| Revision as of 22:20, 18 November 2014 editCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →Unfit for purpose?: @Seraphimblade; things arbitrators still can do to deal with issues← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:27, 13 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{notice|header=This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched| | |||
| {{Casenav}} | |||
| *To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see ]. | |||
| *To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see ]. | |||
| *To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see ].}}{{Casenav|case name=Interactions at GGTF|clerk1=Ks0stm|clerk2=Penwhale|draft arb=Worm That Turned|draft arb2=GorillaWarfare|active=12|inactive=1|recused=0}} | |||
| == |
== Final comments == | ||
| The above mass of talk page threads is a mostly unreadable morass. I am going to attempt to pick out some points from above, but as the case winds down (we are currently waiting on the votes of three arbs on the single remedy that is still deadlocked) can everyone please stop arguing above and limit themselves to brief statements down here in this section. That may be the only way to get discussion here back under control. ] (]) 22:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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. - ] (]) 17:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I admire your optimism. I am afraid that trying to clean the above may look more like cleansing it to someone or another, and leaving it may be the best option. ] - ] 00:34, 24 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: ''] ]'', <small>21:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| **The intent was not so much to cleanse the above, but to get people to engage in statement-style final comments down here (as opposed to threaded discussion). (This would be the corollary to the opening statements made at the case request stage, which is also non-threaded). ] (]) 00:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***Ok, here's a statement. It isn't over 'til the fat lady sings and arbs should pay attention to what has been said above. At the very least, they should acknowledge having read the various proposals. As the votes stand at present, they seem to be way out of sync. - ] (]) 00:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **I wasn't questioning your objectivity Carcharoth, and if I wasn't clear then, I will be now: that was not my intent. I'm simply saying it may be problematic no matter what you do, so it is worth considering to leave this one a mess. It is a bit of a no win scenario, like '']''. ] - ] 00:46, 24 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. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 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. :) ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages has a-lot of them but that does not make them perfect and immune to faults. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. - ] (]) 01:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I share your hope, in a triumph over experience. {{Smiley}} All the best: ''] ]'', <small>21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :::::::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 Misplaced Pages. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::::::::''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[REDACTED] as possible is something we should seek, and I don't think that discussions in the ArbCom ] 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. ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 21:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Of course there are behind the scenes things going on, I have realized that one of Misplaced Pages's flaws is how involved editors can get in things that don't include just editing an encyclopedia and working with other editors. - ] (]) 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.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 07:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{Smiley|d}} All the best: ''] ]'', <small>01:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| *After Eric's commitment to be civil in future , 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. | |||
| ==Not much on observing deadlines, are they?== | |||
| :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. | |||
| I'm edging towards the perspective that ArbCom is an institution that needs to go away. ] (]) 03:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :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.) --] (] · ] · ]) 20:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Editors have lives of their own you know. - ] (]) 03:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The average Proposed Decision is at least 3 days behind the expected time table --] | ] 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! <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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. {{tq|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). - ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages (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 (]) 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. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 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. - ] (]) 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 (]) 15:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Sorting out that FAC might well be the last thing I do. I am absolutely appalled. - ] (]) 15:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm also considering my position. ] ] 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. ] (]) 17:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It is not a panic button. It is a disgust button. - ] (]) 18:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :What "deadlines"? The dates posted are clearly labeled ''target'' dates. <small>]</small> 14:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I fear that a case taken on when none of the main parties wished it has been subject to so much disruption that we are facing a combination of ] and ] in terms of time taken up by all of this, and mental effort trying to cope with the morass of information, above. We are facing a situation of ] in which sub-optimal decisions are likely to be made. I think stepping back and considering some of the non-banning options for all are the best way forward now, (we have a number of reasonable new proposals, above, about this). I also think ArbCom needs to pay more attention to cleaning up its decision-making processes. ] ] 01:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Non-discrimination policy == | |||
| *Well as I said before whatever the outcome of the case I hope things change for the better, the outcome I see reduces the drama here on Misplaced Pages. - ] (]) 02:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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.--]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 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 (]) 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. ]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 16:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Final statement. Currently there is no consensus among the arbitrators on a remedy on Eric Corbett for frequency using that word. The only remedy looking to pass is a siteban, a solution no arb has indicated to be really happy with. Two possible remedies that don't have proposals on the case page are a narrow topic ban for just the wikiproject, which NNative Foreigner indicates he would support, has support from NYB, and when looking at the comments ''may'' have support from GW, AGK, Carcharoth and Roger Davies. That should be sufficient to propose and discuss it. A second remedy, possibly in conjunction with the former, is the "civility parole" / "bad words ban". Since Eric has himself indicated he would keep himself to something along these lines, and the use of bad words seems to be the largest objection to Eric's behavior, this too could make a good proposed remedy. Together they could change Misplaced Pages for the better, rather than going full site ban which nobody really wants. ] (]) 08:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The point here is that ''we'' (Wikimedia, and English Misplaced Pages 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.) ] (]) 18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I see an easy way to clean up: drop the case. If I was an arbitrator and not happy with a "solution", I would abstain. - COI: I am against site bans, at all. I think that they are not a civil way to solve conflicts, just easy. You may know that I sacrificed my reputation defending ] from being banned (two arbitrators changed their vote then). You may also know that I was the one who made ] apologize to Eric, perhaps the effort on the project I am most proud of. - See also ], thank you ]. --] (]) 08:31, 24 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 <s>have</s> believe has been said in different ways or inferred repeatedly. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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. ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 22:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree that a site ban is an over reaction. If that passes, the headline will be "Misplaced Pages editor banned for using ." All other facets of the case will be lost on 99% of observers. If instead you assume that Eric will keep his promises, which has been his habit to do, there is no need for a site ban, because he has promised to stop using terrible words on Misplaced Pages. Can somebody from the Committee have a frank conversation with Eric to ensure that the right promises have been made, if there are any lingering doubts? The decision can document what was promised and say what happens if promises are broken. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Remedy 3.3 Eric Corbett restriction == | |||
| *Overreaction does not begin to describe this travesty and miscarriage of pseudo-justice. Are we really going to ban one of the best (if not '''the best'')' editor because he uses naughty words? I have not seen one jot of evidence that he has driven editors away, and seen quite a lot of evidence that he encourages editors to stay and write. The fact that Jimbo and his mates don't like him should not a reason to ban him, if it were one wonders who would be left (I could hazard a few guesses). He's agreed to curb his language - what more do people want? This is beginning to look more like an ] than a supposedly elected committee ironing out a few problems. I just cannot see how anyone can think this is best serving the encyclopedia. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 09:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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.--] 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 (]) 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. - ] (]) 23:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I have a headline: ''Misplaced Pages addresses its "Gender Gap" by banning another female editor'' ] (]) 11:14, 24 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. --''']]]''' 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. ] - ] 18:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *The main effect of the current remedies would be that the GGTF would be dead. Any remaining life in it would be sucked out by DS. I do not see this as a "success" for arbcom. I would have expected the remedies to facilitate vigorous activity of the GGTF in a disruption free environment. ] (]) 11:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I would draw attention again to what Knowledgekid87 pointed out, that the restriction says "uninvolved administrator." ] (]) 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... ] - ] 01:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *@Hawkeye7: Do tell what other uppity females have been banned? Did they also rebel against the Brit imperium? Well, the whole world is watching and I'll be curious to see when/if/how media coverage happens or if after I do my indepth/diff'd analysis I have to kick so butt to make sure it does. Feel free to email me. | |||
| :*Then that says a lot about Eric then, the idea isn't to go around making people your enemy. - ] (]) 22:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
:@OrangesRyellow: Yeah, it doesn't look to good for GGTF even being a place to help beef up articles any more. However, the Imperium doesn't yet rule all of WMF... I hope! <small>'''] (])'''</small> 11:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| *For multiple reasons outlined above (by both "sides"), the immediate site bans are a very regrettable outcome for the encyclopedia and for future relations between editors. '''Has ArbCom considered a remedy of "site ban suspended for one year", with the proviso that if ''any'' of the behaviour that led to the ban occurs, the site ban would be enacted immediately by ArbCom motion?''' What a pity it came to this! If I were the Empress of Arbcomia, I would decree that no party be allowed to submit evidence against any other party until they had done a thorough ] and listed all the things they had personally done (with diffs) which had led to or exacerbated the allegedly unresolvable conflict. They would be judged on technical merit, artistic impression, and self-awareness. Anyone with a score of less than 6 out of 10 would be automatically excluded from participating further and would simply have to await their fate in silence. I have a feeling that had this been done here, the outcome might have been very different. ] (]) 12:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *At this point, Carolmooredc still won't take responsibility for her own behavior, and still clings to ] as her explanation to herself. It wasn't the shape of her chromosomes that got her topic-banned on Austrian Economics not that many months ago, and it isn't the shape of her chromosomes that got her site banned here. It's the culmination of years of ] while hiding behind the gender card whenever it was called out. The truly shocking thing through the entire case was her inability to show any genuine remorse, and her delight in passing the buck for her own battleground behavior at every opportunity, usually in the red-meatiest terms she could sling, and even when at obvious variance with the truth. Such activity moves back, not forward, the progress of the vital and difficult issue she hides behind. ] (]) 12:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to drama == | |||
| *I'm about to take a long break, sticking around only due to rfa obligations, but before I leave I want to remind the Arb that we have two editors, both of whom are probably fine enough people in their own right, but whose objectives for being here are very different. One is focused on content, and if left alone, would only focus on content. They occasionally get into scuffles, not because they seek it out, but because it is thrust upon them. Often, their reaction is less than ideal, and sometimes, it is unacceptable and worthy of a short block to stop disruption. Then we have another editor who is capable of writing and does some, but spends most of their time in political battles, casting aspersions, and drawing lines in the sand to separate who is good and who is evil. One editor has spent a great deal of time building their fellow editors up, the other has spent a great deal of time tearing them down. No one is innocent, no one is perfect, no one is without blame, but if we are here to build an encyclopedia, you can not compare the two editors. They are not equal. As a meritocracy, there are obvious and clearly demonstrable differences in their motives, their actions and their histories. If motives mean nothing, the ] is meaningless. If the goal is to prevent disruption, then you have to take motives into account. Isn't necessary whether we agree or disagree with the motives, for as objective observers all we can and should do is weigh them against the stated goal of Misplaced Pages, to build an encyclopedia. While sanctions may be necessary and empowering admin to deal with future problems is prudent, if we lose sight of this singular goal, this one reasons why we are all here, then we've lost all authority to call ourselves an encyclopedia and may as well declare ourselves a social networking site, an experiment in human behavior. My hope is that the Arbitrators will set aside their personal feelings, their political ideals, their preconceived notions and take a look at the big picture and realize that while civility is important, it isn't the objective, it is simply one means to an end, and that end is articles. The reader is for the most part oblivious to what happens on these back pages. As you go back and make your final deliberations, ask yourself; Who has spent most of their time dedicated to improving the experience for the most important Wikipedian of all, the reader? Doing the right thing doesn't require you condone any activity, it only requires you acknowledge that nothing is truly free, everything has a price, and if looked at objectively, the price paid has been much smaller than some would have you believe. Thank you for your consideration. ] - ] 14:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As an uninvolved observer of this arbcom case, I must say that the proposed decision {{oldid2|633552952|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.<p> | |||
| *1. Eric Corbett has ''not'' committed to being civil in the future. He answered "Yes" to a question that only asked about ''one'' disruptive behavior. 2. Eric Corbett doesn't just "occasionally get into scuffles"; he regularly seeks out discussions and makes comments that he knows will be disruptive. This has gone on for years under different user names. Sadly, but truthfully, it's time to ban him. ] (]) 15:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) 19:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *: {{redflag|Sock puppetry}} I really wish you would post with your primary account rather than continuing to violate ] after I informed you about it, after you didn't reply to my polite question, and after admitting that you are using an IP for the sake of "privacy". No you don't get to hide while throwing stones at somebody else. We are entitled to know the context of your remarks. The exemption you cited is for people editing articles, not for participating in arbitration. ] says, "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project."] <sup>]</sup> 15:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::Per ], {{xt|Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project}} and this qualifies. Please comment using your main account. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I could be wrong but I think this is ], just a gut feeling. ] (]) 15:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::I read ]. If it allowed English Misplaced Pages editors to request checks on themselves I would do so. If someone would request one for me, I would welcome it. Not that my opinion will change the outcome. ] (]) 16:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I think the editing gaps match up ] and ]. ] (]) 16:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:We are at a rather critical point regarding keeping enough qualified editors around to maintain even what we now have, let alone further development. It could very easily be seen by editors and even press outside of the US that a decision against an editor regarding the use of the word "cunt" would be extremely counterproductive in terms of attracting and keeping editors from those areas. I cannot see how allowing one country's individual word usage to become a rule individuals from other countries are obligated to follow will have any positive results for the project. ] (]) 16:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{u|Giano}} is right, in my view. {{u|Eric Corbett}} has '''not''' filed or posted long, repetitive ANI complaints. His comments on talk pages are '''not''' long, disruptive walls of text. His meaning is always clear (to me) and succinct, albeit sometimes rude. He's a fantastic editor, extremely knowledgeable, (almost) always correct in his comments about article problems and in his copy editing choices. He has helped many, many female editors, so the claim of misogamy is ridiculous.<p>If he loses his cool in rare cases, at least he does it in short comments or in edit summaries, '''not''' in walls of confusing text, unsupported by diffs. Note: almost all of the diffs in the evidence section by EvergreenFir and Carolmooredc, copy/pastes from an ANI purporting to show his personal attacks and disruption, were struck out.<p>Yes, when he goes overboard, as in the RFA process, he needs to be stopped.<p>As far as I can tell, his comments at GGTF were seen as disruptive by "the women" there. So restricting him from those two pages would fix that problem.<p>But if GGTF members had responded to his requests for citations for the so-called "facts" they repeatedly posted, that too would have prevented the disruption and also given the GGTF more credibility. They appear not to understand ]. Or the offended women could have just ignored him (not as good as addressing problems he rightfully pointed out) under the philosophy of "Don't feed the trolls", that might have worked also.<p>But the massive freaking out (by Lightbreather, Carolmooredc, Neotarf, EvergreenFir and others) escalated the situation to what we have now. I'm embarrassed, as a female, by their behavior.<p>Banning a specific word used by Shakespeare, James Joyce etc., a word that only relatively recently became "forbidden", on the basis of predominantly U.S. standards, and calling for U.S. district court decisions regarding what constitutes a "hostile workplace" to be enforced on[REDACTED] seems like a bad move.<p>In an interpersonal environment, people talking face-to-face, is entirely different than the internet environment of wikipedia. Yes, it's tense to try to edit here, especially when, from what I've seen, there are so many ] editors, and IMO, Carolmooredc and Neotarf are among them. (I've pointed out specific examples in previous postings here.) ] (]) 03:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hesitate to add anything at this late stage, especially something likely already considered. But has thought been given to simply restricting both Eric Corbett and Carolmooredc to editing only the article mainspace? That is, no article talk, usertalk or wikiproject edits - we can all point to problematic edits on these pages, but to the best of my knowledge neither Eric nor Carolmooredc has ever misused article space, and I can't imagine they would. | |||
| :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. ] (]) 01:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Welcome to wikipedia! While we all welcome input from newer editors, and the edit history of your IP 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. ] (]) 01:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The benefit to Misplaced Pages is retaining two content contributors who can continue to expand our coverage of their various special subjects. The benefit to Eric and Carolmooredc is avoidance of bans which a number of Committee members have conceded are second-best outcomes. As a remedy it also avoids the apparent complexity associated with enforcing proposal 2.3. It would necessarily need an admonition against uncivil or pointy edit summaries, but I'd suggest this is small beer compared to the current issues of either incivility or battleground behaviour. As neither Eric nor Carolmooredc's editing interests overlap, it is also unlikely they will come into contact with each other through article work. | |||
| == Grammatical Correction == | |||
| ::Just a compromise idea, aimed at reducing future disruption/AE clarification while retaining content contribtions from two people with good writing skills. Apologies if it has been proposed and rejected previously. -- ] (]) 09:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Proposed remedy # 4 should read, "Sitush is warned not ''to'' create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with." <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 19:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Not a bad idea on the face of it but as this is a collaborative project it would be difficult for any editor to work with/learn from/teach others without any dialogue being permitted. ] 13:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Fixed. Thanks. ''<small>→ Call me</small>'' ]] 21:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fair point, though this would be an alternative to bans. -- ] (]) 20:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would like to correct one point here. ] wrote above, " GGTF members had responded to requests for citations for the so-called 'facts' they repeatedly posted, that too would have prevented the disruption and also given the GGTF more credibility." Eric's requests, which he repeated on multiple talk pages, were answered more than once. Others simply got tired of him making the same requests. Also, I'm embarrassed, as a female, by EChastain's "I'm embarrassed" comment. ] (]) 23:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Carolmooredc comments== | |||
| ::Also, those who are critical of the sexist editing environment on Misplaced Pages are no more "freaking out" than those who deny that there is sexism. Terms like "massive freaking out" are not going to help improve the WP editing environment or to close the gender gap. ] (]) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| # <u>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.</u> <s>(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.)</s> ''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. | |||
| # <u>Do I have the correct understanding of "broadly construed"?</u> I assume it means GGTF project, ] article, any discussions ''anywhere'' on Misplaced Pages about Misplaced Pages gender gap issues. I assume it does ''not'' mean a topic ban from articles about women in general, womens' bios (except Misplaced Pages Gender Gap activists), feminism/the Feminism Wikiproject, other Countering Systemic Bias taskforces, noticeboard items in which GGTF participants happen to be involved, etc. | |||
| # ''<u>The "Non-discrimination policy" section</u> 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.Misplaced Pages, which really is not a good sign. | |||
| # <u>I am happy with the Sitush two-way interaction ban!</u> ''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.'' 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. {{Smiley}} | |||
| # 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". <small>'''] (])'''</small> 21:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Didn't you retire? I seem to remember hearing something about that, oh, right about the time this case started... ] (]) 06:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Diffs don't support Salvio's "site ban" proposal=== | |||
| Given ]'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.) | |||
| *Yes, the same as Dennis Brown came out of retirement to comment on this page, so have I. I would like to reiterate here what I said below. What I said was misunderstood to be based ''only'' on gender. My observation was '''''not''''' based only on gender. Before making it, I read and re-read the Proposed principles, the Proposed findings of fact, and the Proposed remedies, and, in my opinion, gender was ultimately the significant, contributing factor in the case's outcome - at least as it stands at this time. Since I have detailed my thinking below, I will add only this. | |||
| *''(A) During a previous Arbitration case, Carolmooredc has been found to make "]"<br>'' | |||
| ::The only thing ] is a Sitush ANI "]" which had seven diffs. which I hopefully shared at Arbitration, shows they were mostly innocuous comments. Perhaps as important to the Arbitrators should be that after I ], he came GGTF to harass me, resulting in an ]. (Sitush also left a number of talk page comments at that arbitration.) | |||
| *''(B) Carolmooredc has actively supported keeping articles by in her words ""<br>'' | |||
| ::Throwing the bias card was a little joke, but I should know better than to make a joke on a serious site like Misplaced Pages. 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 including accusations that editors who have never met are married.<br>'' | |||
| ::* This complaint on Tarc's talk page about Sitush was after he had gratuitously brought me up in a frivolous ANI against Tarc. Here's Sitush's insulting reply. | |||
| ::* Did no one read the evidence where I wrote: ''*Misunderstanding alliance psychology led me to believe ]'s hostility towards me and GGTF were due to her close relationship with Corbett.. I ineptly asked her about a vaguely remembered ''(false)'' rumor was she was his wife, as a possible ].'' Since everyone was so agitated I did apologize for repeating a "nasty rumor", though that characterization is a bit exaggerated. | |||
| :::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 ] 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, despite agreeing that an interaction ban would be positive.'' | |||
| ::* 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? | |||
| ::* This is just a repeat of the Tarc talk page diff above. | |||
| ::*'', 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??'' | |||
| ::* 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" 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 (including after I banned him, ); his talk page, other user talk pages and elsewheres. Seven of Sitush’s 10 edits at GGTF were directed at me.<br>'' | |||
| :The second Proposed principle in this case, after Purpose of Misplaced Pages, is the Non discrimination policy, ''supported by all 12 arbitrators'': | |||
| In his original filing on the ] page, ] identified me as the target of hostility. 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.". 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?'' | |||
| ::''The Wikimedia Foundation non-discrimination policy prohibits discrimination against users on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics.'' | |||
| :If you were to look at this case as you would a jury trial, you would note that the jury is made up of 11 men and 1 woman. Look at how those men and women voted, especially regarding Carolmooredc and Eric Corbett, ''both'' of whom have pluses and minuses going for them, albeit differing pluses and minuses. (See ]) Now, imagine if the jury had been 11 women and 1 man, or even 6 women and 6 men. Do you think the outcome would be the same, especially regarding CMDC and EC, in either of those situations? I, for one, do not. Ultimate contributing factor in this case? Gender. ] (]) 18:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| At the evidence talk page we already discussed Salvio's ] and he's obviously had lots of who states ''he wants me site banned.'' 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?'' <small>'''] (])'''</small> 17:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tribalism, and a faulty analysis if I've ever seen one.] — ] 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::RGloucester, I get that you think that there is no sexism on Misplaced Pages. I disagree, and so do quite a few others. I also get that you equate charges of sexism with tribalism. Here's another "ism" for you: reductionism. How about you make your own "final comment" as a stand-alone, bulleted item, and quit pestering me with your "tribalism" ]? ] (]) 19:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think I ever said anything about "sexism", so I don't know how you presumed anything about what I "think" on that matter. What I do think, however, is that it is entirely inappropriate to be accusing most of the arbitrators, trusted members of the community, of voting based on their gender in this instance, without any evidence for such a claim. That's tribalism, an "us versus them" attitude that posits an essential male drive to cast one's lot with other men. In fact, I believe it is just as insulting to the one declared woman on the committee, implying that the only reason she's voted as she did was because of a tribalistic desire to protect an editor of the same gender. It is rubbish, unsubstantiated, and an attack on a body that the community has granted its trust. ] — ] 19:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, you didn't ''spell out'' the word "sexism," but you replied to a charge of sexism/gender bias (a charge that wasn't qualified as ''conscious,'' BTW) with your "there are no 'men' and 'women'" rubbish and a "tribalism is a sin" edit summary. | |||
| :::::I have respect for the arbitrators. Many of us have had similar, thankless jobs in our lives and know the difficulties - including being open to criticism. But "trusted members of the community" can still be sexist, whether they're conscious of it or not. We ''all'' have biases, including you, RG. Again, why not leave my opinion alone and make your own final comment re this case? ] (]) 20:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'll be happy to leave you alone. I'm fairly certain that you are a hopeless case. I simply could not let such an absurd attack on the community stand alone. A charge of "unconsciousness" is much more grievous than a charge of "consciousness". It implies that the arbitrators have no capability for self-reflection, or even free will, and essentially posits that they should not even be sitting on the committee. Regardless, I yield. ] — ] 20:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Your opinion and your promise both noted. Thanks for the latter. ] (]) 20:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Questions for the committee about proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies for Neotarf == | |||
| *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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages mud sticks and you obviously don't get it. ] (]) 21:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I notice that GorillaWarfare agrees with Carcharoth that "I don't agree with every diff used", but they still both voted for it. Also that NewYorkBrad says "the emphasis on usernames and signatures is a bit misplaced". Would you consider a reordering of the diffs--a number of them are *very* old, and none of them have warnings. That is totally unfair to lump a huge number of old and bogus diffs together and ask everyone to vote whether they can find something wrong with "one" of them. Since three arbitrators agree on agree on that, how about separating the three sections and voting on them individually, but with quality diffs, not some that are four months old, and have never had any kind of warnings associated with them, so as not to poison the well against me by making it look like there are more issues than there really are. | |||
| ::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.] (]) 07:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The proper venue for questions about names is also not specified, although the finding of fact refers to "following normal dispute resolution on such matters" and the remedies refer to "appropriate channels". I'm assuming they mean something other than ] policy, which I have followed. There is also no finding about what channel I actually used. | |||
| :::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. ] ] 07:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| And why are there a diff in there by ]? If Bishonen is going to be cited as a reliable source about the Misplaced Pages meaning of "passive aggressive" as opposed to "passive aggressive" the mental disorder diagnosis, shouldn't it be moved to the "proposed principles" and not presented as if it was one of my edits and evidence of misconduct on my part? This is very misleading, and not at all fair to me. | |||
| ::::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 ] - 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 16:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| So what I am asking for, to support the finding of fact and remedies, is something like: | |||
| ::::: That is just nonsensical. ] 16:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{quote|Proposed Principles: | |||
| *1) The proper channel for questions about names. | |||
| *2) The Misplaced Pages meaning of "passive aggressive", and whether this is a personal attack or "casting aspersions". | |||
| The committee might also ponder whether these rise to the level of arbcom concern: | |||
| ::::: 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. ] ] 17:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *3) Whether it is an "unfounded accusation" to ask someone a direct question about their motives | |||
| *4) Whether a "battleground mentality" consists of a) not following the "orders" of a talk page stalker who appears to be unknowlegable b) assuming lack of interest and knowledge where others are assuming bad faith c) asking for additional information to help particular users contribute constructively d)introducing materials that stimulate calm and constructive guided discussion around a potentially contentious issue (the gamergate party piece) e) labeling a section for NSFW content after complaints from users who said they edit from their jobs (immediately reverted without discussion, and I did not edit war to restore it) f) questioning the concept that content creation is so overwhelmingly important that it overrides professional treatment of colleagues g) expressing disappointment over the premature closure of a thread that might have provided the community discussion needed for dispute resolution and avoidance of an arbcom case. | |||
| ::Is "battleground" 1) trying something that didn't work 2) trying something that did work and someone just wanted to complain about for their own reasons 3) expressing an opinion that someone else disagrees with? What are the criteria for "battle ground" that is being applied to me? Doesn't this mean edit warring? | |||
| ::::::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. ] (]) 18:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Findings of fact: | |||
| :::::::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. ] ] 19:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *1) The channel for questions about names that was actually used by Neotarf. | |||
| *2) Whether it is forbidden to discuss whether using phrases that are also names for ] stigmatizes mental disorders in the same way that calling someone a ] is linked to ].}} | |||
| Remedies | |||
| :::::::::If you bother to read the ], I complained that she "sure comments on me alot" (from whatever she had just written <s>moments before</s>; 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 which I didn't include which shows the preceding diff that was another attack on me. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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. ] (]) 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?'' | |||
| :::::::::::::::<small>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"; "...'why the personal attacks'. Firstly, you should have grown a backbone by now..."; "I deal with enough fucking idiots here without having to add you to the list."; "She is an absolute pest"; "Carol, piss off and enjoy your nap."; "written version of verbal diarrhoea, sprayed everywhere, irritating, usually unwanted and, frankly, tedious"; and all ]. Should I have just called J3Mrs names and told her to "piss off" with her "verbal ]" 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 ] wrote: "the idea that women make false claims and men are always just misunderstood can be the default."</small> <small>'''] (])'''</small> 16:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The words "broadly construed", an unfortunate turn of phrase for a gender case, have now been removed, but I don't really understand the meaning of the topic ban no matter how it is construed. I don't recall ever commenting on "the gender disparity on Misplaced Pages itself" What point is there in humiliating me by topic banning me from this? What problem does it prevent? | |||
| :::::::::::{{ec}} {{u|Sagaciousphil}} is a woman. I thought this had been cleared up? - ] (]) 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 01:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes, I am female but first and foremost I consider myself an “editor”. I endorse what {{u|Ruby2010}}, {{u|Voceditenore}}, {{u|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'''”, , so it appears CMDC is still trying to maintain she has seen this “reference/rumor/joke” elsewhere — without providing any diffs. ] - ] 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 Misplaced Pages, some editors here have seriously been bashed by Eric's behavior, he has a long history of incivility towards people women and men alike. - ] (]) 00:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Disparity is difference or lack of similarity. I should think it would be very hard indeed to edit anything without mentioning any differences between male and female. That would be a very hard thing to control. This "remedy" looks to me like just another word for site ban, because men and women, not to mention male and female animals, are everywhere. Anyone who does not treat this strangely defined "topic ban" as a site ban and leave immediately will be hounded to death by a thousand cuts, by the same ones who caused this case to be brought. | |||
| 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 ]). ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| It is no secret that I have been trying to "leave with dignity" for some time. I can't count how many times the Arbcom has put me off and told me to wait. Now they propose I hang around trying to appeal stuff for still longer, while they threaten to drag my name through the mud. If someone had some legitimate concern about me, why didn't they come to my talk page and discuss it with me, or get an admin to do so? Instead, I get named late to an arbcom case, secretly on a mailing list by an arbitrator, with no evidence, and no reasons given. Even now, no one answer my questions about exactly what exact words are of concern, so that I can address those issues. That no one can explain to me why I am here, speaks for itself. | |||
| == Question on "Non discrimination policy" == | |||
| Would the ban extend to questions about gender issues to arb candidates? What about Jimbo's talk page--can the outcome of the case be discussed there? Would the ban extend to external sites? | |||
| 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. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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 ]. ] (]) 23:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Newyorkbrad}} The wording you ] 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. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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. ] (]) 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|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. :) ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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. ] (]) 23:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification. I would love to see them synthesized. Cheers! ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 00:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| @] 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.'' | |||
| I seem to be the only one who is being indeffed, and I'm not exactly a major player in this drama. My , when I left a link to the ] list, which had a lot of red links on it. But only a month later, for the first time, tired of all the disruptions coming across my watchlist, and the vandalizing of my talk page, I and recommended that everyone else do the same." | |||
| Re "legally protected characteristics". This doesn't specify '''who''' has decided what characteristics are considered "legally protected". | |||
| For those who oppose the existence of this project, I can report that all the names of all 75 recipients on that International Women of Courage Award are now blue links. —] (]) 07:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Also, are these "characteristics" prone to be US-centric? The use of "states and municipalities" used above by {{u|EvergreenFir}}, as well as the three posts by {{u|Neotarf}} of an email from "a anonymous user" based on the US definition of a "hostile work environment" (Jimbo Wales talk page), and the arbcom workshop page ''Proposals by User:Neotarf'' under "Comment by a anonymous user" and Neotarf's diffs on the evidence page with her inclusion criteria at the bottom: ''Note: criteria for choosing diffs loosely based on blog comments about a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: ] '') all suggest these editors may be assuming US legal and government views of ] or a ] speech etc. worthy of getting upset over is to be enforced on en:wiki. | |||
| The suggested replacement from another arbcom case is very subjective. Examples: the diffs presented by Neotarf don't seem like awful insults. Are all posts with humor or personality to be forbidden? (This will be a very dull place then.) {{u|Robert McClenon}}'s evidence from {{u|EvergreenFir}}'s "Evidence of disruption from Evergreen Fir" on are all crossed out by Robert McClenon except one, 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 ] would be freely allowed under the ]. 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. | |||
| :Good defense/offense. But remember you are just topic ban indeffed, while the committee has bowed to the Will of Sitush and site banned this uppity female. Just to be factual. {{Smiley}} <small>'''] (])'''</small> 10:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Carol, I can't tell if you're trolling, throwing oil on the fire, being sarcastic, or just spouting nonsense. I wish I'd placed an "I'm an uppity female" userbox on my talk page: you'd have to make a 180 on me, since ovaries seem to be the only basis for you to evaluate others on, and it's that essentialist attitude (an embarrassment to any "gender" project) that makes me wonder if you should be talking about women's issues at all. In the meantime, few people have done more than Sitush to combat the colonialist attitudes, still pervasive in print, in our India- and caste-related articles. You could have tried to win him for your cause, whatever your cause is. ] (]) 14:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're a lady? Wow you never know who lurks behind a username lol, I was just made aware of another admin that was as well. Both of you do pretty top notch work, that's one reason I like the username aspect it is just a screen. The actions behind is what matters not the username or presence or absence of a dangler 8). ] (]) 16:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Er I see it now my bad! ] (]) 16:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You should read the ban remedy against you again. Even the oppose votes acknowledge you are a problem.Your behavior on this talk page is demonstrative of your overall behavior. You've walked up the gallows and put the noose around your neck. You've done everything but jump.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 16:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would the clerks please remove this ad hominem attack against me? —] (]) 18:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Neotarf there is no personal attack, if criticizing your behavior is an attack the arvs have attacked you too. We are discussing your behavior which is has been far from blameless. ] (]) 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Gents, no offense intended, but you're both very personally involved with Neotarf. I don't think you're good judges of if something is an attack or not. Could the three of you simply disengage from each other?--v/r - ]] 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm fairly certain I can understand the concept of what is and is not an attack even if I don't get along with the person. ] (]) 22:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Archived == | |||
| :@EChastain, do you feel similarly about racial words, like the "N-word"? Or what about words that were once widely used but now verboten? ] (]) 22:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::(ec)@{{u|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. | |||
| Hi All. I've archived most of this talk page (everything from before today) to ]. I'm very tempted to archive the rest too, and lock down this page. Can I re-iterate the following | |||
| ::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 ], a ] 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. | |||
| *We are at a proposed decision phase. The evidence and workshop phases are ''over''. New evidence should not be submitted. | |||
| *The only use of this talk page is to help arbitrators with their decision. | |||
| Sniping at each other, complaining about parties, complaining about arbitrators, complaining about the case have now no place here. Any further sniping will lead to people being barred from this page - and plausibly the page locked down all together. Clerks, please ensure this happens. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:I agree that it is proper to archive this talk page for now. However, I feel there may be a reason to unarchive it when the case is finally closed. It may have some value to keep in mind what went on on this page so that the same can be prevented from happening on other pages. ] (]) 12:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Since proposals on this talkpage are meant for arbitrators eyes, then it's best that only arbitrators respond. Afterall, the ''evidence'' & ''workshop'' phases are now over. ] (]) 19:13, 24 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. ] (]) 00:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|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? | |||
| ::There should be a rule that all non-arb comments on this page should be addressed to the arbs only, and there is no need for non-arbs to direct comments at each other. This should immediately make this page useful.] (]) 06:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Our article on Carlin's "] 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 ] has been reclaimed by the ] community. | |||
| :What will happen now is that people will post stuff that they think hasn't been addressed.... All the best: ''] ]'', <small>17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| == the gender disparity between Misplaced Pages editors.? == | |||
| ::::Our article, ] 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 {{u|Eric Corbett}}'s ], a FA.) Very recently ] was redirected to ]. Why? | |||
| I just noticed that the topic bans say "the gender disparity between Misplaced Pages editors." What on earth is that? Only same-sex? —] (]) 12:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems the language of the bans has been changed to "disparity between editors". Could someone be so kind as to explain the meaning of this new language, and perhaps either introduce this in a new resolution or ask the arbs who already voted to reconfirm their votes? —] (]) 18:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::All of the topic bans use the same wording; "gender disparity between Misplaced Pages editors". I'm not sure where you're seeing that it's been changed to "disparity between editors". ] <small>]</small> 04:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The previous language was "the Gender Gap on Misplaced Pages, broadly construed". —] (]) 07:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Right. Per my comments on those remedies, I found them to be much too vague. ] <small>]</small> 17:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A more complete, but more verbose, wording would be "discussion of the gender disparity in rates of participation on Misplaced Pages between males and females." This would include, among other things, the causes of the disparity and what, if anything, should be done to address it." ] (]) 17:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I wonder whether such wording fully addresses the locus of the dispute. Some of the discussion at GGTF went off-topic from the ramifications of the well-documented gender gap and instead focused on alleged misogyny and prejudice on the part of current male editors and Admins. It's not clear that the proposed sanction refers to the second subject. ]] 18:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So perhaps, relating to any (alleged?) disparity in the participation rate ''or the treatment'' of editors? ] (]) 18:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| One of the problems arising from the disruptions on the project page that triggered this case was an inability to reach a consensus on the goals of the project. The came from Tony: 1) Attracting women to make the first edit 2) Promoting a culture of social support for newbies 3) Improving coverage of women and women's topics. | |||
| ::::::@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. ] (]) 19:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Other contributors, like Corbett, SPECIFICO, and Sitush, regarded the project page as an appropriate venue to argue that the project should not exist. The GGTF group failed to handle this disruption with page ban proposals, since they framed the proposal naming several editors together, including Corbett, apparently not being familiar with the history of Corbett's participation on WP. When page bans failed, a more successful approach of proposing interaction bans with Carolmooredc was tried, with more success, since several users seem to have followed Carol to GGTF from other topic areas. An interaction ban with SPECIFICO and Carolomooredc was successful, and an interaction ban between Carolmoorece and Sitush was still in progress at the time that Sitush withdrew from editing and posted a "retired" banner. | |||
| :::::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. ] ] 19:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| With Carolmooredc removed from the project, the interaction bans with her will no longer serve to prevent disruption on GGTF. The sanctions that are currently passing will selectively remove the individuals who want the group to encourage participation by women and leave the individuals who believe the project page should be used to argue against participation by women. While the ArbCom is technically not supposed to decide content disputes, they have made a ''de facto'' decision about the purpose of the group by removing all the proponents of one side and leaving all the proponents of the other. —] (]) 19:17, 25 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. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 23:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I |
:I'm sorry but that is a massive rewriting of history, Neotarf. - ] (]) 19:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :{{ping|Neotarf}} I thought you've made it clear that you're not a member of GGTF. What about {{u|SlimVirgin}} who seems to be doing most of the clean up, archiving etc. at the GGTF? ] (]) 01:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Who decides the purpose of a project? Does ArbCom have any remit here? If there is no precedent for the Arbcom making a determination of a group's purpose, can the Arbcom decide what the purpose is *not*? For instance, can the Arbcom say the project is *not* a place to debate whether the group should exist? There are similar statements about global warming articles, that the article talk page is not for discussion of whether global warming actually exists. —] (]) 02:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think arbcom could say that you can't set up a project that is limited only to "women" and that "guys" can't have a voice. ] (]) 01:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Spelling error in "Fair criticism" section == | |||
| Really. In my hatted and archived comments '''posted 9 days ago''' I addressed this ridiculous wording, and suggested: | |||
| Please change ''demonstratinge'' to ''demonstrating''. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 21:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. ] (]) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I prefer "demonstratinge". All the best: ''] ]'', <small>01:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :'''topic banned from the pages of the GGTF, and any discussions about gender disparity of Wikipedians.''' | |||
| == Error in Sitush's section == | |||
| Which seems both simple and addresses the proposed intent. I can't understand why a bakers dozen of broadly intelligent people have trouble over simple wording like this. | |||
| Error is in "working in positively in". I think that first "in" needs to be removed. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 21:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. ] (]) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| All the best: ''] ]'', <small>17:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| == Articles about opponents == | |||
| == Neotarf Ban == | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{hat|1=Evidence phase is over. ] <small>]</small> 04:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| To the opposing administrators please exam ] this is the mainspace (constructive edits) of Neotarf for most of 2014, now look at this ] that's the main edits made for that same period just to[REDACTED] talk and at least 75 percent is at arbcom, do you really think that a topic ban will stop the madness it's pretty clear from the retired template on their page and their edits shown here they aren't here to build the encyclopedia and it's been some time since they have been. ] (]) 14:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This is nothing but an ''ad hominem'' attack against me and I ask the clerks to remove it. Most the committee will be familiar with the resignation of three editors including myself in a situation involving ] admin Sandstein and Discretionary Sanctions, and the year-long review of Discretionary Sanctions by the arbitrators AGK and Roger Davies that followed. I'm sure the Committee is also familiar with the fact that during 2013 I wrote the Arbitration Report for the ''Signpost'', on a weekly basis, which amounts to thousands of words written by me but published by the ''Signpost'''s editor-in-chief. —] (]) 18:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Neaotarf, it's another strike against you that you falsely call a criticism of your actions ''ad hominem''. Your behavior throughout this Case has made it clear that nothing short of the proposed site ban is going to remedy your disruption here. ]] 18:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Would the clerks please remove this new ad hominem attack against me. —] (]) 18:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ], ] and ]. ] (]) 19:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Dual mentorship for Carolmooredc & Eric Corbett == | |||
| 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? ] (]) 22:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As a ''last chance'' for both CDC & EC, would arbitrators consider having ''2'' mentors per editor? For Carol, the mentors (who would be self-declared ''male'' & ''female'') would help her steer clear of male vs female based disputes. For Eric, his mentors would help him control his temper & better deal with baiters. ] (]) 14:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Eric doesn't need a mentor. He has dozens of knowledgeable Misplaced Pages friends who already fulfill that purpose. Carol should first demonstrate a desire to change before any efforts are expended. (Maybe she has without me being aware.) ] <sup>]</sup> 15:03, 24 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. --] (]) 22:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
:: She says she did, but what she was saying got drowned in the din.] (]) 15:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::: I think there was an older case, Mattisse or however it was spelled, which had a similar arrangement in which a group of editors agreed to work with that editor, and place blocks as required. It didn't work particularly well I'm afraid, partially because of the intransigent nature of that individual editor. I'm not sure if it would be an acceptable alternative here, but I think that there is probably a better chance that at least one of the editors under consideration might not be as intransigent as that individual was. ] (]) 15:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: |
::: It's never too late. I recommend that she post the diff or repeat such remarks. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I like your recommendation and second it. TBC, she did not say anything about mentorship, but about being open to constructive suggestions, and making changes. If you look at the activity on this page after WTT's archiving, and stern warning against sniping etc. some users, even some supposedly responsible users, have continued to post acidic attacks on her. Only a Zen master could be expected to escape becoming unsettled in such an environment. I don't see how she could be expected to approach things with a constructive / positive mind-frame with such attacks continuing. If she ignores these attacks, those comments stand unopposed and she gets demonized. If she counters them, she is tendentious. What is she to do ? I think the arbs are conscious of this situation and will put their foot down firmly on this sort of activity, even if it is coming from some well established users. My perception is that issues related to her were only rooted in problems between her and one or two other users. One of those issues is getting solved by an Iban, and there can be one more Iban if necessary. This is how I see things, other are surely free to come up with other suggestions. ( What I say in this post is without any consultation with CMDC ).] (]) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Newyorkbrad, take note of the above comments, and ask yourself if the message has gotten through! ] (]) 03:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think she is unlikely to further participate with this process while a particular user and his supporters are harassing / baiting her. I think anything that this particular user and his supporters say to/about her should be seen as instigatory / harassment / baiting.] (]) 02:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I will note that Eric has soundly rejected the idea of mentorship in the past, and I can understand why. Regardless of the reason, mentorship will only work if the protégé is agreeable. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 16:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|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. —] (] '''·''' ]) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hope they'll both agree to it. ] (]) 16:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Writing a BLP about someone you are in genuine conflict with - whether on or off Misplaced Pages - is simply a horrible idea. To ] the sometimes reliable encyclopedia Misplaced Pages "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 Misplaced Pages matters, then you ''are'' acting upon a secondary interest right there. ] (]) 23:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::In response to Worm, the word "mentorship" might be inappropriate here, maybe something more like "oversight board", or a dedicated AE board, which would have the power to make "you shouldn't oughtn't'a done that" statements as well as blocks if necessary, would be better. Allowing either such a group or the AE enforcers to vary the length of block depending on recidivism and nature of the offense would be possible, although the ArbCom could also provide some rough guidelines or pointers of what they think reasonable. ] (]) 16:34, 24 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. - ] (]) 23:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Eric needs a short leash with speedy and non-appealable 48 hour blocks whenever he is disruptive and Carol needs to be shown the door as a Net Negative and NOTHERE. ] (]) 17:22, 24 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 Misplaced Pages about me. I do see a slightly hyped up version of one old bio someone did of me on ]. Written by someone (obviously falsely) calling himself by a Misplaced Pages 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. {{Smiley}} <small>'''] (])'''</small> 03:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Eric has already been blocked over and over again but still continued with the incivility what makes you think that this will work? - ] (]) 18:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Definition of "Gender Gap" == | |||
| :*{{u|Carrite}} is as right as rain here. I know Eric, it is the unrealistic long blocks that seem abusive, and arguably are. You pop him with a short block when he needs it, you would be surprised at the results you get, as he knows the price each time and he can decide if it is worth it. Admittedly, some days it will be, but most days it won't. If you are trying to prevent disruption, that is a tool that would work. The other day when Chillum hit him for 48 hours, I backed Chillum when others complained, and Eric himself said it was reasonable (while poking Chillum at the same time). Problem was solved for at least two days. If you want ''retribution'', then no, but if you want to prevent disruption, this would work. ] - ] 23:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Add Sitush and SPECIFICO and we might have a basis of discussion. It then would mean to the world that ARBCOM takes harassment of editors and furious attempts to topic and site ban them seriously. Otherwise all you have here for the world to see, once the relevant diffs are set side to side in a pretty little chart, is an incredible double standard application of rules of behavior between males and known and verified females on Misplaced Pages. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 18:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Arbs have the final word on that. I merely mentioned only yourself & EC, 'cause you borth are ''currently'' in ban-territory, via arb votes. ] (]) 03:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Both editors are well into adulthood, have strong personalities, and can't be "mentored". Perhaps the assignment of a "minder" that would need to pre-approve every edit they propose would work, but no one in the world would want that job.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 22:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Here's some more institutional memory (compare ]'s comment ): anybody who remembers the ''folie à quatre'' Mattisse mentorship, which drew several well-meaning people into a maelstream of manipulation, will run screaming from the notion of trying a group of mentors or "editorial board" with Carol. Fun fact, btw: one of Mattisse's first mentors was Malleus Fatuorum, a k a ], who alone among the mentors had the good sense to withdraw when he saw the direction it was taking. ] | ] 15:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC). | |||
| 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[REDACTED] 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. ] (]) 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. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 00:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::As it happens, I actually am considering whether adding a form of DS remedy would be useful here. ] (]) 00:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Arbitrators, I ''beg'' you (again), ban ''nobody''. You & the adminstrators don't need the coming headaches, as Carol & Eric both have strong support bases. If you ban both? or (worst) one & not the other? your ruling will be seen as bias by many. ] (]) 15:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Casting aspersions == | |||
| : Arbitrators won't buckle under pressure. If there's a rational argument not to ban either editor, I am sure they would consider it, but threats of disruption by supporters or detractors are irrelevant. We are all quite happy to face headaches in order to do what's right. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I thought the principle on casting aspersions | |||
| {{Quote| "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, ] talks of "serious accusations". | |||
| I'm less sure about the proposal to change that to the version | |||
| {{Quote| "'''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 ] 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with adding serious. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 00:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikilawyering by an idiot here == | |||
| :::Thank you for acknowledging some of the more problematic editors behaviors on this case. ] (]) 01:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This is more or less in response to {{ping|Seraphimblade}}'s comment, and if it is entirely inappropriate and maybe brain-dead stupid my apologies. But, theoretically, if Eric called me a witless, mentally impaired, incontinent pedophile with delusions of humanity (or something like that), and I myself thought it was no big deal and didn't in any way complain but someone else did without my input or support, and possibly contrary to my own wishes, how would that be dealt with? ] (]) 17:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == What is "that word"? == | |||
| *Another details question about this new remedy (sorry for piggybacking, John): based on current wording, it's not clear who would have standing to make the AE appeal about any blocks on Eric. Iirc, AE appeals typically need to be submitted by the sanctioned party; in this case, if Eric is blocked, Eric cannot appeal his block on AE (until after the block expires, at which point the issue is moot). If the intention is for him to appeal on his talk page and have it copied to AE, that runs into the provision that allows his talk page access to be removed, and there should be some language in the remedy addressing his route of appeal if he can't edit his talk. If the intention is for people other than Eric to bring appeals, that seems like a departure from standard procedure that should probably be spelled out and justified. ] (]) 18:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) I certainly think it's a fair question. Anyone can bring a matter to ], whether they're personally involved in the matter or not. And that's as it should be if, for example, someone were insulted and left in outrage over it, and someone else noted the situation and raised it at AE. I did AE prior to my time on the Committee, though, and I know in a case like your hypothetical, where the supposedly "attacked" party came and said "We were joking, I took absolutely no offense", I would've recommended taking no action on the complaint, and I think so would the others I worked with. I would hope the admins there have the sense to differentiate between good-natured ribbing bothering no one and an attack, and in my experience they do. In the event someone doesn't, there also is an appeals process for any AE sanction.<p>To Fluffernutter's question, an editor with talk page access revoked who wishes to appeal an AE sanction can request that an appeal be posted by emailing the sanctioning administrator (who should be the first stop anyway), or if they are nonresponsive or unwilling, by emailing the Committee and requesting one be posted on their behalf. That would be true in any case, it wouldn't be a special provision for Eric, and such appeals are allowed. Those aren't the "third party" appeals that are normally rejected, they're appeals ''requested'' by the sanctioned party and only ''posted'' by someone else. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wait, so are "third party" (i.e. not-requested-by-sanctioned-editor) appeals normally rejected (your last paragraph) or acceptable (your first paragraph)? Or would it depend on the content and context of the appeal, and everything's just a bundle of wibbly-wobbly play-it-by-ear stuff? ] (]) 18:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Somewhat relevant, I've asked friendly editors to remove any harassing/trashing criticism of me at my talk page after I'm banned. But in case something insulting gets missed, will there a person I can appeal to in order to discourage trolls?? Or can it just be protected. Remember I did have a lot of trolling there by a long time abuser a few years ago which is why I got those roll back rights which happily I haven't had to use much the last couple years. Thanks. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'm not familiar with how situations such as this are dealt with. I think this concern would be covered by our attitude wrt gravedancing, although I'm not sure whether that is set in stone (WP:TPG?). Locking your page would hinder anyone who might wish to leave inoffensive/supportive messages. I'm sorry that it seems to have come to this. Really, I am. - ] (]) 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Oh, please. You wrote on Sept 5, as shown in evidence, "The sooner she is site-banned, the better for everyone..." Sitush singlehandedly has shown how Arbitration can be used to harass the heck out of an editor. Congrats! <small>'''] (])'''</small> 19:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have to agree with Carol here you aren't sorry not in the slightest bit. - ] (]) 19:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Of course I am. I had hoped that she could adapt but alas, if anything, things are becoming still more trenchant and have now spread to some sort of xenophobia etc. - ] (]) 19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::If you were really sorry then why make the comments? Everyone knows you don't like Carol now that she is getting banned and after all you have said now you are sorry? I don't really want to go off track here I just find this wrong in my opinion. - ] (]) 19:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Sheesh. No point in me arguing against you if you are convinced that you can read my mind, sorry. Believe what you wish. - ] (]) 19:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: ] seems to be pertinent to your concerns. - ] (]) 19:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Fluffernutter}}, I believe you're comparing apples to oranges. The first paragraph in response to John discussed complaints (including by third parties), yours discussed appeals. Those are different beasts, and yes they are treated differently. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ok, so there's nothing in this remedy that's not already covered by the usual AE appeal procedures, so there's no need to add extra detail to this remedy in particular. Thanks for clarifying, {{u|Seraphimblade}}, I think I've got my mental knots untangled now. ] (]) 18:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * As someone who's been around long enough to function as institutional memory, I want to sound a word of caution here. This proposal basically boils down to civility parole—a well-meaning but unmitigatedly disastrous idea which ran its course as an Arbitration remedy 5 or 6 years ago. (I have no opinion on the proper outcome of this case, only a strongly held belief that this civility parole remedy would be a huge mistake). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*I think it is not unreasonable to allow it in some cases. In this case, there seems to me to be some indication that the individual involved recognizes that a problem exists and that his own actions are at least part of the problem. While I would not support such a proposal in instances where the individual involved is unrepetent, or, possibly, when the individual involved were not clearly one of our more useful and productive editors except for these problems (being honest there), I think it isn't unreasonable to give someone who acknowledges a problem to have a chance to deal productively with it. Having said all that, it is also I think reasonable for everyone to assume that if later actions don't measure up to the statements made to date, in this or similar cases which may arise in the future, that there would be no particularly good reason for extending much any sort of further "final offers." ] (]) 22:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Sure, but that's not what I'm getting at. It has nothing to do with how "repentant" Eric is, or isn't. Civility paroles create a truly perverse set of incentives. Since there are no clear definitions of incivility, editors will flood ] with "test cases". This problem will be exacerbated by people who take offense on behalf of others (the meddling-bystander effect). If one is minded to try to get the parolee blocked, there is no real disincentive to repeated filings, since eventually (by virtue of the random nature of civility enforcement) some filings are likely to "stick". If you think that these aspects of civility parole won't be relentlessly gamed, then I can only envy your naivete. None of this is hypothetical; all of it has ''actually happened'', repeatedly and reliably, when civility paroles have been implemented in the past. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{U|John Carter}}, if someone called you a "witless, mentally impaired, incontinent pedophile with delusions of humanity" I'd probably block them on sight, perhaps indefinitely. Doesn't matter who says it. But...and I hate to ask this again...is there ''anything'' in here that's actually about GGTF? Are these restrictions planned in relation to GGTF pages? Can Eric/Carol/Sitush/whoever be blocked for calling you a "witless, mentally impaired, incontinent pedophile with delusions of humanity" on some other page? Or is this indeed just civility parole, with GGTF as a kind of token banner? ] (]) 23:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*The proposed comment was intended to be of an extreme nature, probably among the most obvious examples of overstatement I could think of. Honestly, I can only think that the first two have ever been applied to me. ;) Is this more or less broader civility parole? Honestly, so far as I can tell, as someone not involved in the decision-making, maybe? Does it have much to do with the GGTF, maybe not? Unfortunately, is this what the case seems to have become about? Seemingly, yes. Unfortunately, I think there is a history of at least some Arb cases where things go in some direction no one could have necessarily anticipated in advance, and this looks like it might be one of those. ] (]) 23:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*I feel the evidence provided that the arbs are looking at is, anything else of relevance here can be sifted through. - ] (]) 23:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from... == | |||
| You should at least mention what the word is. ]. Grognard ] ] 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''. ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 01:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Is that supposed to say "Eric has agreed to..." or "Eric is instructed to agree to..." or "If Eric agrees to... then..."? ] (]) 19:12, 24 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 ... - ] (]) 01:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, not even ArbCom can decide what Eric agrees to. I have another question: what does "shouting at" mean in this context? Is it speaking in all capitals per ]? ]] (]) 20:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think shouting just means speaking (uh, typing) to people harshly. I've got sympathy for them trying to express that adequately without being absurdly vague or ridiculously restrictive. If they are trying to agree things on his behalf through the sheer power of their voting though then that is a bit "ah... are you guys feeling okay?" ] (]) 21:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Point taken regarding "agrees to...", I've raised it accordingly. As to shouting, consider the following two (entirely made up by me, not based on any actual) statements: "I am sick and tired of your idiocy! Don't post your ridiculous drivel here again!" vs. "I'm done with this conversation, and am also requesting that you stop posting on my talk page." Same intent both times, but I think any reasonable person could tell which one of those is interpreted as shouting, and which is not. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> | |||
| ::::And what if he were to say in a discussion or an edit summary, "If you don't want to be called a , don't act like one"? Or "Were you hiding behind the door when God was handing out brains"? ] (]) 00:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Again, covered by belittling. ] 01:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To the 72... IP, I think your input is becoming less helpful here, and ask that you restrain yourself. ] (]) 00:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hey, I like hiding behind doors to jump out and scare people. Actually, with my face, I scare people anyway, but... . And there is no God. I'm sure I'd have met him at some point. <small>Y'know, maybe I'm not painting myself in the best possible light here. Shutting up now.</small> ] (]) 01:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I think the use of fewer less ambiguous words would be less wikilawyerable. '''Insulting''' or '''belittling''' are good. '''Shouting''' makes no sense. Less is more in my opinion. Seraphimblade's example and counter example are covered by belittling. As for shouting it appears the exclamation mark is key? ] 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course, Misplaced Pages 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 <s>old lady</s> '''old bean''', but those are my thoughts. Sincerely, ] (]) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Mr Corbett explicitly agreed to "stop shouting at ... people". It's about tone of voice/register ... ] <sup>]</sup> 01:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::That |
::That is my point. Recognizing tone of voice/register in text is subjective at best. It invites disagreement. Belittling and insulting are things that can be objectively observed. ] 01:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| I notice the wording still hasn't been changed. And what if Eric doesn't agree? Has anyone asked him yet? Whose job is it to do that - the clerks? ]] (]) 20:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == "2.3 Eric Corbett prohibited" is untenable == | |||
| :::Really, Sitush? They wouldn't understand you if you use language that is respectful? They laugh if you don't use derogatory words? Curious, ] (]) 01:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|This has run its course. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| This seems quite untenable as it's unclear what "shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling" is. We've already had tens of thousands of bytes of argument over whether or not "cunt" was an insult and/or slur. How is anyone supposed to agree upon what shouting, swearing, insulting, and/or belittling constitutes? This proposal seems much too subjective and unspecified to be properly implemented. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it sounds good and would be delighted to get the same sanction ''if'' it was nullified for clear and obvious cases of individuals wikihounding and insulting me, which has been quite the game here for the last 18 plus months, coming to a crescendo in this Arbitration. Of course, I'd still go on a major wikibreak, except for GGTF. But given my outrageous crimes (sarcasm alert) that could not be permitted. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 22:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it covers anything the editor in question that it was directed to finds offensive but even then what if the admin disagrees if it is not clear cut? Im not sure how this will work out either but it is a good effort at focusing on one of the core problems without a site-ban as noted though if it passes it would need major reworking. - ] (]) 22:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I used those terms precisely because they don't come with the baggage of tens of thousands of words and hundreds of hours of combative debate. They can thus be interpreted in the plain language sense in which the administrator perceives it. The rest is whether the administrator reasonably believed the words insult, or belittle or whatever. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :These blocks would be reviewed by arbcom, if the block lacked a common sense interpretation of the ruling then it would just be reversed. I think we can all recognize what is clearly abusive and I think any admin would be foolish to act on a borderline violation. ] 00:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I defer to the arbitrators' judgment on this then. Y'all have more experience than me and if you are convinced it will work, go for it. I am skeptical but generally optimistic. That said, I don't think 2.2 is a bad option, but it's clear many arbitrators aren't terribly happy with that option. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This is, as written, unworkable and makes absolutely no sense. As written it says "Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way." so even though ArbCom is trying to say Eric may be blocked for swearing at someone, that is a bog standard civility block and any old admin can come along and reverse it. Cue endless fights about whether a block constitutes a super special Arb Enforcement block or not. | |||
| :I've no objection to escalating blocks and/or requiring blocks to be logged, but to make these blocks some form of super special Arb Enforcement is unworkable and unfair to Eric, who will be at the mercy of a wide range of administrators, all of whom have a different interpretations of what constitutes uncivil behaviour, and different understandings of the language he uses. We will have no way to currently remove blocks placed in good faith which, when clarified, may be unnecessary, and looking at Eric's block log, many blocks have been lifted as a result of clarifications in language or context. ArbCom will need to agree, beforehand, what constitutes a blockable offence under this remedy at the very minimum, and provide a list of those administrators who are considered 'involved' already. | |||
| :An acceptable compromise might be shorter duration blocks, say 24 hours, which cannot be reversed, and being considered one or two shot deals, i.e an administrator who blocks Eric once or twice under this provision can't keep blocking him every day for a month. I know you need to try something but as written, it's just a charter to block Eric for ever increasing periods for comments which could be perfectly acceptable to all but a small minority of administrators. | |||
| :The second problem is that this is, as planned, going to backfire monstrously on ArbCom, as you're going to be engulfed in clarification requests about comments, about blocks, about overturned blocks, about desysopping admins and all sorts of tedious shit, that's before the ne'er-do-wells turn up and use this remedy to effectively bring ArbCom to a complete halt (as if it isn't at a near complete standstill already). ] (]) 01:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You know, if you hadn't used the edit summary you did, you might have got a reply on the substance of this. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::] ] (]) 01:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're an arbitrator and don't get the luxury of playing pathetic, childish games, Roger. ] (]) 02:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nick, you're not an arbitrator; are you indulging the luxury? Maybe you should tone it down a couple notches so observers don't get the wrong impression. I think it's a good idea to try something different from time to time. By trial and error we can learn how to make things better. If the proposed solution does not work, I am sure ArbCom will be able to replace it. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The point, Nick, is that by using the tone you have, you made things more confrontational than they needed to be. Which is ironic, as that is largely the behaviour that led to this proposal and discussion. For my part, if this all passes and is wrapped up before the end of the year (we can all hope), then I will do my best to help clarify things if any clarification requests are filed, whether this year (as an arb) or in future (as a non-arb). There may be more than a few of those, but it should become obvious to ArbCom if that process is being abused and steps can be taken at that stage if needed. ] (]) 02:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My edit summary was deliberate and slightly pointy. I've been waiting for someone to suggest it was problematic, because I'm desperate to demonstrate the issues with tone and confrontation, and how some people would say my edit summary is only just OK and others would say it's not OK - for the record, I consider it about as close to the line as I would be happy to go without becoming properly incivil. This is the problem I and other administrators would/will face when dealing with Eric under the proposal here, and we will need guidance pre-emptively on this (though I'll note here and now I'm recusing from involvement with Eric). I agree wholeheartedly that something needs to be tried, of course, but I dislike, as Jehochman puts it, a trial and error approach. :::::Trial and error would be acceptable, if one outcome wasn't that an editor could potentially be banned for a considerable period of time in the event of one or more errors (or a plain lack of guidance), or another outcome is ArbCom is drowned in clarification requests and administrators get caught up in trying to workout what's a normal civility block and what's an Arbitration Enforcement block. ] (]) 02:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This person gets to insult people five more times before we start arguing about it all over again; other volunteer editors don't count, because they're just not as good as he is. I've gotten the point now, so I won't waste your time (and should probably stop wasting mine.) --] (]) 03:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Its a slap in the face to everyone who has been belittled or insulted here that so many people are praising him. - ] (]) 03:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::^Seconded. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 04:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::And banning him is a slap in the face for the (many more) people he has helped edit and write here. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You're assuming Eric will not be able to keep his word and will start insulting people, which is, as I said, an assumption. Over the course of this case, Eric has, for the first time, asserted that he will stop being uncivil (basically) and I'm all for giving him a chance. And, from what I've seen, has managed to keep his cool during this discussion, despite the incredibly stressful environment. If this works, there won't be any insults aimed at anyone and this will be the best outcome for Misplaced Pages; if this fails, well, Eric will just be sanctioned. Since sanctions are not supposed to be punitive, I'd say that this solution is the one which best complies with the spirit of the policy. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Salvio giuliano}} Just a point of clarification: Can you point me to where Eric said that he would stop being uncivil? I haven't been able to find this statement. Thanks. ] (]) 09:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Asked whether he would stop shouting at and insulting people, no matter how justified he felt, Eric answered {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=634440918|name=yes}} (and later said {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=635151527#Last_warning|name="When have I ever not kept my word?"}}). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I would call this masochistic, but arbcom isn't the only ones who are going to get hurt here. Everyone seems to be assuming the situation will occur again, which means some random bunch of editors in the future are going to have to deal with this again, and again. Are people sending Eric out again, assuming he's going to hit someone with a stick? Who pays the price for this experiment?<p>The blocks aren't being proposed to address any underlying cause, only the after-effects of commonly-expected future disruption. There is no sense that this does anything to prevent or discourage any initial disruption. The remedy is also in the hands of the same arbs, in the same types of situations, ultimately subject to the same hair-splitting and avoidance of action. It ensures the status quo. This editor has about five blocks on their log (roughly combined from the back-and-forth); this means that this proposal contains enough second and eighth chances to ensure as much drama as has already been generated.<p>And this part, "... let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve" is just an invitation for open tag-teaming and disruption-by-proxy of the "I can't say what I'd like to this person, but could you take over for me" variety. ] 10:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yep. In fact, they often cannot understand me because of my choice of words. - ] (]) 01:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have probably been considered to be in the "anti-Eric" camp since declining an unblock thread on AN over a year ago. My view is that many legitimate blocks for personal attacks have been reversed with good intentions, but the unblocks have resulted in personal attacks being enabled and allowed the disruption to continue. However, bans are not meant as retribution or victims' justice so I'm not too concerned about "slap in the face" arguments. If the proposed remedy works, that is, allows Eric to continue working with articles while stopping belittling and contemptuous attacks against other people, then the alternative here is preferable to a ban. I hope that AE won't end up being disrupted by friends and foes of Eric. ] ] 12:36, 25 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). ] (]) 01:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Regarding length of time between Eric's outbursts=== | |||
| Again, apologies if this is just me being obsessive-compulsive again. But everybody has bad days, even if only single bad days separated by months or years, and I think most of us hope if the motion passes both Eric and the encyclopedia might be around for some time. So, in as a not entirely unreasonable possibility, let's say Eric gets a three-day block this year, another in 2017, a one-week block in 2020, a one-month block in 2023, a three-month block in 2026, and in 2029 is taken to AE for a possible site ban for being incivil a total of 6 times in 15 years. Might it be reasonable to include some sort of indicator of maybe some sort of minimum or maximum length of time between outbursts for them to qualify as "successive" as per this remedy? ] (]) 16:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : The remedy should expire after a finite amount of time. If when that time comes up the remedy might still be useful, there can be a discussion whether to extend it. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:03, 25 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. - ] (]) 01:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Why are you talking years? Eric's history has shown that he has been uncivil almost every single day or every other day at the very least from his edit summaries to his talk-page. I agree everyone has their bad days and even weeks if it is something serious but this isn't the case. - ] (]) 17:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If that's the case he's going to be site banned pretty soon after the case closes. Time will tell. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Generally speaking, we're willing to remove remedies that are outdated or no longer necessary (as we're doing by motion in several areas right now). Let us say, for example, that initially the restriction is violated a couple of times and short blocks are issued. The message is gotten and no further problems occur. If a couple years down the line, Eric files an appeal and says "Look, I've stopped this and I don't want this hanging over my head", I know I would at least strongly consider removing the remedy. The trouble with time limited remedies is that people tended to wait them out and return to the problematic behavior. Indefinite need not mean permanent, but it does mean it'll be there until it's no longer needed. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::John Carter and Arbitrators: Eric was blocked on average every 11-12 weeks between May 2008 and May 2013, (when he edited as Malleus Fatuorum). He was blocked on average every 9 weeks between May 2013 and October 2014, (editing as Eric Corbett). Or, if you add them all together, 30 blocks in 317 weeks = 1 block every 10.5 weeks. | |||
| ::: |
:::Jehochman and Arbitrators: I do ''not'' see anything in Proposal 2.3 that says explicitly that Eric will be site banned if his disruptive behavior continues. ] (]) 18:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ===Deescalation=== | |||
| ::::::::Yes, there is some momentum. It is engendered by utter disgust at the proposals generally, which are already being nitpicked to death. - ] (]) 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Largely similar to John Carter above. If there is a method of escalation, then there should also be a method of deescalation. Perhaps the count gets moved back a step every 6 months since the last block?--v/r - ]] 18:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think a significant time without violations would be a strong indication that the enforcement could be lifted. This makes more sense than an bi-annual insult allowance. ] 19:00, 25 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 ] 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. ] (]) 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it depends on the goal. If the goal is giving Eric some last chance(s) ] then no deescalation is needed. If the idea is that he just needs a strong bit of redirection every once in a while, then deescalation is appropriate. I would think a complete lifting of the sanction should be on some fairly long timeline (1yr +) since this has been a sustained issue. Perhaps only by appeal at ] and not automatic at all. For a hypothetical deescelation, something like 2x the duration of the last applied sanction, but not less than 1-2 months? (Otherwise the 72 hour one could be repeated every week or so, which would obviously not be viable) ] (]) 22:33, 25 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. ] (]) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ==Alternatives to incompetence ban?== | |||
| ::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 {{ping|Drmies}} and {{ping|TParis}}, have gone on record as saying are gaming the system etc with multiple ANI reports and the like. - ] (]) 01:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| A site ban based on the sort of behavioral criteria outlined in WP:Competence seems to me an unduly harsh measure to impose on User Carol Moore. Carol is a good person who wants to contribute to the project. Perhaps some structured mentorship, tutelage, and "check-ins" with an Arb would be a better way for the community to proceed. ] (]) 07:20, 25 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. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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? | |||
| :{{u|Steeletrap}}, I agree. I suggested that Carolmooredc needs some sort of supervision a few days ago , followed up by a question to Carolmooredc in response to her reply . I think most editors posting here or on GGTF are "a good person" (e.g.Lightbreather). But that doesn't mean they can't be massively disruptive on wikipedia, or that they have the competence required. ] (]) 13:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::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. - ] (]) 02:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If CarolMooreDC steps forward and shows self-awareness of the issue and an openness to changing, then I would support a lesser sanction. But that hasn't happened yet. She was also sanctioned 6 months ago in another case and still carried on the same way. That's what explains the different results (possibly) for her and for Eric. Underneath all the posturing and bloviating, arbitration is just a negotiation. Carol hasn't offered anything, so the Committee is probably going to ban her. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:07, 25 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 Misplaced Pages 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. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 02:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{tq|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. - ] (]) 02:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{Ping|User: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. - ] (]) 02:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, the people who need banning are Jehochman and Steeltrap for all the crap they've pulled; SITUSH/CORBETT/SALVIO/SPECIFICO/ and a bunch of their cronies. | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| :::Some people seem to think that ArbCom is so naive they don't know that the Manchester Gangbangers and their cronies/minions are engaged in '''institutionalized harassment''' using ArbCom as one of their harassment tools. They think just explaining that will open their eyes and they'll do the right thing. | |||
| The bigger problem is, ''why is there no ]?'' 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." 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 18:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, the only thing that will clear Misplaced Pages of this vicious coterie is a national publicity campaign to pressure the WMF into enforcing its Terms of Service, including against culpable ArbCom members. (I see several Sitush/Corbett/ cronies/minions are running for the next Arbitration Committee.) And I'm one of dozens who see it that way, we just haven't decided where to organize our efforts. Just because their tactic worked on silencing 1.2 billion Indians with their Brit imperialist drivel doesn't mean it will work on silencing 3.3 billion women. After all 1/2 the members of the Board are women. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 14:25, 25 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. ] (]) 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 19:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's something not sinking in, that's for sure. ] ] 19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: As an admin entirely without any prior exposure to this conflict who just happened to see the above remarks by Carolmooredc as she was repeating them on Jimbo Wales' talkpage, I am finding this so far beyond the line that I have blocked her for a week. ] ] 14:41, 25 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. ] (]) 20:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} 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. <br />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) ] 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. ] ] 20:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::FP, you got there just before me, I was typing up my own block notice. Please note that I , explicitly about sexualized personal attacks such as "gang bang". ] | ] 14:50, 25 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] women. What if they all knew? So it's highly relevant to GGTF. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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. ] ] 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. ] 20:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Also, some people don't like the word "Brit". ] (]) 20:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Out-of-line comments and lightning fast enforcement. But it really illustrates a difference in approach. If Eric let loose in the same way, he'd just be using up a 72-hour block instead of a week-long block, under the proposed remedy. If Carol was burning out to prove a point, I think she made it. ] 15:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Ditto "wanker" and "tosser" , "dick", jerk" (and how is ] somehow 'better' than ] I wonder? As a humble Brit who sees them both as referring to a) knobs and b) male masturbation) ] 21:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: |
:::::::A central finding in this case has been CMDC's ]. There is no such issue with Mr. Corbett. ]] 16:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::Isn't this a violation of your IBAN? This comment isn't about lifting or clarifying your ban in any way.] 16:33, 25 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. ] (]) 21:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} The proposed remedies aren't in effect yet, but yes, it would be very smart for SPECIFICO to act as if they were. I am sure others can take up the slack while SPECIFICO ignores all discussions about CMDC. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Toss=throw (possibly down your neck) pot=vessel containing beer hence ]. hth ] 21:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That remedy, is currently in effect, as it is a community remedy.] 18:10, 25 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? ]] (]) 20:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, that's something else. Normally we give a bit of leeway for people to participate in dispute resolution, but yes, SPECIFICO should stop talking about CMDC at this point. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Use the words that you need to communicate would be my advice. ] 20:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::"]" (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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 02:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == A strong signal to the GGTF == | |||
| :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 Misplaced Pages <del>a particular term that</del><ins> the word 'cunt,' which</ins> many users find highly offensive." ] (]) 01:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top}} | |||
| ::and many others do not. - ] (]) 01:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I am split between being disgusted and heartbroken by what I see happening here. So much could be said, but it's all been said before. The upshot is this: | |||
| *Five men and two women went before ArbCom because of disruptions at the ]. | |||
| *Only one of the 12 arbitrators was a woman. | |||
| *This case's net result? Five men free to continue editing; one woman topic banned from the GGTF; another woman site banned. | |||
| Twenty-four hours ago, Eric Corbett was facing a site ban, and that would have been a ''net good'' for the project. I retired in large part because of him, and because of the (largely male) "community" that keeps making excuses for his behavior. I am here to speak for the dozens, probably hundreds, of good editors who have retired because of Eric Corbett and the agonistic editing style that predominates this community. | |||
| The current state of this case sends a strong signal to the (largely female) community that prefers - or especially expects - to edit in a more civilized environment: Sorry, helping guys like this means a lot more to us than helping someone like you. ] (]) (]) 17:17, 25 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. | |||
| : I disagree. ArbCom has said that Eric's behavior was unacceptable and that future outbursts will be met with escalating blocks. He either will change his style for the better, or he will be gone. I recommend you stop counting editors by sex, and instead look at each person as a unique human being to be evaluated by what they say and do, rather than by the shape of their chromosomes. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::], you said something similar above, but it is untrue. Proposal 2.3 says nothing to guarantee that Eric will "either will change his style for the better, or he will be gone." The proposed "remedy" is only to increase the length of his blocks after "subsequent breaches," up to five times, whereupon "the remedy may be reviewed." The "review" could very well be another round of this incredibly disruptive cheerleading for Eric and "off with their heads" for Eric's critics. ] (]) 19:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) 20:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:This type of comment, above, has no place in civilised discourse. There are no categories of people called "men" and "women". What a bunch of rubbish, this is. People need to held accountable for their behaviour, one way or the other. I don't know whether I disagree or agree with how this case was carried out, but I do know that such tribalism has no place here. ] — ] 18:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::It's privilege to think gender doesn't matter because it doesn't affect you directly. Gender plays a part in every interaction. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 19:13, 25 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. ] (]) 21:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|EvergreenFir}} That's absolute rubbish. You know nothing about me, about my "gender", or any such thing. Please spare me the soapboxing. We haven't got time for it. ] — ] 20:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Try reading an intro text about gender and/or privilege and/or and social science. To suggest a master status doesn't matter is literally ridiculous. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 23:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What exactly is a "master status"? I'm working on an M.A. in media and cultural criticism. I hardly need to read an "introductory text" about gender. I'm a ], if there ever was such a person. It is apparent that her message is lost on you. Resorting to tribalism is never acceptable in a civilized discourse. Yes, my wording there is ]. Accept the irony. ] — ] 23:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I question your education if you don't know about basic soc psych stuff. Master statuses are those that overlay every interaction. In the USA, they are typically race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and age. Not a fan of post structuralists like Butler in general (not to mention that she didn't cite West and Zimmerman at all in her "undoing gender"...); I prefer intersectional approaches. If you are really into cultural criticism, you'd know the very concept of "civilized discourse" is othering and tone policing. If you know Butler, you should know what privilege is. <small>And if we're tossing out credentials, I'm ABD in sociology. Probably 5 years more in grad school.</small> ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 23:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I'm not American, so I can hardly be expected to Americanise myself. Perhaps you'd note that I mentioned "irony". Given that you failed to pick up on said irony despite my clear indication that said irony existed, I can hardly take you seriously. Sadly, I might as well be a post-structuralist, though I'm not one for ]. I apologise if you are "not a fan", but perhaps instead of asking people to read "introductory texts", one might accept that there is a broad difference in opinion on this matter. I maintain that the comment above by Lightbreather was absolutely unacceptable, and that's that. I'm done, as we should not be mucking up this page any further. ] — ] 23:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :In last year's election , only ONE female admin ran. Non-admin (for right or wrong) virtually never get elected. The <s>overwhelming</s> majority of editors here are men, this is undisputed. Gorilla won with 77.10% support, second only to 28bytes, and by any standard, a super majority of voters. So it stands to reason that when men here are given the choice to vote for a woman for Arb, and she is qualified, they are willing to support in exceedingly strong fashion, for it would have been impossible for her to win without the support of men. Furthermore, if we assume that ~10% of all editors are women, had every single one of them voted neutral or to oppose her, she still would have won her Arb seat, due to the strong support from men voters. The men at Misplaced Pages aren't the problem, it is the lack of women willing to run. QED. | |||
| :The problem isn't one of math, is one of perception. The way you present problems reminds me of the joke about the old Soviet Union, in which they play the US in a basketball game and lose. The next day, the Soviet newspapers read "''US plays USSR in big match. USSR comes in second, US finishes second to last.''" Context is everything. My observation is that you draw a conclusion before you gather your facts, then only present the facts that support that conclusion. That is the ''modus operandi'' of anyone who is seeking to push a political belief rather than find out the truth. Put another way: A POV warrior. ] - ] 19:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Consider for just 5 seconds why women might not be willing to run. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 19:13, 25 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 ] of some sort. ] (]) 21:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Probably some of the same reasons that men decline to run. The campaign can be hostile, and the job is very time consuming with too little thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Maybe they just have some sense and don't enjoy pain. God knows I never thought of running "for" ArbCom. ''"From"'' ArbCom (or the idea of me being on it), maybe, but never "for." ] (]) 19:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: No, that's completely wrong. When female editors make up less than 10% of the community, we should ''expect'' that there will be the same proportion running, and being elected. So there is no problem with a reluctance to run at all; the make up of ArbCom is merely reflecting that of the community, which is in the nature of the election process. This has been strongly criticised by editors like Sue Gardner, who argued that addressing the Gender Gap will require ArbCom to be appointed in a different manner. So there is indeed a problem with math, but only for Dennis Brown. Gorilla ran on a platform of providing a female voice on ArbCom, so on a case like this, her vote carries more moral weight than the others. ] (]) 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Arbitrators should have repeated the '''Internationalism''' principle from last Corbett arbitration: ''Misplaced Pages 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 01:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Elen of the Roads was a female (and my RFA nom), so was Risker, so having a female Arb isn't new. Did their voices carry extra weight because of their gender, or simply because of the merits of their arguments? Personally, I didn't care what GorillaWarfare's gender was, or her platform. I voted for her because at the time, even before she ran for Arb, she had convinced me that she was reasonable in her admin duties and showed good judgement. For a long time, I had no idea ''she'' was a ''she''. The name doesn't give it away. Her gender made no difference in my assessment of her fitness. So while her gender adds balance, and being in the minority brings different perspectives (which alone does add value), the weight of her arguments should be considered just as you would any other Arb, not more or less. THAT is equality. To say she needs extra power in her vote is a bit demeaning to women, don't you think? She doesn't need our charity or "protection", she is a grown woman, educated and capable in her own right. And the many emails and thank you notification from women tend to back me up. (Yes, I did gender check for those, only one was from a male out of all of them) Many women are offended at the idea of special treatment, because all they are asking for is a level playing field. As for the merits of GW's arguments, personally, I haven't seen her actually make any in this case. With little exception she has simply voted, leaving us to guess her reasoning. Trust me, I've been diff hunting, they don't exist. It would have been nice to actually see it in writing. If someone really wanted to make a statement, to persuade and make a difference by offering up some wisdom to help others change their mind, to teach us, this was the SuperBowl of opportunities, and now it is gone. ] - ] 22:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dennis, first, please explain the edit summary - ''They keep dragging me back'' - that accompanied your comment. | |||
| ::Second, if Misplaced Pages ''is'' trying to attract more women editors (fill the gender gap), then it might behoove the committee to consider the votes of the one woman, ], who sits upon it, rather than ignore her and push to ''once again'' give Eric Corbett, who has insulted dozens if not hundreds of editors over the years, yet ''another chance'' to keep doing it. As you say, this woman editor won her seat by a super majority. And this case is not about me, so I'd like it if you would, please, strike your "POV warrior" comment. I am not a POV warrior; I am a woman editor who was driven from editing on Misplaced Pages by its hostile editing environment. And coming back here just to comment on this, I'm meeting the same hostility. ''You, Lightbreather, have problems because you are a .'' ''Women are under-represented on Misplaced Pages (including ArbCom) because they aren't "willing" to run.'' Can you not see the uncalled for bullying and sexism in these kinds of statements? ] (]) 19:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===All I wanted was the actual word to be added to the record=== | |||
| ::::::If you are saying we should give an Arb a "super vote" power because of their gender, then I would find that offensive, regardless of the gender. And I feel that I've substantiated any claims in my statement above, so I would decline modifying it further. ] - ] 20:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| How much do we need to argue? It would be, "Eric Corbett's use of the word "cunt" is disruptive". Grognard ] ] Ping when replying 21:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:::::::{{ping|Dennis Brown}} "If you are saying..." No, that's not what I'm saying, and this case is not about me so again, would you please retract your statement? It's unnecessary and uncalled for. ] (]) 20:19, 25 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[REDACTED] is disruptive and does not contribute to a collegial atmosphere." ] (]) 21:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::But that wouldn't be true. ] ] 21:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It was summed up nicely above, if you are good enough here on Misplaced Pages you can pretty much do almost whatever you want. - ] (]) 19:43, 25 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. ] 21:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not entirely true. I have good reason to believe that Jimbo Wales is a male. ] ] 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. ] ] 21:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am supposed to be on Wikibreak, as my talk page clearly indicates. And "They keep dragging me back" is a poorly paraphrased movie reference, ie: humor. Like so many things you involve yourself in unnecessarily Knowledgekid, you are simply mistaken and as is often the case, you simply miss the larger point. Even I didn't comment here until I was dragged here, unwilling, by a comment taken out of context, to which I wasn't even notified, and had to find out by a 3rd party. I had no choice. Why you are here, I have no idea. ] - ] 19:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: OK fair enough. ] 21:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well if you must know I got pulled in via GGTF. - ] (]) 20:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::North American editors {{!xt|'''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: . 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, {{xt|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. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 04:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you weren't named as a party and weren't named in the evidence then being here is by choice as this case was never about about GGTF, except in name. I would not have made the same choice. ] - ] 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|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. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 04:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well at this point it is moot. I do not think there is much left to this case, anyways enjoy your break =) - ] (]) 20:19, 25 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. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 04:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Dennis Brown}} I'm sorry, but it is very much disputed that "the overwhelming →majority of editors here are men", and we cannot and should not assume even for the sake of argument that female editors represent less than any particular percentage of editors. It's an invidious assumption that leads to this sort of partisanship. The GGTF does not speak for me, and not all of us female editors accept the results of the WMF's very bad polls, let alone assuming the percentage is low. This does not invalidate your main point, although I would also caution against any assumptions about why editors do or do not run for ArbCom; that's nobody's business but theirs. ] (]) 19:39, 25 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 Misplaced Pages? - ] (]) 04:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::And you may be right. I was going by the last study by the Foundation, which I agree, is questionable. To be honest, I would be a poor judge of the percentage, as gender isn't my first consideration when addressing, working with, or conversing with fellow editors. Whether that is good or bad, I don't know, I'm simply not obsessed with it because it doesn't affect my actions. ] - ] 19:54, 25 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. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 04:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: |
::::<small>I'm going to be honest, usually I don't even see you all as people. You are signature blocks to me.--v/r - ]] 20:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)</small> | ||
| :::::<small>Thank you so much for saying that. It's nice to know that I'm not alone in thinking that way a lot of the time.] (]) 20:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::{{re|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. <small>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.</small> But that is not, and never has been, the case with Corbett. It's disingenuous to suggest that.] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 06:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Who are these alleged dozens (or probable hundreds}? Yet again, we're seeing unsubstantiated mudslinging of the type so favoured by Jimbo. (And good point, Dennis). - ] (]) 19:15, 25 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. | |||
| ::I don't know about "hundreds" or even "dozens" but the loss of ], for example, is a loss that I have felt keenly because she was a prolific content contributor and administrator with an exemplary grasp of our core content policies. She says she quit because of Eric (), Eric says she's lying (). Perception is the key issue here, although not in the sense in which Dennis Brown depicts it. I don't mind giving Eric another chance, provided that Carol gets the same level of forgiveness of forgetfulness. ArbCom appears to apply the rules differently here and it is sending a signal, intentionally or unintentionally. --] (]) 19:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::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 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. | |||
| :::Well if you count LB that is 2 editors, Carol would make 3. - ] (]) 19:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::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". 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. | |||
| ::*Just for the record, here's the direct quote from Eric that supposedly chased Slp1 from the project: "It may well have been rewritten, but it needs to be rewritten again, properly this time." Follow the diffs. That's literally it. ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 20:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::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 Misplaced Pages (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. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 18:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Sonicyouth86}} See: ''']''' - the context in which {{u|Eric Corbett}}'s comment "It may well have been rewritten, but it needs to be rewritten again, properly this time" was made. His comment was the least of the criticisms there So why blame him? ] (]) 02:01, 26 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. - ] (]) 18:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Well, the article ''was'' delisted by another party, ]. It's not that Eric was some ] bellowing in the wilderness, digging in in the face of reason. There robust disagreement, what's wrong with that? ] (]) 20:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::, diffs from relevant July 31st conversation at Jimbo's talk page in the "Why is Misplaced Pages sexist" section. I already put these in evidence regarding Sitush and ] (who earlier had blocked Eric for incivility):. Others can try to "mind read" which of Sitush's statements might have seemed to Jimbo to be without honor. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 19:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{reply to|Lightbreather}} You've just made an argument completely based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators and without any regard for evidence-based facts. That's the issue in this Arbcom case. Justice is not served by determining discriminatory distinctions and voting along those lines. Justice is served when we take an impartial view of the facts supported by evidence and weigh them against the principals and policies that we as a society have agreed upon. That's what Arbcom is structured to do. If you want a society that makes decisions based solely on demographics and ignores any and all forms of evidence-based justice, then please propose such a policy and put it to discussion.--v/r - ]] 19:22, 25 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 "]" or being "]" 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. ] (]) 19:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{reply to|TParis}} I respectfully beg to differ. I have been following this case from the beginning. I just now went back to look at the evidence, findings of fact, and so on. There is nothing there that supports the current array of "remedies." Any uninvolved person comparing the ] to the ] must come to the conclusion that sexism is at play here, whether it's conscious or not. Eric, who is a man, is getting preferential treatment to Carol, who is a woman. They've been equally disruptive; they deserve equal treatment. They should either both be banned, or both be allowed to continue editing, under similarly restrictive conditions. ] (]) 20:06, 25 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, . I might go for a lie down in a dark room because this is getting very silly. - ] (]) 19:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Go to the proposed decision page, follow the principals, to the findings of facts based on those principals, to the proposed remedies based on the findings of facts and show us where the specific breakdown of process is. These generalized statements aren't going to be effective. You need to review each step and identify what you think went wrong and where. That's how this process works. As far as I can see, you're not considering any mitigating circumstances that favor Eric. That is the flaw I find in your process. You assume the only mitigating circumstance must be his gender. That, I find totally offensive and discriminatory.--v/r - ]] 20:10, 25 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. ] 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 ]. ''Before'' Jimbo got involved, you argued with ], whom you called "dramatic." When Jusdafax objected, you asked, "Would you prefer that I strike 'so dramatic' and replace with 'such a liar'?" When ] 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. His request wasn't in response to some single, uncontested use of the word "dramatic." ] (]) 23:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I find it offensive that of all the editors expressing opinions on this page, I'm the one you're asking to defend her position, but OK. | |||
| ::::::::::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. ] ] 19:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Proposed principles''' | |||
| ::::*Purpose of Misplaced Pages: Both Carol and Eric have contributed "in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect," they have ''also'', ''both'', acted in ways "detrimental to the objectives of Misplaced Pages" (good faith and otherwise). | |||
| ::::*Fair criticism: Frank discussion "is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies that prohibit behavior such as personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanisms rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums." Both Carol and Eric have repeatedly broken this "rule" - I use this word just to keep it simple - ''though Carol has tried much more often to use DR processes''. | |||
| ::::*Making allegations against other editors: Ditto, although in addition to seeking DR, ''Carol more often provides evidence'' and ''tries to resolve problems''. | |||
| ::::*Sanctions and circumstances: Both editors have made positive and valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages, though Eric mostly in content (70%) and Carol in a mix (30% content). | |||
| ::::*Recidivism: or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. | |||
| ::::'''Proposed findings of fact''' | |||
| ::::*Expletives: The arbitrators unanimously agreed that "Editors who know, or are told, that a specific word usage is reasonably understood as offensive by other Wikipedians should refrain from using that word or usage, unless there is a specific and legitimate reason for doing so in a particular instance." | |||
| ::::*Carolmooredc: A strong majority (all male) agreed that evidence showed Carol had made four (kinds of) mistakes | |||
| ::::*Eric Corbett: A majority agreed that evidence showed Eric had made four (kinds of) mistakes | |||
| ::::*Eric Corbett collegiality/use of offensive terms: A majority agreed that Eric regularly uses offensive terms, knowing that they cause disruption | |||
| ::::*Eric Corbett's history: A majority agreed that Eric has a long history of incivility | |||
| ::::'''Proposed remedies''' | |||
| ::::*Carolmooredc banned: A majority votes to ''site'' ban Carol (rather than to admonish or topic ban) | |||
| ::::*Eric Corbett prohibited: A male majority votes to give Eric - ''at least'' - ''five more chances'' to stop "swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors." | |||
| :::: | |||
| ::::So, both Carol and Eric have been disruptive, but they have also both made positive and valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages. Eric has been much more disruptive (30 blocks in 6.5 years) than Carol (4 blocks in 4 years). They've both sniped at others across multiple, inappropriate forums, but Carol has been more likely to use DR channels to try to solve problems. Both Carol and Eric have made positive and valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages, though Eric has contributed more content - but ArbCom is about behavior, not content, so I don't see any mitigating circumstance that explains why Eric should get a better deal here than Carol. They should either both be banned, or both be allowed to stay. Any other outcome is, intentional or not, a manifestation of the sexism that currently rules Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::::--] (]) 21:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You take offense? Again, you ignore mitigating circumstances. None of the editors are making wide sweeping generalizations and accusations of sexism here. That is a mitigating circumstance which causes you to receive special treatment. Not your gender, not your viewpoint, not anything else. The wide sweeping generalizations. Now that you've provided specific context for your opinion, we can discuss it. I'm particularly concerned that you generalize "four kinds of mistakes". The number is not the issue, what kind of mistakes have they made. That's a red herring if I ever saw one. Then you use Eric's block log. It is already agreed that Eric's block log contains both fair and legitimate blocks as well as unfair and illegitimate blocks. So generalizing those blocks is also a logical fallacy. Finally, you compare Eric's 70% article contributions to some 30% of Carols. While I am not arguing that Carol isn't a positive here, I actually would prefer to see her stay, I'm concerned that you've rationalized side a wide margin and you've also generalized those edits as well. What are the contents of the 70% and 30% edits? My main concern is that you are more interested in gathering statistics and demographics rather than fact-finding and your basing your opinion off of that.--v/r - ]] 22:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::''Again, '''you''' ignore mitigating circumstances. None of the editors are making wide sweeping generalizations and accusations of sexism here. That is a mitigating circumstance which causes '''you''' to receive special treatment. Not '''your''' gender, not '''your''' viewpoint, not anything else. The wide sweeping generalizations.'' | |||
| :::::::Huh? Yes, I take offense! | |||
| ::::::''Now that you've provided specific context for your opinion, we can discuss it.'' | |||
| :::::::No, now is when I'm dropping this discussion. What exactly do you plan to accomplish if I continue? | |||
| :::::::--] (]) 23:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Then go be offended. Because if you've proven anything, it's that your only goal here is to be offended. Not to find resolution, not to get to the truth of the matter, not to work collegiality, but rather to be offended. It was your intention from the start and you've succeeded in doing it. You never approached this with a open mind, your mind was made up from the get-go. That's what you have proven.--v/r - ]] 00:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Some people aren't happy unless they are "the victim", as odd as this sounds. The perpetual contrarian underdog. And no, I don't say this to be mean, it is simply a fact in human behavior that some people are like that. In this kind of environment, it is parasitic, draining resources that could be used for other tasks, such as writing articles. ] - ] 00:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::] or ], would one of you be kind enough to remove the above remark by Dennis Brown? It's completely uncalled for. I'm here to talk about the case, not to be talked about. Thank you. ] (]) 01:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Dennis, this is really a disappointing and fundamentally unfair attitude for an admin to have. People have concerns, there's no need to paint people as inherently unreasoning parasites. You don't come across as reasonable yourself when you do that. When you disagree with people, should you be considered to be "playing the victim" or being a "perpetual contrarian"?] 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I disagree. I described the behavior of some people, this looks similar. Always playing the victim is parasitic. That is not the same thing as calling someone a parasite, so you have to read what I actually wrote. This entire Arb case is parasitic: it takes away from time that could be doing useful things. I would never call someone a "parasite". One is a noun, the other is an adjective. ] - ] 01:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I did read what you wrote, and you're ascribing a motivation to "always be the victim". That's not a reasonable or fair way to characterize people you disagree with. It's fundamentally dismissive and prejudiced, not logical or helpful. It's not a serious way to consider other people and their concerns.] 01:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I never said it was a "motive", I said it is a behavior. Again, I feel like I made this clear. This is not the only time I've interacted with LB. Go read the archives at ]. It will look very familiar. It isn't that I disagree with her ideals, I simply disagree with her behavior. On the other hand, you are mistakenly assigning motives to me here, saying I'm doing this because I disagree. I accept you do so in good faith, but virtually every comment I've made has addressed behavior, using specifically that word. If you do check the archives, you see me telling her I agree with most of her basic ideas, and I even probably vote for many of the same people. That doesn't excuse the behavior. ] - ] 02:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::She has an opinion. You're saying that by expressing it, she's "playing the victim". How is that any different than any other editor? Is Eric Corbett "playing the victim" when he complains of other editors? "Playing the victim" is a great way to dismiss ''anybody's'' complaints. "Systemic bias" isn't some mythological concept, and I don't see it being treated seriously here as a concern. The idea that a crowd-sourced group of Misplaced Pages editors are so magically neutral to the point of dismissing it as a concern outright seems juvenile. It's an issue that affects larger and smaller groups than we have here. There's too many editors acting like any editor questioning the sentiment that "women have a perfectly fair situation here" has provided proof that that editor can't string together rational thoughts. ] 02:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Since Dennis insisted that his off-topic comment must stay, and since the clerks haven't removed it, I will say this: I'm not a "victim" in the pop psychology sense, though I certainly have been abused on other pages and here. I don't know what he means by "contrarian underdog" - and I don't care. If he didn't say what he said to be mean, I'm not sure why he said it. (Does it help with the case?) And there is certainly a parasitic draining of resources here, but it ain't me. I came here to comment about the case and those involved. Not about TParis. Not about Dennis Brown. Not about anyone else who is not an involved party or an arbitrator or clerk. And yet what do I get for sharing my opinions? That ain't cool. ] (]) 05:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Once again, you are trying to portray yourself as a victim. You made sweeping generalizations based on gender. You were firstly asked to substantiate the claims, then you were rebuffed. You can claim this is about gender, but the truth is that you made accusations and you're upset no one took your accusations at face value. Please either correct your behavior or don't participate. But claiming to be a victim, and implying that your gender has more to do with it than your evidence-deprived arguments, is poisoning the well.--v/r - ]] 05:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::TParis, please stop. This case is not about me, but nonetheless I answered your questions above. After looking at ALL the evidence, I believe gender - the gender of the involved parties and the gender of the arbitrators - was a significant contributing factor in the outcome. IMO, there is no other accounting for it given ALL the evidence. If you have reached a different conclusion, fine. If others disagree, fine. I am simply stating my observation, which I have a right to do. Please stop badgering me. ] (]) 05:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::<small>(edit conflict)</small> My goal here, TParis, is ''not'' to "be offended," but to speak my mind - the same as everyone else. I've suggested what I see as a resolution: Ban both Eric and Carol, ''or'' figure out how ''both'' can continue to contribute. I have spoken what I see as the truth of the matter, and you have a right to your take on that, too - but not to berate me because you disagree. Your response to my post - which wasn't directed at you - was not collegial. (Do you think it was?) You accused me of making my observation "COMPLETELY based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators and without ANY regard for evidence-based facts." (Using words like "completely" and "without any regard" you made sweeping generalizations about what I said.) And you explained to me how "justice is served," as if I don't know how it's served. You suggested that I "want a society that makes decisions based solely on demographics and ignores any and all forms of evidence-based justice," which is untrue. If you disagree with me, fine, but please don't lecture me like an inferior. ] (]) 00:52, 26 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 Misplaced Pages <del>a particular term that</del><ins> the word 'cunt,' which</ins> many users find highly offensive." ] (]) 01:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Your goal here should be to write an encyclopedia. There are plenty of places on the internet to speak your mind. ] 03:26, 26 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. ] (]) 01:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Let me quote your words back to you: "I am split between being disgusted and heartbroken by what I see happening here...Five men and two women went before ArbCom because of disruptions at the WP:GGTF...Only one of the 12 arbitrators was a woman...This case's net result? Five men free to continue editing; one woman topic banned from the GGTF; another woman site banned." What part of your statement includes facts, justice, and objectivity instead of demographics? The statement you made ''was'' completely based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators. If you'd like to make a new statement, feel free. But right now, the opinion you've shared with all of us is exactly as I described it. Furthermore, your final sentence explains what kind of justice you are seeking: "The current state of this case sends a strong signal to the (largely female) community...'helping guys like this means a lot more to us than helping someone like you'." Your making a call for justice to be determined based on gender. Arbcom doesn't 'help' anyone. Arbcom gets down to the facts.--v/r - ]] 01:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I refer my honourable and right honourable friends to ]. 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. | |||
| :::::::::::TParis, my words weren't an argument, but an observation - and every bit of it is factual. However, when you called my observation an argument and asked for details, I stopped what I was doing and gave you those. You're entitled to draw different conclusions than I about those details and the final outcome, but I won't argue with you about them any further. My post was for the involved parties and the arbitrators, not for you or Dennis Brown or anyone else. Well, except maybe for the record - same as for others who've commented here. ] (]) 05:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Lightbreather}} "They've been equally disruptive; they deserve equal treatment" - is your assumption, which you can't assume others to hold true. Have you or CarolMoore reviewed 400 Good Article nominations? How many editors have you both helped to write better? How much time have you spent editing articles? Finding sources and being scrutinised by others? ] (] '''·''' ]) 22:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| All the best: ''] ]'', <small>04:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::::Eric cant take credit for all the work done in the articles, articles aren't owned by anyone here. - ] (]) 22:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :There is a genuine difference in the North-American and British usage of the word. Leaving the literal meaning aside, defines it as {{xt|''usually disparaging & obscene'' : woman}}, while defines it as {{xt|An unpleasant or stupid person.}} That's a fundamental difference. As long as that is understood, I agree with everything you're saying. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 05:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Eric can take credit for all the work he has done - it is his work. The work is owned by Eric even if the article is not. We do not take intellectual ownership of the work - if it were a tangible object that could be taken.--v/r - ]] 22:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|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. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 06:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{u|Knowledgekid87}} - I wasn't talking article ownership but effort a person puts into improving the 'pedia, either directly or by helping someone else edit, or reviewing their edits. When was the last time you did something substantive in this area and comply with our First Pillar? ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Smiley}} I know! All the best: ''] ]'', <small>15:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :::::::If you want to discuss the first pillar plenty of soapboxing ha been going on. - ] (]) 01:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Casliber, "They've been equally disruptive; they deserve equal treatment" is ''not'' an assumption. That they've been equally disruptive is supported by the evidence. That they deserve equal treatment, in light of the Proposed principles and Proposed findings of fact, is indisputable. ] (]) 22:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just because you believe it does not make it so - you and I know the findings are points made, not sum total of all behaviour good and bad...actually I am not sure why I am having to explain this and I can't in good faith assume that you don't know this either. ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Just reminding everybody involved here that, according to the text at the top of this page, "Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision." This can at least theoretically be involved in the matters of the findings of fact regarding the conduct of users and also, potentially, sanctions. ] (]) 19:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * {{reply to|Lightbreather}} I could be reading the page wrong, but it appears motion 2.2, to ban Eric, passed. Stating the optics of all this as it appears to you may trouble some, but they are what they are. If Eric isn't going to banned, and the erratic sassiness of Carol is banned, it will probably go over like a lead balloon. Let's not kill the messenger, folks.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 20:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Yeah the ban did pass but now that there is an alternative the arbs would have to choose one or the other, I mean it wouldn't make any sense to enact the newest proposal if Eric was banned. - ] (]) 20:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*But if both pass, the most severe would presumably be the effective one, no? Its already crazy that two arbitrators are recused from voting on Eric but voted to ban Carol, that makes no sense to me as a matter of judicial fairness when the parties are on opposing "sides." Few people know Carol as compared to Eric, so the opportunity to give her this pass is much less likely to occur.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 20:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::** One of them, WTT, made prejudicial remarks about Carol at the outset. He apologised, but did not recuse. ] (]) 20:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*If they both passed then yeah the most severe one would be the effective one. As for the amount of people knowing about a given editor you have a good point there. - ] (]) 20:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Actually, generally, no. The arbs generally list "1st choice" and "2nd choice" and the like, and the one which gets more 1st choices wins, although sometimes it takes a while for the arbs collectively to think over which of two acceptable proposals gets more 1st choices and which more 2nd and later choices, effectively determining which is the one that will be enacted. ] (]) 20:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Can we just wrap this whole sub-section up? I don't see anything to be gained out of it I apologize LB I know this has been an emotional case but I don't like where this is heading. - ] (]) 01:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Prithee, Arbcom == | |||
| *I reject the repeated assertions by Carolmooredc, Neotarf, and Lightbreather that they are speaking for Misplaced Pages's women editors, and that somehow this should affect the outcome of this case. They do ''not'' speak for us, as at least 10 other women editors besides myself—two of them administrators—have made clear on this page. What they speak for is ''their'' world view which is replete with the most appalling gender and cultural stereotyping. I don't imagine any of these three will take a blind bit of notice of this, but it needs to be said. They do not have the monopoly on being offended. ] (]) 01:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ]] 01:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Specific instances of such conduct being clearly indicated would probably be welcome. ] (]) 01:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Yeah but that would also include you as you also don't speak for all the women who haven't commented here. - ] (]) 01:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Neotarf availability and a query about voting time frames == | |||
| :::Straw man rebutting a claim she neither made nor implied. If you're going to continue with the ubiquitous commentary (there's no need, you've made your position abundantly clear, we've all heard you), please at least pay attention to what you're commenting on. ] (]) 02:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*No, ], it does ''not'' include me. I do not claim to speak for all women editors. I am pointing out that these three, who claim to do so, manifestly do not. I find it presumptuous, offensive, and frankly embarrassing that they continue make these claims. ] (]) 02:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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, —] (]) 04:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I assume I'm one of the ten woman editors Voceditenore is referencing, as I spoke up earlier on this page. I completely affirm what ] is saying here, particularly in reference to the gender stereotyping. My concern is mainly about Carolmooredc -- everytime she lashes out with her claims of purported sexist conspiracy by certain male editors, I wince. If she truly wants to make WP more attractive to editors, then I can't imagine that she honestly thinks displaying a ] mentality and alienating anyone who slightly disagrees is going to advance this goal. It certainly is not advancing an actual, healthy discussion of the gender gap here. And like Voceditenore, I am not speaking for all women editors, just myself (although that should be obvious). The "Uppity female" -- please, just stop now. ''']''' ]] 05:14, 26 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, ] (]) 04:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Well Carol is already blocked and likely to be banned so talking more about her at this point I can see doing little good. - ] (]) 05:17, 26 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, —] (]) 23:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Voceditenore, for the record, I have '''not''' said that I speak for ''all women'' editors or ''only for women'' editors. I speak for the many editors - mostly, but not all, women - for whom the editing environment on Misplaced Pages beats the crap out of any pleasure they might feel in trying to participate in it. This agonistic style here is ''generally'' a male style, though not all men thrive in it - and ''some'' women do. Or at least some men and women learn how to survive in it. Those who neither thrive or survive in such an environment aren't weak or inferior or a minority, and they shouldn't have to get uncivil or endure incivility to participate. Sources that support this have been given in this case, as well as on the GGTF and WER talk pages. ] (]) 05:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] or ]? Someone? Could someone please close this thread? I made it to express my observation about the outcome, but it's simply turned into a let's-belittle-Lightbreather thread for admins Dennis Brown and TParis. I am not an involved party in this case, just another concerned observer. ] (]) 05:58, 26 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. —] (]) 07:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ::::You've been co-opted. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>16:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ==A question for Salvio== | |||
| ::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.. ] (]) 13:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : |
], I note that the comment on your vote for Remedy 1.2 call Mrs. Moore a "tendentious editor". Is that something that should be associated with a finding? ] (]) 23:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Well, the behaviour described in her FoF can reasonably be defined as "tendentious", but I don't think it's necessary to amend the FoF to add the adjective, now that it's been supported by so many arbitrators. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Remedy 2.3: Eric Corbett prohibited == | |||
| == drama avoidance == | |||
| Eric Corbett has had this to say about this case: | |||
| An editor who does not want to get involved has a valid concern: 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. <small>]</small> 11:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tq|I don't give a flying fuck about the outcome of this ArbCom case. It was dishonestly presented and dishonestly accepted.}} () | |||
| :I don't think that helps. That would give us editor -> AE -> block -> possibly unblock -> ANI ] (]) 11:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tq|This case would not have been accepted had my name not been attached to it. It's just another lynch mob.}} () | |||
| ::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. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tq|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.}} () | |||
| :::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. ] (]) 14:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| In the 2012 ArbCom case regarding civility, he characterized the case as {{tq|an opportunity for revenge, pure and simple}} () and also stated, {{tq|My future here is not for ArbCom to decide}} () during the proposed decisions. Given these attitudes, can I ask Committee members to explain what causes them to believe that this particular remedy is likely to be effective and adhered to? I would hope they can offer up more than . ]] 23:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The last thing Misplaced Pages 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. <small>]</small> 15:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapsetop|Collapse unproductive bickering}} | |||
| :::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. | |||
| :He all of a sudden found the light I guess, <s>and carol gets blocked for using the word "gang banger" guess who has more supporters? </s> - ] (]) 23:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::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: ''] ]'', <small>17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::She didn't get blocked merely for using "gang banger". I've said it before, others have said it before: Knowledgekid87, you are not helping here. - ] (]) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sitush, your comments about Carol Moore are even less helpful to the conversation, have proven sanction-worthy, and have caused more disruption than what you're commenting on here. ] 23:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And you are another who is not exactly helping things here. What I said or didn't say abut CMDC has no bearing on my response to Knowledgekid's statement. - ] (]) 00:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please stop, all of you. ]] 00:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Umm, you're surprised your initiation of this thread led to more comments? ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No. I'd like the bickering to stop and to get a serious response to my question. ]] 01:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapsebottom}} | |||
| *I agree with Jethro's concerns as well as the concerns others have voiced. Arbcom cases should aim to cut the gordian knot, not to produce further arbcom cases. With the attitude Eric has consistently shown as demonstrated by Jethro's diffs among others, does anyone really believe remedy 2.3 will end up with anything other than a contentious set of AE actions in the near future that lead to an arbcom case relitigating this entire mess? ] (]) 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd like to third this concern. In particular, why do arbitrators think this is more workable than 2.1? Because it's easier to tell whether Eric is being civil than whether his input is disruptive? It seems to me (as a relative outsider) that in the past it has (for whatever reason) not proved easy to make judgments about civility when it comes to Eric. ] (]) 02:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I echo this as well. It seems that the fact-finding portion does not match the proposals here. Eric's words speak for themselves. By his own repeated admission and the preponderance of evidence, he will not change. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 03:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *For the record I also echo the concern given. - ] (]) 03:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The most likely course is that he'll help a bunch of editors with their articles, reviewing, writing etc. quietly and in good humour for a number of months. Previously, these take place in between each of these events. Hopefull the next leangth of peaceful and collaborative content editing will occur over a longer period. Is that problematic? ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have no doubt he will continue to build articles and work with others. How this is any indication or guarantee that he will not engage in the behavior similar to what was presented in this case is entirely unclear to me, as it's clear he has written articles and worked with editors in the past. I would really appreciate hearing an Arbitrator's perspective before this is closed, which is probably going to happen soon seeing as I'm sure they are tired of all this. ]] 06:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *What is the point of rehashing the diffs above - other than pure spite and pique? We've all seen them and know of them, if those above leaping on them so delightedly, like a flock of echoing, half-starved vultures, have nothing more to offer - then lets close this case now, because surely it is all done and dusted. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 14:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*You are missing the point, Eric saying these things and then abruptly turning around and saying "Yes" When asked if he would stop looks a bit out there. - ] (]) 18:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * How on earth can they be passing a remedy that declares what an editor does or does not agree to? This whole arbcom malarkey gets more bizarre and more entertaining by the year. Good job the were there this time. ] (]) 22:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **"You're out of order!" <nowiki>*bangs gavel*</nowiki> ] (]) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***Bang out of order, Your Honour! | |||
| ****The IP in question has made no other edits, and the fact of it being an obvious sockpuppet of someone else might merit attention. ] (]) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***** Yeah, you got me, John. Misplaced Pages justice at its . ] (]) 23:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I'll ask a third time. Would any Arb care to make a serious response to my question instead of making jokes? <small>(Yeah yeah, it's a funny movie...)</small> ]] 00:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **It boils down to judgment—the conclusion you reach may be different from that arrived at by others, and no arbitration case has results which can objectively be justified to everyone's satisfaction. Re the issue raised: arbcom does not frame remedies that rely on parties behaving in a certain way—there are always options for dealing with unwelcome outcomes. For example, a clarification request could be raised at any time if it were felt necessary. Such a request can be dealt with quickly by motion and could alter sanctions in any manner. ] (]) 07:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ** Hi {{U|I JethroBT}}. Speaking entirely generally here, it's not always a good idea to take everything at face value as, for some people, bravura is an ingrained part of their on-line persona. Arbitration is a stressful business and different people react to it in different ways. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Still not sold on CMDC ban; problem is her ] views== | |||
| == Possible loophole leading to what might look like gravedancing == | |||
| Carol's conduct in this case has been regrettable. But it appears to have been borne of frustration rather than a desire to obstruct the project. In my view, Carol's problem is her ] views on politics (especially libertarianism, WACO and the Israel-Palestine conflict), economics, and gender issues (including transgenderism). If she were topic banned from these issues, and were assigned a "mentor" to "check in" with her editing from time to time, I think she could contribute to the project. ] (]) 01:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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.] (]) 13:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *But she takes it everywhere. Case in point at ], she was trying to gather support to force prospective admin to answer a "scorecard" that told their political views. That is the same issue here, sterilize the Wiki of anyone that disagrees. Her justification for bringing it to WER was "''Every editor retention issue starts as a small issue for one user''", which seems innocent enough but reading through it is obvious that politics is her game. Everywhere she goes, it is nothing but politics. The problem isn't the venue, it is the editor. I'm sure I could dig up stuff elsewhere, it just seems pointless. ] - ] 01:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :An excellent example of this is ] about retired editor ], per ]. Just an FYI. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: 2008? Recent? ] 20:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Changed to 2014 WP:BLPN link. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 20:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Neotarf remedies == | |||
| :::: but nothing actionable ] 21:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I had intended to write a beautiful peice of prose asking for a reconsideration of the current outcome regarding Neotarf. However, during my exercise today, I tripped on a protruding piece of asphalt, felt, and scrapped up both my hands and knees. And so my plea will be simple. Although I rarely agree on the details of the things Neotarf says, I have found them to be at least open minded and fair to consider other world views. Carolmooredc has received a previous admonishment in the past and I ask Arbcom to please consider an admonishment in this case for Neotarf. I admit that Neotarf can get passionate at time, but they are indeed reasonable and after speaking with them privately, I am confident that they have taken both this Arbcom case and my own personal comments to heart. Please consider the lesser admonishment. Both Eric and Carol were at least considered for an admonishment. All I'm asking is that the Arbs consider one for Neotarf in this case. I am sorry I cannot write more, address some of the evidence in this case, or anything else. My palms burn even as I write this.--v/r - ]] 03:57, 26 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.] (]) 00:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|TParis}} What does an ] mean in this context? (can't find any explanation on arbcom pages) ] (]) 00:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It means, "ya messed up" and should induce a turn around.--v/r - ]] 02:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Please retitle this case == | |||
| ::::Oh. The arbs are warning Sitush ONLY about CREATING the article. Not about WRITING it even after I have pointed out this loophole. QED.] (]) | |||
| So, after spending a couple of evenings reading all this stuff (I'm depressed to think I used to do it all the time), it's pretty obvious that the decision being put forward by the Arbitration Committee, whatever its merits, has nothing to do with the Gender Gap Task Force. It will, however, negatively affect the ability of the Wikiproject to attract editors interested in addressing the gender bias and gender gap that everyone knows exists, including plenty of academics who have published on the issue. (Partial list of published reports ].) Unfortunately, the pages of the task force have frequently been overrun by editors who essentially deride the entire notion that the gender gap is a problem, which has adversely affected the willingness of less confrontational editors to participate there; having an arbcom case named after the wikiproject, particularly one that barely mentions the gender gap, and actively finds inappropriate any reference to gender gap bias at AfD (seriously, even I would have voted "keep" for two of the three articles cited, and I'm supposedly a renowned deletionist), will only reinforce the positions of those who insist there is no such thing as a gender gap on Misplaced Pages. I'm not going to beat you up on the decision itself, however it winds up; I've sat in those seats and I know that Arbcom doesn't always wind up with the case it expected when it voted to accept, and you have to work with the evidence you have. But the case you wound up with wasn't about the GGTF, it was about people being rude to each other and cursing each other out, which obviously not even Arbcom thinks is a gender-specific issue, given the sanctions that it has all but enacted. Call it Civility 2.0 or "Eric and Carol" or something like that, but please don't label it with the name of the GGTF. To do so is just one more example of the gender gap not being taken seriously by the community. ] (]) 05:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oranges, you have been butting in where I am involved ever since {{u|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. - ] (]) 00:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :''Civility Enforcement 2'' would be a better name for this case. (This reminds me a bit of ''Digwuren'' that was eventually renamed to ''Eastern Europe''.) --] | ] 05:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree. Guerillero's suggestion is basically that which myself and Eric (perhaps others also) have been saying was the real focus for some time now. - ] (]) 05:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : |
: A good case title would be "Ephithets". A one sentence summary of the case would be "Don't use epithets to attack other editors." ] <sup>]</sup> 05:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::Agree with retitling. Current title is akin to BLP sanctions arising from "Footnoted Quotes." -- ] (]) 06:58, 26 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 01:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Here is ] (16 February 2011) which added "opposition research" at ]. You also mentioned the term at: ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ]. ] (]) 04:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Thanks for the memory jog. I'll keep the diffs for my "all time greats" file... {{Smiley}} <small>'''] (])'''</small> 17:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I'll note in passing that it doesn't seem as though any editor who regularly participates at the GGTF project (excluding perhaps those being sanctioned) has requested or suggested consideration for discretionary sanctions. Why are they being applied? This seems out-of-the-blue. Pages subject to discretionary sanctions tend to become ghost towns, not founts of sensible discussion. ] (]) 06:01, 26 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. ] (]) 01:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Really this is basic ] and does not need stating, or indeed discussing if someone does state it. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::It has actually needed stating in a surprisingly high number of our decisions. ] (]) 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: ''] ]'', <small>00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| *:Seconding.] (]) 10:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Carol and Neotarf== | |||
| Carol and Neotarf have both been strong voices for women on Misplaced Pages. It seems unfair to ban them from the GGTF. | |||
| *'''Civility, inflammatory language, personal attacks & belligerence.''' Eric was uncivil by using inflammatory language and belittling others. Sitush authoring that BLP while not a personal attack per se, was seen by most as an attack on another editor. Some of the other parties under proposed sanctions have unabashedly made personal attacks and been needlessly argumentative. Belligerence has also been displayed by people ''not'' a party to this case by trying to use this case to settle old scores.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 08:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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 (], ], ] and ]). 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. | |||
| *This case, however, arose due to disruption which was regularly occurring at GGTF, e.g., the making of absurd proposals mocking the group, Sitush writing that incredibly crafty BLP about Carol. Eric joined in because he likes drama and was just his normal self, but doing it in the context of GGTF interactions. "Disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force" would be a better title, but removing any reference to GGTF from the title would mask the origins of uncivil behavior: wimmenfolk editing articles!!--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' Had the case been called something else I would likely have ignored it. Whether that woudl have been good or bad for the case I don't know, it certainly would have been good for me. {{Smiley}} All the best: ''] ]'', <small>17:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| Would the committee consider making the GGTF subject to discretionary sanctions instead of imposing topic bans? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 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. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 14:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Analysis of 2.3 == | |||
| :@] - 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 15:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You won't be site-banned, unless a ''majority'' of arbitrators support that proposal. ] (]) 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 ], 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? ] (]) 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. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 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. ] (]) 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. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 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. ]] 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't know, SPECIFICO. When I did this ] 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 Misplaced Pages isn't a problem, why is doing two notifications about current issues (and one report on a past issue) on a Misplaced Pages 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 17:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::At ] I raised the issue of whether canvassing a restricted-membership, off-wiki mailing list might potentially run foul of ]. I cannot recall whether anyone responded but will try to find the diff when I have decent netty access again. - ] (]) 01:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I wanted to say thank you to the arbs (esp. Roger Davies) for being willing to consider a compromise on the Eric Corbett ban. I'm not entirely satisfied with the wording, but it is definitely an improvement. I realize that a lot has been said about the new 2.3 remedy, and I tend to agree with much of what ] has said above. Anyway, I wanted to provide my own analysis for what it's worth. This assumes that the reader has the following priorities: 1) Building the encyclopedia, 2) Retaining good editors, 3) Reducing time-wasting "drama", and 4) Keeping a civil workplace, in that order. (Editors who weigh the priorities differently may disagree with my analysis.) | |||
| :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. ] (]) 01:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ;Pros | |||
| *Improvement over alternatives (status quo vs. indef ban). Retains a good editor, and more likely to change his behavior than the status quo. | |||
| *Opens the door to other creative solutions. We have more tools in the box than just the banhammer. | |||
| *Provides a set of clear consequences, putting Eric more in control of his future. | |||
| *Includes a commitment from Eric to try harder | |||
| *Compromise between editors who wish to see "traditional" escalating blocks and those who prefer short blocks for civility infractions | |||
| ;Cons | |||
| *Not the solution of lowest "drama" | |||
| *For the remedy to work well we need two things to happen. Eric has to behave '''and''' the anti-Eric people have to not try to game the system by going after him for minor issues. I'll let the reader calculate the odds of ''both'' of those things happening. | |||
| *The schedule for the escalating blocks inherently makes it more prone to drama by raising the stakes. Repeated 72 hour blocks (as I suggested ) are short enough that it won't be worth it for the community to freak out. With the higher stakes though, Arbcom will have to wade through an ocean of comments by involved parties every time things break down. | |||
| *It really does look bad for us to just ban the women in the GGTF case...I feel particularly bad about CMDC...yes her behavior was inappropriate, but as with Eric, people were pushing her buttons too. | |||
| Anyway, I'm definitely not asking for threaded comments here—there's enough text on this page—but I wanted to leave this message for the arbs. Also, in case you're interested, I do consider myself "uninvolved" even though I've been following some of the players here on and off for probably 2 years. My main motivation has been to put a lid on the time-wasting drama and save some of the thousands of man/woman-hours that would be much better used elsewhere. I do have some strong opinions on how to best fix this, but I think I've been pretty pragmatic about the whole thing. Thanks for listening! <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 09:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't understand why Arbcom is micromanaging the length of the blocks, {{redacted}} ] (]) 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC) <small>''Redacted comment. Do not restore content. ] ]] 19:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)''</small> | |||
| *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.--] 02:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Agreed. I would add that it could easily be argued (and has above by {{u|Carrite}}) that using only 48 hour blocks for basic infringements would actually be more effective. It extracts a price for bad behavior which acts as a preventative. The added benefit is that a 48 hour block is much less likely to be debated, as it would be over before a decision was made at ANI, rendering the discussion moot. ANI discussions would be less likely, as would AE filings. It isn't just Eric, when dealing with any dedicated, productive and established editor (regardless of block log), a 24-48 hour block is a good rule of thumb when it comes to simple infractions. ] - ] 14:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***{{redacted}} ] (]) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC) <small>''Redacted comment. Do not restore content. ] ]] 19:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)''</small> | |||
| ****Point taken, and good advice. I still feel my point is valid, although it doesn't tie into yours as neatly as I thought. ] - ] 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Dennis, if you view some of Eric's gendered slurs as 'simpe infractions,' I'm not sure what to say. ] (]) 15:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*And I'm tired of this gavaging of American ideals down the gullet of an international community, and I'm an American. The last time Eric called someone a cunt, he was blocked, and I was the first person on his talk page to say the blocking admin did exactly the right thing. Not because of gender, but because it was a personal attack. For god's sake, not everything is about gender. ] - ] 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Not everything is about gender, but explicitly gendered slurs are. Which he's been using with impunity for years. ] (]) 16:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Trying to formalise something more elaborate than a warning for Eric may be over-thinking the thing and setting up a game where nobody wins. It may be more effective to simply warn him; and if he comes before you again with a demonstrated renewed pattern of inappropriate behaviour, deal with that in light of his breach of the commitment given here. --] (] · ] · ]) 14:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::What committment? He's failed to make any clear committment whatsoever, instead just comparing arbcom to the ]. ] (]) 15:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: he agreed to stop shouting at and insulting people. That's the problem, really. The insulting address. I'm a bit worried about the ban on Carol. A bit worried that she's being flicked off by a bunch of generally well-meaning but deeply, unconsciously sexist men. Is that what's happening there? (I haven't looked at the case against her.) --] (] · ] · ]) 15:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A one word answer is hardly a strong statement of anything. ] (]) 16:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::He compated arbcom to the Star Chamber?! Crucify him! ] (]) 15:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I point out that Kevin Gorman is just sore at Eric because he received an Arbcom for his ridiculous persecution of Eric Corbett. Clearly Kevin does not like to be made to look a fool; this why we see him dancing up and down these pages almost beside himself with disappointment because he fears Eric will remain as a reminder of his foolishness. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| After -- no exaggeration -- years of prelude, and two and a half months of arbitration activity the committee has gathered a majority eight votes on a remedy which is neither a green light for Eric to continue interacting in a way a significant portion of the community feels inappropriate nor a site ban. Opinions are about the remedy are fine, but sometimes it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to keep them to ourselves, and it's just unrealistic for any us to add our two cents and not expect replies. <small>]</small> 19:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Agree with SlimVirgin and Mongo. Glad to see a more realistic proposal has now been introduced for Carol at least. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 03:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Quick question == | |||
| ** 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. --] (]) 15:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry if this is answered I above, I was just skimming the case, and am a little confused. Can remedies 2.2 (banning Eric) and 2.3 (prohibiting Eric) both pass, and would that mean that 2.3 goes into effect after he returns from a site ban? Thanks in advance for the clarification. '''] ]]''' 14:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Note the "second choice" vote. ] - ] 14:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *AFAIK - ''If'' both remedies pass? 2.2 would kick in, once 2.3 failed. ] (]) 15:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Not really, actually. When two remedies are incompatible with each other and have both been supported by a majority of arbitrators, to determine which one of them actually passes, the clerk implementing the decision needs to check which proposal got more support votes or more "first choice" support votes. Of course, just to be on the safe side, clerks usually ask arbs for confirmation or arbs themselves decide to switch to oppose the remedy they don't want passing (or, simply, add a first choice/second choice the their votes). In this case, if 2.3 passes, 2.2 fails and vice versa; it's impossible for both remedies to pass at the same time. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * These two are not incompatible. Very few remedies are. Clearly a banned user will not be breaking any editing restrictions. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>17:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :* When we pass two such remedies, it is so that the less severe one continues to apply after the site ban is successfully appealed (at some point in the future). ] ]] 08:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' to summarise. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>12:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| == What a farce == | |||
| ***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.) | |||
| {{archive top|Please take this discussion to an editor's talk page or a Wikiproject page. It's not helping the arbitrators to make a decision. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| ***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 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. | |||
| I am most concerned here with the bullsh*t promoted as facts in the justifications for interpretations of editor actions. I am deploying bullsh*t as a technical term, referring to the use of scientific "facts" with no science whatsoever, to support hateful opinions so that they don't seem quite so hateful ("It's science, not my disdain. I'm neutral." they will say). Above, one admin argues that it is "human nature" to play the victim in order to discount LB's arguments. Cites or GTFO, because that contradicts everything we know about social psychological patterns and institutional betrayal, particularly for groups marginalized within various communities. Given the types of harassment that occur on the GGTF -- with editors appearing to produce the same bullsh*t as the admin above -- we should be more critical of editors who mobilize bullsh*t to win arguments than those who tell bullsh*ters to STFU. Because really, in the adult world, when you make up bullsh*t, people tell you to STFU. I would like to see action taken against admins that so callously makes up bullsh*t to censor Misplaced Pages and protect the forms of male privilege on here (more about this momentarily). I would also like to see a more equitable gender representation among the ArbCom members "adjudicating" this "case" so that we don't continue to see the same accepted bullsh*t that comes out of Wikipedians traveling in packs. | |||
| ::: | |||
| :::All the best: ''] ]'', <small>17:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| Then we have the "Butlerian" who (I'm not clear is or is not an administrator) clearly didn't understand the Hegelian implications of Butler, who does not argue that there is no such thing as gender/sex binary, but, rather, argues that gender exists in the dialectic between a performative set of practice and material relations of force (that's Althusser's and Foucault's philosophical contribution to Butler's project) that are differently inscribed upon sexed (racialized, and classed) bodies. One dimension of Butler's argument can be taken as thus: gender is performative, and women, genderqueer, and trans* folks are just as capable as reproducing misogyny as cis-gendered men -- that is a Butlerian assertion we should be dealing with in the GGTF, too (but the project can't do everything, and I recognize this). The Gender Gap is not as easy to understand as it would appear, since some women are complicit in and benefit from (so they think) masculine domination. | |||
| == "Quousque tandem" == | |||
| This is all to say that Wikipedians need to take a more proactive stance in understanding that there is a serious gender problem on Misplaced Pages, one in which misogyny is upheld through utter bullsh*t with little repercussion (and sometimes celebration), and editors who work their asses off to increase gender consciousness get punished when they tell bullsh*ters to STFU. When folks on the GGTF are harassed, and then get called harassers as they keep on keepin on in spite of the harassment, then they get labeled the harasser? How does that make sense to ANYONE? That's right - it's because consensus. Well, when the majority of Misplaced Pages is a bunch of sexist as*holes (Please see Aaaron James on the ethical argument surrounding this term), then what you get is an as*hole consensus. | |||
| {{ping|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 ]. Though I imagine you were just going for the "how long will you try our patience" sense, you're doing it by using 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? ] (]) 17:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :According to it literally means "for how much longer?" which by itself is even more obscure in meaning. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 17:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, "quo usque tandem" is <s>generally</s> 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 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: ''] ]'', <small>03:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::::I'm opposing it because I find it insufficient. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| And that brings me to my final point... Consensus DOES NOT INVOLVE VOTING. I don't care how many people "support" or "oppose," because that's not what consensus is about. Given the ways in which some admins are full of bullsh*t, as per above, they are not capable, nor honest, about consensus. They use "science" so that they don't have to be open. They don't come to the process with an open mind, because it is filled with opinions made bulsh*t by fake scientific facts that they use to justify their "open minded" interpretation (this has a long history). That means this whole consensus process, from top to bottom, is just an exercise in maintaining the status quo -- hence the one woman involved, who, if you follow the diffs, is clearly -- but not silently -- being harassed, is being banned. Because, you know, consensus is about telling the margnialized to STFU because they don't matter (sarcasm). | |||
| ==Eric's Proposed Remedies== | |||
| I end my rant with a great quote from Fred Moten's _Undercommons_ that I think folks need to think about: "I just need you to recognize that this sh*t is killing you, too, however much more softly, you stupid motherfucker, you know?" (140-141) Bullsh*t is a very harmful practice, and misogyny changes us in ways that are not good for our own interpersonal relationships. The best course of action now? '''Drop the whole thing, and move on. Further disruption on the GGTF -- meaning people who show up with bullsh*t -- get banned.''' | |||
| I find it a bit odd that both Carol and Eric have been subjects of past ARBCOM, but only 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 ] statement. Perhaps I'm premature in this comment, but there seems to be no hesitation with Carol but clear hesitations with Eric. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 00:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 15:54, 26 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 |
::I'm not an "administrator", and this is not the place for extensive philosophical debate. If you want to debate the finer points of Butler, I'd be happy to do so on my talk page. I don't think I ever said there is "no such thing" as a gender binary, but as I say, that type of discussion has no place here. ] — ] 15:59, 26 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. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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? - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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". ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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. - ] (]) 01:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''Chalk and cheese'' ... {{U|Sitush}} that may be my new favorite phrase. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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. - ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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, ''']''' ]] 02:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|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. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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. ] - ] 04:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq|Neither of them are driving away women editors}} is speaking in general terms. That is not speaking just for herself. {{tq|I, for one, was not driven off by Corbett}} would be speaking for herself. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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, ''']''' ]] 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. ] - ] 05:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It works both ways though when you say someone doesn't speak for all of X editors. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 10:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Speaking as woman editor, I largely agree with ] and the editor {{tq|"not signing in for obvious reasons"}}. Elsewhere on this page, both Carolmooredc and Neotarf have been described by ] as {{tq|"strong voices for women on Misplaced Pages"}}. 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. When all the dust settles on this, the active members of the GGTF might want to think about these issues. Happily signing my name... ] (]) 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}As a female editor, I agree with ], ] 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 ] 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.<p>Carole supporter {{u|Neotarf}}, the third largest contributor to GGTF talk page 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 ].<p>Carole supporter {{u|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 {{u|Eric Corbett}}'s "FORUM behavior and incivility" from her ANI were all stricken but one by presenter {{u|Robert McClenon}}. The one kept 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. ] (]) 00:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|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. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 01:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::]. 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 Misplaced Pages budgeted time every day. <small>'''] (])'''</small> | |||
| :::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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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 , which included "Women do ''not'' have to cite a $50,000 research project to say something distresses us." It gives the appearance, you see. - ] (]) 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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 {{tq|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. ] (]) 19:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I disagree - these types of conversations have everything to do here, because bullsh*t is constantly is being mobilized to legitimate the terrible decisions of individuals upholding a discriminatory system. And those of us who speak up about it get told that "these conversations don't belong here, they belong over there." And when we "comply" with that request we get told we're "harassing people across multiple pages." | |||
| *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. <p>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). <p>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. <p>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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::More than my philosophical disagreement with you (or maybe I misunderstood you, and am willing to completely admit that if that's the case), I wanted to use your Butler reference to get at the fact that "women disagree with CarolMooreDC" does not mean that there isn't some form of gender oppression going on here. Thinking back on it, I do regret that I used your debate as a vehicle for that point, and hope you'll accept my apology for any ill feelings. ] (]) 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Two requests about the gender gap topic bans == | |||
| *Can a clerk add ] to this case and cite this massive casting of aspersions? Thanks.--v/r - ]] 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Clarify "Gender Gap" in bans === | |||
| :*Why not just impose a block? I understand the anger but casting aspersions is another thing. - ] (]) | |||
| 1. The proposal "topic banned from the Gender Gap on Misplaced Pages, broadly construed" needs to be clarified. | |||
| :: Really? You're suggesting to ban me for saying that this process is wrought through with problems? What a great way to be productive Wikipedians aimed at making the encyclopedia better. I apologize, I mistook this as a consensus driven process, where the ArbCom members are held to the same standards/WP:Policies as the rest of us editors/Wikipedians. ] (]) 18:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Let's not be so intolerant of ideas that might help improve wikipedia. A discussion on how certain arguments repeated ad nauseam prevent Misplaced Pages from being more representative is not a bad discussion to have at all, though I have to agree with {{U|RGloucester}}, this is not the place for such a debate. ]] 18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*We're not intolerant of ideas. We're intolerant of toxic behaviors that divide, develop grudges, and draw lines of war. There isn't a single editor on Misplaced Pages that believes it should be dominated by any demographic. Most editors are social-advocates for equality, including myself. What we don't tolerate are the kind of battle cries for war that Thebrycepeake has just screamed. This isn't a battle, this is a collaboration. We're going to fix the gender gap together, not by shaming anyone who isn't willing to blindly follow the leader.--v/r - ]] 18:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ==Carol's ban== | |||
| === Propose topic banning Sitush === | |||
| I've just read through the findings regarding Carol and want to mention that I think a site ban is excessive. In her case, too, a warning and a commitment from her (to be much more careful with her accusations) would be more than sufficient. --] (] · ] · ]) 17:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| : <s>I agree.</s> I would <s>also</s> like to have seen some discussion of ]'s framing of this case. ] 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Links were provided on the evidence page showing that Sitush is opposed to the Gender Gap Task Force. | |||
| : I too have difficulty with it. Carol simply needs to read her posts before pressing save, and remove anything that is, directly or indirectly, casting aspersions on other editors, named or unnamed. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>17:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| *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 Misplaced Pages. | |||
| *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 ]), 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. | |||
| *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. | |||
| --] (]) 00:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that this is excessive. No one who was familiar with what happened wanted the case to go ahead (because there were other ways of dealing with the problem that hadn't yet been tried). Evidence was therefore not presented that would have shown the pattern of insults that were aimed at Carol and the GGTF, and how the situation evolved. It's difficult to get a sense of that after the fact, because the GGTF talk page wasn't always archived chronologically, and threads were opening elsewhere too. Several of the people who caused the trouble aren't even named in the decision, yet two of the editors who tried to stop it (Carol, the main target, and Neotarf, who arrived to help) are sanctioned. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:52, 26 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 {{u|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. - ] (]) 01:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::But that assumes that the proposed remedy is based only on the interactions at the GGTF. As is noted eldewhere this case has had very little to do with its title. Actually, I thought this remedy was going to be inevitable just from her postings on the case talk pages alone (coupled with her previous arbcom sanctiin). ] (]) 19:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *A ban of Carol would be a ridiculous miscarriage of justice, so I find it difficult to believe it will actually happen. The case was opened to consider disruption at GGTF by editors outside the group, it was not brought to deal with Carol's responses to unbelievable things such as Sitush writing a BLP about her, one of the most stealthy and creative attacks ever seen in the history of Misplaced Pages conflicts. Two arbitrators have recused themselves from opining on Eric, who are also two of the votes to ban Carol - could you imagine a judge recusing himself from considering punishments against one defendant, and then deciding to convict another defendant? Carol is flighty and takes on those that engage her like a deranged Mary Poppins, but you don't see true ill-will from her; if that is sin, it is not a sin worse than Eric's mean-spirited and truly impressive take downs. If Carol is banned and Eric is not banned, I will make a nifty black badge that says "FREE CAROL" on my user page in silent protest. Yes, I can't help see humor in these things, but it really is turning out quite crazy here.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 20:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I think one can see "ill will", certainly. ] 20:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : One more in agreement that this is excessive. --] (]) 21:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : I also agree that this is excessive, if Eric can have all of these options I feel that Carol should be given the same chance. - ] (]) 22:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{edit conflict}} I massively disagree that options should be the same for both editors. Carolmooredc is waay more disruptive to[REDACTED] as a whole that is Eric Corbett whose objectionable comments discussed in this arbcom are short and succinct, hugely less bytes (or whatever) than hers and don't require ferreting around to find proof. Many of assumptions about him are taken from his talk pages where a user has somewhat more liberty. What about her repeated statement of "fact" with no supporting evidence? What about her tendency to make personal attacks on those she disagrees with? And her typical interpretations of criticisms of her behavior, the personal opinions of others, requests for supporting evidence and other general comments by others as personal attacks on her? What about her ], her ], her frequent cross-posting of her long complaints (on talk pages of others including Jimbo Wales talk pages, the GGTF talk pages, WER talk pages and at ANI, e.g. ?<p> What about her lengthy and confusing walls of text, generally without supporting evidence? And her misunderstanding of wiki procedures, guideline etc. claiming ] means that editors can't post on forum pages such as the GGTF talk page?<p> And her tendency to confuse issues, such as conflating ] in[REDACTED] articles with "gender disparity" or "gender gap" in editors' gender on wikipedia, offering evidences such as ] to mean that this proves ] against female editors? And her seeming belief that only the opinions of "women" have relevance to the GGTF and her obsession with the gender of editors rather than their contributions to the pedia? And her clear ] and ]?<p>And her assumptions that anyone without a female-sounding name must be a "guy"? ] is not about the gender of editors; though the goal of increasing the percentage of female editors certainly is. And her failure to follow ] which says ? (If this had been done, it would have avoided a whole lot of problems.) As I have said, Carolmooredc needs close supervision of some kind as IMO she doesn't edit responsibly now. (Perhaps she did in past years, and I'm not calling for banning her if something can be worked out.) ] (]) 00:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You've divined that "Carolmooredc is waay more disruptive to[REDACTED] as a whole that is Eric Corbett" in the that you've been here? Not to mention Carol's other supposed sins and character flaws (like having a different POV from yours). --] (]) 01:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm tremendously impressed by your grasp of the complicated history of this particular issue and your confident mastery of the language, policies and norms of en.Misplaced Pages in such a short time here. Welcome, I hope you like it here and decide to stay. --] (] · ] · ]) 01:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::EChastain hits the nail on the head. Carolmooredc is a net negative to Misplaced Pages, she has a long-standing pattern of many kinds of abuse, and above all she cannot take responsibility for her own malfeasances, such as the sickening series of bogus ] accusations she set loose on me in 2011 purely on the basis of her politics and her paranoia. (They all came up empty. No apology though; she is after all the Innocent Lamb Herself.) The one thing she was *really* good at was the martyrdom drama card: help help mean sexist men are beating up The Innocent Lamb Herself just because she's an uppity woman. Oh, is that not dramatic enough? Let me post a really stupid comment about it here, with language intentionally redolent of gang rape, and then repost it on Jimbo's talk page too for maximum drama drama drama. ] (]) 12:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I, too, think banning Carol is excessive if we're going to give Eric another chance. They should either both be banned, or both be given another chance. ] (]) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't agree with this. The remedies don't ''have'' to be equal, but in this case I think less draconian measures for both Carol and Eric (each considered on their own merits) are likely to bring about the most improvement and least harm to our shared enterprise . --] (] · ] · ]) 01:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Not just in this case, but in general discussions about civility across WP etc. I've noticed a really unfortunate trend in terms of the wider support for certain editors. | |||
| :An editor ''should not'' be barred from the GGTF, for merely opposing it. ] (]) 01:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Editor A and Editor B disagree. Editor B breaks various WP rules. A group of supporters of Editor B point to, what they call, "the passive-aggressive behaviour by Editor A that ''made'' Editor B do it." | |||
| * Some time later, Editor A and Editor B disagree again over something. This time it is Editor A that breaks the rules. The same group of supporters of Editor B chirp "rules are rules", "no exceptions". | |||
| * The support of Editor B is based entirely on whether they agree politically with the changes to articles that Editor B has made, or with the stance they take in certain circumstances and very little to do with the broader concept of civility. | |||
| It is a bad (and frankly, childish) habit to jump onto any editor's talk page and tell them "Ahhhh, there, there, I can see that you were provoked." and then run over to the other editor's talk page crying, "Yah, booooo, hiss. You're always wrong." All it does is inflame the situation. --] (]) 04:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| @Milowent. ''A ban of Carol would be a ridiculous miscarriage of justice, so I find it difficult to believe it will actually happen. The case was opened to consider disruption at GGTF by editors outside the group, it was not brought to deal with Carol's responses to unbelievable things such as Sitush writing a BLP about her, one of the most stealthy and creative attacks ever seen in the history of Misplaced Pages conflicts.'' If you keep an eye on things, I predict you will find similar things happening to user after user, not just CMDC. *All* of this is of absolutely no surprise to me. Baiting and harassment leading to false moves and more baiting and harassment leading to explosions, and blocks, bans. All of this is a routine, predictable affair, but understood by few outside the ones who misuse this routine.] (]) 14:06, 27 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. - ] (]) 01:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I support the ban of Carol Moore. I look forward to her launching of the tell-all website in January or February. ] (]) 19:35, 27 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 04:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Carolmooredc Prohibition remedy? == | |||
| ::::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. - ] (]) 19:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| A prohibition remedy for Carolmooredc should be considered, with the same penalties as in Eric Corbett's prohibition remedy. It could be based on her promising not to bring up male/female issues or delving into such topics. ] (]) 22:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Rewarding the harassers and punishing the victims == | |||
| :I support this idea as reasonable. - ] (]) 22:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :Doubt arbs will be interested in this idea given her recent comments... ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 22:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 01:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Late evidence; ban justification == | |||
| :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 Misplaced Pages. I agree though that a site ban is far too harsh here. When two editors don't get along, separate them, Misplaced Pages is a big place there are plenty of other areas to edit. - ] (]) 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.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 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. ] (]) 03:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|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. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 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. - ] (]) 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. ] ] 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 ]. 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 07:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Adding this per Roger's suggestion on evidence talk: | |||
| :: 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. ] ] 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. - ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages with trolls. Is this not something kids are being taught <small>masculinity socialization aside</small>? ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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. - ] (]) 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. Misplaced Pages 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Carolmooredc's aggressive gender focused engagement is detrimental to both the project as a whole and serious, collaborative discussion of gender related issues and solutions thereto. Consider , interjected into a discussion where gender had not been explicitly raised (please review prior context of discussion when evaluating diff). | |||
| ==Harshly== | |||
| ;Recidivism | |||
| In the general context, advocating for a position which is supported 9 to 2<ref>Carcharoth's vote not in total as his stated oppose is based on the proposed time of the ban, not the principle.</ref> on current voting could be considered both a waste of time and piling on; I'm presenting mostly for the benefit of the opposes, to illustrate just the general unpleasantness and to refute the notion that the ban is "unfair" because CMDC is "provoked" into her responses. <small>]</small> 00:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ''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.'' | |||
| {{reflist-talk|close=1}} | |||
| (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: | |||
| :Um, the diff you provided makes no mention of gender. Did you include the wrong one?] 00:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The diff is the intended one. <small>]</small> 01:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then it doesn't make your point. She didn't "explicitly mention" gender. In that diff she says that putting a swear word on the front page would reinforce a stereotype of[REDACTED] as a place where people make juvenile jokes about sex. That has nothing to do with the gender of who's making the jokes. And this is a ridiculous thing to say someone should be banned over. ] 01:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *The other comments in the discussion are hardly any better. This does not prove your point. ] (]) 01:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yet, ] you have been endorsing and when belated diffs are added in an attempt to discredit ]. You seem to have no principles or moral judgement whatsoever. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Agree with others that this does not comport with your statement. Frankly this didn't even need to be brought up even if it was as you said. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 02:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *The Fuck book was obviously proposed to titillate, and Carol pointed out that it mostly titillates teen boys when you do that. The very idea that someone would suggest this supports a ban just shows how thorough the gender gap is.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 03:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **], don't perpetuate the same mistake and mischaracterization. Carol didn't mention anything about "boys" there. ] 03:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I guess my powers of comprehension exceed regular mortals!--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 05:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *This has been going on all through this case and previously too. People keep on railing at CMDC for unworthwhile, ridiculous reasons, putting up diffs and arguments as if it has substance, and the community and the arbs keep on failing to stop that rampant harassment and baiting, which continues even through these case pages, including this very page. It is no surprise that CMDC became unsettled and has made a couple of false moves. If you apply heat to a pressure cooker, and want to put a lid on it with NPA on the pressure cooker, it is going to explode. The laws of physics are stronger than NPA. That the ban is being applied because CMDC exploded from the baiting and harassment on these pages '''during this case'' means that the ARB is punishing CMDC for their own failure to stop the rampant baiting and harassment of CMDC. Excellent. No need to reconsider anything.] (]) 12:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ''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.'' | |||
| == Gang Bangers == | |||
| While this still leaves a lot unsaid, it is at least true to the basic spirit of Misplaced Pages as far as it goes. | |||
| {{hat|That's enough, folks. Unproductive. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| It may have been mentioned somewhere on this page but what if this is just referring to gang members and not a sexual connotation...Maybe I just have a dirty mind but getting frustrated and popping off at the mouth shouldn't be the primary justification for a ban which I see many arbs have cited as a reason to ban. Maybe even as a connotation of conspiracy would have netted a block and the ban would've passed anyways...just thought i'd chip in on that one. ] (]) 01:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC} | |||
| :You are probably wasting your time. Carol has made her position regarding the term and her future relationship with en-WP quite clear elsewhere. I've no idea if the arbs have seen it but they only need to ask. - ] (]) 02:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Having a hard time following everything, but who thought this was a sexual reference? It's a bit antiquated, but when she used it it was clear she did not mean an orgy. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 02:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I thought it was until I was enlightened by discussion of its different meanings on either side of the Atlantic. Oh, the irony. - ] (]) 02:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Sitush}} I'll FedEx you some mindbleach stat. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 03:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Oh come on now, Carol is an American and not from a small town in the Midwest. She damned well knew that she was using sexually-charged language, indeed, likening her situation in this case to gang rape. Funny how we now attempt to "interpret" her use of offensive words in her case but we flip straight to lynch mode when Eric Corbett got frustrated and went verbal with Lightbreather, isn't it? ] (]) 19:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh, no, no, no, no, ''no!'' I'm not sure why Carrite feels compelled to pull me into his comments so often, but I'd like to correct something he's said here: "when Eric Corbett got frustrated and went verbal with Lightbreather." Prior to going "verbal" with me, as Carrite puts it, I didn't know who Eric was. I went to WT:AN and asked a simple question: How does one go about creating a civility board? To which Eric replied (paraphrasing) that he thinks the Misplaced Pages civility pillar is insupportable, and "Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one." | |||
| All the best: ''] ]'', <small>02:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :I'm not sure whether the point is substantive or semantic — perhaps it is both — but I'd support substituting "severely" for "harshly." ] (]) 04:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Again, prior to this, I'd never been called a cunt on WP, and I didn't know who Eric Corbett was. Long-story short, when I told Eric that I was offended and I asked him to remove the offensive comment, he did nothing. So I did an ] and then he restored the word "cunt," giving as his edit summary, "do not alter another editor's posting." ] (]) 17:16, 28 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. | |||
| :: | |||
| ::"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 Misplaced Pages 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: ''] ]'', <small>14:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| This is Misplaced Pages. We should now have a long and pointless discussion about whether it's worse to call somebody a cunt or a gang banger. Or we could all retire to Jehochman's dinning room to eat roast turkey and stuffing and sing ]. I was not offended, as a target of the gang banger attack, and it's silly to think somebody would be banned merely for using that word. I enjoy a good creative insult that's not personal in any way. Obviously I'm not a gang banger. Nobody would ever think I was. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discretionary sanctions== | |||
| ::::I did actually, I thought it was a ]exercise about a sexual word like cunt. ] (]) 03:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ;Discretionary sanctions | |||
| *Which of the two meanings of the phrase she meant is rather irrelevant. Whether it's a participant in group sex or a violent criminal gang member, the arbs weren't going to take too kindly to it. What was informative to me personally (as well as surprising) was my exchange with her on the irony of her using an insult which has potentially different implications depending on which side of the Atlantic you are. I think she was genuine in her responses: I really believe there's a significantly more-than-average disconnect between what goes on around her in WP and her perception of it. The ban remedy is going to be the best all round solution, because I suspect that's not something that's ever going to change. ] (]) 07:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ''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.'' | |||
| * This is the most ''Wikipedian'' (adj.) discussion I have ever read. I don't think we need to evaluate every aspect of the incident; Carol lost her cool and will pay whatever consequences come of that. ] ]] 08:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Please fix so that it links to the appropriate page instead of ]. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>02:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :Best point of the night. Fixing. ] (]) 04:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes but I think tells us which meaning was meant originally, despite the later protestations. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 10:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==FYI, several gender gap/bias/issues wikiproject pages== | |||
| ::Ok good faith has now went out the window thank you that is the answer I was seeking. Coincidentally ] is a wikipedian (adj) conversation a good thing lol? ] (]) 11:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| While narrowing the topic ban area is a good idea note that the following exist: ],], ]. So "articles and wikiprojects or their subgroups related to the Gender gap or gender bias on Misplaced Pages" would be best wording. (This thus includes the ] article.) <small>'''] (])'''</small> 03:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just one more example of where Carol could quite easily have said, 'you're right, bad choice of metaphor, let me rephrase that,' but, being essentially incapable of admitting error, instead decided it would be better to go to ], ratcheting up the drama and that implacable sense of megaphone-martyr. ] (]) 13:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suppose you would expect that the arbs be easily capable of admitting their error in their failure to stop the harassment and baiting of CMDC on these case pages ? No ?] (]) 03:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Scope== | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| I oppose the topic bans. However the scope should be clearly defined if they are implemented. I would suggest: | |||
| Could someone please undo ? When I started it, the discussion was not hatted. When I pressed "Save," there was my last comment, though the discussion was hatted. I made it in good faith, and the only edits I made after the discussion was hatted were minor ones. Thank you. ] (]) 18:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| "pages and discussions dealing with the Misplaced Pages Gender Gap, that is the gender disparity in editor numbers on the English Misplaced Pages 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." | |||
| == Scope of topic bans == | |||
| All the best: ''] ]'', <small>04:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| {{archive top}} | |||
| I'm sure all arbs already have this in mind, but to reiterate, the normal scope of topic bans imposed by ENWP's arbcom is ENWP alone, not other Wikimedia mailing lists or projects. Given the fact that the gendergap is one of a handful of explicitly stated strategic priorities for the WMF, I wanted to state explicitly that I will not be enforcing any topic ban on either side on gendergap-l unless that participant is disruptive in their own right on the list. Further, since it ''is'' one of quite few explicitly stated priorities of the Foundation, I'll be appealling beyond arbcom if a participant on gendergap-l is sanctioned on the English Misplaced Pages for their participation on the list unless it's for significant outing or something of that nature - I don't think it's within arbcom's remit to execute remedies contrary to the movement's strategic plan on any project but ENWP. I would likewise expect that metawiki grant requests for funding related to closing the gendergap etc would never be actioned upon by arbcom. Hopefully when thinking about the topic ban remedies everyone already had this in mind, I just wanted to explicitly bring it up in case it influenced anyone's thinking. ] (]) 02:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Kevin, I think you can safely assume that ArbCom have no intention of exceeding their remit. I am sorry to say that your comment looks very much like a ]. Every person is important, but please remember that you are no ''more'' important than anybody else. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == This edit of Eric's from today strikes me as deserving a block == | |||
| :::{{ec}}Pointing out something that significantly effects how a remedy will play out in reality is not a power trip. Having editors active on the English Misplaced Pages forbidden to discuss a particular topic on-wiki but free to discuss the details of the project on another officially sanctioned WMF project plays pretty significantly different than a standard tban. I can also think of some arbcom decisions in the past that certainly exceeded their remit. ] (]) 05:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| . 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 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: <s>there are two types of bullies</s> 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 Misplaced Pages. <s>But there are also reflexive bullies, people who do</s> 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 (]) 05:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>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. ] - ] 05:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)</s> | |||
| **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 (]) 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. ] (]) 17:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <s>***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. ] - ] 06:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::::{{ec}}{{re|Dank}} Curious, when/where did he call you that today? While I agree with {{U|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. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 06:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<s>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. ] - ] 06:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::::::::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. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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 (]) 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. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 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 (]) 19:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::***:The grammar wasn't bad, I said exactly what I meant to say. ] ] 20:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *You're far from being an expert on anything Dank. ] ] 05:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Asking politely, "How does this intersect with these other things," is welcome. The power trip centers around, "I'll be appealling beyond arbcom if a participant on gendergap-l is sanctioned on the English Misplaced Pages for their participation on the list ". You (1) assume bad faith that ArbCom will do something wrong, then (2) point out what you will do to stop them. This is needlessly confrontational. Second, if you cast an aspersion, "I can also think of some arbcom decisions in the past that certainly exceeded their remit", please give the factual support. Otherwise, don't mention it. As admins, let's please set a good example for any observers. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:19, 27 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. ] - ] 16:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I declined to name specific decisions because they're not directly relevant here. Here's one: last time I checked, which was /months/ after the decision came down, the diff Sandifer got banned for mentioning information from was still publically accessible. I am not assuming that arbcom will do anything wrong, I'm simply pointing out that the weirdness of this sort of tban hits up on the edges of their remit in a way that is uncomfortable and makes it less powerful a remedy. ] (]) 05:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::For what it's worth, I don't think topic bans here serve that much good. If an editor goes to the WikiProject and acts like a jerk, the usual rules like ] provide sufficient grounds to warn and then block people who refuse to listen to reason. I see that the discretionary sanctions could have a chilling affect as well. It may make sense for ArbCom to spend a little more time thinking about these issues, to make sure the remedies don't cause more unintended problems than what they solve, and it would be a really good idea to ask members of the WikiProject what they think about these rememdies and do they support them. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::How are we to know whether other parts of the organization take their cues from Arbcom as to suitable participants without an explicit statement? I would like to thank Kevin for his efforts to ensure that there is a check and balance here, so we can experiment with different venues for facilitating dialogue about gender disparity. Without this explicit statement, the decision as currently proposed, in which the sanctions for disruption at GGTF fall predominantly on a woman and on a person uncomfortable stating their gender, could certainly have a chilling effect on womens' participation elsewhere. --] (]) 05:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just FYI, Patrol forty brought up the May insult vs. Dank under "Eric Corbett's use of the C-word" using (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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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 (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 23:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*That still doesn't give Eric a fee pass though to through around insults. - ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? - ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] 23:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :When you do science for a living you learn pretty quickly that if you choose your venue right you can get '''' past peer review. It takes a little longer to learn that your real task is to get the rest of the community to accept your findings. Related to that: by choosing what papers he accepts a journal editor decides what direction his journal will take, who will go and publish there, and how respected his journal will be by the scientific community. Kevin, your choice is yours to make. ] (]) 05:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision=== | |||
| ]: 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. | |||
| * I see nothing needing further comment here. The committee does not need reminded of ], nor to be told your interpretation of it. Closing thread. ] ]] 08:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Eric's calling others "cunts" a year ago, , six months ago, and even one month ago - ''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. ] (]) 16:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| *Seeing the newly suggested scope of topic ban remedy, {{ping|AGK}}, I think the committee would do well to reread its own remit, which it does not have the power to change. "The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff; (ii) Wikimedia projects other than the English Misplaced Pages; or (iii) conduct outside the English Misplaced Pages." The first proposed remedy as currently written appears to extend an arbcom ban about discussing the gendergap to (a) Gendergap-l, a list moderated by people including Sue Gardner and frequently modded by WMF employees in the past, (b) Their own offsite blog posts, and (c) with the media. If this is what is intended, it's absurd. If it's not what is intended, the remedy needs to be rewritten for clarity. Although sometimes offsite actions are taken in to consideration, the remedy as written literally interpreted suggests that talking about Misplaced Pages's treatment of non cisdude editors with a reporter from, say, the LA Times would result in sanctions. ] (]) 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* Hi Kevin, I've tweaked the topic ban wording slightly. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Thanks, {{Ping|Roger Davies}} - the new wording looks fine to me. I start this section because I was explicitly worried that the scope of topic bans as issued would be interpreted to cover off-wiki projects particularly after Sandifer, and didn't think that that wold be desirable or enforceable. It may also be worth taking in to consideration when thinking about topic bans from gender/Wikipedia issues, they're going to act very differently than almost any other topic ban type ENWP has previously implemented, and I have serious doubts as to whether or not they will solve ''any'' problem. ] (]) 13:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*And let me, {{ping|Kevin Gorman}} share why I amended it. I did not do it because I believed you have a substantive point but, on ] grounds, to reduce the opportunities for others using your interpretation of the topic ban as a justification for making mischief in this troubled topic. ] <sup>]</sup>13:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Certainly clarity in arbcom remedies is desirable? I would hope that remedies that have holes that people are likely to try to wikilawyer with or holes that are likely to have a ] on people who see a remedy as ambiguous (especially if they're people familiar with Sandifer, etc,) are written up as tightly as humanly possible. In writing an arbcom decision that people will be quoting from years, a lack of ambiguity is incredibly desirable. ] (]) 14:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| My apologies for doing this again. But if one of those involved in topic bans at some point in the future says something like I think it might have helped had we had a woman (or man) involved in this discussion or article or whatever, would that be considered a violation of the topic ban? ] (]) 21:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Nitpicking aside, I see no real benefit to allowing that. People should be talking to one another based upon the quality of the other party's thoughts or actions. The chromosomal makeup or genitalia of the other party should have ''exactly nothing'' to do with anything we do on Misplaced Pages. Anyone concerning themself with the (known or inferred) gender of another party in any dealing here needs to stop that. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You seem to be conflating ], but beyond that, I largely agree. ] <small>]</small> 22:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| So can we just be clear on this because I can't quite believe what I'm reading. If Eric or Sitush were working on an article about, say, a prominent feminist like ], which Eric worked on recently, and one of them were to say "we could do with one of the women editors, such as X whose interested in feminist issues, looking at this to see if we've got it right" that comment could be removed and they could be blocked by an admin. Is that really what you are saying here? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 16:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :To me, it seems that it means that there is no difference between a male eds perspective and a female eds perspective for Misplaced Pages purposes. A corollary of that would be that the gender gap does not cause any neutrality concerns for this pedia, after all, the gap would be a neutrality concern only if we accept that there is some difference between the two perspectives. If the gap does not cause any neutrality concerns, it is not a concern at all, we could declare the GGTF, or any other efforts to fill the gap as unnecessary and misguided, and declare that there would be no neutrality concern even if we were an all male, or all female only pedia. If this is what it means, then the best thing would be to pass a remedy closing down the GGTF and also put a stop on all such future misguided attempts. Right ?] (]) 17:56, 30 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 Misplaced Pages's communal norms, policies and guidelines), and the SPA essay says that my comments should be given full weight for those reasons. ] (]) 18:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm reminded of "new user" ] 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. — ] (]) 20:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::User Capeo thinks I'm "LB." But this case isn't about him/her. ] (]) 20:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Writegeist}} We've been over this multiple times. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, please take it to SPI. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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 ] going on here . - ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well it certainly looks to me that is what they are saying and, after all the time spent on this case, I'm amazed to see one of the arbs say "The chromosomal makeup or genitalia of the other party should have ''exactly nothing'' to do with anything we do on Misplaced Pages". Also, I can understand the point of banning someone from a particular topic area if they have been found to be causing disruption there, but we can scrap any ideas of[REDACTED] being uncensored if they want to tell editors what they can and can't say elsewhere on the site. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 18:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Recommend we ''ignore'' all IP accounts, until they reveal their current or previous registered accounts. ] (]) 23:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's consistent with previous sanctions though, such as not being permitted to discuss the RfA process. If that's not censorship I don't know what is. ] ] 18:56, 30 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. - ] (]) 02:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the arbs are in a difficult position here. If they accept that there is some difference between a male eds perspective and a female eds perspective which causes a neutrality concern, it would bring the neutrality of present remedies in question as the composition of the arbcom is skewed in one direction, and the difference is showing. I know the composition of the arb is what it is because this is how the community voted it to be. But the neutrality question still seems to remain there. Does this need resolving ? If yes, how should it be done ?] (]) 19:11, 30 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 ] and ]. I'm aware that Eric may not be around for a few days (see ), 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 . | |||
| **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 (]) | |||
| *You then followed up with 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 (]) | |||
| *with an edit summary indicating that you were doing this to make clear who did the redaction. I presume from your talk page archives (]) that the conversation ended there. | |||
| **Both correct. - Dank (]) | |||
| *When I read , 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 (]) | |||
| *(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 (]) | |||
| *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. Misplaced Pages 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 (]) 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. ] (]) 07:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think that discussion is outside the scope of the discussions we should have here, but I would like ] and ] to comment on the points we've raised. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 19:35, 30 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 Misplaced Pages that has to change, not me. ] ] 08:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You're correct that this is well outside scope, it's no longer in any way germane to the decision or making it. If you'd like to discuss something with me personally, you're welcome to leave me a talk page message. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:47, 30 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[REDACTED] 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages who insult people casually and frequently. But this case isn't IMO the one to look at for general answers, because ], 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: Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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 "]" 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 (]) 15:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Evidence phase over/not over== | |||
| * 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 ] thread, Eric had finally "got it". It appears I was wrong. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>18:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| On the one hand we have Gorrila Warfare hatting a section with the summary "Evidence phase is over" and on the other we have Roger Davies the addition of extra evidence to this page. Could the committee make it's mind up about this? And perhaps individually rethink whether they ought to recuse - hint, if you are unsure, you probably should. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>13:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| : The evidence phase is indeed over but there's nothing to stop people commenting, with diffs, if they wish. It's always been thus. ] <sup>]</sup> | |||
| {{hat|This discussion is not a productive one. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:56, 27 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. - ] (]) 18:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| On the one hand we have Gorrila Warfare hatting a section with the summary "Evidence phase is over" and on the other we have Roger Davies the addition of extra evidence to this page. Could the committee make it's mind up about this? And perhaps individually rethink whether they ought to recuse - hint, if you are unsure, you probably should. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>13:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :*: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. ] ] 22:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : The evidence phase is indeed over but there's nothing to stop people commenting, with diffs, if they wish. It's always been thus. ] <sup>]</sup> | |||
| :::*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. - ] (]) 22:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: In that case, for consideration: ''"Misplaced Pages values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities)."'' No, not another spray at Arbcom from Carol but a - quoted from a third party in an former Arbcom case statement - on Eric's user page. It has remained unremarked despite constant excuses for Eric's behaviour, how he won't belittle anyone in the future, etc leading to him being proposed with 'prohibitions' while Carol just gets banned. Yet that belittling has been there the whole time. ] (]) 16:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:No, I don't, not in the slightest. ] ] 22:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: |
:::Don't forget to mention that I also eat babies. ] ] 16:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::: |
:::: Telling (to me, in any case) how many of your usual <strike>gangbangers</strike> supporters haven't rushed to defend you on this one. ] (]) 18:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: |
:::::Defend me from what? ] ] 18:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::: |
:::::: Bingo! ] (]) 18:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::: |
:::::::Just out of curiosity, why did you make the effort of typing "gangbangers", but then striking it in the same post? ---] ] 18:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::: For the same reason I modify c*nt. ] (]) 18:29, 27 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: ''] ]'', <small>00:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :::::::::But you don't write <s>cunt</s> c*nt do you? ] ] 18:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 01:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::This is not productive. ] — ] 18:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Neither is repeatedly referring to me as a "gangbanger". ] ] 18:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == |
== Neotarf ban arithmetic? == | ||
| The proposed closing motion says that 3.1 (Neotarf to be banned) didn't pass. I'm seeing 6 votes in favour + 1 abstention and 5 votes against. Isn't that a pass? I must be missing something obvious. ] (]) 23:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Let's allay some misapprehensions about British English usage of words with a few explanations and references. | |||
| :The implementation notes have not been updated. I'll ask for that to be done now. ] (]) 23:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying. ] (]) 23:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Forgive my nitpicking, but why is Neotarf's ''ban remedy'' sub-sub-sectioned? CMDC & EC's ban remedies are only sub-sectioned. ] (]) 15:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *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". 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. | |||
| :Presumably a typo. I believe I fixed it yesterday when I was rearranging. ] <small>]</small> 20:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == New evidence against Neotarf submitted by Salvio == | |||
| *Twat is very similar in that it has the two same meanings, 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 ]. | |||
| *Wanker means someone who masturbates but it is used almost exclusively about men. | |||
| I hope everyone is enjoying their Thanksgiving holiday. | |||
| *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. | |||
| This morning I woke up to find that, even though the evidence phase of the current ArbCom gender case is closed, arbitrator Salvio has introduced new evidence against me, without notifying me, and has cast a deciding vote to ban me from English Misplaced Pages based on the new evidence. | |||
| *] means a drunkard and is the name of a character in the old English ] or ]. 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. | |||
| No one has informed me whether I will have the opportunity to present evidence of my own. I am also at a disadvantage, because the evidence has been oversighted and I cannot see it. To this end, I have requested assistance from Mr. Philippe Beaudette at the WMF. | |||
| As for American English usage, the essay ] was changed to ]. However if you look at 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 would also note that although this evidence was presented secretly, the committee has refused to consider evidence that might be in my favor because "for transparency's sake, the committee does not accept comments about open cases by e-mail". I would also note that my name was added to the case after it opened, by arbitrator Salvio, on the basis of non-public evidence which I have not been allowed access to. Regards, —] (]) 04:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I once saw someone on[REDACTED] 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 . 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 14:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have been humming to myself for last day or so, I'm glad someone else is familiar with it. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>15:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::Phrases change, too. Eg: "quantum leap" is a significant change but at a minuscule level (physics); "steep learning curve" = quick to learn (graphs). - ] (]) 15:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Actually, the evidence is out in the open in that diff you cited by Salvio. On three different occasions you posted material to Misplaced Pages that was so seriously harassing to other users, that it had to be ]. At arbitration an editor does not get to present for public viewing past attempts at doxing or harassing other editors. If you believe that Salvio has abused his privileges as an Oversighter by misrepresenting the content of those edits, you can appeal privately via ]. Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not a court of law, and that editing here is a privilege, not a right. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:23, 28 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 ] and The Rawtenstall Annual Fair. Then you will see and "owld tosspot" in full flight :-) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 15:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::This evidence is stale, some 4 months old. Why has nothing been said before this? And WMF legal was involved at the time. Has anyone checked with them? —] (]) 09:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The evidence is not stale because it contributes to the demonstration of a pattern already mentioned in the FOF, i.e. that you display an *extremely* serious battleground approach to disputes and disagreements. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)I | |||
| :Christ not this crap again. First, ]. Second, "I meant it as an X type of insult" does not negate it's meaning. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 16:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Is there a problem with looking at the evidence before making a judgement? —] (]) 09:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There's been a lot of evidence presented, I know I've looked at it - I believe Salvio has as well. I'm sorry about the delay, I'm slammed with work at the moment, but I'll state here that I have no issues with you forwarding any emails I've sent at the time to the arbcom-l. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really. I mean if ]/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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 17:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thank you, that leaves only NYB, I have forwarded the thread to him and asked him to pass it to the list if he has no objections. —] (]) 10:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::], What a ? Do me a favor go outside get some air and while you're at it look at this on . ] (]) 06:18, 28 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. ] (]) 18:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am on my tablet, so I apologise for any typo and my being brief. Neotarf, you are being parsimonious with the truth. You have been given the chance to comment on this issue in private and you have exchanged various emails with the commitee. We cannot discuss this in public under the privacy policy, but you had a chance to have your voice heard. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 08:25, 28 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: {{xt|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." | |||
| ::::Are you aware that I have requested from two of the arbitrators to release their email exchanges with me on that day? What is parsimonious or untruthful about that? Am I going to have a chance to let them respond? Why are you so eager to vote when they have not yet responded? Have you examined the screenshot of the email I posted? Are you saying if I am banned, I can appeal to the Audit subcommittee, and if it turns out I am telling the truth about the diffs being in my edits, they will unban me? —] (]) 09:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::At the same time, in the wider context of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages could find a way to move its culture in that direction without the use of pitchforks and misrepresentation. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 19:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I have read the screenshot of your email and have read all your replies on the mailing list, including your justification for posting material which had to be suppressed and, to be entirely honest, I don't consider it remotely satisfactory. And no you cannot appeal to AUSC. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Le's just get one thing straight. I am not excusing anyone's use of these words on[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] is not one of them. However, I am mindful that others have different views of this and that[REDACTED] 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 20:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The material was all posted openly by the user. I provided links for every piece of information. Why don't you get the links from AUSC yourself and see if I am lying. —] (]) 09:32, 28 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? <small>'''] (])'''</small> 20:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Not the name, which you used. The editor in question never willingly disclosed that piece of information on wiki. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:41, 28 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 21:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There were three names, they were all diffed. That is why I questioned the admin at the time, but received no answer. —] (]) 09:44, 28 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 ] 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! <small>'''] (])'''</small> 01:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: |
:::::::::That the names were diffed is pretty much irrelevant. For it not to be outing, the editor must have willingly disclosed the information in question and that was not the case. In this case, actually the editor was objecting quite vocally to the use of his name... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Alas, I long since ran out of breath. - ] (]) 02:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{TQ|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. ] 13:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *An insightful article by UK journalist : . ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 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. ] ] 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.] 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. ] ] 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 commissioned by ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 09:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please, ]: Fogg also talks about ''grandmothers applying the word to their grandchildren''. It's primarily a class issue, not a gender issue: {{xt|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.}} ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 12:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::. Here ] defends her use of the word: , in '']''. Here's ] opining, . Those are ''feminists''. Nothing about the use of this word is done and dusted. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 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 {{tq|in full knowledge that it will cause upset and offence to those of a delicate disposition.}} ] 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. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 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.] 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{ping|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. ] (]) 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: It is absolutely inconceivable that you would have had, fifty years ago, a contributing (female) editor of '']'' defending her own public use of the word in the pages of that publication] ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 18:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::], 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 (with video). ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 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 Misplaced Pages articles on a wide variety of topics doesn't know that. ] (]) 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.] 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] ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 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 ] – for ITN's ] programme, which is mainstream prime-time television – of the men convicted of the ]. 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.<p>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.<p> You can see a few examples 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. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Who cares? Sure UK based fiction such as ] and ] show the non-misogynistic "lesser" ] 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 ] (''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 Misplaced Pages. <small>]</small> 17:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :For the record, the BBC's current guidance is . 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". ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 18:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi {{U|Jayen466|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): ] (1992) – where Al Pacino (salesman) lays into Kevin Spacey (office manager) because the latter said something that lost Al Pacino a sale. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Questions to {{u|Jayen466}}, {{u|SlimVirgin}} re BBC standards === | |||
| #I just watched a comedy episode on TV distributed by BBC Worldwide, and ] 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 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.) | |||
| #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"). | |||
| #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? | |||
| #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. , <p>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. | |||
| #Why it it so much more awful than any other word obscene, derogatory, pejorative words? ] which used to be awful, awful is now a common word. Likewise, '']''. | |||
| :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. <p> What's with the obsession about this one word? ] (]) 05:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::] and ] ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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 ]. The issue here is not bad faith or a mere difference of opinion; it is far more rudimentary. ] (]) 18:46, 14 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 ], ], and ]. | |||
| *To include the word "cunt" instead of the words "the word." (Discussion ]) | |||
| *To clarify what the "gender gap" means. (]) | |||
| *To propose banning Sitush. (]) | |||
| --] (]) 19:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>I thought you retired, LB? ] (]) 19:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::User Writegeist <s>thinks</s><ins> suggests that</ins> I'm "Patrol Forty" <ins>or his/her "parrot."</ins> But this case isn't about him/her. ] (]) 21:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you are {{u|Patrol forty}} then {{u|Courcelles}} would probably have something to say about block evasion. I've no idea who you might be. - ] (]) 21:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<s>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. ] (]) 21:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)</s> | |||
| Recommend fellow editors ''ignore'' the IP, until he/she comes clean on his/her previous account. ] (]) 22:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Maybe it is someone that is logged out? I have noticed numerous IPs here in the chat. - ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ] and ] that it shouldn't need saying. I was amazed that Sitush did that, I urged him to have the bio of Carol deleted, 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 ] from here to eternity. ] | ] 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. --] <small>(])</small> 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. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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: ''] ]'', <small>04:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::::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.''' <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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. ] (]) 18:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ec}} 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)? ] | ] 18:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC). | |||
| == IPs input == | |||
| I recommend that arbitrators (and other editors) ''ignore'' posts by IPs. <s>They're not helping the situation by refusing to ''sign in'' or disclose previous accounts.</s> ] (]) 02:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :]. Also ]. If you have evidence of a sock, report to SPI. Otherwise ignore them. This is getting ridiculous. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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. - ] (]) 02:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Very well, strike the assumptions. ] (]) 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: ''] ]'', <small>04:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :I disagree, the GGTF is a touchy area that can do without the rudeness. - ] (]) 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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 ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 18:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|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: ''] ]'', <small>18:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :::I feel that if we are going to have a wikiproject inviting new members that it should be as drama free as possible. - ] (]) 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: ''] ]'', <small>00:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| == 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 ]." Could y'all come up with something actually workable like that? ]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 14:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That should at least improve the quality of the insults! <!-- That was jocular!--> 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). --] (]) 15:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It isn't clear what ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? - ] (]) 17:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The general proposal to simplify rules regarding insults is mentioned in . The eight-letter rule is rather interesting; it might work, or at least help. -- ] (]) 20:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Replies: | |||
| #{{ping|Only in death}}, {{ping|Knowledgekid87}} and {{ping|Robert McClenon}}, I think that {{ping|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. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| #{{ping|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. {{ping|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. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::This isn't real life, this is Misplaced Pages, 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. - ] (]) 23:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Questions for {{u|Carolmooredc}} == | |||
| {{u|Carolmooredc}}: {{u|Patrol forty}} is indefinitely blocked. Block log: | |||
| :*22:16, 25 October 2014 ] (talk | contribs) blocked ] (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (]) | |||
| :*10:51, 26 October 2014 ] (talk | contribs) changed block settings for ] (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 ]) | |||
| :*23:43, 3 November 2014 ] (talk | contribs) changed block settings for ] (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite <nowiki>({{checkuserblock-account}}</nowiki>: Clearly ]) | |||
| ::Note to Carolmooredc: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to | |||
| Carolemooredc, have you read ]? 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 (as )<p>'''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 ] which seems to becoming a ] (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. <p>You know how to provide specific diffs like this: because I've seen you do it before. <p>'''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. ] (]) 17:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :@EChastain. Thanks for noticing I someone how presented the wrong 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 18:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::@{{u|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.) <p>This is your usual MO, as you've done with ], always saying things like you have no time, real life issues intervene, will complete in a few days, etc.<p> 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 ] 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; Nor did you give relevant responses to my other comments at that time to you<p>You misrepresented what ] says and misunderstood the guide to mean that "this guide which only mentions "negotiation" overrides one of the ], which includes civility and dispute resolution? Obviously the Guide has to be beefed up to reflect that fact." 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.<p> It's also annoying that you took my suggestions for links to the Project Council/Guide, and presented them as your suggestions. <p> 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.'' <p>I never said I thought the main "Locus of dispute" should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project.<p> 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. <p>I quoted from a member of the ] responding to a question about specific procedures to deal with "editors have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject that cannot be resolved at the talk page". Then I found out you, Carolmooredc was the editor who posted the question there! I have trouble believing[REDACTED] is this inept. (Sorry if this comment offends, but I'm surprised at what I'm seeing here.) ] (]) 21:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Thoughts on ] == | |||
| Here are my thoughts on ]. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages Talk space. Please consider banning him not only from the GGTF, but from Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages Talk space. | |||
| ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ], 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 Misplaced Pages respect should be given to all cultures and editors need to be aware of that. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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 (]). - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 18:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So whose name were you thinking of? That further adds to the cause of Eric's disruptive editing. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 18:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Corbett's reply to {{U|Carcharoth}} ] answers any questions you might have. He won't change. Only arbcom can stop him. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 18:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Only Arbcom? Really? That seems a slightly dramatic statement but I suppose you didn't see because we were editing around about the same time. - ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{re|John Carter}} Must be years of "apparently significant personal stress". ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 19:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|:::::::::::}}{{re|Sitush}} yes only arbcom. Eric apparently cannot ] himself and multiple attempts at community consensus through ANI and such have fruitless. They have literally been closed by admins saying: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| It is not an overstatement to say only arbcom can deal with this. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 19:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems that you have either not read or not fully comprehended the diff that I presented. - ] (]) 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|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). ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 20:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''"master baiter"''? Now, that caused me to go into hysterical laughter :) ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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.] 20:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A couple of recent diffs are and 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. - ] (]) 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.] 20:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages'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. - ] (]) 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. ] 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. - ] (]) 01:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] 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 Misplaced Pages should be a general rule in my opinion. - ] (]) 01:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] isn't a rule, it's a pillar. There's a huge qualitative difference there. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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. - ] (]) 01:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Again if your argument is with the pillar then go start up a convo on the ] 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. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 01:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} 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 ] 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 ] advice at ] above—Arbcom should require that sanctions for Eric be discussed at ] 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. ] (]) 02:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Yeah, I think you nailed it here, Johnuniq. ]<sup>]</sup> | |||
| **I would also agree with what Johnuniq has written here. ] ] 09:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Me too! ] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vagueness of how "Gender gap/disparity" applies to is the issue== | |||
| Ping: ], ] and ] | |||
| Per GorillaWarfare’s : ''I'm not sure how "gender disparity on Misplaced Pages" is more clear than "Gender Gap on Misplaced Pages"'' | |||
| 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 Misplaced Pages''? 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 Misplaced Pages 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.<br> | |||
| Also, I see that the proposal is that Neotarf and I both are "topic banned from the gender disparity between editors on Misplaced Pages..." While it is proposed Corbett be "topic banned from the Gender Gap on Misplaced Pages..." Is this supposed to be a significant difference or did someone forget to change his? <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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 Misplaced Pages in a tag-teaming; details . | |||
| :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 Misplaced Pages. 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? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages that has to change, not me.'' 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? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 21:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Eric involved in long-term appalling behaviour? As if that could happen... ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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'' Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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 Misplaced Pages'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. ] (]) 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). ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Any hints at what we are supposed to see there? ] (]) 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. ] - ] 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.] (]) 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". ] - ] 16:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Neotarf Finding of fact (B)== | |||
| Using 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 . | |||
| In that conversation few people come out well. Even {{Ping|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: ''] ]'', <small>19:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] when it was added ] 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. ] (]) 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: ''] ]'', <small>01:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| == 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 , 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 , it might be a button for flagging "Is this user interaction page an angry, sexualized environment? Report it." on the order of the , 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 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, is not working. --] (]) 20:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :These are all good suggestions, {{U|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 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|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. - ] (]) 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<s>Again, some people don't like the word "Brit".</s> ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. —] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.) There may be lessons to be drawn from this about the kind of community-building effort that greater numbers of women could get behind] <small>(Thanks for the clip elsewhere on this page. Two of my favourite actors.)</small> ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 02:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Neotarf request for clarification of diffs == | |||
| There are two diffs in the ] 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. —] (]) 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :In the proposed decision, the diff numbered 27 is from a section in another arbitration case and the contributions in that section appear to belong entirely to Neotarf.<p> As for the other diff, I suspect the diff meant by the drafter is this one, which originated on NYB's talk page, in which Neotarf complained that {{u|Hell in a Bucket}}, by stating that Neotarf has exhibited passive-aggressive behavior likening them to having a mental disorder. {{u|Bishonen}} explained here the difference between passive-aggressive behavior and the psychiatric disorder. Apparently not satisfied with the response, Neotarf responded directly on Bishonen's talk page to which Bishonen responded with which is diff 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, which is yet another example of battleground behavior.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 05:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Spot on ]. ] (]) 09:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Better wording == | |||
| We are adults here. The phrasing in ], 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. <small>]</small> 05:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Then you won't mind that I "un-juveniled" your talk page. Regards, —] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There seems to be general consensus that this is not about swears ''per se''. ] 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: ''] ]'', <small>18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| == Inflammatory language introduced on case page == | |||
| In case anyone missed it, an arbitrator has now introduced "that word" onto the case page itself. —] (]) 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. ] ] 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 , 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. ] ] 09:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Very ironic indeed that in , 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 ] and ] 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. —] (]) 06:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#800000|info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=rei<s>g</s>n |info=Every time you say "free reign" when you mean "free rein", this user dies a little inside.|align=right}} | |||
| :::Free REIN, free rein. To "reign" is to rule, a "free rein" is to be loose to do as one pleases. ARRGH! ]<sup>]</sup> 07:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh look, it's a thing. — ] (]) 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 ]] 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. —] (]) 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. ] ] 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. —] (]) 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 16:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Bean counting "that word" - what is the issue here? == | |||
| Is it only me that thinks this whole discussion is ridiculous? {{u|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? <p>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 {{u|Eric Corbett}}'s use of "that word". The underlying problem is more subtle and lies in the unwitting putdowns of women, like {{u|DoctorTerrella}}'s saying: "I know, I sound like an '''old lady''', but those are my thoughts."(my bolding) 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.<p>If the issue is ] or ] behavior, or ], addressing that also doesn't lie in promoting the hyper-sensitivity to "that word".<p> I agree with {{u|Voceditenore}}'s statement above regarding the role of <s>{{u|SlimVirgin}},</s> {{u|Neotarf}} and {{u|Carolmooredc}} as "voices" of the GGTF.{{quote| 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,<s>{{ping|Newyorkbrad}}</s> {{ping|Worm That Turned}}, {{ping|David Fuchs}}, {{ping|Seraphimblade}} what's this arbcom about? ] (]) 08:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : No, you are not the only one. I am a woman, ]. --] (]) 08:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|EChastain}}, okay, but who am I? Curious, ] (]) 13:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|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?<p>(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). ] (]) 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, ] (]) 10:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|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. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I would appreciate that being stricken as well. What is the point of these personal attacks? —] (]) 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 ] and the editor {{tq|"not signing in for obvious reasons"}}. Elsewhere on this page, both Carolmooredc and Neotarf have been described by ] as {{tq|"strong voices for women on Misplaced Pages"}}. 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. When all the dust settles on this, the active members of the GGTF might want to think about these issues. Happily signing my name..." | |||
| ::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. ] (]) | |||
| :], you are rather seriously misrepresenting earlier comment. I disagreed with ]'s contention that Carolmoordc and Neotarf were "strong voices for women on Misplaced Pages". 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. ] (]) 17:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks {{u|Voceditenore}}, I had figured that out and struck out SlimVirgin's name. ] (]) | |||
| ::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. —] (]) 18:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why? This is supported by the diffs in the finding of facts.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 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. - ] (]) 18:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I also want to point out that editors who are on Misplaced Pages do not speak for all of those new female editors who may be inclined to join Misplaced Pages, the GGTF should be a welcoming environment that treats editors with respect. - ] (]) 18:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruption to prove a point by ] == | |||
| Would the clerks and arbs please see ] as a follow up to ]. ], ], ],], ]. This despite a previous incident that Newyorkbrad should remember quite well. ] (]) 09:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :See also -- 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. <small>]</small> 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. —] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. —] (]) 15:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And there you have it. More wild hyperbole. There has been no brutal, bigoted hostility on this page.] (]) 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. —] (]) 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 ] edits are pointless, and I'll attempt do deal with with as little drama as possible . While I can't thing of anything less important that what happens on ] -- the "N" stands for "Nobody," after all, I ''do'' object to passive aggressive harassment of a Misplaced Pages volunteer with the worse job around here (arbitrator). <small>]</small> 17:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}} | {{OD}} | ||
| The editor, Tutelary, objected quite vocally to the use of male pronouns on the talk pages of 9 editors including myself. But only one pronoun was ever discovered. Surely you're not going to take their word for it. —] (]) 10:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| , 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. | |||
| :This is a non sequitur. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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 Misplaced Pages. 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? | |||
| ::Try this: go to ] and it should redirect you to a page with two more names. —] (]) 10:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Where is the last name, there? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This was all documented in the edit, which has now been suppressed. With regard to the diff about Tutelary, at the time the edit was suppressed, I sent the admin an email (), as well as leaving a message on their talk page. In my email I pointed out that I had posted internal diffs for every single statement I made. I did not get a reply to either the email or the talk page message. —] (]) 22:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You're repeating yourself and it's still entirely irrelevant. For it not to be outing, '''the editor in question''', not others, must have willingly disclosed the information. This was not the case. And I'll not reply any further unless you can provide answers which are actually relevant. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 00:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I can provide evidence of that at length if needed. ] (]) 18:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: For clarification on what happened, I reverted the outing of my last name and it was later oversighted. I have published my first name on Misplaced Pages, Danielle. That -is- out in the open, on my userpage and in some other formal discussions I got involved here on Misplaced Pages. However, my last name I never published on Misplaced Pages and was rather shocked to see it so colloquially thrown out there as if common knowledge. ] (]) 01:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just for clarification, I have no knowledge of who this Tutelary person is in real life, or which, if any, of the names they have used in various forums is their real name. Since the diff where I documented "their own willing disclosure of the information", if information it is, has been suppressed, and since my queries about the reason for the suppression have gone unanswered, both on-wiki and by email, it is pointless to have any further discussion until the suppressed edits can be made available to me. —] (]) 14:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah but from whose point of view would it be from? - ] (]) 18:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::If it's obvious passive aggressive behavior should it matter? ] (]) 18:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The edit summary is clearly present . <small>]</small> 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. —] (]) 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. <small>]</small> 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 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 ]. ] (]) 21:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::HIAB, You're absolutely right. My wiki-death is long overdue. —] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. You may find 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. —] (]) 21:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: {{ping|Neotarf}} you say here that Salvio {{!xt|just issued me a threat, a physically intimidating threat}}. Kindly explain what you are talking about. ] ]] 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 . —] (]) 22:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Insulting arbitrators, who will presumably decide your fate, is not the way to win here. ''']''' 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 ]. PS Housemate gives verbal approval to this message; says "I'll sign off on that.") --] (]) | |||
| ::::::::::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. ''']''' 03:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::In the wiki spirit of , 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 ] can still be the equivalent of ]. 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? --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]] 22:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| :] + ]. 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 ....] (]) 01:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks to OrangesRYellow for that excellent analysis. This is a ] over ] 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? <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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.] (]) 02:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{U|Carolmooredc}} {{U|OrangesRyellow}} ]. ''']''' 02:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Perhaps you misunderstood. I am not, repeat --NOT AT ALL-- accusing anyone of socking here.] (]) 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 {{tq|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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ''']''' 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".] (]) 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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 ]y allegations while pretending not to? ] (]) 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 ], especially about battle ground alliances, described in ]. 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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> | |||
| ::::::::::::<del>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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)</del> | |||
| :::::::::::::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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ] 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 ] as being sufficiently supported? and (c) if they think that some personal attacks can sometimes be supported, are they therefore allowable on wikipedia?<p>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.<p> 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.<p>Do any others share any of my concerns about this? ] ] 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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. ] (]) 20:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I imagine that anyone unfamiliar with[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 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: ''] ]'', <small>11:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| == 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 ]-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 ], 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 ], 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 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 | |||
| ==== 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". , and in an edit summary here, says "why don't you dine on the swine".. When I asked point blank "Are you soliciting me for something?", the answer was "Dine away." , 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 ], 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 ? TKOP doesn't seem to understand the concept of ]], which is part of the group's name. Even worse, TKOP sports a sig that says "Makin' Bacon", . Is this the face that Misplaced Pages 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 ]. | |||
| 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 ], 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 ==== | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{quotation|{{xt|"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. —] (]) 07:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC) }}}} | |||
| This is a joke. For the background to this internet meme, see and The user got it immediately, | |||
| {{quotation|{{xt|:::::::You're criticizing me over the font in my sig? Hilarious. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)}}}} | |||
| There were no further reverts. | |||
| ==== Hell-in-a-Bucket - Diffs 2,3, and Part B diff 1 ==== | |||
| 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 | |||
| 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 ] 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?" | |||
| 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: | |||
| <blockquote>A final issue is {{xt|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 {{xt|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? How can your continued monopolizing of this project page be viewed as anything but trolling. —Neotarf (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| 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 Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ==== 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 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 ] 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. 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 Misplaced Pages so grandiose that it has to be built, like St. Petersburg" | |||
| This was a response to "{{xt|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 still to come) | |||
| === Discussion === | |||
| *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 ] 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. ] (]) 12:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*What the heck is all of this? - ] (]) 19:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::A reason for arbs to vote for Neotarf's site ban as far as I can see. ] (]) 19:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::NYB gave Neotarf some instructions (emphasis added) {{tq|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. ]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 21:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree, {{ping|Neotarf}} you had your chance to present evidence before, did you not see NYB's statement above? - ] (]) 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 {{smiley|(}}, 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: ''] ]'', <small>01:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| == 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: | |||
| <p> | |||
| (a) An indefinite ban of editor X is justified? (response options are "support", "oppose", "abstain") | |||
| <p> | |||
| 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: | |||
| <p> | |||
| : (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 | |||
| <p> | |||
| 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". | |||
| <p> | |||
| 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. | |||
| <p> | |||
| To illustrate this last point, suppose we have the following, with numbers of responses as shown: | |||
| <p> | |||
| : (b) The minimum period that needs to take pass before an appeal against a ban takes place should be: | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| |+ 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 | |||
| |} | |||
| <p> | |||
| 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: | |||
| <p> | |||
| : (b) The minimum period that needs to take pass before an appeal against a ban takes place should be: | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| |+ 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 | |||
| |} | |||
| <p> | |||
| So, the mimimum period required is option (iv): no more than 3 months. | |||
| <p> | |||
| 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. ] ] 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. --] <small>(])</small> 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: ''] ]'', <small>19:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :I would bring this to the ] if you want to make proposals regarding the banning policy. - ] (]) 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: ''] ]'', <small>19:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :I like this proposal, and I like RegentsPark's modification, and I like my modification of his modification. {{Smiley}} All the best: ''] ]'', <small>19:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :: 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.<p>Seriously, these have got to be better than what is currently done. ] ] 23:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == {{anchor|Troublesome priests}}Turbulent priests == | |||
| {{u|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. - ] (]) 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[REDACTED] and the arbitration processes. If they are not tackled centrally and more decisively, anything that is otherwise done becomes deckchair arranging. ] ] 15:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :In case someone else comes along and wonders where Carcharoth raised a "turbulent priest" issue, it's here, 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 ] and Eric Corbett is ], which is a dramatic promotion for both men. Wales is the president ] 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."'' ] (]) 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. ] 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. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 23:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Sitush topic ban == | |||
| ::::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. ] (]) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Surely this is a joke? My position is roughly as per , I've been supportive of proposals put forward by others at GGTF, I dropped {{u|Rich Farmbrough}} a note off-wiki simply because it was a quote that was also somewhat supportive of their ideas, I've said all along that the problem with GGTF was related to how it was being used, not its purpose. And I'd just started what was going to be a major rewrite of a significant couple who advanced the cause of women's education and feminism in India when {{u|GorillaWarfare}} pinged me on the PD page. The finding of fact and proposed remedy are very selective in their evidential basis, and run counter to the principle already established regarding what constitutes acceptable criticism. - ] (]) 18:52, 28 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[REDACTED] for ages to come. ] ] 00:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Am I going to have to provide diffs for all of this? It seems pretty self-evident to me from things I've said throughout the case, including on this very page. I find these latest set of changes quite disturbing but it is evening here and I'm out for much of tomorrow. - ] (]) 19:15, 28 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" ] ] 00:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since I was the one who sent it, here is my email to Rich Farmbrough - does it really sound like someone who is intent on disruption? {{quote|Quote is from "Cam", the Cambridge University alumni magazine, Michaelmas Term 2014 (issue 73). Article is a diary piece by Dr Mateja Jamnik, Senior University Lecturer in the Computer Laboratory. | |||
| :::::It was entirely predictable that this case was never going to be about the GGTF but instead just another civility bun fight. Utterly dishonest. ] ] 00:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::----Start---- | |||
| ::::::: Apologies to {{u|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 ] type ] 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 {{u|Knowledgekid87}} - I believe it was you who wrote the GGTF is a "touchy" area. That made me raise my eyebrows. fwiw. ] (]) 01:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course, academic life is not just asbout research: we all must take responsibility for some department administration. For me, this has been particularly fulfilling, as almost 11 years ago I founded a national network for women in computing research called women@CL. In Cambridge, as elsewhere, we suffer from a huge underrepresentation of women in computing. While we can have little influence on how girls are taught science subjects at school - where, I think, the problem begins - I feel passionately that it is possible to influence and improve the experience of women who have chosen to do computer science. | |||
| ::::::::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. - ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Through women@CL, we make women feel more welcome, better connected and better mentored, by informing, supporting and promoting them. As well as coffees, dinners and technical talks, we organise gaming events, awaydays at our sponsor companies, mini conferences, and team up new and existing members for peer-to-peer mentoring. Most of our events are open to women and men, and I would say that several thousand people have taken part in our events in the last 11 years. | |||
| ==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. | |||
| ::::Working as an academic and looking after a family with three young children is manic. So to preserve my sanity, I feel I must take some time to myself, mostly in the evenings and borrowed from my sleep account. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::::----End---- | |||
| ::::I *love* that "sleep account" reference but more relevant to recent goings-on and your GGTF proposals is the stuff that her women@CL get up to. Not all is easily applicable to the WP situation but I think it does support your own thoughts on the matter. | |||
| {{Collapse top|Vital discourse}} | |||
| ::::Anyway, there we go. I thought it might interest you but if not then no worries. | |||
| ===Proposed principles=== | |||
| ====Purpose of Misplaced Pages==== | |||
| 1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for ], such as ] or ], is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Misplaced Pages may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. | |||
| ::::Best wishes}} | |||
| It is ''not prohibited'' to use Misplaced Pages for advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts. Quite clearly women's editathons, and specifically "Storming Misplaced Pages" are doing just that. Similarly many of our sister projects are being built by language advocates (more controversially arz.wp was funded by ], and kz:WP by ]). WP:MED is predicated to some extent on public health goals. | |||
| :::The mail followed ]. - ] (]) 19:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Remove the second sentence.''' | |||
| == New findings/remedies == | |||
| ==== Non discrimination policy ==== | |||
| 2) The Wikimedia Foundation ] prohibits discrimination against users on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. | |||
| Leaving a note here about the to the proposed decision page, as they were substantial. I've sent a nearly-identical email to the ArbCom list to make sure people vote on the new proposals, and review their old votes on proposals that have changed. | |||
| '''For employment purposes only''' - it has no bearing here. If we want a ] we (the community) need to write one. | |||
| * Added a locus finding. | |||
| ====Fair criticism==== | |||
| * Added a finding about disruption by ] | |||
| 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 ] fashion, and by policies that prohibit behavior such as ]. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the ] mechanisms rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums. | |||
| * Added a finding about ]'s existing interaction ban | |||
| * Added a finding about disruption by ] | |||
| * Added a remedy to generalize the topic bans under one "scope" section | |||
| * Changed the wording of existing topic bans to refer to this scope (], ], ]) | |||
| * Added a remedy to topic ban ] | |||
| * Added a remedy to convert the existing community-imposed one-way interaction ban between ] and ] into an ArbCom ban, along with a caution | |||
| * Added a remedy to topic ban ] | |||
| * <s>Reduced the length of time to appeal the topic site ban for ] to six months</s> | |||
| Please note that these changes also updated the numbering for many of the findings and remedies. ] <small>]</small> 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|GorillaWarfare}} I think you meant the duration of the site ban appeal, not the topic ban. ] (]) 19:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did. Thanks for pointing that out! ] <small>]</small> 19:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|Discussion, please see instructions regarding further comments in this section below. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| '''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''' | |||
| :::I may be being obtuse here but it looks as though Carolmooredc's ban with a minimum of a year before she can appeal it has been supported by 10 arbitrators, with one specifically saying that he doesn't think a minimum period of less than a year would be workable, and you've changed that to a six month mimimum <i>while continuing to oppose it even with your amendment</i>. I guess my question is: hypothetically if someone asked you to provide a good faith explanation for doing that, what would it be? ] (]) 19:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Shouldnt the reduced topic ban change for Carol be a new remedy? Having an Arbitrator change the language of a passing remedy that the arbitrator in question opposes doesn't seem proper. ] (]) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Making allegations against other editors==== | |||
| :{{ec}} This may be my ignorance of how arbcom works, but I'm puzzled procedurally by how {{u|GorillaWarfare}} has changed the proposal on CarolMoore's site ban. Since there has been voting on that remedy already with a 12 month minimum period, surely there should be a ''new'' remedy with a 6 month minimum site ban as an alternative, rather than an amendment of the existing remedy. Then arbs could then choose between 6 months or 12 months. As it now is, how would an arb vote if they want a site ban but prefer 12 to 6 months? If they switch to oppose, then they would voting against any site ban. If they leave their vote as support then it automatically becomes a vote for a 6 month minimum. Of course, if arbs have behind the scenes already agreed it should be 6 months then my query is moot. ] (]) 19:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :There are several references to "tweaking" on the Proposed decision page by Newyorkbrad, Worm That Turned, and Salvio giuliano. I don't think we should be <s>attacking</s><ins> suspecting</ins> GorillaWarfare for doing something other arbitrators accept as part of the process. ] (]) 20:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Basically sound''': | |||
| {{hat|1=Stop. ] <small>]</small> 02:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::"attacking". Very typical of you, {{u|Lightbreather}}, to misunderstand/misconstrue both my post and the situation. Not every post has something to be offended at and for you to parade your agenda yet again. ] (]) 21:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe the indentation I used indicates I was responding to IP user 174, whom I meant my response for. Also, please don't cast ] with "typical of you" statements. The reality of my editing style is much better than the rumors others spread. Also also, since you didn't like my choice of verb, I've changed it. ] (]) 22:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *This case has been open for just a few days short of three months now, and GorillaWarfare, who has been mostly silent throughout, now apparently believes the time is right to move the goalposts. To mix my analogies, I really don't think that's cricket. Do we now have to endure another interminable round of voting? ] ] 19:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm pretty sure the voting stage is over. If I understand correctly, from this point on the arbitrators edit war over the parts that are already passing. ] (]) 19:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{edit conflict}} Perhaps, but it seems to me that unilaterally changing the proposed duration of a ban that has already been agreed by a majority of arbitrators is somewhat more than a little "edit war". ] ] 20:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The last minute push to allow ''you but not Carol'' to keep editing when ''both'' of you had already been site banned was more than a little edit war, too. ] (]) 20:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Voting isn't done until the motion to close passes, but if they disagree with GW's edit presumably they know where the revert button is. ] (]) 20:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Couldn't we have one of the "'''collegiality'''" principles instead of this more negative one? | |||
| ::::Surely that's not the way they have to handle it? That would be ridiculous. Perhaps one of the clerks could clarify. ] (]) 20:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I see GW's moved it back to 12 months. ] (]) 20:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are numerous examples in this case where arbs changed the wording of already voted on remedies, often saying "revert me if you care" or something. To be fair they were done much earlier in the process though. In any case, she has reverted, so its moot. ] (]) 20:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :If CMDC is going to be banned? then a 6-months remedy is certaintly preferable to 12-months. ] (]) 20:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{ec}} I've undone the change to the length of ]'s siteban, as another arbitrator has disagreed. The next step here would be to propose a new remedy with six months before appeal, but as I don't anticipate supporting it anyway, I'll leave it to another arbitrator if they see fit. {{ping|Eric Corbett}} Trust me, I'd rather not extend the case either. That said, I would prefer to get this right the first time around and extend the case than rush it and have to revisit it later on. ] <small>]</small> 20:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Sanctions and circumstances==== | |||
| :So would I, but it's been almost three months now in the baking. Time to take it out of the oven? ] ] 20:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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 Misplaced Pages do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. | |||
| ::The case was opened Oct 3, it kicked into gear Oct 11. ] (]) 20:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's when the case was formally accepted, I agree, only two months ago, but it was initiated way before that. ] ] 20:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::O.K. ] (]) 21:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think you have to factor in some of the time arbs gave you in good faith to explain how you were going to change your behavior in the future. You probably could have helped speed things up there.] 20:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''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: | |||
| :::::Which "explanation" are you referring to? I simply answered a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. ] ] 20:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I was only talking about the time it took to get an indication you were prepared to change your behaviour; that wasn't a comment on the quality of your answer itself. If you'd said you were prepared to change earlier, this might have been over earlier, that's all. ] 21:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I've explained time and again on these case pages where ''I'' stand on the GGTF issue but a fat lot of good that seems to be doing me with this late, somewhat peculiar, changes to things. The only arguably disruptive thing that happened was weeks and weeks ago, probably before the case opened, when Carol and myself got into a spat about her somewhat eccentric talk page methods (the refactoring habit that others have subsequently also complained about and which Scottywong eventually seemed to tacitly accept was a valid issue in terms of ]). There is a whiff of something here and I do not like it. - ] (]) 21:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The reality is that it's politically impossible to question either the existence or the effect of any gender gap. Nothing more needs to be said. ] ] 22:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I cannot recall ever questioning it. What I have questioned is the ''method'' that was being adopted and, in particular, the apparent obsession with the civility issue when there have been other perfectly good areas of potential action raised. Those other areas have just got drowned out or forgotten. This is valid criticism within the terms that are in fact outlined and (at the moment) accepted on the PD page. I've not pushed any issue beyond the bounds of normal discourse and I've certainly not been tendentious in pursuing some things when valid reasons for doing those things were put forward (eg: I think I commented once about some category-related issue but then I let it drop). - ] (]) 22:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}} Also I note that GW's change didn't change the ban length (which was always indefinite). It just changed the amount of time until/between appeals, which is an issue that affects nobody except the arbs getting bugged more often. The above kerfuffle is a mountain over a molehill ] (]) 20:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Allowing more frequent appeals is effectively changing the duration. ] ] 20:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Isn't it obvious that dragging out this case in this way is likely to lead to even deeper and more entrenched divisions than already exist? ] ] 22:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I for one thank you for your changes, GW. They clarified a couple points and addressed some unaddressed problems. ] (]) 23:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * To determine ] | |||
| * To decide which if any sanction will actually protect the encyclopaedia or which sanctions will damage it. Within this: | |||
| # Is the editor ]? | |||
| # Is the editor ]? | |||
| # What is the expected damage from imposing the sanction? | |||
| # What is the expected benefit from imposing the sanction? | |||
| ::*<small>. ] (]) 00:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| 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. | |||
| :::Carol, I will charitably assume that you have simply forgotten that ], an arbitration clerk, ''banned you from these pages.'' On your page. Endorsed by ]. Please don't post here again. ] | ] 23:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC). | |||
| * I did try to discuss the problem of mixing up the "discussions of proposals" phase for remedies and the voting on "agreed-upon proposals" phase previously. Mostly it was ignored, though I feel much could be done in the future to avoid the problems people are raising now. In fact GW did kindly give a rationale for what happens, and, because it would be very disruptive at this stage to call for totally new votes, I see that GW reports she sent emails around asking for people's votes to be reconfirmed. I think this is the best that can be done in this situation now, but, although I know people will perhaps be annoyed, I think what has happened recently really does illustrate why, as I said before, mixing up discussions of proposals, their wording, etc, and voting on them is really a well-accepted bad idea, and I recommend ArbCom does things differently (I am surprised they haven't apparently done it correctly up to now). Now, I know this message comes after we were invited to make "Final Comments", a long time ago, and that extended discussions should cease, but I do think this point is well worth emphasizing here, and, once again, I would like to thank GW for doing the best that could be done in a difficult situation here. ] ] 02:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Recidivism ==== | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| ===Statements=== | |||
| Sanctions are not punitive. See my analysis at ], strike and replace wording with: | |||
| '''Any comments regarding the additions to proposed decision should be made in this section. All comments must be directly relevant to the proposed decision as currently written. You must comment only in your own section'''. | |||
| ====Statement by Sitush==== | |||
| '''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.''' | |||
| <!-- Please add any comments regarding the additions to the proposed decision in this section. Please try to keep your comments to a maximum of 150 words, supported by diffs (etc) if applicable. --> | |||
| I've done part of this and am off out now, as mentioned ]. It is going to be a lot more than 150 words because I am absolutely appalled regarding how I have been misinterpreted in the revised FOF/PD. | |||
| My 49 edits to WT:GGTF are . | |||
| ====Disputes and biographical articles==== | |||
| 7) An editor who is involved in a controversy or dispute with another individual, either on Misplaced Pages or off, should generally refrain from creating or editing the biographical article on that individual. | |||
| *1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th relate to ] issues that other people have remarked about also and that ultimately did cause Carol to slightly amend her approach after discussion at Scottywong's talk page. | |||
| '''Unnecessary''' as the remedy it supports is also unnecessary. | |||
| *The 3rd is valid: if people start organising off-wiki with the intent of changing things on-wiki then they ''may'' have to consider ]. | |||
| *5th, 7th, 9th relate to ]. GGTF was not on my watchlist at that time. My point was that a potentially useful suggestion from {{u|Tony1}} had been rather oddly ridiculed and quashed by someone - I never did get to the bottom of it because Carol began to misrepresent my position and I couldn't be bothered arguing. She has repeatedly referred to an early comment I made somewhere that the GGTF was not fit for purpose and should be closed down, ignoring my numerous subsequent remarks that I meant "fit for purpose in its present form": the goal is fine, the methods being used (primarily because of being diverted into a civility vehicle) much less so. See also . | |||
| *8th was a request for help re: an article about a feminist author that I had substantially improved - ] | |||
| *10th relates to some problems that had been raised about the scope of the project. Someone had made some changes and ] about how/why/when - my input was entirely harmless and highlighted a phrase that was confusing to me. | |||
| *I was pinged for the 11th-14th and those watching over ANI supported my action there, as indeed have the PDs etc thus far in this case. Note in particular the and my about how the civility thing was drowning out other useful stuff. | |||
| * and successfully stopped some bickering that was going way off-topic | |||
| - ] (]) 12:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Just home from watching the international rugby match (well. one of several that happened today). I see that some of the arbs have commented for/against but am still bemused to some extent even with those who are opposed to the topic ban etc. Am I permitted to extend this analysis or not? - ] (]) 01:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Oh, and I am a somewhat unfortunate position of having received emails etc from self-identified women who are frankly fed up of the GGTF in its current form but also think the project itself to be dead in the water. I am aware that {{u|SlimVirgin}} has been trying to keep some sort of control of affairs there while this case is in progress but my personal experience is that there are more self-identified women contributors to en-WP who have expressed dis-satisfaction with the recent goings-on than those who have named themselves on these case pages. That position is "unfortunate" because I can't really name them: unless they choose to put their head above the parapet, so to speak, it would be inappropriate to drag them into this mess. From my reading of things, none object to the principle ''per se'' (ie: the gap exists and we should be trying to reduce it) but many object to the method. Then again, I guess that the desire to keep away publicly from this case is to be expected given the immense hassle that has resulted from it. I'm trying to bridge that divide between "soapboxing" etc and a workable improvement of the situation but, alas, it seems increasingly to be turning into a "them and us" culture, eg: degenerated quickly and, frankly, seemed to be confusing development with ABF and perhaps even censorship. - ] (]) 02:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * was simply an opinion relating to a notification about a categorisation discussion. Others disagreed with me; I said nothing further in the thread. | |||
| * also was an opinion, relating to some needling that seemed to be going way off-topic. I wasn't alone in thinking so, eg: {{u|Boson}}'s remark immediately above mine in the diff. | |||
| * was a notification of IAC socking to prevent a section spinning out of control | |||
| *There were a series of edits in that show me working to source GGTF stuff in the media and also trying to explain article policy. ] is in mainspace and unless Misplaced Pages's gender gap has been considered a controversy by independent third party sources, adding it to that list would be navel-gazing and reliant on internal sources.. | |||
| *Some of the remaining edits were mere typo corrections. | |||
| *Basically, aside from the spat about TPG stuff and over-hasty archiving - neither of which I have bothered with since and both of which are procedural rather than specifically GGTF-related - I've done nothing that seems to be particularly disruptive. I emphasise that the TPG stuff is moot and that many other people have complained about Carol's style relating to that. Repeatedly changing/striking old messages is a nuisance and while TPG deprecates refactoring the comments of others, it also says that the originator should make things clear. All I wanted her to do was to achieve the latter and the easiest way in those particular circumstances was not to confuse the issue by striking but rather to write another message along the lines of "sorry, I've struck my comment above per subsequent clarification" or something similar. Carol appealed to Scottywong, who ultimately saw some merit in both sides of the argument. If anything, this raises an issue that perhaps should be clarified at ]. - ] (]) 11:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Discussion of problems and issues==== | |||
| :*The bit of TPG that was irking me is "If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. ''Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead''." (my emphasis). Yes, I was wrong to revert the strikes etc per the ''guideline''; yes, Carol was wrong to ignore this excerpt from the same ''guideline''. As I've said, she subsequently amended her practices a little, although they continued to irritate as per other people who have commented here. I didn't revert her again and I wouldn't do so in future. - ] (]) 14:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ====Statement by {username}==== | |||
| '''Unnecessary''' does not support any remedy. | |||
| <!-- Please add any comments regarding the additions to the proposed decision in this section. Please try to keep your comments to a maximum of 150 words, supported by diffs (etc) if applicable. --> | |||
| === |
====Statement by {username}==== | ||
| <!-- Please add any comments regarding the additions to the proposed decision in this section. Please try to keep your comments to a maximum of 150 words, supported by diffs (etc) if applicable. | |||
| ====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 ]. On the English Misplaced Pages, the ''Gender Bias Task Force'' was set up to address the gender disparity on the project. It was subsequently to the ''Gender Gap Task Force''. | |||
| Please copy this section for the next person. --> | |||
| '''True but irrelevant''' | |||
| == Additional process questions == | |||
| ====Expletives==== | |||
| {{archive top|No need for discussion on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| 2) Although there are cultural differences in the use of certain expletives, there is rarely any need to use such language on Misplaced Pages 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. | |||
| I have asked some additional process questions on ]. —] (]) 22:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Why? Jimmy doesn't have some sort of uber veto power. ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Redress of process. —] (]) 04:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| {{hat|Not "directly relevant to the proposed decision as currently written". <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Hell in a Bucket went there and gave Neotarf a poke. When I reminded HIAB that he'd been advised to leave N. alone, he decided to cast aspersions at me. Having said what I wanted to say re this case, I'm resuming my retirement now. Goodbye and good luck. ] (]) 00:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Clearly ] this was casting aspersions. I made the case above why I believed this a short while before you showed up and our little anon ip, we'll just call it Mrs Socko, decided to go silent . I'm all ears how this is casting an aspersion? ] (]) 00:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good heavens, HIAB, your evidence is a "gut feeling." I "showed up" here, as you put it, after following the case and seeing it go from CMDC and EC site banned to CMDC being banned and EC getting '' another'' chance. I might have stayed around a little longer, but not with you poking at me. ] (]) 01:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you say so. ] (]) 02:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] maybe you will give us the ok to checkuser you? I'll be the first to give you an apology for assuming bad faith and being wrong in your case. ] (]) 02:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}}] if you care to chip in ] ] (]) 03:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ==Elephant in the room== | |||
| '''Unnecessary''', but unexceptionable t should be a principle rather than a FoF. | |||
| {{archive top|Not a discussion which should or needs to be had at this late stage, in other words the case was opened on the 3rd of October almost two months this discussion could have been had. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| I brought this up earlier, it does bear reiterating. It is not good to have two clearly biased arbitrators active on the case. Sure they cancel each other out, but they also bring the process, the committee and themselves into disrepute. I would consider it a significant step if they would recuse themselves. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>00:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :So, I don't know how to ask this without it sounding like I'm being a smart ass troll. I'm not sure what two arbitrators are biased and why or what direction. Would you mind emailing me your thoughts if you don't want to say them on-wiki?--v/r - ]] 00:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Per TParis: If you keep accusing two arbitrators of bias without saying who or how, I'm not sure how you expect anyone to respond. ] <small>]</small> 03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>Missed the target there. (RF's statement, not TPs). </s> <small>]</small> 03:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC) (misread, sorry) <small>]</small> 12:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::By "per TParis" I meant I was agreeing with TParis, not responding to him. ] <small>]</small> 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Heh, I assumed it was something everyone knew and I didn't and I would sound like a smart ass if I asked.--v/r - ]] 03:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Question to the Arbs == | |||
| ====Carolmooredc==== | |||
| {{hat|This is not SPI. ] <small>]</small> 20:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| 3)<br> | |||
| ] & ] & ], I've held off asking this question but I think it should be asked, part of this problem started with ] and involved ] which as you can see here ] was a huge ] who's history can be seen ] who promptly quit editing when Id'd here ] despite having been asked by multiple editors over multiple days found ] and other places and abracadabra all of a sudden ] poof we have ] arrive (again). I am just curious as to any findings and a possible topic ban from GGTF pages might be in order here too? I think this is one of the best timelines from that incident that helped guide us here ] 01:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| (A) During a previous Arbitration case, Carolmooredc has been found to make "]"<br> | |||
| :This seems more suited to ]. Sockpuppet investigations are not really my strong suit; it seems like the folks over there might be better at it. ] <small>]</small> 03:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| (B) Carolmooredc has actively supported keeping articles by in her words ""<br> | |||
| ::], I've opened one, I'd appreciate if you chime in if you think it's worthwhile because if true it was a usage of an account whilst posing as a neutral commentator and Lightbreather is indeed a very involved party. ] is where I illuminate my reasonings. ] (]) 03:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| (C) Carolmooredc has made comments about other editors without basis including accusations that editors who have never met are married.<br> | |||
| (D) Carolmooredc has made unnecessary comments about Sitush, despite agreeing that an interaction ban would be positive. | |||
| ] & ] & ]: Per ], I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. Please stop this! ] (]) 17:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''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. | |||
| ===Updated SPI=== | |||
| The issue with Carol's activity is basically one of ]. I'm not sure you can ''accuse someone of being married'', the accusation is rather of ''meatpupptery'' or ''canvassing''. | |||
| I've updated the evidence of the SPI with what I see as definitive proof based on locations and on wiki as well as admitted off wiki activities. ] (]) 11:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===If proven true Lightbreather is involved heavily=== | |||
| * who is in contradiction to the . I'm surprised the committee has no findings as to her behavior in this as well. | |||
| *The IP is editing from Phoenix, a look at LB userpage shows she lives in the same timezone plus ] states that's where the user is from the reason why that's partly important is claims like ] which Lightbreather id'd as hers found ] and ]. I've attempted to only use publicly acknowledged details if any of this is ] please remove but I hope I covered all my bases. | |||
| *So to sum up exactly what I'm saying which is either very accurate or a mammoth assumption of bad faith, Lightbreather started out as an involved party and presented a large amount of evidence and went into a silence as of 10/14, Enter IP 72 less then two weeks later carrying the standard, editing the same page areas as LB does (the gender gap, civility, editor retention etc) and magically disappearing when I made this comment ] ] only to reappear as LB to pick up where the ip left off in the crusade against EC. The excuse that the IP was being used for privacy is plausable but a suggestion makes more sense is that it was done because of the reputation earned by LB and they didn't want that reputation to stand in the way of the ultimate goal one of which has been banning Eric Corbett, the other point raised by ] is that they in good faith stopped using the IP when asked about it, that is untrue. ] shows the IP refering to Lightbreather in the third person and deceptively trying to feign ignorance of gender which is odd because they have such a detailed knowledge of everyone else involved, Neotarf, Sitush, Carolmooredc, Two Kinds of Pork and not to mention Eric Corbett and all of his supporters but somehow doesn't know LB gender? I would allege they stopped using the IP because the game was up, more people, Capeo, myself, Jehochman and Salvio, possibly more i missed, started pushing back at the socking and the evidence was becoming clear. After being confronted with this Lightbreather has decided to resume her retirement, I originally brought this up under the subheading Suggest Protecting the talkpage and was asked to give the information by ] and I've presented it here at length. Is the committee going to do a finding of fact for Lightbreathers involvement if judged true? ] (]) 12:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I'm sorry folks but if it makes you feel better I think I just broke my ] from wear and tear...I don't think there is anymore reason I can add to this so I will attempt very hard to resist the rge to keep typing here. ] (]) 12:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree that there should be some sort of finding about Lightbreather, for reasons which should be obvious to Arbcom. ] (]) 15:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Eric Corbett==== | |||
| ::What reasons? Out, alone, late at night, must have been 'asking for it'? That seems to be the 1970s version of morality imposed in this case. In the west, most civil judiciary has progressed, but Arbcom appears to still be at decades old retrograde 'blame the victim' thinking. ] (]) 19:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 4)<br> | |||
| (A) Eric Corbett has stated that the civility policy is "impossible to define and therefore to enforce".<br> | |||
| (B) During a previous Arbitration case, Eric Corbett was found to engage in ]<br> | |||
| (C) Eric Corbett has discussed matters on the Gender Gap Task Force in a non-constructive manner.<br> | |||
| (D) Eric Corbett has expressed the opinion that the members of the Gender Gap Task Force are pushing a "feminist agenda" and are attempting to "alienate every male editor". | |||
| ===Someone please REVDEL this=== | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] & ] & ] I am no more an ] in this case than any other "uninvolved" editor who has commented here and on other pages, like for instance Hell in a Bucket and Carrite. I am physically SICK to see the identifying information that HIAB is pointing the readers of this page to, and I would ask someone to please revdel it. ] (]) 17:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Lightbreather}} have you edited any of the talk pages of this case using an IP? ] (]) 17:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you're upset that you socked, got caught, and someone pointed it out using publicly available info? ] (]) 17:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Eric Corbett (collegiality)==== | |||
| :::No! As I wrote, I am physically sick that someone went out of their way to post links to identifying information about me, especially one where ''I was deleting information about myself'' only a month after I became an active editor and had been put down because I was a woman. I feel violated. ] (]) 18:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 4A) Over an extended period of time, and in a variety of contexts, Eric Corbett has used on Misplaced Pages 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. | |||
| ::::This ''gut feeling'' SPI has been swiftly declined. --] (]) 19:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| See my comment on (4C). | |||
| :::::] remains open; a CU declined to check an IP against a registered account per standard practice. <small>]</small> 19:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Neotarf started this whole thing by spamming Hell In the Bucket's original post - resulting in this arbitration == | |||
| 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". | |||
| {{archive top}} | |||
| *{{u|Hell in a Bucket}} posts ill-worded comment containing "epithets" on {{u|Jimbo Wales}}'s talk July 29, 2014 | |||
| * July 29 2014 | |||
| * Hell in a Bucket's re-posts his redacted comments on Jimbo Wales's talk July 29, 2014 (with edit summary ("nice try but this is still a legitimate comment and your ani thread confirms that") | |||
| * and opens another a long discussion ending with calls for a civility case. | |||
| * post on 21:05 6 August 2014 on {{u|Salvio giuliano}}'s talk, repeating Hell in a Bucket's entire post. | |||
| * posted by Neotarf (talk) Post on 22.03 6 August 2014, on {{u|Newyorkbrad}}'s talk, repeating Hell in a Bucket's entire post. | |||
| * Neotarf makes statement on Arbitration request/Case on 26 August, repeating Hell in a Bucket's entire post. ] (]) 01:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Sadly that's not where it started, Neotarf took the torch and spread it around the village but it started before that ].I made that comment to make the point words are words and that morphed well beyond what I intended. I regret the drama the words caused because I was attempting to show that the fight was stupid. My own stubbornness often goes to my detriment. ] (]) 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, the highlighting of words in your original post, the strange morphing and Neotarf's edit-warring to keep those words in section headings caught my attention originally and led me to follow this case closely. I wonder that she wasn't at least given a long block after that. To me your overall point was valid. ] (]) 01:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My own involvement started after witnessing several threads on various boards that culminated on Jimbo's page and I popped off at the mouth then Neotarf came in and started saying ]. It was my fault for not letting it roll off my back but I am none of those things and the fact that this was the first I had heard from this person without even a question about it really made me mad. I even offered to let them hat it ], this was completely ignored, after that ensued the declined arb case, followed by the accepted one and then now the big one that was related to all three is this one. ] (]) 01:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree, Neotarf while a party did not cause this arbitration. - ] (]) 02:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| How exactly is "they started it!" relevant to the purpose of this page? ] <small>]</small> 03:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That's rhetorical, right? (Answer: it isn't.) <small>]</small> 03:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == is it me? == | |||
| ====Eric Corbett's history==== | |||
| 4B) Eric Corbett has a long history of incivility, as evidenced by his extensive block logs, admonishment in a , and many discussions at various noticeboards. | |||
| ... Or is this a very VERY unusual case? I have NO desire to get involved or choose sides, but I don't ever recall seeing so many changes at the last second like I'm seeing here. Is this setting new precedents? Just curious. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 04:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Indubitably''' | |||
| :Greetings, Ched. From time to time, this happens. I don't think it's a bad sign, though. Generally speaking, it usually means that the committee is trying to get things right, which isn't always easy when there are a lot of players and a lot of activity going on in different quarters. ] (]) 05:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :As Risker says - happens from time to time. No biggie. ] (] '''·''' ]) 05:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The ''changes'' are one of the most healthy things I have seen for some time at ArbCom. I am concerned about the ''additions''. Have Two Kinds of Pork and SPECIFICO been told that there are suddenly findings and/or remedies relating to them? All the best: ''] ]'', <small>02:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::I think NativeForeigner subsequently sent a round-robin note to all who were named (I certainly got it). I'm not affected by the US Thanksgiving thing but if the others are in the US then perhaps they might be away from home etc. - ] (]) 02:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was pulled AFK shortly after posting the findings, but ] was kind enough to make the notifications in my absence. ] <small>]</small> 03:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Numbering "remedies" == | |||
| ====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 ] against another editor. | |||
| After the socalled remedies were numbered differently, many comments and even headers on this talk don't make sense any more. Is it asking too much to have a cross reference about former x.y now z? --] (]) 08:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''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 ]Y behaviour at the time, that would have been fine. But this is a dead letter. | |||
| : Thanks for adding that --] (]) 19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem, hope it helps. ] <small>]</small> 20:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == At least eight IP addresses have commented on this case's talk pages == | |||
| ====Neotarf==== | |||
| {{hat|This is not SPI. ] <small>]</small> 20:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| 5)<br> | |||
| For the record, here are ''eight IP addresses'' that have commented on this case's talk pages. Why not open SPIs on ALL of them? | |||
| (A) Neotarf has regularly cast aspersions and argued from an ''ad hominem'' point of view, complaining about usernames, or signatures, without following normal dispute resolution on such matters.<br> | |||
| (B) When accused of "passive-aggressive" behaviour, Neotarf complained of personal attacks regarding mental health, despite the two not being necessarily linked.<br> | |||
| (C) Neotarf has made unfounded accusations about other users and otherwise demonstrated a battleground mentality. | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Delhi, India. | |||
| 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.{{Break}} | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. | |||
| B) See my analysis at ] and similar analyses by others. This should be '''removed''.{{Break}} | |||
| #] (]) Gelocates to Ontario. | |||
| C) Again, see Neotarf's comments, and '''strike those that are legitimate questions comments given the explanation'''. | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Rochdale, UK (Greater Manchester) | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Vestal, New York. | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Tempe, Arizona. | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Rochdale, UK (Greater Manchester) | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Istanbul. | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Stamford, Connecticut. | |||
| --] (]) 17:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====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 (evidence of dispute ). 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 ], resulting in a contentious MfD discussion that closed with a delete result. Sitush then accepted the result and did not pursue the matter further. | |||
| *Show me one IP editor other then 72.223.98.118 that has edited as much here and places that you regularly edit? ] (]) 17:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Unneeded''' from the "however" onward. See comments at ], and elsewhere. | |||
| * Because it would be pointless witch-hunting and drama when there is no sensible rationale, nor even a specific assertion, to justify volunteer time spent on sock-puppet investigation. --] (]) 17:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====SPECIFICO==== | |||
| :*], this is actually a tactic you usually see with new editors that don't know any better when denying obvious socking behavior and the post is in response to ]. ] (]) 17:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 7) {{userlinks|SPECIFICO}}'s actions regarding Carolmooredc have led to a 1-way interaction ban imposed by the community following a noticeboard discussion. | |||
| ::Meh, yep there may be a bit of pointing at everyone else, however the SPI case you point to looks like a good example of pointless witch-hunting. Unless there is blatant gaming the system/vandalism etc. trying to stamp on editors for occasionally using an IP is pointless and a waste of volunteer time. It's not actually against "the rules". | |||
| ('''Unuseful'''){{Break}} | |||
| ::P.S. I only use this account and I can't remember the last time I accidentally made an edit on this project without logging in, probably years ago. --] (]) 18:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| And in that diff the closing admin says | |||
| :::I have used IP's and I self id when I do, in this case the IP was posing as a neutral uninvolved party to this arb discussion in violation of ], specifically ]. ] (]) 18:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wouldn't get too worked up myself. Comments from suspect IP addresses in these sorts of discussions tend to be given the weight they are worth... it's never a simple headcount and anyone with experience will presume that such contributors may be the same person. It's pretty much self defeating compared to making cogent points in a calm way, using an established logged in account. --] (]) 18:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ==Two kinds of pork== | |||
| * ''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. '' | |||
| I find this finding rather ... weak, verging on palpably wrong. | |||
| * '' ] 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'' | |||
| 9) {{userlinks|Two kinds of pork}} has been disruptive in areas relating to the Gender gap task force, for which they received a short block in September 2014. They have also baited and used sexualized | |||
| So I question the usefulness of this finding, especially as no remedy arises out of it. | |||
| innuendo. (including edit summary) (including edit summary) | |||
| === |
===Disruption=== | ||
| The first diff, relates ultimately to a proposal for lower consensus requirements for female admins than male, made by Cla68. This was never going to gain traction, and indeed was likely to be counter productive, being seen as a false flag operation, a non-wiki proposal or at best an ill-conceived joke. Milwent drew from the air (as far as I can see) a suggestion that SPECIFICO had said that Cla68's proposal was "an intentional lead balloon", and constituted slander. | |||
| <small>''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.''</small> | |||
| TKOP's response was but understandable. According to the finding he was blocked for this (I haven't checked), so it seems churlish to bring it up unless as a pattern of disruption. To me it's an inability to disengage, at worst. | |||
| ====Carolmooredc topic banned==== | |||
| 1) {{userlinks|Carolmooredc}} is indefinitely topic banned from the gender disparity between editors on Misplaced Pages, broadly construed. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary. | |||
| ;Time travel | |||
| 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'''{{Break}} | |||
| According to this finding TKOP was blocked partially for edit, which occurred ''after'' the block. | |||
| : ''topic banned from the pages of the GGTF, and any discussions about gender disparity of Wikipedians.''{{Break}} | |||
| The cliché "broadly construed" should be '''eschewed''', it serves only create a larger set of boundary cases than the unmodified statement. | |||
| —===Baiting and sexualised innuendo=== | |||
| '''Why not''' an "uninvolved editor"? Please do not promulgate the caste system. | |||
| TKOP suggests that "Mind the Gap" may not be a good slogan for the task-force as it is reminiscent of ] (an important concept in body self image). He is not the only one to make this link ,, etc. etc. | |||
| edit is about a young You-Tuber who got carried away with his own celebrity and did some rather distasteful things. TKOP joins the apparent consensus (nobody is looking to go outside WP norms) of the debate that this You=Tuber is probably not worthy of an article and is a "douchebag". This is certainly not baiting, and it's an incredibly stretch to consider calling a male third-party a "douchebag" a case of sexualised innuendo. | |||
| ====Carolmooredc banned==== | |||
| 1.1) For her actions discussed in this case, {{userlinks|Carolmooredc}} is indefinitely banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. | |||
| TKOP is simply pointing out how ridiculous (from his perspective) Neotarf's attack on his username is. There is no "sexualised innuendo" here, except the piece that he himself de-constructs. The edit summary " why don't you dine on the swine?" is emphasising that by "pork" he means the meat product. | |||
| '''Too extreme''' See my analysis ]. | |||
| again is fairly innocuous in substance. It ends with the phrase "Dine away." and the edit summary is "the shoulder is tough, but the butt is better". Now I suppose a sufficiently fervid imagination could conflate "Dine away" with an innuendo about oral sex, but I have trouble with "the shoulder is tough". With the classic symbolism of eating for sex in English literature alone running for centuries, I'm sure anyone wanting to make a "sexualised innuendo" would have little problem, I can think of half a dozen more apposite butchery-related terms to use, and I'm sure many more exist. | |||
| If it is decided it should be a straight Arb block see ] by DDStretch and comment by RegentsPark. | |||
| Summary. Four of these diffs say nothing, the remaining two vanishingly little. | |||
| ====Carolmooredc admonished==== | |||
| 1.2) {{userlinks|Carolmooredc}} 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. | |||
| All the best: ''] ]'', <small>03:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| Broadly acceptable, but she should already know this. ''..intrusions into their personal lives'' is coming a it a bit strong and '''should be struck'''. | |||
| :It was interpreted as being sexualized innuendo by many parties involved. I've been traveling, will review. Doesn't look like my vote will change the outcome, else I would just sit in comments until i've reviewed it in more detail, but these definitely were a source of conflict, regardless of intent. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 21:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Eric Corbett topic banned==== | |||
| 2) {{userlinks|Eric Corbett}} is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender Gap on Misplaced Pages, broadly construed. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary. | |||
| ::An awful lot of things can be seen as sexualised innuendo if one has a sufficiently imaginative mind. For example, I've recently been accused of it on-wiki for putting an entirely innocent ";" at the end of a sentence. - ] (]) 21:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| See ]. | |||
| :::I can understand both viewpoints honestly. It is an example of where their minds wanted to take them and I can also understand the urge to say something that further roiled the waters too, is that what happened though? ] (]) 21:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Eric Corbett restriction==== | |||
| 2.1) Subject to the standard enforcement provisions, {{userlinks|Eric Corbett}} may be temporarily banned from any discussion or page where his input is deemed by an uninvolved administrator to have been ], 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 ]. Appeals or incremental extensions up to a maximum of one year should be also be conducted at Arbitration Enforcement. | |||
| == Case conduct == | |||
| No need for such punitive sanctions. '''12 or 24''' hour blocks would be quite adequate, '''without escalation'''. See my analysis and others' at ]. I would also put a '''maximum term''' on this even if it is as long as 2 or 5 years. | |||
| I see that the arbs have been voting on the recently-sprung changes relating to myself, TKoP and SPECIFICO without really giving any time for any of those parties to respond to the charges. They're doing do at a weekend that certainly has been somewhat inconvenient for me and that may well be inconvenient for the other two. | |||
| ====Eric Corbett banned==== | |||
| 2.2) For his actions discussed in this case and his history of disruption, {{userlinks|Eric Corbett}} is indefinitely banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. | |||
| This seems to be a pretty awful way to judge people, especially when (as in my case) the evidence given by GorillaWarfare is in fact pretty specious. - ] (]) 11:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Unnecessary''' If it is decided it should be a straight Arb block see ] by DDStretch and comment by RegentsPark. | |||
| :And I see that Rich Farmbrough has done a pretty extensive analysis of TKoP's stuff in the section above. This stinks, folks, it really does. - ] (]) 11:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Neotarf topic banned==== | |||
| 3) {{userlinks|Neotarf}} is indefinitely topic banned from the gender disparity between editors on Misplaced Pages, 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. | |||
| ::In fact, the appropriate remedy for me, based on GW's FoF proposals, would seem to be to ban me from all talk pages rather than GGTF. If the problem is considered to be refactoring in a manner considered to be outside the provisions of WP:TPG then obviously it has a much broader scope. I regularly refactor comments on a wide range of talk pages, although the only time I can recall that causing an issue has been in relation to Carol, '''not''' GGTF. And if the problem is confined to those problematic edits then (a) I stopped and (b) there is an IBAN coming in that would prevent it. - ] (]) 11:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| # 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. | |||
| For the record, TKOP has communicated with us by e-mail. Sitush, you have had your say here, and I've read what you said and taken it into account. SPECIFICO is having his say ] - I'll draw the attention of other arbs to that and they can comment there if they wish. That may not be as much input as you would wish, but clearly all three of you are being given a chance to speak up. ] (]) 21:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| =====Neotarf banned===== | |||
| 3.1) For their actions discussed in this case, and in particular for adopting a consistently hostile attitude to other contributors, {{userlinks|Neotarf}} is indefinitely banned from the English Misplaced Pages. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. | |||
| :Fine, thanks. I wasn't aware that this case was being conducted by email or on the talk pages of the parties but so be it. - ] (]) 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| On its face '''ridiculous'''. An "I can banz peepel" remedy. | |||
| ::TKOP explained in his e-mail why he was unable to respond on-wiki. SPECIFICO is barred from the case pages, but is being allowed to respond on his talk page. ] (]) 21:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| If it is decided it should be a straight Arb block see ] by DDStretch and comment by RegentsPark. | |||
| * I couldn't respond due to the holiday and travel. However Rich painted a better defense for me in a recent section far better then I could have formulated. Frankly I'm sick of this whole business, even before these new dubious findings of facts were entered. This smells of backroom deals in an attempt to balance the scoresheet or placate colleagues. I can understand the latter, as they do have to work with each other. However it doesn't make it right. I just have to live with the imposed temerity (of which I acquiesced too in my email), which in the grand scheme of things is infinitesimal. They get to own the finding. I'm coming up smelling like roses in comparison. AFAIC the only thing left to be done is to address the lightbreather shenanigans and possibly those of djembeyz.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 00:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Sitush==== | |||
| 4) {{userlinks|Sitush}} is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with. | |||
| == Sockpuppetry confirmed == | |||
| '''Superflous''', see ] and other comments. | |||
| ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] & ] | |||
| After a thorough behavioral analysis ] has been judged to have been evading scrutiny editing as the IP I alleged earlier. I am going to again ask the committee to have a finding on Lightbreather. The case is old and it's nearing the end of it's usefulness but it doesn't do much good if we just let this other person out there to continue the disruption, Carolmooredc and Neotarf have their faults but at least they have been up front and honest about their opinion (I respect both of them for their conviction to their beliefs, believe it or not), deceptive behaviors like socking then pretending to be mortified and offended when caught red handed takes me the other way. ] (]) 12:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Sitush and Carolmooredc interaction ban==== | |||
| : Judge by you, or by somebody uninvolved? Pinging all of them is obnoxious. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 5) {{user|Sitush}} and {{user|Carolmooredc}} are indefinitely prohibited from ], each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages (subject to the ]). | |||
| ::all by my lonesome...come on just check ur watchlist u commented there twice. Pinging them all is obnoxious? How many am I allowed to ping? ] (]) 13:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : LightBreather has been blocked per ] by a CU clerk. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Probably a good idea''' but I would put a '''time limit''' on it, even if it's two or five years. | |||
| ::If the processes for conflict resolution here are too intimidating for female editors to be openly associated with, then female editors don't have access to these processes. I think it's possible this editor felt intimidated. If the community that shows up at Arbcom is determined to maintain the existing confrontational, profane, and sexualized atmospehere, then it won't much matter whether the opponents are open or sneaky in their opposition. The opponents will be chased off the site whenever they object too strongly, and told they are the ones who are being disruptive. | |||
| ====Discretionary sanctions==== | |||
| 6) ] are authorized for pages relating to the ]. 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. | |||
| ::Perhaps the welcome screens for new editors need to make things clear: | |||
| Without evidence this seems a '''bad idea''' see my analysis at ]. | |||
| ::First screen: What is your gender? M/F/Other/Decline to state <br> | |||
| If the committee is hell-bent on this, maybe it could be '''suspended''', and invoked by motion on request from GGTF members. | |||
| ::Second screen: Many of our members prefer a confrontational, profane, and sexualized atmosphere. Do you want to join our community? | |||
| ::These welcome screens would enable us to collect the hard data which people keep demanding, and avoid the disruptions caused by editors like Lightbreather who were expecting others to be polite. Perhaps the Arbs might consider recommending an experiment of this sort to WMF, so that we could finally get the data we need to move forward. --] (]) 13:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Conclusion=== | |||
| I said that this was not a good case to accept (see also the coat-rack comments at ). 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. | |||
| :::Expecting people to be polite is great, more of us, myself included think that would be great and in my case something I am trying to work on. The problems come in with the victim attitudes they maintain. When I started this SPI I did it on a gut feeling with some evidence to back that. I found on wiki evidence provided by lightbreather themselves, when I presented this it becomes an issue that is now labeled as "harassment". It's the reactions to the issues they are having that becomes the issue, the issue itself is then magnified way beyond what it should be. Honestly if you want poster children for the women's rights here you need better examples to show the issue. ] (]) 14:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| All the best: ''] ]'', <small>21:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :::: ''(On a tangent to the SPI issue)'' If someone is being needled with (direct or indirect) jibes intended to attack their stated or presumed identity as a person (a woman, jewish, gay, whatever), it is lazy to dismiss any complaint they make about it as "victim attitudes" or "self-victimization". You may wish to consider how to respond in those situations to the material of any complaint, such as by collaboratively examining the evidence supporting it. It is these cases that re-enforce the advice given to not be open about your personal attributes on this project, just in case they are used to taunt/tease/cyber-bully you as a means to drive you away from any relevant discussion so that the majority view always wins out. --] (]) 14:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I understand somewhat why it's problematic to not have to but this isn't a social website, what's the harm in that? I can understand why it's problematic to have to hide who you are or life choices though too so ethically it's a mix. No easy answer to that one but I want to point out that it's not just Lightbreather that is having that issue here, things that weren't harrassment or attacks were called attacks. Then it's poor me it was all the other persons fault. I think it's a very small percentage of people from GGTF that are actually making waves, that the loudest voices are being cut for a while can actually assist the goals how much more do you think that the cause will be furthered by quiet and rational discussion? I can tell you that when I was engaged for using the words "cunt, queer, nigger" in a posting was met with immediate and direct accusations of sexism, racism and homophobia merely for having said the words and not even addressing them to people. My own stubborness kept them up and thereby made what was already a non issue into a major conflagration. Would the madness have been quite as deep had a different approach came? Probably. It is the approach being used that's the problem not the message they are carrying. ] (]) 15:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I would draw a parallel with what are quite effective "norms" on Commons (we avoid making massive bureaucracies there, we don't even have an Arbcom). Commons is mostly about images, and there is famously very little censorship over what is counted as educational. Consequently the project hosts pictures of dead people, naked people, sexual organs with diseases, offensive racist, homophobic and even pro-Nazi propaganda. Strangely enough, this is rarely a real issue, as what is unacceptable on the project is using these images to deliberately offend other contributors not the images themselves. | |||
| {{Collapse bottom}} | |||
| :::::: For personal reasons, I do not want to see photographs of the dead or starving prisoners in Nazi run camps, yet I am the one who has uploaded many of the images for their educational value. If someone needs to discuss them with me, I will happily discuss my uploads, but I do not want to be upset by having them posted to my user talk page. | |||
| :I appreciate that, Richard. It's no secret I have been trying to "retire with dignity" for quite some time. —] (]) 17:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: That's a simple enough behavioural expectation that applies to this project. If someone does not want you to use certain words that they obviously find offensive in a discussion, it's a simple enough matter to side-step them as a courtesy. I agree that the encyclopaedia should be able to include material that some find personally offensive, however courtesy and respect should trump stubbornness when discussing issues or improving the encyclopaedia. In ''real life'', this is simple ethical and polite behaviour; it is a pity that some find it so hard to apply on-line when they have a convenient shield of distance or anonymity. --] (]) 15:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}}Actually that shield comes in extremely handy at times. My work involves working new page patrol quite often and sometimes you get some damn vile threats and extremely personal threats, it can protect you from the crazies for sure. On the surface what you are saying makes a lot of sense but some of these other real life problems make that an issue. Imagine just for one moment and I can assure everyone on this site I have no interest in tracking anyone down but let's imagine that Lightbreather's concerns had grounds about the locations how much would that veil of anonymity helped avoid that? That was one of the biggest things that made me believe she was socking, it tied the opinions and editing styles together. Consider this too, Lightbreather's statement infers surprise that her her information was on wiki when she has shown thoroughly that she can use and does use diffs in some regularity but somehow didn't think her own activities would be tracked? That's part of what I mean about victim attitude. ] (]) 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Casename change == | |||
| ====Discussion==== | |||
| At some time in the future it may not be obvious to reviewers of AC archives what "GGTF" is at a glance so the original suggestion of "Interactions at Gender Gap Task Force" is preferable. <small>]</small> 15:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the change is for the very purpose of lessening the tie between the Gender Gap Task Force and the case, given that the decision does not say anything about the work of the task force itself. For better or worse, slightly opaque casenames are hardly unknown here (the "Badlydrawnjeff" and "Footnoted quotes" cases on BLP would have to be the canonical examples, but there are others). ] (]) 15:09, 30 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. | |||
| ::Makes sense. If that's the goal I'd remove GGTF altogether because for the near term GGTF is / will be recognizable. Suggest something like "Interactions at Task Force" or "Interactions at Wiki Project" <small>]</small> 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :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. | |||
| :::It wasn't to do with the GGTF itself, and the "interactions" in question were located in a number of locations, of which GGTF wasn't even the most significant probably. But the common theme of those "interactions" was the "gender gap" topic - hence the topic ban scope. How about "Gender gap topic interactions"? Or even leave out "topic". ] (]) 17:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :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: ''] ]'', <small>23:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::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 ] 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 <nowiki>{{User shared IP address}}</nowiki>.'' | |||
| ::::''Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Misplaced Pages'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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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. - ] (]) 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". ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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 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 Misplaced Pages??), ANI deletion discussion of biography, interaction ban ANI, and the big push to get me site banned through Arbitration. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}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, ]y, incendiary, fact-free speculation, and then weep weepily in self-declared wiki-martyr weepiness when our malfeasance is called out. | |||
| == More Sockpuppetry Concerns == | |||
| Pattern, pattern, pattern. ] (]) 16:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| So after her block ] has gathered evidence of another possible sock involved with this case. ] is the investigation, maybe it isn't a big deal for the committee but I think that out of fairness there are questions that should be answered and the Arbs opinions might be useful and unbiased if they could address her concerns. ] (]) 21:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :And your pattern is coming out of retirement since 2011 twice, only to trash me. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 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 ], which favors disruptive editors because many of their victims, for example the eloquent {{ping|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. ]] 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. ] (]) 20:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Eric Corbett prohibited == | ||
| I wrote something above, but I am reposting it because I think it got lost in the noise. It ''still'' says "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction". That is, ArbCom is still deciding that Eric will agree. And what if Eric doesn't agree? Has anyone asked him yet? Whose job is it to do that? ]] (]) 22:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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?]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 01:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : The prohibition is entirely based on stuff on that has been either offered or agreed to over the last six or so weeks. Nothing, per se, happens to him if he doesn't explicitly re-agree, but it's all a bit academic because the sanctions aren't conditional on agreement and apply whether he explicitly agrees or not. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::But the sanction says "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction..." so obviously ''this sanction'' is conditional on agreement. ]] (]) 01:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed that this might be used as a loophole here. - ] (]) 01:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is no loophole. Arbitration sanctions are not optional, nor are they legalistic remedies to be parsed word by word to find "loopholes". The intent is what matters. Trying to game them based on ] indicates not only that one is not following them, but that one intends deliberately to violate them, and such attempts are sanctioned accordingly. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And you can't see that the proposed remedy needs to be reworded...? ]] (]) 02:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Hiab removing evidence == | |||
| :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. - ] (]) 01:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapsetop| Resolved and blocked ] (]) 04:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| :*Speaking of this "I" in that sentence, {{U|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? ] (]) 01:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hiab is removing evidence that has been specifically requested by an arbitrator. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision&diff=636107101&oldid=636106748 | |||
| ::*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? - ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Fair enough I will hold back my responses and thank you for addressing it. - ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 03:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sitush, the interaction ban ''has passed''. Don't even think about dragging me through all this again. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 12:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Fine, if you don't think it is a great idea then siteban you (given this ) 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. - ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ], 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. - ] (]) 13:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| —] (]) 02:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Neotarf again == | |||
| :Correct me if I'm wrong you can't link us to diff'd or publicly available info correct? It doesn't appear to be info that ] has put on wiki publicly and may be something that needs Revdel. Those were my reasons, please if I'm wrong readd them. ] (]) 02:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This is just more rabble-rousing innuendo, casting of aspersions etc on the GGTF talk pages even as this case continues. - ] (]) 13:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It should also be pointed out Neotarf is refacoring Salvio's comment and theirown comments on Jimbos page. I will not be reverting anymore, Neotarf has little to lose but I have no desire to be blocked for edit war so I leave it up to whoever is watching to act from this point. ] (]) 02:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That seems much less "rabble-rousing" than "cultural imperialist forum shopping" and "kumbayah singers". ] 14:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :HIAB is removing the information again; this information was specifically requested by an arbitrator. —] (]) 02:42, 1 December 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? - ] (]) 15:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes and it was revdel the first time and shortly will be revdel again. ] (]) 02:44, 1 December 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. - ] (]) 15:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@], 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 Misplaced Pages's new fork (UnCivilPedia?), along with Mr. Corbett and Ms. Moore, I certainly don't want to antagonize a potential future colleague. Regards, —] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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. —] (]) 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? - ] (]) 17:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Would someone ask HIAB to stop refactoring Jimbo's page? —] (]) 03:05, 1 December 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. ] (]) 17:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:*As I mentioned in the edit summaries, you are not allowed to refactor Salvio's comments and your own especially not when they have been responded to. If you object you can strike your comments and ask Salvio to strike theirs. You know the rules of refactoring well. ] (]) 03:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :*This is just my opinion but from ou—ting to refactoring comments I don't see a reason why you shouldn't be blocked here. - ] (]) 03:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Newyorkbrad}} perhaps the clerks need to user a heavier hand. Very little of value being added since two arbiters told people to stop. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 20:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*HiaB was right to remove that info. Neotarf was OUTING. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 03:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*They <s>She</s> should be blocked immediately. Will someone please make the request? It's not a good idea if it comes from me.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> | |||
| ::*I'd recommend changing to the user or they as they haven't expressed a gender pronoun and that's part of their issue with Salvio The arbs and admin are well aware of this likely as it's been oversighted and they choose to do nothing. ] (]) 03:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Yeah but this poses the potential for damage to be done in the form of outing, an admin or clerk really should be looking into this. - ] (]) 03:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Neotarf doesn't freak out when Lightbreather or Djymbez use the feminine pronoun. Draw your own conclusions.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 03:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapsebottom}} | |||
| == Injunction Request == | |||
| ==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. ] 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. ] (]) 19:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{edit conflict}} I would point you to , posted on my talk page a month ago. ] ] 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 ]. ] 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.<p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 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. ] ] 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? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*:Yes. ] ] 22:20, 18 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. ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Wild speculation. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 22:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I request an injuction for an IBAN for the parties in this case for the remainder of this case. Their sniping at each other across all pages on this project is getting disruptive. Carolmooredc/Neotarf/Lightbreather IBAN with Two Kinds of Pork/Hell in a Bucket. Please - it's about time.--v/r - ]] 05:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}@] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. | |||
| :Consider it done on my part.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 05:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Arbitrators could create a new principles section something like ] 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 ] "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.)<br> | |||
| 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 Misplaced Pages 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. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 22:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You object to me removing outing and agreeing that there was a possible sock? Please can you tell us what you think it sniping I've done? I've been polite and courteous even when there was inappropriate behaviors. If you wish me to modify problematic behavior I'd appreciate the illustration of what you would like me to modify. ] (]) 05:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Your retention, please == | |||
| ::In your last 150 edits, which one wasn't about Carol, Neotarf, or Lightbreather?--v/r - ]] 05:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is there an acceptable number or particular edit you find problematic? That's not really answering the question of what is inappropriate. ] (]) 05:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|TParis}} We are more than likely closing the case within the next hour or two...can it wait until then? ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 05:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is not currently a remedy concerning <s>TKOP nor</s> HIAB despite these two dominating the discussions about this case on this talk page and on the parties talk page. I think it'd be unwise to close this case without these two being told to stay away from the other three. While they have remained civil, they have been hounding the other three persistently to bait them into policy violations. This is the sort of passive incivility that Arbcom discussed in the first civility case. It needs to be addressed.--v/r - ]] 06:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There actually is a remedy on Two Kinds Of Pork and Neotarf is now banned so problem solved and my only interactions with Lightbreather has been in the last 48 hours other then in September. As for carolmooredc I can't recall ever addressing her, I'm sorry my involvement in discussing this case has disturbed you but as you say it has all been civil. I am attempting to participate here in acceptable ways so if you have something you'd like me to change let me know and I'll consider it. I can't take responsibility for Neotarf's behavior nor can I take responsibility for Lightbreather's behavior but if it makes it easier I will not address her directly unless I see a policy violation. I do not agree that they have been baited to break policy as nothing I did preceded the outing or socking or subsequent behaviors. ] (]) 06:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think it's time that neither of you interact with them at all - policy violation or not. Leave it to someone uninvolved.--v/r - ]] 06:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regardless of whatnot, I've asked if an arb or three could review this before we clerks close the case, since we're waiting on further instructions from the arbs regarding closing the case anyway. ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 06:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks.--v/r - ]] 06:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok so again Neotarf no problem banned, Likewise Carolmooredc who I never interacted with anyways that just leaves lightbreather and the only thing I've done is expose the socking, request a finding and agree with her concerns on another account socking if not the account ID? Those are your grounds for asking for an interaction ban? ] (]) 06:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Once this case closes (very shortly) discretionary sanctions will be in place, which are more flexible than injunctions. Per ] ''an editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months, ... editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement''. It might be a good idea if all concerned read the ] so that they familiarise themselves with the new realities of the topic, ] <sup>]</sup> 07:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As a member of ], 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. ] (]) 20:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Was unaware arbiters were supposed to make decisions based on community reaction. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 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. --] (]) 21:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:27, 13 March 2023
 | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Ks0stm (Talk) & Penwhale (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & GorillaWarfare (Talk)
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Final comments
The above mass of talk page threads is a mostly unreadable morass. I am going to attempt to pick out some points from above, but as the case winds down (we are currently waiting on the votes of three arbs on the single remedy that is still deadlocked) can everyone please stop arguing above and limit themselves to brief statements down here in this section. That may be the only way to get discussion here back under control. Carcharoth (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I admire your optimism. I am afraid that trying to clean the above may look more like cleansing it to someone or another, and leaving it may be the best option. Dennis - 2¢ 00:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- The intent was not so much to cleanse the above, but to get people to engage in statement-style final comments down here (as opposed to threaded discussion). (This would be the corollary to the opening statements made at the case request stage, which is also non-threaded). Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, here's a statement. It isn't over 'til the fat lady sings and arbs should pay attention to what has been said above. At the very least, they should acknowledge having read the various proposals. As the votes stand at present, they seem to be way out of sync. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't questioning your objectivity Carcharoth, and if I wasn't clear then, I will be now: that was not my intent. I'm simply saying it may be problematic no matter what you do, so it is worth considering to leave this one a mess. It is a bit of a no win scenario, like Kobayashi Maru. Dennis - 2¢ 00:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- The intent was not so much to cleanse the above, but to get people to engage in statement-style final comments down here (as opposed to threaded discussion). (This would be the corollary to the opening statements made at the case request stage, which is also non-threaded). Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- After Eric's commitment to be civil in future , the committee should now just warn him to abide by that commitment. Eric has never given a commitment like that before, as far as I can recall. Until now, it's always been "I'll be civil when you start insisting admins be civil", or words to that effect. So that commitment is a good result. Eric is unlikely to renege on that commitment, and if he does, none of his very patient supporters is likely object to a significant ban being imposed.
- One thing that will test Eric's ability and willingness to stand by his commitment will be the outcome of a concurrent case involving judgment and civility issues with an admin. Please get that one right.
- If you ban Eric in this case, you'll have failed to bring about the best result with the least harm. If you fail in the other case, too, you'll have missed (with this combination of cases) an opportunity to significantly lift the quality of discourse on this project: having Eric actively editing here, modelling respectful address will noticeably improve the ethos (many of the more impressionable regulars take their lead from him) and a good result in the other case will likewise be edifying to the rest of the admin corps - who should be models of civil discourse and (ideally) sound argument. (In that case you have more options before you than just de-sysopping or a promise to reform. I'm pretty sure it'll take more than a promise, but less than a full de-sysopping, to resolve that one.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I fear that a case taken on when none of the main parties wished it has been subject to so much disruption that we are facing a combination of The Concorde Fallacy and The Sunk Cost Dilemma in terms of time taken up by all of this, and mental effort trying to cope with the morass of information, above. We are facing a situation of Group polarization in which sub-optimal decisions are likely to be made. I think stepping back and considering some of the non-banning options for all are the best way forward now, (we have a number of reasonable new proposals, above, about this). I also think ArbCom needs to pay more attention to cleaning up its decision-making processes. DDStretch (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well as I said before whatever the outcome of the case I hope things change for the better, the outcome I see reduces the drama here on Misplaced Pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Final statement. Currently there is no consensus among the arbitrators on a remedy on Eric Corbett for frequency using that word. The only remedy looking to pass is a siteban, a solution no arb has indicated to be really happy with. Two possible remedies that don't have proposals on the case page are a narrow topic ban for just the wikiproject, which NNative Foreigner indicates he would support, has support from NYB, and when looking at the comments may have support from GW, AGK, Carcharoth and Roger Davies. That should be sufficient to propose and discuss it. A second remedy, possibly in conjunction with the former, is the "civility parole" / "bad words ban". Since Eric has himself indicated he would keep himself to something along these lines, and the use of bad words seems to be the largest objection to Eric's behavior, this too could make a good proposed remedy. Together they could change Misplaced Pages for the better, rather than going full site ban which nobody really wants. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see an easy way to clean up: drop the case. If I was an arbitrator and not happy with a "solution", I would abstain. - COI: I am against site bans, at all. I think that they are not a civil way to solve conflicts, just easy. You may know that I sacrificed my reputation defending Andy from being banned (two arbitrators changed their vote then). You may also know that I was the one who made Kevin Gorman apologize to Eric, perhaps the effort on the project I am most proud of. - See also Boys will be boys...?, thank you Drmies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that a site ban is an over reaction. If that passes, the headline will be "Misplaced Pages editor banned for using the terrible C word." All other facets of the case will be lost on 99% of observers. If instead you assume that Eric will keep his promises, which has been his habit to do, there is no need for a site ban, because he has promised to stop using terrible words on Misplaced Pages. Can somebody from the Committee have a frank conversation with Eric to ensure that the right promises have been made, if there are any lingering doubts? The decision can document what was promised and say what happens if promises are broken. Jehochman 08:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Overreaction does not begin to describe this travesty and miscarriage of pseudo-justice. Are we really going to ban one of the best (if not 'the best)' editor because he uses naughty words? I have not seen one jot of evidence that he has driven editors away, and seen quite a lot of evidence that he encourages editors to stay and write. The fact that Jimbo and his mates don't like him should not a reason to ban him, if it were one wonders who would be left (I could hazard a few guesses). He's agreed to curb his language - what more do people want? This is beginning to look more like an auto-da-fé than a supposedly elected committee ironing out a few problems. I just cannot see how anyone can think this is best serving the encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have a headline: Misplaced Pages addresses its "Gender Gap" by banning another female editor Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- The main effect of the current remedies would be that the GGTF would be dead. Any remaining life in it would be sucked out by DS. I do not see this as a "success" for arbcom. I would have expected the remedies to facilitate vigorous activity of the GGTF in a disruption free environment. OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Do tell what other uppity females have been banned? Did they also rebel against the Brit imperium? Well, the whole world is watching and I'll be curious to see when/if/how media coverage happens or if after I do my indepth/diff'd analysis I have to kick so butt to make sure it does. Feel free to email me.
- @OrangesRyellow: Yeah, it doesn't look to good for GGTF even being a place to help beef up articles any more. However, the Imperium doesn't yet rule all of WMF... I hope! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- For multiple reasons outlined above (by both "sides"), the immediate site bans are a very regrettable outcome for the encyclopedia and for future relations between editors. Has ArbCom considered a remedy of "site ban suspended for one year", with the proviso that if any of the behaviour that led to the ban occurs, the site ban would be enacted immediately by ArbCom motion? What a pity it came to this! If I were the Empress of Arbcomia, I would decree that no party be allowed to submit evidence against any other party until they had done a thorough examination of conscience and listed all the things they had personally done (with diffs) which had led to or exacerbated the allegedly unresolvable conflict. They would be judged on technical merit, artistic impression, and self-awareness. Anyone with a score of less than 6 out of 10 would be automatically excluded from participating further and would simply have to await their fate in silence. I have a feeling that had this been done here, the outcome might have been very different. Voceditenore (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- At this point, Carolmooredc still won't take responsibility for her own behavior, and still clings to WP:CABAL as her explanation to herself. It wasn't the shape of her chromosomes that got her topic-banned on Austrian Economics not that many months ago, and it isn't the shape of her chromosomes that got her site banned here. It's the culmination of years of WP:BATTLE while hiding behind the gender card whenever it was called out. The truly shocking thing through the entire case was her inability to show any genuine remorse, and her delight in passing the buck for her own battleground behavior at every opportunity, usually in the red-meatiest terms she could sling, and even when at obvious variance with the truth. Such activity moves back, not forward, the progress of the vital and difficult issue she hides behind. Goodwinsands (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm about to take a long break, sticking around only due to rfa obligations, but before I leave I want to remind the Arb that we have two editors, both of whom are probably fine enough people in their own right, but whose objectives for being here are very different. One is focused on content, and if left alone, would only focus on content. They occasionally get into scuffles, not because they seek it out, but because it is thrust upon them. Often, their reaction is less than ideal, and sometimes, it is unacceptable and worthy of a short block to stop disruption. Then we have another editor who is capable of writing and does some, but spends most of their time in political battles, casting aspersions, and drawing lines in the sand to separate who is good and who is evil. One editor has spent a great deal of time building their fellow editors up, the other has spent a great deal of time tearing them down. No one is innocent, no one is perfect, no one is without blame, but if we are here to build an encyclopedia, you can not compare the two editors. They are not equal. As a meritocracy, there are obvious and clearly demonstrable differences in their motives, their actions and their histories. If motives mean nothing, the WP:AGF is meaningless. If the goal is to prevent disruption, then you have to take motives into account. Isn't necessary whether we agree or disagree with the motives, for as objective observers all we can and should do is weigh them against the stated goal of Misplaced Pages, to build an encyclopedia. While sanctions may be necessary and empowering admin to deal with future problems is prudent, if we lose sight of this singular goal, this one reasons why we are all here, then we've lost all authority to call ourselves an encyclopedia and may as well declare ourselves a social networking site, an experiment in human behavior. My hope is that the Arbitrators will set aside their personal feelings, their political ideals, their preconceived notions and take a look at the big picture and realize that while civility is important, it isn't the objective, it is simply one means to an end, and that end is articles. The reader is for the most part oblivious to what happens on these back pages. As you go back and make your final deliberations, ask yourself; Who has spent most of their time dedicated to improving the experience for the most important Wikipedian of all, the reader? Doing the right thing doesn't require you condone any activity, it only requires you acknowledge that nothing is truly free, everything has a price, and if looked at objectively, the price paid has been much smaller than some would have you believe. Thank you for your consideration. Dennis - 2¢ 14:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- 1. Eric Corbett has not committed to being civil in the future. He answered "Yes" to a question that only asked about one disruptive behavior. 2. Eric Corbett doesn't just "occasionally get into scuffles"; he regularly seeks out discussions and makes comments that he knows will be disruptive. This has gone on for years under different user names. Sadly, but truthfully, it's time to ban him. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Sock puppetry I really wish you would post with your primary account rather than continuing to violate WP:SCRUTINY after I informed you about it, after you didn't reply to my polite question, and after admitting that you are using an IP for the sake of "privacy". No you don't get to hide while throwing stones at somebody else. We are entitled to know the context of your remarks. The exemption you cited is for people editing articles, not for participating in arbitration. WP:ILLEGIT says, "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project."Jehochman 15:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:ILLEGIT, Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project and this qualifies. Please comment using your main account. Salvio 15:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I could be wrong but I think this is User:Lightbreather, just a gut feeling. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I read WP:CHK. If it allowed English Misplaced Pages editors to request checks on themselves I would do so. If someone would request one for me, I would welcome it. Not that my opinion will change the outcome. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think the editing gaps match up ] and ]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:ILLEGIT, Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project and this qualifies. Please comment using your main account. Salvio 15:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- We are at a rather critical point regarding keeping enough qualified editors around to maintain even what we now have, let alone further development. It could very easily be seen by editors and even press outside of the US that a decision against an editor regarding the use of the word "cunt" would be extremely counterproductive in terms of attracting and keeping editors from those areas. I cannot see how allowing one country's individual word usage to become a rule individuals from other countries are obligated to follow will have any positive results for the project. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Giano is right, in my view. Eric Corbett has not filed or posted long, repetitive ANI complaints. His comments on talk pages are not long, disruptive walls of text. His meaning is always clear (to me) and succinct, albeit sometimes rude. He's a fantastic editor, extremely knowledgeable, (almost) always correct in his comments about article problems and in his copy editing choices. He has helped many, many female editors, so the claim of misogamy is ridiculous.
If he loses his cool in rare cases, at least he does it in short comments or in edit summaries, not in walls of confusing text, unsupported by diffs. Note: almost all of the diffs in the evidence section by EvergreenFir and Carolmooredc, copy/pastes from an ANI purporting to show his personal attacks and disruption,ANI#Disruption of Wikiproject were struck out.
Yes, when he goes overboard, as in the RFA process, he needs to be stopped.
As far as I can tell, his comments at GGTF were seen as disruptive by "the women" there. So restricting him from those two pages would fix that problem.
But if GGTF members had responded to his requests for citations for the so-called "facts" they repeatedly posted, that too would have prevented the disruption and also given the GGTF more credibility. They appear not to understand the need for reliable sourcing. Or the offended women could have just ignored him (not as good as addressing problems he rightfully pointed out) under the philosophy of "Don't feed the trolls", that might have worked also.
But the massive freaking out (by Lightbreather, Carolmooredc, Neotarf, EvergreenFir and others) escalated the situation to what we have now. I'm embarrassed, as a female, by their behavior.
Banning a specific word used by Shakespeare, James Joyce etc., a word that only relatively recently became "forbidden", on the basis of predominantly U.S. standards, and calling for U.S. district court decisions regarding what constitutes a "hostile workplace" to be enforced on[REDACTED] seems like a bad move.
In an interpersonal environment, people talking face-to-face, is entirely different than the internet environment of wikipedia. Yes, it's tense to try to edit here, especially when, from what I've seen, there are so many incompetent editors, and IMO, Carolmooredc and Neotarf are among them. (I've pointed out specific examples in previous postings here.) EChastain (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I hesitate to add anything at this late stage, especially something likely already considered. But has thought been given to simply restricting both Eric Corbett and Carolmooredc to editing only the article mainspace? That is, no article talk, usertalk or wikiproject edits - we can all point to problematic edits on these pages, but to the best of my knowledge neither Eric nor Carolmooredc has ever misused article space, and I can't imagine they would.
- The benefit to Misplaced Pages is retaining two content contributors who can continue to expand our coverage of their various special subjects. The benefit to Eric and Carolmooredc is avoidance of bans which a number of Committee members have conceded are second-best outcomes. As a remedy it also avoids the apparent complexity associated with enforcing proposal 2.3. It would necessarily need an admonition against uncivil or pointy edit summaries, but I'd suggest this is small beer compared to the current issues of either incivility or battleground behaviour. As neither Eric nor Carolmooredc's editing interests overlap, it is also unlikely they will come into contact with each other through article work.
- Just a compromise idea, aimed at reducing future disruption/AE clarification while retaining content contribtions from two people with good writing skills. Apologies if it has been proposed and rejected previously. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea on the face of it but as this is a collaborative project it would be difficult for any editor to work with/learn from/teach others without any dialogue being permitted. pablo 13:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fair point, though this would be an alternative to bans. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea on the face of it but as this is a collaborative project it would be difficult for any editor to work with/learn from/teach others without any dialogue being permitted. pablo 13:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just a compromise idea, aimed at reducing future disruption/AE clarification while retaining content contribtions from two people with good writing skills. Apologies if it has been proposed and rejected previously. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to correct one point here. EChastain wrote above, " GGTF members had responded to requests for citations for the so-called 'facts' they repeatedly posted, that too would have prevented the disruption and also given the GGTF more credibility." Eric's requests, which he repeated on multiple talk pages, were answered more than once. Others simply got tired of him making the same requests. Also, I'm embarrassed, as a female, by EChastain's "I'm embarrassed" comment. Lightbreather (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Also, those who are critical of the sexist editing environment on Misplaced Pages are no more "freaking out" than those who deny that there is sexism. Terms like "massive freaking out" are not going to help improve the WP editing environment or to close the gender gap. Lightbreather (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Didn't you retire? I seem to remember hearing something about that, oh, right about the time this case started... Carrite (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the same as Dennis Brown came out of retirement to comment on this page, so have I. I would like to reiterate here what I said below. What I said was misunderstood to be based only on gender. My observation was not based only on gender. Before making it, I read and re-read the Proposed principles, the Proposed findings of fact, and the Proposed remedies, and, in my opinion, gender was ultimately the significant, contributing factor in the case's outcome - at least as it stands at this time. Since I have detailed my thinking below, I will add only this.
- The second Proposed principle in this case, after Purpose of Misplaced Pages, is the Non discrimination policy, supported by all 12 arbitrators:
- The Wikimedia Foundation non-discrimination policy prohibits discrimination against users on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics.
- If you were to look at this case as you would a jury trial, you would note that the jury is made up of 11 men and 1 woman. Look at how those men and women voted, especially regarding Carolmooredc and Eric Corbett, both of whom have pluses and minuses going for them, albeit differing pluses and minuses. (See A strong signal to the GGTF) Now, imagine if the jury had been 11 women and 1 man, or even 6 women and 6 men. Do you think the outcome would be the same, especially regarding CMDC and EC, in either of those situations? I, for one, do not. Ultimate contributing factor in this case? Gender. Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Tribalism, and a faulty analysis if I've ever seen one.RGloucester — ☎ 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- RGloucester, I get that you think that there is no sexism on Misplaced Pages. I disagree, and so do quite a few others. I also get that you equate charges of sexism with tribalism. Here's another "ism" for you: reductionism. How about you make your own "final comment" as a stand-alone, bulleted item, and quit pestering me with your "tribalism" pea-shooter? Lightbreather (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think I ever said anything about "sexism", so I don't know how you presumed anything about what I "think" on that matter. What I do think, however, is that it is entirely inappropriate to be accusing most of the arbitrators, trusted members of the community, of voting based on their gender in this instance, without any evidence for such a claim. That's tribalism, an "us versus them" attitude that posits an essential male drive to cast one's lot with other men. In fact, I believe it is just as insulting to the one declared woman on the committee, implying that the only reason she's voted as she did was because of a tribalistic desire to protect an editor of the same gender. It is rubbish, unsubstantiated, and an attack on a body that the community has granted its trust. RGloucester — ☎ 19:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, you didn't spell out the word "sexism," but you replied to a charge of sexism/gender bias (a charge that wasn't qualified as conscious, BTW) with your "there are no 'men' and 'women'" rubbish and a "tribalism is a sin" edit summary.
- I have respect for the arbitrators. Many of us have had similar, thankless jobs in our lives and know the difficulties - including being open to criticism. But "trusted members of the community" can still be sexist, whether they're conscious of it or not. We all have biases, including you, RG. Again, why not leave my opinion alone and make your own final comment re this case? Lightbreather (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to leave you alone. I'm fairly certain that you are a hopeless case. I simply could not let such an absurd attack on the community stand alone. A charge of "unconsciousness" is much more grievous than a charge of "consciousness". It implies that the arbitrators have no capability for self-reflection, or even free will, and essentially posits that they should not even be sitting on the committee. Regardless, I yield. RGloucester — ☎ 20:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your opinion and your promise both noted. Thanks for the latter. Lightbreather (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to leave you alone. I'm fairly certain that you are a hopeless case. I simply could not let such an absurd attack on the community stand alone. A charge of "unconsciousness" is much more grievous than a charge of "consciousness". It implies that the arbitrators have no capability for self-reflection, or even free will, and essentially posits that they should not even be sitting on the committee. Regardless, I yield. RGloucester — ☎ 20:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think I ever said anything about "sexism", so I don't know how you presumed anything about what I "think" on that matter. What I do think, however, is that it is entirely inappropriate to be accusing most of the arbitrators, trusted members of the community, of voting based on their gender in this instance, without any evidence for such a claim. That's tribalism, an "us versus them" attitude that posits an essential male drive to cast one's lot with other men. In fact, I believe it is just as insulting to the one declared woman on the committee, implying that the only reason she's voted as she did was because of a tribalistic desire to protect an editor of the same gender. It is rubbish, unsubstantiated, and an attack on a body that the community has granted its trust. RGloucester — ☎ 19:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- RGloucester, I get that you think that there is no sexism on Misplaced Pages. I disagree, and so do quite a few others. I also get that you equate charges of sexism with tribalism. Here's another "ism" for you: reductionism. How about you make your own "final comment" as a stand-alone, bulleted item, and quit pestering me with your "tribalism" pea-shooter? Lightbreather (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Tribalism, and a faulty analysis if I've ever seen one.RGloucester — ☎ 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Questions for the committee about proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies for Neotarf
I notice that GorillaWarfare agrees with Carcharoth that "I don't agree with every diff used", but they still both voted for it. Also that NewYorkBrad says "the emphasis on usernames and signatures is a bit misplaced". Would you consider a reordering of the diffs--a number of them are *very* old, and none of them have warnings. That is totally unfair to lump a huge number of old and bogus diffs together and ask everyone to vote whether they can find something wrong with "one" of them. Since three arbitrators agree on agree on that, how about separating the three sections and voting on them individually, but with quality diffs, not some that are four months old, and have never had any kind of warnings associated with them, so as not to poison the well against me by making it look like there are more issues than there really are.
The proper venue for questions about names is also not specified, although the finding of fact refers to "following normal dispute resolution on such matters" and the remedies refer to "appropriate channels". I'm assuming they mean something other than WP:BADNAME policy, which I have followed. There is also no finding about what channel I actually used.
And why are there a diff in there by Bishonen? If Bishonen is going to be cited as a reliable source about the Misplaced Pages meaning of "passive aggressive" as opposed to "passive aggressive" the mental disorder diagnosis, shouldn't it be moved to the "proposed principles" and not presented as if it was one of my edits and evidence of misconduct on my part? This is very misleading, and not at all fair to me.
So what I am asking for, to support the finding of fact and remedies, is something like:
Proposed Principles:
- 1) The proper channel for questions about names.
- 2) The Misplaced Pages meaning of "passive aggressive", and whether this is a personal attack or "casting aspersions".
The committee might also ponder whether these rise to the level of arbcom concern:
- 3) Whether it is an "unfounded accusation" to ask someone a direct question about their motives
- 4) Whether a "battleground mentality" consists of a) not following the "orders" of a talk page stalker who appears to be unknowlegable b) assuming lack of interest and knowledge where others are assuming bad faith c) asking for additional information to help particular users contribute constructively d)introducing materials that stimulate calm and constructive guided discussion around a potentially contentious issue (the gamergate party piece) e) labeling a section for NSFW content after complaints from users who said they edit from their jobs (immediately reverted without discussion, and I did not edit war to restore it) f) questioning the concept that content creation is so overwhelmingly important that it overrides professional treatment of colleagues g) expressing disappointment over the premature closure of a thread that might have provided the community discussion needed for dispute resolution and avoidance of an arbcom case.
- Is "battleground" 1) trying something that didn't work 2) trying something that did work and someone just wanted to complain about for their own reasons 3) expressing an opinion that someone else disagrees with? What are the criteria for "battle ground" that is being applied to me? Doesn't this mean edit warring?
Findings of fact:
- 1) The channel for questions about names that was actually used by Neotarf.
- 2) Whether it is forbidden to discuss whether using phrases that are also names for mental disorders stigmatizes mental disorders in the same way that calling someone a retard is linked to developmental disabilities.
Remedies
The words "broadly construed", an unfortunate turn of phrase for a gender case, have now been removed, but I don't really understand the meaning of the topic ban no matter how it is construed. I don't recall ever commenting on "the gender disparity on Misplaced Pages itself" What point is there in humiliating me by topic banning me from this? What problem does it prevent?
Disparity is difference or lack of similarity. I should think it would be very hard indeed to edit anything without mentioning any differences between male and female. That would be a very hard thing to control. This "remedy" looks to me like just another word for site ban, because men and women, not to mention male and female animals, are everywhere. Anyone who does not treat this strangely defined "topic ban" as a site ban and leave immediately will be hounded to death by a thousand cuts, by the same ones who caused this case to be brought.
It is no secret that I have been trying to "leave with dignity" for some time. I can't count how many times the Arbcom has put me off and told me to wait. Now they propose I hang around trying to appeal stuff for still longer, while they threaten to drag my name through the mud. If someone had some legitimate concern about me, why didn't they come to my talk page and discuss it with me, or get an admin to do so? Instead, I get named late to an arbcom case, secretly on a mailing list by an arbitrator, with no evidence, and no reasons given. Even now, no one answer my questions about exactly what exact words are of concern, so that I can address those issues. That no one can explain to me why I am here, speaks for itself.
Would the ban extend to questions about gender issues to arb candidates? What about Jimbo's talk page--can the outcome of the case be discussed there? Would the ban extend to external sites?
I seem to be the only one who is being indeffed, and I'm not exactly a major player in this drama. My first edit to gender gap project was 15 August 2014, when I left a link to the International Women of Courage Award list, which had a lot of red links on it. But only a month later, for the first time, tired of all the disruptions coming across my watchlist, and the vandalizing of my talk page, I took the page off my watchlist and recommended that everyone else do the same."
For those who oppose the existence of this project, I can report that all the names of all 75 recipients on that International Women of Courage Award are now blue links. —Neotarf (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Good defense/offense. But remember you are just topic ban indeffed, while the committee has bowed to the Will of Sitush and site banned this uppity female. Just to be factual.
Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 10:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Carol, I can't tell if you're trolling, throwing oil on the fire, being sarcastic, or just spouting nonsense. I wish I'd placed an "I'm an uppity female" userbox on my talk page: you'd have to make a 180 on me, since ovaries seem to be the only basis for you to evaluate others on, and it's that essentialist attitude (an embarrassment to any "gender" project) that makes me wonder if you should be talking about women's issues at all. In the meantime, few people have done more than Sitush to combat the colonialist attitudes, still pervasive in print, in our India- and caste-related articles. You could have tried to win him for your cause, whatever your cause is. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're a lady? Wow you never know who lurks behind a username lol, I was just made aware of another admin that was as well. Both of you do pretty top notch work, that's one reason I like the username aspect it is just a screen. The actions behind is what matters not the username or presence or absence of a dangler 8). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Er I see it now my bad! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're a lady? Wow you never know who lurks behind a username lol, I was just made aware of another admin that was as well. Both of you do pretty top notch work, that's one reason I like the username aspect it is just a screen. The actions behind is what matters not the username or presence or absence of a dangler 8). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Carol, I can't tell if you're trolling, throwing oil on the fire, being sarcastic, or just spouting nonsense. I wish I'd placed an "I'm an uppity female" userbox on my talk page: you'd have to make a 180 on me, since ovaries seem to be the only basis for you to evaluate others on, and it's that essentialist attitude (an embarrassment to any "gender" project) that makes me wonder if you should be talking about women's issues at all. In the meantime, few people have done more than Sitush to combat the colonialist attitudes, still pervasive in print, in our India- and caste-related articles. You could have tried to win him for your cause, whatever your cause is. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- You should read the ban remedy against you again. Even the oppose votes acknowledge you are a problem.Your behavior on this talk page is demonstrative of your overall behavior. You've walked up the gallows and put the noose around your neck. You've done everything but jump.Two kinds of porkBacon 16:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Would the clerks please remove this ad hominem attack against me? —Neotarf (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Neotarf there is no personal attack, if criticizing your behavior is an attack the arvs have attacked you too. We are discussing your behavior which is has been far from blameless. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Gents, no offense intended, but you're both very personally involved with Neotarf. I don't think you're good judges of if something is an attack or not. Could the three of you simply disengage from each other?--v/r - TP 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain I can understand the concept of what is and is not an attack even if I don't get along with the person. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Gents, no offense intended, but you're both very personally involved with Neotarf. I don't think you're good judges of if something is an attack or not. Could the three of you simply disengage from each other?--v/r - TP 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Neotarf there is no personal attack, if criticizing your behavior is an attack the arvs have attacked you too. We are discussing your behavior which is has been far from blameless. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Would the clerks please remove this ad hominem attack against me? —Neotarf (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Archived
Hi All. I've archived most of this talk page (everything from before today) to /Archive. I'm very tempted to archive the rest too, and lock down this page. Can I re-iterate the following
- We are at a proposed decision phase. The evidence and workshop phases are over. New evidence should not be submitted.
- The only use of this talk page is to help arbitrators with their decision.
Sniping at each other, complaining about parties, complaining about arbitrators, complaining about the case have now no place here. Any further sniping will lead to people being barred from this page - and plausibly the page locked down all together. Clerks, please ensure this happens. Worm(talk) 11:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it is proper to archive this talk page for now. However, I feel there may be a reason to unarchive it when the case is finally closed. It may have some value to keep in mind what went on on this page so that the same can be prevented from happening on other pages. OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since proposals on this talkpage are meant for arbitrators eyes, then it's best that only arbitrators respond. Afterall, the evidence & workshop phases are now over. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- There should be a rule that all non-arb comments on this page should be addressed to the arbs only, and there is no need for non-arbs to direct comments at each other. This should immediately make this page useful.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- What will happen now is that people will post stuff that they think hasn't been addressed.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC).
the gender disparity between Misplaced Pages editors.?
I just noticed that the topic bans say "the gender disparity between Misplaced Pages editors." What on earth is that? Only same-sex? —Neotarf (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- It seems the language of the bans has been changed to "disparity between editors". Could someone be so kind as to explain the meaning of this new language, and perhaps either introduce this in a new resolution or ask the arbs who already voted to reconfirm their votes? —Neotarf (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- All of the topic bans use the same wording; "gender disparity between Misplaced Pages editors". I'm not sure where you're seeing that it's been changed to "disparity between editors". GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- The previous language was "the Gender Gap on Misplaced Pages, broadly construed". —Neotarf (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Right. Per my comments on those remedies, I found them to be much too vague. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- A more complete, but more verbose, wording would be "discussion of the gender disparity in rates of participation on Misplaced Pages between males and females." This would include, among other things, the causes of the disparity and what, if anything, should be done to address it." Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder whether such wording fully addresses the locus of the dispute. Some of the discussion at GGTF went off-topic from the ramifications of the well-documented gender gap and instead focused on alleged misogyny and prejudice on the part of current male editors and Admins. It's not clear that the proposed sanction refers to the second subject. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- So perhaps, relating to any (alleged?) disparity in the participation rate or the treatment of editors? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Right. Per my comments on those remedies, I found them to be much too vague. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- The previous language was "the Gender Gap on Misplaced Pages, broadly construed". —Neotarf (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- All of the topic bans use the same wording; "gender disparity between Misplaced Pages editors". I'm not sure where you're seeing that it's been changed to "disparity between editors". GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
One of the problems arising from the disruptions on the project page that triggered this case was an inability to reach a consensus on the goals of the project. The best proposal I have seen so far came from Tony: 1) Attracting women to make the first edit 2) Promoting a culture of social support for newbies 3) Improving coverage of women and women's topics.
Other contributors, like Corbett, SPECIFICO, and Sitush, regarded the project page as an appropriate venue to argue that the project should not exist. The GGTF group failed to handle this disruption with page ban proposals, since they framed the proposal naming several editors together, including Corbett, apparently not being familiar with the history of Corbett's participation on WP. When page bans failed, a more successful approach of proposing interaction bans with Carolmooredc was tried, with more success, since several users seem to have followed Carol to GGTF from other topic areas. An interaction ban with SPECIFICO and Carolomooredc was successful, and an interaction ban between Carolmoorece and Sitush was still in progress at the time that Sitush withdrew from editing and posted a "retired" banner.
With Carolmooredc removed from the project, the interaction bans with her will no longer serve to prevent disruption on GGTF. The sanctions that are currently passing will selectively remove the individuals who want the group to encourage participation by women and leave the individuals who believe the project page should be used to argue against participation by women. While the ArbCom is technically not supposed to decide content disputes, they have made a de facto decision about the purpose of the group by removing all the proponents of one side and leaving all the proponents of the other. —Neotarf (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that is a massive rewriting of history, Neotarf. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Neotarf: I thought you've made it clear that you're not a member of GGTF. What about SlimVirgin who seems to be doing most of the clean up, archiving etc. at the GGTF? EChastain (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Who decides the purpose of a project? Does ArbCom have any remit here? If there is no precedent for the Arbcom making a determination of a group's purpose, can the Arbcom decide what the purpose is *not*? For instance, can the Arbcom say the project is *not* a place to debate whether the group should exist? There are similar statements about global warming articles, that the article talk page is not for discussion of whether global warming actually exists. —Neotarf (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think arbcom could say that you can't set up a project that is limited only to "women" and that "guys" can't have a voice. EChastain (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Really. In my hatted and archived comments posted 9 days ago I addressed this ridiculous wording, and suggested:
- topic banned from the pages of the GGTF, and any discussions about gender disparity of Wikipedians.
Which seems both simple and addresses the proposed intent. I can't understand why a bakers dozen of broadly intelligent people have trouble over simple wording like this.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC).
Neotarf Ban
| Evidence phase is over. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
To the opposing administrators please exam ] this is the mainspace (constructive edits) of Neotarf for most of 2014, now look at this ] that's the main edits made for that same period just to[REDACTED] talk and at least 75 percent is at arbcom, do you really think that a topic ban will stop the madness it's pretty clear from the retired template on their page and their edits shown here they aren't here to build the encyclopedia and it's been some time since they have been. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMPETENCE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NPA. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
Dual mentorship for Carolmooredc & Eric Corbett
As a last chance for both CDC & EC, would arbitrators consider having 2 mentors per editor? For Carol, the mentors (who would be self-declared male & female) would help her steer clear of male vs female based disputes. For Eric, his mentors would help him control his temper & better deal with baiters. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Eric doesn't need a mentor. He has dozens of knowledgeable Misplaced Pages friends who already fulfill that purpose. Carol should first demonstrate a desire to change before any efforts are expended. (Maybe she has without me being aware.) Jehochman 15:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- She says she did, but what she was saying got drowned in the din.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think there was an older case, Mattisse or however it was spelled, which had a similar arrangement in which a group of editors agreed to work with that editor, and place blocks as required. It didn't work particularly well I'm afraid, partially because of the intransigent nature of that individual editor. I'm not sure if it would be an acceptable alternative here, but I think that there is probably a better chance that at least one of the editors under consideration might not be as intransigent as that individual was. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- She says she did, but what she was saying got drowned in the din.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's never too late. I recommend that she post the diff or repeat such remarks. Jehochman 16:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I like your recommendation and second it. TBC, she did not say anything about mentorship, but about being open to constructive suggestions, and making changes. If you look at the activity on this page after WTT's archiving, and stern warning against sniping etc. some users, even some supposedly responsible users, have continued to post acidic attacks on her. Only a Zen master could be expected to escape becoming unsettled in such an environment. I don't see how she could be expected to approach things with a constructive / positive mind-frame with such attacks continuing. If she ignores these attacks, those comments stand unopposed and she gets demonized. If she counters them, she is tendentious. What is she to do ? I think the arbs are conscious of this situation and will put their foot down firmly on this sort of activity, even if it is coming from some well established users. My perception is that issues related to her were only rooted in problems between her and one or two other users. One of those issues is getting solved by an Iban, and there can be one more Iban if necessary. This is how I see things, other are surely free to come up with other suggestions. ( What I say in this post is without any consultation with CMDC ).OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think she is unlikely to further participate with this process while a particular user and his supporters are harassing / baiting her. I think anything that this particular user and his supporters say to/about her should be seen as instigatory / harassment / baiting.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I will note that Eric has soundly rejected the idea of mentorship in the past, and I can understand why. Regardless of the reason, mentorship will only work if the protégé is agreeable. Worm(talk) 16:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I hope they'll both agree to it. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- In response to Worm, the word "mentorship" might be inappropriate here, maybe something more like "oversight board", or a dedicated AE board, which would have the power to make "you shouldn't oughtn't'a done that" statements as well as blocks if necessary, would be better. Allowing either such a group or the AE enforcers to vary the length of block depending on recidivism and nature of the offense would be possible, although the ArbCom could also provide some rough guidelines or pointers of what they think reasonable. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Eric needs a short leash with speedy and non-appealable 48 hour blocks whenever he is disruptive and Carol needs to be shown the door as a Net Negative and NOTHERE. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Eric has already been blocked over and over again but still continued with the incivility what makes you think that this will work? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Carrite is as right as rain here. I know Eric, it is the unrealistic long blocks that seem abusive, and arguably are. You pop him with a short block when he needs it, you would be surprised at the results you get, as he knows the price each time and he can decide if it is worth it. Admittedly, some days it will be, but most days it won't. If you are trying to prevent disruption, that is a tool that would work. The other day when Chillum hit him for 48 hours, I backed Chillum when others complained, and Eric himself said it was reasonable (while poking Chillum at the same time). Problem was solved for at least two days. If you want retribution, then no, but if you want to prevent disruption, this would work. Dennis - 2¢ 23:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Add Sitush and SPECIFICO and we might have a basis of discussion. It then would mean to the world that ARBCOM takes harassment of editors and furious attempts to topic and site ban them seriously. Otherwise all you have here for the world to see, once the relevant diffs are set side to side in a pretty little chart, is an incredible double standard application of rules of behavior between males and known and verified females on Misplaced Pages. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Arbs have the final word on that. I merely mentioned only yourself & EC, 'cause you borth are currently in ban-territory, via arb votes. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Both editors are well into adulthood, have strong personalities, and can't be "mentored". Perhaps the assignment of a "minder" that would need to pre-approve every edit they propose would work, but no one in the world would want that job.--Milowent • 22:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Here's some more institutional memory (compare MastCell's comment here): anybody who remembers the folie à quatre Mattisse mentorship, which drew several well-meaning people into a maelstream of manipulation, will run screaming from the notion of trying a group of mentors or "editorial board" with Carol. Fun fact, btw: one of Mattisse's first mentors was Malleus Fatuorum, a k a Eric Corbett, who alone among the mentors had the good sense to withdraw when he saw the direction it was taking. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC).
Arbitrators, I beg you (again), ban nobody. You & the adminstrators don't need the coming headaches, as Carol & Eric both have strong support bases. If you ban both? or (worst) one & not the other? your ruling will be seen as bias by many. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Arbitrators won't buckle under pressure. If there's a rational argument not to ban either editor, I am sure they would consider it, but threats of disruption by supporters or detractors are irrelevant. We are all quite happy to face headaches in order to do what's right. Jehochman 15:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikilawyering by an idiot here
This is more or less in response to @Seraphimblade:'s comment, and if it is entirely inappropriate and maybe brain-dead stupid my apologies. But, theoretically, if Eric called me a witless, mentally impaired, incontinent pedophile with delusions of humanity (or something like that), and I myself thought it was no big deal and didn't in any way complain but someone else did without my input or support, and possibly contrary to my own wishes, how would that be dealt with? John Carter (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Another details question about this new remedy (sorry for piggybacking, John): based on current wording, it's not clear who would have standing to make the AE appeal about any blocks on Eric. Iirc, AE appeals typically need to be submitted by the sanctioned party; in this case, if Eric is blocked, Eric cannot appeal his block on AE (until after the block expires, at which point the issue is moot). If the intention is for him to appeal on his talk page and have it copied to AE, that runs into the provision that allows his talk page access to be removed, and there should be some language in the remedy addressing his route of appeal if he can't edit his talk. If the intention is for people other than Eric to bring appeals, that seems like a departure from standard procedure that should probably be spelled out and justified. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) I certainly think it's a fair question. Anyone can bring a matter to arbitration enforcement, whether they're personally involved in the matter or not. And that's as it should be if, for example, someone were insulted and left in outrage over it, and someone else noted the situation and raised it at AE. I did AE prior to my time on the Committee, though, and I know in a case like your hypothetical, where the supposedly "attacked" party came and said "We were joking, I took absolutely no offense", I would've recommended taking no action on the complaint, and I think so would the others I worked with. I would hope the admins there have the sense to differentiate between good-natured ribbing bothering no one and an attack, and in my experience they do. In the event someone doesn't, there also is an appeals process for any AE sanction.
To Fluffernutter's question, an editor with talk page access revoked who wishes to appeal an AE sanction can request that an appeal be posted by emailing the sanctioning administrator (who should be the first stop anyway), or if they are nonresponsive or unwilling, by emailing the Committee and requesting one be posted on their behalf. That would be true in any case, it wouldn't be a special provision for Eric, and such appeals are allowed. Those aren't the "third party" appeals that are normally rejected, they're appeals requested by the sanctioned party and only posted by someone else. Seraphimblade 18:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wait, so are "third party" (i.e. not-requested-by-sanctioned-editor) appeals normally rejected (your last paragraph) or acceptable (your first paragraph)? Or would it depend on the content and context of the appeal, and everything's just a bundle of wibbly-wobbly play-it-by-ear stuff? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Somewhat relevant, I've asked friendly editors to remove any harassing/trashing criticism of me at my talk page after I'm banned. But in case something insulting gets missed, will there a person I can appeal to in order to discourage trolls?? Or can it just be protected. Remember I did have a lot of trolling there by a long time abuser a few years ago which is why I got those roll back rights which happily I haven't had to use much the last couple years. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with how situations such as this are dealt with. I think this concern would be covered by our attitude wrt gravedancing, although I'm not sure whether that is set in stone (WP:TPG?). Locking your page would hinder anyone who might wish to leave inoffensive/supportive messages. I'm sorry that it seems to have come to this. Really, I am. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, please. You wrote on Sept 5, as shown in evidence, "The sooner she is site-banned, the better for everyone..." Sitush singlehandedly has shown how Arbitration can be used to harass the heck out of an editor. Congrats! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Carol here you aren't sorry not in the slightest bit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Of course I am. I had hoped that she could adapt but alas, if anything, things are becoming still more trenchant and have now spread to some sort of xenophobia etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you were really sorry then why make the comments? Everyone knows you don't like Carol now that she is getting banned and after all you have said now you are sorry? I don't really want to go off track here I just find this wrong in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sheesh. No point in me arguing against you if you are convinced that you can read my mind, sorry. Believe what you wish. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you were really sorry then why make the comments? Everyone knows you don't like Carol now that she is getting banned and after all you have said now you are sorry? I don't really want to go off track here I just find this wrong in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Of course I am. I had hoped that she could adapt but alas, if anything, things are becoming still more trenchant and have now spread to some sort of xenophobia etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Carol here you aren't sorry not in the slightest bit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, please. You wrote on Sept 5, as shown in evidence, "The sooner she is site-banned, the better for everyone..." Sitush singlehandedly has shown how Arbitration can be used to harass the heck out of an editor. Congrats! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Banning_policy#Conduct_towards_banned_editors seems to be pertinent to your concerns. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with how situations such as this are dealt with. I think this concern would be covered by our attitude wrt gravedancing, although I'm not sure whether that is set in stone (WP:TPG?). Locking your page would hinder anyone who might wish to leave inoffensive/supportive messages. I'm sorry that it seems to have come to this. Really, I am. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fluffernutter, I believe you're comparing apples to oranges. The first paragraph in response to John discussed complaints (including by third parties), yours discussed appeals. Those are different beasts, and yes they are treated differently. Seraphimblade 18:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, so there's nothing in this remedy that's not already covered by the usual AE appeal procedures, so there's no need to add extra detail to this remedy in particular. Thanks for clarifying, Seraphimblade, I think I've got my mental knots untangled now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Somewhat relevant, I've asked friendly editors to remove any harassing/trashing criticism of me at my talk page after I'm banned. But in case something insulting gets missed, will there a person I can appeal to in order to discourage trolls?? Or can it just be protected. Remember I did have a lot of trolling there by a long time abuser a few years ago which is why I got those roll back rights which happily I haven't had to use much the last couple years. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wait, so are "third party" (i.e. not-requested-by-sanctioned-editor) appeals normally rejected (your last paragraph) or acceptable (your first paragraph)? Or would it depend on the content and context of the appeal, and everything's just a bundle of wibbly-wobbly play-it-by-ear stuff? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- As someone who's been around long enough to function as institutional memory, I want to sound a word of caution here. This proposal basically boils down to civility parole—a well-meaning but unmitigatedly disastrous idea which ran its course as an Arbitration remedy 5 or 6 years ago. (I have no opinion on the proper outcome of this case, only a strongly held belief that this civility parole remedy would be a huge mistake). MastCell 19:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is not unreasonable to allow it in some cases. In this case, there seems to me to be some indication that the individual involved recognizes that a problem exists and that his own actions are at least part of the problem. While I would not support such a proposal in instances where the individual involved is unrepetent, or, possibly, when the individual involved were not clearly one of our more useful and productive editors except for these problems (being honest there), I think it isn't unreasonable to give someone who acknowledges a problem to have a chance to deal productively with it. Having said all that, it is also I think reasonable for everyone to assume that if later actions don't measure up to the statements made to date, in this or similar cases which may arise in the future, that there would be no particularly good reason for extending much any sort of further "final offers." John Carter (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's not what I'm getting at. It has nothing to do with how "repentant" Eric is, or isn't. Civility paroles create a truly perverse set of incentives. Since there are no clear definitions of incivility, editors will flood WP:AE with "test cases". This problem will be exacerbated by people who take offense on behalf of others (the meddling-bystander effect). If one is minded to try to get the parolee blocked, there is no real disincentive to repeated filings, since eventually (by virtue of the random nature of civility enforcement) some filings are likely to "stick". If you think that these aspects of civility parole won't be relentlessly gamed, then I can only envy your naivete. None of this is hypothetical; all of it has actually happened, repeatedly and reliably, when civility paroles have been implemented in the past. MastCell 00:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- John Carter, if someone called you a "witless, mentally impaired, incontinent pedophile with delusions of humanity" I'd probably block them on sight, perhaps indefinitely. Doesn't matter who says it. But...and I hate to ask this again...is there anything in here that's actually about GGTF? Are these restrictions planned in relation to GGTF pages? Can Eric/Carol/Sitush/whoever be blocked for calling you a "witless, mentally impaired, incontinent pedophile with delusions of humanity" on some other page? Or is this indeed just civility parole, with GGTF as a kind of token banner? Drmies (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- The proposed comment was intended to be of an extreme nature, probably among the most obvious examples of overstatement I could think of. Honestly, I can only think that the first two have ever been applied to me. ;) Is this more or less broader civility parole? Honestly, so far as I can tell, as someone not involved in the decision-making, maybe? Does it have much to do with the GGTF, maybe not? Unfortunately, is this what the case seems to have become about? Seemingly, yes. Unfortunately, I think there is a history of at least some Arb cases where things go in some direction no one could have necessarily anticipated in advance, and this looks like it might be one of those. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I feel the evidence provided that the arbs are looking at is, anything else of relevance here can be sifted through. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from...
Is that supposed to say "Eric has agreed to..." or "Eric is instructed to agree to..." or "If Eric agrees to... then..."? 87.254.87.183 (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, not even ArbCom can decide what Eric agrees to. I have another question: what does "shouting at" mean in this context? Is it speaking in all capitals per WP:SHOUT? StAnselm (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think shouting just means speaking (uh, typing) to people harshly. I've got sympathy for them trying to express that adequately without being absurdly vague or ridiculously restrictive. If they are trying to agree things on his behalf through the sheer power of their voting though then that is a bit "ah... are you guys feeling okay?" 87.254.87.183 (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Point taken regarding "agrees to...", I've raised it accordingly. As to shouting, consider the following two (entirely made up by me, not based on any actual) statements: "I am sick and tired of your idiocy! Don't post your ridiculous drivel here again!" vs. "I'm done with this conversation, and am also requesting that you stop posting on my talk page." Same intent both times, but I think any reasonable person could tell which one of those is interpreted as shouting, and which is not. Seraphimblade
- And what if he were to say in a discussion or an edit summary, "If you don't want to be called a , don't act like one"? Or "Were you hiding behind the door when God was handing out brains"? 72.223.98.118 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Again, covered by belittling. Chillum 01:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- To the 72... IP, I think your input is becoming less helpful here, and ask that you restrain yourself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, I like hiding behind doors to jump out and scare people. Actually, with my face, I scare people anyway, but... . And there is no God. I'm sure I'd have met him at some point. Y'know, maybe I'm not painting myself in the best possible light here. Shutting up now. John Carter (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- And what if he were to say in a discussion or an edit summary, "If you don't want to be called a , don't act like one"? Or "Were you hiding behind the door when God was handing out brains"? 72.223.98.118 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Point taken regarding "agrees to...", I've raised it accordingly. As to shouting, consider the following two (entirely made up by me, not based on any actual) statements: "I am sick and tired of your idiocy! Don't post your ridiculous drivel here again!" vs. "I'm done with this conversation, and am also requesting that you stop posting on my talk page." Same intent both times, but I think any reasonable person could tell which one of those is interpreted as shouting, and which is not. Seraphimblade
- I think shouting just means speaking (uh, typing) to people harshly. I've got sympathy for them trying to express that adequately without being absurdly vague or ridiculously restrictive. If they are trying to agree things on his behalf through the sheer power of their voting though then that is a bit "ah... are you guys feeling okay?" 87.254.87.183 (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the use of fewer less ambiguous words would be less wikilawyerable. Insulting or belittling are good. Shouting makes no sense. Less is more in my opinion. Seraphimblade's example and counter example are covered by belittling. As for shouting it appears the exclamation mark is key? Chillum 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Mr Corbett explicitly agreed to "stop shouting at ... people". It's about tone of voice/register ... Roger Davies 01:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- That is my point. Recognizing tone of voice/register in text is subjective at best. It invites disagreement. Belittling and insulting are things that can be objectively observed. Chillum 01:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I notice the wording still hasn't been changed. And what if Eric doesn't agree? Has anyone asked him yet? Whose job is it to do that - the clerks? StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"2.3 Eric Corbett prohibited" is untenable
| This has run its course. Roger Davies 17:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This seems quite untenable as it's unclear what "shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling" is. We've already had tens of thousands of bytes of argument over whether or not "cunt" was an insult and/or slur. How is anyone supposed to agree upon what shouting, swearing, insulting, and/or belittling constitutes? This proposal seems much too subjective and unspecified to be properly implemented. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
This person gets to insult people five more times before we start arguing about it all over again; other volunteer editors don't count, because they're just not as good as he is. I've gotten the point now, so I won't waste your time (and should probably stop wasting mine.) --Djembayz (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The blocks aren't being proposed to address any underlying cause, only the after-effects of commonly-expected future disruption. There is no sense that this does anything to prevent or discourage any initial disruption. The remedy is also in the hands of the same arbs, in the same types of situations, ultimately subject to the same hair-splitting and avoidance of action. It ensures the status quo. This editor has about five blocks on their log (roughly combined from the back-and-forth); this means that this proposal contains enough second and eighth chances to ensure as much drama as has already been generated. And this part, "... let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve" is just an invitation for open tag-teaming and disruption-by-proxy of the "I can't say what I'd like to this person, but could you take over for me" variety. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding length of time between Eric's outburstsAgain, apologies if this is just me being obsessive-compulsive again. But everybody has bad days, even if only single bad days separated by months or years, and I think most of us hope if the motion passes both Eric and the encyclopedia might be around for some time. So, in as a not entirely unreasonable possibility, let's say Eric gets a three-day block this year, another in 2017, a one-week block in 2020, a one-month block in 2023, a three-month block in 2026, and in 2029 is taken to AE for a possible site ban for being incivil a total of 6 times in 15 years. Might it be reasonable to include some sort of indicator of maybe some sort of minimum or maximum length of time between outbursts for them to qualify as "successive" as per this remedy? John Carter (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
DeescalationLargely similar to John Carter above. If there is a method of escalation, then there should also be a method of deescalation. Perhaps the count gets moved back a step every 6 months since the last block?--v/r - TP 18:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Alternatives to incompetence ban?
A site ban based on the sort of behavioral criteria outlined in WP:Competence seems to me an unduly harsh measure to impose on User Carol Moore. Carol is a good person who wants to contribute to the project. Perhaps some structured mentorship, tutelage, and "check-ins" with an Arb would be a better way for the community to proceed. Steeletrap (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Steeletrap, I agree. I suggested that Carolmooredc needs some sort of supervision a few days ago here, followed up by a question to Carolmooredc in response to her reply here. I think most editors posting here or on GGTF are "a good person" (e.g.Lightbreather). But that doesn't mean they can't be massively disruptive on wikipedia, or that they have the competence required. EChastain (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- If CarolMooreDC steps forward and shows self-awareness of the issue and an openness to changing, then I would support a lesser sanction. But that hasn't happened yet. She was also sanctioned 6 months ago in another case and still carried on the same way. That's what explains the different results (possibly) for her and for Eric. Underneath all the posturing and bloviating, arbitration is just a negotiation. Carol hasn't offered anything, so the Committee is probably going to ban her. Jehochman 14:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, the people who need banning are Jehochman and Steeltrap for all the crap they've pulled; SITUSH/CORBETT/SALVIO/SPECIFICO/ and a bunch of their cronies.
- Some people seem to think that ArbCom is so naive they don't know that the Manchester Gangbangers and their cronies/minions are engaged in institutionalized harassment using ArbCom as one of their harassment tools. They think just explaining that will open their eyes and they'll do the right thing.
- No, the only thing that will clear Misplaced Pages of this vicious coterie is a national publicity campaign to pressure the WMF into enforcing its Terms of Service, including against culpable ArbCom members. (I see several Sitush/Corbett/ cronies/minions are running for the next Arbitration Committee.) And I'm one of dozens who see it that way, we just haven't decided where to organize our efforts. Just because their tactic worked on silencing 1.2 billion Indians with their Brit imperialist drivel doesn't mean it will work on silencing 3.3 billion women. After all 1/2 the members of the Board are women. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- As an admin entirely without any prior exposure to this conflict who just happened to see the above remarks by Carolmooredc as she was repeating them on Jimbo Wales' talkpage, I am finding this so far beyond the line that I have blocked her for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- FP, you got there just before me, I was typing up my own block notice. Please note that I warned Carol recently, explicitly about sexualized personal attacks such as "gang bang". Bishonen | talk 14:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC).
- Out-of-line comments and lightning fast enforcement. But it really illustrates a difference in approach. If Eric let loose in the same way, he'd just be using up a 72-hour block instead of a week-long block, under the proposed remedy. If Carol was burning out to prove a point, I think she made it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- A central finding in this case has been CMDC's WP:NOTHERE. There is no such issue with Mr. Corbett. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't this a violation of your IBAN? This comment isn't about lifting or clarifying your ban in any way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- A central finding in this case has been CMDC's WP:NOTHERE. There is no such issue with Mr. Corbett. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Out-of-line comments and lightning fast enforcement. But it really illustrates a difference in approach. If Eric let loose in the same way, he'd just be using up a 72-hour block instead of a week-long block, under the proposed remedy. If Carol was burning out to prove a point, I think she made it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The proposed remedies aren't in effect yet, but yes, it would be very smart for SPECIFICO to act as if they were. I am sure others can take up the slack while SPECIFICO ignores all discussions about CMDC. Jehochman 17:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- That remedy, is currently in effect, as it is a community remedy.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, that's something else. Normally we give a bit of leeway for people to participate in dispute resolution, but yes, SPECIFICO should stop talking about CMDC at this point. Jehochman 19:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
A strong signal to the GGTF
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am split between being disgusted and heartbroken by what I see happening here. So much could be said, but it's all been said before. The upshot is this:
- Five men and two women went before ArbCom because of disruptions at the WP:GGTF.
- Only one of the 12 arbitrators was a woman.
- This case's net result? Five men free to continue editing; one woman topic banned from the GGTF; another woman site banned.
Twenty-four hours ago, Eric Corbett was facing a site ban, and that would have been a net good for the project. I retired in large part because of him, and because of the (largely male) "community" that keeps making excuses for his behavior. I am here to speak for the dozens, probably hundreds, of good editors who have retired because of Eric Corbett and the agonistic editing style that predominates this community.
The current state of this case sends a strong signal to the (largely female) community that prefers - or especially expects - to edit in a more civilized environment: Sorry, helping guys like this means a lot more to us than helping someone like you. Lightbreather (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. ArbCom has said that Eric's behavior was unacceptable and that future outbursts will be met with escalating blocks. He either will change his style for the better, or he will be gone. I recommend you stop counting editors by sex, and instead look at each person as a unique human being to be evaluated by what they say and do, rather than by the shape of their chromosomes. Jehochman 17:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Jehochman, you said something similar above, but it is untrue. Proposal 2.3 says nothing to guarantee that Eric will "either will change his style for the better, or he will be gone." The proposed "remedy" is only to increase the length of his blocks after "subsequent breaches," up to five times, whereupon "the remedy may be reviewed." The "review" could very well be another round of this incredibly disruptive cheerleading for Eric and "off with their heads" for Eric's critics. Lightbreather (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- This type of comment, above, has no place in civilised discourse. There are no categories of people called "men" and "women". What a bunch of rubbish, this is. People need to held accountable for their behaviour, one way or the other. I don't know whether I disagree or agree with how this case was carried out, but I do know that such tribalism has no place here. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's privilege to think gender doesn't matter because it doesn't affect you directly. Gender plays a part in every interaction. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: That's absolute rubbish. You know nothing about me, about my "gender", or any such thing. Please spare me the soapboxing. We haven't got time for it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Try reading an intro text about gender and/or privilege and/or and social science. To suggest a master status doesn't matter is literally ridiculous. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- What exactly is a "master status"? I'm working on an M.A. in media and cultural criticism. I hardly need to read an "introductory text" about gender. I'm a Butlerian, if there ever was such a person. It is apparent that her message is lost on you. Resorting to tribalism is never acceptable in a civilized discourse. Yes, my wording there is ironic. Accept the irony. RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I question your education if you don't know about basic soc psych stuff. Master statuses are those that overlay every interaction. In the USA, they are typically race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and age. Not a fan of post structuralists like Butler in general (not to mention that she didn't cite West and Zimmerman at all in her "undoing gender"...); I prefer intersectional approaches. If you are really into cultural criticism, you'd know the very concept of "civilized discourse" is othering and tone policing. If you know Butler, you should know what privilege is. And if we're tossing out credentials, I'm ABD in sociology. Probably 5 years more in grad school. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not American, so I can hardly be expected to Americanise myself. Perhaps you'd note that I mentioned "irony". Given that you failed to pick up on said irony despite my clear indication that said irony existed, I can hardly take you seriously. Sadly, I might as well be a post-structuralist, though I'm not one for supplementary labels. I apologise if you are "not a fan", but perhaps instead of asking people to read "introductory texts", one might accept that there is a broad difference in opinion on this matter. I maintain that the comment above by Lightbreather was absolutely unacceptable, and that's that. I'm done, as we should not be mucking up this page any further. RGloucester — ☎ 23:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I question your education if you don't know about basic soc psych stuff. Master statuses are those that overlay every interaction. In the USA, they are typically race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and age. Not a fan of post structuralists like Butler in general (not to mention that she didn't cite West and Zimmerman at all in her "undoing gender"...); I prefer intersectional approaches. If you are really into cultural criticism, you'd know the very concept of "civilized discourse" is othering and tone policing. If you know Butler, you should know what privilege is. And if we're tossing out credentials, I'm ABD in sociology. Probably 5 years more in grad school. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- What exactly is a "master status"? I'm working on an M.A. in media and cultural criticism. I hardly need to read an "introductory text" about gender. I'm a Butlerian, if there ever was such a person. It is apparent that her message is lost on you. Resorting to tribalism is never acceptable in a civilized discourse. Yes, my wording there is ironic. Accept the irony. RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Try reading an intro text about gender and/or privilege and/or and social science. To suggest a master status doesn't matter is literally ridiculous. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: That's absolute rubbish. You know nothing about me, about my "gender", or any such thing. Please spare me the soapboxing. We haven't got time for it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's privilege to think gender doesn't matter because it doesn't affect you directly. Gender plays a part in every interaction. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- In last year's election , only ONE female admin ran. Non-admin (for right or wrong) virtually never get elected. The
overwhelmingmajority of editors here are men, this is undisputed. Gorilla won with 77.10% support, second only to 28bytes, and by any standard, a super majority of voters. So it stands to reason that when men here are given the choice to vote for a woman for Arb, and she is qualified, they are willing to support in exceedingly strong fashion, for it would have been impossible for her to win without the support of men. Furthermore, if we assume that ~10% of all editors are women, had every single one of them voted neutral or to oppose her, she still would have won her Arb seat, due to the strong support from men voters. The men at Misplaced Pages aren't the problem, it is the lack of women willing to run. QED.
- The problem isn't one of math, is one of perception. The way you present problems reminds me of the joke about the old Soviet Union, in which they play the US in a basketball game and lose. The next day, the Soviet newspapers read "US plays USSR in big match. USSR comes in second, US finishes second to last." Context is everything. My observation is that you draw a conclusion before you gather your facts, then only present the facts that support that conclusion. That is the modus operandi of anyone who is seeking to push a political belief rather than find out the truth. Put another way: A POV warrior. Dennis - 2¢ 19:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Consider for just 5 seconds why women might not be willing to run. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Probably some of the same reasons that men decline to run. The campaign can be hostile, and the job is very time consuming with too little thanks. Jehochman 19:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe they just have some sense and don't enjoy pain. God knows I never thought of running "for" ArbCom. "From" ArbCom (or the idea of me being on it), maybe, but never "for." John Carter (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Probably some of the same reasons that men decline to run. The campaign can be hostile, and the job is very time consuming with too little thanks. Jehochman 19:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Consider for just 5 seconds why women might not be willing to run. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's completely wrong. When female editors make up less than 10% of the community, we should expect that there will be the same proportion running, and being elected. So there is no problem with a reluctance to run at all; the make up of ArbCom is merely reflecting that of the community, which is in the nature of the election process. This has been strongly criticised by editors like Sue Gardner, who argued that addressing the Gender Gap will require ArbCom to be appointed in a different manner. So there is indeed a problem with math, but only for Dennis Brown. Gorilla ran on a platform of providing a female voice on ArbCom, so on a case like this, her vote carries more moral weight than the others. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Elen of the Roads was a female (and my RFA nom), so was Risker, so having a female Arb isn't new. Did their voices carry extra weight because of their gender, or simply because of the merits of their arguments? Personally, I didn't care what GorillaWarfare's gender was, or her platform. I voted for her because at the time, even before she ran for Arb, she had convinced me that she was reasonable in her admin duties and showed good judgement. For a long time, I had no idea she was a she. The name doesn't give it away. Her gender made no difference in my assessment of her fitness. So while her gender adds balance, and being in the minority brings different perspectives (which alone does add value), the weight of her arguments should be considered just as you would any other Arb, not more or less. THAT is equality. To say she needs extra power in her vote is a bit demeaning to women, don't you think? She doesn't need our charity or "protection", she is a grown woman, educated and capable in her own right. And the many emails and thank you notification from women tend to back me up. (Yes, I did gender check for those, only one was from a male out of all of them) Many women are offended at the idea of special treatment, because all they are asking for is a level playing field. As for the merits of GW's arguments, personally, I haven't seen her actually make any in this case. With little exception she has simply voted, leaving us to guess her reasoning. Trust me, I've been diff hunting, they don't exist. It would have been nice to actually see it in writing. If someone really wanted to make a statement, to persuade and make a difference by offering up some wisdom to help others change their mind, to teach us, this was the SuperBowl of opportunities, and now it is gone. Dennis - 2¢ 22:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's completely wrong. When female editors make up less than 10% of the community, we should expect that there will be the same proportion running, and being elected. So there is no problem with a reluctance to run at all; the make up of ArbCom is merely reflecting that of the community, which is in the nature of the election process. This has been strongly criticised by editors like Sue Gardner, who argued that addressing the Gender Gap will require ArbCom to be appointed in a different manner. So there is indeed a problem with math, but only for Dennis Brown. Gorilla ran on a platform of providing a female voice on ArbCom, so on a case like this, her vote carries more moral weight than the others. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, first, please explain the edit summary - They keep dragging me back - that accompanied your comment.
- Second, if Misplaced Pages is trying to attract more women editors (fill the gender gap), then it might behoove the committee to consider the votes of the one woman, GorillaWarfare, who sits upon it, rather than ignore her and push to once again give Eric Corbett, who has insulted dozens if not hundreds of editors over the years, yet another chance to keep doing it. As you say, this woman editor won her seat by a super majority. And this case is not about me, so I'd like it if you would, please, strike your "POV warrior" comment. I am not a POV warrior; I am a woman editor who was driven from editing on Misplaced Pages by its hostile editing environment. And coming back here just to comment on this, I'm meeting the same hostility. You, Lightbreather, have problems because you are a . Women are under-represented on Misplaced Pages (including ArbCom) because they aren't "willing" to run. Can you not see the uncalled for bullying and sexism in these kinds of statements? Lightbreather (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you are saying we should give an Arb a "super vote" power because of their gender, then I would find that offensive, regardless of the gender. And I feel that I've substantiated any claims in my statement above, so I would decline modifying it further. Dennis - 2¢ 20:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: "If you are saying..." No, that's not what I'm saying, and this case is not about me so again, would you please retract your statement? It's unnecessary and uncalled for. Lightbreather (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you are saying we should give an Arb a "super vote" power because of their gender, then I would find that offensive, regardless of the gender. And I feel that I've substantiated any claims in my statement above, so I would decline modifying it further. Dennis - 2¢ 20:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Second, if Misplaced Pages is trying to attract more women editors (fill the gender gap), then it might behoove the committee to consider the votes of the one woman, GorillaWarfare, who sits upon it, rather than ignore her and push to once again give Eric Corbett, who has insulted dozens if not hundreds of editors over the years, yet another chance to keep doing it. As you say, this woman editor won her seat by a super majority. And this case is not about me, so I'd like it if you would, please, strike your "POV warrior" comment. I am not a POV warrior; I am a woman editor who was driven from editing on Misplaced Pages by its hostile editing environment. And coming back here just to comment on this, I'm meeting the same hostility. You, Lightbreather, have problems because you are a . Women are under-represented on Misplaced Pages (including ArbCom) because they aren't "willing" to run. Can you not see the uncalled for bullying and sexism in these kinds of statements? Lightbreather (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- It was summed up nicely above, if you are good enough here on Misplaced Pages you can pretty much do almost whatever you want. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am supposed to be on Wikibreak, as my talk page clearly indicates. And "They keep dragging me back" is a poorly paraphrased movie reference, ie: humor. Like so many things you involve yourself in unnecessarily Knowledgekid, you are simply mistaken and as is often the case, you simply miss the larger point. Even I didn't comment here until I was dragged here, unwilling, by a comment taken out of context, to which I wasn't even notified, and had to find out by a 3rd party. I had no choice. Why you are here, I have no idea. Dennis - 2¢ 19:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well if you must know I got pulled in via GGTF. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you weren't named as a party and weren't named in the evidence then being here is by choice as this case was never about about GGTF, except in name. I would not have made the same choice. Dennis - 2¢ 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well at this point it is moot. I do not think there is much left to this case, anyways enjoy your break =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you weren't named as a party and weren't named in the evidence then being here is by choice as this case was never about about GGTF, except in name. I would not have made the same choice. Dennis - 2¢ 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well if you must know I got pulled in via GGTF. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am supposed to be on Wikibreak, as my talk page clearly indicates. And "They keep dragging me back" is a poorly paraphrased movie reference, ie: humor. Like so many things you involve yourself in unnecessarily Knowledgekid, you are simply mistaken and as is often the case, you simply miss the larger point. Even I didn't comment here until I was dragged here, unwilling, by a comment taken out of context, to which I wasn't even notified, and had to find out by a 3rd party. I had no choice. Why you are here, I have no idea. Dennis - 2¢ 19:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: I'm sorry, but it is very much disputed that "the overwhelming →majority of editors here are men", and we cannot and should not assume even for the sake of argument that female editors represent less than any particular percentage of editors. It's an invidious assumption that leads to this sort of partisanship. The GGTF does not speak for me, and not all of us female editors accept the results of the WMF's very bad polls, let alone assuming the percentage is low. This does not invalidate your main point, although I would also caution against any assumptions about why editors do or do not run for ArbCom; that's nobody's business but theirs. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- And you may be right. I was going by the last study by the Foundation, which I agree, is questionable. To be honest, I would be a poor judge of the percentage, as gender isn't my first consideration when addressing, working with, or conversing with fellow editors. Whether that is good or bad, I don't know, I'm simply not obsessed with it because it doesn't affect my actions. Dennis - 2¢ 19:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to be honest, usually I don't even see you all as people. You are signature blocks to me.--v/r - TP 20:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for saying that. It's nice to know that I'm not alone in thinking that way a lot of the time.John Carter (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to be honest, usually I don't even see you all as people. You are signature blocks to me.--v/r - TP 20:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- And you may be right. I was going by the last study by the Foundation, which I agree, is questionable. To be honest, I would be a poor judge of the percentage, as gender isn't my first consideration when addressing, working with, or conversing with fellow editors. Whether that is good or bad, I don't know, I'm simply not obsessed with it because it doesn't affect my actions. Dennis - 2¢ 19:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Who are these alleged dozens (or probable hundreds}? Yet again, we're seeing unsubstantiated mudslinging of the type so favoured by Jimbo. (And good point, Dennis). - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know about "hundreds" or even "dozens" but the loss of User:Slp1, for example, is a loss that I have felt keenly because she was a prolific content contributor and administrator with an exemplary grasp of our core content policies. She says she quit because of Eric (), Eric says she's lying (). Perception is the key issue here, although not in the sense in which Dennis Brown depicts it. I don't mind giving Eric another chance, provided that Carol gets the same level of forgiveness of forgetfulness. ArbCom appears to apply the rules differently here and it is sending a signal, intentionally or unintentionally. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well if you count LB that is 2 editors, Carol would make 3. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just for the record, here's the direct quote from Eric that supposedly chased Slp1 from the project: "It may well have been rewritten, but it needs to be rewritten again, properly this time." Follow the diffs. That's literally it. LHM 20:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Sonicyouth86: See: Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Stephen Hawking/archive1 - the context in which Eric Corbett's comment "It may well have been rewritten, but it needs to be rewritten again, properly this time" was made. His comment was the least of the criticisms there but:Slp1 responded: "Yup, that's exactly the kind of unhelpful, unkind comment that makes this place not worth the bother anymore. When people ask who you've driven off the project, you can now think of me." So why blame him? EChastain (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the article was delisted by another party, User:Dana boomer. It's not that Eric was some aurochs bellowing in the wilderness, digging in in the face of reason. There robust disagreement, what's wrong with that? 67.255.123.1 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know about "hundreds" or even "dozens" but the loss of User:Slp1, for example, is a loss that I have felt keenly because she was a prolific content contributor and administrator with an exemplary grasp of our core content policies. She says she quit because of Eric (), Eric says she's lying (). Perception is the key issue here, although not in the sense in which Dennis Brown depicts it. I don't mind giving Eric another chance, provided that Carol gets the same level of forgiveness of forgetfulness. ArbCom appears to apply the rules differently here and it is sending a signal, intentionally or unintentionally. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Lightbreather: You've just made an argument completely based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators and without any regard for evidence-based facts. That's the issue in this Arbcom case. Justice is not served by determining discriminatory distinctions and voting along those lines. Justice is served when we take an impartial view of the facts supported by evidence and weigh them against the principals and policies that we as a society have agreed upon. That's what Arbcom is structured to do. If you want a society that makes decisions based solely on demographics and ignores any and all forms of evidence-based justice, then please propose such a policy and put it to discussion.--v/r - TP 19:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- @TParis: I respectfully beg to differ. I have been following this case from the beginning. I just now went back to look at the evidence, findings of fact, and so on. There is nothing there that supports the current array of "remedies." Any uninvolved person comparing the Proposed findings of fact to the Proposed remedies must come to the conclusion that sexism is at play here, whether it's conscious or not. Eric, who is a man, is getting preferential treatment to Carol, who is a woman. They've been equally disruptive; they deserve equal treatment. They should either both be banned, or both be allowed to continue editing, under similarly restrictive conditions. Lightbreather (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Go to the proposed decision page, follow the principals, to the findings of facts based on those principals, to the proposed remedies based on the findings of facts and show us where the specific breakdown of process is. These generalized statements aren't going to be effective. You need to review each step and identify what you think went wrong and where. That's how this process works. As far as I can see, you're not considering any mitigating circumstances that favor Eric. That is the flaw I find in your process. You assume the only mitigating circumstance must be his gender. That, I find totally offensive and discriminatory.--v/r - TP 20:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- @TParis: I respectfully beg to differ. I have been following this case from the beginning. I just now went back to look at the evidence, findings of fact, and so on. There is nothing there that supports the current array of "remedies." Any uninvolved person comparing the Proposed findings of fact to the Proposed remedies must come to the conclusion that sexism is at play here, whether it's conscious or not. Eric, who is a man, is getting preferential treatment to Carol, who is a woman. They've been equally disruptive; they deserve equal treatment. They should either both be banned, or both be allowed to continue editing, under similarly restrictive conditions. Lightbreather (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I find it offensive that of all the editors expressing opinions on this page, I'm the one you're asking to defend her position, but OK.
- Proposed principles
- Purpose of Misplaced Pages: Both Carol and Eric have contributed "in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect," they have also, both, acted in ways "detrimental to the objectives of Misplaced Pages" (good faith and otherwise).
- Fair criticism: Frank discussion "is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies that prohibit behavior such as personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanisms rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums." Both Carol and Eric have repeatedly broken this "rule" - I use this word just to keep it simple - though Carol has tried much more often to use DR processes.
- Making allegations against other editors: Ditto, although in addition to seeking DR, Carol more often provides evidence and tries to resolve problems.
- Sanctions and circumstances: Both editors have made positive and valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages, though Eric mostly in content (70%) and Carol in a mix (30% content).
- Recidivism: or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.
- Proposed findings of fact
- Expletives: The arbitrators unanimously agreed that "Editors who know, or are told, that a specific word usage is reasonably understood as offensive by other Wikipedians should refrain from using that word or usage, unless there is a specific and legitimate reason for doing so in a particular instance."
- Carolmooredc: A strong majority (all male) agreed that evidence showed Carol had made four (kinds of) mistakes
- Eric Corbett: A majority agreed that evidence showed Eric had made four (kinds of) mistakes
- Eric Corbett collegiality/use of offensive terms: A majority agreed that Eric regularly uses offensive terms, knowing that they cause disruption
- Eric Corbett's history: A majority agreed that Eric has a long history of incivility
- Proposed remedies
- Carolmooredc banned: A majority votes to site ban Carol (rather than to admonish or topic ban)
- Eric Corbett prohibited: A male majority votes to give Eric - at least - five more chances to stop "swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors."
- So, both Carol and Eric have been disruptive, but they have also both made positive and valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages. Eric has been much more disruptive (30 blocks in 6.5 years) than Carol (4 blocks in 4 years). They've both sniped at others across multiple, inappropriate forums, but Carol has been more likely to use DR channels to try to solve problems. Both Carol and Eric have made positive and valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages, though Eric has contributed more content - but ArbCom is about behavior, not content, so I don't see any mitigating circumstance that explains why Eric should get a better deal here than Carol. They should either both be banned, or both be allowed to stay. Any other outcome is, intentional or not, a manifestation of the sexism that currently rules Misplaced Pages.
- --Lightbreather (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- You take offense? Again, you ignore mitigating circumstances. None of the editors are making wide sweeping generalizations and accusations of sexism here. That is a mitigating circumstance which causes you to receive special treatment. Not your gender, not your viewpoint, not anything else. The wide sweeping generalizations. Now that you've provided specific context for your opinion, we can discuss it. I'm particularly concerned that you generalize "four kinds of mistakes". The number is not the issue, what kind of mistakes have they made. That's a red herring if I ever saw one. Then you use Eric's block log. It is already agreed that Eric's block log contains both fair and legitimate blocks as well as unfair and illegitimate blocks. So generalizing those blocks is also a logical fallacy. Finally, you compare Eric's 70% article contributions to some 30% of Carols. While I am not arguing that Carol isn't a positive here, I actually would prefer to see her stay, I'm concerned that you've rationalized side a wide margin and you've also generalized those edits as well. What are the contents of the 70% and 30% edits? My main concern is that you are more interested in gathering statistics and demographics rather than fact-finding and your basing your opinion off of that.--v/r - TP 22:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Again, you ignore mitigating circumstances. None of the editors are making wide sweeping generalizations and accusations of sexism here. That is a mitigating circumstance which causes you to receive special treatment. Not your gender, not your viewpoint, not anything else. The wide sweeping generalizations.
- Huh? Yes, I take offense!
- Again, you ignore mitigating circumstances. None of the editors are making wide sweeping generalizations and accusations of sexism here. That is a mitigating circumstance which causes you to receive special treatment. Not your gender, not your viewpoint, not anything else. The wide sweeping generalizations.
- You take offense? Again, you ignore mitigating circumstances. None of the editors are making wide sweeping generalizations and accusations of sexism here. That is a mitigating circumstance which causes you to receive special treatment. Not your gender, not your viewpoint, not anything else. The wide sweeping generalizations. Now that you've provided specific context for your opinion, we can discuss it. I'm particularly concerned that you generalize "four kinds of mistakes". The number is not the issue, what kind of mistakes have they made. That's a red herring if I ever saw one. Then you use Eric's block log. It is already agreed that Eric's block log contains both fair and legitimate blocks as well as unfair and illegitimate blocks. So generalizing those blocks is also a logical fallacy. Finally, you compare Eric's 70% article contributions to some 30% of Carols. While I am not arguing that Carol isn't a positive here, I actually would prefer to see her stay, I'm concerned that you've rationalized side a wide margin and you've also generalized those edits as well. What are the contents of the 70% and 30% edits? My main concern is that you are more interested in gathering statistics and demographics rather than fact-finding and your basing your opinion off of that.--v/r - TP 22:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Now that you've provided specific context for your opinion, we can discuss it.
- No, now is when I'm dropping this discussion. What exactly do you plan to accomplish if I continue?
- --Lightbreather (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Then go be offended. Because if you've proven anything, it's that your only goal here is to be offended. Not to find resolution, not to get to the truth of the matter, not to work collegiality, but rather to be offended. It was your intention from the start and you've succeeded in doing it. You never approached this with a open mind, your mind was made up from the get-go. That's what you have proven.--v/r - TP 00:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Some people aren't happy unless they are "the victim", as odd as this sounds. The perpetual contrarian underdog. And no, I don't say this to be mean, it is simply a fact in human behavior that some people are like that. In this kind of environment, it is parasitic, draining resources that could be used for other tasks, such as writing articles. Dennis - 2¢ 00:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ks0stm or Penwhale, would one of you be kind enough to remove the above remark by Dennis Brown? It's completely uncalled for. I'm here to talk about the case, not to be talked about. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, this is really a disappointing and fundamentally unfair attitude for an admin to have. People have concerns, there's no need to paint people as inherently unreasoning parasites. You don't come across as reasonable yourself when you do that. When you disagree with people, should you be considered to be "playing the victim" or being a "perpetual contrarian"?__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. I described the behavior of some people, this looks similar. Always playing the victim is parasitic. That is not the same thing as calling someone a parasite, so you have to read what I actually wrote. This entire Arb case is parasitic: it takes away from time that could be doing useful things. I would never call someone a "parasite". One is a noun, the other is an adjective. Dennis - 2¢ 01:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did read what you wrote, and you're ascribing a motivation to "always be the victim". That's not a reasonable or fair way to characterize people you disagree with. It's fundamentally dismissive and prejudiced, not logical or helpful. It's not a serious way to consider other people and their concerns.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I never said it was a "motive", I said it is a behavior. Again, I feel like I made this clear. This is not the only time I've interacted with LB. Go read the archives at WP:WER. It will look very familiar. It isn't that I disagree with her ideals, I simply disagree with her behavior. On the other hand, you are mistakenly assigning motives to me here, saying I'm doing this because I disagree. I accept you do so in good faith, but virtually every comment I've made has addressed behavior, using specifically that word. If you do check the archives, you see me telling her I agree with most of her basic ideas, and I even probably vote for many of the same people. That doesn't excuse the behavior. Dennis - 2¢ 02:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- She has an opinion. You're saying that by expressing it, she's "playing the victim". How is that any different than any other editor? Is Eric Corbett "playing the victim" when he complains of other editors? "Playing the victim" is a great way to dismiss anybody's complaints. "Systemic bias" isn't some mythological concept, and I don't see it being treated seriously here as a concern. The idea that a crowd-sourced group of Misplaced Pages editors are so magically neutral to the point of dismissing it as a concern outright seems juvenile. It's an issue that affects larger and smaller groups than we have here. There's too many editors acting like any editor questioning the sentiment that "women have a perfectly fair situation here" has provided proof that that editor can't string together rational thoughts. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I never said it was a "motive", I said it is a behavior. Again, I feel like I made this clear. This is not the only time I've interacted with LB. Go read the archives at WP:WER. It will look very familiar. It isn't that I disagree with her ideals, I simply disagree with her behavior. On the other hand, you are mistakenly assigning motives to me here, saying I'm doing this because I disagree. I accept you do so in good faith, but virtually every comment I've made has addressed behavior, using specifically that word. If you do check the archives, you see me telling her I agree with most of her basic ideas, and I even probably vote for many of the same people. That doesn't excuse the behavior. Dennis - 2¢ 02:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did read what you wrote, and you're ascribing a motivation to "always be the victim". That's not a reasonable or fair way to characterize people you disagree with. It's fundamentally dismissive and prejudiced, not logical or helpful. It's not a serious way to consider other people and their concerns.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. I described the behavior of some people, this looks similar. Always playing the victim is parasitic. That is not the same thing as calling someone a parasite, so you have to read what I actually wrote. This entire Arb case is parasitic: it takes away from time that could be doing useful things. I would never call someone a "parasite". One is a noun, the other is an adjective. Dennis - 2¢ 01:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since Dennis insisted that his off-topic comment must stay, and since the clerks haven't removed it, I will say this: I'm not a "victim" in the pop psychology sense, though I certainly have been abused on other pages and here. I don't know what he means by "contrarian underdog" - and I don't care. If he didn't say what he said to be mean, I'm not sure why he said it. (Does it help with the case?) And there is certainly a parasitic draining of resources here, but it ain't me. I came here to comment about the case and those involved. Not about TParis. Not about Dennis Brown. Not about anyone else who is not an involved party or an arbitrator or clerk. And yet what do I get for sharing my opinions? That ain't cool. Lightbreather (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Once again, you are trying to portray yourself as a victim. You made sweeping generalizations based on gender. You were firstly asked to substantiate the claims, then you were rebuffed. You can claim this is about gender, but the truth is that you made accusations and you're upset no one took your accusations at face value. Please either correct your behavior or don't participate. But claiming to be a victim, and implying that your gender has more to do with it than your evidence-deprived arguments, is poisoning the well.--v/r - TP 05:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- TParis, please stop. This case is not about me, but nonetheless I answered your questions above. After looking at ALL the evidence, I believe gender - the gender of the involved parties and the gender of the arbitrators - was a significant contributing factor in the outcome. IMO, there is no other accounting for it given ALL the evidence. If you have reached a different conclusion, fine. If others disagree, fine. I am simply stating my observation, which I have a right to do. Please stop badgering me. Lightbreather (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Once again, you are trying to portray yourself as a victim. You made sweeping generalizations based on gender. You were firstly asked to substantiate the claims, then you were rebuffed. You can claim this is about gender, but the truth is that you made accusations and you're upset no one took your accusations at face value. Please either correct your behavior or don't participate. But claiming to be a victim, and implying that your gender has more to do with it than your evidence-deprived arguments, is poisoning the well.--v/r - TP 05:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Some people aren't happy unless they are "the victim", as odd as this sounds. The perpetual contrarian underdog. And no, I don't say this to be mean, it is simply a fact in human behavior that some people are like that. In this kind of environment, it is parasitic, draining resources that could be used for other tasks, such as writing articles. Dennis - 2¢ 00:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Then go be offended. Because if you've proven anything, it's that your only goal here is to be offended. Not to find resolution, not to get to the truth of the matter, not to work collegiality, but rather to be offended. It was your intention from the start and you've succeeded in doing it. You never approached this with a open mind, your mind was made up from the get-go. That's what you have proven.--v/r - TP 00:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Now that you've provided specific context for your opinion, we can discuss it.
- (edit conflict) My goal here, TParis, is not to "be offended," but to speak my mind - the same as everyone else. I've suggested what I see as a resolution: Ban both Eric and Carol, or figure out how both can continue to contribute. I have spoken what I see as the truth of the matter, and you have a right to your take on that, too - but not to berate me because you disagree. Your response to my post - which wasn't directed at you - was not collegial. (Do you think it was?) You accused me of making my observation "COMPLETELY based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators and without ANY regard for evidence-based facts." (Using words like "completely" and "without any regard" you made sweeping generalizations about what I said.) And you explained to me how "justice is served," as if I don't know how it's served. You suggested that I "want a society that makes decisions based solely on demographics and ignores any and all forms of evidence-based justice," which is untrue. If you disagree with me, fine, but please don't lecture me like an inferior. Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your goal here should be to write an encyclopedia. There are plenty of places on the internet to speak your mind. Chillum 03:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Let me quote your words back to you: "I am split between being disgusted and heartbroken by what I see happening here...Five men and two women went before ArbCom because of disruptions at the WP:GGTF...Only one of the 12 arbitrators was a woman...This case's net result? Five men free to continue editing; one woman topic banned from the GGTF; another woman site banned." What part of your statement includes facts, justice, and objectivity instead of demographics? The statement you made was completely based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators. If you'd like to make a new statement, feel free. But right now, the opinion you've shared with all of us is exactly as I described it. Furthermore, your final sentence explains what kind of justice you are seeking: "The current state of this case sends a strong signal to the (largely female) community...'helping guys like this means a lot more to us than helping someone like you'." Your making a call for justice to be determined based on gender. Arbcom doesn't 'help' anyone. Arbcom gets down to the facts.--v/r - TP 01:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- TParis, my words weren't an argument, but an observation - and every bit of it is factual. However, when you called my observation an argument and asked for details, I stopped what I was doing and gave you those. You're entitled to draw different conclusions than I about those details and the final outcome, but I won't argue with you about them any further. My post was for the involved parties and the arbitrators, not for you or Dennis Brown or anyone else. Well, except maybe for the record - same as for others who've commented here. Lightbreather (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Let me quote your words back to you: "I am split between being disgusted and heartbroken by what I see happening here...Five men and two women went before ArbCom because of disruptions at the WP:GGTF...Only one of the 12 arbitrators was a woman...This case's net result? Five men free to continue editing; one woman topic banned from the GGTF; another woman site banned." What part of your statement includes facts, justice, and objectivity instead of demographics? The statement you made was completely based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators. If you'd like to make a new statement, feel free. But right now, the opinion you've shared with all of us is exactly as I described it. Furthermore, your final sentence explains what kind of justice you are seeking: "The current state of this case sends a strong signal to the (largely female) community...'helping guys like this means a lot more to us than helping someone like you'." Your making a call for justice to be determined based on gender. Arbcom doesn't 'help' anyone. Arbcom gets down to the facts.--v/r - TP 01:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Lightbreather "They've been equally disruptive; they deserve equal treatment" - is your assumption, which you can't assume others to hold true. Have you or CarolMoore reviewed 400 Good Article nominations? How many editors have you both helped to write better? How much time have you spent editing articles? Finding sources and being scrutinised by others? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Eric cant take credit for all the work done in the articles, articles aren't owned by anyone here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Eric can take credit for all the work he has done - it is his work. The work is owned by Eric even if the article is not. We do not take intellectual ownership of the work - if it were a tangible object that could be taken.--v/r - TP 22:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Knowledgekid87 - I wasn't talking article ownership but effort a person puts into improving the 'pedia, either directly or by helping someone else edit, or reviewing their edits. When was the last time you did something substantive in this area and comply with our First Pillar? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss the first pillar plenty of soapboxing ha been going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Knowledgekid87 - I wasn't talking article ownership but effort a person puts into improving the 'pedia, either directly or by helping someone else edit, or reviewing their edits. When was the last time you did something substantive in this area and comply with our First Pillar? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Eric can take credit for all the work he has done - it is his work. The work is owned by Eric even if the article is not. We do not take intellectual ownership of the work - if it were a tangible object that could be taken.--v/r - TP 22:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Casliber, "They've been equally disruptive; they deserve equal treatment" is not an assumption. That they've been equally disruptive is supported by the evidence. That they deserve equal treatment, in light of the Proposed principles and Proposed findings of fact, is indisputable. Lightbreather (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just because you believe it does not make it so - you and I know the findings are points made, not sum total of all behaviour good and bad...actually I am not sure why I am having to explain this and I can't in good faith assume that you don't know this either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Eric cant take credit for all the work done in the articles, articles aren't owned by anyone here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Lightbreather "They've been equally disruptive; they deserve equal treatment" - is your assumption, which you can't assume others to hold true. Have you or CarolMoore reviewed 400 Good Article nominations? How many editors have you both helped to write better? How much time have you spent editing articles? Finding sources and being scrutinised by others? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Just reminding everybody involved here that, according to the text at the top of this page, "Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision." This can at least theoretically be involved in the matters of the findings of fact regarding the conduct of users and also, potentially, sanctions. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Lightbreather: I could be reading the page wrong, but it appears motion 2.2, to ban Eric, passed. Stating the optics of all this as it appears to you may trouble some, but they are what they are. If Eric isn't going to banned, and the erratic sassiness of Carol is banned, it will probably go over like a lead balloon. Let's not kill the messenger, folks.--Milowent • 20:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah the ban did pass but now that there is an alternative the arbs would have to choose one or the other, I mean it wouldn't make any sense to enact the newest proposal if Eric was banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- But if both pass, the most severe would presumably be the effective one, no? Its already crazy that two arbitrators are recused from voting on Eric but voted to ban Carol, that makes no sense to me as a matter of judicial fairness when the parties are on opposing "sides." Few people know Carol as compared to Eric, so the opportunity to give her this pass is much less likely to occur.--Milowent • 20:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- One of them, WTT, made prejudicial remarks about Carol at the outset. He apologised, but did not recuse. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- If they both passed then yeah the most severe one would be the effective one. As for the amount of people knowing about a given editor you have a good point there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, generally, no. The arbs generally list "1st choice" and "2nd choice" and the like, and the one which gets more 1st choices wins, although sometimes it takes a while for the arbs collectively to think over which of two acceptable proposals gets more 1st choices and which more 2nd and later choices, effectively determining which is the one that will be enacted. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- But if both pass, the most severe would presumably be the effective one, no? Its already crazy that two arbitrators are recused from voting on Eric but voted to ban Carol, that makes no sense to me as a matter of judicial fairness when the parties are on opposing "sides." Few people know Carol as compared to Eric, so the opportunity to give her this pass is much less likely to occur.--Milowent • 20:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Can we just wrap this whole sub-section up? I don't see anything to be gained out of it I apologize LB I know this has been an emotional case but I don't like where this is heading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I reject the repeated assertions by Carolmooredc, Neotarf, and Lightbreather that they are speaking for Misplaced Pages's women editors, and that somehow this should affect the outcome of this case. They do not speak for us, as at least 10 other women editors besides myself—two of them administrators—have made clear on this page. What they speak for is their world view which is replete with the most appalling gender and cultural stereotyping. I don't imagine any of these three will take a blind bit of notice of this, but it needs to be said. They do not have the monopoly on being offended. Voceditenore (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah but that would also include you as you also don't speak for all the women who haven't commented here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Straw man rebutting a claim she neither made nor implied. If you're going to continue with the ubiquitous commentary (there's no need, you've made your position abundantly clear, we've all heard you), please at least pay attention to what you're commenting on. Writegeist (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, Knowledgekid87, it does not include me. I do not claim to speak for all women editors. I am pointing out that these three, who claim to do so, manifestly do not. I find it presumptuous, offensive, and frankly embarrassing that they continue make these claims. Voceditenore (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I assume I'm one of the ten woman editors Voceditenore is referencing, as I spoke up earlier on this page. I completely affirm what Voceditenore is saying here, particularly in reference to the gender stereotyping. My concern is mainly about Carolmooredc -- everytime she lashes out with her claims of purported sexist conspiracy by certain male editors, I wince. If she truly wants to make WP more attractive to editors, then I can't imagine that she honestly thinks displaying a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and alienating anyone who slightly disagrees is going to advance this goal. It certainly is not advancing an actual, healthy discussion of the gender gap here. And like Voceditenore, I am not speaking for all women editors, just myself (although that should be obvious). The "Uppity female" comment -- please, just stop now. Ruby 2010/2013 05:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well Carol is already blocked and likely to be banned so talking more about her at this point I can see doing little good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Voceditenore, for the record, I have not said that I speak for all women editors or only for women editors. I speak for the many editors - mostly, but not all, women - for whom the editing environment on Misplaced Pages beats the crap out of any pleasure they might feel in trying to participate in it. This agonistic style here is generally a male style, though not all men thrive in it - and some women do. Or at least some men and women learn how to survive in it. Those who neither thrive or survive in such an environment aren't weak or inferior or a minority, and they shouldn't have to get uncivil or endure incivility to participate. Sources that support this have been given in this case, as well as on the GGTF and WER talk pages. Lightbreather (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ks0stm or Penwhale? Someone? Could someone please close this thread? I made it to express my observation about the outcome, but it's simply turned into a let's-belittle-Lightbreather thread for admins Dennis Brown and TParis. I am not an involved party in this case, just another concerned observer. Lightbreather (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A question for Salvio
Salvio, I note that the comment on your vote for Remedy 1.2 call Mrs. Moore a "tendentious editor". Is that something that should be associated with a finding? Evangeliman (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the behaviour described in her FoF can reasonably be defined as "tendentious", but I don't think it's necessary to amend the FoF to add the adjective, now that it's been supported by so many arbitrators. Salvio 10:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Remedy 2.3: Eric Corbett prohibited
Eric Corbett has had this to say about this case:
I don't give a flying fuck about the outcome of this ArbCom case. It was dishonestly presented and dishonestly accepted.
()This case would not have been accepted had my name not been attached to it. It's just another lynch mob.
()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.
()
In the 2012 ArbCom case regarding civility, he characterized the case as an opportunity for revenge, pure and simple
() and also stated, My future here is not for ArbCom to decide
() during the proposed decisions. Given these attitudes, can I ask Committee members to explain what causes them to believe that this particular remedy is likely to be effective and adhered to? I would hope they can offer up more than a single-word response to Seraphimblade's questions. I, JethroBT 23:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
| Collapse unproductive bickering |
|---|
|
- I agree with Jethro's concerns as well as the concerns others have voiced. Arbcom cases should aim to cut the gordian knot, not to produce further arbcom cases. With the attitude Eric has consistently shown as demonstrated by Jethro's diffs among others, does anyone really believe remedy 2.3 will end up with anything other than a contentious set of AE actions in the near future that lead to an arbcom case relitigating this entire mess? Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to third this concern. In particular, why do arbitrators think this is more workable than 2.1? Because it's easier to tell whether Eric is being civil than whether his input is disruptive? It seems to me (as a relative outsider) that in the past it has (for whatever reason) not proved easy to make judgments about civility when it comes to Eric. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I echo this as well. It seems that the fact-finding portion does not match the proposals here. Eric's words speak for themselves. By his own repeated admission and the preponderance of evidence, he will not change. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- For the record I also echo the concern given. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- The most likely course is that he'll help a bunch of editors with their articles, reviewing, writing etc. quietly and in good humour for a number of months. Previously, these take place in between each of these events. Hopefull the next leangth of peaceful and collaborative content editing will occur over a longer period. Is that problematic? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have no doubt he will continue to build articles and work with others. How this is any indication or guarantee that he will not engage in the behavior similar to what was presented in this case is entirely unclear to me, as it's clear he has written articles and worked with editors in the past. I would really appreciate hearing an Arbitrator's perspective before this is closed, which is probably going to happen soon seeing as I'm sure they are tired of all this. I, JethroBT 06:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- The most likely course is that he'll help a bunch of editors with their articles, reviewing, writing etc. quietly and in good humour for a number of months. Previously, these take place in between each of these events. Hopefull the next leangth of peaceful and collaborative content editing will occur over a longer period. Is that problematic? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- What is the point of rehashing the diffs above - other than pure spite and pique? We've all seen them and know of them, if those above leaping on them so delightedly, like a flock of echoing, half-starved vultures, have nothing more to offer - then lets close this case now, because surely it is all done and dusted. Giano (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are missing the point, Eric saying these things and then abruptly turning around and saying "Yes" When asked if he would stop looks a bit out there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- How on earth can they be passing a remedy that declares what an editor does or does not agree to? This whole arbcom malarkey gets more bizarre and more entertaining by the year. Good job the cameras were there this time. 80.174.78.59 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- "You're out of order!" *bangs gavel* Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Bang out of order, Your Honour!
- The IP in question here has made no other edits, and the fact of it being an obvious sockpuppet of someone else might merit attention. John Carter (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, you got me, John. Misplaced Pages justice at its best. 80.174.78.59 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- The IP in question here has made no other edits, and the fact of it being an obvious sockpuppet of someone else might merit attention. John Carter (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Bang out of order, Your Honour!
- "You're out of order!" *bangs gavel* Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'll ask a third time. Would any Arb care to make a serious response to my question instead of making jokes? (Yeah yeah, it's a funny movie...) I, JethroBT 00:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- It boils down to judgment—the conclusion you reach may be different from that arrived at by others, and no arbitration case has results which can objectively be justified to everyone's satisfaction. Re the issue raised: arbcom does not frame remedies that rely on parties behaving in a certain way—there are always options for dealing with unwelcome outcomes. For example, a clarification request could be raised at any time if it were felt necessary. Such a request can be dealt with quickly by motion and could alter sanctions in any manner. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi I JethroBT. Speaking entirely generally here, it's not always a good idea to take everything at face value as, for some people, bravura is an ingrained part of their on-line persona. Arbitration is a stressful business and different people react to it in different ways. Roger Davies 07:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Still not sold on CMDC ban; problem is her WP:FRINGE views
Carol's conduct in this case has been regrettable. But it appears to have been borne of frustration rather than a desire to obstruct the project. In my view, Carol's problem is her WP:FRINGE views on politics (especially libertarianism, WACO and the Israel-Palestine conflict), economics, and gender issues (including transgenderism). If she were topic banned from these issues, and were assigned a "mentor" to "check in" with her editing from time to time, I think she could contribute to the project. Steeletrap (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- But she takes it everywhere. Case in point at Wikiproject Editor Retention, she was trying to gather support to force prospective admin to answer a "scorecard" that told their political views. That is the same issue here, sterilize the Wiki of anyone that disagrees. Her justification for bringing it to WER was "Every editor retention issue starts as a small issue for one user", which seems innocent enough but reading through it is obvious that politics is her game. Everywhere she goes, it is nothing but politics. The problem isn't the venue, it is the editor. I'm sure I could dig up stuff elsewhere, it just seems pointless. Dennis - 2¢ 01:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Neotarf remedies
I had intended to write a beautiful peice of prose asking for a reconsideration of the current outcome regarding Neotarf. However, during my exercise today, I tripped on a protruding piece of asphalt, felt, and scrapped up both my hands and knees. And so my plea will be simple. Although I rarely agree on the details of the things Neotarf says, I have found them to be at least open minded and fair to consider other world views. Carolmooredc has received a previous admonishment in the past and I ask Arbcom to please consider an admonishment in this case for Neotarf. I admit that Neotarf can get passionate at time, but they are indeed reasonable and after speaking with them privately, I am confident that they have taken both this Arbcom case and my own personal comments to heart. Please consider the lesser admonishment. Both Eric and Carol were at least considered for an admonishment. All I'm asking is that the Arbs consider one for Neotarf in this case. I am sorry I cannot write more, address some of the evidence in this case, or anything else. My palms burn even as I write this.--v/r - TP 03:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- @TParis: What does an admonishment mean in this context? (can't find any explanation on arbcom pages) EChastain (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- It means, "ya messed up" and should induce a turn around.--v/r - TP 02:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- @TParis: What does an admonishment mean in this context? (can't find any explanation on arbcom pages) EChastain (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Please retitle this case
So, after spending a couple of evenings reading all this stuff (I'm depressed to think I used to do it all the time), it's pretty obvious that the decision being put forward by the Arbitration Committee, whatever its merits, has nothing to do with the Gender Gap Task Force. It will, however, negatively affect the ability of the Wikiproject to attract editors interested in addressing the gender bias and gender gap that everyone knows exists, including plenty of academics who have published on the issue. (Partial list of published reports here.) Unfortunately, the pages of the task force have frequently been overrun by editors who essentially deride the entire notion that the gender gap is a problem, which has adversely affected the willingness of less confrontational editors to participate there; having an arbcom case named after the wikiproject, particularly one that barely mentions the gender gap, and actively finds inappropriate any reference to gender gap bias at AfD (seriously, even I would have voted "keep" for two of the three articles cited, and I'm supposedly a renowned deletionist), will only reinforce the positions of those who insist there is no such thing as a gender gap on Misplaced Pages. I'm not going to beat you up on the decision itself, however it winds up; I've sat in those seats and I know that Arbcom doesn't always wind up with the case it expected when it voted to accept, and you have to work with the evidence you have. But the case you wound up with wasn't about the GGTF, it was about people being rude to each other and cursing each other out, which obviously not even Arbcom thinks is a gender-specific issue, given the sanctions that it has all but enacted. Call it Civility 2.0 or "Eric and Carol" or something like that, but please don't label it with the name of the GGTF. To do so is just one more example of the gender gap not being taken seriously by the community. Risker (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Civility Enforcement 2 would be a better name for this case. (This reminds me a bit of Digwuren that was eventually renamed to Eastern Europe.) --Guerillero | My Talk 05:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. Guerillero's suggestion is basically that which myself and Eric (perhaps others also) have been saying was the real focus for some time now. - Sitush (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- A good case title would be "Ephithets". A one sentence summary of the case would be "Don't use epithets to attack other editors." Jehochman 05:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with retitling. Current title is akin to BLP sanctions arising from "Footnoted Quotes." -- Euryalus (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'll note in passing that it doesn't seem as though any editor who regularly participates at the GGTF project (excluding perhaps those being sanctioned) has requested or suggested consideration for discretionary sanctions. Why are they being applied? This seems out-of-the-blue. Pages subject to discretionary sanctions tend to become ghost towns, not founts of sensible discussion. Risker (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Seconding.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Civility, inflammatory language, personal attacks & belligerence. Eric was uncivil by using inflammatory language and belittling others. Sitush authoring that BLP while not a personal attack per se, was seen by most as an attack on another editor. Some of the other parties under proposed sanctions have unabashedly made personal attacks and been needlessly argumentative. Belligerence has also been displayed by people not a party to this case by trying to use this case to settle old scores.Two kinds of porkBacon 08:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- This case, however, arose due to disruption which was regularly occurring at GGTF, e.g., the making of absurd proposals mocking the group, Sitush writing that incredibly crafty BLP about Carol. Eric joined in because he likes drama and was just his normal self, but doing it in the context of GGTF interactions. "Disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force" would be a better title, but removing any reference to GGTF from the title would mask the origins of uncivil behavior: wimmenfolk editing articles!!--Milowent • 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse Had the case been called something else I would likely have ignored it. Whether that woudl have been good or bad for the case I don't know, it certainly would have been good for me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC).
Analysis of 2.3
I wanted to say thank you to the arbs (esp. Roger Davies) for being willing to consider a compromise on the Eric Corbett ban. I'm not entirely satisfied with the wording, but it is definitely an improvement. I realize that a lot has been said about the new 2.3 remedy, and I tend to agree with much of what User:MastCell has said above. Anyway, I wanted to provide my own analysis for what it's worth. This assumes that the reader has the following priorities: 1) Building the encyclopedia, 2) Retaining good editors, 3) Reducing time-wasting "drama", and 4) Keeping a civil workplace, in that order. (Editors who weigh the priorities differently may disagree with my analysis.)
- Pros
- Improvement over alternatives (status quo vs. indef ban). Retains a good editor, and more likely to change his behavior than the status quo.
- Opens the door to other creative solutions. We have more tools in the box than just the banhammer.
- Provides a set of clear consequences, putting Eric more in control of his future.
- Includes a commitment from Eric to try harder
- Compromise between editors who wish to see "traditional" escalating blocks and those who prefer short blocks for civility infractions
- Cons
- Not the solution of lowest "drama"
- For the remedy to work well we need two things to happen. Eric has to behave and the anti-Eric people have to not try to game the system by going after him for minor issues. I'll let the reader calculate the odds of both of those things happening.
- The schedule for the escalating blocks inherently makes it more prone to drama by raising the stakes. Repeated 72 hour blocks (as I suggested here) are short enough that it won't be worth it for the community to freak out. With the higher stakes though, Arbcom will have to wade through an ocean of comments by involved parties every time things break down.
- It really does look bad for us to just ban the women in the GGTF case...I feel particularly bad about CMDC...yes her behavior was inappropriate, but as with Eric, people were pushing her buttons too.
Anyway, I'm definitely not asking for threaded comments here—there's enough text on this page—but I wanted to leave this message for the arbs. Also, in case you're interested, I do consider myself "uninvolved" even though I've been following some of the players here on and off for probably 2 years. My main motivation has been to put a lid on the time-wasting drama and save some of the thousands of man/woman-hours that would be much better used elsewhere. I do have some strong opinions on how to best fix this, but I think I've been pretty pragmatic about the whole thing. Thanks for listening! ~Adjwilley (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand why Arbcom is micromanaging the length of the blocks, (Redacted) Risker (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Redacted comment. Do not restore content. AGK 19:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. I would add that it could easily be argued (and has above by Carrite) that using only 48 hour blocks for basic infringements would actually be more effective. It extracts a price for bad behavior which acts as a preventative. The added benefit is that a 48 hour block is much less likely to be debated, as it would be over before a decision was made at ANI, rendering the discussion moot. ANI discussions would be less likely, as would AE filings. It isn't just Eric, when dealing with any dedicated, productive and established editor (regardless of block log), a 24-48 hour block is a good rule of thumb when it comes to simple infractions. Dennis - 2¢ 14:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- (Redacted) Risker (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Redacted comment. Do not restore content. AGK 19:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Point taken, and good advice. I still feel my point is valid, although it doesn't tie into yours as neatly as I thought. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- (Redacted) Risker (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Redacted comment. Do not restore content. AGK 19:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. I would add that it could easily be argued (and has above by Carrite) that using only 48 hour blocks for basic infringements would actually be more effective. It extracts a price for bad behavior which acts as a preventative. The added benefit is that a 48 hour block is much less likely to be debated, as it would be over before a decision was made at ANI, rendering the discussion moot. ANI discussions would be less likely, as would AE filings. It isn't just Eric, when dealing with any dedicated, productive and established editor (regardless of block log), a 24-48 hour block is a good rule of thumb when it comes to simple infractions. Dennis - 2¢ 14:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, if you view some of Eric's gendered slurs as 'simpe infractions,' I'm not sure what to say. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- And I'm tired of this gavaging of American ideals down the gullet of an international community, and I'm an American. The last time Eric called someone a cunt, he was blocked, and I was the first person on his talk page to say the blocking admin did exactly the right thing. Not because of gender, but because it was a personal attack. For god's sake, not everything is about gender. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not everything is about gender, but explicitly gendered slurs are. Which he's been using with impunity for years. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Trying to formalise something more elaborate than a warning for Eric may be over-thinking the thing and setting up a game where nobody wins. It may be more effective to simply warn him; and if he comes before you again with a demonstrated renewed pattern of inappropriate behaviour, deal with that in light of his breach of the commitment given here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- What committment? He's failed to make any clear committment whatsoever, instead just comparing arbcom to the Star Chamber. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Here he agreed to stop shouting at and insulting people. That's the problem, really. The insulting address. I'm a bit worried about the ban on Carol. A bit worried that she's being flicked off by a bunch of generally well-meaning but deeply, unconsciously sexist men. Is that what's happening there? (I haven't looked at the case against her.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- A one word answer is hardly a strong statement of anything. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- He compated arbcom to the Star Chamber?! Crucify him! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Here he agreed to stop shouting at and insulting people. That's the problem, really. The insulting address. I'm a bit worried about the ban on Carol. A bit worried that she's being flicked off by a bunch of generally well-meaning but deeply, unconsciously sexist men. Is that what's happening there? (I haven't looked at the case against her.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- What committment? He's failed to make any clear committment whatsoever, instead just comparing arbcom to the Star Chamber. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I point out that Kevin Gorman is just sore at Eric because he received an Arbcom strong admonishment for his ridiculous persecution of Eric Corbett. Clearly Kevin does not like to be made to look a fool; this why we see him dancing up and down these pages almost beside himself with disappointment because he fears Eric will remain as a reminder of his foolishness. Giano (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
After -- no exaggeration -- years of prelude, and two and a half months of arbitration activity the committee has gathered a majority eight votes on a remedy which is neither a green light for Eric to continue interacting in a way a significant portion of the community feels inappropriate nor a site ban. Opinions are about the remedy are fine, but sometimes it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to keep them to ourselves, and it's just unrealistic for any us to add our two cents and not expect replies. NE Ent 19:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Quick question
Sorry if this is answered I above, I was just skimming the case, and am a little confused. Can remedies 2.2 (banning Eric) and 2.3 (prohibiting Eric) both pass, and would that mean that 2.3 goes into effect after he returns from a site ban? Thanks in advance for the clarification. Go Phightins! 14:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note the "second choice" vote. Dennis - 2¢ 14:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- AFAIK - If both remedies pass? 2.2 would kick in, once 2.3 failed. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not really, actually. When two remedies are incompatible with each other and have both been supported by a majority of arbitrators, to determine which one of them actually passes, the clerk implementing the decision needs to check which proposal got more support votes or more "first choice" support votes. Of course, just to be on the safe side, clerks usually ask arbs for confirmation or arbs themselves decide to switch to oppose the remedy they don't want passing (or, simply, add a first choice/second choice the their votes). In this case, if 2.3 passes, 2.2 fails and vice versa; it's impossible for both remedies to pass at the same time. Salvio 15:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- These two are not incompatible. Very few remedies are. Clearly a banned user will not be breaking any editing restrictions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC).
- When we pass two such remedies, it is so that the less severe one continues to apply after the site ban is successfully appealed (at some point in the future). AGK 08:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes to summarise. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC).
What a farce
Please take this discussion to an editor's talk page or a Wikiproject page. It's not helping the arbitrators to make a decision. Thank you. Jehochman 18:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am most concerned here with the bullsh*t promoted as facts in the justifications for interpretations of editor actions. I am deploying bullsh*t as a technical term, referring to the use of scientific "facts" with no science whatsoever, to support hateful opinions so that they don't seem quite so hateful ("It's science, not my disdain. I'm neutral." they will say). Above, one admin argues that it is "human nature" to play the victim in order to discount LB's arguments. Cites or GTFO, because that contradicts everything we know about social psychological patterns and institutional betrayal, particularly for groups marginalized within various communities. Given the types of harassment that occur on the GGTF -- with editors appearing to produce the same bullsh*t as the admin above -- we should be more critical of editors who mobilize bullsh*t to win arguments than those who tell bullsh*ters to STFU. Because really, in the adult world, when you make up bullsh*t, people tell you to STFU. I would like to see action taken against admins that so callously makes up bullsh*t to censor Misplaced Pages and protect the forms of male privilege on here (more about this momentarily). I would also like to see a more equitable gender representation among the ArbCom members "adjudicating" this "case" so that we don't continue to see the same accepted bullsh*t that comes out of Wikipedians traveling in packs.
Then we have the "Butlerian" who (I'm not clear is or is not an administrator) clearly didn't understand the Hegelian implications of Butler, who does not argue that there is no such thing as gender/sex binary, but, rather, argues that gender exists in the dialectic between a performative set of practice and material relations of force (that's Althusser's and Foucault's philosophical contribution to Butler's project) that are differently inscribed upon sexed (racialized, and classed) bodies. One dimension of Butler's argument can be taken as thus: gender is performative, and women, genderqueer, and trans* folks are just as capable as reproducing misogyny as cis-gendered men -- that is a Butlerian assertion we should be dealing with in the GGTF, too (but the project can't do everything, and I recognize this). The Gender Gap is not as easy to understand as it would appear, since some women are complicit in and benefit from (so they think) masculine domination.
This is all to say that Wikipedians need to take a more proactive stance in understanding that there is a serious gender problem on Misplaced Pages, one in which misogyny is upheld through utter bullsh*t with little repercussion (and sometimes celebration), and editors who work their asses off to increase gender consciousness get punished when they tell bullsh*ters to STFU. When folks on the GGTF are harassed, and then get called harassers as they keep on keepin on in spite of the harassment, then they get labeled the harasser? How does that make sense to ANYONE? That's right - it's because consensus. Well, when the majority of Misplaced Pages is a bunch of sexist as*holes (Please see Aaaron James on the ethical argument surrounding this term), then what you get is an as*hole consensus.
And that brings me to my final point... Consensus DOES NOT INVOLVE VOTING. I don't care how many people "support" or "oppose," because that's not what consensus is about. Given the ways in which some admins are full of bullsh*t, as per above, they are not capable, nor honest, about consensus. They use "science" so that they don't have to be open. They don't come to the process with an open mind, because it is filled with opinions made bulsh*t by fake scientific facts that they use to justify their "open minded" interpretation (this has a long history). That means this whole consensus process, from top to bottom, is just an exercise in maintaining the status quo -- hence the one woman involved, who, if you follow the diffs, is clearly -- but not silently -- being harassed, is being banned. Because, you know, consensus is about telling the margnialized to STFU because they don't matter (sarcasm).
I end my rant with a great quote from Fred Moten's _Undercommons_ that I think folks need to think about: "I just need you to recognize that this sh*t is killing you, too, however much more softly, you stupid motherfucker, you know?" (140-141) Bullsh*t is a very harmful practice, and misogyny changes us in ways that are not good for our own interpersonal relationships. The best course of action now? Drop the whole thing, and move on. Further disruption on the GGTF -- meaning people who show up with bullsh*t -- get banned. Thebrycepeake (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not an "administrator", and this is not the place for extensive philosophical debate. If you want to debate the finer points of Butler, I'd be happy to do so on my talk page. I don't think I ever said there is "no such thing" as a gender binary, but as I say, that type of discussion has no place here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree - these types of conversations have everything to do here, because bullsh*t is constantly is being mobilized to legitimate the terrible decisions of individuals upholding a discriminatory system. And those of us who speak up about it get told that "these conversations don't belong here, they belong over there." And when we "comply" with that request we get told we're "harassing people across multiple pages."
- More than my philosophical disagreement with you (or maybe I misunderstood you, and am willing to completely admit that if that's the case), I wanted to use your Butler reference to get at the fact that "women disagree with CarolMooreDC" does not mean that there isn't some form of gender oppression going on here. Thinking back on it, I do regret that I used your debate as a vehicle for that point, and hope you'll accept my apology for any ill feelings. Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Can a clerk add User:Thebrycepeake to this case and cite this massive casting of aspersions? Thanks.--v/r - TP 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why not just impose a block? I understand the anger but casting aspersions is another thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)
- Really? You're suggesting to ban me for saying that this process is wrought through with problems? What a great way to be productive Wikipedians aimed at making the encyclopedia better. I apologize, I mistook this as a consensus driven process, where the ArbCom members are held to the same standards/WP:Policies as the rest of us editors/Wikipedians. Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Let's not be so intolerant of ideas that might help improve wikipedia. A discussion on how certain arguments repeated ad nauseam prevent Misplaced Pages from being more representative is not a bad discussion to have at all, though I have to agree with RGloucester, this is not the place for such a debate. Correct Knowledge 18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- We're not intolerant of ideas. We're intolerant of toxic behaviors that divide, develop grudges, and draw lines of war. There isn't a single editor on Misplaced Pages that believes it should be dominated by any demographic. Most editors are social-advocates for equality, including myself. What we don't tolerate are the kind of battle cries for war that Thebrycepeake has just screamed. This isn't a battle, this is a collaboration. We're going to fix the gender gap together, not by shaming anyone who isn't willing to blindly follow the leader.--v/r - TP 18:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Carol's ban
I've just read through the findings regarding Carol and want to mention that I think a site ban is excessive. In her case, too, a warning and a commitment from her (to be much more careful with her accusations) would be more than sufficient. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree.I wouldalsolike to have seen some discussion of Robert McClenon's framing of this case. pablo 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I too have difficulty with it. Carol simply needs to read her posts before pressing save, and remove anything that is, directly or indirectly, casting aspersions on other editors, named or unnamed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC).
- I agree that this is excessive. No one who was familiar with what happened wanted the case to go ahead (because there were other ways of dealing with the problem that hadn't yet been tried). Evidence was therefore not presented that would have shown the pattern of insults that were aimed at Carol and the GGTF, and how the situation evolved. It's difficult to get a sense of that after the fact, because the GGTF talk page wasn't always archived chronologically, and threads were opening elsewhere too. Several of the people who caused the trouble aren't even named in the decision, yet two of the editors who tried to stop it (Carol, the main target, and Neotarf, who arrived to help) are sanctioned. SlimVirgin 18:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- But that assumes that the proposed remedy is based only on the interactions at the GGTF. As is noted eldewhere this case has had very little to do with its title. Actually, I thought this remedy was going to be inevitable just from her postings on the case talk pages alone (coupled with her previous arbcom sanctiin). DeCausa (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- A ban of Carol would be a ridiculous miscarriage of justice, so I find it difficult to believe it will actually happen. The case was opened to consider disruption at GGTF by editors outside the group, it was not brought to deal with Carol's responses to unbelievable things such as Sitush writing a BLP about her, one of the most stealthy and creative attacks ever seen in the history of Misplaced Pages conflicts. Two arbitrators have recused themselves from opining on Eric, who are also two of the votes to ban Carol - could you imagine a judge recusing himself from considering punishments against one defendant, and then deciding to convict another defendant? Carol is flighty and takes on those that engage her like a deranged Mary Poppins, but you don't see true ill-will from her; if that is sin, it is not a sin worse than Eric's mean-spirited and truly impressive take downs. If Carol is banned and Eric is not banned, I will make a nifty black badge that says "FREE CAROL" on my user page in silent protest. Yes, I can't help see humor in these things, but it really is turning out quite crazy here.--Milowent • 20:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think one can see "ill will", certainly. pablo 20:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- One more in agreement that this is excessive. --GRuban (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I also agree that this is excessive, if Eric can have all of these options I feel that Carol should be given the same chance. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I massively disagree that options should be the same for both editors. Carolmooredc is waay more disruptive to[REDACTED] as a whole that is Eric Corbett whose objectionable comments discussed in this arbcom are short and succinct, hugely less bytes (or whatever) than hers and don't require ferreting around to find proof. Many of assumptions about him are taken from his talk pages where a user has somewhat more liberty. What about her repeated statement of "fact" with no supporting evidence? What about her tendency to make personal attacks on those she disagrees with? And her typical interpretations of criticisms of her behavior, the personal opinions of others, requests for supporting evidence and other general comments by others as personal attacks on her? What about her tendentious editing, her battleground behavior, her frequent cross-posting of her long complaints (on talk pages of others including Jimbo Wales talk pages, the GGTF talk pages, WER talk pages and at ANI, e.g. Disruption of Wikiproject?
What about her lengthy and confusing walls of text, generally without supporting evidence? And her misunderstanding of wiki procedures, guideline etc. claiming WP:NOTAFORUM means that editors can't post on forum pages such as the GGTF talk page?
And her tendency to confuse issues, such as conflating systemic bias in[REDACTED] articles with "gender disparity" or "gender gap" in editors' gender on wikipedia, offering evidences such as Misplaced Pages#A_minority_of_editors_produce_the_majority_of_persistent_content to mean that this proves systemic bias against female editors? And her seeming belief that only the opinions of "women" have relevance to the GGTF and her obsession with the gender of editors rather than their contributions to the pedia? And her clear POV and soapboxing?
And her assumptions that anyone without a female-sounding name must be a "guy"? Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is not about the gender of editors; though the goal of increasing the percentage of female editors certainly is. And her failure to follow Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide which says under Creating a WikiProject - Before you begin Identify the best scope? (If this had been done, it would have avoided a whole lot of problems.) As I have said, Carolmooredc needs close supervision of some kind as IMO she doesn't edit responsibly now. (Perhaps she did in past years, and I'm not calling for banning her if something can be worked out.) EChastain (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- You've divined that "Carolmooredc is waay more disruptive to[REDACTED] as a whole that is Eric Corbett" in the six weeks that you've been here? Not to mention Carol's other supposed sins and character flaws (like having a different POV from yours). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm tremendously impressed by your grasp of the complicated history of this particular issue and your confident mastery of the language, policies and norms of en.Misplaced Pages in such a short time here. Welcome, I hope you like it here and decide to stay. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- EChastain hits the nail on the head. Carolmooredc is a net negative to Misplaced Pages, she has a long-standing pattern of many kinds of abuse, and above all she cannot take responsibility for her own malfeasances, such as the sickening series of bogus WP:SPI accusations she set loose on me in 2011 purely on the basis of her politics and her paranoia. (They all came up empty. No apology though; she is after all the Innocent Lamb Herself.) The one thing she was *really* good at was the martyrdom drama card: help help mean sexist men are beating up The Innocent Lamb Herself just because she's an uppity woman. Oh, is that not dramatic enough? Let me post a really stupid comment about it here, with language intentionally redolent of gang rape, and then repost it on Jimbo's talk page too for maximum drama drama drama. Goodwinsands (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I massively disagree that options should be the same for both editors. Carolmooredc is waay more disruptive to[REDACTED] as a whole that is Eric Corbett whose objectionable comments discussed in this arbcom are short and succinct, hugely less bytes (or whatever) than hers and don't require ferreting around to find proof. Many of assumptions about him are taken from his talk pages where a user has somewhat more liberty. What about her repeated statement of "fact" with no supporting evidence? What about her tendency to make personal attacks on those she disagrees with? And her typical interpretations of criticisms of her behavior, the personal opinions of others, requests for supporting evidence and other general comments by others as personal attacks on her? What about her tendentious editing, her battleground behavior, her frequent cross-posting of her long complaints (on talk pages of others including Jimbo Wales talk pages, the GGTF talk pages, WER talk pages and at ANI, e.g. Disruption of Wikiproject?
- I, too, think banning Carol is excessive if we're going to give Eric another chance. They should either both be banned, or both be given another chance. Lightbreather (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can't agree with this. The remedies don't have to be equal, but in this case I think less draconian measures for both Carol and Eric (each considered on their own merits) are likely to bring about the most improvement and least harm to our shared enterprise . --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Not just in this case, but in general discussions about civility across WP etc. I've noticed a really unfortunate trend in terms of the wider support for certain editors.
- Editor A and Editor B disagree. Editor B breaks various WP rules. A group of supporters of Editor B point to, what they call, "the passive-aggressive behaviour by Editor A that made Editor B do it."
- Some time later, Editor A and Editor B disagree again over something. This time it is Editor A that breaks the rules. The same group of supporters of Editor B chirp "rules are rules", "no exceptions".
- The support of Editor B is based entirely on whether they agree politically with the changes to articles that Editor B has made, or with the stance they take in certain circumstances and very little to do with the broader concept of civility.
It is a bad (and frankly, childish) habit to jump onto any editor's talk page and tell them "Ahhhh, there, there, I can see that you were provoked." and then run over to the other editor's talk page crying, "Yah, booooo, hiss. You're always wrong." All it does is inflame the situation. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@Milowent. A ban of Carol would be a ridiculous miscarriage of justice, so I find it difficult to believe it will actually happen. The case was opened to consider disruption at GGTF by editors outside the group, it was not brought to deal with Carol's responses to unbelievable things such as Sitush writing a BLP about her, one of the most stealthy and creative attacks ever seen in the history of Misplaced Pages conflicts. If you keep an eye on things, I predict you will find similar things happening to user after user, not just CMDC. *All* of this is of absolutely no surprise to me. Baiting and harassment leading to false moves and more baiting and harassment leading to explosions, and blocks, bans. All of this is a routine, predictable affair, but understood by few outside the ones who misuse this routine.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I support the ban of Carol Moore. I look forward to her launching of the tell-all website in January or February. Carrite (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Carolmooredc Prohibition remedy?
A prohibition remedy for Carolmooredc should be considered, with the same penalties as in Eric Corbett's prohibition remedy. It could be based on her promising not to bring up male/female issues or delving into such topics. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I support this idea as reasonable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Doubt arbs will be interested in this idea given her recent comments... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Late evidence; ban justification
Adding this per Roger's suggestion on evidence talk:
Carolmooredc's aggressive gender focused engagement is detrimental to both the project as a whole and serious, collaborative discussion of gender related issues and solutions thereto. Consider , interjected into a discussion where gender had not been explicitly raised (please review prior context of discussion when evaluating diff).
In the general context, advocating for a position which is supported 9 to 2 on current voting could be considered both a waste of time and piling on; I'm presenting mostly for the benefit of the opposes, to illustrate just the general unpleasantness and to refute the notion that the ban is "unfair" because CMDC is "provoked" into her responses. NE Ent 00:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
References
- Carcharoth's vote not in total as his stated oppose is based on the proposed time of the ban, not the principle.
- Um, the diff you provided makes no mention of gender. Did you include the wrong one?__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The diff is the intended one. NE Ent 01:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Then it doesn't make your point. She didn't "explicitly mention" gender. In that diff she says that putting a swear word on the front page would reinforce a stereotype of[REDACTED] as a place where people make juvenile jokes about sex. That has nothing to do with the gender of who's making the jokes. And this is a ridiculous thing to say someone should be banned over. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The diff is the intended one. NE Ent 01:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The other comments in the discussion are hardly any better. This does not prove your point. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yet, Kevin you have been endorsing and shrieking with approval when belated diffs are added in an attempt to discredit Eric. You seem to have no principles or moral judgement whatsoever. Giano (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with others that this does not comport with your statement. Frankly this didn't even need to be brought up even if it was as you said. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Fuck book was obviously proposed to titillate, and Carol pointed out that it mostly titillates teen boys when you do that. The very idea that someone would suggest this supports a ban just shows how thorough the gender gap is.--Milowent • 03:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Milowent, don't perpetuate the same mistake and mischaracterization. Carol didn't mention anything about "boys" there. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I guess my powers of comprehension exceed regular mortals!--Milowent • 05:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- This has been going on all through this case and previously too. People keep on railing at CMDC for unworthwhile, ridiculous reasons, putting up diffs and arguments as if it has substance, and the community and the arbs keep on failing to stop that rampant harassment and baiting, which continues even through these case pages, including this very page. It is no surprise that CMDC became unsettled and has made a couple of false moves. If you apply heat to a pressure cooker, and want to put a lid on it with NPA on the pressure cooker, it is going to explode. The laws of physics are stronger than NPA. That the ban is being applied because CMDC exploded from the baiting and harassment on these pages 'during this case means that the ARB is punishing CMDC for their own failure to stop the rampant baiting and harassment of CMDC. Excellent. No need to reconsider anything.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Gang Bangers
| That's enough, folks. Unproductive. Roger Davies 17:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
It may have been mentioned somewhere on this page but what if this is just referring to gang members and not a sexual connotation...Maybe I just have a dirty mind but getting frustrated and popping off at the mouth shouldn't be the primary justification for a ban which I see many arbs have cited as a reason to ban. Maybe even as a connotation of conspiracy would have netted a block and the ban would've passed anyways...just thought i'd chip in on that one. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC}
This is Misplaced Pages. We should now have a long and pointless discussion about whether it's worse to call somebody a cunt or a gang banger. Or we could all retire to Jehochman's dinning room to eat roast turkey and stuffing and sing Alice's Restaurant. I was not offended, as a target of the gang banger attack, and it's silly to think somebody would be banned merely for using that word. I enjoy a good creative insult that's not personal in any way. Obviously I'm not a gang banger. Nobody would ever think I was. Jehochman 03:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Could someone please undo RD's removal of my last comment? When I started it, the discussion was not hatted. When I pressed "Save," there was my last comment, though the discussion was hatted. I made it in good faith, and the only edits I made after the discussion was hatted were minor ones. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Scope of topic bans
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm sure all arbs already have this in mind, but to reiterate, the normal scope of topic bans imposed by ENWP's arbcom is ENWP alone, not other Wikimedia mailing lists or projects. Given the fact that the gendergap is one of a handful of explicitly stated strategic priorities for the WMF, I wanted to state explicitly that I will not be enforcing any topic ban on either side on gendergap-l unless that participant is disruptive in their own right on the list. Further, since it is one of quite few explicitly stated priorities of the Foundation, I'll be appealling beyond arbcom if a participant on gendergap-l is sanctioned on the English Misplaced Pages for their participation on the list unless it's for significant outing or something of that nature - I don't think it's within arbcom's remit to execute remedies contrary to the movement's strategic plan on any project but ENWP. I would likewise expect that metawiki grant requests for funding related to closing the gendergap etc would never be actioned upon by arbcom. Hopefully when thinking about the topic ban remedies everyone already had this in mind, I just wanted to explicitly bring it up in case it influenced anyone's thinking. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Kevin, I think you can safely assume that ArbCom have no intention of exceeding their remit. I am sorry to say that your comment looks very much like a power trip. Every person is important, but please remember that you are no more important than anybody else. Thank you. Jehochman 04:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Pointing out something that significantly effects how a remedy will play out in reality is not a power trip. Having editors active on the English Misplaced Pages forbidden to discuss a particular topic on-wiki but free to discuss the details of the project on another officially sanctioned WMF project plays pretty significantly different than a standard tban. I can also think of some arbcom decisions in the past that certainly exceeded their remit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Asking politely, "How does this intersect with these other things," is welcome. The power trip centers around, "I'll be appealling beyond arbcom if a participant on gendergap-l is sanctioned on the English Misplaced Pages for their participation on the list ". You (1) assume bad faith that ArbCom will do something wrong, then (2) point out what you will do to stop them. This is needlessly confrontational. Second, if you cast an aspersion, "I can also think of some arbcom decisions in the past that certainly exceeded their remit", please give the factual support. Otherwise, don't mention it. As admins, let's please set a good example for any observers. Thank you. Jehochman 05:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I declined to name specific decisions because they're not directly relevant here. Here's one: last time I checked, which was /months/ after the decision came down, the diff Sandifer got banned for mentioning information from was still publically accessible. I am not assuming that arbcom will do anything wrong, I'm simply pointing out that the weirdness of this sort of tban hits up on the edges of their remit in a way that is uncomfortable and makes it less powerful a remedy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I don't think topic bans here serve that much good. If an editor goes to the WikiProject and acts like a jerk, the usual rules like WP:POINT provide sufficient grounds to warn and then block people who refuse to listen to reason. I see that the discretionary sanctions could have a chilling affect as well. It may make sense for ArbCom to spend a little more time thinking about these issues, to make sure the remedies don't cause more unintended problems than what they solve, and it would be a really good idea to ask members of the WikiProject what they think about these rememdies and do they support them. Jehochman 05:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I declined to name specific decisions because they're not directly relevant here. Here's one: last time I checked, which was /months/ after the decision came down, the diff Sandifer got banned for mentioning information from was still publically accessible. I am not assuming that arbcom will do anything wrong, I'm simply pointing out that the weirdness of this sort of tban hits up on the edges of their remit in a way that is uncomfortable and makes it less powerful a remedy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Asking politely, "How does this intersect with these other things," is welcome. The power trip centers around, "I'll be appealling beyond arbcom if a participant on gendergap-l is sanctioned on the English Misplaced Pages for their participation on the list ". You (1) assume bad faith that ArbCom will do something wrong, then (2) point out what you will do to stop them. This is needlessly confrontational. Second, if you cast an aspersion, "I can also think of some arbcom decisions in the past that certainly exceeded their remit", please give the factual support. Otherwise, don't mention it. As admins, let's please set a good example for any observers. Thank you. Jehochman 05:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- How are we to know whether other parts of the organization take their cues from Arbcom as to suitable participants without an explicit statement? I would like to thank Kevin for his efforts to ensure that there is a check and balance here, so we can experiment with different venues for facilitating dialogue about gender disparity. Without this explicit statement, the decision as currently proposed, in which the sanctions for disruption at GGTF fall predominantly on a woman and on a person uncomfortable stating their gender, could certainly have a chilling effect on womens' participation elsewhere. --Djembayz (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- When you do science for a living you learn pretty quickly that if you choose your venue right you can get anything past peer review. It takes a little longer to learn that your real task is to get the rest of the community to accept your findings. Related to that: by choosing what papers he accepts a journal editor decides what direction his journal will take, who will go and publish there, and how respected his journal will be by the scientific community. Kevin, your choice is yours to make. 67.255.123.1 (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see nothing needing further comment here. The committee does not need reminded of WP:ARBPOL#Jurisdiction, nor to be told your interpretation of it. Closing thread. AGK 08:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Seeing the newly suggested scope of topic ban remedy, @AGK:, I think the committee would do well to reread its own remit, which it does not have the power to change. "The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff; (ii) Wikimedia projects other than the English Misplaced Pages; or (iii) conduct outside the English Misplaced Pages." The first proposed remedy as currently written appears to extend an arbcom ban about discussing the gendergap to (a) Gendergap-l, a list moderated by people including Sue Gardner and frequently modded by WMF employees in the past, (b) Their own offsite blog posts, and (c) with the media. If this is what is intended, it's absurd. If it's not what is intended, the remedy needs to be rewritten for clarity. Although sometimes offsite actions are taken in to consideration, the remedy as written literally interpreted suggests that talking about Misplaced Pages's treatment of non cisdude editors with a reporter from, say, the LA Times would result in sanctions. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Kevin, I've tweaked the topic ban wording slightly. Roger Davies 01:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Roger Davies: - the new wording looks fine to me. I start this section because I was explicitly worried that the scope of topic bans as issued would be interpreted to cover off-wiki projects particularly after Sandifer, and didn't think that that wold be desirable or enforceable. It may also be worth taking in to consideration when thinking about topic bans from gender/Wikipedia issues, they're going to act very differently than almost any other topic ban type ENWP has previously implemented, and I have serious doubts as to whether or not they will solve any problem. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- And let me, @Kevin Gorman: share why I amended it. I did not do it because I believed you have a substantive point but, on WP:BEANS grounds, to reduce the opportunities for others using your interpretation of the topic ban as a justification for making mischief in this troubled topic. Roger Davies 13:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Certainly clarity in arbcom remedies is desirable? I would hope that remedies that have holes that people are likely to try to wikilawyer with or holes that are likely to have a chilling effect on people who see a remedy as ambiguous (especially if they're people familiar with Sandifer, etc,) are written up as tightly as humanly possible. In writing an arbcom decision that people will be quoting from years, a lack of ambiguity is incredibly desirable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies for doing this again. But if one of those involved in topic bans at some point in the future says something like I think it might have helped had we had a woman (or man) involved in this discussion or article or whatever, would that be considered a violation of the topic ban? John Carter (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nitpicking aside, I see no real benefit to allowing that. People should be talking to one another based upon the quality of the other party's thoughts or actions. The chromosomal makeup or genitalia of the other party should have exactly nothing to do with anything we do on Misplaced Pages. Anyone concerning themself with the (known or inferred) gender of another party in any dealing here needs to stop that. Seraphimblade 21:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to be conflating gender and sex, but beyond that, I largely agree. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
So can we just be clear on this because I can't quite believe what I'm reading. If Eric or Sitush were working on an article about, say, a prominent feminist like Florence Nagle, which Eric worked on recently, and one of them were to say "we could do with one of the women editors, such as X whose interested in feminist issues, looking at this to see if we've got it right" that comment could be removed and they could be blocked by an admin. Is that really what you are saying here? Richerman (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- To me, it seems that it means that there is no difference between a male eds perspective and a female eds perspective for Misplaced Pages purposes. A corollary of that would be that the gender gap does not cause any neutrality concerns for this pedia, after all, the gap would be a neutrality concern only if we accept that there is some difference between the two perspectives. If the gap does not cause any neutrality concerns, it is not a concern at all, we could declare the GGTF, or any other efforts to fill the gap as unnecessary and misguided, and declare that there would be no neutrality concern even if we were an all male, or all female only pedia. If this is what it means, then the best thing would be to pass a remedy closing down the GGTF and also put a stop on all such future misguided attempts. Right ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well it certainly looks to me that is what they are saying and, after all the time spent on this case, I'm amazed to see one of the arbs say "The chromosomal makeup or genitalia of the other party should have exactly nothing to do with anything we do on Misplaced Pages". Also, I can understand the point of banning someone from a particular topic area if they have been found to be causing disruption there, but we can scrap any ideas of[REDACTED] being uncensored if they want to tell editors what they can and can't say elsewhere on the site. Richerman (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's consistent with previous sanctions though, such as not being permitted to discuss the RfA process. If that's not censorship I don't know what is. Eric Corbett 18:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think the arbs are in a difficult position here. If they accept that there is some difference between a male eds perspective and a female eds perspective which causes a neutrality concern, it would bring the neutrality of present remedies in question as the composition of the arbcom is skewed in one direction, and the difference is showing. I know the composition of the arb is what it is because this is how the community voted it to be. But the neutrality question still seems to remain there. Does this need resolving ? If yes, how should it be done ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think that discussion is outside the scope of the discussions we should have here, but I would like Seraphimblade and GorillaWarfare to comment on the points we've raised. Richerman (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're correct that this is well outside scope, it's no longer in any way germane to the decision or making it. If you'd like to discuss something with me personally, you're welcome to leave me a talk page message. Seraphimblade 19:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think that discussion is outside the scope of the discussions we should have here, but I would like Seraphimblade and GorillaWarfare to comment on the points we've raised. Richerman (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Evidence phase over/not over
On the one hand we have Gorrila Warfare hatting a section with the summary "Evidence phase is over" and on the other we have Roger Davies encouraging the addition of extra evidence to this page. Could the committee make it's mind up about this? And perhaps individually rethink whether they ought to recuse - hint, if you are unsure, you probably should. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC).
- The evidence phase is indeed over but there's nothing to stop people commenting, with diffs, if they wish. It's always been thus. Roger Davies
| This discussion is not a productive one. Seraphimblade 18:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
On the one hand we have Gorrila Warfare hatting a section with the summary "Evidence phase is over" and on the other we have Roger Davies encouraging the addition of extra evidence to this page. Could the committee make it's mind up about this? And perhaps individually rethink whether they ought to recuse - hint, if you are unsure, you probably should. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC).
|
Neotarf ban arithmetic?
The proposed closing motion says that 3.1 (Neotarf to be banned) didn't pass. I'm seeing 6 votes in favour + 1 abstention and 5 votes against. Isn't that a pass? I must be missing something obvious. DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The implementation notes have not been updated. I'll ask for that to be done now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying. DeCausa (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Forgive my nitpicking, but why is Neotarf's ban remedy sub-sub-sectioned? CMDC & EC's ban remedies are only sub-sectioned. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Presumably a typo. I believe I fixed it yesterday when I was rearranging. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
New evidence against Neotarf submitted by Salvio
I hope everyone is enjoying their Thanksgiving holiday.
This morning I woke up to find that, even though the evidence phase of the current ArbCom gender case is closed, arbitrator Salvio has introduced new evidence against me, without notifying me, and has cast a deciding vote to ban me from English Misplaced Pages based on the new evidence.
No one has informed me whether I will have the opportunity to present evidence of my own. I am also at a disadvantage, because the evidence has been oversighted and I cannot see it. To this end, I have requested assistance from Mr. Philippe Beaudette at the WMF.
I would also note that although this evidence was presented secretly, the committee has refused to consider evidence that might be in my favor because "for transparency's sake, the committee does not accept comments about open cases by e-mail". I would also note that my name was added to the case after it opened, by arbitrator Salvio, on the basis of non-public evidence which I have not been allowed access to. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, the evidence is out in the open in that diff you cited by Salvio. On three different occasions you posted material to Misplaced Pages that was so seriously harassing to other users, that it had to be oversighted. At arbitration an editor does not get to present for public viewing past attempts at doxing or harassing other editors. If you believe that Salvio has abused his privileges as an Oversighter by misrepresenting the content of those edits, you can appeal privately via Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee. Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not a court of law, and that editing here is a privilege, not a right. Jehochman 04:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- This evidence is stale, some 4 months old. Why has nothing been said before this? And WMF legal was involved at the time. Has anyone checked with them? —Neotarf (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The evidence is not stale because it contributes to the demonstration of a pattern already mentioned in the FOF, i.e. that you display an *extremely* serious battleground approach to disputes and disagreements. Salvio 09:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)I
- Is there a problem with looking at the evidence before making a judgement? —Neotarf (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- There's been a lot of evidence presented, I know I've looked at it - I believe Salvio has as well. I'm sorry about the delay, I'm slammed with work at the moment, but I'll state here that I have no issues with you forwarding any emails I've sent at the time to the arbcom-l. Worm(talk) 09:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, that leaves only NYB, I have forwarded the thread to him and asked him to pass it to the list if he has no objections. —Neotarf (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- There's been a lot of evidence presented, I know I've looked at it - I believe Salvio has as well. I'm sorry about the delay, I'm slammed with work at the moment, but I'll state here that I have no issues with you forwarding any emails I've sent at the time to the arbcom-l. Worm(talk) 09:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a problem with looking at the evidence before making a judgement? —Neotarf (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The evidence is not stale because it contributes to the demonstration of a pattern already mentioned in the FOF, i.e. that you display an *extremely* serious battleground approach to disputes and disagreements. Salvio 09:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)I
- This evidence is stale, some 4 months old. Why has nothing been said before this? And WMF legal was involved at the time. Has anyone checked with them? —Neotarf (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- User:Neotarf, What a wall of text sheesh you didn't really expect anyone to read that on Thanksgiving did you? Do me a favor go outside get some air and while you're at it look at this on | personal accountability. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am on my tablet, so I apologise for any typo and my being brief. Neotarf, you are being parsimonious with the truth. You have been given the chance to comment on this issue in private and you have exchanged various emails with the commitee. We cannot discuss this in public under the privacy policy, but you had a chance to have your voice heard. Salvio 08:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you aware that I have requested from two of the arbitrators to release their email exchanges with me on that day? What is parsimonious or untruthful about that? Am I going to have a chance to let them respond? Why are you so eager to vote when they have not yet responded? Have you examined the screenshot of the email I posted? Are you saying if I am banned, I can appeal to the Audit subcommittee, and if it turns out I am telling the truth about the diffs being in my edits, they will unban me? —Neotarf (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I have read the screenshot of your email and have read all your replies on the mailing list, including your justification for posting material which had to be suppressed and, to be entirely honest, I don't consider it remotely satisfactory. And no you cannot appeal to AUSC. Salvio 09:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The material was all posted openly by the user. I provided links for every piece of information. Why don't you get the links from AUSC yourself and see if I am lying. —Neotarf (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not the name, which you used. The editor in question never willingly disclosed that piece of information on wiki. Salvio 09:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- There were three names, they were all diffed. That is why I questioned the admin at the time, but received no answer. —Neotarf (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- That the names were diffed is pretty much irrelevant. For it not to be outing, the editor must have willingly disclosed the information in question and that was not the case. In this case, actually the editor was objecting quite vocally to the use of his name... Salvio 09:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- There were three names, they were all diffed. That is why I questioned the admin at the time, but received no answer. —Neotarf (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not the name, which you used. The editor in question never willingly disclosed that piece of information on wiki. Salvio 09:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The material was all posted openly by the user. I provided links for every piece of information. Why don't you get the links from AUSC yourself and see if I am lying. —Neotarf (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I have read the screenshot of your email and have read all your replies on the mailing list, including your justification for posting material which had to be suppressed and, to be entirely honest, I don't consider it remotely satisfactory. And no you cannot appeal to AUSC. Salvio 09:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you aware that I have requested from two of the arbitrators to release their email exchanges with me on that day? What is parsimonious or untruthful about that? Am I going to have a chance to let them respond? Why are you so eager to vote when they have not yet responded? Have you examined the screenshot of the email I posted? Are you saying if I am banned, I can appeal to the Audit subcommittee, and if it turns out I am telling the truth about the diffs being in my edits, they will unban me? —Neotarf (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am on my tablet, so I apologise for any typo and my being brief. Neotarf, you are being parsimonious with the truth. You have been given the chance to comment on this issue in private and you have exchanged various emails with the commitee. We cannot discuss this in public under the privacy policy, but you had a chance to have your voice heard. Salvio 08:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The editor, Tutelary, objected quite vocally to the use of male pronouns on the talk pages of 9 editors including myself. But only one pronoun was ever discovered. Surely you're not going to take their word for it. —Neotarf (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is a non sequitur. Salvio 10:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Try this: go to user:Ging287 and it should redirect you to a page with two more names. —Neotarf (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Where is the last name, there? Salvio 10:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- This was all documented in the edit, which has now been suppressed. With regard to the diff about Tutelary, at the time the edit was suppressed, I sent the admin an email (screenshot here), as well as leaving a message on their talk page. In my email I pointed out that I had posted internal diffs for every single statement I made. I did not get a reply to either the email or the talk page message. —Neotarf (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're repeating yourself and it's still entirely irrelevant. For it not to be outing, the editor in question, not others, must have willingly disclosed the information. This was not the case. And I'll not reply any further unless you can provide answers which are actually relevant. Salvio 00:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- For clarification on what happened, I reverted the outing of my last name and it was later oversighted. I have published my first name on Misplaced Pages, Danielle. That -is- out in the open, on my userpage and in some other formal discussions I got involved here on Misplaced Pages. However, my last name I never published on Misplaced Pages and was rather shocked to see it so colloquially thrown out there as if common knowledge. Tutelary (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just for clarification, I have no knowledge of who this Tutelary person is in real life, or which, if any, of the names they have used in various forums is their real name. Since the diff where I documented "their own willing disclosure of the information", if information it is, has been suppressed, and since my queries about the reason for the suppression have gone unanswered, both on-wiki and by email, it is pointless to have any further discussion until the suppressed edits can be made available to me. —Neotarf (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're repeating yourself and it's still entirely irrelevant. For it not to be outing, the editor in question, not others, must have willingly disclosed the information. This was not the case. And I'll not reply any further unless you can provide answers which are actually relevant. Salvio 00:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- This was all documented in the edit, which has now been suppressed. With regard to the diff about Tutelary, at the time the edit was suppressed, I sent the admin an email (screenshot here), as well as leaving a message on their talk page. In my email I pointed out that I had posted internal diffs for every single statement I made. I did not get a reply to either the email or the talk page message. —Neotarf (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Where is the last name, there? Salvio 10:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Try this: go to user:Ging287 and it should redirect you to a page with two more names. —Neotarf (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Sitush topic ban
Surely this is a joke? My position is roughly as per this, I've been supportive of proposals put forward by others at GGTF, I dropped Rich Farmbrough a note off-wiki simply because it was a quote that was also somewhat supportive of their ideas, I've said all along that the problem with GGTF was related to how it was being used, not its purpose. And I'd just started what was going to be a major rewrite of a significant couple who advanced the cause of women's education and feminism in India when GorillaWarfare pinged me on the PD page. The finding of fact and proposed remedy are very selective in their evidential basis, and run counter to the principle already established regarding what constitutes acceptable criticism. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Am I going to have to provide diffs for all of this? It seems pretty self-evident to me from things I've said throughout the case, including on this very page. I find these latest set of changes quite disturbing but it is evening here and I'm out for much of tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since I was the one who sent it, here is my email to Rich Farmbrough - does it really sound like someone who is intent on disruption?
Quote is from "Cam", the Cambridge University alumni magazine, Michaelmas Term 2014 (issue 73). Article is a diary piece by Dr Mateja Jamnik, Senior University Lecturer in the Computer Laboratory.
- Since I was the one who sent it, here is my email to Rich Farmbrough - does it really sound like someone who is intent on disruption?
- ----Start----
- Of course, academic life is not just asbout research: we all must take responsibility for some department administration. For me, this has been particularly fulfilling, as almost 11 years ago I founded a national network for women in computing research called women@CL. In Cambridge, as elsewhere, we suffer from a huge underrepresentation of women in computing. While we can have little influence on how girls are taught science subjects at school - where, I think, the problem begins - I feel passionately that it is possible to influence and improve the experience of women who have chosen to do computer science.
- Through women@CL, we make women feel more welcome, better connected and better mentored, by informing, supporting and promoting them. As well as coffees, dinners and technical talks, we organise gaming events, awaydays at our sponsor companies, mini conferences, and team up new and existing members for peer-to-peer mentoring. Most of our events are open to women and men, and I would say that several thousand people have taken part in our events in the last 11 years.
- Working as an academic and looking after a family with three young children is manic. So to preserve my sanity, I feel I must take some time to myself, mostly in the evenings and borrowed from my sleep account.
- ----End----
- I *love* that "sleep account" reference but more relevant to recent goings-on and your GGTF proposals is the stuff that her women@CL get up to. Not all is easily applicable to the WP situation but I think it does support your own thoughts on the matter.
- Anyway, there we go. I thought it might interest you but if not then no worries.
- Best wishes
- The mail followed this conversation. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
New findings/remedies
Leaving a note here about the changes I just made to the proposed decision page, as they were substantial. I've sent a nearly-identical email to the ArbCom list to make sure people vote on the new proposals, and review their old votes on proposals that have changed.
- Added a locus finding.
- Added a finding about disruption by Sitush
- Added a finding about SPECIFICO's existing interaction ban
- Added a finding about disruption by Two kinds of pork
- Added a remedy to generalize the topic bans under one "scope" section
- Changed the wording of existing topic bans to refer to this scope (Carolmooredc, Eric Corbett, Neotarf)
- Added a remedy to topic ban Sitush
- Added a remedy to convert the existing community-imposed one-way interaction ban between SPECIFICO and Carolmooredc into an ArbCom ban, along with a caution
- Added a remedy to topic ban Two kinds of pork
Reduced the length of time to appeal the topic site ban for Carolmooredc to six months
Please note that these changes also updated the numbering for many of the findings and remedies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare I think you meant the duration of the site ban appeal, not the topic ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did. Thanks for pointing that out! GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- I may be being obtuse here but it looks as though Carolmooredc's ban with a minimum of a year before she can appeal it has been supported by 10 arbitrators, with one specifically saying that he doesn't think a minimum period of less than a year would be workable, and you've changed that to a six month mimimum while continuing to oppose it even with your amendment. I guess my question is: hypothetically if someone asked you to provide a good faith explanation for doing that, what would it be? 87.254.87.183 (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Shouldnt the reduced topic ban change for Carol be a new remedy? Having an Arbitrator change the language of a passing remedy that the arbitrator in question opposes doesn't seem proper. 174.236.2.5 (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This may be my ignorance of how arbcom works, but I'm puzzled procedurally by how GorillaWarfare has changed the proposal on CarolMoore's site ban. Since there has been voting on that remedy already with a 12 month minimum period, surely there should be a new remedy with a 6 month minimum site ban as an alternative, rather than an amendment of the existing remedy. Then arbs could then choose between 6 months or 12 months. As it now is, how would an arb vote if they want a site ban but prefer 12 to 6 months? If they switch to oppose, then they would voting against any site ban. If they leave their vote as support then it automatically becomes a vote for a 6 month minimum. Of course, if arbs have behind the scenes already agreed it should be 6 months then my query is moot. DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- There are several references to "tweaking" on the Proposed decision page by Newyorkbrad, Worm That Turned, and Salvio giuliano. I don't think we should be
attackingsuspecting GorillaWarfare for doing something other arbitrators accept as part of the process. Lightbreather (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
| Stop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- This case has been open for just a few days short of three months now, and GorillaWarfare, who has been mostly silent throughout, now apparently believes the time is right to move the goalposts. To mix my analogies, I really don't think that's cricket. Do we now have to endure another interminable round of voting? Eric Corbett 19:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the voting stage is over. If I understand correctly, from this point on the arbitrators edit war over the parts that are already passing. 87.254.87.183 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Perhaps, but it seems to me that unilaterally changing the proposed duration of a ban that has already been agreed by a majority of arbitrators is somewhat more than a little "edit war". Eric Corbett 20:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The last minute push to allow you but not Carol to keep editing when both of you had already been site banned was more than a little edit war, too. Lightbreather (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Perhaps, but it seems to me that unilaterally changing the proposed duration of a ban that has already been agreed by a majority of arbitrators is somewhat more than a little "edit war". Eric Corbett 20:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the voting stage is over. If I understand correctly, from this point on the arbitrators edit war over the parts that are already passing. 87.254.87.183 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Voting isn't done until the motion to close passes, but if they disagree with GW's edit presumably they know where the revert button is. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Surely that's not the way they have to handle it? That would be ridiculous. Perhaps one of the clerks could clarify. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see GW's moved it back to 12 months. DeCausa (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- There are numerous examples in this case where arbs changed the wording of already voted on remedies, often saying "revert me if you care" or something. To be fair they were done much earlier in the process though. In any case, she has reverted, so its moot. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Voting isn't done until the motion to close passes, but if they disagree with GW's edit presumably they know where the revert button is. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- If CMDC is going to be banned? then a 6-months remedy is certaintly preferable to 12-months. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've undone the change to the length of Carolmooredc's siteban, as another arbitrator has disagreed. The next step here would be to propose a new remedy with six months before appeal, but as I don't anticipate supporting it anyway, I'll leave it to another arbitrator if they see fit. @Eric Corbett: Trust me, I'd rather not extend the case either. That said, I would prefer to get this right the first time around and extend the case than rush it and have to revisit it later on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- So would I, but it's been almost three months now in the baking. Time to take it out of the oven? Eric Corbett 20:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The case was opened Oct 3, it kicked into gear Oct 11. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's when the case was formally accepted, I agree, only two months ago, but it was initiated way before that. Eric Corbett 20:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The case was opened Oct 3, it kicked into gear Oct 11. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think you have to factor in some of the time arbs gave you in good faith to explain how you were going to change your behavior in the future. You probably could have helped speed things up there.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Which "explanation" are you referring to? I simply answered a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. Eric Corbett 20:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was only talking about the time it took to get an indication you were prepared to change your behaviour; that wasn't a comment on the quality of your answer itself. If you'd said you were prepared to change earlier, this might have been over earlier, that's all. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've explained time and again on these case pages where I stand on the GGTF issue but a fat lot of good that seems to be doing me with this late, somewhat peculiar, changes to things. The only arguably disruptive thing that happened was weeks and weeks ago, probably before the case opened, when Carol and myself got into a spat about her somewhat eccentric talk page methods (the refactoring habit that others have subsequently also complained about and which Scottywong eventually seemed to tacitly accept was a valid issue in terms of WP:TPG). There is a whiff of something here and I do not like it. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The reality is that it's politically impossible to question either the existence or the effect of any gender gap. Nothing more needs to be said. Eric Corbett 22:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I cannot recall ever questioning it. What I have questioned is the method that was being adopted and, in particular, the apparent obsession with the civility issue when there have been other perfectly good areas of potential action raised. Those other areas have just got drowned out or forgotten. This is valid criticism within the terms that are in fact outlined and (at the moment) accepted on the PD page. I've not pushed any issue beyond the bounds of normal discourse and I've certainly not been tendentious in pursuing some things when valid reasons for doing those things were put forward (eg: I think I commented once about some category-related issue but then I let it drop). - Sitush (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The reality is that it's politically impossible to question either the existence or the effect of any gender gap. Nothing more needs to be said. Eric Corbett 22:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've explained time and again on these case pages where I stand on the GGTF issue but a fat lot of good that seems to be doing me with this late, somewhat peculiar, changes to things. The only arguably disruptive thing that happened was weeks and weeks ago, probably before the case opened, when Carol and myself got into a spat about her somewhat eccentric talk page methods (the refactoring habit that others have subsequently also complained about and which Scottywong eventually seemed to tacitly accept was a valid issue in terms of WP:TPG). There is a whiff of something here and I do not like it. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was only talking about the time it took to get an indication you were prepared to change your behaviour; that wasn't a comment on the quality of your answer itself. If you'd said you were prepared to change earlier, this might have been over earlier, that's all. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Which "explanation" are you referring to? I simply answered a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. Eric Corbett 20:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think you have to factor in some of the time arbs gave you in good faith to explain how you were going to change your behavior in the future. You probably could have helped speed things up there.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Also I note that GW's change didn't change the ban length (which was always indefinite). It just changed the amount of time until/between appeals, which is an issue that affects nobody except the arbs getting bugged more often. The above kerfuffle is a mountain over a molehill Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Allowing more frequent appeals is effectively changing the duration. Eric Corbett 20:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't it obvious that dragging out this case in this way is likely to lead to even deeper and more entrenched divisions than already exist? Eric Corbett 22:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I for one thank you for your changes, GW. They clarified a couple points and addressed some unaddressed problems. Lightbreather (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by Carolmooredc removed by another editor. Voceditenore (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Carol, I will charitably assume that you have simply forgotten that User:Ks0stm, an arbitration clerk, banned you from these pages. On your page. Endorsed by User:Worm That Turned. Please don't post here again. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC).
- I did try to discuss the problem of mixing up the "discussions of proposals" phase for remedies and the voting on "agreed-upon proposals" phase previously. Mostly it was ignored, though I feel much could be done in the future to avoid the problems people are raising now. In fact GW did kindly give a rationale for what happens, and, because it would be very disruptive at this stage to call for totally new votes, I see that GW reports she sent emails around asking for people's votes to be reconfirmed. I think this is the best that can be done in this situation now, but, although I know people will perhaps be annoyed, I think what has happened recently really does illustrate why, as I said before, mixing up discussions of proposals, their wording, etc, and voting on them is really a well-accepted bad idea, and I recommend ArbCom does things differently (I am surprised they haven't apparently done it correctly up to now). Now, I know this message comes after we were invited to make "Final Comments", a long time ago, and that extended discussions should cease, but I do think this point is well worth emphasizing here, and, once again, I would like to thank GW for doing the best that could be done in a difficult situation here. DDStretch (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Statements
Any comments regarding the additions to proposed decision should be made in this section. All comments must be directly relevant to the proposed decision as currently written. You must comment only in your own section.
Statement by Sitush
I've done part of this and am off out now, as mentioned here. It is going to be a lot more than 150 words because I am absolutely appalled regarding how I have been misinterpreted in the revised FOF/PD.
My 49 edits to WT:GGTF are here.
- 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th relate to WP:TPG issues that other people have remarked about also and that ultimately did cause Carol to slightly amend her approach after discussion at Scottywong's talk page.
- The 3rd is valid: if people start organising off-wiki with the intent of changing things on-wiki then they may have to consider WP:MEAT.
- 5th, 7th, 9th relate to this thread. GGTF was not on my watchlist at that time. My point was that a potentially useful suggestion from Tony1 had been rather oddly ridiculed and quashed by someone - I never did get to the bottom of it because Carol began to misrepresent my position and I couldn't be bothered arguing. She has repeatedly referred to an early comment I made somewhere that the GGTF was not fit for purpose and should be closed down, ignoring my numerous subsequent remarks that I meant "fit for purpose in its present form": the goal is fine, the methods being used (primarily because of being diverted into a civility vehicle) much less so. See also this.
- 8th was a request for help re: an article about a feminist author that I had substantially improved - Sara Jeannette Duncan
- 10th relates to some problems that had been raised about the scope of the project. Someone had made some changes and there was a discussion about how/why/when - my input was entirely harmless and highlighted a phrase that was confusing to me.
- I was pinged for the 11th-14th and those watching over ANI supported my action there, as indeed have the PDs etc thus far in this case. Note in particular the 12th one and my concern about how the civility thing was drowning out other useful stuff.
- and successfully stopped some bickering that was going way off-topic
- Sitush (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just home from watching the international rugby match (well. one of several that happened today). I see that some of the arbs have commented for/against but am still bemused to some extent even with those who are opposed to the topic ban etc. Am I permitted to extend this analysis or not? - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and I am a somewhat unfortunate position of having received emails etc from self-identified women who are frankly fed up of the GGTF in its current form but also think the project itself to be dead in the water. I am aware that SlimVirgin has been trying to keep some sort of control of affairs there while this case is in progress but my personal experience is that there are more self-identified women contributors to en-WP who have expressed dis-satisfaction with the recent goings-on than those who have named themselves on these case pages. That position is "unfortunate" because I can't really name them: unless they choose to put their head above the parapet, so to speak, it would be inappropriate to drag them into this mess. From my reading of things, none object to the principle per se (ie: the gap exists and we should be trying to reduce it) but many object to the method. Then again, I guess that the desire to keep away publicly from this case is to be expected given the immense hassle that has resulted from it. I'm trying to bridge that divide between "soapboxing" etc and a workable improvement of the situation but, alas, it seems increasingly to be turning into a "them and us" culture, eg: this degenerated quickly and, frankly, seemed to be confusing development with ABF and perhaps even censorship. - Sitush (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- This was simply an opinion relating to a notification about a categorisation discussion. Others disagreed with me; I said nothing further in the thread.
- This also was an opinion, relating to some needling that seemed to be going way off-topic. I wasn't alone in thinking so, eg: Boson's remark immediately above mine in the diff.
- This was a notification of IAC socking to prevent a section spinning out of control
- There were a series of edits in this thread that show me working to source GGTF stuff in the media and also trying to explain article policy. List of Misplaced Pages controversies is in mainspace and unless Misplaced Pages's gender gap has been considered a controversy by independent third party sources, adding it to that list would be navel-gazing and reliant on internal sources..
- Some of the remaining edits were mere typo corrections.
- Basically, aside from the spat about TPG stuff and over-hasty archiving - neither of which I have bothered with since and both of which are procedural rather than specifically GGTF-related - I've done nothing that seems to be particularly disruptive. I emphasise that the TPG stuff is moot and that many other people have complained about Carol's style relating to that. Repeatedly changing/striking old messages is a nuisance and while TPG deprecates refactoring the comments of others, it also says that the originator should make things clear. All I wanted her to do was to achieve the latter and the easiest way in those particular circumstances was not to confuse the issue by striking but rather to write another message along the lines of "sorry, I've struck my comment above per subsequent clarification" or something similar. Carol appealed to Scottywong, who ultimately saw some merit in both sides of the argument. If anything, this raises an issue that perhaps should be clarified at WP:TPG. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- The bit of TPG that was irking me is "If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead." (my emphasis). Yes, I was wrong to revert the strikes etc per the guideline; yes, Carol was wrong to ignore this excerpt from the same guideline. As I've said, she subsequently amended her practices a little, although they continued to irritate as per other people who have commented here. I didn't revert her again and I wouldn't do so in future. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Statement by {username}
Statement by {username}
Additional process questions
No need for discussion on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have asked some additional process questions on Jimmy Wales' talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why? Jimmy doesn't have some sort of uber veto power. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Redress of process. —Neotarf (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
| Not "directly relevant to the proposed decision as currently written". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Elephant in the room
Not a discussion which should or needs to be had at this late stage, in other words the case was opened on the 3rd of October almost two months this discussion could have been had. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I brought this up earlier, it does bear reiterating. It is not good to have two clearly biased arbitrators active on the case. Sure they cancel each other out, but they also bring the process, the committee and themselves into disrepute. I would consider it a significant step if they would recuse themselves. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC).
- So, I don't know how to ask this without it sounding like I'm being a smart ass troll. I'm not sure what two arbitrators are biased and why or what direction. Would you mind emailing me your thoughts if you don't want to say them on-wiki?--v/r - TP 00:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Per TParis: If you keep accusing two arbitrators of bias without saying who or how, I'm not sure how you expect anyone to respond. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Missed the target there. (RF's statement, not TPs).NE Ent 03:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC) (misread, sorry) NE Ent 12:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)- By "per TParis" I meant I was agreeing with TParis, not responding to him. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, I assumed it was something everyone knew and I didn't and I would sound like a smart ass if I asked.--v/r - TP 03:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- By "per TParis" I meant I was agreeing with TParis, not responding to him. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Question to the Arbs
| This is not SPI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
User:Worm That Turned & User:GorillaWarfare & User:Newyorkbrad, I've held off asking this question but I think it should be asked, part of this problem started with User:Lightbreather and involved User:Eric Corbett which as you can see here ] was a huge ] who promptly quit editing when Id'd here ] despite having been asked by multiple editors over multiple days found ] and other places and abracadabra all of a sudden ] poof we have User:Lightbreather arrive (again). I am just curious as to any findings and a possible topic ban from GGTF pages might be in order here too? I think this is one of the best timelines from that incident that helped guide us here ] 01:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Worm That Turned & User:GorillaWarfare & User:Newyorkbrad: Per Defending yourself against claims, I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. Please stop this! Lightbreather (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Updated SPII've updated the evidence of the SPI with what I see as definitive proof based on locations and on wiki as well as admitted off wiki activities. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC) If proven true Lightbreather is involved heavily
Someone please REVDEL thisUser:Worm That Turned & User:GorillaWarfare & User:Newyorkbrad I am no more an involved party in this case than any other "uninvolved" editor who has commented here and on other pages, like for instance Hell in a Bucket and Carrite. I am physically SICK to see the identifying information that HIAB is pointing the readers of this page to, and I would ask someone to please revdel it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Neotarf started this whole thing by spamming Hell In the Bucket's original post - resulting in this arbitration
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Hell in a Bucket posts ill-worded comment containing "epithets" on Jimbo Wales's talk July 29, 2014
- -"Various epithets" opened by Neatarf on ANI July 29 2014
- Hell in a Bucket's re-posts his redacted comments on Jimbo Wales's talk July 29, 2014 (with edit summary ("nice try but this is still a legitimate comment and your ani thread confirms that")
- Jimbo Wales hats long discussion on his page and opens another Rebooted discussion a long discussion ending with calls for a civility case.
CivilityBigotry case request post on 21:05 6 August 2014 on Salvio giuliano's talk, repeating Hell in a Bucket's entire post.- Cunt queer nigger posted by Neotarf (talk) Post on 22.03 6 August 2014, on Newyorkbrad's talk, repeating Hell in a Bucket's entire post.
- Neotarf makes statement on Arbitration request/Case on 26 August, repeating Hell in a Bucket's entire post. EChastain (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sadly that's not where it started, Neotarf took the torch and spread it around the village but it started before that ].I made that comment to make the point words are words and that morphed well beyond what I intended. I regret the drama the words caused because I was attempting to show that the fight was stupid. My own stubbornness often goes to my detriment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the highlighting of words in your original post, the strange morphing and Neotarf's edit-warring to keep those words in section headings caught my attention originally and led me to follow this case closely. I wonder that she wasn't at least given a long block after that. To me your overall point was valid. EChastain (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- My own involvement started after witnessing several threads on various boards that culminated on Jimbo's page and I popped off at the mouth then Neotarf came in and started saying . It was my fault for not letting it roll off my back but I am none of those things and the fact that this was the first I had heard from this person without even a question about it really made me mad. I even offered to let them hat it ], this was completely ignored, after that ensued the declined arb case, followed by the accepted one and then now the big one that was related to all three is this one. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the highlighting of words in your original post, the strange morphing and Neotarf's edit-warring to keep those words in section headings caught my attention originally and led me to follow this case closely. I wonder that she wasn't at least given a long block after that. To me your overall point was valid. EChastain (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree, Neotarf while a party did not cause this arbitration. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
How exactly is "they started it!" relevant to the purpose of this page? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's rhetorical, right? (Answer: it isn't.) NE Ent 03:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
is it me?
... Or is this a very VERY unusual case? I have NO desire to get involved or choose sides, but I don't ever recall seeing so many changes at the last second like I'm seeing here. Is this setting new precedents? Just curious. — Ched : ? 04:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Greetings, Ched. From time to time, this happens. I don't think it's a bad sign, though. Generally speaking, it usually means that the committee is trying to get things right, which isn't always easy when there are a lot of players and a lot of activity going on in different quarters. Risker (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- As Risker says - happens from time to time. No biggie. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- The changes are one of the most healthy things I have seen for some time at ArbCom. I am concerned about the additions. Have Two Kinds of Pork and SPECIFICO been told that there are suddenly findings and/or remedies relating to them? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC).
- I think NativeForeigner subsequently sent a round-robin note to all who were named (I certainly got it). I'm not affected by the US Thanksgiving thing but if the others are in the US then perhaps they might be away from home etc. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was pulled AFK shortly after posting the findings, but User:NativeForeigner was kind enough to make the notifications in my absence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Numbering "remedies"
After the socalled remedies were numbered differently, many comments and even headers on this talk don't make sense any more. Is it asking too much to have a cross reference about former x.y now z? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, hope it helps. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
At least eight IP addresses have commented on this case's talk pages
| This is not SPI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
For the record, here are eight IP addresses that have commented on this case's talk pages. Why not open SPIs on ALL of them?
--Lightbreather (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Two kinds of pork
I find this finding rather ... weak, verging on palpably wrong.
9) Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive in areas relating to the Gender gap task force, for which they received a short block in September 2014. They have also baited and used sexualized innuendo. (including edit summary) (including edit summary)
Disruption
The first diff, relates ultimately to a proposal for lower consensus requirements for female admins than male, made by Cla68. This was never going to gain traction, and indeed was likely to be counter productive, being seen as a false flag operation, a non-wiki proposal or at best an ill-conceived joke. Milwent drew from the air (as far as I can see) a suggestion that SPECIFICO had said that Cla68's proposal was "an intentional lead balloon", and constituted slander.
TKOP's response was ill-advised but understandable. According to the finding he was blocked for this (I haven't checked), so it seems churlish to bring it up unless as a pattern of disruption. To me it's an inability to disengage, at worst.
- Time travel
According to this finding TKOP was blocked partially for this edit, which occurred after the block.
—===Baiting and sexualised innuendo=== Here TKOP suggests that "Mind the Gap" may not be a good slogan for the task-force as it is reminiscent of thigh gap (an important concept in body self image). He is not the only one to make this link "Mind the Gap": The dangers of being a healthy woman,Mind the Thigh Gap?, etc. etc.
This edit is about a young You-Tuber who got carried away with his own celebrity and did some rather distasteful things. TKOP joins the apparent consensus (nobody is looking to go outside WP norms) of the debate that this You=Tuber is probably not worthy of an article and is a "douchebag". This is certainly not baiting, and it's an incredibly stretch to consider calling a male third-party a "douchebag" a case of sexualised innuendo.
Here TKOP is simply pointing out how ridiculous (from his perspective) Neotarf's attack on his username is. There is no "sexualised innuendo" here, except the piece that he himself de-constructs. The edit summary " why don't you dine on the swine?" is emphasising that by "pork" he means the meat product.
The last diff again is fairly innocuous in substance. It ends with the phrase "Dine away." and the edit summary is "the shoulder is tough, but the butt is better". Now I suppose a sufficiently fervid imagination could conflate "Dine away" with an innuendo about oral sex, but I have trouble with "the shoulder is tough". With the classic symbolism of eating for sex in English literature alone running for centuries, I'm sure anyone wanting to make a "sexualised innuendo" would have little problem, I can think of half a dozen more apposite butchery-related terms to use, and I'm sure many more exist.
Summary. Four of these diffs say nothing, the remaining two vanishingly little.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC).
- It was interpreted as being sexualized innuendo by many parties involved. I've been traveling, will review. Doesn't look like my vote will change the outcome, else I would just sit in comments until i've reviewed it in more detail, but these definitely were a source of conflict, regardless of intent. NativeForeigner 21:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- An awful lot of things can be seen as sexualised innuendo if one has a sufficiently imaginative mind. For example, I've recently been accused of it on-wiki for putting an entirely innocent ";" at the end of a sentence. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can understand both viewpoints honestly. It is an example of where their minds wanted to take them and I can also understand the urge to say something that further roiled the waters too, is that what happened though? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Case conduct
I see that the arbs have been voting on the recently-sprung changes relating to myself, TKoP and SPECIFICO without really giving any time for any of those parties to respond to the charges. They're doing do at a weekend that certainly has been somewhat inconvenient for me and that may well be inconvenient for the other two.
This seems to be a pretty awful way to judge people, especially when (as in my case) the evidence given by GorillaWarfare is in fact pretty specious. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- And I see that Rich Farmbrough has done a pretty extensive analysis of TKoP's stuff in the section above. This stinks, folks, it really does. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, the appropriate remedy for me, based on GW's FoF proposals, would seem to be to ban me from all talk pages rather than GGTF. If the problem is considered to be refactoring in a manner considered to be outside the provisions of WP:TPG then obviously it has a much broader scope. I regularly refactor comments on a wide range of talk pages, although the only time I can recall that causing an issue has been in relation to Carol, not GGTF. And if the problem is confined to those problematic edits then (a) I stopped and (b) there is an IBAN coming in that would prevent it. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
For the record, TKOP has communicated with us by e-mail. Sitush, you have had your say here, and I've read what you said and taken it into account. SPECIFICO is having his say on his talk page - I'll draw the attention of other arbs to that and they can comment there if they wish. That may not be as much input as you would wish, but clearly all three of you are being given a chance to speak up. Carcharoth (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fine, thanks. I wasn't aware that this case was being conducted by email or on the talk pages of the parties but so be it. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- TKOP explained in his e-mail why he was unable to respond on-wiki. SPECIFICO is barred from the case pages, but is being allowed to respond on his talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I couldn't respond due to the holiday and travel. However Rich painted a better defense for me in a recent section far better then I could have formulated. Frankly I'm sick of this whole business, even before these new dubious findings of facts were entered. This smells of backroom deals in an attempt to balance the scoresheet or placate colleagues. I can understand the latter, as they do have to work with each other. However it doesn't make it right. I just have to live with the imposed temerity (of which I acquiesced too in my email), which in the grand scheme of things is infinitesimal. They get to own the finding. I'm coming up smelling like roses in comparison. AFAIC the only thing left to be done is to address the lightbreather shenanigans and possibly those of djembeyz.Two kinds of porkBacon 00:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry confirmed
User:Worm That Turned, User:GorillaWarfare, User:Newyorkbrad, User:AGK, User:Beeblebrox, User:Carcharoth, User:David Fuchs, User:NativeForeigner, User:Roger Davies, User:Salvio giuliano, User:Seraphimblade & User:Timotheus Canens
After a thorough behavioral analysis User:Lightbreather has been judged to have been evading scrutiny editing as the IP I alleged earlier. I am going to again ask the committee to have a finding on Lightbreather. The case is old and it's nearing the end of it's usefulness but it doesn't do much good if we just let this other person out there to continue the disruption, Carolmooredc and Neotarf have their faults but at least they have been up front and honest about their opinion (I respect both of them for their conviction to their beliefs, believe it or not), deceptive behaviors like socking then pretending to be mortified and offended when caught red handed takes me the other way. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Judge by you, or by somebody uninvolved? Pinging all of them is obnoxious. Jehochman 13:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- all by my lonesome...come on just check ur watchlist u commented there twice. Pinging them all is obnoxious? How many am I allowed to ping? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- LightBreather has been blocked per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather by a CU clerk. Jehochman 13:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- If the processes for conflict resolution here are too intimidating for female editors to be openly associated with, then female editors don't have access to these processes. I think it's possible this editor felt intimidated. If the community that shows up at Arbcom is determined to maintain the existing confrontational, profane, and sexualized atmospehere, then it won't much matter whether the opponents are open or sneaky in their opposition. The opponents will be chased off the site whenever they object too strongly, and told they are the ones who are being disruptive.
- Perhaps the welcome screens for new editors need to make things clear:
- First screen: What is your gender? M/F/Other/Decline to state
- Second screen: Many of our members prefer a confrontational, profane, and sexualized atmosphere. Do you want to join our community?
- First screen: What is your gender? M/F/Other/Decline to state
- These welcome screens would enable us to collect the hard data which people keep demanding, and avoid the disruptions caused by editors like Lightbreather who were expecting others to be polite. Perhaps the Arbs might consider recommending an experiment of this sort to WMF, so that we could finally get the data we need to move forward. --Djembayz (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Expecting people to be polite is great, more of us, myself included think that would be great and in my case something I am trying to work on. The problems come in with the victim attitudes they maintain. When I started this SPI I did it on a gut feeling with some evidence to back that. I found on wiki evidence provided by lightbreather themselves, when I presented this it becomes an issue that is now labeled as "harassment". It's the reactions to the issues they are having that becomes the issue, the issue itself is then magnified way beyond what it should be. Honestly if you want poster children for the women's rights here you need better examples to show the issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- (On a tangent to the SPI issue) If someone is being needled with (direct or indirect) jibes intended to attack their stated or presumed identity as a person (a woman, jewish, gay, whatever), it is lazy to dismiss any complaint they make about it as "victim attitudes" or "self-victimization". You may wish to consider how to respond in those situations to the material of any complaint, such as by collaboratively examining the evidence supporting it. It is these cases that re-enforce the advice given to not be open about your personal attributes on this project, just in case they are used to taunt/tease/cyber-bully you as a means to drive you away from any relevant discussion so that the majority view always wins out. --Fæ (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I understand somewhat why it's problematic to not have to but this isn't a social website, what's the harm in that? I can understand why it's problematic to have to hide who you are or life choices though too so ethically it's a mix. No easy answer to that one but I want to point out that it's not just Lightbreather that is having that issue here, things that weren't harrassment or attacks were called attacks. Then it's poor me it was all the other persons fault. I think it's a very small percentage of people from GGTF that are actually making waves, that the loudest voices are being cut for a while can actually assist the goals how much more do you think that the cause will be furthered by quiet and rational discussion? I can tell you that when I was engaged for using the words "cunt, queer, nigger" in a posting was met with immediate and direct accusations of sexism, racism and homophobia merely for having said the words and not even addressing them to people. My own stubborness kept them up and thereby made what was already a non issue into a major conflagration. Would the madness have been quite as deep had a different approach came? Probably. It is the approach being used that's the problem not the message they are carrying. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- (On a tangent to the SPI issue) If someone is being needled with (direct or indirect) jibes intended to attack their stated or presumed identity as a person (a woman, jewish, gay, whatever), it is lazy to dismiss any complaint they make about it as "victim attitudes" or "self-victimization". You may wish to consider how to respond in those situations to the material of any complaint, such as by collaboratively examining the evidence supporting it. It is these cases that re-enforce the advice given to not be open about your personal attributes on this project, just in case they are used to taunt/tease/cyber-bully you as a means to drive you away from any relevant discussion so that the majority view always wins out. --Fæ (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Expecting people to be polite is great, more of us, myself included think that would be great and in my case something I am trying to work on. The problems come in with the victim attitudes they maintain. When I started this SPI I did it on a gut feeling with some evidence to back that. I found on wiki evidence provided by lightbreather themselves, when I presented this it becomes an issue that is now labeled as "harassment". It's the reactions to the issues they are having that becomes the issue, the issue itself is then magnified way beyond what it should be. Honestly if you want poster children for the women's rights here you need better examples to show the issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I would draw a parallel with what are quite effective "norms" on Commons (we avoid making massive bureaucracies there, we don't even have an Arbcom). Commons is mostly about images, and there is famously very little censorship over what is counted as educational. Consequently the project hosts pictures of dead people, naked people, sexual organs with diseases, offensive racist, homophobic and even pro-Nazi propaganda. Strangely enough, this is rarely a real issue, as what is unacceptable on the project is using these images to deliberately offend other contributors not the images themselves.
- For personal reasons, I do not want to see photographs of the dead or starving prisoners in Nazi run camps, yet I am the one who has uploaded many of the images for their educational value. If someone needs to discuss them with me, I will happily discuss my uploads, but I do not want to be upset by having them posted to my user talk page.
- That's a simple enough behavioural expectation that applies to this project. If someone does not want you to use certain words that they obviously find offensive in a discussion, it's a simple enough matter to side-step them as a courtesy. I agree that the encyclopaedia should be able to include material that some find personally offensive, however courtesy and respect should trump stubbornness when discussing issues or improving the encyclopaedia. In real life, this is simple ethical and polite behaviour; it is a pity that some find it so hard to apply on-line when they have a convenient shield of distance or anonymity. --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually that shield comes in extremely handy at times. My work involves working new page patrol quite often and sometimes you get some damn vile threats and extremely personal threats, it can protect you from the crazies for sure. On the surface what you are saying makes a lot of sense but some of these other real life problems make that an issue. Imagine just for one moment and I can assure everyone on this site I have no interest in tracking anyone down but let's imagine that Lightbreather's concerns had grounds about the locations how much would that veil of anonymity helped avoid that? That was one of the biggest things that made me believe she was socking, it tied the opinions and editing styles together. Consider this too, Lightbreather's statement infers surprise that her her information was on wiki when she has shown thoroughly that she can use and does use diffs in some regularity but somehow didn't think her own activities would be tracked? That's part of what I mean about victim attitude. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Casename change
At some time in the future it may not be obvious to reviewers of AC archives what "GGTF" is at a glance so the original suggestion of "Interactions at Gender Gap Task Force" is preferable. NE Ent 15:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think the change is for the very purpose of lessening the tie between the Gender Gap Task Force and the case, given that the decision does not say anything about the work of the task force itself. For better or worse, slightly opaque casenames are hardly unknown here (the "Badlydrawnjeff" and "Footnoted quotes" cases on BLP would have to be the canonical examples, but there are others). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Makes sense. If that's the goal I'd remove GGTF altogether because for the near term GGTF is / will be recognizable. Suggest something like "Interactions at Task Force" or "Interactions at Wiki Project" NE Ent 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- It wasn't to do with the GGTF itself, and the "interactions" in question were located in a number of locations, of which GGTF wasn't even the most significant probably. But the common theme of those "interactions" was the "gender gap" topic - hence the topic ban scope. How about "Gender gap topic interactions"? Or even leave out "topic". DeCausa (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Makes sense. If that's the goal I'd remove GGTF altogether because for the near term GGTF is / will be recognizable. Suggest something like "Interactions at Task Force" or "Interactions at Wiki Project" NE Ent 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
More Sockpuppetry Concerns
So after her block User:Lightbreather has gathered evidence of another possible sock involved with this case. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell is the investigation, maybe it isn't a big deal for the committee but I think that out of fairness there are questions that should be answered and the Arbs opinions might be useful and unbiased if they could address her concerns. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett prohibited
I wrote something above, but I am reposting it because I think it got lost in the noise. It still says "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction". That is, ArbCom is still deciding that Eric will agree. And what if Eric doesn't agree? Has anyone asked him yet? Whose job is it to do that? StAnselm (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- The prohibition is entirely based on stuff on that has been either offered or agreed to over the last six or so weeks. Nothing, per se, happens to him if he doesn't explicitly re-agree, but it's all a bit academic because the sanctions aren't conditional on agreement and apply whether he explicitly agrees or not. Roger Davies 22:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- But the sanction says "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction..." so obviously this sanction is conditional on agreement. StAnselm (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed that this might be used as a loophole here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is no loophole. Arbitration sanctions are not optional, nor are they legalistic remedies to be parsed word by word to find "loopholes". The intent is what matters. Trying to game them based on lawyering indicates not only that one is not following them, but that one intends deliberately to violate them, and such attempts are sanctioned accordingly. Seraphimblade 02:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- And you can't see that the proposed remedy needs to be reworded...? StAnselm (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is no loophole. Arbitration sanctions are not optional, nor are they legalistic remedies to be parsed word by word to find "loopholes". The intent is what matters. Trying to game them based on lawyering indicates not only that one is not following them, but that one intends deliberately to violate them, and such attempts are sanctioned accordingly. Seraphimblade 02:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed that this might be used as a loophole here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- But the sanction says "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction..." so obviously this sanction is conditional on agreement. StAnselm (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hiab removing evidence
| Resolved and blocked Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
|
Hiab is removing evidence that has been specifically requested by an arbitrator. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision&diff=636107101&oldid=636106748 —Neotarf (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Would someone ask HIAB to stop refactoring Jimbo's page? —Neotarf (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Injunction Request
I request an injuction for an IBAN for the parties in this case for the remainder of this case. Their sniping at each other across all pages on this project is getting disruptive. Carolmooredc/Neotarf/Lightbreather IBAN with Two Kinds of Pork/Hell in a Bucket. Please - it's about time.--v/r - TP 05:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Consider it done on my part.Two kinds of porkBacon 05:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- You object to me removing outing and agreeing that there was a possible sock? Please can you tell us what you think it sniping I've done? I've been polite and courteous even when there was inappropriate behaviors. If you wish me to modify problematic behavior I'd appreciate the illustration of what you would like me to modify. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- In your last 150 edits, which one wasn't about Carol, Neotarf, or Lightbreather?--v/r - TP 05:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Is there an acceptable number or particular edit you find problematic? That's not really answering the question of what is inappropriate. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- In your last 150 edits, which one wasn't about Carol, Neotarf, or Lightbreather?--v/r - TP 05:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- @TParis: We are more than likely closing the case within the next hour or two...can it wait until then? Ks0stm 05:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is not currently a remedy concerning
TKOP norHIAB despite these two dominating the discussions about this case on this talk page and on the parties talk page. I think it'd be unwise to close this case without these two being told to stay away from the other three. While they have remained civil, they have been hounding the other three persistently to bait them into policy violations. This is the sort of passive incivility that Arbcom discussed in the first civility case. It needs to be addressed.--v/r - TP 06:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)- There actually is a remedy on Two Kinds Of Pork and Neotarf is now banned so problem solved and my only interactions with Lightbreather has been in the last 48 hours other then in September. As for carolmooredc I can't recall ever addressing her, I'm sorry my involvement in discussing this case has disturbed you but as you say it has all been civil. I am attempting to participate here in acceptable ways so if you have something you'd like me to change let me know and I'll consider it. I can't take responsibility for Neotarf's behavior nor can I take responsibility for Lightbreather's behavior but if it makes it easier I will not address her directly unless I see a policy violation. I do not agree that they have been baited to break policy as nothing I did preceded the outing or socking or subsequent behaviors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's time that neither of you interact with them at all - policy violation or not. Leave it to someone uninvolved.--v/r - TP 06:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Regardless of whatnot, I've asked if an arb or three could review this before we clerks close the case, since we're waiting on further instructions from the arbs regarding closing the case anyway. Ks0stm 06:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks.--v/r - TP 06:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok so again Neotarf no problem banned, Likewise Carolmooredc who I never interacted with anyways that just leaves lightbreather and the only thing I've done is expose the socking, request a finding and agree with her concerns on another account socking if not the account ID? Those are your grounds for asking for an interaction ban? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Regardless of whatnot, I've asked if an arb or three could review this before we clerks close the case, since we're waiting on further instructions from the arbs regarding closing the case anyway. Ks0stm 06:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's time that neither of you interact with them at all - policy violation or not. Leave it to someone uninvolved.--v/r - TP 06:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- There actually is a remedy on Two Kinds Of Pork and Neotarf is now banned so problem solved and my only interactions with Lightbreather has been in the last 48 hours other then in September. As for carolmooredc I can't recall ever addressing her, I'm sorry my involvement in discussing this case has disturbed you but as you say it has all been civil. I am attempting to participate here in acceptable ways so if you have something you'd like me to change let me know and I'll consider it. I can't take responsibility for Neotarf's behavior nor can I take responsibility for Lightbreather's behavior but if it makes it easier I will not address her directly unless I see a policy violation. I do not agree that they have been baited to break policy as nothing I did preceded the outing or socking or subsequent behaviors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is not currently a remedy concerning
Once this case closes (very shortly) discretionary sanctions will be in place, which are more flexible than injunctions. Per this provision an editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months, ... editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement. It might be a good idea if all concerned read the discretionary sanctions page so that they familiarise themselves with the new realities of the topic, Roger Davies 07:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)