Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:42, 1 November 2014

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Eric Corbett's participation in the case, and in the project

Enough.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 17:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1) Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 48 hours for Gross incivility on 14 October. Then his talk page was protected for continued inappropriate use by Eric et. al. [1]. Thus far Eric has also refused to restrain insults, when asked politely.

Also, the way the block was as it were provoked by Eric, with an insult directed at Jimbo may deserve some scrutiny.

1.1 For good order it would probably be best to ask this participant of the current case whether or not he wants to defend his case here, and if not, agree to never dispute its outcome in a later stage.

1.2 Alternatively, if the participant only wants to defend his case under the provision he is free to use whatever banter he chooses, the temporary injunction would probably be best to impose a ban on Eric Corbett, so he can be struck as a participant to the case, and the current case can go its course without him. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't see a temporary injunction as a helpful approach here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Besides the Viewer issue, Corbett is largely pissed off about the civility issue and the C-word protests (which word he used to insult Wales). This is just more behavior relevant to his behavior at GGTF which he correctly saw as a group interested in greater civility, including categorizing "c*nt" as a forbidden insult. And it's only a 48 hour block, after which he'll be back in action. Thus he should remain in this Arbitration. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ridiculous. There is no need to pre-empt things or set conditions: if Eric steps out of line then the clerks will tell him so. This is obsessed civility pov-pushers at it again. Jimbo has been baiting Eric for months, if not years, and we probably need a case about Jimbo's antics at least as much as we do one about Eric. I'd happily see Jimbo gone from this project tomorrow unless he reels it in. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is ridiculous. I have tried to stay out of this as I doubt if any notice will be taken of anything I have to say; however, the comment from Carolmooredc above seems to simply be a further attempt at deflection away from her own behaviour being scrutinised - something I feel should have been undertaken a long time ago - and others yet again obsessively "going after Eric". SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. More pointless time wasting from those looking for quick brownie points from Yojimbo.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This mischaracterizes the situation. Had the "problem" been solely Eric, then Adjwilley would have simply taken away Eric's ability to edit his own talk page by modifying the block. That is not what happened. Adjwilley full-protected the page, indicating the problem wasn't solely Eric, but rather the community/situation as a whole. An unorthodox move, but one that I applaud as it showed the admin actually understood the real problem. Dennis 2¢ 16:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the notion that Eric's block at Jimbotalk was "provoked," I disagree that it was Eric who "provoked" it. A careful analysis of the chain of events will show that the entire escapade started with a drama-quit by Lightbreather (who didn't actually quit at all), combined with her blaming Eric Corbett for her leaving. This started the chain reaction of wailing, bringing in Jimmy Wales to take a couple potshots at Eric, which provoked Eric to go a bit nuts — as he will do when provoked. So, yes, this block deals directly with this case, but blaming Eric misses the machination put into play by LIghtbreather entirely. It follows that there is no cause for an "injunction" here. Carrite (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the findings and think that something should be done here, the fact that Eric referred to Chillum as a "drug-addicted hillbilly" really stands out as a personal attack: [2]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what a chillum is? Eric Corbett 16:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum (pipe) doesn't mention denizens of the Appalachian mountains, but Indians from India, Africans and Rastafarians and infers hippies and other marijuana smokers. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Chillum's "I like to chill out and smoke the herb" is pretty unambiguous. Eric Corbett 17:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To continue: "none of whom should be referred to in personal attacks." However, your mocking of the probably 30-60 percent of editors who have smoked and/or still smoke the herb has been noted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that yet another "fact" that you've just plucked out of the air? Eric Corbett 17:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by LauraHale

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.: 1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good-faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Decorum

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.:

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Perceived harassment

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.:

3) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Good one I was going to add - with one more important sentence: Paying attention to complaints about harassment from the start, and discussing them on talk pages in a rational manner, helps prevent misunderstandings or disputes from escalating to public forums.

Comment by others:

Outing

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.:

4) Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an invasion of privacy and is always unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wikipedia:Doxing just takes you to "Posting of personal information", "dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits" etc is a no no. Per the "Opposition research" principle in my section. So if someone reveals some factoid about themselves years before that got deleted by not redacted and people doing opposition research happen to find it and use it as an excuse to bug them about their views, it's not outing but it is harassment.

Something else not mentioned above is that if a person says something dumb like "And my real name is Blankie Blank, research me all you want" and then with a few days has it redacted, then it's supposed to be as if it never happened. (Unless perhaps they were trying to trap someone into using that info to get someone in trouble after they redacted it; but that would never happen here!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The source of this is Wikipedia:Doxing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Carolmooredc

Proposed principles

Wikiprojects

1) Wikiprojects help editors work on creating and improving articles on related topics. Those topic areas may be defined by a demographic, such as gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, physical characteristics (disabilities), etc. These Wikiprojects sometimes engage in outreach activity to increase the number of editors in their topic area. Wikiproject talk pages may be used to discuss enforcement of Wikipedia policies which impact their members and to announce dispute resolution efforts, including problems editors believe they are having because they are members of that demographic group. If editors have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject (see Wikiproject council guide) that cannot be resolved at the talk page, editors should use dispute resolution processes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Is this something being proposed as a result of inspection of this case? I believe I saw some ask for DR, but don't recall any DR requests being filed. I don't think ANI counts as DR.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 22:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ANI is not DR. If it were, then this text in the proposed principle would conflict with WP policy which prohibits canvassing: "Wikiproject talk pages may be used to discuss enforcement of Wikipedia policies which impact their members and to announce dispute resolution efforts, including problems editors believe they are having because they are members of that demographic group." SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Dispute resolution which includes sentence "You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI)." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read it again, as the section you quote from are about "user conduct disputes", not "scope or activies of a Wikiproject". Taking the matter to ANI in this case only increased the level of dispute. I believe someone stated it was your intent to get more people aware of the situation. I don't know if that was true or not, but it certainly poured alcohol on the fire. That you chose the method that had the highest level of drama is not surprising.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 22:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:EChastain: Thanks for focusing on this issue. I knew I'd seen something that seemed relevant and just never got back to find it. (My guess now is it was about getting advice from them on creation of new wikiprojects.) So I've linked to another page that at least overviews relevant issues Wikiprojects face and provides some minimal guidance. I note now only WP:Dispute should be consulted for resolution. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Echastain et al Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide includes sections on and links to both Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Getting_into_fights section actually addresses some of the issues that this Arbitration relates to. Do we want that much detail in the Principle, or can we assume that careful reading will bring people there? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EChastain: Are you saying that this guide which only mentions "negotiation" overrides one of the five pillars, which includes civility and dispute resolution? Obviously the Guide has to be beefed up to reflect that fact. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Is this a proposal to modify the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces?

Also, according to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, there aren't any specific procedures to deal with "editors [who] have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject that cannot be resolved at the talk page".[3] So I think it shouldn't be recommended as the proper forum for resolving these issues. EChastain (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolmooredc: This one also looks useful: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject, if you haven't seen it. Has bunches of formating code and other stuff. EChastain (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolmooredc: I don't see anything in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Getting_into_fights that will help with fighting. It basically says for: "Fighting with other WikiProjects or unaffiliated editors: No project can control another project or other editor", and "In disputes with another project or with editors outside your project, your only effective tool is negotiation. If you need the cooperation of another project, approach them in a spirit of cooperation and look for appropriate compromises." EChastain (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolmooredc: I'm not saying anything about the five pillars. I only quoted you from WhatamIdoing of the Wikiproject Council responding to a question about specific procedures to deal with "editors [who] have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject that cannot be resolved at the talk page".[4] I believe you would have to take it up with them if you want them to modify their scope to include procedures you want them to have to deal with editors having problems. They do stress that they have no control over editors or conflict between projects. EChastain (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith and disruption

2) While on Wikipedia we assume good faith, persistant disruptive editing inevitably undermines that assumption. Such behavior includes editing articles or project spaces in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors; refusing to engage in consensus building; ignoring editors explanations for their edits or views; and organized campaigning to drive away productive contributors through incivilty and personal attacks. Wikipedia WP:Dispute dispute resolution processes exist to deal with such disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would add to the disruptive items: canvassing (both on/off wiki), battleground attitudes, dominating/ownership discussions, forum shopping, ad-hominem attacks and WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior. These behaviors offen cause disruption to the entire project because they spread to venues like ANI waste volunteers time which could be spent on more productive matters. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 22:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking this one is just too complicated, playing around with different policies, and probably should be struck. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There is too much assuming going on, it is difficult to assume good faith when one is the subject of a malicious rumour started by the author of this statement. J3Mrs (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interpersonal and ideological conflict

3) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Similarly, editors should not assume editors’ support of Wikipedia policy in a controversial topic area means the editor holds personal views for which they must be exposed or punished. Editors should not be asked or badgered to explain in detail their personal POV in order to be allowed to edit in peace. Personal or ideological inflammatory accusations perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than use of legitimate dispute-resolution methods, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think you left something out of this sentence "Similarly, editors should not assume editors’ support of Wikipedia policy in a controversial means the editor holds personal views for which they must be exposed or punished."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC).

Battleground alliances

4) Editors should not build interpersonal networks of allies who mutually support each other in order to achieve topic-related or policy goals which violate any Wikipedia policies. Using battleground terminology and metaphors to describe debates or badgering editors to join such alliances only exacerbates conflict. Use of WP:Canvassing to further such efforts is discouraged. Such alliances technically may not involve WP:Conflict of interest or WP:Meatpuppetry behavior. However, when practiced regularly such behavior similarly undermines adherence to Wikipedia policy, destroys honest editorial collaboration and drives away editors. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Carol, could you provide diffs for each of these accusations? Extraordinary accusations and extraordinary evidence and so on. Worm^TT(talk) 12:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Carolmooredc, it's no longer an accusation. That said, if you have evidence of use of private email or IRC to facilitate battleground behaviour, we need to know about it. I'm also not keen on the distinction between editors/administrators/arbitrators - we're all Wikipedians and there is (or at least should be) no special standing in any of those roles. Worm^TT(talk) 09:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see where you're going with this. Thanks for clarifying. Worm^TT(talk) 09:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Thanks to TParis for noting a possible mis-reading of what I wrote. I thus changed the bullying part to include admins and arbitrators. I'm sure those who have been around longer or have been paying more attention to the various arbitration cases of the last few years know more about this than I do. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worm that turned: Good point! I was still in evidence mode when wrote that one. But have to put it into general principles for this section. I.e., according to principles people shouldn't do X, Y Z, just like the other principles make clear. So tell me if there is still a problem. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worm that turned: I just made it more general since it's supposed to be a principle and they can read WP:canvass to see everything that might or might not be included. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 09:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J3Mrs: I also see I didn't make it clear the problem with alliances is when they are put together to "in order to achieve topic-related or policy goals which violate Wikipedia policy and to target and harass other Wikipedians." So added that to make problem more explicit. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Voceditenore: I get the impression the purpose of comments is to improve text, just like in an article. Since the format does not have a clear comment/response order, context can be lost. However, I have tried to clearly state what I was replying to. In any case, I assume Arbitrators only are interested in whether the final results are useable, not what back and forth lead to them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:CABAL. Outright accusing arbitrators of participation in cabals is not the way to win at Arbcom.--v/r - T P 05:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laudworthy, I'm sure but again I'm not seeing how this is relevant to the case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC).

Of course editors are perfectly at liberty to "build interpersonal networks (of allies) who mutually support each other in order to achieve topic-related goals" - although not sure about the term allies. Working with editors with mutual interests is a net benefit to the encyclopedia, well it is where content is concerned. I thought that was the aim of a project. Editors should obviously not "target and harass other Wikipedians" and I don't know that canvassing has any relevance here. J3Mrs (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear at all and constantly altering the wording after editors have commented is not helpful either. I don't see where any such alliances have been created or why you feel this is a problem. We are all capable of making our own minds up, well I am. J3Mrs (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, TParis's comment above was made to this older version of Carol's Principle, and was not, in my view, a "misreading" of what she had written. Worm That Turned's first comment was also made in response to that version, and his second comment was in response to a later version but not the present one. Carol, in future, could you perhaps use strikeout or link to the old version if another editor has already commented on a version of a proposed Principle instead of simply changing the wording to something that is quite drastically different? The latter practice makes this page extremely hard to follow and can be very misleading. It's the same rationale that applies to editing one's talk page comments after someone else has already responded. Voceditenore (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting on the current version (permalink). 1. Principles should be relevant to a possible finding of fact for which evidence has been provided. I'm not seeing evidence that the parties here have formed interpersonal networks of allies who mutually support each other in order to achieve [...] goals which violate Wikipedia policy and to target and harass other Wikipedians nor that anyone has tried to badger editors to join such alliances nor that anyone has used canvassing to further such efforts. The proposals above which LauraHale quoted from another Arbcom case are much more relevant to this case as well as being clear and succinct. 2. Asking arbitrators to outlaw a specific metaphor in discussions, i.e editors should not talk in military terms, is beyond the scope of what arbitration does. It also completely misses the point that editors can (and frequently do) engage in profoundly battleground and tendentious behaviour during discussions without using a single military metaphor or term. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this is rather at odds with the Wikiprojects line "engage in outreach activity to increase the number of editors." Is there a difference or is it the side of the fence? --DHeyward (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You probably missed (unsurprising, considering the amount of verbiage there): in order to achieve topic-related or policy goals which violate Wikipedia policy and to target and harass other Wikipedians, i.e it's ok for editors to form interpersonal networks of allies as long as they don't do it to violate policy or harass people. Interestingly, a principle explicitly deprecating military terminology refers to these putative groups as "allies". Maybe it's just my age showing but "allies" makes me think of these folk. But like I said, I don't see the relevance to this case, even in the current wording. There has been no evidence provided that any of the parties did this. What people on both sides did do was follow each other around to various drama boards and/or turned the Gender Gap talk page into a drama board. None of them had the sense to drop the stick until things got totally out of hand and ArbCom loomed, and even now, some plow on undaunted. In my view, people on both sides said and did things which were disruptive, ill-judged, and discourteous in the extreme. However, even at this late stage, introspection and self-awareness amongst many of the participants is pretty thin on the ground. Voceditenore (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DHeyward: The important point is "in order to achieve topic-related or policy goals which violate any Wikipedia policies." (just tweaked and simplified language)

@Voceditenore: OK, I see we could use some better evidence. Maybe I'll tweak the J3Mrs incident one and add one diff. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with this and it is clear that a group of editors are working together to harass others here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjakkalle: Thanks for pointing that inadvertent change out to me. I've change it back to Knowledgekid87's original wording. Sorry for that. EChastain (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: Since it is clear to you "that a group of editors are working together to harass others here", could you provide diffs that show this group working together to harass others? EChastain (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)(reworded per Sjakkalle comment) EChastain (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EChastain: In this diff you changed Knowledgekid87's post from "(...) it is clear that a group of editors are working together to harass others here" into a statement that indicates that there are specific people in mind "(...) it is clear who makes up the group of editors who are working together to harass others here.". You then responded to the altered comment with "Since it is clear to you who makes up this group of editors (...)". What is happening? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Thanks for fixing it up EChastain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Talk pages

5) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should strive to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks. Talk page stalking should not be used as a means of frustrating editors' attempts to discuss issues with the user. Any practice of watching editors user pages for clues or even directions as to action items could be considered a means of canvassing, especially if its intent is to undermine Wikipedia policies or harass individuals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Rich Farmbrough: Looking at Wikipedia:Talk_page_stalker I realized that's more about people who not only watch but will intervene on your page. Of course, that has been an issue here in one piece of evidence. Help:Watching pages would be used more stealthily. Thus I further elaborated. After all, when an editor has 500-600 watchers, some of whom end up supporting them in so many discussions, one has to wonder what's going on. Perhaps after further study and discussion else wheres stalking might be worked into the harassment policy and watching might be worked into the canvassing policy.

Comment by others:

Talk page stalking is bad, and so (to some extent) is canvassing. I'm not sure how the former can be used as a means of the latter. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC).

If number of watchers has some valid relationship to something problematic then the problem doesn't stop at someone with 500-600 watchers. See, for example, this. I think there might be a flaw in the logic here. In fact, I'm not sure what the logic is intended to be: people watch pages for all sorts of reasons. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What proof of "canvassing" via "talk page stalking" has been uncovered? Is it even provable? It seems assuming good faith has evaporated here. J3Mrs (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

6) Wikipedia harassment policy is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, to bait them into making angry and even uncivil comments or other questionable behavior, and to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target or discourage them from editing entirely. Thus editors alone, or with allied editors, should not repeatedly follow editors to articles they have not worked on before to revert their edits or argue with them; repeatedly argue with or harangue them at their user talk pages, especially if asked to leave the talk page; place numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page; repeatedly bring up old issues, resolved long ago, in current discussions; falsely and repeatedly describe ordinary editorial critiques as “personal attacks”; or post off-Wikipedia information or comments about them, especially those of an intimidating and threatening nature.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is superfluous to existing and policies and guidelines. It is also poorly crafted. E.g. You don't need to use "repeated offensive behavior" to define harassment, because the behavior can be perfectly civil yet still harassing. Remember MileMoney harrassed his victims by "thanking" all of their posts to annoy them via the notification system.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Opposition research

7) WP:Harassment states under "Posting of personal information": "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility

8) Wikipedia’s WP:civility civility policy is written in line with the Wikimedia Foundations Terms of Use policy linked from the bottom of most Wikipedia pages. It applies to all Wikipedians. Users should treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. This applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:CIVIL is not an extension of the ToS. In fact, it is not mentioned there whatsoever.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read TOS, "Under the following conditions". I corrected the language. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Offensive commentary

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement
9) Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on an identifiable group, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion on communal pages such as those in the Wikipedia namespace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gender-related slurs

10) Wikipedia:Civility notes that "personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs" will "contribute to an uncivil environment". If editors of articles or projects regarding gender are known to use, or defend use of, gender-related slurs on Wikipedia it may lead to assumptions of bad faith and conflict with others. This is true for all slurs. The fact that some small groups in some English speaking countries may use such terms in an allegedly innocent fashion does not excuse their use on Wikipedia. Millions of English speakers know such terms are slurs and their use injures Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

To outright prohibit the mention of some words is not within the purview of the committee, because that would be akin to creating a new policy. We can iterate that the use of gender-related slurs to personally attack another editor or a group of identified users will lead to sanctions, but that has never been doubted by anyone. And, yes, it's the difference between "John Doe, you are a dick" and "if a person doesn't want to be called dick, he shouldn't act like one". The former is a violation of NPA and, to my knowledge, quickly leads to a block; the latter is a serious violation of the civility policy, but there appears to be no consensus at the moment as to how it should be dealt with. And it's not our place to make that call for the community (as I've said elsewhere, we're ArbCom not GovCom).

As a side note, Use of slurs against women may have a particularly negative effect on their participation, slurs against any category of people have a negative effect on their participation. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not within the purview of the committee to rule on civility enforcement? In my opinion, it is not, because of the lack of consensus you yourself mention. Under the current arbitration policy, we have the power to step in and (try to) solve disputes the community has been unable to solve, but we have to act within the framework of rules set up by that same community; in fact, we are prevented from creating policy and, for my money, to formulate a standard on which to judge and sanction cases of incivility is akin to creating policy.

Another way to look at the situation is that I have my personal opinion as to how the civility policy should be enforced; why should I get to impose it on the community? $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough:, well put. Worm^TT(talk) 10:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@DennisBrown: It's irrelevant if it was use on the GGTF talk page. It was a subject referred to there and a background issue. There are lots of slurs that aren't allowed on Wikipedia even referring to something innocuous like a typo. I won't give explicit examples. According to this Arbitration Clarification on Sexology[5] Arbitrators felt TERF could be a slur in some situations and thought it was up to the community. Well, duh, where do we go to the community to get their opinions on blackballing the use of c*nt and tw*t?? Village Pump??

Also, low and behold:

Twat: widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English
Cunt: slang for female genitalia and is a term of abuse for women and men.[1] It is widely considered to be vulgar.[2]

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DennisBrown: Do I have to list all the words that only are acceptable in the context of talk page discussions of an article about them or using them to make historical points? Surprisingly a couple of British expressions I haven't seen widely used by British afficianados of using certain words are "wanker" and "tosser." Are they on the "No No List"?? Maybe you all could use them against each other (on your own talk pages of course) instead? (Though not anyone else, of course.) That would end a lot of problems! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion below, so would Ending gender-based slurs be better? (Depending on ArbComs powers here, and thinking about TERF "clarification" better ask sooner rather than later.) Of course, something like Wanker and tosser are gender neutral. So if certain parties want to insult each other in a friendly manner like that on their talk pages, go for it.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to Ending gender-related slurs because this is the "Gender Gap" arbitration, not Civility Enforcement Arbitration II. And added a comment on women being more effected which is supported by lots of evidence if people see GGTF research page. (We'd now have more details to make it easier to identify relevant research if not for the nonsense of the last couple months.) Now let's just hope it's Admin enforcement remains on actual on slurs enforced in an even handed fashion.

Re: Arbcom, per this clarification, it looks like Arbcom can reaffirm general principles on slurs against demographic groups and then Admins, and if necessary the community, have to decide on a case by case basis what is or isn't a gender-based slur useable in what situations. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked some more per Salvio's comments above. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 10:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Patrol forty re: not knowing who you may be offending. Re: mansplaining vs. TERF, the former is usually a mild criticism or humorous put down, the latter is often used in the phrase "Die, TERF, die." Both have been called slurs by various parties. (Search each with term slur.) So use of either against an editor is likely to cause annoyance at best. If someone finds either used in what they consider a truly offensive manner, they always can take it to WP:ANI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 09:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Obviously those who are targets of phrases - or defenders of targets - may have different views on how serious of a slur it is, also depending on context. But that's decided elsewhere. For the foreseeable future Mansplainin' is more likely to be seen as a slur on Wikipedia than TERF. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Salvio giuliano: First, no one is asking you to make policy. WP:Civility clearly mentions "gender-related" as one kind of "slur" that is not acceptable. This is a "Gender-related" arbitration so it is perfectly OK to reaffirm that gender-related slurs are unacceptable per policy, just like any racial or LGBT or disability-related slurs would be unacceptable should they become one issue in an arbitration.

As for Rich Farmbrough's comment on ignoring slurs and ad hominems. We know that there's double standard enforcement for that sort of thing and those editors who do not have a lot of allies to protect them during ANIs can't use such comments, even if they wanted. (If we even misidentify the sex of an individual or poorly phrase a user talk page conflict of interest question, all hell breaks loose, repeated apologies be damned.) We even can be sanctioned for protesting ad hominems and slurs. What intelligent and sensible person wants to edit in an environment like that?

As for Rich's conclusions on what the research says, this is not the place to critique the flaws in Rich's analysis and people shouldn't be so quick to applaud it. There is a big list of research at GGTF research page. Dealing with obnoxious disruptions, absurd amounts of personal harassment, resulting ANIs and this Arbitration have kept me from detailing what those studies actually do say or writing any comparative analysis. But such is the purpose of harassment and disruption. [Later note: I actually was referring to Rich's paragraphs 4 and 5 which were discussed at GGTF; just skimmed the rest as personal opinion.]Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too salute Rich for his assessment below. Let me ask and answer a question. When is a word or phrase considered a slur? Only when its usage is directed at an individual or group. That some may be offended by seeing such a word because it is sometimes, or even often used as a slur is only a concern if this usage is intended to cause disruption. Also disruptive is proclaiming "I'm offended" in attempt to apply your standards to others. I find lots of things on Wikipedia offensive (for example, doe-eyed anime artwork), but I don't complain about them because my i accept that my personal preferences are different than others.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If you are referring to the "C" word used against a woman to demean her here, then I'm sure we would all agree that this is most offensive. When has this happened within the boundaries of this case? If never, then the premise is flawed as you are asking Arb to answer a question that no one has asked, ie: to overreach by ruling on an issue not before them. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure I've never seen a single example of that word knowingly being directed at a woman on Wikipedia ever. Dennis 2¢ 23:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a rather big and recurring issue with many of those party to this case. These are gender specific terms that should be unacceptable and considered personal attacks in every instance. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RE: We already block for calling someone that now, which we've recent evidence of, and I do believe I supported. We already know what those words mean, but you have demonstrated my point from the other day, that words can be used in context. As for blacklisting "bad" words, I can't say where you go, but it would technically have prevented you from doing what you just did, and create a slippery slope, a fact that won't be lost on our peers. Most admin are more concerned about the context of how a word is used than the word itself. But I digress, it is certainly your right to state your case, don't let me dissuade you. Dennis 2¢ 00:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm glad for that. But I keep hearing arguments that boil down to "well it's not that bad in country X to call someone that". Well it might not be, but it's still a gendered insult. It's an insult because it's gendered. Anyway, the fact that certain users repeatedly choose those insults instead of others (dick, wanker, tosser, asshole, prick, knob) is telling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Directing insults at others already is sanctionable as Dennis points out. It seems that some want an outright ban on certain words regardless of context. I don't think you will find much support for an edit filter, be it policy or software driven. Should Arbcom even want to make such a blacklist, is that even within the scope of their authority? Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not for a ban of words or a blacklist, but there are clearly some words that will get you a block more quickly than others. My point was more that certain people party to this case have a habit of using gendered insults and it's telling. I do think directing a c-word or "twat" toward a female editor should be seen as similar to using the n-word toward PoC. The latter will earn you a quick block. It took how much nonsense to even get to the point where the c-word is considered offensive? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet in your evidence, you posit this[6] is a "gender specific insult". How is it an insult if it was not directed towards anyone? The only reasonable interpretation of your objection appears to be that cunt is allowed to be used at all.

C**t shouldn't be any more allowed than f*g or n****r. Though users have used those latter two terms and not been blocked, using more than once ends in a block always. Should be same for c**t. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if any of those terms are intended as a personal attack. But being offended is not a valid rationale.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this passes, then I expect "mansplaining" to be included in the list of gendered slurs.--v/r - T P 18:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the slur part of that? Just as TERF isn't a slur neither is that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you support gendered insults, unless they are against a particular gender? You should probably strike your comment above where you said "It's an insult because it's gendered."--v/r - T P 19:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny gender inequality, so yes, slurs against women have more power. But "mansplaining" is not a slur in any sense, just as TERF isn't. Apples and oranges. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Mansplaining is a term used to describe a phenomenon. C**t and twat aren't. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patronizing is the gender-neutral form of the word. Mansplaining is the gender-specific form. Either we are against gendered slurs or we aren't. Are you for or against gendered slurs?--v/r - T P 19:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a slur. Stop the nonsense. And patronizing is different. Go read the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, because it's about men it cannot be a gender slur. Let the record reflect EvergreenFir's position and all comments by them be recognized in that context.--v/r - T P 20:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It is not a slur because it's not an insult (like TERF isn't a slur) and (2) do not mischaracterize my statements. Do it again, and I'll request action by the committee. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what? You yourself have said that a slur against men is not a slur. I'm not sure what you'd report me for. You've violated the wmf:Non discrimination policy against gender discrimination by advocating for the end of some gender slurs but promoting other gender slurs. If you cannot see how mansplaining is a gender slur, meant to intimidate, demean, and stereotype men, and how the "phenomenon" may be the root but is not how the word is used, then you are advocating a double standard. That's not me, that's you.--v/r - T P 20:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grab a dictionary and look up the meaning of slur. Here's even a link for you: slur. You also might want to look up TERF since you clearly are complete ignorant of it (hint: it refers to women). Neither of these terms are slurs. They are not anywhere near on par with c**t, twat, dick, f*g, n****r, etc. Just because a term is gendered and has negative connotations does not make it a slur. Further, mansplaining refers to a phenomenon (I'll let you read the article since you are so interested in it). I repeat, if you willfully and intentionally misrepresent me, you are breaching decorum expected here and I will ask clerks to step in. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how I'm in breech of decorum - especially after I've been called ignorant. You are misplacing academic definitions with social use. What you call a phenomenon, those outside of academics actually use as a slur. The use, and not the academic definition, is a slur. TERF, as I said in another Arbcom case, can be a slur in the right context - in the usage of the word. When mansplaining is used to demean, dismiss, and stereotype men - it is a slur. The double standard that you advocate, that the use of some female-centric words are always slurs but male-centric words are not as long as there is an academic root of the word to point to, is inappropriate and discriminatory. Excuse me for 'mansplaining' that to you, but it seems to me that you are determined not to consider men equally in this matter. The term "mansplaining" literally begins with "man". The root of the word literally comes from an essay about a man doing this stereotypical action. The essay itself is quoted (probably infringing on copyright due to it's size) on the article. You really do not see what you are doing - at all?--v/r - T P 21:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying that I said you are ignorant of a topic, namely TERFs. Otherwise, WP:DENY. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now not only am I ignorant, I'm also a vandal and a troll? I see. You cannot justify your promotion of slurs against men and so you've resorted to calling me names. As I said earlier, let EvergreenFir's comments be placed into the context of their viewpoints here.--v/r - T P 21:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolmooredc: Not only do I think "Ending gender slurs" is better, I think "Ending slurs" is even better. I don't understand why people have to personalize disputes.--v/r - T P 19:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, nobody knows you're not a woman, even proud feminists. Just ask Sagaciousphil. The defence of 'sorry, I though she was a man' after dropping the c-bomb, is simply never going to fly, since if they're that angry, they're never going to stop and check that they know for sure their intended target is not a women. There are simply too many ways for mistakes to occur (a clearly identified woman with a male sounding username, a non-identified woman with a gender neutral name being assumed to be a man, a women who thinks it's common knowledge she's a women but has never actually made it clear on her user page, etc, etc). The horror story is of course the prospect that it may have already happened, and the user simply didn't report it because she didn't want to be blamed for not making it clear/enough that she was a woman. Patrol forty (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrol forty: Could you please explain why you haven't extended the courtesy of notifying me you are dragging me into all this? I would also appreciate an explanation of why I am being discussed here and what picture you are trying to paint of me as my reading of this is unclear? Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[To carolmooredc] Well you may see it that way. I see the term "mansplaining" as grossly offensive - suppose I said that you were "womanthinking" and that's why you did stupid things?

AS for TERF, I have commented elsewhere that I would welcome an explanation of whether this is considered offensive because being a "trans exclusionary radical feminist" is a bad thing, because it is being used inaccurately, or simply because it carries associations from its use on forums that make it unacceptable.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC).

@Carolmooredc: I like the emphasis on Gender slurs, but I feel like we're making a mistake by limiting it. Why not sexuality-slurs, religion-slurs, political-slurs, ethnic-slurs, generation-slurs, national-slurs, ect. Perhaps that's not within the scope of this Arbcom case, and in the scope of this case gender-slurs need to be specifically addressed, but I think a finding of fact against any discriminatory slurs is needed as well.--v/r - T P 17:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: Civility is one of the major issues of this case. There is clearly no community consensus about it given the multiple failed ANIs related to Corbett, Jimbo, and others. Many have outright said civility is not an issue, despite being a pillar (stronger than policy or guidelines) of the community. Is it not within the purview of the committee to rule on civility enforcement? Incivility breeds incivility (source: [7]). It needs to be stopped lest WP turn into 4chan's /b/.

On a different note, slurs do not affect groups equally. Marginalized groups (women, LGBTQ, PoC, etc.) are more negatively affected in terms of their self-image and mental health. Additionally, the use of these slurs can bring out prejudice in others who overhear (oversee?) it. Also see stereotype threat for similar issues. Additionally, slurs are not the same as expletives; fool/idiot is not the same as twat in meaning or effect (source: [8]). The committee cannot forbid certain words, but it cannot ignore the effect these words have on individuals and the community at large. (Sources: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly likely that slurs do not affect groups equally, just as being hit round the head with a two-by-four will not affect groups equally. I do not subscribe though, to the theory that women are fainting violets, while men are "..rough tough jolly sorts of fellows..."

Sadly your first source is a mere argument, the second a small study that ranks subjective offensiveness and adds nothing to the argument, the third abstract concludes "Similar patterns of findings held for sexual minorities and heterosexuals, and for women and men." quite contrary to your proposal ... and round about there I feel that these are not carefully selected sources by someone who has read widely in the subject, nor even cherry picked results from subject research, but a random selection of papers from a quick Google.

It's also amusing to note from your first source the sentence "In this paper I shall be using examples of words whose use is offensive; however, I do not intend their use to give offence here." This is the use-mention distinction which seems to have been denied

But no matter. The important point it that we should try to avoid slurs which are ad hominems - even if they are true. For example, speaking of cultural differences, I have been lead to understand that the word "idiot" in Japanese culture is one of the worst insults - contrary to your universalist proposition above. Similarly Wikipedia is not the place for "all men are bastards" or even "some men are bastards" - if we perceive that there are issues with behaviour, it applies to everyone who uses that behaviour, there is no value in ascribing it to a demographic group. That is not to say we should stifle discussion about Wikipedia being a "male place" in which (some?) females feel uneasy, but rather that we should (and indeed need to) identify the characteristics that we believe are responsible and investigate to determine if our belief has value, if so we should identify methods to address that characteristic.

So far we have not done well on this. For example we believed it was due to "wiki-code" being hard - and yet we have another wiki with 94% female editors. Then we thought it could be conflict, yet research shows women editing in conflict areas more than men. Then we thought it was that females got reverted more than male. "However, contrary to our expectation, there is no interaction effect between gender and being reverted for non-vandalism reasons."

This is why it would be a capital error to say, for example, "Eric says twat, therefore Eric is unwelcoming to women., therefore he should be kicked off - as should anyone using gendered slurs, and that will solve the Gender Gap." If the community wants to say "Kick Eric off because we don't like him saying twat" then that is their prerogative. But pretending that we know either Eric's opinion on women, the reactions of women in general, or any effect such an action will have on the Gender Gap is at best duplicitous.

Far better to simply request that people stop using "slurs" altogether, and, perhaps to ignore them when they do. Certainly it is fitting in discussion to ignore ad-homs.

Then those who actually care about the Gender Gap, should continue the search for the true causes, backed up by data, rather than anecdote. Only in this way can we make progress in establishing what, if any, actions will improve the situation.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC).

Applause--v/r - T P 01:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stating this so eloquently. Dennis 2¢ 01:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent analysis, sense at last, thank you. J3Mrs (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of anecdotal evidence to discredit the actual research done in the area, or indeed question its very existence or effect of the gender gap, is indeed damaging to the cause of closing it. Which is why it's surprising to me to see Dennis and J3Mrs endorsing this analysis. I really don't see what part Mrs Browns' character traits, or the gender balance of Wikipedia's management, has to play as far as closing the gender gap goes. Nor do I see what J3Mrs clear admiration for Eric has to do with anything either, even though she's a women. Although the number of women admins as compared to the the men might be a topic to discuss, with reference to the research done in the area of gender and policing. I would like to know what "editing in conflict areas" means - is that really meant to refer to editing in areas where people are being generally hostile and abusive, or is it simply meant to mean editing controversial subjects? Patrol forty (talk)

@Carolmooredc: I think, here, you need to consider that there are as many flaws in your own research and analysis as you claim there are in Rich's. Only when two sides of a disagreement can accept that there is growing to do with both ideas can people put their defenses away and come to the table ready to discuss with open minds. If one side considers itself righteous or the 'enlightened' side, it's impossible to discuss with openness and honesty. Please reconsider Rich's words.--v/r - T P 17:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ EvergreenFir: Who decides a word is a gender-related slur? e.g. Contrary to what you say above, according to arbcom TERF may or may not be, depending whether it's a personal attack. See: [14] Is it the same for Mansplaining? Who decided it was only a social phenomenon and not a derogatory remark? EChastain (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to this arbcom EChastain. I'm the one that initiated that request, so I know what it says. They said that context would make it a personal attack, but the word itself is not inherently pejorative. The people who "decide" it's a social phenomenon would be the scholars that write about it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolmooredc Is the c word a gender-related slur when said to a male? According to the evidence provided by User:Patrol forty, in his section Eric Corbett's use of the C-word, "In the last 6 months, Eric has twice used the C-Word in way that is unambiguously intended at a direct personal insult [15][16]." Are these diffs referring to males also gender-related slurs? I'm unclear. EChastain (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the insult is that you're calling someone a woman. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreenfir is correct on that point.

Also, look at the full context of where Eric Corbett said "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one." It's directly after a comment by the woman who initiated the "Civility Board" discussion. So pardon us if we take it as a slur vs. that particular woman.[17] It's not a reply to a guy, as it appears in the diffs. He could have at least apologized for any misunderstanding, but no. And why could that be? Thus editors in the know doubt his good faith. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolmooredc:, Evergreenfir is correct on that point? Mind reading Eric's thinking processes? Could you define what "acting like one" is in that statement. I wouldn't take her word for any of this. According to EvergreenFir on Mansplaining: "The people who "decide" it's a social phenomenon would be the scholars that write about it." What scholars wrote about Mansplaining that EvergreenFir considers it a social phenomenon rather than a derogatory term? EChastain (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreenfir is correct on that point. Really? It certainly is not the case in the area that I come from, and this has been explained to you previously. It may be the case in your area but, please, do at least acknowledge that you have been told it is not so in some other places. Similarly, could you possibly stop repeatedly referring to a statement that you know you have taken out of context and that, again, has been explained to you on several occasions. Arbitrators are unlikely to give it more weight just because you say it more often. - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose any attempts to censor language, it's the use of the words and not the words themselves that cause the problems. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalism

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement
11) Wikipedia is a collaborative project that depends on volunteers located around the world. While English is the language of this wiki, there are many national and regional dialects of English. Editors should be aware that their local colloquialisms may be interpreted in an entirely different way by the majority of the project. Particularly in community discussions, a less colloquial "universal English" is key to fostering a collaborative environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A good idea but ultimately flawed as what is universal english, there is no such thing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent enforcement of policies

12) Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. It is expected that administrators will act on violations of the community's standards consistently and fairly. They should not favor parties with whom they are friendly or with whom they agree ideologically or in Wikipedia policy disputes. They should not apply "double standards", conscious or unconscious, to members of demographic groups they may think of in stereotypical fashion. Inconsistent and unfair application of sanctions to different editors for any reason, especially if they are in the same disputes, can be disheartening to all editors. Consistent refusal to enforce civility policies regarding slurs against members of demographic groups, or any double standard refusal to enforce policy against members of favored demographic groups, has no place on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Rich Farmborough: I agree with your first paragraph, it's often a judgement call. However, extreme examples need analysis and a stiff review.

I see my concern about the highly protested 19 hour block for a threat of violence against an another editor was not written in a way, with the proper diffs, to make the issue of battleground behavior and of inconsistent enforcement clear. My apologies. So I just made it more of a timeline with a few missing diffs. (Without removing some speculative text and diffs Arbitrators didn't want here but which others already had commented on.) I'm sure we all have examples of lesser transgressions being sanctioned by days and weeks of blocks or bans despite unblock requests. This also looks like an example of "if your friends with someone considered immune from sanction, you too may immune from sanction." I also added four diffs alleging Corbett's immunity from sanction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk • contribs)

I don't agree with this at all as admins are already expected to be neutral and thus not have double standards in the first place.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is something at the heart of many difficulties, both on and off Wikipedia. The only way to guarantee consistency in the application of rules is to remove all room for discretion. This results in a hide-bound bureaucracy, Kafkaesque results and an unhappy constituency.

Conversely allowing discretion leads to accusations of bias, bribery, favouritism and nepotism.

You pays yer money, and takes yer pick.

Having said that, and while I support the sentiments, I do not see that this principle has a bearing on the case in hand. (In fairness I am a bit uncertain what the case in hand is, since it seems to have been usurped by a faction of the committee.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC).

Findings of Fact

Locus of dispute

1) The Wikiproject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force (GGTF) is one of eight task forces of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Participants are interested in increasing the number and quality of articles about notable women, as well as increasing the number of women editors. As noted in the Wikiproject Council Guide to Wikiprojects “Getting into Fights” section “unaffiliated editors” can be the source of fights. And, indeed, the project has been targeted for harassment by editors who hold or advocate for one or more of the following views: a) Men’s rights[18][19]; b) pro-pornography[20]; c) anti-civility on Wikipedia[21] (particularly use of sexist slurs[22][23][24][25] and hostility to GGTF’s concern with better enforcement of Wikipedia civility and anti-harassment policies.[26]); d) transgender activists opposed to radical feminist “gender critical” views[27][28][29] A couple editors followed women editors to GGTF to harass them.[30][31]. Some of these editors already were or quickly became battleground allies.[32][33]. These attacks lead to complaints by more sincere participants that they were badgered with bad faith questions and demands and mocking and offensive commentary that disrupted the project.[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] A WP:ANI regarding "Disruption of Wikiproject" and other WP:ANIs and administrative actions followed, described below. The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project. (Note, the highly critical parties have supported increasing the number and quality of articles about women. However, most become hostile at discussions of remedies to the behavioral problems that many women find offensive or even harassing.) There already has been a lot of media attention to Wikipedia’s Gender Gap issue. Arbitrators failure to discourage what the world considers bigoted attempts to shut down a diversity-oriented Wikipedia project could seriously undermine Wikipedia’s credibility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Echastain: The only thing I say about/quote from the "Getting into fights" section in this "Locus of dispute" section is that “unaffiliated editors” can be the source of fights. I wasn't discussing negotiation or dispute resolution, so I can't be misrepresenting anything, can I? And I agree that "The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project." But you can't understand bad faith behavior without understanding possible motivations. The Disruption ANI was how it looked at the time. My original evidence here was a timeline. Understanding of the motivations for the disruption - including through collection of diffs and seeing others' new and enlightening diffs - is an evolving process. Thus this later analysis to help Arbitrators understand that strong and even hostile POVs against the GGTF drove editors to their bad and disruptive behavior. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see one locus of dispute, but two. The first is outside the Gendergap group, and is centered on Eric Corbett and his sidekicks, who follow his lead in gendered insults, and rush to his bedside with tea and and barnstars whenever he is blocked. This group unfortunately contains a number of admins, as well as a handful of women who are being mentored in the FA/GA process, and some younger patroller types. This group is growing. The second group is more diffuse in origin, but is centered in the membership of GenderGap group itself, and serves to disrupt the function of the talk page. Several seem to have arrived from other topic areas and do not seem to have a good handle on the this topic. —Neotarf (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely clear what you mean. Like one group is the anti-civility group and the other is anyone who comes in for any other reason who is obviously hostile or disruptive? That's another way to look at it. Just as long as it is clear there have been hostile and disruptive individuals, whatever their motivations, known or unknown. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@Carolmooredc: I think you've misrepresented Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Getting_into_fights. Under the bullet point Fighting with other WikiProjects or unaffiliated editors, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject says:

No project can control another project or other editor: No project can demand that another project support an article, change its scope, quit working on an article, or otherwise do what you want. Disputes may arise between projects or outside editors over formatting, such as the preferred system for organizing an article or the contents of a template. Disputes may also arise over quality standards. [...] In disputes with another project or with editors outside your project, your only effective tool is negotiation. (emphasis added)

I think the link give above to ANI Disruption of WikiProject as support for Locus of dispute is unfortunate. To me it demonstrates that some supporters of GGTF lack knowledge of what a personal attack is and provide diffs that are no such thing. Accusing editors of personal attacks with diffs that are clearly do not support the charge is likely to reduce the credibility of the task force complaints. And it doesn't support the Locus of dispute: "The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project." EChastain (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The locus of the dispute on the GGTF page was that editors who were not project members were not welcome especially if they were, or were perceived to be men, or disagreed with its most vocal supporters. By disagreeing, editors were accused of disruption, making personal attacks and being misogynists. Ideas being discussed included women being given special treatment or directed to articles "of interest to women" and a claim of misogyny on the page was also disputed. Disagreeing is not disruptive nor is it a personal attack. J3Mrs (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where the notion of an "anti-civility group" comes from but it is a typical reaction to anyone who disagrees. Neotarf continues to insult women who do not share their opinion on this thread. J3Mrs (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators refusal to enforce policies

2) Some administators refuse to take seriously some editors' complaints, while protecting favored editors, no matter how bad their behavior. Some allow themselves to be intimidated or discouraged by loosely organized policy violators who create a phony consensus against policy on Administrative noticeboards. Administrators refused to take seriously editors’ complaints about Eric Corbett's gratuitous use of a gender-related slur which was a direct reply to a GGTF participant's posting regarding a possible "Civility Board".[44] Yet when Corbett used it again a few months later only somewhat more directly against a man, he was blocked.[45] Similarly Carolmooredc’s long-term complaints about harassment by SPECIFICO to administrators and on WP:ANI were ignored for almost a year until finally someone else launched a complaint, resulting in an Iban against SPECIFICO. In another situation administrators refused to impose even a two-way interaction ban on Sitush who according to here evidence there harassed Carolmooredc, including with an attack biography. This despite another administrator requesting an interaction ban be imposed, a second administrator trying to work out a voluntary interaction ban which Sitush refused, and Carolmooredc and other editors supporting such a ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Someone needs to revisit WP:CONSENSUS and pages that relate to the role of admins. They also need to spend more time comprehending the totality of threads and contemplating the risks of misrepresentation. For example, I invoked a voluntary one-way IBAN (previously diff'd) and have stuck to it with one regrettable (and very quickly fixed) exception: if it isn't directly related to ANI/AN/ArbCom proceedings then I've said nothing ... and I've managed to restrain myself from saying all that I feel like saying even in those proceedings. - Sitush (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure others have found that "voluntary Iban" as difficult to find as I have. Is that in the long screed with the "no taking it, TParis" edit summary? In any case, by then you already had forced the Arbs to take this case where you and your crew could come and trash me, so you didn't need to bug me any more elsewhere, did you? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The diff has been given and it is obvious that you read threads, even if you frequently misinterpret or misrepresent them: you would not be able to produce so many diffs if you did not read deeply. I didn't "cause" the ANI thread, I can't read or influence the minds of arbitrators, etc. This is just more of the broken record. And, please, instead of repeatedly referring to my "crew" and "friends", name those people whom you think have "come [to] trash me". You've alleged a specific three recently but are incorrect on all counts: Richerman only came here because you mentioned him, and similarly for J3Mrs; Eric Corbett has said very little indeed. Perhaps people are saying things just because they find your behaviour unacceptable? Just as some people seem to be saying the opposite. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Carolmooredc

3) Evidence indicates that Carolmooredc joined Wikipedia using her own name and even originally linking to her website. The fact that she edited in some high conflict areas like Israel-Palestine, libertarianism, radical feminism and ending the gender gap has led multiple editors to do “opposition research” on her and accuse her of WP:POV and WP:COI editing. Other editors may have felt she did not have the subservience or diplomacy they expect/demand of a female editor. All this only exacerbated the taunting and personal attacks for her views - or for views some editors thought she had, based on her strong support for Wikipedia policies in WP:Biographies of living persons. She has sometimes lost her temper at these negative reactions to her. She contends that the fact that she is a woman has made it easier for harassers to get away with such behavior, as her complaints to administrators and at WP:ANI largely were ignored by a community that is overwhelmingly male. Her participation in the Gender Gap task force, where such harassment is taken more seriously, made it possible for her to deal with one long-term harassing editor. However, the repetitive evidence and hostile commentary submitted by uninvolved parties at this Arbitration indicates that the harassment is now more organized. Carolmooredc's block log shows one block that was significantly lowered in length in part because it was related to ongoing harassment of her by several parties[46] and one block for doing something one Arbitrator inferred she could do and another said she could do.[47]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Ca2james: You are begging the question as to whether the Evidence demonstrates that CMDC was harassed. In fact none of the evidence shows that, while on the other hand there's abundant evidence which demonstrates CMDC harassing other editors. I do agree with you that such harassment is inexcusable, as is any attempt to blame the victims. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Is it possible that other editors objected to Carolmooredc's interaction style instead of her gender or political views, and that what she perceives to be organized harassment is a number of editors reacting to that style in similar ways? By "interaction style" I mean "discussing motivations instead of actual behaviour" (as shown above, with Other editors may have felt she did not have the subservience or diplomacy they expect/demand of a female editor) and "writing when having lost her temper". I'm just throwing this idea out there; I'm not saying that harassment by anyone is reasonable or justified no matter what the circumstances. Ca2james (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that harassment by anyone is reasonable or justified no matter what the circumstances. but you are implying it heavily. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm implying it then I haven't made myself clear. I was speaking only to the motivations for the harassment described in this section and suggesting a possible alternative motivation for that harassment: that editors might have become frustrated by the way Carolmooredc expresses herself and perhaps independently started to behave in the same way. I am specifically not saying that Carolmooredc is at fault or that she is in any way responsible for being harassed. It is my belief that responsibility for harassing behaviours lies with those doing the harassing, no matter how the target behaves or expresses themselves, and that harassment is never justified or reasonable. Ca2james (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett

4) Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) on many occasions has made personal attacks and provocative and/or uncivil comments.[48] He has become particularly infamous recently because of his use and defense of a phrase widely considered to be a slur against women.[49][50][51] Concurrently he joined GGTF and began to badger participants and others.[52] [53][54][55][56] Participants in the task force repeatedly complained his behavior was annoying or disruptive.[57][58][59][60]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Eric Corbett's block log

5) Eric Corbett originally edited under User:Malleus Fatuorum. The 2012 Civility enforcement arbitration largely centered on his activity under that name. His block log under that name [61] from May 2008 to May 2013 shows he had been blocked 20 times for personal attacks and related issues. His Eric Corbett block log since May 28, 2013 shows he’s been blocked at least eight times for similar cause. A number of these blocks have lead to controversial unblocks which lead to the impression he is a privileged editor, immune from sanction no matter how uncivil he is.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

SPECIFICO

6) SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) received a November 2013 block after another editor filed a complaint about his personal attack on Carolmooredc at this TPNO ANI. In September 2014 another editor filed a complaint he was WP:Wikihounding Carolmooredc, which she evidenced in detail; an administrator imposed a one way interaction ban on SPECIFICO to stop the harassment. He has not contributed to GGTF since. However, the evidence he presented at this Arbitration shows he is willing to cast aspersions on Carolmooredc on flimsy and exaggerated evidence, including repeatedly calling her an “antisemite” which he already has been warned is a blockable offense under Palestine-Israel Arbitration.[62]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In the absence of any diff I presume that the weasel-worded "warning" to which CMDC refers is just some past statement of her own. More importantly, I have never called her an anti-Semite, so I find that accusation personally disgusting. As several editors have remarked in the course of this Arbitration, it is difficult to know whether to bother refuting undocumented, unsupported denigration such as CMDC's above, Unfortunately a certain amount of it is accepted as truth by a certain number of readers and so it's impossible to ignore the attacks in every instance. In fact, as we well know, that is precisely what makes the attacks so disruptive. A certain amount sticks, no matter how fanciful or unsupported the accusations. In contrast, CMDC's conduct in matters relating to Israel is documented with diffs cited in the Evidence section. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the Palestine-Israel arbitration warning on your talk page in December 2013[63] and I think it's still good under the current Arbitration enforcement regime. You can ask the Arbitrators.

Per your own evidence in this section[64] you mention "her anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli POV." That's calling someone an anti-Semite. Of course, none of the diffs prove an "anti-Semitic POV"; all but one of those diffs are 6 plus years old and none relate to GGTF. Just more violating Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information: "Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be." And by the way, you missed the diff where I say something to the effect that editing on Israel-Palestine was a breeze compared to the problems you run into on anything related to feminism, women or the gender gap. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, your off-wiki involvement in several topic areas (Israel, libertarian topics, etc) is readily apparent for anyone who cares to look. You certainly have a WP:COI in some of these areas, and it is not harassment for others to question whether you should be editing in these areas. However everyone should temper their responses carefully. That several websites label you an anti-semite, does not mean that gives others license to call you an anti-semite here (unless of course it comes from a RS). Before I ran into you at RSN, I didn't know you from Adam, so you can't count me as one of the "buddies" that are here out to "get" you. What has become painfully obvious from the events leading up and through this arbitration is that you are a button pusher. Whatever your motivation is, it needs to stop. According to others, this has been a problem for a long time and I doubt you could find a single editor who would agree you are every likely to ever change.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be careful what we say here because of potential ~~outing~~ BLP issues. That is one reason why the anti-semite issue (along with some others) would never have featured in what Carol incorrectly calls my "attack biography". It has been discussed to death, along with self-mentions of her off-wiki activity, alleged COI and POV. It should be allowed to drop: it seems never to have gained consensus and may well be a result of synthesis of various real-life positions. Please can we drop this bit and give her some benefit of the doubt? FWIW, I've also already said that I have no intention of recreating a BLP of Carol: I can do without the hassle of people assuming bad faith and disputing my ability to write neutrally, even though I think there is a case for notability that was not apparent in the AfDs for prior versions in mainspace. - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, changed "outing" to "BLP issues" above. It isn't really outing because Carol has done that herself, frequently and without asking for revdel/oversight. It is a BLP issue. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the Discretionary Sanctions for WP:ARBPIA ({{subst:alert|a-i}}) on TKOP's page. Read Arbitration enforcement policy for next steps...

Here is the Template talk:Ds discussion I had in August 2014 about the fact that my December 2013 warning is still good for SPECIFICO, even if it is not logged in the new DS alert regime. (And that if in the future some other person, not finding it there, finds it necessary to alert him, they can do so, and that will be good too.)

As for TKOP's charge "several websites label you an anti-semite" a search shows A) a blog by a disturbed anonymous individual in Vermont who trashes anyone interested in secession (SPECIFICO was blocked for linking to the site per my Evidence and Findings of Fact above[65], B) some fleeting blog site called "wikibias.com" whose purpose was to criticize Wikipedia for any alleged bias vs Israel, C) an SPA's personal attack on Wikimedia.org, D) an individual who resigned as Vice Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus before he was kicked out for calling a presidential candidate and anyone else who criticizes Israel an antisemite E) some other anonymous person's antisemitism blog. And there's an email of someone who I believe actually was an antisemite complaining I called him one in 1999. Just more policy violating "opposition research" against harassment policy.

As Sitush alludes to, a few years back User:Jehochman brought me to both WP:COI and WP:ANI complaining about my POV and COI and got nowhere. (Why? Because I and others insisted a topic which most NPOV sources described as a "stereotype" should be called an "Antisemitic canard" even though only a few highly partisan sources did. I assume as the female I was the easiest target; or maybe I just gave the best arguments.)

My first block was for asking a guy who was giving me the third degree on that WP:COIN if that was related to his working almost entirely on a certain type of porno article; the block was justified. TKOP and SPECIFICO are doing the same thing, assuming negative implications from articles people work on, and deserve blocks too. Are you guys trying to scare Arbitrators into thinking they'll be labeled antisemites if they don't site ban me?? It didn't work last time; Arbitration policy-violating accusations from another editor or two shouldn't make it work this time. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc, I decide to drop the issue because dealing with you was so unpleasant. You should not cite that interaction as evidence that you were "right". Far from it. I consider you to be a tendentious WP:BATTLE prone editor with a strong POV, and willing to fight for it tooth and nail beyond all reason. If you please, don't mention me again because I have no interest in this arbitration case. If you don't talk about me, I won't talk about you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO brought a diff from you up in his evidence at this Arbitration already related to this which I reply to below. And Sitush brought up your COIN. So ask others not to bring you up first and I won't have to respond. I don't understand why defending oneself against constant attacks is considered battleground behavior. I see other people doing it here, there and everywhere, no complaints... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience Carolmoordc claims she is being "attacked" when actually people are just disagreeing with her attempts to spin encyclopedia articles to her own point of view. Wikipedia is not a platform for social activism. If you don't want to maintain WP:NPOV, please write for Huffington Post, Fox News, Tumblr or any other website besides Wikipedia. Finally, let me make it perfectly clear that I haven't been following the dispute that lead to this arbitration, and I have no opinion on whether you (CarolMDC) were actually harassed or not. It may be the case that you were. I very much don't like the idea of a Wikipedia editor creating a biography of another editor while they are in any sort of conflict or disagreement. Jehochman ^Talk 13:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, please read what I wrote again. I said offline comments should not be used to attack you or anyone, though they may indicate a COI. There is no need to debunk others offline opinions about you. You should recall I was very much against the BLP Sitush created, not due to the content, but rather i felt it was inappropriate due to the current proceedings.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO seems to have followed Carolmooredc to GenderGap from some other topic area, and does not seem all that interested, or knowledgeable about systemic bias. Indeed, SPECIFICO's comments in this forum don't seem to be about GenderGap at all, but about some previous disagreement. The one-way community-imposed interacton ban was working just fine before this case opened. Perhaps the Arbcom needs to put another interaction ban in place, so this can be monitored more closely. —Neotarf (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Two kinds of pork

7) Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs) has made mocking comments[66][67], proposals[68] and threads.[69] He reverted a users talk page comments, leading to a block[70], after which he joked about the administrator being hit by a truck.[71] Soon after he hatted one thread he did not like and then prematurely archived that thread[72] and others which are of interest to project participants.[73][74]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is approaching the height of intellectual dishonesty. If someone suggests that women can't understand technology (as stated on the project page) then yes, that proposal should be questioned as being unbelievably sexist. Note: Carol corrected the statement that could reasonably interpreted as sexist. That should have been the end of the matter, but she fails to ignore that clarification in order to serve her purpose of making a disingenuous claim. Carol seems to put a great deal of concern about archiving threads of possible interest to the group as disruptive. Yet I note she expressed no concern about SlimVirgin doing the same exact thing. Furthermore she questions some of my proposals as "mocking", but she then proceeded to reconsider the proposal in the interest of AGF. So how she can then claim now it is once again mocking is just another example of presenting selective diffs to sling mud and hope it sticks. Another example she puts forth is a diff of me archiving a thread and claiming it is disruptive. She then intentionally fails to show the diff of me self referring seconds later (the obvious reason is that I did intend to archive a section in question, or just changed my mind). Selective diffs, subtle and not so subtle misrepresentations have been her MO though out this dispute, from ANI to these arbitration proceedings. For those that are tempted to buy her claims made here at Arbitration and elsewhere wholesale, read the diffs in toto, and then read the associated archive pages for context. This is gamesmanship, plain and simple.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been raised here as well as elsewhere, I'd like to point out my block was due to trolling by Milowent starting with this diff[75] where he said y guys! Can I join your circle jerk? I see this is a section where no member of the GGTF has posted, and I'm not one either, so let's keep it that way! I would like to appoint myself Minister of Male Asshattedness. Perhaps I should have just seconded his nomination, as he appeared to be qualified for the position. But I foolishly took his bait, hook line and sinker. But the exchange wasn't a total loss, as later he graciously helped me rescue a previously deleted article I was having trouble finding sources, for which I am grateful.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 11:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Millowent enjoys the occasional foray into reductio ad absurdum, which sometimes does not come off as planned in an internet environment, however the block was due to disruptive archiving of pages. —Neotarf (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two Kinds of Pork is one of the more disruptive elements among several at the project page, and doesn't seem to understand the concept of the project well enough to participate. —Neotarf (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sitush

8) Sitush (talk · contribs) has engaged in hostile and repeated nitpicking of Carolmooredc over minor differences in approach, as in formatting.[76] He continued to edit her talk page after she asked him to stop.[77] He’s expressed hostility towards her presumed political views[78] and her association with GGTF.[79] He entered the GGTF and immediately cast aspersions on her.[80] He has been accused of supporting the use of a gender slur against women[81] and left a "joke" slur on a woman GGTF participants talk page.[82] He has expressed the desire to have Carolmooredc site banned[83] and discussed harassing actions against her at a WP:ANI.[84][85][86][87] He created a now-deleted biography of Carol Moore. An administrator brought a WP:ANI recommending an interaction ban. Sitush admitted he wanted an Arbitration focused on Carolmooredc, this current one if necessary.[88][89] However, the only evidence he presents here is Carolmooredc's upset reactions to his recent harassment of her.[90]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The statement about me is full of errors/misrepresentations yet again, as probably are the other statements. In the interest of brevity and not repeating stuff, as requested by Newyorkbrad, I will assume that the committee members can see this. If they have any doubt then please let me know and I will elaborate. - Sitush (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a permalink to the statement above. I'm not likely to comment about any revisions to it because such things have been numerous and in themselves disruptive. - Sitush (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although Sitush seems to violently oppose the goals of the GenderGap project, he did not seem that interested in the project itself, only in pursuing Carolmooredc. The topic ban/interaction ban discussion that was abandoned when Sitush retired from the project needs to be completed, now that Sitush is participating in the case. —Neotarf (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Carolmooredc

1) Carolmooredc obviously has had many negative experiences on Wikipedia with editors who may not like her views, or assumed views, or just have trouble dealing with assertive women. Given the “gang-up” in this arbitration, she doubtless will continue to have them. She will be much happier re-focusing her activity on sharing with the world libertarian decentralist and consensus-democracy principles, the same ones upon which Wikipedia was built by its visionary founders. She obviously is interested in perfecting such principles so they are more workable than they have proved to be so far on Wikipedia. She also should be better able to work on ending Wikipedia gender gap and any related sexism if she is not wasting time defending herself from personal attacks and harassment. However, if she chooses to occasionally edit on Wikipedia, she should be allowed to edit unmolested by personal attacks and harassment and her complaints about such incidents should be taken more seriously.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The only thing that is "obvious" about Carolmooredc from this case is battleground and, probably, WP:NOTHERE. That one person should have got into so many disputes with so many other people whilst contributing so little of enduring merit to actual content, especially of late, speaks volumes. - Sitush (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush (cc: J3Mrs), you're the one whose been on the attack while I've tried to ignore you, writing POV things like this about Jimbo Wales and me on Lightbreather's user page, linked in evidence: That right-leaning libertarian ideology is exactly what he subscribes to, at least if our bio on him is accurate. It is also what Carolmooredc subscribes to, as per her own website in its various versions over the years. And you wonder why these people choose to ban others from their talk pages? [91] While I doubt Wales is hard core libertarian, FYI, libertarians for the most part aren't left or right - they're ahead... :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Have you read NYB's note on the talk page? FWIW, you've misunderstood me but I'm past caring. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KonveyorBelt: Didn't you read the Sitush quote? After years of being attacked for my views (real or imagined), why shouldn't I mention what they actually are? Or is Wikipedia only libertarian free speech for guys to yell "c*nt" and "tw*T" but no freedom for libertarians to edit without being attacked for being libertarians? I don't have to bring up my views, people either assume them or do opposition research on my name and then write trashy insults. Wouldn't it be nice if Arbitrators actually held that assuming you know someone's views from their editing, or doing opposition research to find out their views are so you can attack them, is wrong. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KonveyorBelt:Geez, I'm singing a swan song here. I'm making it clear you and your buddies are driving me off Wikipedia. How much more explicit do I have to make it?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia not a place for "sharing with the world libertarian decentralist and consensus-democracy principles". I thought editors were required to use a neutral point of view at all times and not share personal political stances. J3Mrs (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal implies that Carolmooredc is using Wikipedia primarily to further her own political principles. This is an unambiguous case of POV-pushing, and let the record reflect that. Quotes like re-focusing her activity on sharing with the world libertarian decentralist and consensus-democracy principles and libertarians for the most part aren't left or right - they're ahead indicate a severe misunderstanding about what editing on Wikipedia means. KonveyorBelt 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carol: Wikipedia is not affiliated with any political party or movement. Feeling you have a right to edit here and talk about your political views just because the website is based on certain Libertarian views like consensus, views that you also hold, is at the best misguided, at the worst disruptive.

We cannot help you if an opponent goes and searches and finds your sites. That is information that you have freely chosen to publish to everyone on the web, including aforementioned opponents. If you feel that the content on these sites will be used in a defamatory way, you can remove them. The free web is free to all, including those who may oppose you. ArbCom cannot restrict people from doing Google searches.

Plus, the point is moot when you proudly state all those facts on your user page. Again, that is information you have chosen to publish, and is accessible through one click on your name. KonveyorBelt 23:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited anything about the GGTF or the case since yesterday. I have not spoken or talked to anyone involved in this case since it began. I am not one of a hidden cabal of "friends" plotting against you, and I find this comment bordering on NPA. Make no mistake, this is going in my finding of fact. You have a battleground attitude regarding this case. KonveyorBelt 01:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO

1) SPECIFICO's evidence present here shows he continues to be obsessed with Carolmooredc. Therefore the one-way interaction ban imposed through community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents shall continue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sitush

1) Sitush (talk · contribs) recently has engaged in obsessive harassment of Carolmooredc related to GGTF and other issues[92][93][94][95][96], also biography and WP:ANI on two-way interaction ban. She sometimes has reacted in an intemperate manner.[97] Therefore an indefinite two-way interaction ban is imposed upon them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by I JethroBT

Proposed principles

Fair criticism

1) Adopted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Fair_criticism: Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project and how they may be best addressed. It is expected that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to use the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in continuous criticism across available forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good faith and disruption

2) From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Good_faith_and_disruption: Disruptive behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Provocation

3) Adopted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Baiting: Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The first sentence is good, though vague. The second makes the vagueness just confusing. That's why I didn't use it and I didn't have time to research it more. It makes me want to say baiting in this Arbitration is very much in the eye of the beholder. For example, some might say "asking the same question over and over again is not baiting but ignoring it because you think it is harassment is -- you are baiting the person to ask the question over and over again!" Needs work... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

By baiting is flamebait the meaning? EChastain (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Konveyor Belt

Proposed principles

Aspersions and interactions with other editors in nonarticle space

1) Editors should not cast inappropriate aspersions against other editors or make repeated personal remarks on them in any namespace, especially when the claim concerns an editor's personal life. Such real-life aspersions may be removed under WP:BLP and if the aspersions are repeated, the offending user can be blocked, per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption (gross incivility, breaching the policies or guidelines, namely BLP).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Great principle! As you know, I have a whole section filled with diffs on how that was done to me repeatedly. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

And that road runs both ways. KonveyorBelt 15:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Findings of Fact

Carolmooredc made unfounded aspersions against editors

Carolmooredc repeatedly made unfounded accusations against other editors; [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence#Other editors' battleground attitudes where she accuses Eric Corbett of having "battleground alliances", [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112] (the Eric cabal again), [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119] (including edit summary), [120], where she accuses me of driving her off of Wikipedia with my "buddies", despite the fact I did not contribute to anything about the GGTF before submitting a proposal here, and especially [121] and [122] where she accuses an editor of being the wife of another editor, and accuses yet another of having uploaded "kiddie porn", real-life claims that could have serious implications.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Konveyor Belt: First, besides the formatting and spelling errors, I think User:Konveyor Belt has some new evidence in there. In any case most of the diffs are irrelevant or other's opinions on me or just links to my evidence calling them aspersions. The two utterly false statements which should be removed immediately are "she accuses an editor of being the wife of another editor, and accuses yet another of having uploaded "kiddie porn", real-life claims that could have serious implications." Asking if someone is someone's wife is not accusing, especially when one apologizes. And it's not illegal or immoral to be married to someone so why the hyperventilated over reaction? Second, I did not accuse anyone of uploading kiddie porn. Sitush had recently brought the false accusation made against him twice on talk pages in conversations related to his views on civility and GGTF. I looked at the evidence [Later: Sitush I believe provided] and thought Sitush misunderstood that evidence and said so. You guys keep bringing up a non-issue to try to make me look bad and thus focusing on the false allegation against Sitush. Stop shooting yourselves in the foot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk • contribs) on 10/28/14

@Konveyor Belt:Arbitrators are not supposed to go searching around others' evidence to see if you have got it right. And if those others are misrepresenting the evidence, then you are too. Without diffs it even could appear you could be here to repeat accusations about people other than me, as well as against me.

When I say "your buddies" I mean "that group of editors who come out of nowhere to mostly trash me". But at least you manage to get two mildly irritating diffs from Eric Corbett in there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There is no new information here, all of it is from the evidence. You can ask the arbs to check if you want. KonveyorBelt 23:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to other things: "Apologizing" does not make a personal remark any less personal or hurtful. J3Mrs has said herself: That rumour could be more damaging, not only to me, than any intemperate language and has called it a "malicious rumor" [123]. As for kiddie porn, I don't think you yourself knew what you were saying there. You looked and found somebody complaining about Sitush and ate it hook line and sinker, without bothering to note that the accuser was one of a long line of sock/meatpuppets. But that's not really for me to comment on. I just took evidence that other had presented in the evidence page. The two diffs were from J3Mrs and Johnuniq (not Johnunique, nor Johnuniqu), and if you want to challenge the diffs, you can bring it up in the analyses of their evidences. Literally one link links to your evidence, and I don't see any formatting errors. No diffs are irrelevant here. Even if they are not directly related to GGTF, they are evidence of long term behavioral issues. Again, if you want to challenge the diffs, bring it up in the evidence analysis. KonveyorBelt 23:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf made unfounded aspersions against editors

Neotarf repeatedly made unfounded accusations against other editors; [124], [125], [126], and [127].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If the diffs for all of these are not self-evident, I can provide them on request. —Neotarf (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This editor has a history of mischaracterizing incidents and manipulation of comments and behaviors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett makes unfounded aspersions against editors

Eric Corbett repeatedly made unfounded accusations against other editors; [128] and [129]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

EC is not the poster boy of civility by any means but he is a damn fine contributor and brings much to the project Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Neotarf

Proposed principles

I'm just going to post two points.

1) First, I want to repost the link about the court case I posted earlier [130], Reeves v. C.H. Robinson, a case about gender-based profanity and hostile work environment. It is very readable and addresses exactly the same issues that have been raised in this case. Nothing I could write would be better. I wish all the participants and arbs would look through it.

2) Second, I would like to note the exhaustion of the female participants.

I see Laura Hale has posted above me--I haven't seen her around any of the projects for a long time.

Lightbreather was a member of the Gender Gap group but left Wikipedia during the course of this case, after posting her evidence here. She was involved in the lengthy C-Bomb thread on Jimbo's talk page that resulted in the Civility case request, as well as the brutal thread at the Editor Retention Wikiproject, where she was basicly told that no one cares how painful the editing experience is for women, and that now that she had expressed her minority views, she should "lick her wounds" and get back to work. Her edit summary there says it all: "I don't have the energy to discuss 'just ignore incivility' again." —Neotarf (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Neotarf: these are not principles. Did you intend that principles should be derived from them? - Sitush (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf also sounds exhausted. However, writing these up as language that could go into principles called something like "promoting collaborative environment" or as an addition to "WP:Harassment bad" mentioning exhaustion of editors would help. I'm quite exhausted myself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

The arbs who are drafting this have all been around the block, I'm sure they are quite capable of framing something in fluent arbspeak. —Neotarf (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone was really interested what I think a proposed decision might look like (like for instance, any arbs) I would probably be able to sketch out something, but I'm not sure how much I could flesh it out before Nov. 1, because RL. —Neotarf (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is another principle, which I think important, and which the mods at Metafilter use--and I ran into it the other day while looking up something else, so I know it's a thing--but I don't know if I can explain it well enough. It has to do with POV of the site. For example at Metafilter when someone used to post a photo of a woman, a lot of comments used to say stuff like "I'd hit on that". This type of comment is no longer acceptable there, because it assumes that the default commenter is male and heterosexual and somewhat predatory, and creates the atmosphere that anyone who does not buy into these values is less than welcome. In particular, this is the tone being created by the Manchester group and their apologists, in particular Dennis Brown with all his sausagefest talk. I didn't have time to answer him on the evidence page, and I feel bad about that, because I have had some very positive dealings with him, but at this point he is pouring kerosene on a flame, and probably doesn't realize it. —Neotarf (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting ideas from the understandably anonymous user you might post at GGTF for actual discussion. I haven't read details, but certainly food for thought of how Wikipedia can encourage a better volunteer environment through voluntary means - or if necessary WMF getting tougher on enforcement just to stop editor drop out from having to deal with so much silly and even bigoted nonsense. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And Jimmy Wales has now responded to the anonymous user on his talk page. I have used the blue (thank) link at the top of the page to show appreciation for the edit. —Neotarf (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DennisBrown: Please don't accuse me of getting really quiet without providing a diff to remind me what you are talking about and to see if I ever saw it. Me get quiet? I thought the complaint is a say too dang much! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DennisBrown: Much as I'd love to take credit for getting the more generic Don't Be A Jerk in there, that actually was initiated by someone else and I was just one of several editors who agreed and argued for it. Accuracy, please. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neotarf, I think you may be confusing Dennis Brown with Drmies. Dennis made no submissions to the Evidence page, and elsewhere on this page you attribute the "sausagefest" comment to Drmies [131]. In any case Drmies didn't engage in all his sausagefest talk. As far as I can see, he mentioned the term once. Voceditenore (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion Mr. Brown participated in on the Evidence talk page is in this section, where I am accused of everything from having "wikipediocracy buddies" (would those be the ones who have been trolling my talk page?) to "not really caring" about articles, as if the articles themselves are so precious that we must tear down human beings--especially our female editors--in order to build them. See also this thread on his talk page These are not new issues that are being sprung on Mr. Brown from out of the clear blue sky, they have been discussed over and over, with the concerns from the female editors being shouted down at every step of the way. —Neotarf (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf, I understand that you oppose Dennis's views on civility enforcement and on what makes a word use offensive. These are valid issues, but once again, you miss the point of my comment. If you want to characterise his discourse style as "sausagefest talk", that's your choice, but he did not use that term. Another editor did. You yourself linked to the other editor's comment above. Nor did Dennis present any evidence in this case. Workshops are for correcting errors and honing the accuracy and precision of proposals. If this doesn't happen, workshops are valueless. Admitting and correcting a mistake is not a sign of weakness. Quite the contrary. Incidentally, I imagine Dennis "arrived quickly to the discussion just the same" because I pinged him in my comment above. I could see that yours wouldn't have worked because instead of linking to his user page, you had mistakenly linked to the article Dennis Brown. Voceditenore (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about "civility enforcement" or "offensiveness", this is about slurs directed against a specific group, that imposes an added burden against their participation. I see no need to repeat the harsh, crude, and provocative language Mr. Brown has engaged it. That is part of the problem, and I am attempting to discuss the problem without being part of it myself by using toned-down language. Perhaps my attempt is successful, perhaps not, but I can tell you one thing, the repeated use of high-octane male-aggressive language has not been helpful: it is painfully obvious that this type of language is not creating a corporate culture where women feel welcome. —Neotarf (talk)23:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you have a link showing how I've used slurs against women, show it. It's never happened, so by all means, go search for it. Otherwise, what you and others are doing is using FUD, fear, uncertainty and doubt. The fact is, Carol accused me of using WER to be against women, and when I showed her the real diffs, on how we need to figure out how to keep women, it got really quiet. The fact is, I've been seeking out and helping women here for years, I don't just preach about it or make a fuss out of it impress anyone. I walk the walk. So put up or shut up, because I'm pretty convinced that Arb isn't going to just take your word for it without evidence. Dennis - 2¢ 23:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a single time in my life when I've used the phrase "sausagefest". I haven't submitted any evidence, and in fact, have tried to avoid this page except when Neotarf dragged me into evidence without notifying me. I'm neither a party nor a participant here, other than a few incidental comments due to Neotarf's previous oversight. He needs to strike that comment. Dennis - 2¢ 00:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that it was necessary to request a clerk to notify someone whenever their name is mentioned, however I did try to ping you on this thread--if it didn't work, I don't know why. But I see you have arrived quickly to the discussion just the same.

If you don't know what a sausagefest is, here is one definition, here is another. I'm sure we have discussed your frequent use of the word "dick" before; many find the usage unfortunate, perhaps a word that is better saved for stag parties. In the case of the word language used here, it assumes that anything male is intrinsically negative, and implies that one must be negative to be properly male. There are plenty of users who don't need that kind of encouragement to be disruptive, and don't need an excuse to act like frat boyz.

What I am talking about is conversations like this, all about "dick ratio" and "flagellation". Maybe the concept of “male gaze” would be useful here: how an audience views the people presented, categorized by who is doing the looking. —Neotarf (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This ping worked. The first time you dragged me into this, you didn't ping me, Drmies did, as I explained in a previous thread. As for here, as I stated "sausagefest" isn't my word, it is yours. Occasionally using "dick" as synonymous with "jerk" in context isn't something I've denied. Up until last week, we had WP:DICK, until Carol managed to get that changed at meta, so my use seems consistent with that essay, IF you bother to consider the context. Regardless, editorializing by making it appear I used "sausagefest", however, is deceptive and you should strike the comment, particularly since I'm not a party here and it has a completely different meaning that "dick" (jerk). Feel free to use any diffs of me you want, just stop putting words in my mouth. It is a dishonest tactic. Dennis - 2¢ 22:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the diffs have been there in the evidence all along, but if you want more time to discuss them, I would certainly support your request to arbcom to do so, and to make myself available to discuss them further. We have not had WP:DICK for a very long time, and it is unfair to put that on Carolmooredc. Check the revision history, and tell me if you see her name. [132]. WP:DICK was originally written in 2005 by Phil Sandifer, it was moved moved from en.wp to Meta by David Gerard not long after, following a deletion discussion here. I believe Sue Gardner also mentioned WP:DICK in her 2011 editor retention speech. I'm not trying to corner you, as I have seen for myself the many many many positive things you have done here, but language does matter, and I do wish you would take more note of how people react to these things. —Neotarf (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf, in light of the above, in what way does your characterising a male editor's discourse style as "sausagefest talk" contribute to a more welcoming and respectful environment here? How does that fit in with your insistence that negative gender-based terms are inappropriate? This is a prime illustration of a point I have made elsewhere on this page, i.e. self-awareness amongst the parties to this case is very thin on the ground. Voceditenore (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf, regarding comments from an anonymous user, and also Lightbreather's views on civility, I don't think American standards for a "hostile work environment" are productive for a Wikipedia that's seeking worldwide participation in it's virtual environment with many users from various countries. EChastain (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia is seeking participation from female users in these countries as well. —Neotarf (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by a anonymous user

[Note: I am posting this on behalf of a user who contacted me by email, and who writes me,

"The problem is silence does not solve the problem for women. Remaining silent only works until we can't deal with it, and then we leave the project. Meeting fire with fire is the only workable solution, and the culture is so toxic that this generally leads to pretty bad things for female edits and bad things but less bad things for the other side. (I get my job threatened. What does Eric Corbett get? Not the same thing.)
"I had the first paragraph ready to hit save on that but couldn't do it. Can't risk the personal fall out. I wish I could participate, but the reality is it is too dangerous. I tell other women that too."

The user has given permission for me to post this, but wishes to remain anonymous. —Neotarf (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)][reply]

To Neotarf's point about "hostile work environment", the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to building an encyclopedia. They work with other organizations and commercial services in distributing their product,[133] an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. People who build the content are volunteers, and while they may leave at any time,[134] there have been a few court rulings in the USA, whom have legal jurisdiction over the Florida incorporated Wikimedia Foundation, that explicitly demonstrate that volunteers have the same "employment" rights to be free of a hostile work environment that their paid employees have a right to.[135][136] The right to be free of a hostile work environment extends beyond the person being subjected directly to the behavior. [137] As Wikimedia has become more professionalized with students completing coursework, semi-professional editors working on community and content development as part of their employment, grants from the Wikimedia Foundation supporting work that leads to content development and community growth aimed at new content development,[138] open tolerance of harassment of women (and other groups such as people with different sexual orientations, of different nationalities, people with disabilities, etc.) is just that with increasing potential to demonstrate real damages.[139]
Beyond that, the tolerance for such behavior sends a clear and overriding message to women that they are not wanted[140] and the current advice to women of ignore has proven largely ineffective. Openly encouraging such behavior as that status quo and providing zero resource to fix it other than escalating the situation through non-functional dispute resolution processes makes Wikipedia prime for its own version of GamerGate.[141][142][143] At some point, the Wikimedia Foundation may very well find itself having to do what Adobe did.[144][145] The only reason that has not happened to date is because many of the women who have dealt with sexually based harassment, have had their employment targeted because they are female, have had their academic work targeted because they are and dealt with gender specific crap have either lacked the media resources to put the story out there, cannot take the professional risk of exposing the systemic problem or at their hearts of hearts believe so much in the movement (where editors seek to actively destroy them because they are women) that they have not willingly thrown the Wikimedia Foundation under the bus. The last part is probably the most important reason. <names redacted> are prime examples.
The tactics being employed in general on English Wikipedia towards women as a form of harassment include: Sabotaging a person's contribution, Post complaint retaliation, name calling, threatening punishment, Interfering with employment, Boasting of own success and proficiency with the intention of using this success as a weapon. For all of these, the research has shown that males are much more likely to engaged in these forms of harassment.[146] The type of harassment given to males is markedly different, and the type of harassment women are more likely to engage in compared to males is markedly different. English Wikipedia provides a format where male specific harassment techniques are much easier to do, and do effectively. Given the already large male participation numbers in pure percentages, ... Go back to hostile work environment.

Note: the first paragraph of this has been cross-posted to Jimmy Wales' talk page. [147] —Neotarf (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Sitush

Proposed principles

Shared opinions are not necessarily disruptive

1) Wikipedia is a project which involves large numbers of people. It is inevitable that some participants will share a similar opinion regarding some matters, although they may not share a similar opinion regarding all matters. Calling such shared opinions detrimental to the project merely because it differs from the opinion held by another person or group of people is disruptive. Claiming an alliance without proper evidence may constitute a personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Achieving consensus may involve critical debate

2) Consensus is a vital aspect of how Wikipedia works. Achieving it often comes through debate. Disagreement, discussion, and criticism should not be mischaracterised as incivility or personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Completely reasonable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated claims about contributors may be sanctionable

3) Contributors should always be prepared to substantiate any claim they make about other contributors by providing specific evidence if challenged within a reasonable time. Failure to substantiate can be disruptive and repeated or habitual failure may be sanctionable. Responses such as "I saw it somewhere" are unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Add to the last sentence: "However, quick apologies for poorly stated questions based on imperfect memories should be accepted and editors should move on and not keep dredging it up for weeks." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:SPECIFICO

Proposed principles

Hounding and harassment

1) False accusations of harassment constitute a personal attack. Tracking a user's contributions to monitor policy violations of, for example, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NPA is not harassment, provided that any concerns are expressed civilly and substantively. The contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not the place to promote original thought or to further one's personal activism

2) Tendentious editing, which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole, or which promotes the personal views of the editor, is disruptive. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out or an inadvertent misstatement. Repeated attempts to promote or suppress content, to denigrate editors with whom one disagrees, or any other behavior that frustrates WP discussions and processes is unacceptable. If the disruption is longstanding, repeated, or severe, the editor may be banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The other side of the coin also is relevant and should be added here, something like: Nor is it a place to badger people for their personal views on the issue under discussion so that you can attack them, accuse them of having views they do not have as a strawmen so they can knock them down, or do opposition research to find out their views are and attack them for them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Conduct during arbitration cases

3) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Recidivism

4) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 6

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Submission by Two Kinds of Pork (TKOP)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Carolmooredc, I'm currently reading through this analysis. We've never yet had to put limits on the analysis of evidence similar to the limits placed on evidence, and I hope we don't have to start with this case. This section is not meant to be a way to respond to every piece of evidence (cases would never finish if that was the case, as the discussions would grow exponentially). The hope is that those presenting evidence are able to discuss and correct misunderstandings or errors in the evidence without the need for exhaustive analysis. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Submisson link

TKOP states re: his comment on User:LawrencePrincipe’s "two revert" proposal: “I had no idea that the proposal had actually been implemented and removed from the project page.” My August 11 comment he links to actually said the proposal was “dismissed and removed” not “implemented”.[148] [Later removal of minor, possibly debatable, correction which was irrelevant to objection in my evidence that TKOP's very first post was hostile.]
TKOP alleges I supported “mandatory sensitivity training” at this diff.[149] A careful reading shows I am discussing how much space to give to “Do List” items. Under the bullet point "Spacewise" I write “Maybe someone else thinks the most important "Do" is....” This is followed by two speculative examples, one which I describe has having lots of support and the other - “mandatory sensitivity training” - as having far less support.
These three TKOP examples of alleged personal attacks on other editors[150][151][152] are my references to SPECIFICO Wikhounding me to GGTF, which I detailed in the Sept. 4 and Sept. 12 ANIs.
These three TKOP examples of alleged personal attacks[153][154][155] are my references to editors refusing to take seriously other GGTF editors’ right to express their opinions or their being badgered for it. As my evidence shows, I wasn’t the only one complaining about this badgering or wondering about their bad faith. (SPECIFICO wikihounding me at GGTF did necessitate some excessive replies by me.)
Here is my explicit reply to a question in the thread TKOP quotes. He claims I did not answer it.[156]
TKOP states the Wikimedia Foundation pays editors in Wikipedia:India Education Program/Analysis/Independent Report from Tory Read. I see only a mention of their paying staff, which is not paying editors. Specific quotes help.
“Carol canvassed wikimedia mailing lists[157][158]” The strictly moderated Wikimedia Foundation run Gender Gap email list has been used to announce several GGTF projects. TKOP's first diff is an example. The second is a mention of the “Disruption of a Wikiproject” ANI. Frankly, given canvassing on the list hasn’t been an issue in over a year, it didn’t occur to me this might be a canvassing issue. I saw it as just an FYI on GGTF problems, ones similar to those the email list itself had faced months earlier. It was more a “commiseration posting”. In any case, most of the posters at the ANI who alleged disruptions were GGTF or WP:ANI regulars. And the ANI remedy was only a warning to act like Adults, so no harm was done. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carcharoth: I think most of this does discuss and correct misunderstandings or errors in the evidence. And there was quite a bit of inaccurate evidence, not to mention duplicate diffs/evidence explained in different inaccurate ways. Most of it by editors who had no involvement in the situation at all which increased the inaccuracies. Sorry if I did throw in a bit too much context of why something was inaccurate or a few sentences of further analysis here and there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Neotarf

Carolmooredc, Carcharoth is correct, I can't follow this at all. For one thing, it is mis-formatted. For an example of how to format your section and submit proposals in it, a good example might be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop, a case with a strong focus on conduct of multiple users. I really think, Carol, you need to erase this in some way, and start over, with proper formatting, a proper outline, and concrete principles and proposals.

As for myself, even though I am uninvolved in this topic area, and have never been a member of this WikiProject, I have never been the target of so much templating, talkpage vandalism, and sheer nonsense as has resulted from the misfortune spinning out of the week I had this Wikiproject somehow on my watchlist. Wikipedia is suppose to be a hobby, but I have been beleaguered on multiple fronts. If you would excuse my further participation at this point, I really need to step back from the keyboard for a while. —Neotarf (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one of the arbs, or one of the clerks should explain what this section is for and how to use it. Also, I see the evidence page is closed, but there is much written about me there that is incorrect and not supported by the diffs. Do I need to address this somehow or should I wait and see if anyone takes it seriously? —Neotarf (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is well organized compared to the last one I was in early 2014, with a hodgepodge of editors and sections and no arbitrators said there was anything wrong with it that time. (Lat time an Admin came along and told me just what you told me then a bunch of people came along and did just what I did above. Arbs never said a thing about formatting one way or the other.) Arb Guide gives no explanation.

The best thing to do is just put your explanation of what was wrong in any evidence provided about you under the name of the individual who provided it. Or add the relevant name if someone said something I didn't reply to. You don't have dozens of misrepresented diffs to deal with like I did from a bunch of editors you've hardly had anything to do with. Or just do it anyway you like, like they did at that early 2014 arbitration. I don't think they'll be much more analysis anyway for Arbs to deal with. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been convinced that anyone reads these things. My current theory is that it's just a ploy to get the principles out of project space and all bouncing around screaming at each other in one place for a while. But don't tell anyone I said that. TKOP's evidence was unusually inaccurate though, even for one of these events; it wouldn't surprise me if this section got even longer. —Neotarf (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Two kinds of pork

There is so much wrong with Carol's interpretations that it would take months of discussing the problems interspersed with wall-of-text replies by Carol. But let's take her first post as an example:

TKOP states re: his comment on User:LawrencePrincipe’s "two revert" proposal: “I had no idea that the proposal had actually been implemented and removed from the project page.” My August 11 comment he links to actually said the proposal was “dismissed and removed” not “implemented”.[3]

First of all, there is no Aug 11 comment by Carol saying the proposal was dismissed and removed. The diff above she presents is mine. Carol attempted to make my objection to the proposal as an example of disruption or my objection was overblown because I should have realized that the proposal was at one time on the main page and subsequently removed. NO WHERE on the section in question says anything like this[159]. At best, this example is Carol using diffs selectively as a sword and a shield depending upon her needs at the time. At worst, this is an attempt at obfuscation by muddying the waters and drowning the conversation by the massive responses she has generated so far. Above an arbitrator mentions their concern about having limits on replies here. Your concerns are not without merit, but limits should be strongly considered ASAP. As for my responses here, I pledge I will do my best to reply infrequently and to be concise.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I actually should have left out that minor, possibly debatable, correction which was irrelevant to objection in my evidence that TKOP's very first post was hostile. No other objections? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examine your next objection. Note that I said the Sensistivity Training was a proposal. The point was you should expect such proposals receive criticism, yet you don't handle such critiscm well. Dropping down the next set of your diffs I highlighted, you make ad hominem comments like "certain male editors". The rest of your objections either miss my point, or attempt to excuse yourself for extenuating circumstances. Short of an extraordinary objection, I won't respond to your objections to keep this page manageable.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I clearly state this was an example of a proposal that might be placed on a Do list, not a proposal from me. I used it as an example of something that would not get a lot of support and thus should not receive a lot of space on a do list. Read the diff.[160] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Carcharoth

- you say " This section is not meant to be a way to respond to every piece of evidence (cases would never finish if that was the case, as the discussions would grow exponentially). "

You are simply wrong about this. There is a fixed amount of evidence, even if everyone comments on each piece of evidence, the case will finish.

Perhaps you mean "comment on every comment". In this case you are technically correct, however that is the way Wiki discussions work, and the reason they do become extremely large. Eventually, however, everyone has said all they have to say, and the salient points should be reflected in the proposed findings of fact. Of course that is assuming the drafting arbs read the workshop, which I understand is fairly rare. In this case there is little point, because nothing constrictive can come out of such a poorly managed case, where members of the committee forced the case into existence for reasons of their own private agendas.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC).

Submission by Carrite

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link

Re: “Identity politics and battleground behavior”: Carrite only quotes one very early exchange between SlimVirgin and Obiwankenobi discussing the primacy of women on the Wikiproject and creating “safe space.” I neither remember, nor see evidence that, those ideas/wordings were proposed again. However, encouraging enforcement of existing WP:Civility and WP:Wikihounding policy did come up repeatedly.
Re: “Both sides have engaged in combative behavior” - he only presents a link to all edits to GGTF of two editors who could be characterized on being "on the same side". He presents no evidence that the other side "engaged in combative behavior." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Carrite was explicit later that I'm not among those regarding whom he has the most serious concerns. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my ongoing concerns are with Carolmooredc, Lightbreather, and Two Kinds of Pork. Specifico probably trolled early on but backed off and Eric Corbett's inability to keep within Civility guidelines is well documented. I'm not sure anything can "fix" the last-mentioned and at some point we are going to need to have a RFC/U on whether he should stay or go. Carrite (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission by Johnuniqu

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link.

Regarding false accusations by the current leaders of the India Against Corruption (IAC), Johnuniqu fails to identify properly the relevant Jimbo Wales talk page “Why is Wikipedia sexist” thread. At it Sitush and User:BrownHairedGirl argued over Sitush's support for using the “C-word” and Jimbo Wales message to Sitush on Sitush's talk page is discussed. Sitush mentioned the IAC “porn” accusations in his reply to Wales[161] as he had recently at this WP:ANI.[162] He infers IAC might drive him to quit. I write (mistakenly as it turns out) that he misread the mentioned IAC link and it’s not a reason to quit. Johnuniqu objected to my bringing up an allegation Sitush has just discussed twice very publicly at Wales page and here. If Sitush and Johnuniqu want the allegation kept quiet, they shouldn’t mention it repeatedly.
Re: complaint about my message on the Evidence talk page. Admin Bishonen wrote that the Evidence Analysis section of Workshop, not the Evidence talk page, was the place to bring up Evidence concerns. Yet in the posting immediately following her comment, User:Voceditenore[163] brought up an evidence issue. I reminded him of what she had said. Given Johnuniqu’s subsequent complaint about this, I did answer answer Voceditenore’s question on the Evidence talk page.[164] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Voceditenore: Thanks, I've corrected Johnunique's user name. I don't think there's a requirement we find out the gender of every editor before we mention them or use s/he and him/her at all times. Also, last time I looked at the Arbitration clarification page, Arbitrators were ruling we don't even have to use the preferred pronoun. However, when I happen to find out someone is a woman, I try to use the proper pronoun, assuming it's no so much later I completely forget who is what. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush re Wales thread Johnuniqu brought up: First, BrownHairGirl says you support use of C-word and in your next 2 or 3 replies you don't deny it; in the same period using "twatt" on a woman users page as a "joke" is just another indication of your attitude.

Johnuniqu says in evidence my comment was "unrelated to the thread and which falsely associated Sitush with child pornography". However, the thread discussed what Jimmy Wales said to you on your talk page and your complaining you'd had threats and child pornography allegations and were thinking of quiting. So it was related, though like many threads you have to read the whole dang thing and, in this case, related threads on other pages to get it. Everything else Sitush adds is just speculation that confuses the reader. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Voceditenore on pronoun discussion. Unfortunately as one of Sitush's diffs evidenced, I did have a problem with a woman editor running around to various forums saying I "accused" her of being a man, when I merely understood her to be one. So I was having a little negative "deja vu" there. Sorry. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The evidence referred to above by Carolmooredc is from Johnuniq not "JohnUnique". And for the record, I am a "she", as clearly indicated on my user page. Voceditenore (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? That is not the correct name, as Voceitenore pointed out. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush's support for using the “C-word” I may be missing something but I cannot see my support for use of that specific word in that thread. I do think there is a cultural issue with most of the civility stuff, I did link to This Be The Verse (which uses "fuck" and was a set poem at A-level English Lit back in my time), and I did have a jokey exchange about "cunt" with someone somewhere but I'd appreciate a quote of me explicitly supporting use of it in that thread, please. My enduring memory is Jimbo telling me that I needed to have "more honor" when I used the word "drama" and was castigated because apparently it is sexist to do so. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "porn" allegations misses the point: Johnuniq says in his evidence that CMDC says things without seeking to understand underlying issues. The porn allegation is not the principle issue with IAC, nor can I recall ever wanting to prevent discussion of it. Is CMDC getting confused with the request from Newyorkbrad regarding the supposed gun threat? Or am I missing something here? I also cannot figure out where Sitush has just discussed [the porn allegation] ... here - I see no mention by me on the Evidence pages but perhaps I am misunderstanding CMDC's syntax. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) At risk of bloating an already ludicrously bloated page, Carol, I simply pointed out my gender in case you wanted to correct the pronoun in your comment. "Fixed, thanks" would have been more than adequate. Instead, you write 80 words on why you aren't going to fix it, including commentary on past Arbcom rulings on gender pronouns. While this is a very minor issue in itself, I'm afraid it's indicative of a much larger issue, i.e. that some of the most damning evidence against you in this case is the evidence you yourself present, the way you present it, and the way you react to anyone who points out a potential mistake on your part from the smallest to the most serious. And no, I'm not going to provide a supporting diff, because this whole page is one. Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission by Drmies

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link

Re: "User:J3Mrs”, see her section below.
Re: my statement “Some diffs indicate Sitush blames Sue Gardner’s initiative...” In Sitush second diff the topic was Jimmy Wales saying the Foundation would be “doubling down” on what Sitush calls "Gardner’s failed systemic bias intiative”. Increasing the number of women in Wikipedia, the gender gap initiative, was her best known one, widely covered in media. The other two diffs are of my interpretation of his comments and Arbitrators can ignored them. I was vaguely aware there was a separate “IEP” - India Education Program. But I do know the Indian women’s gender gap project did a lot of workshops and edit-a-thons.
Drmies writes: "Sitush's beef was with Carolmooredc as an editor, not with her as a member of some task force or other.” However, in evidence I report this diff where Sitush writes: "Which is why that Gender Gap Task Force is so dodgy, especially when what seems to be its primary cheerleader (see WT:GGTF), Carolmooredc, is indeed a militant feminist and social activist for 'right-on' causes of the 60s and 70s." His other negative comments about the project[165][166], his defending use of the "C-Word" on Wales talk page, his leaving the "Twatt, Orley"[167] message on the talk page of a GGTF participant who objected to Corbett's use of the c-word, all show he has a real battleground attitude towards the project itself and not just towards me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Sitush: a) We all know what "twat" and "twatt" mean.

b) See the link following "her best known one" of over 50 media articles about the gender gap on Wikipedia, many mentioning Sue Gardner. What evidence do you have she's better known by WP:RS for something else?

c) Your misbehavior started with your outrageous reaction to User:SPECIFICO being Ibanned from me. This was because his behavior at GGTF was so obviously wikihounding, and finally after a year of my complaining, others took it seriously. Some of your friends who never even participated in GGTF have ganged up to trash me, so you've got the Arbitration you wanted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

her best known one^{[citation needed]} - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is Twatt, Orkney, not Twatt, Orley. Yes, it could be a typo but this is yet another example of your tendency to make mistakes/misrepresent etc and it is evidence most obviously in the number of times you have to correct yourself in talk page statements etc. That is one of the primary reasons why I have long been concerned about your competence: it really does worry me that if you ever venture back into actually editing article space on more than an occasional basis then we are likely to see a repeat of the many poor edits that caused a topic ban to be imposed. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies is correct: any issues that I have relate to CMDC generally as a contributor far more than to the GGTF, and I said as much in one of my opening statements relating to this case. I've made very few comments about the GGTF, although I have said sthat I think it is misguided in its current form, eg: [168]. My intention was to prepare an ArbCom case (or perhaps RfC/U) regarding Carolmooredc, not to engineer the opening of this particular vaguely-defined case, as she claims. ~~I'll try to find the diffs.~~ (Diffs now added) - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission by J3Mrs

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link

Re: my "Blame Game?" posting on your talk page on September 27. It was a poorly worded attempt to express my distress with what I felt was “pile on” harassment by you in the aftermath of the Sitush harassment biography incident and ongoing ANI. However, instead of the tete a tete I expected, a bunch of your page watchers joined and demanded diffs. Per your request I provided diffs illustrating my complaint.[169].

I did apologize for bringing up some vaguely remembered 3 month old comment or joke, probably from someone's talk page.

However, I do believe a proper query was in order, and if I hadn't been so off balance from harassment I would have asked something like: “I feel you have been harassing and blaming me for all current problems in the GGTF/civility area. I notice you are close friends with Eric Corbett who also lives in Manchester. You have 377+ edits to his talk page. So I’m wondering if there’s some sort of WP:conflict of interest here we need to discuss.” Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: J3Mrs wondering about topic not being brought up here: Note that I personally wanted it behind me and only brought it up because Two Kinds of Pork brought it up twice in his evidence previous to mine.[[170][171] (Drmies, you and Sitush brought it up, as well, later. So it was going to come up and you might ask them to stop talking about it too.)

Anyway, per TKOP's initiative, thus I was forced to reflect on the who issue as an example of "Wiki-alliances" and battleground attitudes and decided it was relevant(per my diffs on your talk page). But I'm going no further with it than that myself. Again, sorry I didn't think more carefully about how to phrase my frustration with your comments (many of which came right after mine in various places as the diffs indicate). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Carolemooredc, can you let this drop? Your uncontrolled assumptions and inability to let things go have the power to damage people who don't even edit wikipedia. I didn't accept your apology which was wise considering your inability to stop and lack of understanding of possible consequences. Three months ago you didn't know me from Adam but you still are digging that hole, provide the diff if you want to be taken seriously. I don't live in Manchester and don't understand your obsession with editors from the GM project, Eric, my wikifriend, not close friend (they are people I know outside wikipedia) has helped me since I first started, he encouraged me to take articles to GAN, copyedits my prose and you'll find he has hundreds of edits to my talk page too, mostly about content.

Is there some means of preventing Carolemooredc from bringing this unsubstantiated malicious rumour up on any more talk pages? J3Mrs (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission by Robert McClenon

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link

While I think Robert McClenon's motivation for requesting the Arbitration was sincere, I was disappointed at his recycling others' evidence. I did mention on his talk page that I had a couple of errors he might check for. (These were corrected for this Arbitration). I advised he should review everything. His then crossing out a lot of links that I believe are self-explanatory and relevant only adds confusion to the case. However, they don't undermine proper use of these links elsewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Submission by Sitush

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link

In my evidence I show diffs indicating Sitush pushed for this Arbitration, in part, by violating policy to annoy me(Again here[172][173][174][175]) and start a brouhaha regarding his biography of me.(Again here: now-deleted biography of Carol Moore leading to Interaction ban ANI.) He has expressed his desire to see me site banned.[176]

However, the only evidence he provides is my imperfect recent behavior of the last few weeks after he a) wrote an attack bio on me[177] that b) lead to an Admin suggesting an interaction ban at WP:ANI where c) he repeated his desire for this Arbitration to be used against me.[178] (The controversy and confusion about a certain redacted statement coming on top of that.)

Sitush inaccurately describes as “wild assumptions” a) Sitush's meandering exposition that starts with his rejecting a two-way interaction ban of me and may or may not contain relevant diffs; b) my original assumption that I struck after review of evidence[179]; a link to my general comment against Wikihounding in another matter.
Sitush says I ignore “correct process” because he “had my clean block log spoiled because of a drive-by admin who did not realise context of both on- and off-wiki harassment.”[180] If by that he means that those who have been baited and harassed have to be cut some slack, I agree - if they over-react to the actual harasser and not punish third parties who annoy them at the moment. By Sitush’s lights I should deserve no sanction for my less than perfect reactions to his extreme harassment. And I agree.
Sitush describes as “behavioral problems” a) a link to my frustration about the Arbitration he pushed so hard for. I mention some of the silly issues that might be raised. The IAC sockpuppets did come along as I predicted. Also, my apology to Arbitrator Salvio giuliano for misreading his comment on LawrencePrincipe’s two-revert proposal which had been used falsely to beat on the GGTF in a number of forums.posting and c) a link per dispute resolution where I went to an editor’s talk page to explain to her that she was mischaracterizing in many forums a misunderstanding (for which I immediately apologized) as a hostile accusation. I provided ample diffs and asked her to stop do it. The diff Sitush provided makes this very clear. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sitush "Loads of problems" comment, I added a couple diffs again, from evidence per Sitush's comment. Also, your talk page diff in question is so darn long and meandering, I'll let others figure out whether or not it has any relevant diffs. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Loads of problems with the above, including by violating policy to annoy me^{[citation needed]} and may or may not contain relevant diffs^[vague]. - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission by Iridescent

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link

Iridescent claims two of my statements are untrue.His first diff links to a User:Tarc talk page entry where we discuss Tarc's ANI comment about Sitush saying he would follow me around like SPECIFICO did.[181] I express my frustrated opinion on Sitush's harassment and motivation. (Sitush jumps in and tells me to “piss off.”)
Iridescent's second claim is this long biography-related thread on Sitush's talk page. Sitush makes a vague and, to me, very “snitchy” accusation of criminal-sounding behavior; after two attempts I find out he’s referring disparagingly to an open act of civil disobedience I did in the 1980s and wrote about at an advocacy organization’s site. He claims it's for his biography of me - admitting it might not be a reliable source. In my opinion, it's Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information which reads in relevant part: Posting of personal information: The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be.
Re: complaint about my "sources." I agree, I should not have mentioned a confused memory of 3 month old comment on some user talk page. As for private emails, we are not supposed to divulge who wrote what. In any case, they did not reveal anything I did not also read on Wikipedia talk pages on a second or third re-read. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Sitush comment on misrepresentations: You can nitpick tiny little differences in opinion on interpretation that would take other editors and Arbitrators 15 diffs to figure out. The bottom line is you were engaging in: Posting of personal information The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. You just don't get that, do you? But having just read those diffs from Neotarf about how much your friends enjoy using the word "tw*t", I think it becomes clear at least part of your motivation for opposing a person who you considered an effective activist from having anything to do with GGTF. Every day the scales fall further from my eyes. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

One of the many other misrepresentations is this, which is not Sitush saying he would follow me around. Nor, indeed, did I have a great deal more to do with CMDC until this case was accepted - I stuck to what I said I would do and raised in Evidence. Similarly, I did not say the thing that CMDC refers to as "civil disobedience" would be used in the BLP: please review the section Iridescent linked to and note, inter alia, my comment that I only bring up the link in this message because you claim I'm wrong. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would CMdc have even known who I was three months before she visited my talk page? She should admit she started the rumour or show the source if she wants to be taken seriously. J3Mrs (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission by RegentsPark

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with Sitush that my words appear to have been subtly misrepresented. Aside from the fact that, when talking to Sitush, I wasn't Arbitrator Salvio, but rather Wikipedian Salvio, I did not tell him not to create a BLP about Carol, with the implication that I was using my "authority" to direct Sitush not to do something. Rather, I was merely letting him know that my personal advice was against creating such a page.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 12:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Submission link
RegentsPark writes: “she seems to be obsessed with Sitush”. No, Sitush has been obsessed with me. Why else would he put all that energy into writing a biography of me that he claimed was good work! He argued it shouldn’t be deleted and was so obsessed he ignored [what Sitush called "at least one member of ArbCom"][182]~~Arbitrator telling him~~ [who later said he had been "advising"][183] him not to do it and endured six talk page threads of editors telling him it was a terrible idea. Only then did he move it to neutral space. His obsession lead to extreme battleground behavior. I'm still coping with the negative emotional effects of it.
RegentsPark presents two diffs[184] [185] of complex Arbitration-related issues I brought up on the Evidence talk page. That is allowed and they were dealt with.
Re: threats versus Sitush: As a 20 year legal secretary in Washington DC, in the absence of actual evidence, I can't claim knowledge of a crime after seeing only vague allegations[186] of what even others also assumed was some sort of physical threat.[187] I had over a 1000 death threats by a well-known long term abuser through the Wikimedia mail system, which it still took many email discussions and six months to deal with. I wouldn't like to see someone who had not done something like that to Sitush be accused without evidence. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Salvio giuliano. The sentence I refers to is Sitush writing: At least one member of ArbCom is aware that I am looking into the possibilities of sourcing such a revived BLP.[188] And I should have quoted you exactly my reply, verbatim, was 'I advise against creating a BLP for Carol'.[189] I have corrected both errors above. Just trying too hard to keep it short. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sitush "MfD, which ended with a WP:IAR decision" User:Fram wrote: The result of the discussion was Delete. reason? IAR. Seriously. It is clear that the only reason that Sitush has created this article (draft) is because of the conflict with Carolmooredc. Whether she is notable or not is not important. Sitush should stay far away from any article on her, never mind start it. etc. In this context means, ignore all rules about WP:RS, notability, etc. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I really haven't got a clue how this page is supposed to work. The numerous statements added thus far by Carolmooredc contain a swathe of misrepresentations etc and meanderings into stuff that doesn't seem to relate to GGTF. I don't want to create bloat and in any event have neither the time nor the access, so just a quick couple of points.

The now deleted attack biography was not an attack and I invite the arbitrators to examine that article and its talk page at the point where I personally stopped editing it. And the statement in this section that he ignored an Arbitrator telling him not to do it (ie: draft that BLP) misrepresents what Salvio giuliano told her only a few days ago. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and she still keeps raising something here that she was asked not to mention again on-wiki in the Evidence phase. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

endured six talk page threads of editors telling him it was a terrible idea is not entirely true. For example, I "endured" nothing (emotive and you cannot read my mind) and it wasn't unanimous that the thing was a terrible idea (nor was it in the MfD, which ended with a WP:IAR decision). - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission by TParis

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link.

TParis’s comment did help me tweak my evidence. Sitush first WP:ANI comment - “I do wish I could demonstrate it here without outing you.”[190] - indicates that in his mind he was contemplating what he then considered outing. The second one was not technically outing: “Carolmooredc is not easily intimidated, as should be obvious from her website that she one linked to via her userpage and from the subject areas that she chooses to edit on Wikipedia.”[191] However, Sitush's comment demonstrates contemptuous violation of Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information which I quoted above regarding "dredging up their off line opinions".
That policy paragraph continues: However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. Sitush should have done a WP:COIN or even done an WP:RfC/U instead of violating policy, again, in my opinion, to push for Arbitration.
Finally, Sitush's second statement also is problematic because he mentions my not being intimidated as if it’s a bad thing. Isn't intimidation itself a bad thing and an aspect of battleground behavior? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

as if it’s a bad thing Eh? I do not know how you can interpret my comment in that way. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission by Neotarf

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suggest everyone read the diffs presented in toto, as the selective quotes and editorializing are completely and I dareay intentionally taken out of context to paint a picture of wrongdoing by many editors. My opinion is that these amount to nothing more than Neotarf standing at the rostrum to announce their offense. In a case which the use of vulgar terms is being discussed, Neotarf takes great exception if euphemisms are not used. Decorum must be balanced with practicality.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I just read Neotarf's Sequelae and a couple earlier diffs I missed and there sure is a lot of use of "tw*t" by certain editors. I've known that was a "dirty word" since around 1957! If Arbitrators were concerned the word TERF used against editors ~~was~~ could be a personal attack[192], I'd like to think they consider "tw*t" is (as well as "c*nt) and will rule that way. Enough already. This use of slurs against women and the desire of certain parties to defend their use is the real problem here. It is what inflamed many editors at GGTF and made them highly suspicious and reactive to Corbett and allies commenting at GGTF. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neotarf doesn't make sure her evidence is accurate.

e.g. Neotarf used this diff [193] I understand you to be a woman... therefore I can't possibly help; my misogyny simply wouldn't allow it. to show Eric Corbet is a misogynist.

Eric edited the article William of Wrotham substantially after Ealdgyth's request on his page. When I pointed this out to Neotarf[194], Neotarf made an irrelevant response minutes later, but didn't change her evidence to note Eric's comment was a joke, not a misogynist comment.[195] EChastain (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Mr. Corbett has not stricken his remarks, and I have quoted him exactly. It's quite possible he regards the whole thing as a joke, as I have not seen anything that indicates he is willing to recognize his role in any of this.—Neotarf (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf, why on earth should he strike that ironic joke? Anyone who knows the situation knows it was a joke. The female editor in question (who has been editing here for over 7 years and has collaborated with Eric on FAs for almost as long) also knew it was a joke and reacted to it as a joke. But you steadfastly maintain that this is accurate evidence that he is a misogynist. It encapsulates the problem with much of this case. Evidence seems to have been assembled by searching talk pages for key words and presenting the results indiscriminately with a complete disregard for context and complete unfamiliarity with the background. There is plenty of poor behaviour all around which can be used as properly documented evidence. But every time false evidence is presented and the presenter refuses to acknowledge that they got the wrong end of the stick on that occasion, it speaks volumes. Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought from the beginning that it was a joke--a cruel one. Over and over Mr. Corbett has been called out over his contemptuous remarks about women, but instead of acknowledging these legitimate concerns, his only response has been to snark and mock, and to trigger one thread after another where the provocative slurs can be repeated again and again and again. I don't see "poor behaviour all around", I see the bullies taking over the playground. —Neotarf (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never made any contemptuous remarks about women, not here on Wikipedia or anywhere else, and nor am I ever likely to. That you continue to make such false claims does you no credit whatsoever. You may attempt to put together a case that I make contemptuous remarks towards people if you wish, but I can assure you that the gender of the editor to whom I'm speaking is of no relevance to me; I don't treat women any differently from men, and anyone who claims that I do is a blackguard and a liar . Eric Corbett 18:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time Mr. Corbett has called me a liar (and is it pronounced CORE-butt or cor-BET?), but I hope Arbcom will make sure it's the last. —Neotarf (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is to stop telling lies, quite simple really. Eric Corbett 22:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about some diffs for that, Mr. Corbett, instead of just reverting my edits. —Neotarf (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission by Carolmooredc

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Carolmooredc's evidence includes Seven of Sitush’s 10 edits at GGTF were directed at me. There were nine such edits at the point when someone with whom I don't think I've ever had any interaction before posted this analysis in response to her oft-repeated claims of hounding. CMDC has similarly misrepresented in her claims regarding my use of her talk page. There are numerous "calling outs" of her evidence on the Evidence talk page also. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares when there were 9 edits? There were ten when I entered my evidence. And anyone can follow them and see they were about me or you reverting my talk page comments which is a "no no." Not a good example of "misrepresentation." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you miss my point: I wasn't suggesting that you cannot count but rather that the analysis does not include whatever my tenth contribution may have been. You are being disingenuous regarding User_talk:Scottywong/Archive_23#Continued_disruption, immediately following which you did amend your behaviour when substantively modifying your statements in order to bring things more into line with REDACT. Thank you for that, although I still find it very messy to follow much of what you write because of the sheer number of changes you make and am often reminded of A. E. Housman: Three minutes' thought would have told him he was wrong but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time. Please excuse the male pronoun in that quotation. - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoist by my own petard or what? <g> Wikiquote shows a different version. - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Voceditenore: I was not aware of Neotarf's comment, but the old photo on Corbett's talk page with the Mafia joke and Sitush's excellent analysis of what others think of the Manchester group is what is relevant. If there wasn't a perception of group bad conduct, the term mafia would not be relevant. The teacher sounded like he'd be scared to be on Eric's wrong side; Arbitrators can suss out when and why a user was banned if they like, and whether that has any relevance to the quote of the moment. (Maybe he was harassed into bad behavior that got him blocked; I don't know.) And anyone coming to my talk page to plead Eric or Sitush case when either refuses to admit calling a woman a cunt or leaving "Twatt" messages on their talk pages is just [Insert whatever words you imagine I think.] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What "Manchester group". Please will you stop making these absolutely ludicrous claims. Read what I said in the very diff that you provided: it is an allegation made by others, and repeatedly perpetuated by yourself in your numerous statements of bad faith. Perhaops spend a little more time thinking about what you have read before jumping to conclusions. As with the recent Polish statue farrago that was all heat and no light, courtesy of your incorrect assumptions and rapid-fire spreading of the same. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester know each other personally and comment on each others pages and get involved in each others disputes. Corbett, Sitush, J3Mrs, User:Richerman, are a few of them. There may be a more popular description of the dozens of individuals who run out to cover Corbett and Sitush's butts no matter how badly they misbehave, claiming their allegedly wondrous contributions (or mass deletions in other cases) excuse their calling people idiots and c*nts and tw*atts and whatever else they like to say to insult other editors who disagree with them. Whatever people call the Corbett/Sitush/etc network, it's obviously a rather nasty battleground alliance that needs to be broken up. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to User:Richerman for forgetting to link to his name. This diff at the GGTF evidence talk page shows your defense of Sitush and knowledge and strong opinions regarding the matter. Just your interactions with Corbett[196] seem significant. However, I'm not saying everyone in Manchester interacts on or agrees with everyone on every issue ~~and I'm glad to see you don't like the use of the C-word!~~ And obviously the Corbett/Sitush/etc network, whatever it's called, extends far beyond Manchester, so that's not the best description anyway. But it is at least a couple people's joking or serious opinion, as evidenced here. Manchester editors might look at GGTF media page to see how much media love to write about the gender gap and sexism on Wikipedia. With Eric et al yelling sexual slurs right and left, it's just a matter of time before your Wikiproject ends up on the front pages of the Manchester Guardian. So it's in your interest to get them all to cool it. Peer pressure's the best pressure. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Voceditenore: FYI, I think it's more fun to wait and see how long before the media catches up on C-gate. Again, did you see how much they love to snoop around Wikipedia? They all use it. I'm just sharing a word to the wise. And making sure that I every false allegation is shown up in case they decide to use Wikipedia to go after me for some future off-wikipedia activity. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This whole page gloriously illustrates why Carolmooredc needs to be topic-banned off GGTF as an absolute minimum step. She is a non-stop combatant. Her quoting the essay "Wikipedia is not a Battleground" above was particularly choice. She was right up front throwing the first stones in the evidence section of this case, a fact which I hope will not escape the members of ArbCom. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Carol Moore keeps going and going and going, it is becoming pretty clear to me that there is no place in a collaborative project for her. Absolute non-stop warrorism, ranting about "networks" to be "broken up" and pure venom. So if her topic-ban at GGTF needs to be taken as an absolute minimum step, I suggest that a full site ban for her would do more to improve the editing environment here than any other step that ArbCom could take in this case. This is not an isolated incident with her, but her existential nature, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CMDC's evidence re the "Manchester Mafia" and battleground "alliances" is riddled with misrepresentations and mis-construals. For example, this 2012 diff about making a Manchester Mafia joke was a response to this comment about "a bizarre form of mafia 'ownership' of certain areas of wikipedia" made earlier that day by the sock of a banned user who created much disruption at the FA and GA processes over many years (see`Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse). The "Manchester Mafia" meme was perpetuated by Neotarf in this 4 October 2014 comment. Hardly surprising that those who were accused of being members of this "mafia" subsequently make jokes about it or mention it. Of the two diffs which allegedly demonstrate Corbett's "battleground alliances", this one from 2009 is from a teacher who ran a high school class project on Wikipedia thanking Corbett for the help he had given to his students. The other is the one from the banned user which I cited above. Meanwhile, the 3 diffs alleging "his friends on call" were simply comments pointing out very politely to CMDC that Corbett has often helped and worked with women editors. Two of those diffs were from the female editors themselves. I haven't checked the rest in that section for similar problems, but I assume the arbitrators will. Voceditenore (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't take credit for introducing Manchester memes. They were initiated by Drmies, who called it the "Manchester sausagefest network". —Neotarf (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester has a lot more to worry about than you and me.[197] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by the latest of Carolmoooredc's rants against an alleged "battleground alliance". I'm also becoming increasingly fed up of the accusations. ... know each other personally ... Corbett, Sitush, J3Mrs, Richerman, are a few of them I've never met J3Mrs, Eric Corbett has said more than once that he has not done so either, and Richerman said the same at some point in the past. I've met Eric and Richerman exactly once, and I couldn't follow what was going on that time due to my profound deafness, as has been explained more than once. (Also why I do not use the phone.) Perhaps we are all liars, though? Is that what you mean? And who are the others whom I am supposed to know "personally", or is that just another of the many vaguities that I've been seeing here?

I am not aware that it is inappropriate to comment on talk pages; in fact, there isn't much point in having them unless comments are permitted. They have proved very useful for many FA/GA collaborations etc, of which St John's Church, Manchester is a recent example. It's amazing how many articles can be created and improved if people spend a reasonable amount of time on articles rather than on campaigns, and I encourage you to have a go.

I cannot recall having ever called someone a cunt here or comparing them with Twatt ("you are similar to a tiny settlement in Shetland" doesn't really make much sense). I do worry, though, about all these dozens of people that allegedly run out in support of my actions: the notion that I might be doing something right, or at least reasonable, much of the time is simply shocking and I should flagellate myself for this wiki-sin. Odd, also, that the same people often criticise or chide, perhaps the most notable recent example in my case being Bishonen. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Carolmoooredc has now dragged me into this without having the courtesy to inform me that I have been mentioned. I have never had any contact with her or the Gender Gap Task force, so what she thinks gives her the right to bring me in to this is beyond me. For the record, as a member of the Greater Manchester WikiProject, I have worked with Eric Corbett, Sitush and J3MRS (amongst others) on a number of articles. I have met Eric and Sitush once, two years ago, at a wikimeet in Manchester and yesterday agreed to meet up again in this edit which seems to be what has kicked off these wild accusations. I have become involved with disputes on articles to which I have contributed, but I don't recall ever "running out to defend" anyone's "misbehaviour" or "excus[ing] their calling people idiots and c*nts and tw*atts and whatever else they like to say to insult other editors who disagree with them". Why Ms Moore thinks she, or anyone else, can dictate who I can associate with on or off wikipedia is a complete mystery to me and I take great exception the the accusations being made. Richerman (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The raw data about the number of my interactions with Eric Corbett has no significance at all. My only knowledge of this matter comes from what I have read here after seeing it flagged up on Eric Corbett's talk page and following up some of the diffs. My comment that you linked to was to correct what I saw as misrepresentation of the situation and I have not given an opinion as to whether or not I "like the use of the C-word". However, as you seem determined to twist others' comments to suit your own agenda I don't have either the time or the inclination to comment here further. Richerman (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am utterly flabbergasted by Carol's response to Richerman. She accuses him of defense of Sitush and knowledge and strong opinions regarding the matter. In that diff on the evidence talk page, he pointed out Neotarf's error in the insinuations that an alleged "death threat" was directed at Carol. Neotarf and Carol's insinuations had continued despite three separate arbitrators having already confirmed that this was not the case. There were several other editors who also pointed out errors in those insinuations. However, Richerman's sin seems to be pointing out an error and belonging to WikiProject Greater Manchester. The pièce de résistance is the veiled threat that word could get out that WikiProject Greater Manchester encourages sexual slurs against women and their members could all end up on the front page of The Guardian. (By the way, it hasn't been called the Manchester Guardian in 50 years and isn't a local Manchester paper.) Really, Carol, you should strike that whole paragraph, it damages no one but yourself. Voceditenore (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CMdc repeatedly demanding editors AGF at the same time as accusing them of battleground behaviour followed by her very own conspiracy theory is hypocritical. She assumes far too much and her assumptions are way off the mark. For the record I have not met any members of the GM or any other project or attended any event for wikipedians although what business it is of hers I have no idea. Also for the record on the GGTF page I was challenging remarks regarding women being expected to edit things of "interest to women" whatever that sweeping statement means, ludicrous ideas like women receiving special treatment and countering ideas of misogyny that were being thrown about. I haven't used any "rude" words and don't advocate using them but in this case consider them less problematic than making up rumours, non-stop character assassination and veiled threats. I have completely lost the plot as to what this is about because I don't look in every day and have already noted that CMdc has frequently changed her initial posts, re-hashed evidence and attempts to have the last word on every change, so that any comments made by anyone else appear disjointed or unrelated. I don't understand what most of these walls of text have to do with the GGTF. Simply put, dissent from CMdc's pov is seen by her as disruption and she will go to any lengths to "prove" it by visiting numerous pages in an attempt to gain traction for her views. J3Mrs (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission by Rich Farmbrough

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Neotarf provides refs showing c*nt and tw*t are gender specific.
Rich Farmbrough quotes me writing: "First of all, the "we" gives me the impression you are a woman. First time I knew it. I don't see any indication on your user page, unless I missed it." Basically a coded "accusation" that the other editor is male. First, I resent the accusation I'm saying anything in code to GandyDancer besides the plain truth that I didn't know her gender and didn't find that info on her user page. Is this some new rule that editors or women or GGTF participants must try to find out the gender of every participant the first time they edit at the site and make a mental note and be sure not to "accuse" them of the wrong sex? Or does it mean that no one is supposed to comment on whether the commenter is a man or woman? I just can't figure out what the issue is here.
Re: Salvio Guiliano, some good points I hope the Arbitrators are considering. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neotarfs refs show "cunt" and "twat" may be gender specific, however they also show they may be gender neutral as well. Also one of the sources used by Neotarf is urbandictionary.com. That any experienced editor would consider that a RS is mind boggling.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Per Sitush's evidence, the other time I apologized for not knowing someone was a woman she blasted it all over as an "accusation."[198] I no one here can explain the "crime" per my question, I'll got to GGTF and maybe they'll know what it is. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Responding to Carol:

I believe that this is not the only occasion Carol has had to back-track after finding a contributor was a woman. The other involved an editor who said she got no support from women.

Responding to Carol and Two kinds

I believe the only term we were looking at was "twat".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC).

Submission by SPECIFICO

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

User:SPECIFICO’s evidence displays his intolerance for those who hold views on Israel, liberty and economics, feminism and gender that differ from his very strong point of view. I believe he would censor ideas and ban editors who hold them from Wikipedia; he's been trying to do it to me for over a year.

Now he drudges up 6 and 7 year old diffs and things from an earlier 2014 Arbitration, giving them an even more inaccurate and ominous spin this time around. The fact that the community Ibanned him from Wikihounding because he obsessively wikihounded me to new articles and then to GGTF must be upsetting to him. See September 2014 ANI that lead to Iban of SPECIFICO from me.

Yes, I lost my temper with the 2013 WP:BLP problems that were detailed by a number of editors in another Arbitration; I got a year topic ban for “certain insufficiently supported personal attacks on other editors”(?) and being “too involved.” And I got annoyed and "too involved" at GGTF because an editor who replied to a woman saying: “the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one” then came to the Gender Gap task force with others who defend such language, evidently to disrupt it. As the evidence shows, I'm not the only editor who expressed distress.

The failings of most diffs speak for themselves. User:Johnuniq's 2013 analysis of the SPECIFICO-cited Steeletrap ANI against me, I believe, also describes SPECIFICO's evidence here: If Steeletrap keeps posting ridiculous claims like Another personal attack, WP:COMPETENCE should be invoked to remove the editor from ANI, and possibly from Wikipedia if the same lack-of-clue shown here is evident in more general editing.

However, I do want to correct a few non-obvious errors or points:

Re: a couple more links of posts I made from Wikimedia Foundation’s gender gap email list. Not many women on the list actually admit they still edit here and several have said they’ve become too disgusted to. It was silly to hope inviting them to help with GGTF would change that!! In any case, I don’t know what they do "canvassing-wise" on other Foundation mailing lists, like the LGBT one. That list might be able to provide us with further guidance on the issue.
This is the whole Jehochman/Sitush thread where I make it clear I watch the Administrator's board and I had highly relevant information on a topic there, including how long it takes Wikimedia Foundation to deal with threats of physical violence that come through their email system.
RE:“Disruptive talk page notices by User:SPECIFICO” WP:ANI. I see initial talk of an Iban lost among off-topic allegations. Where's the proposed “boomerang block”?
This single link distorts my 2011 Unblock request from a 3 month block protested by the community as being way to harsh. In my case, I apologized to the individual offended by my intrusive question, which I'd linked to at Wikia which I thought was part of Wikipedia. The editor accepted the apology[199] and the block was reduced to the one week served. I see now that User:Jehochman got quite a lecture there about harassing me, which is rather ironic. To end, this was one situation where ANI policy was applied fairly, consistently and appropriately. If policy had been applied that fairly for incivility and harassment over the years, we might never have had the GGTF problems in the first place!! And far less of a gender gap, IMHO. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 06:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction I have never stated a point of view "on Israel, liberty and economics, feminism and gender," let alone a "very strong point of view." In fact I have no opinions on these subjects. In any event no such personal opinions should affect our editing here, even in the case of editors who may be activists in their personal lives. This feels like another unsupported personal aspersion. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO's evidence amply states his point of view! SPECIFICO talks about my "anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli POV", inferring criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. He even asserts my mentioning the difficulty of editing at Israel-Palestine articles is a Jewish smear vs. Steeletrap! He focuses on innocuous diffs[200][201][202] Guess what, putting critical RS about Israel in Wikipedia articles is allowed. But you infer it's such a crime editors should be shunned for it or worse. How many times have I told you smearing editors as anti-semites with nonsense evidence is a blockable offense. So you just do it at Arbitrations now, where I guess you can get away with it.

"Liberty and economics" is an overview phase for a narrower topic I'm not supposed to mention per early 2014 Arbitration. IMHO, your fury at my not bowing down to your views in related articles is the reason I had to file all the complaints against you in 2013 linked at the ANI that led to the IBAN.[203]

And your total intolerance for feminist or "gender critical" views is evident by your view that woman born woman is a transphobic slur. (I never did have time to add properly referenced info to show its various uses.) It's also evident from your saying I'm a bigot because I said I don't know what your gender is; your user page still has the user box saying "This user prefers to be referred to by whatever gender pronoun makes you feel comfortable." And then there's your ridiculous diff "proving" [I stalked Steeletrap that contained Johnuniq's quote above about her nonsense "evidence".

And you think feminists can't criticize Bill Clinton as a womanizer and alleged abuser and rapist? Or complain that the section header on the long section of that topic was removed? (You and Steeletrap rushed to put me down when I complained about that on the Clinton bio page, didn't you?)

I think I've amply illustrated here that SPECIFICO has "intolerance for those who hold views on Israel, liberty and economics, feminism and gender that differ from his very strong point of view." I think intelligent people can figure it out reading his evidence and following what the diffs actually say. Disgraceful! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest both you and SPECIFICO just ignore each other's posts. If anything is egregious, others will pick up the mantle for you. Im also going to suggest that the community placed 1-way IBAN be changed to a 2-way IBAN set by Arbcom. If that helps you lose your temper less often, so much the better.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mitigating issues with Wikipedia's current consensus convention

With the existing conventions of English Wikipedia, it is difficult to resolve the problems with its consensus approach, due to the stalemate of requiring consensus to adopt new variations. However, it may be feasible to gain agreement, on a case-by-case basis, to deploy various techniques to streamline discussion. For example, a moderator can be agreed upon to build up a summary of the discussion, with a consolidated pros and cons list, so that repetition of the same points can be minimized.

In order to encourage the shepherding of ideas from an initial idea to a more fully developed state, within Wikipedia's current consensus tradition, I suggest it is reasonable for the editors interested in a topic to consider allowing a working group of editors to specify a fixed period of time during which they can complete an initial analysis, after which they will open up discussion to the larger community. During this preliminary phase, the working group can self-select those who can participate. Care should be taken to not unduly limit participation: In order to maximize the value of the initial analysis, it should look at all points of view for the topic of discussion, and seek to provide an even-handed summary that considers the positives and negatives of all sides.

Any mitigation approach requires the co-operation of the key participants, which may be a problem for contentious issues. Nonetheless, anything that can be done to reduce repetitive discussion will both increase the likelihood of greater participation from more editors, and free up time to make other Wikipedia contributions. Given these highly desirable effects, these options should be given due consideration when the opportunity arises. isaacl (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis is specifically regarding the evidence I presented, and is not simply general discussion. The evidence describes difficulties with consensus decision-making in large groups, highlighting the points of contention upon which I wish to place emphasis, and my analysis has presented possibilities for mitigating them. If anyone would like to emphasize different aspects, I encourage them to submit a statement doing so. isaacl (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think you want this under "General discussion." Of course, you fail to mention that editors need to act in good faith and not hold any number of views/allegiances that seek to undermine the very purposes of a Wikiproject. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 514: / Line 514: @@
 :'''Comment by parties:'''
+::{{ping|Ca2james}} You are begging the question as to whether the Evidence demonstrates that CMDC was harassed.  In fact none of the evidence shows that, while on the other hand there's abundant evidence which demonstrates CMDC harassing other editors. I do agree with you that such harassment is inexcusable, as is any attempt to [[Victim blaming|blame the victims]]. [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']]  19:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
-::
 :'''Comment by others:'''