where a few disgruntled editors have found a possible avenue to smear my character, but I trust that ArbCom can see right through that. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Viriditas

As I previously commented on Lithistman's talk page,[66] this was the second major incident where administrator Drmies was caught edit warring,[67] just a week after being reported at ANI and 3RR/N for edit warring on Maup Caransa.[68][69] As I told Lithistman, he was also wrong to participate in the edit warring, but as an admin who was so recently reported for edit warring and taken to task for his bad behavior, Drmies should have known better than to repeat the same disruptive behavior only a week later. Zambelo's concerns about Drmies' role in targeting these articles with frivolous deletion requests in tandem with Tgeairn is also concerning considering Drmies' recent coordination of reverts and protection against consensus in the John Barrowman article.[70][71] I am concerned that Drmies' poor behavior in the space of less than a month on three different articles (one of which is Landmark Worldwide) demonstrates a pattern of impunity that arbcom would be wise to address. I recently attempted to directly address this problem in a WP:EW policy discussion, where I was supported by editors in my attempt, but stymied by a group of admins who did not want to be held to the same standards of decorum.[72] We need administrators to serve and protect the community, not control and pervert it. Perhaps arbcom could clarify the edit warring policy and how it applies to administrators. My attempt to do so was blocked at every level. Meanwhile, admins continue to edit war without consequences, while at the same time enforcing the policy. This is a problem. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ubikwit (uninvolved)

In light of some of the parallels with the scenario at articles related to the Soka Gakkai, I'd like to see the case accepted. Some of the issues discussed above are endemic to articles dealing with religion/quasi-religion-related topics that involve organizations engaged in proselytizing/outreach campaigns.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:41, 14:28 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Issues related to Landmark Worldwide: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Well, there are aspects of this dispute which, at first glance, do indeed seem worrying and should be investigated; however, I'm not sure this dispute has exhausted all other venues and neither am I sure that the community are incapable of resolving it satisfactorily. In short, although judging by appearances there seems to be something of a fumus boni juris here, my feeling is that this request is still a tad premature at this juncture. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I will never again allow anyone to claim that I use the most lawspeak on this page. For those who need to look this one up, including myself: Fumus boni iuris. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• There are certainly some troubling issues here. I'm leaning toward accepting as I think that is probably the only way they'll get untangled at this point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• At this point I'm leaning decline. Given the scope of the dispute and the size of the participants avenues such as mediation might be more appropriate at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Gender Gap Task Force Issues

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 16:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Carolmooredc: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACarolmooredc&diff=624688611&oldid=624677750

Eric Corbett: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEric_Corbett&diff=624688858&oldid=624686942

Two kinds of pork https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATwo_kinds_of_pork&diff=624689176&oldid=624112702

SPECIFICO https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASPECIFICO&diff=624689498&oldid=624236287

Neotarf https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANeotarf&action=view&diff=624785214 (Added by clerk: Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC))

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=624112438

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=624433683&oldid=624432719

Closed version of ANI thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=624420359&oldid=624419734#Disruption_of_Wikiproject

Statement by Robert McClenon

Recent reports of disruption of the Gender Gap Task Force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, were taken to WP:ANI and were closed inconclusively. The suggestion was made that the issue of disruption of the GGTF should be addressed by the ArbCom. The founder of Wikipedia concurred: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=624271238&oldid=624271124

The Arbitration Committee is asked to open a case to consider user conduct issues at the GGTF. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Wikiproject on countering systemic bias, and the Gender Gap Task Force, are ongoing activities for the improvement of Wikipedia. The Gender Gap Task Force (GGTF) is being disrupted by disparaging comments by two editors (EC and TKOP) who are not participants in the task force who question the need to address the gender gap, and by hostility by one participant in the task force (SPECIFICO) to another participant in the task force (CM). The ANI was closed inconclusively. A full evidentiary case is needed to identify the issues more fully. It is requested that the ArbCom consider whether topic bans for disruptive editing or interaction bans are necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Update by filing party

Since the task force has not been disrupted since the ANI thread was closed inconclusively, I am willing to withdraw this filing without prejudice and refile it in the future if the disruption resumes. (I am not optimistic, but I am willing to wait and see.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional comment by filing party

First, the climate at WP:ANI is toxic. The hostility at GGTF hasn't really cleared, only gone to WP:ANI.

Second, I will note that Sitush wrote, at WP:ANI: "We've got the wrong target here and her [Carol Moore's\ behaviour will be going to ArbCom, IBAN or no IBAN." Since Sitush doesn't control whether a case goes to ArbCom, I assume that he means that her behavior should be going to ArbCom. I would suggest that he be added to the case as a party. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Sitush: I wasn't suggesting that you be added as a party because of your conduct at GGTF, but because of your blustering against Carol Moore at WP:ANI. You apparently are implying that she needs to be taken to ArbCom. If you would prefer to file a separate case against her, you can, but a case against an editor is usually (not always) preceded by a User Conduct Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Eric Corbett

I can only assume, given ArbCom's predisposition to blame everyone and apportion blame across the board without bothering to look at the evidence, that this is a form of seppuku on Robert's part. Eric Corbett 02:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Two kinds of pork

This request is premature and should be declined. There are problems, however these problems can be resolved if everyone examines their own behavior and makes some adjustments. Yes, there have been unwarranted accusations on the group talk page. Yes there is some incivility. I think all parties should bend over backwards to AGF. Don't assume someone has an agenda (other than wanting to close the GG). Don't make ad-hominem arguments. Don't try to look for a personal attack in every sentence, as it only fosters ill will. The arbitration guide says this is not to be a debate, so I won't address some points raised by some others that I naturally disagree with. I suggest an examination of the talk archives would give the arbitrators an unadulterated version on the background of this filing.

One of the problems that this project has is some of the participants seem to believe that the project should be owned by, run by, and for women only. No one believes (or should) that any project should be owned or run by one set of editors with specific traits. This project is not just supposed to benefit women, because closing the gender gap benefits everyone.

Example 1: Neotarf (talk · contribs) asked for clarification about whether a video could be used as a RS, I suggested they check RSN and the response was Why don't you present it to them yourself if you think they may be interested. I posted it here as an FYI for consideration by the women, in the context of their project. [73]

Example 2: Neotarf again makes ad-hominem attacks and continues to assert the project is owned by gender. That Cla68 is concerned about misogyny I find surprising--from the comments he has made off wiki I would have guessed the opposite. Likewise with the individuals who were previously interested in editing pornography articles and who are now engaging with the Gender Gap project--I can't seem to follow why they are unarchiving threads that were previously archived by the women as off-topic or disruptive.[74]

Could you imagine the hue raised if someone on another project made similar comments but replaced "by the women" with "by the white Protestants?" I'm willing to cut Neotarf a little slack because I recognize there is a gender gap, but the small minority that are claiming feminine ownership and making ad-hominem attacks are digging in their heels and show no signs of relenting.

Statement by SPECIFICO

I had no comment when this request was initially opened. Events since that time have made it clear that the community and nearly a dozen Admins have not been able to address things in a rational, orderly, or equitable manner. The credibility of fundamental WP processes is at stake. I now urge Arbcom to hear this case, possibly with revised or expanded definition as to its scope and involved parties. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Forum shopping, canvassing, and meat puppetry appear to have polluted community processes and exacerbated tensions among editors. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carolmooredc

1. I think this request is premature since the three parties who have been criticized as disruptive have not even been given a chance to prove they can work collaboratively. So I believe this request should be closed by the nominator.
2. Note that everything they've complained about has been individual opinions ignored too long on the main page, discussion points, poorly formed proposals, odd ball comments and annoyed reactions to their constant criticism and nitpicking. About the only thing accomplished since the project became more active again in early July is creation of a Draft Gender Gap Task Force Resources page, much of it from links posted at the Wikimedia Foundation-sponsored Gender Gap email list. Because of the disruption it has been impossible to discuss in a serious and collaborative fashion what we think the scope, goals and projects of the task force should be. However, one would like to think that editors would take the advice of the ANI closer.
3. I should not be the only complainant mentioned because these individuals will single me out as the real problem as they have done in this issue and as one has in the past. A number of other individuals also have been supportive of the project and expressed some or a great deal of dismay at the process on the talk page; half of them commented at the WP:ANI. They too should be listed: User:Anne Delong, User:BoboMeowCat, User:Elaqueate, User:EvergreenFir, User:Rich Farmbrough, User:Knowledgekid87, User:Lightbreather, User:Montanabw, User:Neotarf, User:LawrencePrincipe, User:SlimVirgin, User:Thebrycepeake. Other individuals tangetially involved in the project have had useful ideas and critiques; some explicit supporters of the most critical individuals also have commented. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Rschen7754 and @User:The Devil's Advocate. First I believe I cannot talk about the past proceeding you mention. However, I believe I can say that as I have evidenced in the SPECIFICO section of the Disruption of a Wikiproject ANI, I have been under unrelenting Wikihounding from SPECIFICO for more than a year. See especially the April 1-September 3, 2014 Interaction Analyzers Results. Staying away from certain articles and ignoring his following me to to articles he's never edited before hasn't stopped it. Failing to respond at all often was difficult once his Wikihounding started at the Gender Gap task force. Thus I brought it up at ANI that SPECIFICO's motivation for disrupting the project seemed to be more animus of me personally (as others have noted in the ANI, on the GGTF talk page, on his talk page and even here). (Note I had intended to take other action regarding SPECIFICO on the Wikihounding issue, but this seemed the more pressing matter.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Sitush wrote on User:Talk Jimbo Wales: 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. He still posts at the project. (Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias lists seven "task forces".) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If Admins would just page ban the people opposed to and/or disrupting the project there would be no need for arbitration- but some people want it! (1), (2) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to go over 500: But except for some minor lingering echoes, problems at GGTF seem to be over, including because others brought ANIs regarding two editors posting there. Can’t we be allowed to return to editing now, please!!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre

The community has proved itself unwilling to improve itself in how it treats women editors, and issues regarding women. Thus, it falls to the Arbitration Committee—or even more drastically, Foundation fiat—to bring the hammer down. This is something which has been obvious to women editors for a very long time. For example, see the article about the 2014 Isla Vista killings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in which organised POV pushers insisted on the inclusion of category because the opposite category was included (for a multitude of good reasons), despite said inclusion being in violation of our foundational policies.

I recall an incident about five years ago in which Jimbo Wales stepped in when an admin edit warred to keep misogynist content on the front page. I honestly doubt that he would be able to do so now. The lunatics are running the asylum, and it's driving editors away by the day. I honestly feel the Wikipedia's "woman problem" is not going to get any better unless drastic action is taken. We've tried the carrot; it's now time for the stick. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I think there may be parallels to be drawn with the Chelsea Manning debacle. For almost certainly the same reasons. Neutrality in an hostile environment is abetting hostility. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

I am somewhat involved in this, particularly in the now-closed ANI. As I expressed there, I have serious concerns about Eric Corbett's incivility, general disruption, and personal attacks against Carolmooredc and other users. Please see this section for details about my concerns and evidence supporting my claims.

I am on the fence about this ARBCOM filing. I agree with Carolmooredc's above comment that more time could/should be given to the editors in question after the close of the ANI. However, I am highly pessimistic about the ultimate outcome and feel that the ANI was not given the serious attention it deserved and that what is clearly unacceptable behavior by Eric Corbett was overlooked or ignored. As I mentioned in the ANI, threats of administrative attention/punishment has been enough to temporarily halt the offending behavior from Eric Corbett, but the behavior soon-after resumed.

Something does need to be done about the disruptive behavior on the project. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Ihardlythinkso

ANI was closed inconclusively?! Perhaps you simply didn't like the close and are now forum shopping. The close clearly implied that grounds for allegation of disruption were misconstrued. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by slightly involved AnonNep

Given that any decisions by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force will need to be approved by the broader WP community, through relevant processes, in order to take effect, I believe ongoing comments by those questioning the very existence of the project, at the 'in project' discussion stage, are disruptive. (There will be be plenty of discussions they can argue against if any proposal reaches the WP policy stage).

I do think it is unfortunate that Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s personal history has been brought into this but I don't think this can be completely laid against those accused of disruption. A project like this needs to represent all those effected not just a chosen figurehead. Some people bring unconnected baggage with them.

I don't want to see anyone banned, but would have preferred some form of warning at ANI, to give the project some space to develop ideas that will be then be taken to WP forums where they may well be cut down. That hasn't happened. I would at least like to see some prohibition on questioning the project's very existence before it has time to bring any proposals to the broader community for debate. AnonNep (talk)

Comment by Knowledgekid87

This is not going to be solved by shaking hands and making up, it is clear that there is editor dis-function going on with this project. Something or someone has to give in order for this to be resolved and I do not see any clear path towards this. I just undid an edit that linked Carol's alleged passive-aggressiveness to a mental disorder: [75] the attacks keep piling on, no editor or editors should have to go through this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that Sitush's name was brought up on ANI here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban between Carolmooredc and Sitush proposed I feel Sitush should be an involved party here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Rschen7754

SPECIFICO and Carolmooredc were both parties to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics, and had topic bans passed against them. To see the same two parties here too is concerning. --Rschen7754 04:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JMP EAX

For what's worth, I'm repeating here the opinion I've already expressed [twice] on Jimbo's talk page: this is exactly the kind of case that ArbCom should take on. (The older discussion is now archived.) The ANI/community participants failed to resolved the conflict, but the [behavioral] issue(s) keep coming up. JMP EAX (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom, you were saying... [76]? It is funny how an edit war that could be easily solved with blocks became the banning case despite being featured in exactly one ANI thread, but this isn't worth your attention. JMP EAX (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In a rare case of the community managing to not deadlock itself (on a brouhaha like this), that thread was closed with a tangible result [77]. And it was soon followed by the opening of another thread [78]. It's probably wise to wait and see how that turns out. JMP EAX (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

Only tangentially involved in this one, no worries Arbcommers! As I see this, there is a serious problem if an editor or several editors join and comment in a WikiProject to which they appear to be diametrically opposed to the very premise of said project. There's a line between healthy dissent and intentional thwarting of a project's aims, and if you accept this case, I think the evidence will show disruption, e.g. "feminist bluster" and "strident feminists running riot"

What would one do with an atheist who holds religion in utter contempt if they joined WikiProject Christianity? Or a Republican that sought to stymie efforts at WikiProject Democratic Party to bring Democratic politician pages to FA status?

• A new wrinkle to consider; Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore, trending towards deletion. Revenge article-writing on one's wiki-opponents is quite an old tactic around here, one thought to be long-forgotten.

Statement by Scottywong

My only involvement in this was to close the ANI thread. My opinion is that an arbcom case on this situation would be a colossal waste of time. I admit that I might be biased, however, because I believe that the majority of arbcom cases are colossal wastes of time. The primary activities that occur on Wikipedia can be lumped into 3 categories, in order of usefulness to the project:

1. Editing articles
2. Talking about editing articles
3. Talking about talking about editing articles

We're currently doing #3, and this RFAR is a request to extend #3 to an extreme degree. My opinion is that we'd be better off jumping back a level to #2.

As I said in my closing statement at ANI, this is simply a case of editors (on both sides) that need to grow up and act like adults. The Wikiproject members need to realize that criticism is not always disruption, and learn how to accept criticism and use it to strengthen their ideas, rather than rejecting it and attempting to silence it by banning editors from the discussion. The editors who are accused of disruption need to realize that their criticism will be easier to swallow if it is delivered compassionately, as opposed to delivering it in a cantankerous and argumentative manner.

Now, we could either end this now and encourage the editors to work this out among themselves, or we can spend weeks generating gigabytes of discussion to come to the same conclusion, shoot out a couple of toothless admonishments, and end up at the same point. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 17:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Milowent

I'm uninvolved; stumbled across all this after seeing Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Missing_articles and then creating back labor in a moment of epiphany that it was hard evidence the gender gap exists.

But taking this case would be premature, as Carolmooredc says. if the project fully supported it as now necessary, I might think differently. But once I realized Eric is the artist formerly known as Malleus, I laughed my ass off. I like the guy from afar, but he's a drama magnet who can offend whoever he has a mind to, women have no lock on that. A few cranky editors causing problems at a project is unfortunately par for the course around here (oh the abuse WP:ARS has suffered!), and while it may be more problematic due to the greater focus now rightfully being given to our norms which may deter female editing, this current dispute is not something an arbitration can solve at this point. Maybe down the road. Declining to take this spat doesn't mean Arbcom believes gender diversity (a ha another one I just created; wtf, how did it not already exist?) is not of crucial importance.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by I JethroBT

Also not involved in this situation.

Based on the ANI close, I'm not convinced other editors or the parties involved are able to meaningfully resolve the issue. Conflicts on this particular project page may cease, but they will likely arise someplace else with some of the same players, perhaps on an article or on another project. I'd like to point to findings of fact in this case that are worth evaluating in this situation:

• Fair criticism - Was the discourse around the merits / criticism of the project dignified and did it involve personal attacks?
• Good faith and disruption: Was the discussion around criticisms disruptive, even if it was made in good faith?
• Baiting: Were comments made that would understandably provoke another edtior?

Arbcom has been reluctant to rule on civility-based issues in the past, but many committee members agree that it is a significant issue. What is clear to me that when committee members say things like when there is no need to escalate with snark and rudeness, please don't escalate with snark and rudeness ([79]) that are flagrantly obvious to most of us, there are some editors who persistently do not care, and it's really not OK to believe that repeating such things, correct as they are, is going to mitigate the conflicts surrounding behavior that is inconsistent with the above principles.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Just gonna say that ArbCom should not accept cases on the basis of the Dear Leader giving his blessing. I get that some may be tempted to see a case because Eric's name is attached to it, but he actually seemed to be nicer than usual in this instance. The only thing I see of particular concern that might need to be addressed is the interaction between SPECIFICO and Carolmoore. Given the nature of their interactions in the Austrian economics arbitration case, there may be a need for a more general restriction, such as an interaction ban. ArbCom does not really need to take a case to do that and it doesn't even really need to go to ArbCom should that be considered necessary. Perhaps people can take it here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Newyorkbrad and everyone Formulating one's points in such a discussion will not always be easy; for example, how does one best discuss making Wikipedia more appealing to "female editors" without crossing the line into role-ascription or gender stereotyping?

This very issue came up Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Archive_3#Scope. Notably the two editors SPECIFICO and TwoKindsofPork raised it. I hope I put their minds at rest.

It seems to me that the idea of closing (or narrowing) the gender gap is one that, like wikt:motherhood and apple pie₂, everyone agrees to. And in a general way, of course, so they should.

However when one wants to discuss proposed actions it is important to establish the parameters, and for this we need a basis in evidence. And we need to be very careful. Example: one editor extrapolated from general Internet research "So women online place more importance than men on spending time with people congenial to them" however research on Wikipedia editing shows that women are more likely to edit contentious articles than men.

In an environment where these sorts of statements are being made ab initio they are likely to be challenged. These challenges come from a number of quarters, and while Eric's are abrupt and abrasive in what I understand is his normal manner (which does not mean they are invalid), the majority seem to be fairly phrased objections.

Given also that there seems to be an assumption that there will be a gendered divide (including I believe at least two women miscast as men, as they were seen as opposing a female editor's statements) it is not surprising that conflict flares from time to time.

I have asked (here) that: If someone is being disruptive, please follow one of the usual procedures so I suppose I must take some responsibility for the ANI and this request, but I did add a rider my preferred procedure is to ignore disruption, thus making it non-disruptive, and I believe this is by far the best way forward thought this prickly thicket.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Montanabw

• Arbs: Please vote to decline—I beg you: Gender issues on wikipedia are a legitimate concern, but this is neither the time, the place, nor the right parties. This does not excuse anyone who may have exhibited poor behavior, but such things should be handled on a case by case basis. Discussions at the GGTF page involving the named parties are mostly just (sometimes heated) banter about ideas and any action at this time is premature. Worse yet, it could create a "bad facts make bad law" scenario. Montanabw^(talk) 22:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Anne Delong

• I have been only an occasional contributor at the Gender Gap task force, but each time I have visited I have observed that whenever a new thread is started which suggests some kind of positive action or direction to be taken by the task force, the thread is almost immediately flooded with discussions and questions about more general or peripherally related topics, complaints, disparaging comments, repetition of arguments from other threads, etc., rather than constructive suggestions. While these posts are mostly couched in civil language, the result has been that in many cases the thread was derailed and no progress could be made in working toward consensus on the actual threaded topic. I have no idea what this arbitration can or should do about this, but it seems that the task force has been rendered ineffective for as long as the problem persists. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Neotarf

I have no idea who has added me as a party to this case or why. According to a message on my talk page, my name was added by a clerk as proxy for an anonymous arbitrator. Let me know if I need to pay attention to this discussion. —Neotarf (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion by Cla68

While we're here, even if this case is declined the ArbCom can do its part to help with the GenderGap project. ArbCom governs en.wp's administrator selection process, correct? I suggest that ArbCom mandate that self-identifying female RfA candidates be considered as successfully passing the RfA with a 50% approval rate as opposed to the 65% rate that is currently used. This will help gain more female administrators on the project as the RfA, the way it currently operates, is such an unfair shark tank. No, I'm not joking or trolling. Cla68 (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've made a proposal here. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

There are POV warriors on both sides of this issue. If one side believes their "enemies" (and I don't use that term lightly) are going to be routed and that they themselves will escape unscathed if this issue goes through a full fact-finding process, they are sadly mistaken. I myself believe this entire "WikiProject" should probably be disbanded and moved off-wiki as inherently disruptive. Their mission is noble, their tactics and rhetoric is not. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@CLA. Really, really terrible idea. Carrite (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

I'd promised myself to stay out of this but the latest events have tipped me over the edge. For those arbs who expressed a willingness to be persuaded, please note this current ANI thread, which has turned into something of a Gender Gap Task Force pile-on probably because of this notification by an involved party. Please also note that the GGTF, which is swamped by Carolmooredc commentary, is censoring perfectly valid discussion, most recently by hatting and then, when challenged, rapidly archiving this thread. You'll note that my initial challenge there was polite enough; my response to Carolmooredc's mostly off-topic personalisation was, alas, not.

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark and freedom to discuss is being stifled by process. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc. You can't stop forum shopping the same comments at numerous venues, can you? It;s like the written version of verbal diarrhoea, sprayed everywhere, irritating, usually unwanted and, frankly, tedious. My views on the existence or otherwise of the GGTF are not relevant here and I won't be commenting in those terms. The problem here is behavioural. Yours, in particular because all you ever seem to do is try to use Wikipedia processes to censor other people and to rewrite your own history. You've been censured before but it seems to me that a review of the behaviour of yourself and perhaps others may be in order. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc, re: this. You've misunderstood me, again. I'm looking at filing a case about your behaviour generally (latest example here, which seems absurd to me). Nothing directly related to the GGTF, although obviously you have been active in matters relating to that of late and so your behaviour wrt that might be a part of the whole. I'm not sure whether ArbCom would prefer to roll all this up or not but my intention was a separate case, which will inevitably also put me and numerous other people under the spotlight. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@@Robert McClenon, I've made the grand total of nine edits to WT:GGTF and there will be a few others knocking around elsewhere. I'm not a major player in this. Feel free to add me as a party but don't expect that I'll bother responding unless the Committee decide to roll up as per my message above. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by J3Mrs

Carolmooredc conflates criticism of opinions or ideas expressed on the project page with personal attacks. As such she is proving to be a net negative by commenting on everything and drowning out more reasonable and measured voices. Until she learns the difference between such criticism and what constitutes a personal attack, nothing will improve. Some editors on that page who see incivility in others do not see it in themselves generating more drama for nil improvement to the encyclopedia. Stifling dissent is not the way to go and neither is looking for anti-feminist bias in every comment or criticism. Bad ideas are just that. J3Mrs (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A couple of days ago Eric Corbett and a female collaborator gained yet another Good Article credit. Cas Liber's idea of examining the contributions of others seems eminently reasonable to me. Arbcom needs to know exactly what editors do to improve the encyclopedia as against peddling agendas and telling other editors what to do. Editors with fewer than 50% contributions to article space, some with fewer than 30% seem to be here to create a lot of fuss, mostly from poking their noses into other editors's affairs and peddling self righteousness while considering themselves to be civil. J3Mrs (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's worth reading the extraordinary rumour-mongering and unsubstantiated allegations started by Carolmooredc on my talk page. J3Mrs (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Mark Miller

The situation is not at all clear as to who is really in the absolute wrong. Almost every one of the directly involved parties have not acted well but the serious question is...is this really about the Gender Gap Task Force or is this really just a personal conflict between editors? I see a lot of editors (very well meaning editors) stating that one is trying to get their opposition removed. I have not actually seen any real proof of that and in fact have seen some rather good explanations about how some are forgetting that just being brought up or being involved at ANI does not mean they started the threads or complaints to receive that criticism.

Newyorkbrad is correct that being able to discuss the gender issue and "why women are drastically underrepresented among our editors, and what can or should be done about it" is important, but...is that what Arbcom is for? More important to me is that the projects be allowed to have these discussions without outside intervention to disrupt that discussion on purpose and that is what I believe is happening and...generally by the same editors over and over. If the request is taken...that is what I think is a major issue. Are these projects being purposely derailed by their critics? I think it is cool to criticize...but actively undermining the projects on their talk pages just because your don't like the entire idea or find is useless is very disturbing.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

David Fuchs, thanks for your time and opinion but you may be incorrect about this being "one AN/I". At minimum we could be looking at about three ANI requests.

This one is the latest: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban between Carolmooredc and Sitush proposed This thread has 7 sections. 3 have been closed and 4 remain open. This is the case that the OP felt should include user Sitush. The common theme appears to Eric Corbet in a lot of this, as well as Carol.

Another relevant thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting uninvolved admin as it involves Eric again disrupting a discussion about civility on Dennis Brown's talk page. This was closed as "NOTHING USEFUL IS TO COME OF THIS" and I do believe this is directly related to the same case not just because it involves the usual suspects but is again the editor purposely disrupting and undermining the discussion.

Of course the main thread of this complaint is: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption of Wikiproject which was closed and archived and located here (If the direct link does not work).

I cannot tell you what to think or that you must agree with my assessment here but I do ask that you take a closer look and see if any of the above has merit for further attention. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Cas Liber

If this case is accepted, I challenge all arbs to examine the last 1000 contributions of all editors under scrutiny and quantify how much is encyclopedia-building and how much is directly disruptive, divisive, adversarial or plain non-productive, before making assumptions or inferences. If not then I might have to at the workshop myself, though my time is limited.

Statement by Chess

All the GGTF proposals that the accused incivil parties in this case have disrupted would've never actually passed as any type of Wikipedia proposal. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 13:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't try to fix the gender gap problem yourselves, Arbcom, you'll just end up failing. This'll be a horrible mess of a case if they even try to enforce anything other than sanctions on the users involves.

Statement by Iselilja

Since it now seems the case will be accepted

• I will request that Cla68 is added as party for what I perceive to be trolling at the expence of the Gender Gap task force. On 10 September, he opened a RfC at the RfA talk page about lowering the bar for adminship for women to 50% support. He presented this in the headline as a proposal from the Gender Gap task force (headline later changed by me), even he had not participated in that project and his proposal had not been discussed there. He also referred to this as a GGTF proposal at Jimmy Wales’s talk page. His proposal was of course bound to fail and I don’t think it was put forward in good faith, but rather as an attempt to ridicule and disgrace the GGTF project. Several experienced editors/administrators shared my impression that the proposal was insincere (See previous link). Ridiculing by men is a very old and persistent problem for those who raise concern about women’s position.
• Sadly, I also believe Sitush should be added. He is normally a very fine editor, but something went very wrong in his interation with Carol. He participated at the Gender Gap page at a late stage of this conflict. While he was in conflict with Carol and indicated that he was preparing an ArbCom case against her, he at the same time prepared a BLP on her in his userspace. I think it should go without saying that preparing an ArbCom case against a person and writing a BLP on the very same person is a horrible idea. Unfortunately, based on several comments it seems many in the community don’t see it this way and rather blame Carol for getting upset with Sitush’s behaviour. A finding on this from ArbCom would be helpful and the Carol/Sitush internaction will probably be part of the case anyway. This diff shows some of the problems, note particular the last paragraph which shows how he mixed ArbCom/BLP preparations and at least one of his idea for the BLP would have constituted a clear BLP violation.
• Iselilja (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Black Kite

Well, good luck with this one, folks. And I hope all the Arbs accepting this will take account of CasLiber's comment above and straight away act on his advice - the important point is who out of the parties here is here to build an encyclopedia, and who is here to push their own agendas? Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Dennis Brown

Just to echo Casliber and Black Kite here. You can tell more about motivation by a history than how sweet someone's words are. That said, I'm not sure how Arb can really look into anything except behavior, as the gender gap issue and community discussions about it (in a general sense) seems too broad a topic to "fix". Dennis 23:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Noting that there are 11 active arbitrators for the purposes of this request (Beeblebrox and LFarone are inactive), so 6 is a majority. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Updated Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Gender Gap Task Force Issues: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/3/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• It is essential that the Wikipedia community be able to discuss why women are drastically underrepresented among our editors, and what can or should be done about it, in a mature and sensible way. Formulating one's points in such a discussion will not always be easy; for example, how does one best discuss making Wikipedia more appealing to "female editors" without crossing the line into role-ascription or gender stereotyping? (This is not a concern unique to Wikipedia; it comes up time and again as all parts of society move toward true gender equality.) An interesting philosophical question (again with precedents extending well beyond Wikipedia) is whether a task force devoted to assessing how to solve a problem may properly move forward from the starting point that some form of problem exists, or put differently, whether questioning the existence or the nature of the problem represents participation in the task force's work or a derogation of it. And for us arbitrators, the main question presented by the request for arbitration is whether the petty bickering and feuding on the taskforce's talk page will stop soon without our involvement. I hope so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Accept. Noxious behavior on the wikiproject talkpage is continuing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC) And it has spread to other venues, and some of the user conduct is unacceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• The Gender Gap Task Force is, in my opinion, somewhat different from the other WikiProjects, in that, to some extent, it is political in nature (and I'm using the term "political" latu sensu): I mean, the members of 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. For that reason, I can see how having someone criticising proposals and possibly presenting alternatives can be useful for the project and can also prevent the Task Force from becoming an echo chamber. Of course, there is a difference between criticism and disruption: if, after review, it turns out that a person's actions are disrupting the Task Force, then that person should be asked to leave – and, failing that, be topic banned from participating further. On the other hand, the other members of the Task Force should be open to criticism, when made in good faith, without confusing criticism with disruption and calling for sanctions merely because someone disagrees with them – and also, though this is just my unsolicited opinion, in general all participants should try to avoid letting their voice drown all the others, regardless of how strongly they feel about the issue at hand.

  In this case, in my opinion, both sides have conducted themselves in a way that bears review, so I vote to accept the case. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• There's certainly problems with the Gender Gap on Wikipedia, one that was a key focus for the Foundation last year (or was it the year before?) As it's such a "big" issue, tying outside problems like societal bias and technical issues with behaviour on Wikipedia, I'm not sure it can ever be solved. However, the Gender Gap Task Force is there to try and good on them for doing so.

  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. "Blue-sky thinking" is all well and good, but many people don't understand that it's the first step in a process. After the ideas are created, however "out-there" they may be, they need to be criticised - it needs to be discussed what is wrong with these ideas. If there was nothing wrong with them, they would be happening or very easy to implement. From there, a pragmatic view should be taken on what realistic improvement can be made. Without these following steps, "blue-sky thinking" can actually be harmful - insulting those who are working hard on a project and demoralising those who cannot see these ideas come to fruition.

  Whilst I'm very happy that the Gender Gap Task Force is trying to increase the number of women on Wikipedia, I'm not happy with the fact that a subset of that task force is complaining about the criticism that they are receiving. Similarly, I believe the level of criticism could be improved, actually explaining where the issues are are rather than stating that they won't work.

  Overall, I don't believe this issues is ripe for arbitration, but I do think it's getting close. I'm leaning decline, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Worm^TT(talk) 10:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  Accept I'm still not absolutely convinced that Arbitration is the best place for this, but the fact is that we've now had 2 or 3 more ANI threads. Matters haven't been handled as I'd hoped, and it's probably due to the nature of the topic and players involved. If that is the case, then the Arbitration Committee should look into the matter. So, I guess we better do so. Worm^TT(talk) 08:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm voting to decline at this point. I completely understand why this is such a fractious issue and where good faith on both sides isn't enough to bridge a fundamental divide between what the wider wiki community views as its goals and what the GGTF views as its goals. But one AN/I doesn't make this case within our remit as of yet. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Like WTT, I'm leaning decline, but could be convinced otherwise. There's certainly a reason we say "ANI is not dispute resolution". That's not in any way intended as an endorsement of the conduct I see taking place here, and we may need to handle the issue via arbitration at some point if things continue down that road. I'm just not convinced the issue has reached the point of intractable and hopeless for community resolution at this time. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who thinks it is already at that point, and why. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Accept, this shows all signs of becoming a very toxic situation, and developing events have convinced me they're not going to get any better at this point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per David Fuchs. Carcharoth (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Switching to accept to examine the conduct of all those involved here. There is plenty of poor conduct that has taken place here, with issues of baiting, over-reaction to criticism, incivility, forum shopping, battleground behaviour, and possibly canvassing as well. Carcharoth (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• It's a decline from me too, per David,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Cla68. Interesting idea but, no, ArbCom has nothing to do with RFA; it's an entirely community process.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per Fuchs, and also broadly per the line of reasoning presented by TDA above. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • A bit concerned how this will be handled, but given it's being accepted I think this will be more about the users, than the project. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per David Fuchs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Accept. Underrepresentation of women among Wikipedia editors is an important issue, and I agree with NYB that we must create an environment in which productive discussion can take place. The Arbitration Committee cannot solve the underrepresentation issue, but I do hope we will be able to help address the disruption that has been affecting this topic and harming the project as a whole. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Accept. T. Canens (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)