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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

Outcomes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not much on observing deadlines, are they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-discrimination policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remedy 3.3 Eric Corbett restriction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invitation to drama

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

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

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

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

Grammatical Correction

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

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

Carolmooredc comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question on "Non discrimination policy"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Newyorkbrad on Non discrimination policy under Proposed principles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spelling error in "Fair criticism" section

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

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

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

Error in Sitush's section

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

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

Articles about opponents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of "Gender Gap"

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

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

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

Casting aspersions

I thought the principle on casting aspersions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is "that word"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural sensitivity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prithee, Arbcom

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

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

Neotarf availability and a query about voting time frames

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

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

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

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

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

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

drama avoidance

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

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

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

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

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

Possible loophole leading to what might look like gravedancing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carol and Neotarf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Quousque tandem"

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

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

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

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

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

Eric's Proposed Remedies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two requests about the gender gap topic bans

Clarify "Gender Gap" in bans

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

Propose topic banning Sitush

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewarding the harassers and punishing the victims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harshly

Recidivism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The meaning of the stem word.

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

Harsh : Severe or cruel.

Severe ; Strict or harsh.

Exacting : Making excessive demands; hard to satisfy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed draft

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

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

Discretionary sanctions

Discretionary sanctions

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

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

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

FYI, several gender gap/bias/issues wikiproject pages

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

Scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for Dank and Eric

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

• (i) Dank, after the initial insult Eric directed at you, you specifically asked that he not be blocked for it. See here. You then followed up with this where you provided a link to the insult after it had been redacted, with an edit summary indicating that you were doing this to make clear who did the redaction. I presume from your talk page archives (User talk:Dank/Archive 38#A little bit naughty?) that the conversation ended there. When I read this, I (like others above) interpreted it as being an emphasis on the male clause of the sentence (partly because Dank is not an obviously gender-specific name, at least not in English). I can see now that it can be interpreted differently, as repeating the initial insults. The question I have is what changed to lead you to ask about blocking this time, when you didn't the first time? You say it is in a more public forum, but what are you looking for? An apology? A punishment to be handed down? A change in behaviour?
• (ii) Eric, my question for you is nothing to do with the specific words you use, but whether you accept that you have many times crossed the line and antagonised and insulted others, and that this is part of why you are facing a site ban? Are you able to change, to avoid the drama and just quietly contribute content, or is that unlikely to be possible? If you feel you have been baited in the past, what measures could be put in place to avoid the impact of such baiting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cunt, tosser wanker etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:Competence

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

Ping drafting arbitrators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sitush warned not to create articles

"Sitush is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with." I agree with GorillaWarfare and Beeblebrox that it shouldn't need saying. I was amazed that Sitush did that, I urged him to have the bio of Carol deleted,[82] and was surprised that he didn't seem to take my point. But it was a once-off lapse of judgment. Such aren't supposed to need sanctions. An unneeded schoolmarmish warning is a sanction, a blot, and would be quoted against him by every caste warrior and IAC sock from here to eternity. Bishonen | talk 01:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPs input

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

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

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

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

Discretionary sanctions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bans are useless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replies:

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

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

Questions for Carolmooredc

Carolmooredc: Patrol forty is indefinitely blocked. Block log:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've noticed that you frequently reply to comments by answering only the least relevant one, or by changing the subject. Here you evaded my overall comments about your links to huge pages like ANI#Disruption_of_Wikiproject which you cited as evidence of bad faith editors and of the "Locus of dispute", and which I posted to you before as a horrendous page that you seem to expect editors to go through and which doesn't support your statements[83]; Nor did you give relevant responses to my other comments at that time to you[84]

You misrepresented what Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide says[85] and misunderstood the guide to mean that "this guide which only mentions "negotiation" overrides one of the five pillars, which includes civility and dispute resolution? Obviously the Guide has to be beefed up to reflect that fact." [86] And you didn't even check Patrol forty's talk page. Do you make any effort to check out anything with even minimal investigation? I don't see any evidence that you do. From what I've seen, you usually misrepresent/misunderstand a great bit of the time.

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

You also say: "The only thing I say about the "Getting into fights" section in this "Locus of dispute" section is that “unaffiliated editors” can be the source of fights." I wasn't discussing negotiation or dispute resolution, so I can't be misrepresenting anything, can I? And I agree that "The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project." But you can't understand bad faith behavior without understanding possible motivations. The Disruption ANI was how it looked at the time. My original evidence here was a timeline. Understanding of the motivations for the disruption - including through collection of diffs and seeing others' diffs - is an evolving process. Thus this later analysis to help Arbitrators understand that strong and even hostile POVs against the GGTF drove editors to their bad and disruptive behavior.[87]

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

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

I quoted from a member of the Wikiproject Council responding to a question about specific procedures to deal with "editors [who] have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject that cannot be resolved at the talk page".[88] Then I found out you, Carolmooredc was the editor who posted the question there! I have trouble believing wikipedia is this inept. (Sorry if this comment offends, but I'm surprised at what I'm seeing here.) EChastain (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on User:Eric Corbett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gender is not the real issue with Carolmooredc

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

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

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

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

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

Let's paraphrase - When others engage in bad behaviour, it's because they're bad, evil people. When he does it, it's because he is The Innocent Lamb Himself but was *angered* into it or was *tired* into it or was *battled* into it or *confused* into it by some external force, but never his own actual guilt, oh heavens no, not The Innocent Lamb Himself. Then add the recent comment on this page from 'Himself': As for will I change, the answer is a categorical "No". It's Wikipedia that has to change, not me.[89] But that last one, a quote not projection, is Eric not Carol. And yet Carol is the 'bad guy' and gender doesn't play a part in all of this? AnonNep (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neotarf Finding of fact (B)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I stand by what I said too, I suspect it's only "closed" because you have nothing to actually back up your accusations. Telling some to finally retire [[90]] when it was added [[91]] since at least 2013 is hardly asking that much and a quick look at their history shows I'm hardly the only editor to take issue with that. Take a look grab some popcorn. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Finding a solution compatible with future growth of the encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neotarf request for clarification of diffs

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

In the proposed decision, the diff numbered 27 [92] is from a section in another arbitration case and the contributions in that section appear to belong entirely to Neotarf.

As for the other diff, I suspect the diff meant by the drafter is this one, [93] which originated on NYB's talk page, in which Neotarf complained that Hell in a Bucket, by stating that Neotarf has exhibited passive-aggressive behavior likening them to having a mental disorder. Bishonen explained here [94] the difference between passive-aggressive behavior and the psychiatric disorder. Apparently not satisfied with the response, Neotarf responded directly on Bishonen's talk page [95] to which Bishonen responded with [96] which is diff [32] cited in the proposed decision. I'll point out that despite having this distinction explained by Bishonen, rather clearly in fact, Neotarf continued to choose to interpret the phrase as a mental disorder in at least one other place[97], which is yet another example of battleground behavior.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Better wording

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

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

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

Inflammatory language introduced on case page

In case anyone missed it, an arbitrator has now introduced "that word" onto the case page itself.[98] —Neotarf (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh look, it's a thing. [99] — Neotarf (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I'm confused over what the issue here is. If it's the gender parity/gender gap on en:wiki, it isn't caused by Eric Corbett's use of "that word". The underlying problem is more subtle and lies in the unwitting putdowns of women, like DoctorTerrella's saying: "I know, I sound like an old lady, but those are my thoughts."(my bolding)[100] And I'm not questioning Doctor Terrella's good intentions or accusing him of misogomy. I'm just saying that issue is more subtle than the use of one word.

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

I agree with Voceditenore's statement above regarding the role of SlimVirgin, Neotarf and Carolmooredc as "voices" of the GGTF.[101]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruption to prove a point by User:Neotarf

Would the clerks and arbs please see [[102]] as a follow up to [[103]]. User:Ks0stm, User:Penwhale, User:Worm That Turned,User:GorillaWarfare, User:Newyorkbrad. This despite a previous incident that Newyorkbrad should remember quite well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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