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:

Comment by others:

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 that cannot be resolved at the talk page, the proper forum for resolving the issue is discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council or through dispute resolution processes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Comment by others:

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 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:

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 or to target and harass editors, administrators or arbitrators who try to deal with any abuses. Editors should not talk in military terms about battling other editors or badger editors to join such alliances. Use of private email, IRC channels or “talk page stalking” to facilitate such battleground efforts is WP:Canvassing. Such alliances may not be technically involve WP:Conflict of interest or WP:Meatpuppetry behavior. However, when practiced regularly they similarly undermine adherence to Wikipedia policy, destroy honest editorial collaboration and drive 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]

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]

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]

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. The practice of “talk page stalking” should not be used as a means of canvassing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Comment by others:

Opposition research

7) WP:Harassment states: "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 an extension of the Wikimedia Foundations Terms of Use policy linked from the bottom of most Wikipedia pages. It applies to editors, administrators and arbitrators. 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:

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:

Ending gender-related slurs

10) Slurs based on gender, often related to their body parts or sexual activities, are no more acceptable at Wikipedia than slurs against homosexuals, people of color, disabled people, people of various nationalities, etc. Use of slurs against women may have a particularly negative effect on their participation. The fact that some small groups in some English speaking countries may use them does not excuse their use on Wikipedia. Tens and even hundreds of millions of English speakers know what they mean and it hurts Wikipedia's reputation to have them bandied about.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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[3] 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]

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[4] 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]

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.

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 and any double standard refusal to enforce policy against members of favored demographic groups, has no place on Wikipedia. Inconsistent and unfair application of policies has no place on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[Placeholder for: Proposed findings of fact, Proposed remedies, Proposed enforcement]

Proposals by User:Example 2

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:

Proposals by User:Example 3

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”.[5] [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.[6] 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[7][8][9] 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[10][11][12] 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.[13]
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[14][15]” 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[16]. 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.[17] 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[18] as he had recently at this WP:ANI.[19] 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[20] 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.[21] 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[22][23], his defending use of the "C-Word" on Wales talk page, his leaving the "Twatt, Orley"[24] 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: [25]. 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.[26].

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.[[27][28] (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[29][30][31][32]) 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.[33]

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[34] 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.[35] (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[36]; 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.”[37] 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.[38] 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]

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"][39]~~Arbitrator telling him~~ [who later said he had been "advising"][40] 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[41] [42] 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[43] of what even others also assumed was some sort of physical threat.[44] 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.[45] And I should have quoted you exactly my reply, verbatim, was 'I advise against creating a BLP for Carol'.[46] 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.”[47] - 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.”[48] 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[49], 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:

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]

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]

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]

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: