Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

What's the scope of this case? Is it strictly about the behavior of the parties, or given that multiple arbitrators cited the axiomatic existence / problem of, at a minimum, the ratio of the male / female contributions different than population from which Wikipedia draws it editors as a reason to take to case, one even suggesting (and then retracting) a change in policy -- are we allowed to discuss that postulate, and its implications for Wikipedia dispute resolution protocols? NE Ent 12:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily second that question. Given that the leading "combatants" on each side are in rare unanimity that they didn't want this case to be accepted, and adding to that the adage hard cases make bad law, I actually have no idea what ArbCom even thought they were accepting. Clarification would help all of us. Here are some possibilities and my thoughts:

1. If it's an attempt to resolve the entire gender gap and systemic bias issue on wikipedia, good luck with all that.
2. If it's because of the latest round of Eric Corbett insulting someone, well, equally good luck with all that.
3. If it's because Corbett specifically pissed off a couple of individuals who see it as a symptom of a hostile environment, that's not an ArbCom matter - particularly given that most of the people Corbett has insulted in the past have been either male or have not disclosed their gender.
4. If it's because some people other than Corbett (Specifico, et. al.) started trolling the Gender Gap talk page and derailing its mission, that might be a case.
5. If it's because the editor with the most edits to the GGTF page confuses incivility with sexism, that's also not an ArbCom matter.

So further thoughts and guidance from ArbCom would help me formulate my thoughts on whatever it is we are debating! Montanabw^(talk) 20:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it was obvious it would not/could not be about how to resolve the gender gap issue and that it was entirely about WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on the part of both "sides". (Which may go to explain why the desire of both "sides" for this not to proceed has been ignored). Apart from examining individual behaviour (and btw Eric Corbett seems to have had a minor role in all this so that really shouldn't be a distraction) what could usefully determined is the standards of behaviour in a "presure group" type WikiProject. Can "opposers" participate, how should "supporters" conduct themselves if they do participate? This would have broader application than the Gender Gap Task Force issue and it seems to me it is unclear at the moment. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Pressure groups", as you call them, seek changes that have repercussions for other editors, and so must be open to opposition. Hundreds of those discussing VisualEditor were entirely opposed to the tool or questioned the basic premises of its philosophy; I see no reason why this instance should be "protected" in some way. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but there appears to be a view that for some WikiProjects - if they are "worthy" enough that is - only broadly like-minded people should participate. And that for others to participate is automatically disruptive or trolling. Of course, there could still have been trolling, but some in this case have used trolling as a synonym for opposition. There is scope here for ArbCom to make clear the difference (or set the boundary between) opposition and disruption in these situations. (Btw, is "pressure group" just my ENGVAR? Not sure. Also known as Advocacy group). DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disclaimer, I'm not one of the drafters and these are just my opinions. That said, the gender gap is indeed a problem and it needs to be bridged; however, bridging it is not, per policy, within the purview of this Committee: as some love to say, ArbCom is not GovCom. We generally deal with behavioural issues and, so, I expect we will be examinining the conduct of all involved parties to determine whether there was any actionable misconduct. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Salvio has it exactly right, and I am one of the drafters . I'd like to see any evidence of actionable misconduct and suggestions for how to improve discussions in the future. The gender gap is a genuine issue on Wikipedia and it does need to be tackled - anything that we can do to facilitate that is a positive step forward. Worm^TT(talk) 10:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  My concern, having been someone who provided some statements and evidence in the infobox case, is that the danger here is that at the end of the day, a few people will somehow be banned or restricted, few to none of whom were the people doing most of the WP:BAITing, a general "be nicer" admonition will be issued, and nothing will actually change. What would help would be some actual guideline or policy discussions with a view to a overall look at ways to reduce trolling in general, which is usually beneath a lot of the problems with individuals rising to the boiling point and then behaving poorly. Montanabw^(talk) 03:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this case should have been accepted. The issues with Eric's comments are kind of meaningless and not worthy of an arbitration case. Only thing that seemed worthy of attention was SPECIFICO's interactions with Carol, which were addressed by the community some time back. Even if we consider the subsequent dust-up with Sitush as relevant to the case, he has not made any edits for nearly two weeks with no clear indication of when or if he might return so I am not sure there is any reason to accept a case over that issue. There was really nothing left for ArbCom to address.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This case would not have been accepted had my name not been attached to it. It's just another lynch mob. Eric Corbett 23:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten that this case was started by an editor providing a mouthpiece for Jimmy Wales, [1], who has made several unsubstantiated allegations against Eric. Nikkimaria and Carrite in the following section sum up exactly what was going on at the project page. J3Mrs (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not diffable "evidence" exactly, but something that seems quite relevant to the case nevertheless:

"Today, Western feminism [as represented here by the GGTF] isn’t concerned primarily, as it should be, with civic action, but with overreaction to unsavoury elements in popular culture (sexist song lyrics, sexist TV writing) and a never-ending obsession with the identity politics of “privilege.” Every space where feminist theory and issues are discussed must be a “safe” one, which is to say a conformist one. According to the Geek Feminist Wiki, a popular online feminist forum, a “safe space is an area where a shared political or social viewpoint is required to participate.” Discussions, therefore, tend to end before they begin, unless they devolve into yelling matches" (Teitel, 2014).

This is what has happened here, and more importantly, this is why. This case appears to be framed as an opportunity to sanction those yelling the loudest, but doing so wouldn't solve the problem. Discussion is the wiki way, after all. Silencing the opposition is not healthy, and here it's not feasible. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that analysis is not "western feminism." Feminism is simply "the radical notion that women are people." The GGTF is a branch from the Countering Systemic Bias project, which should be addressing any number of related "invisibility" problems on wiki. (Any idea how many Native American wikipedia editors there are? Very, very few!) Most folks here know me and know that I am pretty good in an on-wiki street fight, AND I am a feminist AND I am a woman. I'm really tired of both anti-feminists and some people who claim the feminist mantle both making the ridiculous argument for fluffy pink bunnies and magic unicorns to appear before the girls can come play - and that we will be run off if we don't get them (utter nonsense). I also am frustrated that the GGTF has become a free-fire zone between trolls and people who confuse incivility with sexism (not at all the same). Whatever else happens, let's not let this devolve into some sort of feminist-bashing fest, because that is not helpful. We have horrible problems with trolls on articles such as Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn, that's the stuff that is the real problem. Montanabw^(talk) 05:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if you read the whole article you'll find it actually agrees with you ;-). The author makes a distinction between contemporary currents in Western feminism, represented by certain groups and trends (which I suggest include the GGTF), and what feminism is meant to be. I agree, and I expect the author would as well, that the "fluffy pink bunnies" movement is misguided, and at times borders on offensive (cf. VisualEditor being promoted as more accessible for women editors). That's not bashing feminism, that's bashing how it's being applied in the Wikipedia context. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the GGTF as a part of WP:CSB, not counter to it. I also think that is the spirit in which it was created. As for the "fluffy pink bunnies and magic unicorns" - perhaps we're in agreement there, although I don't really like the meme because I think it demeans the contributions of editors (male and female) who lean toward the less prickly, political subjects. If an editor would prefer to write about fashion or cats, they should be treated with every bit as much respect as he or she who prefers to write about labor or evolutionary biology. I also disagree that there are GGTF participants who "confuse incivility with sexism." That oversimplifies the connection and stops short of reducing it to a meme like "fluffy pink bunnies". Lightbreather (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... unless they devolve into yelling matches between men’s rights activists (a ragtag collective of angry virgins and divorced dads) and indignant feminists (a ragtag collective of angry everything) futilely trying to reason with them" is the end of the Teitel paragraph quoted above. I do think the ones who cause the most "heat" at GGTF (and probably everywhere else on WP where feminism and sexism are discussed) are these editors who cannot control their anger. Everyone gets angry, but that's no excuse for profanities and obstructionism. Lightbreather (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the words "feminism" and "sex" do not appear on the Main case page in its current (14:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)) form. Although the subjects of feminism and sexism come up in GGTF discussions, the task force is not about those things but about hows those things - along with other questions - effect gender gaps in general and the WP gender gap in particular. Lightbreather (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion page actually gets to what I believe to be the real issue with two phrases: "pressure group" and "identity politics." The Gender Gap Task Force is not a WikiProject like WikiProject Feminism or WikiProject Biography or WikiProject Mississippi or WikiProject Conservatism — a project focusing on encyclopedia content. It is a political pressure group. And more than that, it is a political pressure group making use of identity politics, which is the fundamental cause of the strife. I don't think the GGTF's goal is bad (increasing the number of women editors). I don't think a political organization of editors to defend and advance the cause of women is bad — or even to advance politically or to defend female editors simply because they are women. I just don't think such a political organization should have its locus of organization on Wiki. A Wikipediocracy type entity by and for women with restricted membership hosted and conducted off site makes far better sense to me, keeping Wikipedia itself apolitical. Carrite (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sound thinking. But please clarify: do you feel the GGTF mission s/b limited to "increasing the number of women editors"? What change(s) would you advocate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force#Scope? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the GGTF would be better used to promote addressing gender gap issues with CONTENT - if you build it, the editors will come - right now, I suspect articles on 21st century porn stars outnumber those on 21st century women writers by a factor of a zillion to one - and if someone doesn't see that as a gender gap problem, well, that is also a rpoblem...Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would think that WikiProject Feminism is already set up for that. The porn star issue is a separate one, I think — it's actually a pretty easy one to solve by wiping out the Special Notability Guideline for porn stars and forcing articles on them to face the normal standards which articles on non-pornographic actors must face, which is an idea that would have traction. Carrite (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good question, which is why the GGTF is a spinoff from the Countering Systemic Bias project... and why they aren't all linked to WP Feminism. Montanabw^(talk) 18:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another concern I have had, frankly, is that one editor (one of the parties to this case) kind of singlehandedly did make this an "identity politics" area, and at GGTF I did comment that places like the Geek Feminism wiki might be a more appropriate place for the community organizing aspect. To me "countering systemic bias" and addressing the gender gap IS a content issue - just like the problems on the Native American pages of making the modern people invisible is also a systemic bias problem. I don't want to see the GGTF disbanded because someone confuses wiki with wikipediocracy. Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing that individuals (including previously uninvolved ones) on this Arbitration page are trying to figure out the purpose and scope of Countering Systemic Bias/Gender Gap Task Force. Because of constant disruptions that will be evidenced, we never got around to having a decent discussion of purpose and scope ourselves!! Thus behavior remains the main issues here.

In fact, this page contains some of the same kinds of disruptions we had, with some accusingly claiming THIS IS WHAT YOU ALL OR SOME OF YOU THINK based on various ad hoc personal opinions on whatever. Then the accused get ticked off at the project or ourselves being pigeon holed before there even is a coherent discussion of what what the issues are.
Figuring out purpose and scope is slowly starting to happen now that the disruption has ended, if in a somewhat haphazard fashion. However, this arbitration is a whole 'nother layer of disruption that will put off a final understanding even longer.
In short, I'll be happy if we can focus on a) certain obviously disruptive and trolling behaviors and call them unacceptable and b) share a reminder to those who protested these behaviors to go to WP:Dispute resolution or WP:ANI sooner before things get so heated up. (It was at least 6 weeks after the first recommendation from an Admin we consider ANI - and several more recommendations and warnings about it - before anyone took the disruption there. Will provide exact diffs.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose and scope of Countering Systemic Bias/Gender Gap Task Force. Because of constant disruptions that will be evidenced, we never got around to having a decent discussion of purpose and scope ourselves!! Shouldn't said discussion occur before crafting Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force#Scope (as opposed to after)!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As written now and through much of last couple months, it's a draft based on ideas already generated by Wikimedia.org Gender Gap projects. Discussion of what en.Wikipedia GGTF scope and purpose (not to mention projects) is within that is what is ongoing. Maybe all we'll end up being able to do is, as individuals, support or reject ideas which are introduced as proposals. I don't know. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So says the person to whom I was referring. I seldom agree with The Devil's Advocate, but one can see from this discussion that this case is going nowhere because even the parties aren't sure what it's all about. Montanabw^(talk) 04:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is all about SPECIFICO and CMDC pissing on each other's toes for a long time, and with Eric raising some very reasonable questions about claims being made by CMDC, although Eric has been abrasive in his approach. Carol feeds off of this and plays the victim. Some like, Neotarf, want the GGTF to be a "safe harbor" first, and to address the gender gap second..Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have specific allegations to make against specific individuals, it's time to do it in evidence and not trash specific individuals with no evidence at all. I assume that a diff of someone claiming someone else said something should actually include a diff showing the person actually said it? So editors don't have to waste limited words asking for such evidence? I'm quite sure I've been accused of saying things that other people said. Perhaps the Arbitrators could make that clear if I am correct? @ User:Worm That Turned, User:GorillaWarfare, User:Newyorkbrad. Thanks Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me from reading this and looking over the GGTF talk page that the only real dispute now is over the purpose of the group and that is not a situation where ArbCom has any role to play.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps...and on that note, I motion to remove Eric Corbett and replace him with The Devil's Advocate.--MONGO 18:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"right now, I suspect articles on 21st century porn stars outnumber those on 21st century women writers by a factor of a zillion to one "

We have 822 members of Category:21st-century women writers and 733 living or recently dead members of Category:21st-century women writers (including 4 levels of sub-cats) - so some 1555 entries - these categories don't tell the whole story, though, taking out duplicates and adding in other women writers who lived past 2000 (for example Delia Sherman) and are not in these categories we get 11,620. List of pornographic actresses by decade lists 30 actresses in the 2000's and 18 in the 2010s, giving a total of 48 articles, however this list was eviscerated recently. The entire category Category:Pornographic film actors, including subcategories to a depth of 4 has only 1409 articles about actors (male and female), of whom at most 1353 were alive during the 21st century. Even ignoring the "zillion" and counting male pornographic actors (and not just "stars") we have eight times more 21st century women writers than 21st century porn stars

See WP:HASMORE. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

Noted and filed under "No hyperbole shall go unskewered by well meaning literalists". --regentspark (comment) 01:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, people. It took almost a month to open this case and now the evidence phase is almost a week in and there isn't a shred of evidence of anything. And that's totally literal, as of this post there isn't even a single diff on the evidence page. Plenty of talk, but no substance.

At some point the parties are going to have to admit there is no case here and what little there was is long stale. If this page is any indication, the parties aren't even sure what to argue about so why are we here? If this keeps up, the only question that will be answered is "what if an Arbcom case was declared and nobody came"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence deadline is the 17th. There's no particular advantage in posting earlier in the process. NE Ent 01:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom is either too late or too early with this case. I hope nobody posts a word of evidence, personally. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The involved parties have 'apparently' worked out their differences & seem to consider the case un-neccessary. If no evidence is presented by the deadline, the case will likely be closed with 'no ruling'. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, one party is drafting something that I could describe in negative terms but will control self. Another party has been known to submit similar evidence one hour before deadline. So unfortunately the "no evidence" option is not likely. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is permissible to link to such drafts: User:Two kinds of pork/sandbox. Indeed, parties are encouraged to draft their evidence submissions before submitting them. Either on-wiki or off-wiki. If evidence is presented just before the deadline, that deadline can be extended to allow discussion and a limited amount of rebuttals. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one of the drafters, but hopefully some thoughts will help those considering evidence submissions. In my accept statement I said: "There is plenty of poor conduct that has taken place here, with issues of baiting, over-reaction to criticism, incivility, forum shopping, battleground behaviour, and possibly canvassing as well." It is examples of those that I would expect to be presented in evidence. If no-one presents evidence, it is entirely possible for arbitrators to go through the relevant contributions and find the evidence themselves (this happens in a number of cases, where evidence is added by arbitrators that isn't presented by the parties to the case). I don't think it has ever been the case that parties to a case have as a group failed to present evidence, but from the sounds of it (mentions of userspace drafting) that won't be the case here. I see there is now an evidence section of sorts. I'll comment on that separately, and will try and comment on some of the earlier discussions on this page later this weekend (though really, discussion here can only go so far, and evidence is more helpful). Carcharoth (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a discussion here on the evidence approach taken by Casliber (talk · contribs), putting up links to the last 500 contributions prior to October by the listed parties (the section named 'Editing patterns'). Looking at an editor's overall contributions is needed to get a feel for their approach to editing and to disputes, but that type of analysis only goes so far. Also, the 'last 500 edits' is an arbitrary approach - you also need to look at the timescales involved. And number and percentages of edits is only ever useful as a first approximation. The only way to really work out what someone is doing here is to look at each and every one of their edits. And that takes time. Casliber really needs to do the work himself, rather than putting up links and hoping that a crowdsourced editor review will take place (it could degenerate into the worse sort of RfC/U and generate more bad blood between the parties). It is worth reading up on the history of Wikipedia:Editor review and why that was marked historical. My overall view is that being listed as a party to an arbitration case isn't really sufficient for others to carry out the sort of in-depth editor review that Casliber is suggesting.

On the other hand, ArbCom have passed findings summarising in part an editor's history here. See here and here for examples from the Ebionites 3 arbitration case. Other examples also exist. If Casliber wanted to work up examples like that himself, he can, but throwing up links and asking others to do the actual analytical work isn't really going to work. Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My free time is limited. I hadn't really intended wasting my time on this case, but suspected that arbitrators might make some assessments of people's editing patterns based on assumption rather than observation. I hope that I am wrong on that. I am intending to look at the edits myself. I chose the most recent 500 edits up until the opening of the case as that was closest to the period of conflict. What were you proposing on doing Carcharoth? If you don't think someone's input warrants scrutinising then have a motion removing them as a party to the case. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The evidence page has been deathly silent. From my experience as an arb it means generally that arbs have been busy with other things, and that no-one has looked much at this yet, which makes me fear there'll be a hurried approach at the 11th hour to come up with some findings. I hope I am wrong though... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it proper for User:CasLiber to invite other editors to "fill in his blanks"? Parties to the case, GGTF participants and observers will have their own issues and reserve their 500 or 1000 words for their own section. In addition to points made by User:Carcharoth:

• He’s used more than 400 of 500 words - his evidence is just a few links
• It can lead to editors debating and even arguing within another editor’s section.
• This just rounds up editors who might not post otherwise and might even let them support other’s arguments and diffs without presenting any, perhaps leading to the appearance of a false community consensus. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Casliber may be onto something. Relying purely on diffs leads to a skewed view of what's really going on and removes useful context from the process. What an editor is really contributing to the encyclopedia is perhaps more important than looking at a situation in isolation. What appears to be disruption in one situation may actually be helping the encyclopedia when considered in a larger context. Definitely an out of the box approach that should be considered rather than shot down on mere technical grounds. --regentspark (comment) 14:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this case so special that an out of the box approach is required here? Any suggestion that the conventional approach doesn't work is a waste of time anyway. I really hope you are not smuggling in the content contributions vs civility debate. 122.177.11.190 (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that this case is special. Rather, that the diff only approach may be fundamentally flawed and it is worth discussing a change in approach for all cases. And this is not about civility vs content (speaking for myself, not for casliber). I can also think of several long term content contributors whose strong content contributions did not save them from banning, and rightly so in my opinion. But, I can also think of long term content contributors who were pushed into apparently disruptive behavior by focused, but civil, pov pushers. So, no. This is not about content vs civility. Focusing solely on the present disruption narrows the focus when we should, instead, be taking a broader view. Asking questions like who, amongst the parties, has a broad editing pattern versus who has a narrow pattern around the area of disruption? Why is user X, an otherwise stellar wikipedian, apparently behaving disruptively in this situation? --regentspark (comment) 18:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 122.177.11.190, how about editing from an account rather than hiding behind an IP? Also, any draughting arbitrator would be doing the same thing - systematically reviewing conduct by looking at contributions and posting notable ones for the others to comment on. So there is nothing unconventional about it. All items have to be supported by diffs, so inferences and impressions are not sufficient. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of use edit from raw IPs. Ban me/us if you don't like it. I'm sure you can trump up some bureaucratic nonsense as justification. 12.249.243.118 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors hide behind monikers not IPs. There is nothing as transparent as editing from an IP. 122.177.11.190 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see any evidence of anyone disrupting anything. That might be a place to start. Asking pertinent questions isn't disruption. Eric Corbett 20:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I used to be able to click somewhere to find out what percentage of an editor's total edits over their career were in article/talk/user/project/etc space. Can't find that now. Does it still exist? Certainly presents a better picture than the last 500 edits since life and Wikipedia circumstances change. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User contributions, bottom of page, "Edit Count." e.g. [2] NE Ent 22:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So comparing, say, mine to some other editors... I've got 32% article, 29% article talk, because I edit in controversial areas where there's a lot of debate to get to consensus. (And lots of visits to noticeboards because so many of the articles I worked on were WP:BLPs.)

Another editor might have 75% article, 6% talk because they edit in areas of little interest to others (and with few page views) but where they can rack up edit counts and avoid discussion. (Of course, if in addition they insult and drive away editors who disagree with them, that also might account for the lower amount of talk page discussion.) So just another reason that User:CasLibers entry is irrelevant at best. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly didn't make those figures up out of the blue, as the history of your edit shows. Let me just give the lie to your hypothesis about my editing history by drawing attention to Margaret Thatcher, with 132,000 page views in the last 30 days. Or information technology, with 141,000 page views, ranked 2273 in article traffic to give you a sense of scale. I could go on, but I won't, in the hope that the next time you try attacking me you will at least do so with the benefit of having examined the facts, not simply relying on your prejudices and hearsay. Eric Corbett 00:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That general case -which probably describes a lot of people- as well as hundreds more scenarios that describe various editing patterns, make the relevant point regarding the irrelevance of listing the last 500 edits. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you actually used my name and my editing statistics, and went on to suggest that I confine myself to articles in "areas of very little interest". I suggest that you stop making stuff up, as you did recently when accusing J3Mrs of being my wife. Eric Corbett 00:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving your name in was a sloppy editing error. I decided the general description and similar statistics was better since it could fit a number of editors over time. As for whether J3Mrs had a COI of being your wife, I found out it wasn't and apologized. And analyzing it more per her request for relevant diffs I saw it was more a strong POV that led to her battleground attitude, though obviously you know each other from Manchester or editing about Manchester. But lets keep to the general principles. My apology an editing error derailed the train of thought temporarily. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make a lot of that general type of error, Carolmooredc, causing you to make fairly frequent apologies, retractions or amendments. An example would be your assumption that Montanabw was a man. If I could understand the scope of this case and wasn't in hiding, I might be tempted to list others where you didn't apologise/retract but obviously should have done. Would such a list be in scope, clerks?

Your analysis of article vs article talk edits also seems to have a potential flaw other than the obvious one that Eric mentions: it seems to me that some people are drawn to the high heat vs light drama of certain very specific topics. They are not "forced" to spend more time on talk pages than on the articles but rather choose to do so because they like stirring the pot, needling, tendentious promotion of an opinion or whatever. I think Cas Liber's suggestion may have merit in principle, although allowance does need to be made for things such as volume of contributions over time and I'm really not sure where we should draw the line in terms of absolute number of edits. As Cas Liber says, 500 is entirely arbitrary - it is a figure that I could quite easily hit in a couple of days, whereas others might take a month or more. - 2.125.151.139 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC) (aka Sitush: I have a good reason for not wanting to sign in here but feel free to email for verification that this is indeed me)[reply]

My interest was piqued and I've just looked at my stats, which show 75% article/8% article talk. I doubt that many of the articles I edit come close to those of Eric in terms of page views but they are chock-full of controversy and I'm probably among the most abused contributors on this project because of it. Some might argue that they are also far more subject to systemic bias than anything that the GGTF is likely to address; they are certainly among those that most desperately need experienced eyes upon them. Things like Gun Control, Palestine-Israel, Libertarianism and Feminism, on the other hand, already have hundreds of such eyes. The more I think about it, the more useful Cas Liber's proposal seems to be. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not too early to recommend Carolmooredc interaction ban with Sitush as one good thing this arbitration can accomplish. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until this, I had stuck to my promise not to discuss you outside my talk page and ArbCom proceedings. That lapse will not be repeated and follows from your obviously point-y contribution at that talk page, which is your only contribution to that article/talk and came immediately after my valid point raised above. - Sitush (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that "promise" to whom so ever. Any diff? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware, since the thread was mentioned in an ANI discussion and you referred to it, my thoughts were expressed at User_talk:Sitush/Archive_19#Two_Way_Interaction_Ban. I'm under a phenomenal amount of pressure relating to Wikipedia at the moment, some of which I cannot explain because it is sub judice, but in my opinion my single lapse as diff'd above is largely something that you have brought upon yourself. I've no intention of repeating it. There are extremely good reasons why a one-way ban (either way) would be inappropriate and a two-way ban would effectively make me yet another of your "scalps" (which is why you have been champing at the bit to see it enacted - note this and this). All we have to do is not jump on each other outside of some very specific circumstances; alas, you jumped and I jumped back before quickly remembering that I'd said I would not.

My point in commenting here was a response to Cas Liber's recent thoughts regarding potential evidence. You are the one who has turned it into a specific discussion and you are the one who, as so frequently, has highlighted how significant you think that is by both outdenting and bolding it. This is my last word in this subthread: I'm not letting you draw me in by hijacking something yet again. - Sitush (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've found the most specific diff, among a lot of revdel'd stuff in the aforementioned thread on my talk - see this. You have referred to me frequently since that time in numerous place; my references to you have been nil outside of the ANI thread, that specific talk page thread and my recently retracted comment diff'd above. - Sitush (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that is a diff from User_talk:Sitush/Archive_19#Two_Way_Interaction_Ban that was a discussion between you and TParis about a mutual interaction ban, which I supported. He was relaying your official position to me. He never reported back at User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_IX#Two-way_Interaction_Ban the final results. So I had to take it as being represented by TParis comment to you at the end of that your thread: Fair enough if you want to take your chances, it's not time wasted, it was a worthy effort.--v/r - TP 17:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

After I noticed some one claiming to be you, back and insulting me, I had to check out if it really was you. I thus read another editor noting your continued "pattern of hectoring and intimidation".[3] So it was just human nature to opine to a true statement with "Hear! Hear!"

You pushed for this Arbitration and have said you want me site banned[4]. Your now-deleted attack biography seems to have helped make this Arbitration happen. Why you haven't been added as a party is beyond me. But you don't have to be a party to be sanctioned to stop bad behavior, do you?

Since this is a discussion of CasLiber's strange "evidence" section, I guess that would be a great place for various editors who watch their buddies' edits to call for site banning editors, without having to put themselves on the line by creating their own evidence section. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carolmooredc: Your above comments are extraordinary and it is time for some introspection. I wondered where you had apologized about "a COI of being your wife" and found this. That section shows you have no understanding of reasonable conduct. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found Carolmooredc's comments on my talk page to be very disturbing. Attempting to spread unsubstantiated, malicious rumours is far worse in my opinion that any "rude" words. That sort of remark could have caused damage to persons other than me. That she apologized is of no consequence to me because the damage was done. Her edits should be examined. She cannot let things go, seeks attention, gives out far too much personal information then plays the victim and scoots around misunderstanding comments and making wild assumptions. She is a liability to herself. J3Mrs (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too found CMD's accusation that you and I were married to be rather creepy, and her unsubstantiated claim to be simply repeating what she'd seen someone else write elsewhere to be completely unconvincing. She needs to learn that liars always get found out eventually. Eric Corbett 18:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it was only a matter of time before this degenerated into yet another attempted civility putsch. Eric Corbett 01:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly find the massive claims of baiting to ring hollow. For example, consider this exchange which LB considers baiting:

Neotarf to EC: Is there anyone in the entire project who does not believe you have nothing but contempt for women?

EC to Neotarf: Let's face a couple of facts here Neotarf. If you had made that completely baseless comment about anyone else you would now be blocked, or at least warned. The fact that you are free to propagate such lies here tells its own story

Just how is Eric's response to Neotarf's despicable personal attack considered baiting? The rest of the diff's tell a similar story. Sharp-tongued != baitingTwo kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 01:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just those two comments, taken out of context, would not appear to be baiting, but considering what Neotarf was replying to in the first place:

Eric Corbett said: You misrepresent the issue. If a charge of "entrenched sexism" is made – nothing to do with the gender gap per se – then it is not unreasonable to ask for some evidence in support of said claim. Unless you're attempting to dishonestly push a feminist agenda of course. This project would do better to stick to the verifiable facts instead of hyperbolic rhetoric.[5]

The highlighted parts were unnecessary and uncivil (or impolite, if Eric wants to call it that). I think the the arbitrators will know to put these things in context. Lightbreather (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, despite Eric putting the words in quotes, no one had said "entrenched sexism" - at least up to that point - on that talk page, though SPECIFICO had accused (some) task force members of "outright sexism" [6] against men, which was part of the disruption going on. Lightbreather (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, @Lightbreather:, but I was clearly stating that it is sexist against women to project cultural gender stereotypes on female WP editors. Please strike your misrepresentation of my statement. It is a personal attack. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted your meaning. Here's the quote,[7] which you made in reply to a discussion about WikiWand and Carolmooredc's comment about Sue Gardner's Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia.

This saddens me, to see such outright sexism on our own Gender Gap page. 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? How can we promote closing the Gap when we perpetuate cultural stereotypes and slurs? A more productive effort would be to beef up articles about girls who've won Nobel prizes, academic honors, and national elections.

Maybe others thought you were saying that Carol (and others) were picking on "boys," too? Maybe not? Perhaps that will get discussed in greater detail in the days ahead, but not by me. (As an aside, beefing up articles about important women would be great, but the GGTF is about attracting more female editors.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the announcement that I made yesterday has been deleted,[8] which is OK, but just to correct the record. My evidence isn't nearly 600 words, as I first thought. Minus section headers and the bracketed diff links, it's only 513 words. Lightbreather (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather: "I'm sorry if..." doesn't constitute a retraction of your attack. You'll note that I outdented my statement to make clear that it was a comment on the entire thread, not any one editor. By repeating my words here out of context rather than, for example, linking to the entire thread, I believe you're reinforcing your attack. If you're not willing to redact it I will cite this matter in my Evidence. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get into an argument here about the minutiae. I don't think the arbs will balk at 13 extra words. And regarding the context of EC/Neotarf; of one feels someone is misrepresenting something, EC said it in the most civil way possible. Would you prefer "liar liar?"Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Objection by Scalhotrod[edit]

Ping: Salvio giuliano, Worm That Turned, et. al.

I've been trying to maintain a low profile lately, take a Wikibreak, and otherwise distance myself from these issues. But I was informed offwiki of being mentioned in this proceeding [9].

I object to being dragged into this as well as to NOT being informed of my inclusion.

I ask the arbiters to please to remove mention of me from this proceeding in the above referenced dif. Thank you, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's usually considered polite to inform editors you've mentioned in your evidence submission of said mention, but, to my knowledge, that's not really a requirement (people are only informed by clerks when they have been mentioned in the proposed decision). That said, speaking personally, I don't think we should remove those two references to you, because, for my part, I believe arbs should avoid modifying the evidence presented by parties, unless it contains personal attacks. If some bits of evidence are immaterial to the case at hand, then they are ignored. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough and understandable. Part of why I brought it up is that this same Editor, Lightbreather, made a personal attack on me during an arb proceeding and it was ignored even when I brought attention to it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Added later to clear up confusion - To Arbitrators:]Yes, my evidence runs a bit over because it is a timeline that puts incidents in context. It contains a lot of diffs from other GGTF participants criticizing parties to the case. These individuals probably will refrain from presenting evidence because of time constraints or to avoid nasty conflicts. Hopefully there won’t be too many non-obvious and/or seriously misrepresented allegations against me (i.e., those with actual diffs) that I will have to ask for more words to challenge. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert added later to clear up confusion - To Arbitrators:]I added two more sets of diffs LINK relevant to the “c-word” which has inflamed this whole GGTF debate from the start. Clearly there’s a gangup here of Eric Corbett and Sitush friends against editors presenting evidence which is even worse than what happened at GGTF. (Does this happen frequently at Arbitrations?) So I guess other GGTF people won’t feel comfortable presenting evidence. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

I just realized TKOP, Eric Corbett and SPECIFICO have used this page to challenge evidence for accuracy or to explain opinions. Can others do it too? It seems to me last time we had to put all such replies only on the evidence page. Have the rules changed? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have they? (I don't know; I haven't read everything above. I only have one life.) In my opinion, nobody should use this page for that purpose. There's a special area on the workshop page for analysis of evidence: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop#Analysis_of_evidence. It's part of the workshop template, i.e. it's a standard header on workshop pages. In my opinion it's in your own and everybody else's interest to use that designated area by preference; the workshop may not be very widely read, but this talkpage is positively obscure. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Insert: Thanks for the reminder about Analysis sections. Hopefully editor below and others will remember that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc, if you want to free up space in your evidence, I strongly suggest you remove:

Some diffs indicate Sitush blames Sue Gardner’s gender gap "initiative" for bringing unwanted “newbie” (i.e., women) editors into Wikipedia. (India's Gender Gap project is very active.) [10][11][12]

You have jumped to the conclusion that systemic bias=gender gap. You have incorrectly synthesized from Sitush's mention of serious problems in India-related articles in general (which are manifest) and his completely justified criticism of a failed and very expensive WMF initiative in 2011 to recruit Indian college students as editors—the Indian Education Program—to conclude that he called Indian women "unwanted newbies". Nothing could be further from the truth. This "pilot program" brought 900 poorly prepared, poorly supervised Indian college students (mostly male technology students, and many with a poor command of English) en masse onto Wikipedia to create articles as a mandatory class assignment. It was a complete and unmitigated disaster. The students flooded Wikipedia with copyvio which took literally hundreds of editor-hours to clean up and deal with, and the clean up is still not finished. Most of the articles that weren't copyvio were completely unusable. Voceditenore (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Evidence, I don't think Arbitrators are going to be reading you opinions and opinions aren't relevant to evidence. Save it for analysis, per above. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't know if Voceditenore will return to analysis and User:Johnunique has complained about my not answering here, let me say: a) I don't see the diff that I say system bias=gender gap; the connection is more subtle and still under discussion; b) sure, Sitush could have been mad about male "clueless newbies" coming in, too; but Gardner's best known "initiative" is closing the gender gap (numerous mainstream articles about her and Gardner-written articles here). So both can be true. And there's no doubt he didn't like the En.Wikipedia GGTF. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those three diffs supports your assertion that Sitush "blames Sue Gardner's gender gap "initiative" for bringing unwanted “newbie” (i.e., women) editors into Wikipedia." I gave you the background information to help you understand why. It's your choice what you put in your evidence. It's your choice to dismiss what I pointed out to you as merely my opinion. It's your choice to continue to make those false assertions. As can be seen in the section below, at least one arbitrator had already noticed and commented on them before I did. Voceditenore (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of evidence - including that provided against me - can be interpreted in different ways. (Look at all the excuses for using the word "c*nt".) I am saying how I interpret it. If Arbitrators disagree, they will ignore it. This is not a math quiz with one right answer. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way in which Sitush's statements can be read the way you want them to be read. The proper conclusion the arbitrators will draw from your accusation is that you're playing fast and loose with the evidence. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc has just inserted a comment after her opening one in this section. I've no idea why she didn't add it to the bottom of the thread as most people would have done in order to ensure people saw it. But I've suggested this to her before, without success. Anyway, CMDC, please provide support for your assumption that there’s a gangup here of Eric Corbett and Sitush friends against editors presenting evidence (my bolding) Could it not just be that people want to give evidence about others because there is evidence and there is concern? - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I left this out of evidence because it really belongs here. In September Sitush inferred an Arbitrator encouraged/approved of his writing a biography of me. “At least one member of ArbCom is aware that I am looking into the possibilities of sourcing such a revived BLP.” And infers further approval for his accumulating off-site material on me, writing “And if you'd like me to provide support for what I've said above then by all means I will do so via the Arbs and they can pass them to you if they deem fit.”[13]

I don’t necessarily need an answer to this, but I think other Arbitrators need to find out what it's all about. If Sitush’s statement is true and there was any discussion at all (pro, con or indifferent) between Sitush and an Arbitrator regarding the biography - and this Arbitration, that Arbitrator needs to forward the exact text of the discussion to the other ArbCom members and, if necessary, recuse him/herself from the proceedings. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In September Sitush inferred an Arbitrator encouraged/approved of his writing a biography of me, Your conclusion is not supported by the diff you link to. "Being aware of something" is very different from "encouraging".

This is far from the first time you've misunderstood (and this is me assuming good faith) something and then launched into a long tirade, making serious allegations and accusations of misconduct. You did the very same thing wrt the statement I made when I voted to accept this case, which you read as if I was saying "Oh No! They want a lot of crazy women in here to do crazy shit like this." (and then proceded to complain, without even asking for clarification or making sure that was indeed what I meant).

And you did the very same on J3Mrs's talk page, ditto for your accusation on the evidence page that Sitush is blam[ing] Sue Gardner’s gender gap "initiative" for bringing unwanted “newbie” (i.e., women) editors into Wikipedia..

These are all examples of what I consider disruptively pugnacious mentality and I do hope that, going forward, you may learn to assume good faith more and make unsubstantiated accusations less.

For the record, I was the arbitrator Sitush told, en passant, that he was thinking about creating a bio about you; my reply, verbatim, was I advise against creating a BLP for Carol. We didn't discuss it any further. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had no knowledge of Sitush's planning to write this biography and am not aware of any arbitrator who did. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info. Best to ask about it that ruminate about it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB, Salvio guilano has just identified himself as the arbitrator who communicated with Sitush about Carol's BLP, as he says, en passant, which must be ArbSpeak for "while we were chatting about other stuff". —Neotarf (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ArbSpeak, it's French. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its a chess move that gets you accused of cheating from people who think they know how to play. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the above two comments are jokes, but it would be a serious matter if an Arbitrator were counseling someone on how to push a case to Arbitration to get someone they (one or both) have a grudge against site banned. I doubt Salvio was doing that, but I assume (per my evidence) that's the info Sitush was after. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "the info Sitush was after". No info was sought and, as so often, your assumption is based on an extremely skewed view of the world. You are casting aspersions without decent evidence: please stop building big houses with poor foundations and then inviting people to view them ad infinitum. You were given an explanation and you should AGF, not go off on some flight of fancy that suits an ingrained pov. Another example is in your evidence: Alleged threats against Sitush are not an excuse - there was and is nothing "alleged" about the threats, as many people well know. 90.213.181.169 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert: Not knowing the evidence of threats and not seeing them presented in the community discussion of how the Foundation deals with threats, I don't want to say something is true that I do not know to be true. If I knew it to be true I would have said "Threats against Sitush are not an excuse." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AG-bloody-F. As it is, "alleged" is disingenuously snide. The India Against Corruption (IAC) thing is scattered far and wide on this project and you have even taken part in at least one discussion relating to it, ie: when you rather bizarrely popped up with this and, as is also common, turned it into something about you. I'm trying to avoid you, Carol, outside of this procedure but you have repeatedly effectively commented about me in odd circumstances since I said that I would do so, eg: here. Drop it, please: you are out of your depth. If you doubt my claims regarding threats then please at least accept that plenty of other people do not doubt it and that in fact there have been numerous legal threats made against me on-wiki regarding this specific issue and plenty of on-wiki physical threats regarding other issues, let alone the off-wiki stuff about both types. WMF are involved also and I can do without your pathetic attempts at semantic point-scoring. I've had to relocate and take legal advice because of this crap. It isn't some nutty troll mass mailing stuff but in fact very credible and it looks like someone else is also now being affected by it. This is not paranoia, although I think a lot of what you have said over the years might well fall into that category: everyone who disagrees with you is, apparently, out to "get" you. Sorry, but I'm really, really upset now. - 90.213.181.169 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An AnonIP infers he is Sitush, who pushed hard for an arbitration. If it is Sitush and he wants to comment on evidence, he should comment in the Workshop analysis section, per Bishonen's comment above. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that Carol discerned more evidence from the above. She feared that Sitush's commentary that "at least one member of ArbCom is aware that I am looking into the possibilities of sourcing such a revived BLP” could imply approval, which is one plausible interpretation of why Sitush said it. And we've learned that said arbitrator said "I advise against creating a BLP for Carol" before Sitush proceeded to do so. Carol's "tirades" may annoy some, but she a right to due process without any appearances of impropriety, and it appears this question has been cleared up appropriately.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

While I initially did not think Sitush "gun barrell" threat was addressed at me, others soon pointed out evidence it might have been and that I should investigate further.

I immediately wrote the Wikimedia Foundation a month ago and was told my request was referred it to their legal department. I have not heard if I have a right to get that information, as someone told me I do, or if there is some other policy. Ping: User:Philippe (WMF) And obviously the Foundation's opinion would be the definitive one as to "no" you can't see the full text or "only under such and such condition."

I've been told that admins can't reveal text, only vague details of redacted material, as Sitush inferred in "evidence". (Reading Wikipedia:Administrators wasn't too helpful.) And I guess what goes for Admins goes for Arbitrators.

Vague details are not helpful in an ambiguous situation like this where a turn of a phrase only understood by those knowing the full history of the dispute (or wikihounding, as I prefer to call it) can make it clear who are the target(s). So "yes" or "no" answers really aren't helpful.

However, if admins (or arbitrators) definitively can reveal the full text, I am asking Arbitrators for the full text. If they say I can ask Admins, I'll be glad to do so until someone provides the information and then I will not be speculating on the nature or target(s) of the threat. If they can reveal the full text, know any Admin willing to do it? (I really hate to put people on the spot in such a crazy situation.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an awful lot that you have been told for which there is no evidence but, worse, you have been inconsistent in your claims anyway and that was one of the points of the evidence. Who were these people who suggested it might be aimed at you, for example? Why did the WMF get in touch with me pretty quickly but not with you? Who is the person who told you that you had a right to the verbatim revdel'd content? As I said in my submission of Evidence, all you needed to do was ask an admin "did it refer to me"? Who told you that admins cannot reveal the substance? No admin would deny you that knowledge and yet you continued to raise the issue even after I pointed that out some days ago. The context was clear in any event but if you really still do fear something then I doubt that Wikipedia is a sensible place for you to frequent. FWIW, I would not have oversighted/revdel'd the thing because it was pretty innocuous if read in context. Chillum did reveal the pertinent part anyway in the subsequent block-lift WP:AN thread that you were involved in, which rather made a nonsense of the revdel. It was not a threat, trust me: I cannot even take a plane flight for health reasons and that has long been the case; I've not got the money to get from the UK to the US; and, frankly, I've got much more significant things about which to concern myself than chasing around after someone like you. Sleep well, you have nothing to fear in terms of physical attack from me (or even some agent, if you are that worried). There is a problem here but it is not that "threat". And why you think that something you have not seen in fact constitutes "wikihounding" (a favourite and much-abused word of yours) simply defies logic. There is no "crazy situation" other than the one in your head. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc, the deleted revision related to another situation that had absolutely nothing to do with you. This subject should not be raised on-wiki again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NYB, for clarifying. I was just about to post the entirety of what had been revdel'd and "bugger the rules". I'm not likely to be around for the Workshop phase but hopefully this is the last time that someone speculates about that thing. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Sitush is a Brit and was using hyperbole. If he was one of our fellow Yanks, CMDC, I'd worry along with you, but on this one, I think you are overreacting. Montanabw^(talk) 05:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think, personally, I wouldn't have worried even if the person making the threat in question had been an American (though, since what disquiets a person is highly subjective, it's possible another person could have worried): from context, it was rather evident, to me at least, that Sitush's comment was more of a frustrated utterance than a menacing remark. This does not make the comment ok, however, it was still uncivil and inappropriate, just not the cardinal sin a serious threat of violence would be. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:Carol, the comment was related to another situation and another editor. It is not related to you. If others have been suggesting otherwise, please let me know who - gossip and other poor communication have been the bane of this case. Whilst I doubt they should be sanctioned, I do think they might need a quiet word. I am very concerned that someone has been whispering in your ear recently, as the type and volume of inaccurate information that is coming from that direction is causing significant issues and if it is not put to rest you will be held accountable for it. Worm^TT(talk) 09:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone had been "whispering" it would be a serious act of bad faith because, in fact, I don't think anyone could be in any doubt about the true context. In a very high profile ANI thread someone who had seen the comment replicated it in the thread. There was then a lengthy discussion that included discussion of the context. This included admins that had seen the comment. It was very apparent from that thread it was nothing to do with CMDC. I'm surprised CMDC missed it. DeCausa (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: if Carol was indeed told Sitush's threat was possibly aimed at her, that's quite serious and I would like too look into it. Carol, concerning others soon pointed out evidence it might have been, can you please provide evidence of this (even in private, if there are privacy reasons suggesting it would be better not to post those comments publicly)? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, all a couple people did was point out the connections of certain text on Sitush's talk page to what his friends alleged the threat was. Especially pointing out that another editor on Sitush's talk page blaming me for everything[14][15][16] was not necessarily wrong, as I originally thought. And a reminder from someone that 6 of the last 7 threads on Sitush talk page were against his biography of me. Thus I came to think "oh, Sitush must have been targeting me - among others - after all."

But I get the message I'm not allowed to bring it up here any more.

I just hope the same standard "she was frustrated" will be applied to me. After all my whole behavior the last 6 months has been motivated by dealing with Wikihounding that admins and Arbitrators refused to acknowledge 2013-2014. So I went to the GGTF hoping we could work together on civility/harassment/wikihounding issues so I could freely edit again. And low and behold the harassers and their posse followed me (and other civility minded editors) there. And now I barely bother to edit at all.

Thus my seemingly "off balance" ways recently of asking editors why they were harassing me or asking them to stop harassing me or trying to find out if I'd been threatened, when there were some indications I had been. As long as similar standards are applied to me, I'm happy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the comment before it was revdeleted, and while I did not do a close reading of the thread, at the time I assumed it was directed at Carol, since it was preceded by much text from Sitush's friends blaming Carol for his leaving. DC seems pretty far away from Manchester, so she is probably not in immediate danger, but it seems a little weird to be editing in the same environment with someone you believe wants to harm you, especially when it is someone whose friends seem to be able to get them unblocked without them even making an unblock request. Carol should have been able to contact someone privately and get an answer to this. NYB now says it is not about Carol, and I believe him, but it is also obvious he has information that is not available to the rest of us. —Neotarf (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking more about Newyorkbrad writing "This subject should not be raised on-wiki again." I assume he means in context of that old rule "don't bring up settled issues to harass people-let's assume everyone's starting fresh." I'd forgotten about that old rule because so many editors fail to abide by it any more.

However, I assume my explanation of why I came to think it might be directed at me does not apply to this Arbitration. Thus I added those three diffs above provided at your request to evidence so I can point out my explanations in my analysis of others' bringing up the issue.

Finally, I do agree with Neotarf on general principle that WMF at least should send redacted material to those who have equally good reason to believe they have been threatened. [Clarify later: In general] We can't have admins redacting serious threats made by their friends and not allow editors any recourse except legal action, which might get them banned from editing. (Not that I ever took it seriously enough to consider legal action; just seriously enough to say I have a right to know what was said.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have recommended going to WMF about this, I would have asked someone I trusted to look at it. —Neotarf (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for note. Until "C*nt-gate" and associated contretemps, I didn't realize there were so many admins you can't trust. So now I am starting to pay more attention and starting to make a list of who might be trustworthy. So maybe some day I'll try to find out for sure. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have admins redacting serious threats made by their friends and not allow editors any recourse except legal action. Carol, the administrator who revision-deleted the perceived threat was the same administrator who blocked Sitush indefinitely for making it. Now you insinuate that the administrator (who was following standard procedure in such cases) did it because she/he was Sitush's "friend"? Voceditenore (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that true? It still wouldn't have indicated who the comment was directed to. ——Neotarf (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Voceditenore: FYI, I clarified above that I was speaking in general terms and not about that incident, so no one else will get confused. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: from context, it was quite clear who the commented was directed to. I am open to believing that a person who hasn't seen the threat (let's call it that for the sake of the argument) in question may have thought in good faith that it could have been meant for her, but I have a hard time conceiving that a person who actually read the discussion could reasonably come to the conclusion that the threat was aimed at any editor other than the one Sitush was talking to (which wasn't Carol). The threat was a reply to a comment made by a user and read "if I X, *you* would Y". It was evident who it was directed to. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)@ Neotarf I saw the comment before it was revdeleted, and while I did not do a close reading of the thread, at the time I assumed it was directed at Carol, since it was preceded by much text from Sitush's friends blaming Carol for his leaving Your memory seems to seriously at fault here. The revdeleted comment was on this page at the end of the section entitled Round 357. Sitush hadn't left at that point and so there was no "text from Sitush's friends blaming Carol for his leaving". Your comment about "DC seems pretty far away from Manchester, so she is probably not in immediate danger" suggests that you think she may be in danger from him in the future and is just adding fuel to a fire that should never had been started. Richerman (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)@ Neotarf Is what true? That it was the same administrator who rev deleted and blocked him indefinitely? Look at the block log and the rev deletion log. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was specifically about Carol, in Sitush refusing TParis's attempt to negotiate a voluntary interaction ban, "...I now feel like I am being railroaded in what I'm pretty sure is a disingenuous manner. Is there any point in me continuing at all when this crap is allowed to go on?" and this thread would appear to refer to the same ANI I-ban discussion, "...she's straight in there with fabrications again...I'm gone." If there is anything in there that says Sitush does not blame Carol for his departure, and that she is not the intended target of the alleged threat, I'm just not seeing it. —Neotarf (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio You wrote re: from context, it was quite clear who the commented was directed to. Actually, only for those who saw a) the original comment and b) the version evidently edited by Sitush after a Corbett comment. Other groups that might not be as clear would include: those who saw just one or the other version; those who just skimmed without full comprehension of the meaning; those, like myself, who saw other peoples versions of what they think they remember; and even those who saw an original version but whose memories may be altered by other peoples' versions. Human perception is very subjective in every phase of reality. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I only saw the block notice some time after the problematic edit had already been rev-del'd (and was thus invisible to me), and after reading what remained and also the subsequent discussions on the same talk page when I got there, I too was left with the understanding that the threat had been aimed at Carol. I only managed to disabuse myself of this notion some considerable number of hours later, I believe by carefully reading through voluminous discussion about the threat at ANI, which was one of numerous pages it was splattered across by that point. It wasn't a simple or easy process for me to find out what had actually happened. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting the confusion issue. Looking quickly at Sitush unblock ANI at 19:35, 21 September 2014 you did write: Since I'm (apparently?) the target of the threat, which I was only able to confirm because Chillum helpfully quoted it in this thread some considerable number of hours after it happened (didn't it occur to anyone that emailing me telling me what had happened would be a good idea? rather than letting me try to piece things together by speculating on the mess of nonsense on Sitush's talk page?),...' I do remember this was one of things making me me feel like "I better look this thing over again." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you said that someone had advised you to strike until you had verified. This was after Demiurge1000's comment that you are referring to above. I never did find that someone, so resume it was by email or something. You're still doubting now: the opening post in the ANI thread and three arbitrators here have told you the score, as a GGTF-involved admin such as SlimnVirgin, for example, could have done weeks ago if you had asked, ie: nothing was aimed at you. But still you say above that you don't trust some admins, are compiling a list of those you "might" trust and So maybe some day I'll try to find out for sure. You seem still to be digging a hole for yourself. Please, drop it as NYB asked. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, @Sitush, are you saying the "alleged threat" was directed against Carol, or not? —Neotarf (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The matter has been explained fully. Sitush commented about something else, and this is not the place for provocations. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Begging to differ, this entire case is about provocations, there have been individuals on both sides behaving badly, and I for one would like to see about four of the main provocateurs removed from the project as net negatives. And Sitush isn't one of them... Carrite (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Carolmooredc said, "...We can't have admins redacting serious threats made by their friends and not allow editors any recourse except legal action...". I do not think the subsequent discussion includes a satisfactory rebuttal of this extraordinary assertion which accuses a known admin (Mike V) of taking an admin action to help a friend.

• Mike V blocked Sitush 02:05, 21 September 2014
• Mike V hid comment 02:15, 21 September 2014
• Interaction analyzer

The interaction analyzer shows:

• Sitush edit count: 131042
• Mike V edit count: 14330
• Almost no interactions.

It is ok to make a mistake by writing something hastily. But why not say, "sorry, I was wrong" in plain and simple language when the mistake has been pointed out? This is not the page for general observations. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq: If you look above, I already wrote above: User:Voceditenore: FYI, I clarified above that I was speaking in general terms and not about that incident, so no one else will get confused. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enough on this really. If WMF should provide text or I ever bother to get an uninvolved admin to give me the text, no one will ever know and it will just be for my curiosity. You guys/gals best continue the discussion elsewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Would someone please close this? This conversation has run its course.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, non-issue raised, went nowhere and served no useful purpose. Thread best closed. DeCausa (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is User:Robert McClenon's too. I'm not sure what "evidence produced by" means--neither am I sure why, if this is indeed someone else's collection of diffs, Robert McClenon would be posting this. At any rate, this section contains "Personal attacks and incivility by Eric Corbett, not necessarily related to GGTF". This ArbCom case is about GGTF. I hope either Robert or a clerk will remove (not strike, remove) this section, since, well, the case is about GGTF and apparently these have nothing to do with this. In fact, it smacks of guilt by accretion, and this whole case is tainted enough in so many ways already. Robert, you struck (not "removed") some wholly unrelated/irrelevant diffs already, and that's a good start, but I believe it is time to be honest here and scrap what doesn't matter. Again, this is about the Gender Gap Task Force; this is not an RfC/U about Eric Corbett. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is turning into a "civility" case, which I do not think was the intention. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think that was always the intention, and why ArbCom decided to accept this case. Eric Corbett 00:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the evidence should stand as they are behavior examples. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McLennon's entry, which I link to in one diff, is related to Corbett and friends jihad against civility, i.e., their right to curse anyone they like. (As opposed to others' rights to do the same to them, or even to ask them why the heck they are doing it on their talk pages.)

As my timeline makes very clear, Eric and some of his friends/supporters came into GGTF only after what is now known around Wikipedia (and eventually no doubt the world) as "Cunt-gate". That woke up a lot of us who never heard of Eric Corbett to the tolerance of a small but vocal part of the community to his rude incivility. (It certainly put Sitush's repeated insults against me in context.) These debates have littered Jimbo Wales and ANI pages and doubtless countless talk pages since, and probably were known to most participants on GGTF.

We're talking about human nature here, aren't we (per above discussion). And it's only human nature to think someone who defends slurs against women in one context is coming to a group against slurs against women only to disrupt it so it's members cannot do anything about such slurs. If some of Corbett and friend's favorite insults were "(Slur against gays or transgender)" or "(slur against person with disabilities)" wouldn't relevant LGBT and Disability task forces be concerned? And be angry if they came to their project talk pages to put down relevant civility efforts? If the Feminism Wikiproject had taken on the effort instead, they would have been there in a flash. Frankly, how anyone can't see that is beyond me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I ever issued any slurs against women? I still don't understand what this case is supposed to be about, and frankly McLennon's evidence is a joke. Copy and pasting a bunch of diffs he's never read and subsequently having to strike almost all of them out? Eric Corbett 14:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc, we are not talking about human nature here--we have water coolers for that. This is about editors' behavior at the GGTF, and at the most behavior directly related to it. Knowledgekid87, you may feel whatever you like, but I see no argument for keeping this wholly unrelated material here which serves only to muddy the water. What is funny is that those who appear to seek some sort of action against some people do not seem to realize that bringing in all this "evidence" of totally different things does not help your case. Even if it could be proved that Eric Corbett, for instance, is a despicable sexist and a grumpy man (the first, I don't think anyone can prove; the second, well, there's some human nature for you, maybe), that does not mean that he disrupted the task force. If you wish a jihad against the supposed jihad against civility, you may start that--but this cannot be it.

Update: I just saw that RegentsPark has made a similar comment: "the evidence presented is all over the place and barely refers to that task force". (Casliber, you know I respect you with the fire of a thousand suns, but how does "past behavior" relate directly to the case? Aren't you turning it into an RfC/U?) I haven't met Patrol forty yet, but their evidence also seems to have nothing to do with the task force. How many people are confusing this ArbCom case with a slew of RfC/Us and a bunch of ANI threads? Good luck, Arbs, and you know I'll brew coffee and bake pastries for you while you're studying all this--but I do hope you'll do some cleanup and remove that which is way off-base. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Carol (along with some other parties) previously ask for this arbcom case not to be accepted? If so, she was not one of some group "those who appear to seek some sort of action against some people". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So can you explain to me, in simple terms, what this case is actually about? Eric Corbett 19:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's see... "for us arbitrators, the main question presented by the request for arbitration is whether the petty bickering and feuding on the taskforce's talk page will stop soon without our involvement. I hope so." (later;) "Accept. Noxious behavior on the wikiproject talkpage is continuing. ... And it has spread to other venues, and some of the user conduct is unacceptable." That vote and comments are from Newyorkbrad. "Accept. Underrepresentation of women among Wikipedia editors is an important issue, and I agree with NYB that we must create an environment in which productive discussion can take place. The Arbitration Committee cannot solve the underrepresentation issue, but I do hope we will be able to help address the disruption that has been affecting this topic and harming the project as a whole." That comment and vote is from GorillaWarfare. There are other arbitrator comments and votes to review as well, but these hopefully give an idea of what some of the arbitrators voting to accept the case saw the case as being about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge, if the editors who are muddying the waters indeed didn't want this to take place, all the more reason to remove the diffs/discussion that has nothing to do with the topic. Personally, I still don't see much of an Arb case here, but I have not followed the bickering closely (or at all). I rather think that if anyone has been so disruptive at that talk page that now ArbCom feels the need to take the case, then perhaps an admin could have handed out a block or two earlier. Not a "civility block", like Eric's latest one, but a well-defined block for disruption at this or that page. Then again, the atmosphere is such that few people really care for the authoritay of the average admin, yours truly included. Later, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And here's the latest 3000 bytes of wholly unrelated material. This editor, Patrol forty, claims to be new and a fast learner. It rather seems like an old someone with an old bone to pick with old Eric. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Or it can be a new editor that people are trying to paint as a sock account. If you want to run a SPI feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you just here because I told you to stop screwing around on Eric Corbett's talk page? Since you don't address the point, that of unrelated content, your comment is as unrelated as that content. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it about as unrelated as User talk:Rationalobserver being suspected of socking? What they both have in common is Eric. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What they should have in common is the Gender Gap Task Force: you continue to prove that you don't realize this is not an RfC/U on Eric Corbett or an RfC on civility. (And how that Rationalobserver get in here? Don't answer: it's not relevant, and if they used a bad word too, it's still not relevant.) Drmies (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've seen repeatedly that the community is unable to deal with civility issues when it comes to certain editors. The ANI I started was closed with the direct suggestion that ARBCOM deal with it since the community could not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So what does this task force have to do with that? Drmies (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies poses a question about what "evidence produced by" means. Robert McClenon should explain what that means. Unless he has a proxy from Nyth83 (amongst others), then then is it really evidence? Did Nyth83 (amongst others again) intend for this to be "evidence" for anything? If Robert was inspired by Nyth's impressions, then shouldn't he have made us own assertions and accompanying diff's? Robert's evidentiary submission amounts to "Here's what so and so said". Robert has failed to correct all of the "errors" listed in the evidence he attributes to Carolmooredc. I'd like to hear other's thoughts on whether this is appropriate for arbitration in general.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its already crossed out so the point is moot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. There are several things not crossed out that are attributed to Carol.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I got into this mess. None of the diffs I originally posted contained the word C u n t anywhere in them. The closest thing in them was the word twat which is related but not discussed anywhere as people don't seemed to get as offended by it (I guess). My whole point was that everyone was talking about how uncivil this Mr. Corbett was and arguing for Mr Wales to post diffs, so all I did was go through talk page contributions for the previous three months and noticed a fair number of comments that appeared to rather on the rude side. Putting that list together took less than 10 minutes so the only thing I "proved" was that it is not difficult to document uncivil behavior. If this is the only "evidence" that is being used, then someone is not being diligent or really cares enough to collect any additional evidence predating 1 July. Nyth83 (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a gender-specific personal attack, although not a common word in the U.S. and possibly not understood by American users. Some of my diffs contain that word, as some users switched to that one after the latest bru-ha-ha. It may be a less explosive word in terms of polemics, but it doesn't really fly under the radar. —Neotarf (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - but nobody seems to be telling us what any of this has to do with "Gender Gap Task Force"? Title of the case, and all that... Just seeking some relevance here. Begoon ^talk 14:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is that Eric Corbett is a poster child for "civility is over-rated" which Nyth83's diffs prove, even if he may not realize it. Meanwhile GGTF is a group that wants stricter enforcement of civility because incivility and personal attacks drives off women (and lots of other rational and intelligent editors). We've provided lists of evidence, but critics refuse to read it. The attacks and conflicts have so turned off participants, no on has yet put together an essay to put the evidence together. Maybe I'll do it this week.

So obviously opponents of civility coming in to GGTF to nitpick and badger and personally attack editors on civility and other issues is a big problem and a reason Robert McClenon requested the arbitration. Corbett's friends choose to try to distract admins and arbitrators by making this all and only about one GGTF member's behavior. (Me, of course.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a nice example of synthesis. GGTF wants civility (this group is that monolithic?), Eric is uncivil, ergo an ArbCom case about GGTF is about Eric's civility. I didn't try to make this about you: I am hoping to see evidence of disruption at GGTF. You and some others, on the other hand, made this about one particular editor, and it had nothing to do with this task force. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the claim of some, that incivility is the a contributing factor of the GG. Eric is uncivil, therefore he is the antithesis of closing the GG. I view that as unsubstantiated opinion. When I first arrived on the talk pages, Eric asked reasonable questions. Was he uncivil there? One person's incivility is another person not suffering fools.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrol forty has now posted about 300% more than the limit of 500 words. Most of it isn't "evidence", either, but opinion. They're not a party to the case. Clerks, please remove this unconscionable bloat. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

If that is the case then Two Kinds of pork has posted 997 words [17]. Where is the line drawn at 500? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee." This is from the standard instructions visible on the evidence page until Callanecc replaced them with the "The evidence phase of this case has closed so new evidence may not be presented without specific authorisation on the talk page" box half an hour ago.[18] The original instructions can still be seen in edit mode, but were commented out when the "closed" note was added just now. So they were there when Patrol forty posted the last part of their evidence. They were also there when you posted the above question, but I guess you missed them. Notice how I mentioned above that Patrol forty is not a party to the case? Two Kinds of Pork is, and they kept just inside the prescribed limit of 1000 words for parties. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough I missed seeing the wording. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would add I had to edit my text down several times to meet the requirements, including meeting the deadline for submission. That some submitted after the deadline is a minor annoyance, not that it was allowed but had I been aware the timing wasn't strict, I could have better prioritized my time a few days ago.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Patrol Forty to cut it down on his talk page. If he does not, it may well be removed by the clerks. Worm^TT(talk) 10:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrol Forty is probably a ban evader or an unannounced sock....hardly a hundred edits last I checked a few days ago and "evidence" that is mostly opinions. It should be stricken from the case.--MONGO 13:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Patrol forty" has now edited his/her submission in superficial compliance with the 500-word limit, but blatantly games the system: he/she includes the original submission in the edited version, unaltered, by linking to it. As MONGO says, it's time to strike the rule-evading submission from this "newcomer". Writegeist (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need evidence that user is gaming or socking before doing so. WP:HUMAN. Could be an experienced IP editor who recently made an account. Cannot strike just because of people's hunches and guesses. Take to SPI if you have a case. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this is not a vote or anything so even if they are a sock, the evidence they present is still valid. If that evidence is weak, the arbitrators are fully capable of weighing it vis-a-vis the other evidence presented. There is a finite amount of evidence available through diffs and such, so it's not like they can skew results by adding more. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misunderstood my comments. They very clearly identify the system-gaming. You say yourself "There is a finite amount of evidence available through diffs and such, so it's not like they can skew results by adding more." "Patrol forty" has blatantly abused process by linking to the 1500-odd words of "evidence" that s/he was instructed to edit to within the prescribed 500-word maximum—thus retaining the previous 1500-word submission in evidence. Writegeist (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of edits since October 17... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Including by you [19] --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc formally closed it half an hour ago, as described in my note just above. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

and removed Scalhotrod post to boot. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and since Callanecc is an actual clerk, I took their recommendation (see below). --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As recommended by Callanecc, I am requesting clerk action with regard to evidence that was presented here.

I attempted to add a comment here only to have others object to its inclusion. The comment seems within the ArbCom rules since I am not submitting new evidence nor am I responding to the Editor that presented the evidence in the section. I was simply bringing to the attention of the arbiters that the way the evidence is presented is misleading with the following statement...

• [20] Eric Corbett replied: [The] easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. Baiting at least. Others agreed that it was a personal attack.
• [21] Scalhotrod replies to Eric's comment: "Brilliantly put!"

• I was not replying to Eric's use of the "c word" and the dif shows this. I object to this misrepresentation.

I am not a party to these issues and object to my forced involvement as well as not being notified that I was mentioned. I found out via an off-wiki email. Furthermore, since the posting Editor has quit Wikipedia, asking them to retract or clarify the entry is not an option.

I ask a clerk to please to remove mention of me from this proceeding in the above referenced dif. Thank you, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware, I presume, that the "posting Editor" singlehandedly started a week-long circus at Jimbotalk and gave evidence in this case after their purported "quit" of Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I do not wish to be a part of the circus or any associated side shows. I can appreciate that the clerks and arbiters are diligent and fastidious enough to the point where likely they will ignore the off topic evidence, but that shouldn't preclude me from asking for it to be removed. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Late reply, but you are not supposed to reply to people's evidence as a threaded discussion. You can raise the issue in an own section. Unfortunately, this isn't something we can redact on a whim. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 12:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, I agree that, in context, that statement is misleading; I have therefore removed it without prejudice against it being reintroduced, if rephrased in a way which makes it clear what happened and what statement Scal was actually agreeing with. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. The other mention about me joining the GGTF is just as off topic, but more obviously irrelevant. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought that I, as a liberal from way back, would ever say words like "thought police" and phrases like "political correctness running wild", but Neotarf's "evidence" is so far out that I don't know what else to call it. You should see what they have to say about poor old Dennis Brown, who links to Common and gets accused of "link[ing] to pornographic image of a woman". If you dig hard enough, Neotarf, no doubt you'll discover that Dennis probably kicked a dog too at some point in his life. Plus he eats meat. These are all very good reasons to admonish him for his behavior at the Gender Gap Task Force, where Dennis has made how many edits? Zero?

It's stuff like this that makes this whole process more than ridiculous. It's obviously a joke, as anyone can tell from the tone--but I don't think Neotarf does tone. Neither do they do history: Ealdgyth and Eric Corbett are two of our best writers, Ealdgyth having brought Middle Ages up to FA status, an enormous feat of the kind I can only dream of, with assistance from said Eric Corbett. The two have been working together as long as I have known them. So yeah, Neotarf, too bad you didn't get it. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it she knows her place. [22] —Neotarf (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proclaiming her to be a victim so you can blame her? Nice try, but insulting Ealdgyth and by extension many other female editors is not going to help your case. For the record, her "place" is among the best of editors, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are her own words. —Neotarf (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, she did not say she knows her place. She said "Now, now.. I'm certainly not a lady ..." This twist is all yours. See, I just can't see the humor in your remarks here, so I have no choice but to take them at face value, which is how you take things as well, apparently. And indeed, taken literally Eric says he can't help Ealdgyth cause she is a woman and he a woman-hater--but that would be a statement of fact, not itself misogynistic. On the other hand, you, literally, are saying that Ealdgyth is a helpless little female who "knows her place". Which is an insult. Which you could retract and apologize for. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the internet is a notoriously difficult media for judging sarcasm. For instance, it is very hard to tell whether someone is an actual fart-smelling pond scum or just acting like one in order to mock fart-smelling pond scum, or when someone is only pretending for the lulz to be someone with such low self-esteem that they are willing to let themselves be treated like a slut in exchange for a few barnstars or serotonin hits from decorating their user page with some nice shiny GA symbols. But irregardless of the intention, those who are not privy to an insider joke will only be able to take the statements at face value, and may well believe they will not be able to receive mentoring unless they get on the misogyny bandwagon. —Neotarf (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's obviously a joke. If you genuinely didn't see that it says much about the prism through which you see what goes on around you here. DeCausa (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf ... I hope that "when someone is only pretending for the lulz to be someone with such low self-esteem that they are willing to let themselves be treated like a slut in exchange for a few barnstars or serotonin hits from decorating their user page with some nice shiny GA symbols" is not meant to refer in any way to myself or anyone else. It's hard to tell since you're replying to a post discussing something I said, where you've shown already that you are misinterpreting the conversation. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that every time you try to argue with me about something, you also start making inexplicable edits to an article you know I have on my watchlist. [23] Not the first time you have done that either. And you're an admin. —Neotarf (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, every time I think of Eric and Ealdgyth I think that the best way to honor them is to take a bad article and try to improve it. No, I don't know what you have on your watchlist. (I don't use watchlists myself.) Tell you what, I'll show you how to do it with the first reference. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what are the odds, Drmies, that out of some 4 million articles, the article you chose to "improve" is the first article I ever started? Let me remind you that it is against policy to WP:HARRASS or WP:HOUND someone by tracking their edits on topics they may edit in order to intimidate them or inhibit their work. How is this edit not disruptive? —Neotarf (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice Neotarf notices every possible way to take offense, and then let's everyone hear about it, Festivus is 2 months away. Can't it wait?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf makes "taking offense" an artform, from what I've seen. It's seemingly a feature and purpose of their existence here. Someone once told me that if you listen at enough keyholes you'll hear bad things about yourself, or your friends/those you identify with, or at least you'll hear things you'll think are bad, or might be... I thought about that for a while and realised it's probably true. So I tried to stop listening at so many keyholes. I can recommend that. It's hard to avoid putting your ear to the faintly noisy keyholes you encounter in your travels, but actively seeking them out for the purpose of getting offended about them? No. Not a good idea at all, really. Unless, of course, you wanted to be offended for some reason - but that would surely just be silly, or something...Begoon ^talk 18:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already removed Gender Gap Task Force and Editor Retention from my watchlist, but how much can you really expect users to avoid areas they know will contain offensive and provocative material. —Neotarf (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know... it would have been NICE if someone had like ... told me I was being discussed. For the record - I was joking with Eric and John. You know, humor. All three of us have worked well together and I was making a joke (which they understood). And how the HELL is saying "now, now, I'm certainly not a lady" managed to be twisted into me knowing "my place"??? You don't know me, Neotarf. You have no idea what my "place" is at all. If you didn't understand what I meant, you could have asked. If you weren't sure what I meant, you could have asked. Instead you're twisting my words without the courtesy (you know, that civility thing that gets complained about being missing around Wikipedia) of notifying me I was being discussed by you in disparaging terms. But I guess since you didn't use a "naughty word" it's civil.... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember John: "Anyone who feels this site is too rude or too male-dominated has the freedom to leave, or the freedom to fork. [24] How nice you are able to work well together. —Neotarf (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, as a woman, the preceeding comment is much more incivil and likely to drive me off the project than any number of swear words. For someone who claims to want to improve civility ... you have a very odd way of showing it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever making any such "claims"...and those were his words exactly. —Neotarf (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I've never kicked a dog. Mrs. Brown and I donate to the local shelter and have rescued a number of them, including our babies Buster and Olive. And yes, I had a bacon cheeseburger for dinner last night. It isn't my fault that cows aren't as cute as puppies, and twice as tasty. Dennis 2¢ 09:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has told you I have accused you of kicking a dog, that is not correct, and that is a very dismissive kind of statement to make. These are legitimate concerns and they do not deserve to be mocked. And cows are "twice as tasty as puppies"? How do you *know* how puppies taste? —Neotarf (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf, That is just me trying to take it all in good humor, by adding a little twisted humor. And really, you should have notified me when you added my diffs. I won't labor it and I don't think you were trying to be evil by not notifying me, but out of fairness, you really should notify someone when you do that in an Arb case as a courtesy. If not for that, I probably would not have commented in this case at all. Dennis - 2¢ 17:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did kick a dog once, but lightly, for effect and shock. I'm an animal lover, and abhor violence, but it was a huge alsatian and it was tearing the back pocket off my friend's pants and scaring them. It calmed down, and we took it home. Its owners were grateful. My sister saw it for many years afterwards. True story. One small correction - cows are cute, and tasty - chickens too, it's a fundamental dilemma of mine. I just do what most folks do and avoid thinking in those terms. Douglas Adams explains it better. Hypocrite, moi? Mais oui. Begoon ^talk 18:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it is very tacky humor but humor none the less, the fact is that we here on Wikipedia are lacking female editors and some of you are making wise cracks about it? [25]. I would recommend that @Neotarf: withdraw that bit of evidence although it certainly isn't helping things regarding the gender gap. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter to me, leave it. The odd thing, I wouldn't have even known about it unless Drmies had linked me here, which isn't very kind of Neo, uncivil you might say. If linking to Commons is "pornography", then maybe they should get rid of the pornography at Commons. My point was recently vindicated yet again as someone there created a category redirect for the term, and you can't blame me for that. Anyone that thinks my linking was the problem is likely clueless and missing the big picture. If we host it, then it must be "ok".... As for blocking an editor for being a dick, well,it was earned as he was harassing people, calling them "morons" and the like. He was acting dickishly. We have a meta page on it here, after all. That was the only time I've used that as a rationale. You don't even have to read his contribs, just read his page: User talk:RoryMig. Saying this harmed women and retention is laughable. Shutting down abusive people helps retention, it doesn't hurt it. Dennis 2¢ 22:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you blame Commons for your pornographic post because they were the source of the image of female gonads that you linked to in the conversation with Lightbreather? That's like blaming gun shops for murders committed with guns. And you don't believe you need to use independent judgement in linking to something from Commons? That's frightening. No, *you* were the one who went shopping for the image, and *you* were the one who posted it, in a conversation with Lightbreather, a conversation I might add, where she seemed to be already distressed about provocative language. And when she questioned you about its usage, you did not respond to her concerns.

As far as the "being a dick" and "acting dickishly" remarks, I don't see that it advances your claims in this venue any to be any shoving your genitalia in my face. Then again, I suspect that what I got out of that remark was exactly what I was intended to get out of it. —Neotarf (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a party, I'm not advancing a claim, nor am I evading responsibility for my actions. Sometimes, I'm a dick jerk. I already admitted it was uncivil during the block itself, I just don't think it ranks up there with kidnapping the Lindburg baby, and considering how the person was acting, calling lots of people names, it is just hard for me to lose sleep over it. The rest, you've taken out of context and missed the point, even if I didn't put it so eloquently. Frankly I'm too bored to debate and you are the one that dragged me here (without informing me, I might add). If it pleases you, go tell your Wikipediocracy buddies you won or whatever. None of this is actually improving any articles. Actually, if you look at the two sides of the debate, it is pretty easy to see who really cares about politics and who cares about articles anyway. Dennis 2¢ 22:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Neotarf, soon there will be none of his "evidence" left. If you, Knowledgekid87, have any evidence whatsoever that Ealdgyth was in any way upset by our jokey exchange then let's see it. Eric Corbett 23:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also for the record, Drmies is correct that the amount of edits I have to the Gender Gap Task Force is exactly zero. I've watched it from afar, and honestly, I didn't feel comfortable or welcomed by that project. Disagreeing with anyone's conclusions there seems to result in fights, and I just don't need the hassles. Dennis 2¢ 17:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should take your information from my actual evidence than from whatever people are emailing you about. For the record, I did not include any diffs of you from Gender Gap. My point is more about how the disturbance at Gender Gap is spreading to other areas of the project, for example Corbett's disruptive c-bomb campaign that was carried from Jimbo's talk page to the Gender Gap project and then given full oxygen on your editor retention project page. —Neotarf (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, we should be discussing this under Neotarg evidence. In any case, considering that Lightbreather was a GGTF participant and Wikiproject Editor Retention "Gender gap discussions" page exists, I think maybe Neotarf should augument his evidence a bit more and its relation to GGTF. (And explain what happened to the photo in question; don't know if there's a history that would link to it.) Dennis Brown's comments, especially as an administrator, do seem to be problematic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, put in any remark you see fit. My comments on that page are pretty much in line with what I've said about the gender gap. That page doesn't show all the actual diffs (copy/paste maybe), so I've found them for your convenience. [26], [27] and [28]. I'm happy to have them examined further. You keep thinking I'm "anti-women", when that is the furthest thing from the truth. The problem is that you tend to get militant when anyone disagrees with your particular definition of anything gender related. There is no room for compromise with you. If you continue to think in terms of "us and them", you get what you have now, a battle against people who already agree with most of what you are saying, but because they don't agree with all of it, they are the enemy. Dennis 2¢ 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The diff with the link to the crotch shot is in the evidence section. —Neotarf (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Neotarf: Regarding Eric Corbett, when verifying your evidence regarding Eric's misogyny (to be sure you were being accurate), did you check the article to see that Eric made many edits (becoming the third largest contributor) to William of Wrotham after Ealdgyth requested his help on that article? Surely the inaccuracy of this evidence against Eric demonstrates the misleading nature of the diffs supposedly showing his abuse of women. EChastain (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, is Wikipedia so grandiose that it has to be built, like St. Petersburg, over the bleeding carcasses of its volunteers? —Neotarf (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to react rather badly when your baseless claims are challenged. And you also seem to be unusually active for a retired editor. Eric Corbett 23:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several "retired" editors hovering around this case, actually. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks, can you please add Sitush as a party to this case - per above discussions. As a party has been added so late in proceedings, can you please also extend the evidence phase until 25th October. Everyone else, please remember your word limits are there for good reason. If you need to go over the limit, please explain why on this page. If you wish to add more evidence, you may need to trim your current submission Worm^TT(talk) 10:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So that means we can tweak our own evidence, especially fixing the occasional wrong link or whatever, right? Or can people just start from scratch if they want to? Just wondering. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to allow evidence regarding the party who has been recently added, but the evidence phase is re-open, so you can tweak if needs be. That said, if you change something that has been commented on, please make sure you make a note in the workshop area to say you've changed it and why. Worm^TT(talk) 08:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"please remember your word limits are there for good reason. If you need to go over the limit, please explain why on this page." Please direct me to Patrol forty's explanation on this page for why s/he needs to go 300% over the limit (which s/he has already done by linking his/her 500-word submission to a 1600-word submission). Writegeist (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrol Forty has cut down to 500 words. Some of those words link to his old version, which would be available in the history. Technically, every link, every diff point to more words, I trust that the other arbitrators can use judgement on whether that link is worth clicking. Worm^TT(talk) 10:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out some technicalities. The facts remain: Patrol forty originally submitted some 1600 words. You asked him/her to cut it to 500. Patrol forty then submitted 500 plus the original 1600 words in the form of a link—i.e. a total of some 2,100 words of evidence. That is to say, when asked to cut the 1600 to 500, s/he actually increased the length to 1,200 words. Obviously that's fine, so long as others here are given the same latitude to submit as much evidence as they like. (As you have now given them. Thank you for clarifying that.) In the section below you repeat that anyone having additional evidence to present "can ask as usual". Again, please indicate where on this page Patrol forty asked "as usual" to increase his/her evidence from 500 to 2,100 words. Writegeist (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom needs to issue an edict that "new" (cough) editors must disclose their previous accounts or be labelled as a "protected witness" before they are allowed to post their high on opinion and low on evidence submissions.--MONGO 11:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO - Again, we don't know the story behind this user and you are assuming bad faith. They very well could have been an IP editor. Stop making thinly veiled accusations without evidence. If you have evidence, take it to SPI and link to the SPI here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please...did my comment seem to be thinly veiled? Patrol Forty has been quacking since their "first" edit.--MONGO 19:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then start a WP:SPI if not then please WP:AGF that the user is new. Not everyone starts out on the right foot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a re-read of my comment above might help you...Arbcom needs to issue an edict that "new" (cough) editors must disclose their previous accounts or be labelled as a "protected witness" before they are allowed to post their high on opinion and low on evidence submissions. Now what is wrong with that?--MONGO 22:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's assuming bad faith in absence of evidence. Again, it really doesn't matter if a dozen socks added evidence here as it's not a vote. Evidence is finite. Adding more cannot skew anything. If there were only 3 people offering evidence, I'd agree more, but we got plenty with or without them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Per EvergreenFir above: "take it to SPI and link to the SPI here." I agree. If I was sufficiently annoyed I'd do it. (And a couple other questionable characters who've shown up elsewhere.) But I'm not motivated, and too burnt out right now, even if I was. And obviously Arbitrators are smart enough to ignore opinions and use any good new diffs that might have been presented. Guess I should check. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @EvergreenFir - It does matter if socks participate here, since agendas can be hidden and evidence limits exceeded through multiple or alternative accounts. Even if Patrol forty is not a sock — an extraordinarily unlikely scenario as anyone taking a close look at the early editing history will observe — but rather a "new" account of an IP editor, that previous IP account needs to be linked on the user page. That has not been done despite the request by Mongo — which was brusquely dismissed — and despite my request, which was vanished without comment. [29] Patrol forty should either come clean or get out of this proceeding, in my opinion. But hey, Arbs have CheckUser right and there doesn't have to be an SPI for CheckUser tools to be run, so there ya go... Pious screams of "Go To SPI" are ridiculous, SPI is broken. And, as we have learned in the "Banned Editors" case, acting without investigation upon an obvious duck account is perfectly A-OK. This is a duck account. Carrite (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: Okay then let the arbs run their CU if they feel it's necessary. Patrol forty might have an agenda, but I don't see how they're going to skew the outcome any as there's already tons of evidence to sort through, their evidence is just part of it, and the arbs know to treat it with caution. I just think editors are raising a huge stink over a rather minor issue. We get that there's quacking. Point out the issues with the account and move on. If this were a consensus thing, I'd be more concerned with skew. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that people recognize SPI is broken. When same SPA sock comes back to same article 3 times and SPI admin tells you you are "Fishing" to ask SPI to look at it, it's a bit much. I didn't realize such problems had become the norm. I guess ArbCom can make a rule if they want to unless community (?) forbids. But is demanding IP addresses from new accounts a new thing? Given that sometimes some shady characters can use the same IP as an innocent party, I'd think that was problematic. Obviously it looks like a duck. But I also know some people catch on a lot faster than, for example, I did and still do, sometimes. (The 22 yr old smarty pants mind works so much faster than the 40+ mind that's so weighted down with factoids to sift through.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 10:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this conversation at Worm's talk page, and in fairness to all editors submitting evidence here, they should know that they are apparently at liberty to submit as much evidence as they like in excess of the prescribed 500 word limit, in order to, in Worm's words, "not miss a key piece of evidence based on a simple bureaucratic rule," as "the priority is the best outcome." Writegeist (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has additional evidence that they need to present, they can ask as usual. I almost always allow reasonable extensions - I don't want to miss an important bit of evidence. Writegeist, you seem to be mixing up quantity with quality - some of the most helpful evidence submissions I've seen so far have been some of the shortest. Worm^TT(talk) 10:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me who's getting anything mixed up, I can assure you. Did I say longer submissions equal higher-quality evidence? Or that they are necessarily better for any reason than shorter submissions? No I did not. I just said people are free to disregard the 500 word limit. Like you, I sure would hate for you to "miss a key piece of evidence"—from anyone—because of "a simple bureaucratic rule." Writegeist (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been stated by an arbitrator that linking to such drafts is permissible. (diff) —Neotarf (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. An excellent observation. All doubt has been removed: it's clearly permissible to link draft(s) of evidence, each of unlimited length, to a submission in the evidence section, which itself is ostensibly limited to 500 words—whereupon the draft(s) thus provided in the evidence section ipso facto constitute additional evidence. And because the drafted evidence is only linked from the submission in the evidence section instead of being displayed there in full, the requirement to ask "as usual" for permission to vastly exceed the stipulated word count for submissions in the evidence section does not apply (as we have already seen here). It's clear now that linked screeds of draft evidence do not fall within the rules that purport to govern the submissions to which they are linked—as one "newcomer", who demonstrates an almost uncanny grasp of how things work here, has evidently already realized.

It's helpful to have confirmation that Arbcom officially respects and approves any individual's choice to disregard the committee's own rules on evidence. Will Arbcom extend the same courtesy to individuals here who behave, or have behaved, in a way that shows they do not take other rules and guidelines—not to mention the Arbcom process itself—seriously? That is to say, who ignore other "simple bureaucratic rules", for the greater good of pursuing whatever they believe to be "the best outcome"? Writegeist (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's become clear is that there are no rules, it's just a pit fight. But on the other side ArbCom don't read the evidence or workshop pages anyway, so it probably doesn't make much difference in the long run. Eric Corbett 23:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf is responding to others evidence in their evidence submission. Shouldn't they be done on the work page?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 01:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

or on here...? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i too originally thought "here" was the correct place, but Bishonen who has more experience in this area than most do says the workshop. Regardless it should not be on the evidence page.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience (and admittedly there's not too much of that!), the workshop page is used to respond to evidence, but evidence is supposed to be factual and therefore a response is rarely necessary. A rebuttal which requires diffs can be submitted on the evidence page. Worm^TT(talk) 07:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine and good if the presented evidence was indeed just factual. In practice, in this case at least, it seems often to be cherry-picked, misrepresented, presented disingenuously etc. I've actually given up trying to rebut it in part due to the sheer scale of these problems which, indeed, also formed a big chunk of the underlying behavioural disputes. - Sitush (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in this instance, the Workshop page and this talk page are perhaps the most useful and accessible practical evidence of the problems: they are a microcosm of all the behavioural issues etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the evidence phase being extended a week, Carolmooredc is still about 50% over the limit. How will the clerks address this matter?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They won't. There's no limit. The goalposts are only in place for the arbitrators to move them at will. Writegeist (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should keep in mind that one editor removed previously posted links to lists of 500 diffs for each of the involved parties. Editors may wish to ensure that key diffs to which they may refer in the Workshop are still available in Evidence. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about the length, and I'm one of the primary targets. Sometimes it is best, perhaps even advantageous, to be pragmatic about things like this. As for potential missing diffs etc, the whole thing has become such a mess of revisions that I'm sure the arbs will realise the need to ask for diffs where they are not obviously present and are obviously relevant to a statement etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed J3Mrs section so there's that much less they have to deal with. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it becomes an issue, they usually just request a larger word count allotment. If anything this case has too few, not too many diffs. —Neotarf (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive the nitpicking, but Evidence closes 25 Oct, should be changed to Evidence closed 25 31 Oct. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it didn't. Evidence was still being posted today, six days after the supposed closure. Eric Corbett 19:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That evidence was removed by Salvio and the page is now protected [30]. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it was closed today then, not on the 25th. Eric Corbett 19:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence removed might be perfectly at home on the workshop page. However the evidence page was edited on 26th and 30th, and these edits weren't reverted. If they had been I could sympathise with a claim that it was "retrospectively closed on the 25th." As it is I must agree with GoodDay's revised comment and Eric's comment "Evidence closed on 31st" and also, therefore, I cannot support the removal of G. Ruban's evidence on the basis of previous closure.

Furthermore I cannot could not, if there were an objection from a party, agree on closing the Workshop to the original schedule. The standard time from the posting of the last evidence (Gruban's) should be allowed to elapse before the Workshop is closed.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

I cannot then agree on closing the Workshop to the original schedule Oh, please god, no. Can't you find something more useful to do than all this procedural pedantry? If the Workshop phase is re-opened, I'll have to get some more meds. GRuban posted evidence after Carolmooredc "sort of" canvassed at WT:GGTF, saying that she might not be here much longer. The arbs can see the evidence just as well as we can and there is no need to re-open the Workshop just for that. It was already going round in circles. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course it was going round in circles... ever decreasing circles. And you are right, just as no-one really wanted to provide evidence, or be involved in any way, probably no-one wants the workshop extended. I have therefore changed my above comment to be a little lighter on its toes.

I have bad experiences of cases timetables being futzed with to suit arbcom members, so I am maybe a little jaundiced.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

The edit on the 30th was to fix a formatting error and did not introduce any new information. Therefore it would be fair to say that the evidence phase closed on the 26th, which is only one day past the proposed close date. I don't see why the workshop phase would need to be extended by one day. Ca2james (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually should have asked before, but better late than never. Does SPECIFICO's evidence go against the Community-imposed interaction ban? Is Arbitration an automatic pass that gets you out of a community interaction ban and at the very least should he have asked here about it? After all, Sitush assumed that he would need an Arbitration exception to a voluntary ban. Just to make it clear for all parties. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO contacted a drafting arb and a clerk to ask whether he could add evidence. I believe he was told he could, with certain conditions. I'll look into whether he has acted in violation of those conditions. Worm^TT(talk) 07:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're going to start being picky then perhaps someone might want to consider whether this evidence, posted well after closure, with a somewhat misleading edit summary and with a totally anachronistic context should be mentioned. I mean, at least SPECIFICO's stuff looks like it might be valid rather than yet more misrepresentation. There is shedloads of this type of stuff in the evidence and I do hope that the drafting arbitrators will recognise it for what it is, ie: a waste of electrons. I gave up trying to correct/rebut the errors, as noted elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Worm that turned: Ok, just checking. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I add (very brief) comment and diff regarding CMDC -- primarily to illustrate something for (to?) GW? NE Ent 20:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add a comment, illustrated by the diff, to the PD talk page?  Roger Davies ^talk 21:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]