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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

Final comments

The above mass of talk page threads is a mostly unreadable morass. I am going to attempt to pick out some points from above, but as the case winds down (we are currently waiting on the votes of three arbs on the single remedy that is still deadlocked) can everyone please stop arguing above and limit themselves to brief statements down here in this section. That may be the only way to get discussion here back under control. Carcharoth (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• I admire your optimism. I am afraid that trying to clean the above may look more like cleansing it to someone or another, and leaving it may be the best option. Dennis - 2¢ 00:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The intent was not so much to cleanse the above, but to get people to engage in statement-style final comments down here (as opposed to threaded discussion). (This would be the corollary to the opening statements made at the case request stage, which is also non-threaded). Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Ok, here's a statement. It isn't over 'til the fat lady sings and arbs should pay attention to what has been said above. At the very least, they should acknowledge having read the various proposals. As the votes stand at present, they seem to be way out of sync. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I wasn't questioning your objectivity Carcharoth, and if I wasn't clear then, I will be now: that was not my intent. I'm simply saying it may be problematic no matter what you do, so it is worth considering to leave this one a mess. It is a bit of a no win scenario, like Kobayashi Maru. Dennis - 2¢ 00:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• After Eric's commitment to be civil in future [1], the committee should now just warn him to abide by that commitment. Eric has never given a commitment like that before, as far as I can recall. Until now, it's always been "I'll be civil when you start insisting admins be civil", or words to that effect. So that commitment is a good result. Eric is unlikely to renege on that commitment, and if he does, none of his very patient supporters is likely object to a significant ban being imposed.

One thing that will test Eric's ability and willingness to stand by his commitment will be the outcome of a concurrent case involving judgment and civility issues with an admin. Please get that one right.

If you ban Eric in this case, you'll have failed to bring about the best result with the least harm. If you fail in the other case, too, you'll have missed (with this combination of cases) an opportunity to significantly lift the quality of discourse on this project: having Eric actively editing here, modelling respectful address will noticeably improve the ethos (many of the more impressionable regulars take their lead from him) and a good result in the other case will likewise be edifying to the rest of the admin corps - who should be models of civil discourse and (ideally) sound argument. (In that case you have more options before you than just de-sysopping or a promise to reform. I'm pretty sure it'll take more than a promise, but less than a full de-sysopping, to resolve that one.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• I fear that a case taken on when none of the main parties wished it has been subject to so much disruption that we are facing a combination of The Concorde Fallacy and The Sunk Cost Dilemma in terms of time taken up by all of this, and mental effort trying to cope with the morass of information, above. We are facing a situation of Group polarization in which sub-optimal decisions are likely to be made. I think stepping back and considering some of the non-banning options for all are the best way forward now, (we have a number of reasonable new proposals, above, about this). I also think ArbCom needs to pay more attention to cleaning up its decision-making processes.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well as I said before whatever the outcome of the case I hope things change for the better, the outcome I see reduces the drama here on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Final statement. Currently there is no consensus among the arbitrators on a remedy on Eric Corbett for frequency using that word. The only remedy looking to pass is a siteban, a solution no arb has indicated to be really happy with. Two possible remedies that don't have proposals on the case page are a narrow topic ban for just the wikiproject, which NNative Foreigner indicates he would support, has support from NYB, and when looking at the comments may have support from GW, AGK, Carcharoth and Roger Davies. That should be sufficient to propose and discuss it. A second remedy, possibly in conjunction with the former, is the "civility parole" / "bad words ban". Since Eric has himself indicated he would keep himself to something along these lines, and the use of bad words seems to be the largest objection to Eric's behavior, this too could make a good proposed remedy. Together they could change Wikipedia for the better, rather than going full site ban which nobody really wants. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I see an easy way to clean up: drop the case. If I was an arbitrator and not happy with a "solution", I would abstain. - COI: I am against site bans, at all. I think that they are not a civil way to solve conflicts, just easy. You may know that I sacrificed my reputation defending Andy from being banned (two arbitrators changed their vote then). You may also know that I was the one who made Kevin Gorman apologize to Eric, perhaps the effort on the project I am most proud of. - See also Boys will be boys...?, thank you Drmies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that a site ban is an over reaction. If that passes, the headline will be "Wikipedia editor banned for using the terrible C word." All other facets of the case will be lost on 99% of observers. If instead you assume that Eric will keep his promises, which has been his habit to do, there is no need for a site ban, because he has promised to stop using terrible words on Wikipedia. Can somebody from the Committee have a frank conversation with Eric to ensure that the right promises have been made, if there are any lingering doubts? The decision can document what was promised and say what happens if promises are broken. Jehochman ^Talk 08:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overreaction does not begin to describe this travesty and miscarriage of pseudo-justice. Are we really going to ban one of the best (if not 'the best)' editor because he uses naughty words? I have not seen one jot of evidence that he has driven editors away, and seen quite a lot of evidence that he encourages editors to stay and write. The fact that Jimbo and his mates don't like him should not a reason to ban him, if it were one wonders who would be left (I could hazard a few guesses). He's agreed to curb his language - what more do people want? This is beginning to look more like an auto-da-fé than a supposedly elected committee ironing out a few problems. I just cannot see how anyone can think this is best serving the encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have a headline: Wikipedia addresses its "Gender Gap" by banning another female editor Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• The main effect of the current remedies would be that the GGTF would be dead. Any remaining life in it would be sucked out by DS. I do not see this as a "success" for arbcom. I would have expected the remedies to facilitate vigorous activity of the GGTF in a disruption free environment. OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Hawkeye7: Do tell what other uppity females have been banned? Did they also rebel against the Brit imperium? Well, the whole world is watching and I'll be curious to see when/if/how media coverage happens or if after I do my indepth/diff'd analysis I have to kick so butt to make sure it does. Feel free to email me.

@OrangesRyellow: Yeah, it doesn't look to good for GGTF even being a place to help beef up articles any more. However, the Imperium doesn't yet rule all of WMF... I hope! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• For multiple reasons outlined above (by both "sides"), the immediate site bans are a very regrettable outcome for the encyclopedia and for future relations between editors. Has ArbCom considered a remedy of "site ban suspended for one year", with the proviso that if any of the behaviour that led to the ban occurs, the site ban would be enacted immediately by ArbCom motion? What a pity it came to this! If I were the Empress of Arbcomia, I would decree that no party be allowed to submit evidence against any other party until they had done a thorough examination of conscience and listed all the things they had personally done (with diffs) which had led to or exacerbated the allegedly unresolvable conflict. They would be judged on technical merit, artistic impression, and self-awareness. Anyone with a score of less than 6 out of 10 would be automatically excluded from participating further and would simply have to await their fate in silence. I have a feeling that had this been done here, the outcome might have been very different. Voceditenore (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• At this point, Carolmooredc still won't take responsibility for her own behavior, and still clings to WP:CABAL as her explanation to herself. It wasn't the shape of her chromosomes that got her topic-banned on Austrian Economics not that many months ago, and it isn't the shape of her chromosomes that got her site banned here. It's the culmination of years of WP:BATTLE while hiding behind the gender card whenever it was called out. The truly shocking thing through the entire case was her inability to show any genuine remorse, and her delight in passing the buck for her own battleground behavior at every opportunity, usually in the red-meatiest terms she could sling, and even when at obvious variance with the truth. Such activity moves back, not forward, the progress of the vital and difficult issue she hides behind. Goodwinsands (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm about to take a long break, sticking around only due to rfa obligations, but before I leave I want to remind the Arb that we have two editors, both of whom are probably fine enough people in their own right, but whose objectives for being here are very different. One is focused on content, and if left alone, would only focus on content. They occasionally get into scuffles, not because they seek it out, but because it is thrust upon them. Often, their reaction is less than ideal, and sometimes, it is unacceptable and worthy of a short block to stop disruption. Then we have another editor who is capable of writing and does some, but spends most of their time in political battles, casting aspersions, and drawing lines in the sand to separate who is good and who is evil. One editor has spent a great deal of time building their fellow editors up, the other has spent a great deal of time tearing them down. No one is innocent, no one is perfect, no one is without blame, but if we are here to build an encyclopedia, you can not compare the two editors. They are not equal. As a meritocracy, there are obvious and clearly demonstrable differences in their motives, their actions and their histories. If motives mean nothing, the WP:AGF is meaningless. If the goal is to prevent disruption, then you have to take motives into account. Isn't necessary whether we agree or disagree with the motives, for as objective observers all we can and should do is weigh them against the stated goal of Wikipedia, to build an encyclopedia. While sanctions may be necessary and empowering admin to deal with future problems is prudent, if we lose sight of this singular goal, this one reasons why we are all here, then we've lost all authority to call ourselves an encyclopedia and may as well declare ourselves a social networking site, an experiment in human behavior. My hope is that the Arbitrators will set aside their personal feelings, their political ideals, their preconceived notions and take a look at the big picture and realize that while civility is important, it isn't the objective, it is simply one means to an end, and that end is articles. The reader is for the most part oblivious to what happens on these back pages. As you go back and make your final deliberations, ask yourself; Who has spent most of their time dedicated to improving the experience for the most important Wikipedian of all, the reader? Doing the right thing doesn't require you condone any activity, it only requires you acknowledge that nothing is truly free, everything has a price, and if looked at objectively, the price paid has been much smaller than some would have you believe. Thank you for your consideration. Dennis - 2¢ 14:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• 1. Eric Corbett has not committed to being civil in the future. He answered "Yes" to a question that only asked about one disruptive behavior. 2. Eric Corbett doesn't just "occasionally get into scuffles"; he regularly seeks out discussions and makes comments that he knows will be disruptive. This has gone on for years under different user names. Sadly, but truthfully, it's time to ban him. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

   Sock puppetry I really wish you would post with your primary account rather than continuing to violate WP:SCRUTINY after I informed you about it, after you didn't reply to my polite question,[2] and after admitting that you are using an IP for the sake of "privacy".[3] No you don't get to hide while throwing stones at somebody else. We are entitled to know the context of your remarks. The exemption you cited is for people editing articles, not for participating in arbitration. WP:ILLEGIT says, "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project."Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  Per WP:ILLEGIT, Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project and this qualifies. Please comment using your main account. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  I could be wrong but I think this is User:Lightbreather, just a gut feeling. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  I read WP:CHK. If it allowed English Wikipedia editors to request checks on themselves I would do so. If someone would request one for me, I would welcome it. Not that my opinion will change the outcome. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  I think the editing gaps match up [[4]] and [[5]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  We are at a rather critical point regarding keeping enough qualified editors around to maintain even what we now have, let alone further development. It could very easily be seen by editors and even press outside of the US that a decision against an editor regarding the use of the word "cunt" would be extremely counterproductive in terms of attracting and keeping editors from those areas. I cannot see how allowing one country's individual word usage to become a rule individuals from other countries are obligated to follow will have any positive results for the project. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Giano is right, in my view. Eric Corbett has not filed or posted long, repetitive ANI complaints. His comments on talk pages are not long, disruptive walls of text. His meaning is always clear (to me) and succinct, albeit sometimes rude. He's a fantastic editor, extremely knowledgeable, (almost) always correct in his comments about article problems and in his copy editing choices. He has helped many, many female editors, so the claim of misogamy is ridiculous.

  If he loses his cool in rare cases, at least he does it in short comments or in edit summaries, not in walls of confusing text, unsupported by diffs. Note: almost all of the diffs in the evidence section by EvergreenFir and Carolmooredc, copy/pastes from an ANI purporting to show his personal attacks and disruption,ANI#Disruption of Wikiproject were struck out.

  Yes, when he goes overboard, as in the RFA process, he needs to be stopped.

  As far as I can tell, his comments at GGTF were seen as disruptive by "the women" there. So restricting him from those two pages would fix that problem.

  But if GGTF members had responded to his requests for citations for the so-called "facts" they repeatedly posted, that too would have prevented the disruption and also given the GGTF more credibility. They appear not to understand the need for reliable sourcing. Or the offended women could have just ignored him (not as good as addressing problems he rightfully pointed out) under the philosophy of "Don't feed the trolls", that might have worked also.

  But the massive freaking out (by Lightbreather, Carolmooredc, Neotarf, EvergreenFir and others) escalated the situation to what we have now. I'm embarrassed, as a female, by their behavior.

  Banning a specific word used by Shakespeare, James Joyce etc., a word that only relatively recently became "forbidden", on the basis of predominantly U.S. standards, and calling for U.S. district court decisions regarding what constitutes a "hostile workplace" to be enforced on wikipedia seems like a bad move.

  In an interpersonal environment, people talking face-to-face, is entirely different than the internet environment of wikipedia. Yes, it's tense to try to edit here, especially when, from what I've seen, there are so many incompetent editors, and IMO, Carolmooredc and Neotarf are among them. (I've pointed out specific examples in previous postings here.) EChastain (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I hesitate to add anything at this late stage, especially something likely already considered. But has thought been given to simply restricting both Eric Corbett and Carolmooredc to editing only the article mainspace? That is, no article talk, usertalk or wikiproject edits - we can all point to problematic edits on these pages, but to the best of my knowledge neither Eric nor Carolmooredc has ever misused article space, and I can't imagine they would.

The benefit to Wikipedia is retaining two content contributors who can continue to expand our coverage of their various special subjects. The benefit to Eric and Carolmooredc is avoidance of bans which a number of Committee members have conceded are second-best outcomes. As a remedy it also avoids the apparent complexity associated with enforcing proposal 2.3. It would necessarily need an admonition against uncivil or pointy edit summaries, but I'd suggest this is small beer compared to the current issues of either incivility or battleground behaviour. As neither Eric nor Carolmooredc's editing interests overlap, it is also unlikely they will come into contact with each other through article work.

Just a compromise idea, aimed at reducing future disruption/AE clarification while retaining content contribtions from two people with good writing skills. Apologies if it has been proposed and rejected previously. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea on the face of it but as this is a collaborative project it would be difficult for any editor to work with/learn from/teach others without any dialogue being permitted. pablo 13:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the committee about proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies for Neotarf

I notice that GorillaWarfare agrees with Carcharoth that "I don't agree with every diff used", but they still both voted for it. Also that NewYorkBrad says "the emphasis on usernames and signatures is a bit misplaced". Would you consider a reordering of the diffs--a number of them are *very* old, and none of them have warnings. That is totally unfair to lump a huge number of old and bogus diffs together and ask everyone to vote whether they can find something wrong with "one" of them. Since three arbitrators agree on agree on that, how about separating the three sections and voting on them individually, but with quality diffs, not some that are four months old, and have never had any kind of warnings associated with them, so as not to poison the well against me by making it look like there are more issues than there really are.

The proper venue for questions about names is also not specified, although the finding of fact refers to "following normal dispute resolution on such matters" and the remedies refer to "appropriate channels". I'm assuming they mean something other than WP:BADNAME policy, which I have followed. There is also no finding about what channel I actually used.

And why are there a diff in there by Bishonen? If Bishonen is going to be cited as a reliable source about the Wikipedia meaning of "passive aggressive" as opposed to "passive aggressive" the mental disorder diagnosis, shouldn't it be moved to the "proposed principles" and not presented as if it was one of my edits and evidence of misconduct on my part? This is very misleading, and not at all fair to me.

So what I am asking for, to support the finding of fact and remedies, is something like:

Proposed Principles:

• 1) The proper channel for questions about names.
• 2) The Wikipedia meaning of "passive aggressive", and whether this is a personal attack or "casting aspersions".

The committee might also ponder whether these rise to the level of arbcom concern:

• 3) Whether it is an "unfounded accusation" to ask someone a direct question about their motives
• 4) Whether a "battleground mentality" consists of a) not following the "orders" of a talk page stalker who appears to be unknowlegable b) assuming lack of interest and knowledge where others are assuming bad faith c) asking for additional information to help particular users contribute constructively d)introducing materials that stimulate calm and constructive guided discussion around a potentially contentious issue (the gamergate party piece) e) labeling a section for NSFW content after complaints from users who said they edit from their jobs (immediately reverted without discussion, and I did not edit war to restore it) f) questioning the concept that content creation is so overwhelmingly important that it overrides professional treatment of colleagues g) expressing disappointment over the premature closure of a thread that might have provided the community discussion needed for dispute resolution and avoidance of an arbcom case.

Is "battleground" 1) trying something that didn't work 2) trying something that did work and someone just wanted to complain about for their own reasons 3) expressing an opinion that someone else disagrees with? What are the criteria for "battle ground" that is being applied to me? Doesn't this mean edit warring?

Findings of fact:

• 1) The channel for questions about names that was actually used by Neotarf.
• 2) Whether it is forbidden to discuss whether using phrases that are also names for mental disorders stigmatizes mental disorders in the same way that calling someone a retard is linked to developmental disabilities.

Remedies

The words "broadly construed", an unfortunate turn of phrase for a gender case, have now been removed, but I don't really understand the meaning of the topic ban no matter how it is construed. I don't recall ever commenting on "the gender disparity on Wikipedia itself" What point is there in humiliating me by topic banning me from this? What problem does it prevent?

Disparity is difference or lack of similarity. I should think it would be very hard indeed to edit anything without mentioning any differences between male and female. That would be a very hard thing to control. This "remedy" looks to me like just another word for site ban, because men and women, not to mention male and female animals, are everywhere. Anyone who does not treat this strangely defined "topic ban" as a site ban and leave immediately will be hounded to death by a thousand cuts, by the same ones who caused this case to be brought.

It is no secret that I have been trying to "leave with dignity" for some time. I can't count how many times the Arbcom has put me off and told me to wait. Now they propose I hang around trying to appeal stuff for still longer, while they threaten to drag my name through the mud. If someone had some legitimate concern about me, why didn't they come to my talk page and discuss it with me, or get an admin to do so? Instead, I get named late to an arbcom case, secretly on a mailing list by an arbitrator, with no evidence, and no reasons given. Even now, no one answer my questions about exactly what exact words are of concern, so that I can address those issues. That no one can explain to me why I am here, speaks for itself.

Would the ban extend to questions about gender issues to arb candidates? What about Jimbo's talk page--can the outcome of the case be discussed there? Would the ban extend to external sites?

I seem to be the only one who is being indeffed, and I'm not exactly a major player in this drama. My first edit to gender gap project was 15 August 2014, when I left a link to the International Women of Courage Award list, which had a lot of red links on it. But only a month later, for the first time, tired of all the disruptions coming across my watchlist, and the vandalizing of my talk page, I took the page off my watchlist and recommended that everyone else do the same."

For those who oppose the existence of this project, I can report that all the names of all 75 recipients on that International Women of Courage Award are now blue links. —Neotarf (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Good defense/offense. But remember you are just topic ban indeffed, while the committee has bowed to the Will of Sitush and site banned this uppity female. Just to be factual. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 10:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Carol, I can't tell if you're trolling, throwing oil on the fire, being sarcastic, or just spouting nonsense. I wish I'd placed an "I'm an uppity female" userbox on my talk page: you'd have to make a 180 on me, since ovaries seem to be the only basis for you to evaluate others on, and it's that essentialist attitude (an embarrassment to any "gender" project) that makes me wonder if you should be talking about women's issues at all. In the meantime, few people have done more than Sitush to combat the colonialist attitudes, still pervasive in print, in our India- and caste-related articles. You could have tried to win him for your cause, whatever your cause is. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You're a lady? Wow you never know who lurks behind a username lol, I was just made aware of another admin that was as well. Both of you do pretty top notch work, that's one reason I like the username aspect it is just a screen. The actions behind is what matters not the username or presence or absence of a dangler 8). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Er I see it now my bad! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You should read the ban remedy against you again. Even the oppose votes acknowledge you are a problem.Your behavior on this talk page is demonstrative of your overall behavior. You've walked up the gallows and put the noose around your neck. You've done everything but jump.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Would the clerks please remove this ad hominem attack against me? —Neotarf (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf there is no personal attack, if criticizing your behavior is an attack the arvs have attacked you too. We are discussing your behavior which is has been far from blameless. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Gents, no offense intended, but you're both very personally involved with Neotarf. I don't think you're good judges of if something is an attack or not. Could the three of you simply disengage from each other?--v/r - TP 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Archived

Hi All. I've archived most of this talk page (everything from before today) to /Archive. I'm very tempted to archive the rest too, and lock down this page. Can I re-iterate the following

• We are at a proposed decision phase. The evidence and workshop phases are over. New evidence should not be submitted.
• The only use of this talk page is to help arbitrators with their decision.

Sniping at each other, complaining about parties, complaining about arbitrators, complaining about the case have now no place here. Any further sniping will lead to people being barred from this page - and plausibly the page locked down all together. Clerks, please ensure this happens. Worm^TT(talk) 11:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is proper to archive this talk page for now. However, I feel there may be a reason to unarchive it when the case is finally closed. It may have some value to keep in mind what went on on this page so that the same can be prevented from happening on other pages. OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Since proposals on this talkpage are meant for arbitrators eyes, then it's best that only arbitrators respond. Afterall, the evidence & workshop phases are now over. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There should be a rule that all non-arb comments on this page should be addressed to the arbs only, and there is no need for non-arbs to direct comments at each other. This should immediately make this page useful.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

the gender disparity between Wikipedia editors.?

I just noticed that the topic bans say "the gender disparity between Wikipedia editors." What on earth is that? Only same-sex? —Neotarf (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems the language of the bans has been changed to "disparity between editors". Could someone be so kind as to explain the meaning of this new language, and perhaps either introduce this in a new resolution or ask the arbs who already voted to reconfirm their votes? —Neotarf (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the topic bans use the same wording; "gender disparity between Wikipedia editors". I'm not sure where you're seeing that it's been changed to "disparity between editors". GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The previous language was "the Gender Gap on Wikipedia, broadly construed". —Neotarf (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Right. Per my comments on those remedies, I found them to be much too vague. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A more complete, but more verbose, wording would be "discussion of the gender disparity in rates of participation on Wikipedia between males and females." This would include, among other things, the causes of the disparity and what, if anything, should be done to address it." Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder whether such wording fully addresses the locus of the dispute. Some of the discussion at GGTF went off-topic from the ramifications of the well-documented gender gap and instead focused on alleged misogyny and prejudice on the part of current male editors and Admins. It's not clear that the proposed sanction refers to the second subject. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

So perhaps, relating to any (alleged?) disparity in the participation rate or the treatment of editors? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems arising from the disruptions on the project page that triggered this case was an inability to reach a consensus on the goals of the project. The best proposal I have seen so far came from Tony: 1) Attracting women to make the first edit 2) Promoting a culture of social support for newbies 3) Improving coverage of women and women's topics.

Other contributors, like Corbett, SPECIFICO, and Sitush, regarded the project page as an appropriate venue to argue that the project should not exist. The GGTF group failed to handle this disruption with page ban proposals, since they framed the proposal naming several editors together, including Corbett, apparently not being familiar with the history of Corbett's participation on WP. When page bans failed, a more successful approach of proposing interaction bans with Carolmooredc was tried, with more success, since several users seem to have followed Carol to GGTF from other topic areas. An interaction ban with SPECIFICO and Carolomooredc was successful, and an interaction ban between Carolmoorece and Sitush was still in progress at the time that Sitush withdrew from editing and posted a "retired" banner.

With Carolmooredc removed from the project, the interaction bans with her will no longer serve to prevent disruption on GGTF. The sanctions that are currently passing will selectively remove the individuals who want the group to encourage participation by women and leave the individuals who believe the project page should be used to argue against participation by women. While the ArbCom is technically not supposed to decide content disputes, they have made a de facto decision about the purpose of the group by removing all the proponents of one side and leaving all the proponents of the other. —Neotarf (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf Ban

Evidence phase is over. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To the opposing administrators please exam [[6]] this is the mainspace (constructive edits) of Neotarf for most of 2014, now look at this [[7]] that's the main edits made for that same period just to wikipedia talk and at least 75 percent is at arbcom, do you really think that a topic ban will stop the madness it's pretty clear from the retired template on their page and their edits shown here they aren't here to build the encyclopedia and it's been some time since they have been. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC) This is nothing but an ad hominem attack against me and I ask the clerks to remove it. Most the committee will be familiar with the resignation of three editors including myself in a situation involving WP:AE admin Sandstein and Discretionary Sanctions, and the year-long review of Discretionary Sanctions by the arbitrators AGK and Roger Davies that followed. I'm sure the Committee is also familiar with the fact that during 2013 I wrote the Arbitration Report for the Signpost, on a weekly basis, which amounts to thousands of words written by me but published by the Signpost's editor-in-chief. —Neotarf (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Neaotarf, it's another strike against you that you falsely call a criticism of your actions ad hominem. Your behavior throughout this Case has made it clear that nothing short of the proposed site ban is going to remedy your disruption here. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Would the clerks please remove this new ad hominem attack against me. —Neotarf (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC) WP:COMPETENCE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NPA. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dual mentorship for Carolmooredc & Eric Corbett

As a last chance for both CDC & EC, would arbitrators consider having 2 mentors per editor? For Carol, the mentors (who would be self-declared male & female) would help her steer clear of male vs female based disputes. For Eric, his mentors would help him control his temper & better deal with baiters. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric doesn't need a mentor. He has dozens of knowledgeable Wikipedia friends who already fulfill that purpose. Carol should first demonstrate a desire to change before any efforts are expended. (Maybe she has without me being aware.) Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

She says she did, but what she was saying got drowned in the din.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think there was an older case, Mattisse or however it was spelled, which had a similar arrangement in which a group of editors agreed to work with that editor, and place blocks as required. It didn't work particularly well I'm afraid, partially because of the intransigent nature of that individual editor. I'm not sure if it would be an acceptable alternative here, but I think that there is probably a better chance that at least one of the editors under consideration might not be as intransigent as that individual was. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It's never too late. I recommend that she post the diff or repeat such remarks. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I like your recommendation and second it. TBC, she did not say anything about mentorship, but about being open to constructive suggestions, and making changes. If you look at the activity on this page after WTT's archiving, and stern warning against sniping etc. some users, even some supposedly responsible users, have continued to post acidic attacks on her. Only a Zen master could be expected to escape becoming unsettled in such an environment. I don't see how she could be expected to approach things with a constructive / positive mind-frame with such attacks continuing. If she ignores these attacks, those comments stand unopposed and she gets demonized. If she counters them, she is tendentious. What is she to do ? I think the arbs are conscious of this situation and will put their foot down firmly on this sort of activity, even if it is coming from some well established users. My perception is that issues related to her were only rooted in problems between her and one or two other users. One of those issues is getting solved by an Iban, and there can be one more Iban if necessary. This is how I see things, other are surely free to come up with other suggestions. ( What I say in this post is without any consultation with CMDC ).OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think she is unlikely to further participate with this process while a particular user and his supporters are harassing / baiting her. I think anything that this particular user and his supporters say to/about her should be seen as instigatory / harassment / baiting.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I will note that Eric has soundly rejected the idea of mentorship in the past, and I can understand why. Regardless of the reason, mentorship will only work if the protégé is agreeable. Worm^TT(talk) 16:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope they'll both agree to it. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to Worm, the word "mentorship" might be inappropriate here, maybe something more like "oversight board", or a dedicated AE board, which would have the power to make "you shouldn't oughtn't'a done that" statements as well as blocks if necessary, would be better. Allowing either such a group or the AE enforcers to vary the length of block depending on recidivism and nature of the offense would be possible, although the ArbCom could also provide some rough guidelines or pointers of what they think reasonable. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Eric needs a short leash with speedy and non-appealable 48 hour blocks whenever he is disruptive and Carol needs to be shown the door as a Net Negative and NOTHERE. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Eric has already been blocked over and over again but still continued with the incivility what makes you think that this will work? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Add Sitush and SPECIFICO and we might have a basis of discussion. It then would mean to the world that ARBCOM takes harassment of editors and furious attempts to topic and site ban them seriously. Otherwise all you have here for the world to see, once the relevant diffs are set side to side in a pretty little chart, is an incredible double standard application of rules of behavior between males and known and verified females on Wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The Arbs have the final word on that. I merely mentioned only yourself & EC, 'cause you borth are currently in ban-territory, via arb votes. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors are well into adulthood, have strong personalities, and can't be "mentored". Perhaps the assignment of a "minder" that would need to pre-approve every edit they propose would work, but no one in the world would want that job.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Here's some more institutional memory (compare MastCell's comment here): anybody who remembers the folie à quatre Mattisse mentorship, which drew several well-meaning people into a maelstream of manipulation, will run screaming from the notion of trying a group of mentors or "editorial board" with Carol. Fun fact, btw: one of Mattisse's first mentors was Malleus Fatuorum, a k a Eric Corbett, who alone among the mentors had the good sense to withdraw when he saw the direction it was taking. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

Arbitrators, I beg you (again), ban nobody. You & the adminstrators don't need the coming headaches, as Carol & Eric both have strong support bases. If you ban both? or (worst) one & not the other? your ruling will be seen as bias by many. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrators won't buckle under pressure. If there's a rational argument not to ban either editor, I am sure they would consider it, but threats of disruption by supporters or detractors are irrelevant. We are all quite happy to face headaches in order to do what's right. Jehochman ^Talk 15:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikilawyering by an idiot here

This is more or less in response to @Seraphimblade:'s comment, and if it is entirely inappropriate and maybe brain-dead stupid my apologies. But, theoretically, if Eric called me a witless, mentally impaired, incontinent pedophile with delusions of humanity (or something like that), and I myself thought it was no big deal and didn't in any way complain but someone else did without my input or support, and possibly contrary to my own wishes, how would that be dealt with? John Carter (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Another details question about this new remedy (sorry for piggybacking, John): based on current wording, it's not clear who would have standing to make the AE appeal about any blocks on Eric. Iirc, AE appeals typically need to be submitted by the sanctioned party; in this case, if Eric is blocked, Eric cannot appeal his block on AE (until after the block expires, at which point the issue is moot). If the intention is for him to appeal on his talk page and have it copied to AE, that runs into the provision that allows his talk page access to be removed, and there should be some language in the remedy addressing his route of appeal if he can't edit his talk. If the intention is for people other than Eric to bring appeals, that seems like a departure from standard procedure that should probably be spelled out and justified. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I certainly think it's a fair question. Anyone can bring a matter to arbitration enforcement, whether they're personally involved in the matter or not. And that's as it should be if, for example, someone were insulted and left in outrage over it, and someone else noted the situation and raised it at AE. I did AE prior to my time on the Committee, though, and I know in a case like your hypothetical, where the supposedly "attacked" party came and said "We were joking, I took absolutely no offense", I would've recommended taking no action on the complaint, and I think so would the others I worked with. I would hope the admins there have the sense to differentiate between good-natured ribbing bothering no one and an attack, and in my experience they do. In the event someone doesn't, there also is an appeals process for any AE sanction.

To Fluffernutter's question, an editor with talk page access revoked who wishes to appeal an AE sanction can request that an appeal be posted by emailing the sanctioning administrator (who should be the first stop anyway), or if they are nonresponsive or unwilling, by emailing the Committee and requesting one be posted on their behalf. That would be true in any case, it wouldn't be a special provision for Eric, and such appeals are allowed. Those aren't the "third party" appeals that are normally rejected, they're appeals requested by the sanctioned party and only posted by someone else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait, so are "third party" (i.e. not-requested-by-sanctioned-editor) appeals normally rejected (your last paragraph) or acceptable (your first paragraph)? Or would it depend on the content and context of the appeal, and everything's just a bundle of wibbly-wobbly play-it-by-ear stuff? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat relevant, I've asked friendly editors to remove any harassing/trashing criticism of me at my talk page after I'm banned. But in case something insulting gets missed, will there a person I can appeal to in order to discourage trolls?? Or can it just be protected. Remember I did have a lot of trolling there by a long time abuser a few years ago which is why I got those roll back rights which happily I haven't had to use much the last couple years. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how situations such as this are dealt with. I think this concern would be covered by our attitude wrt gravedancing, although I'm not sure whether that is set in stone (WP:TPG?). Locking your page would hinder anyone who might wish to leave inoffensive/supportive messages. I'm sorry that it seems to have come to this. Really, I am. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. You wrote on Sept 5, as shown in evidence, "The sooner she is site-banned, the better for everyone..." [8] Sitush singlehandedly has shown how Arbitration can be used to harass the heck out of an editor. Congrats! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Carol here you aren't sorry not in the slightest bit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am. I had hoped that she could adapt but alas, if anything, things are becoming still more trenchant and have now spread to some sort of xenophobia etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If you were really sorry then why make the comments? Everyone knows you don't like Carol now that she is getting banned and after all you have said now you are sorry? I don't really want to go off track here I just find this wrong in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh. No point in me arguing against you if you are convinced that you can read my mind, sorry. Believe what you wish. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Conduct_towards_banned_editors seems to be pertinent to your concerns. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Fluffernutter, I believe you're comparing apples to oranges. The first paragraph in response to John discussed complaints (including by third parties), yours discussed appeals. Those are different beasts, and yes they are treated differently. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so there's nothing in this remedy that's not already covered by the usual AE appeal procedures, so there's no need to add extra detail to this remedy in particular. Thanks for clarifying, Seraphimblade, I think I've got my mental knots untangled now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• As someone who's been around long enough to function as institutional memory, I want to sound a word of caution here. This proposal basically boils down to civility parole—a well-meaning but unmitigatedly disastrous idea which ran its course as an Arbitration remedy 5 or 6 years ago. (I have no opinion on the proper outcome of this case, only a strongly held belief that this civility parole remedy would be a huge mistake). MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think it is not unreasonable to allow it in some cases. In this case, there seems to me to be some indication that the individual involved recognizes that a problem exists and that his own actions are at least part of the problem. While I would not support such a proposal in instances where the individual involved is unrepetent, or, possibly, when the individual involved were not clearly one of our more useful and productive editors except for these problems (being honest there), I think it isn't unreasonable to give someone who acknowledges a problem to have a chance to deal productively with it. Having said all that, it is also I think reasonable for everyone to assume that if later actions don't measure up to the statements made to date, in this or similar cases which may arise in the future, that there would be no particularly good reason for extending much any sort of further "final offers." John Carter (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sure, but that's not what I'm getting at. It has nothing to do with how "repentant" Eric is, or isn't. Civility paroles create a truly perverse set of incentives. Since there are no clear definitions of incivility, editors will flood WP:AE with "test cases". This problem will be exacerbated by people who take offense on behalf of others (the meddling-bystander effect). If one is minded to try to get the parolee blocked, there is no real disincentive to repeated filings, since eventually (by virtue of the random nature of civility enforcement) some filings are likely to "stick". If you think that these aspects of civility parole won't be relentlessly gamed, then I can only envy your naivete. None of this is hypothetical; all of it has actually happened, repeatedly and reliably, when civility paroles have been implemented in the past. MastCell ^Talk 00:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• John Carter, if someone called you a "witless, mentally impaired, incontinent pedophile with delusions of humanity" I'd probably block them on sight, perhaps indefinitely. Doesn't matter who says it. But...and I hate to ask this again...is there anything in here that's actually about GGTF? Are these restrictions planned in relation to GGTF pages? Can Eric/Carol/Sitush/whoever be blocked for calling you a "witless, mentally impaired, incontinent pedophile with delusions of humanity" on some other page? Or is this indeed just civility parole, with GGTF as a kind of token banner? Drmies (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• The proposed comment was intended to be of an extreme nature, probably among the most obvious examples of overstatement I could think of. Honestly, I can only think that the first two have ever been applied to me. ;) Is this more or less broader civility parole? Honestly, so far as I can tell, as someone not involved in the decision-making, maybe? Does it have much to do with the GGTF, maybe not? Unfortunately, is this what the case seems to have become about? Seemingly, yes. Unfortunately, I think there is a history of at least some Arb cases where things go in some direction no one could have necessarily anticipated in advance, and this looks like it might be one of those. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• I feel the evidence provided that the arbs are looking at is, anything else of relevance here can be sifted through. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from...

Is that supposed to say "Eric has agreed to..." or "Eric is instructed to agree to..." or "If Eric agrees to... then..."? 87.254.87.183 (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, not even ArbCom can decide what Eric agrees to. I have another question: what does "shouting at" mean in this context? Is it speaking in all capitals per WP:SHOUT? StAnselm (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think shouting just means speaking (uh, typing) to people harshly. I've got sympathy for them trying to express that adequately without being absurdly vague or ridiculously restrictive. If they are trying to agree things on his behalf through the sheer power of their voting though then that is a bit "ah... are you guys feeling okay?" 87.254.87.183 (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Point taken regarding "agrees to...", I've raised it accordingly. As to shouting, consider the following two (entirely made up by me, not based on any actual) statements: "I am sick and tired of your idiocy! Don't post your ridiculous drivel here again!" vs. "I'm done with this conversation, and am also requesting that you stop posting on my talk page." Same intent both times, but I think any reasonable person could tell which one of those is interpreted as shouting, and which is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

And what if he were to say in a discussion or an edit summary, "If you don't want to be called a [ass, cunt, dick, toady], don't act like one"? Or "Were you hiding behind the door when God was handing out brains"? 72.223.98.118 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, covered by belittling. Chillum 01:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

To the 72... IP, I think your input is becoming less helpful here, and ask that you restrain yourself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I like hiding behind doors to jump out and scare people. Actually, with my face, I scare people anyway, but... . And there is no God. I'm sure I'd have met him at some point. Y'know, maybe I'm not painting myself in the best possible light here. Shutting up now. John Carter (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the use of fewer less ambiguous words would be less wikilawyerable. Insulting or belittling are good. Shouting makes no sense. Less is more in my opinion. Seraphimblade's example and counter example are covered by belittling. As for shouting it appears the exclamation mark is key? Chillum 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr Corbett explicitly agreed to "stop shouting at ... people". It's about tone of voice/register ...  Roger Davies ^talk 01:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That is my point. Recognizing tone of voice/register in text is subjective at best. It invites disagreement. Belittling and insulting are things that can be objectively observed. Chillum 01:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"2.3 Eric Corbett prohibited" is untenable

This seems quite untenable as it's unclear what "shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling" is. We've already had tens of thousands of bytes of argument over whether or not "cunt" was an insult and/or slur. How is anyone supposed to agree upon what shouting, swearing, insulting, and/or belittling constitutes? This proposal seems much too subjective and unspecified to be properly implemented. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it sounds good and would be delighted to get the same sanction if it was nullified for clear and obvious cases of individuals wikihounding and insulting me, which has been quite the game here for the last 18 plus months, coming to a crescendo in this Arbitration. Of course, I'd still go on a major wikibreak, except for GGTF. But given my outrageous crimes (sarcasm alert) that could not be permitted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it covers anything the editor in question that it was directed to finds offensive but even then what if the admin disagrees if it is not clear cut? Im not sure how this will work out either but it is a good effort at focusing on one of the core problems without a site-ban as noted though if it passes it would need major reworking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I used those terms precisely because they don't come with the baggage of tens of thousands of words and hundreds of hours of combative debate. They can thus be interpreted in the plain language sense in which the administrator perceives it. The rest is whether the administrator reasonably believed the words insult, or belittle or whatever.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

These blocks would be reviewed by arbcom, if the block lacked a common sense interpretation of the ruling then it would just be reversed. I think we can all recognize what is clearly abusive and I think any admin would be foolish to act on a borderline violation. Chillum 00:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I defer to the arbitrators' judgment on this then. Y'all have more experience than me and if you are convinced it will work, go for it. I am skeptical but generally optimistic. That said, I don't think 2.2 is a bad option, but it's clear many arbitrators aren't terribly happy with that option. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This is, as written, unworkable and makes absolutely no sense. As written it says "Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way." so even though ArbCom is trying to say Eric may be blocked for swearing at someone, that is a bog standard civility block and any old admin can come along and reverse it. Cue endless fights about whether a block constitutes a super special Arb Enforcement block or not.

I've no objection to escalating blocks and/or requiring blocks to be logged, but to make these blocks some form of super special Arb Enforcement is unworkable and unfair to Eric, who will be at the mercy of a wide range of administrators, all of whom have a different interpretations of what constitutes uncivil behaviour, and different understandings of the language he uses. We will have no way to currently remove blocks placed in good faith which, when clarified, may be unnecessary, and looking at Eric's block log, many blocks have been lifted as a result of clarifications in language or context. ArbCom will need to agree, beforehand, what constitutes a blockable offence under this remedy at the very minimum, and provide a list of those administrators who are considered 'involved' already.

An acceptable compromise might be shorter duration blocks, say 24 hours, which cannot be reversed, and being considered one or two shot deals, i.e an administrator who blocks Eric once or twice under this provision can't keep blocking him every day for a month. I know you need to try something but as written, it's just a charter to block Eric for ever increasing periods for comments which could be perfectly acceptable to all but a small minority of administrators.

The second problem is that this is, as planned, going to backfire monstrously on ArbCom, as you're going to be engulfed in clarification requests about comments, about blocks, about overturned blocks, about desysopping admins and all sorts of tedious shit, that's before the ne'er-do-wells turn up and use this remedy to effectively bring ArbCom to a complete halt (as if it isn't at a near complete standstill already). Nick (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You know, if you hadn't used the edit summary you did, you might have got a reply on the substance of this.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't be uncivil in here! This is the civility thread! Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You're an arbitrator and don't get the luxury of playing pathetic, childish games, Roger. Nick (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Nick, you're not an arbitrator; are you indulging the luxury? Maybe you should tone it down a couple notches so observers don't get the wrong impression. I think it's a good idea to try something different from time to time. By trial and error we can learn how to make things better. If the proposed solution does not work, I am sure ArbCom will be able to replace it. Jehochman ^Talk 02:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The point, Nick, is that by using the tone you have, you made things more confrontational than they needed to be. Which is ironic, as that is largely the behaviour that led to this proposal and discussion. For my part, if this all passes and is wrapped up before the end of the year (we can all hope), then I will do my best to help clarify things if any clarification requests are filed, whether this year (as an arb) or in future (as a non-arb). There may be more than a few of those, but it should become obvious to ArbCom if that process is being abused and steps can be taken at that stage if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My edit summary was deliberate and slightly pointy. I've been waiting for someone to suggest it was problematic, because I'm desperate to demonstrate the issues with tone and confrontation, and how some people would say my edit summary is only just OK and others would say it's not OK - for the record, I consider it about as close to the line as I would be happy to go without becoming properly incivil. This is the problem I and other administrators would/will face when dealing with Eric under the proposal here, and we will need guidance pre-emptively on this (though I'll note here and now I'm recusing from involvement with Eric). I agree wholeheartedly that something needs to be tried, of course, but I dislike, as Jehochman puts it, a trial and error approach. :::::Trial and error would be acceptable, if one outcome wasn't that an editor could potentially be banned for a considerable period of time in the event of one or more errors (or a plain lack of guidance), or another outcome is ArbCom is drowned in clarification requests and administrators get caught up in trying to workout what's a normal civility block and what's an Arbitration Enforcement block. Nick (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This person gets to insult people five more times before we start arguing about it all over again; other volunteer editors don't count, because they're just not as good as he is. I've gotten the point now, so I won't waste your time (and should probably stop wasting mine.) --Djembayz (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Its a slap in the face to everyone who has been belittled or insulted here that so many people are praising him. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

^Seconded. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And banning him is a slap in the face for the (many more) people he has helped edit and write here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You're assuming Eric will not be able to keep his word and will start insulting people, which is, as I said, an assumption. Over the course of this case, Eric has, for the first time, asserted that he will stop being uncivil (basically) and I'm all for giving him a chance. And, from what I've seen, has managed to keep his cool during this discussion, despite the incredibly stressful environment. If this works, there won't be any insults aimed at anyone and this will be the best outcome for Wikipedia; if this fails, well, Eric will just be sanctioned. Since sanctions are not supposed to be punitive, I'd say that this solution is the one which best complies with the spirit of the policy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I would call this masochistic, but arbcom isn't the only ones who are going to get hurt here. Everyone seems to be assuming the situation will occur again, which means some random bunch of editors in the future are going to have to deal with this again, and again. Are people sending Eric out again, assuming he's going to hit someone with a stick? Who pays the price for this experiment?

The blocks aren't being proposed to address any underlying cause, only the after-effects of commonly-expected future disruption. There is no sense that this does anything to prevent or discourage any initial disruption. The remedy is also in the hands of the same arbs, in the same types of situations, ultimately subject to the same hair-splitting and avoidance of action. It ensures the status quo. This editor has about five blocks on their log (roughly combined from the back-and-forth); this means that this proposal contains enough second and eighth chances to ensure as much drama as has already been generated.

And this part, "... let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve" is just an invitation for open tag-teaming and disruption-by-proxy of the "I can't say what I'd like to this person, but could you take over for me" variety. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have probably been considered to be in the "anti-Eric" camp since declining an unblock thread on AN over a year ago. My view is that many legitimate blocks for personal attacks have been reversed with good intentions, but the unblocks have resulted in personal attacks being enabled and allowed the disruption to continue. However, bans are not meant as retribution or victims' justice so I'm not too concerned about "slap in the face" arguments. If the proposed remedy works, that is, allows Eric to continue working with articles while stopping belittling and contemptuous attacks against other people, then the alternative here is preferable to a ban. I hope that AE won't end up being disrupted by friends and foes of Eric. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding length of time between Eric's outbursts

Again, apologies if this is just me being obsessive-compulsive again. But everybody has bad days, even if only single bad days separated by months or years, and I think most of us hope if the motion passes both Eric and the encyclopedia might be around for some time. So, in as a not entirely unreasonable possibility, let's say Eric gets a three-day block this year, another in 2017, a one-week block in 2020, a one-month block in 2023, a three-month block in 2026, and in 2029 is taken to AE for a possible site ban for being incivil a total of 6 times in 15 years. Might it be reasonable to include some sort of indicator of maybe some sort of minimum or maximum length of time between outbursts for them to qualify as "successive" as per this remedy? John Carter (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The remedy should expire after a finite amount of time. If when that time comes up the remedy might still be useful, there can be a discussion whether to extend it. Jehochman ^Talk 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you talking years? Eric's history has shown that he has been uncivil almost every single day or every other day at the very least from his edit summaries to his talk-page. I agree everyone has their bad days and even weeks if it is something serious but this isn't the case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case he's going to be site banned pretty soon after the case closes. Time will tell. Jehochman ^Talk 17:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we're willing to remove remedies that are outdated or no longer necessary (as we're doing by motion in several areas right now). Let us say, for example, that initially the restriction is violated a couple of times and short blocks are issued. The message is gotten and no further problems occur. If a couple years down the line, Eric files an appeal and says "Look, I've stopped this and I don't want this hanging over my head", I know I would at least strongly consider removing the remedy. The trouble with time limited remedies is that people tended to wait them out and return to the problematic behavior. Indefinite need not mean permanent, but it does mean it'll be there until it's no longer needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

John Carter and Arbitrators: Eric was blocked on average every 11-12 weeks between May 2008 and May 2013,[9] (when he edited as Malleus Fatuorum). He was blocked on average every 9 weeks between May 2013 and October 2014,[10] (editing as Eric Corbett). Or, if you add them all together, 30 blocks in 317 weeks = 1 block every 10.5 weeks.

Jehochman and Arbitrators: I do not see anything in Proposal 2.3 that says explicitly that Eric will be site banned if his disruptive behavior continues. Lightbreather (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I would assume so, all we have to go by is his word that he will stop so I am willing to see what unfolds. If he continues to ne disruptive the another chance or option argument would lose it's steam. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Deescalation

Largely similar to John Carter above. If there is a method of escalation, then there should also be a method of deescalation. Perhaps the count gets moved back a step every 6 months since the last block?--v/r - TP 18:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a significant time without violations would be a strong indication that the enforcement could be lifted. This makes more sense than an bi-annual insult allowance. Chillum 19:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternatives to incompetence ban?

A site ban based on the sort of behavioral criteria outlined in WP:Competence seems to me an unduly harsh measure to impose on User Carol Moore. Carol is a good person who wants to contribute to the project. Perhaps some structured mentorship, tutelage, and "check-ins" with an Arb would be a better way for the community to proceed. Steeletrap (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I agree. I suggested that Carolmooredc needs some sort of supervision a few days ago here, followed up by a question to Carolmooredc in response to her reply here. I think most editors posting here or on GGTF are "a good person" (e.g.Lightbreather). But that doesn't mean they can't be massively disruptive on wikipedia, or that they have the competence required. EChastain (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If CarolMooreDC steps forward and shows self-awareness of the issue and an openness to changing, then I would support a lesser sanction. But that hasn't happened yet. She was also sanctioned 6 months ago in another case and still carried on the same way. That's what explains the different results (possibly) for her and for Eric. Underneath all the posturing and bloviating, arbitration is just a negotiation. Carol hasn't offered anything, so the Committee is probably going to ban her. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the people who need banning are Jehochman and Steeltrap for all the crap they've pulled; SITUSH/CORBETT/SALVIO/SPECIFICO/ and a bunch of their cronies.

Some people seem to think that ArbCom is so naive they don't know that the Manchester Gangbangers and their cronies/minions are engaged in institutionalized harassment using ArbCom as one of their harassment tools. They think just explaining that will open their eyes and they'll do the right thing.

No, the only thing that will clear Wikipedia of this vicious coterie is a national publicity campaign to pressure the WMF into enforcing its Terms of Service, including against culpable ArbCom members. (I see several Sitush/Corbett/ cronies/minions are running for the next Arbitration Committee.) And I'm one of dozens who see it that way, we just haven't decided where to organize our efforts. Just because their tactic worked on silencing 1.2 billion Indians with their Brit imperialist drivel doesn't mean it will work on silencing 3.3 billion women. After all 1/2 the members of the Board are women. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

As an admin entirely without any prior exposure to this conflict who just happened to see the above remarks by Carolmooredc as she was repeating them on Jimbo Wales' talkpage, I am finding this so far beyond the line that I have blocked her for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

FP, you got there just before me, I was typing up my own block notice. Please note that I warned Carol recently, explicitly about sexualized personal attacks such as "gang bang". Bishonen | talk 14:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

Out-of-line comments and lightning fast enforcement. But it really illustrates a difference in approach. If Eric let loose in the same way, he'd just be using up a 72-hour block instead of a week-long block, under the proposed remedy. If Carol was burning out to prove a point, I think she made it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A central finding in this case has been CMDC's WP:NOTHERE. There is no such issue with Mr. Corbett. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this a violation of your IBAN? This comment isn't about lifting or clarifying your ban in any way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The proposed remedies aren't in effect yet, but yes, it would be very smart for SPECIFICO to act as if they were. I am sure others can take up the slack while SPECIFICO ignores all discussions about CMDC. Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That remedy, is currently in effect, as it is a community remedy.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's something else. Normally we give a bit of leeway for people to participate in dispute resolution, but yes, SPECIFICO should stop talking about CMDC at this point. Jehochman ^Talk 19:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A strong signal to the GGTF

I am split between being disgusted and heartbroken by what I see happening here. So much could be said, but it's all been said before. The upshot is this:

• Five men and two women went before ArbCom because of disruptions at the WP:GGTF.
• Only one of the 12 arbitrators was a woman.
• This case's net result? Five men free to continue editing; one woman topic banned from the GGTF; another woman site banned.

Twenty-four hours ago, Eric Corbett was facing a site ban, and that would have been a net good for the project. I retired in large part because of him, and because of the (largely male) "community" that keeps making excuses for his behavior. I am here to speak for the dozens, probably hundreds, of good editors who have retired because of Eric Corbett and the agonistic editing style that predominates this community.

The current state of this case sends a strong signal to the (largely female) community that prefers - or especially expects - to edit in a more civilized environment: Sorry, helping guys like this means a lot more to us than helping someone like you. Lightbreather (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. ArbCom has said that Eric's behavior was unacceptable and that future outbursts will be met with escalating blocks. He either will change his style for the better, or he will be gone. I recommend you stop counting editors by sex, and instead look at each person as a unique human being to be evaluated by what they say and do, rather than by the shape of their chromosomes. Jehochman ^Talk 17:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This type of comment, above, has no place in civilised discourse. There are no categories of people called "men" and "women". What a bunch of rubbish, this is. People need to held accountable for their behaviour, one way or the other. I don't know whether I disagree or agree with how this case was carried out, but I do know that such tribalism has no place here. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's privilege to think gender doesn't matter because it doesn't affect you directly. Gender plays a part in every interaction. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In last year's election [11], only ONE female admin ran. Non-admin (for right or wrong) virtually never get elected. The overwhelming majority of editors here are men, this is undisputed. Gorilla won with 77.10% support, second only to 28bytes, and by any standard, a super majority of voters. So it stands to reason that when men here are given the choice to vote for a woman for Arb, and she is qualified, they are willing to support in exceedingly strong fashion, for it would have been impossible for her to win without the support of men. Furthermore, if we assume that ~10% of all editors are women, had every single one of them voted neutral or to oppose her, she still would have won her Arb seat, due to the strong support from men voters. The men at Wikipedia aren't the problem, it is the lack of women willing to run. QED.

The problem isn't one of math, is one of perception. The way you present problems reminds me of the joke about the old Soviet Union, in which they play the US in a basketball game and lose. The next day, the Soviet newspapers read "US plays USSR in big match. USSR comes in second, US finishes second to last." Context is everything. My observation is that you draw a conclusion before you gather your facts, then only present the facts that support that conclusion. That is the modus operandi of anyone who is seeking to push a political belief rather than find out the truth. Put another way: A POV warrior. Dennis - 2¢ 19:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Consider for just 5 seconds why women might not be willing to run. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Who are these alleged dozens (or probable hundreds}? Yet again, we're seeing unsubstantiated mudslinging of the type so favoured by Jimbo. (And good point, Dennis). - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)