Case clerks: Ks0stm ( Talk) & Penwhale ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned ( Talk) & GorillaWarfare ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. 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 unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
1)
2)
3)
Enough. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1) Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 48 hours for Gross incivility on 14 October. Then his talk page was protected for continued inappropriate use by Eric et. al. [1]. Thus far Eric has also refused to restrain insults, when asked politely. Also, the way the block was as it were provoked by Eric, with an insult directed at Jimbo may deserve some scrutiny. 1.1 For good order it would probably be best to ask this participant of the current case whether or not he wants to defend his case here, and if not, agree to never dispute its outcome in a later stage. 1.2 Alternatively, if the participant only wants to defend his case under the provision he is free to use whatever banter he chooses, the temporary injunction would probably be best to impose a ban on Eric Corbett, so he can be struck as a participant to the case, and the current case can go its course without him. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
|
2)
3)
4)
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.: 1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good-faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.:
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.:
3) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.:
4) Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an invasion of privacy and is always unacceptable.
1) Wikiprojects help editors work on creating and improving articles on related topics. Those topic areas may be defined by a demographic, such as gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, physical characteristics (disabilities), etc. These Wikiprojects sometimes engage in outreach activity to increase the number of editors in their topic area. Wikiproject talk pages may be used to discuss enforcement of Wikipedia policies which impact their members and to announce dispute resolution efforts, including problems editors believe they are having because they are members of that demographic group. If editors have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject (see Wikiproject council guide) that cannot be resolved at the talk page, editors should use dispute resolution processes.
@User:EChastain: Thanks for focusing on this issue. I knew I'd seen something that seemed relevant and just never got back to find it. (My guess now is it was about getting advice from them on creation of new wikiprojects.) So I've linked to another page that at least overviews relevant issues Wikiprojects face and provides some minimal guidance. I note now only WP:Dispute should be consulted for resolution. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 19:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Carolmooredc: This one also looks useful: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject, if you haven't seen it. Has bunches of formating code and other stuff. EChastain ( talk) 21:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Carolmooredc: I don't see anything in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Getting_into_fights that will help with fighting. It basically says for: "Fighting with other WikiProjects or unaffiliated editors: No project can control another project or other editor", and "In disputes with another project or with editors outside your project, your only effective tool is negotiation. If you need the cooperation of another project, approach them in a spirit of cooperation and look for appropriate compromises." EChastain ( talk) 20:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Carolmooredc: I'm not saying anything about the five pillars. I only quoted you from WhatamIdoing 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". [4] I believe you would have to take it up with them if you want them to modify their scope to include procedures you want them to have to deal with editors having problems. They do stress that they have no control over editors or conflict between projects. EChastain ( talk) 23:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
2) While on Wikipedia we
assume good faith, persistant
disruptive editing inevitably undermines that assumption. Such behavior includes editing articles or project spaces in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors; refusing to engage in consensus building; ignoring editors explanations for their edits or views; and organized campaigning to drive away productive contributors through
incivilty and
personal attacks. Wikipedia
WP:Dispute dispute resolution processes exist to deal with such disruption.
3) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Similarly, editors should not assume editors’ support of Wikipedia policy in a controversial topic area means the editor holds personal views for which they must be exposed or punished. Editors should not be asked or badgered to explain in detail their personal POV in order to be allowed to edit in peace. Personal or ideological inflammatory accusations perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than use of legitimate dispute-resolution methods, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.
4) Editors should not build interpersonal networks of allies who mutually support each other in order to achieve topic-related or policy goals which violate any Wikipedia policies. Using battleground terminology and metaphors to describe debates or badgering editors to join such alliances only exacerbates conflict. Use of WP:Canvassing to further such efforts is discouraged. Such alliances technically may not involve WP:Conflict of interest or WP:Meatpuppetry behavior. However, when practiced regularly such behavior similarly undermines adherence to Wikipedia policy, destroys honest editorial collaboration and drives away editors. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
interpersonal networks of allies who mutually support each other in order to achieve [...] goals which violate Wikipedia policy and to target and harass other Wikipediansnor that anyone has tried to
badger editors to join such alliancesnor that anyone has used
canvassing to further such efforts. The proposals above which LauraHale quoted from another Arbcom case are much more relevant to this case as well as being clear and succinct. 2. Asking arbitrators to outlaw a specific metaphor in discussions, i.e
editors should not talk in military terms, is beyond the scope of what arbitration does. It also completely misses the point that editors can (and frequently do) engage in profoundly battleground and tendentious behaviour during discussions without using a single military metaphor or term. Voceditenore ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
in order to achieve topic-related or policy goals which violate Wikipedia policy and to target and harass other Wikipedians, i.e it's ok for editors to form
interpersonal networks of alliesas long as they don't do it to violate policy or harass people. Interestingly, a principle explicitly deprecating military terminology refers to these putative groups as "allies". Maybe it's just my age showing but "allies" makes me think of these folk. But like I said, I don't see the relevance to this case, even in the current wording. There has been no evidence provided that any of the parties did this. What people on both sides did do was follow each other around to various drama boards and/or turned the Gender Gap talk page into a drama board. None of them had the sense to drop the stick until things got totally out of hand and ArbCom loomed, and even now, some plow on undaunted. In my view, people on both sides said and did things which were disruptive, ill-judged, and discourteous in the extreme. However, even at this late stage, introspection and self-awareness amongst many of the participants is pretty thin on the ground. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
5) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should strive to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks. Talk page stalking should not be used as a means of frustrating editors' attempts to discuss issues with the user. Any practice of watching editors user pages for clues or even directions as to action items could be considered a means of canvassing, especially if its intent is to undermine Wikipedia policies or harass individuals.
6) Wikipedia harassment policy is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, to bait them into making angry and even uncivil comments or other questionable behavior, and to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target or discourage them from editing entirely. Thus editors alone, or with allied editors, should not repeatedly follow editors to articles they have not worked on before to revert their edits or argue with them; repeatedly argue with or harangue them at their user talk pages, especially if asked to leave the talk page; place numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page; repeatedly bring up old issues, resolved long ago, in current discussions; falsely and repeatedly describe ordinary editorial critiques as “personal attacks”; or post off-Wikipedia information or comments about them, especially those of an intimidating and threatening nature.
7) WP:Harassment states under " Posting of personal information": "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums."
8) Wikipedia’s WP:civility civility policy is written in line with the Wikimedia Foundations Terms of Use policy linked from the bottom of most Wikipedia pages. It applies to all Wikipedians. Users should treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. This applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.
Per
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement
9) Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on an identifiable group, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion on communal pages such as those in the Wikipedia namespace.
10) Wikipedia:Civility notes that "personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs" will "contribute to an uncivil environment". If editors of articles or projects regarding gender are known to use, or defend use of, gender-related slurs on Wikipedia it may lead to assumptions of bad faith and conflict with others. This is true for all slurs. The fact that some small groups in some English speaking countries may use such terms in an allegedly innocent fashion does not excuse their use on Wikipedia. Millions of English speakers know such terms are slurs and their use injures Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia.
As a side note, Use of slurs against women may have a particularly negative effect on their participation, slurs against any category of people have a negative effect on their participation. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Another way to look at the situation is that I have my personal opinion as to how the civility policy should be enforced; why should I get to impose it on the community? Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Good point Patrol forty re: not knowing who you may be offending. Re: mansplaining vs. TERF, the former is usually a mild criticism or humorous put down, the latter is often used in the phrase "Die, TERF, die." Both have been called slurs by various parties. (Search each with term slur.) So use of either against an editor is likely to cause annoyance at best. If someone finds either used in what they consider a truly offensive manner, they always can take it to WP:ANI. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 09:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I too salute Rich for his assessment below. Let me ask and answer a question. When is a word or phrase considered a slur? Only when its usage is directed at an individual or group. That some may be offended by seeing such a word because it is sometimes, or even often used as a slur is only a concern if this usage is intended to cause disruption. Also disruptive is proclaiming "I'm offended" in attempt to apply your standards to others. I find lots of things on Wikipedia offensive (for example, doe-eyed anime artwork), but I don't complain about them because my i accept that my personal preferences are different than others. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 20:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, nobody knows you're not a woman, even proud feminists. Just ask Sagaciousphil. The defence of 'sorry, I though she was a man' after dropping the c-bomb, is simply never going to fly, since if they're that angry, they're never going to stop and check that they know for sure their intended target is not a women. There are simply too many ways for mistakes to occur (a clearly identified woman with a male sounding username, a non-identified woman with a gender neutral name being assumed to be a man, a women who thinks it's common knowledge she's a women but has never actually made it clear on her user page, etc, etc). The horror story is of course the prospect that it may have already happened, and the user simply didn't report it because she didn't want to be blamed for not making it clear/enough that she was a woman. Patrol forty ( talk) 03:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@ EvergreenFir: Who decides a word is a gender-related slur? e.g. Contrary to what you say above, according to arbcom TERF may or may not be, depending whether it's a personal attack. See: [14] Is it the same for Mansplaining? Who decided it was only a social phenomenon and not a derogatory remark? EChastain ( talk) 21:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Carolmooredc Is the c word a gender-related slur when said to a male? According to the evidence provided by User:Patrol forty, in his section Eric Corbett's use of the C-word, "In the last 6 months, Eric has twice used the C-Word in way that is unambiguously intended at a direct personal insult [15] [16]." Are these diffs referring to males also gender-related slurs? I'm unclear. EChastain ( talk) 21:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Evergreenfir is correct on that point.Really? It certainly is not the case in the area that I come from, and this has been explained to you previously. It may be the case in your area but, please, do at least acknowledge that you have been told it is not so in some other places. Similarly, could you possibly stop repeatedly referring to a statement that you know you have taken out of context and that, again, has been explained to you on several occasions. Arbitrators are unlikely to give it more weight just because you say it more often. - Sitush ( talk) 22:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Per
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement
11) 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.
12) Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. It is expected that administrators will act on violations of the community's standards consistently and fairly. They should not favor parties with whom they are friendly or with whom they agree ideologically or in Wikipedia policy disputes. They should not apply " double standards", conscious or unconscious, to members of demographic groups they may think of in stereotypical fashion. Inconsistent and unfair application of sanctions to different editors for any reason, especially if they are in the same disputes, can be disheartening to all editors. Consistent refusal to enforce civility policies regarding slurs against members of demographic groups, or any double standard refusal to enforce policy against members of favored demographic groups, has no place on Wikipedia.
1) The Wikiproject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force (GGTF) is one of eight task forces of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Participants are interested in increasing the number and quality of articles about notable women, as well as increasing the number of women editors. As noted in the Wikiproject Council Guide to Wikiprojects “Getting into Fights” section “unaffiliated editors” can be the source of fights. And, indeed, the project has been targeted for harassment by editors who hold or advocate for one or more of the following views: a) Men’s rights [18] [19]; b) pro-pornography [20]; c) anti-civility on Wikipedia [21] (particularly use of sexist slurs [22] [23] [24] [25] and hostility to GGTF’s concern with better enforcement of Wikipedia civility and anti-harassment policies. [26]); d) transgender activists opposed to radical feminist “gender critical” views [27] [28] [29] A couple editors followed women editors to GGTF to harass them. [30] [31]. Some of these editors already were or quickly became battleground allies. [32] [33]. These attacks lead to complaints by more sincere participants that they were badgered with bad faith questions and demands and mocking and offensive commentary that disrupted the project. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] A WP:ANI regarding " Disruption of Wikiproject" and other WP:ANIs and administrative actions followed, described below. The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project. (Note, the highly critical parties have supported increasing the number and quality of articles about women. However, most become hostile at discussions of remedies to the behavioral problems that many women find offensive or even harassing.) There already has been a lot of media attention to Wikipedia’s Gender Gap issue. Arbitrators failure to discourage what the world considers bigoted attempts to shut down a diversity-oriented Wikipedia project could seriously undermine Wikipedia’s credibility.
No project can control another project or other editor: No project can demand that another project support an article, change its scope, quit working on an article, or otherwise do what you want. Disputes may arise between projects or outside editors over formatting, such as the preferred system for organizing an article or the contents of a template. Disputes may also arise over quality standards. [...] In disputes with another project or with editors outside your project, your only effective tool is negotiation. (emphasis added)
2) Some administators refuse to take seriously some editors' complaints, while protecting favored editors, no matter how bad their behavior. Some allow themselves to be intimidated or discouraged by loosely organized policy violators who create a phony consensus against policy on Administrative noticeboards. Administrators refused to take seriously editors’ complaints about Eric Corbett's gratuitous use of a gender-related slur which was a direct reply to a GGTF participant's posting regarding a possible "Civility Board". [44] Yet when Corbett used it again a few months later only somewhat more directly against a man, he was blocked. [45] Similarly Carolmooredc’s long-term complaints about harassment by SPECIFICO to administrators and on WP:ANI were ignored for almost a year until finally someone else launched a complaint, resulting in an Iban against SPECIFICO. In another situation administrators refused to impose even a two-way interaction ban on Sitush who according to here evidence there harassed Carolmooredc, including with an attack biography. This despite another administrator requesting an interaction ban be imposed, a second administrator trying to work out a voluntary interaction ban which Sitush refused, and Carolmooredc and other editors supporting such a ban.
3) Evidence indicates that Carolmooredc joined Wikipedia using her own name and even originally linking to her website. The fact that she edited in some high conflict areas like Israel-Palestine, libertarianism, radical feminism and ending the gender gap has led multiple editors to do “opposition research” on her and accuse her of WP:POV and WP:COI editing. Other editors may have felt she did not have the subservience or diplomacy they expect/demand of a female editor. All this only exacerbated the taunting and personal attacks for her views - or for views some editors thought she had, based on her strong support for Wikipedia policies in WP:Biographies of living persons. She has sometimes lost her temper at these negative reactions to her. She contends that the fact that she is a woman has made it easier for harassers to get away with such behavior, as her complaints to administrators and at WP:ANI largely were ignored by a community that is overwhelmingly male. Her participation in the Gender Gap task force, where such harassment is taken more seriously, made it possible for her to deal with one long-term harassing editor. However, the repetitive evidence and hostile commentary submitted by uninvolved parties at this Arbitration indicates that the harassment is now more organized. Carolmooredc's block log shows one block that was significantly lowered in length in part because it was related to ongoing harassment of her by several parties [46] and one block for doing something one Arbitrator inferred she could do and another said she could do. [47]
Other editors may have felt she did not have the subservience or diplomacy they expect/demand of a female editor) and "writing when having lost her temper". I'm just throwing this idea out there; I'm not saying that harassment by anyone is reasonable or justified no matter what the circumstances. Ca2james ( talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that harassment by anyone is reasonable or justified no matter what the circumstances.but you are implying it heavily. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
4) Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs) on many occasions has made personal attacks and provocative and/or uncivil comments. [48] He has become particularly infamous recently because of his use and defense of a phrase widely considered to be a slur against women. [49] [50] [51] Concurrently he joined GGTF and began to badger participants and others. [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] Participants in the task force repeatedly complained his behavior was annoying or disruptive. [57] [58] [59] [60]
5) Eric Corbett originally edited under User:Malleus Fatuorum. The 2012 Civility enforcement arbitration largely centered on his activity under that name. His block log under that name [61] from May 2008 to May 2013 shows he had been blocked 20 times for personal attacks and related issues. His Eric Corbett block log since May 28, 2013 shows he’s been blocked at least eight times for similar cause. A number of these blocks have lead to controversial unblocks which lead to the impression he is a privileged editor, immune from sanction no matter how uncivil he is.
6) SPECIFICO ( talk · contribs) received a November 2013 block after another editor filed a complaint about his personal attack on Carolmooredc at this TPNO ANI. In September 2014 another editor filed a complaint he was WP:Wikihounding Carolmooredc, which she evidenced in detail; an administrator imposed a one way interaction ban on SPECIFICO to stop the harassment. He has not contributed to GGTF since. However, the evidence he presented at this Arbitration shows he is willing to cast aspersions on Carolmooredc on flimsy and exaggerated evidence, including repeatedly calling her an “antisemite” which he already has been warned is a blockable offense under Palestine-Israel Arbitration. [62]
In my experience Carolmoordc claims she is being "attacked" when actually people are just disagreeing with her attempts to spin encyclopedia articles to her own point of view. Wikipedia is not a platform for social activism. If you don't want to maintain WP:NPOV, please write for Huffington Post, Fox News, Tumblr or any other website besides Wikipedia. Finally, let me make it perfectly clear that I haven't been following the dispute that lead to this arbitration, and I have no opinion on whether you (CarolMDC) were actually harassed or not. It may be the case that you were. I very much don't like the idea of a Wikipedia editor creating a biography of another editor while they are in any sort of conflict or disagreement. Jehochman Talk 13:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Carol, please read what I wrote again. I said offline comments should not be used to attack you or anyone, though they may indicate a COI. There is no need to debunk others offline opinions about you. You should recall I was very much against the BLP Sitush created, not due to the content, but rather i felt it was inappropriate due to the current proceedings. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 19:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I trust that the drafting Arbs and the Committee will click through to the diffs CMDC presents in her Evidence submission. The links appear to be of two types: 1) Links to prior assertions of her own unfounded opinions, and 2) Links to entire threads or wholesale categories of diffs, for example to every one of my edits on GGTF hidden in a single link. None of tie the diffs to findings of fact, nor do any of them support the opinions she states there or in the Workshop. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
7) Two kinds of pork ( talk · contribs) has made mocking comments [66] [67], proposals [68] and threads. [69] He reverted a users talk page comments, leading to a block [70], after which he joked about the administrator being hit by a truck. [71] Soon after he hatted one thread he did not like and then prematurely archived that thread [72] and others which are of interest to project participants. [73] [74]
y guys! Can I join your circle jerk? I see this is a section where no member of the GGTF has posted, and I'm not one either, so let's keep it that way! I would like to appoint myself Minister of Male Asshattedness. Perhaps I should have just seconded his nomination, as he appeared to be qualified for the position. But I foolishly took his bait, hook line and sinker. But the exchange wasn't a total loss, as later he graciously helped me rescue a previously deleted article I was having trouble finding sources, for which I am grateful. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 11:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
8) Sitush ( talk · contribs) has engaged in hostile and repeated nitpicking of Carolmooredc over minor differences in approach, as in formatting. [76] He continued to edit her talk page after she asked him to stop. [77] He’s expressed hostility towards her presumed political views [78] and her association with GGTF. [79] He entered the GGTF and immediately cast aspersions on her. [80] He has been accused of supporting the use of a gender slur against women [81] and left a "joke" slur on a woman GGTF participants talk page. [82] He has expressed the desire to have Carolmooredc site banned [83] and discussed harassing actions against her at a WP:ANI. [84] [85] [86] [87] He created a now-deleted biography of Carol Moore. An administrator brought a WP:ANI recommending an interaction ban. Sitush admitted he wanted an Arbitration focused on Carolmooredc, this current one if necessary. [88] [89] However, the only evidence he presents here is Carolmooredc's upset reactions to his recent harassment of her. [90]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Carolmooredc obviously has had many negative experiences on Wikipedia with editors who may not like her views, or assumed views, or just have trouble dealing with assertive women. Given the “gang-up” in this arbitration, she doubtless will continue to have them. She will be much happier re-focusing her activity on sharing with the world libertarian decentralist and consensus-democracy principles, the same ones upon which Wikipedia was built by its visionary founders. She obviously is interested in perfecting such principles so they are more workable than they have proved to be so far on Wikipedia. She also should be better able to work on ending Wikipedia gender gap and any related sexism if she is not wasting time defending herself from personal attacks and harassment. However, if she chooses to occasionally edit on Wikipedia, she should be allowed to edit unmolested by personal attacks and harassment and her complaints about such incidents should be taken more seriously.
re-focusing her activity on sharing with the world libertarian decentralist and consensus-democracy principlesand
libertarians for the most part aren't left or right - they're aheadindicate a severe misunderstanding about what editing on Wikipedia means. KonveyorBelt 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
1) SPECIFICO's evidence present here shows he continues to be obsessed with Carolmooredc. Therefore the one-way interaction ban imposed through community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents shall continue.
1) Sitush ( talk · contribs) recently has engaged in obsessive harassment of Carolmooredc related to GGTF and other issues [92] [93] [94] [95] [96], also biography and WP:ANI on two-way interaction ban. She sometimes has reacted in an intemperate manner. [97] Therefore an indefinite two-way interaction ban is imposed upon them.
1) Adopted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Fair_criticism: Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project and how they may be best addressed. It is expected that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to use the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in continuous criticism across available forums.
2) From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Good_faith_and_disruption: Disruptive behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
3) Adopted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Baiting: Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as harassment.
1) Editors should not cast inappropriate aspersions against other editors or make repeated personal remarks on them in any namespace, especially when the claim concerns an editor's personal life. Such real-life aspersions may be removed under WP:BLP and if the aspersions are repeated, the offending user can be blocked, per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption (gross incivility, breaching the policies or guidelines, namely BLP).
Carolmooredc repeatedly made unfounded accusations against other editors; [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence#Other editors' battleground attitudes where she accuses Eric Corbett of having "battleground alliances", [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112] (the Eric cabal again), [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119] (including edit summary), [120], where she accuses me of driving her off of Wikipedia with my "buddies", despite the fact I did not contribute to anything about the GGTF before submitting a proposal here, and especially [121] and [122] where she accuses an editor of being the wife of another editor, and accuses yet another of having uploaded "kiddie porn", real-life claims that could have serious implications.
That rumour could be more damaging, not only to me, than any intemperate languageand has called it a "malicious rumor" [123]. As for kiddie porn, I don't think you yourself knew what you were saying there. You looked and found somebody complaining about Sitush and ate it hook line and sinker, without bothering to note that the accuser was one of a long line of sock/meatpuppets. But that's not really for me to comment on. I just took evidence that other had presented in the evidence page. The two diffs were from J3Mrs and Johnuniq (not Johnunique, nor Johnuniqu), and if you want to challenge the diffs, you can bring it up in the analyses of their evidences. Literally one link links to your evidence, and I don't see any formatting errors. No diffs are irrelevant here. Even if they are not directly related to GGTF, they are evidence of long term behavioral issues. Again, if you want to challenge the diffs, bring it up in the evidence analysis. KonveyorBelt 23:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Neotarf repeatedly made unfounded accusations against other editors; [124], [125], [126], and [127].
Eric Corbett repeatedly made unfounded accusations against other editors; [128] and [129]
I'm just going to post two points.
1) First, I want to repost the link about the court case I posted earlier
[130], Reeves v. C.H. Robinson, a case about gender-based profanity and hostile work environment. It is very readable and addresses exactly the same issues that have been raised in this case. Nothing I could write would be better. I wish all the participants and arbs would look through it.
2) Second, I would like to note the exhaustion of the female participants.
I see Laura Hale has posted above me--I haven't seen her around any of the projects for a long time.
Lightbreather was a member of the Gender Gap group but left Wikipedia during the course of this case, after posting her evidence here. She was involved in the lengthy C-Bomb thread on Jimbo's talk page that resulted in the Civility case request, as well as the brutal thread at the Editor Retention Wikiproject, where she was basicly told that no one cares how painful the editing experience is for women, and that now that she had expressed her minority views, she should "lick her wounds" and get back to work. Her edit summary there says it all: "I don't have the energy to discuss 'just ignore incivility' again." — Neotarf ( talk) 10:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
all his sausagefest talk. As far as I can see, he mentioned the term once. Voceditenore ( talk) 19:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Neotarf, so you're saying that female editors of Wikipedia around the world are unpaid "employees" of WMF? And to determine whether an editor is an "employee" of WMF, since the Supreme Court has instructed courts to use the common law principles of agency in lieu of a substantive definition of ‘employee’, the following considerations are relevant rather than payment status, as stated in a Illinois Federal Court decision:
"Relevant factors” include the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party, it said. “No one of these factors is determinative.( from NONPROFIT ISSUES, cited in "Comment by a anonymous user")
So, for example, a female editor of Wikipedia anywhere in the world should have the same claims regarding a "hostile work environment" as a volunteer firefighter in the US?( Volunteer Firefighter Stated a Claim for Hostile Work Environment Based on Racial Harassment, cited in "Comment by a anonymous user")
And the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's definition of Harassment:
Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. ( EEOC, cited in "Comment by a anonymous user")
These are just examples from the anonymous user's post. I just don't see how the "hostile work environment" can be applied here in a virtual environment where race, gender, ethnicity may be unknown and where the "employee" as you put it, is free to stop participating at any time with no fear that a Palm Springs police officer will appear at the editors home. ( Why Women Aren't Welcome on the Internet, cited in "Comment by a anonymous user") It boggles my mind. EChastain ( talk) 23:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
[Note: I am posting this on behalf of a user who contacted me by email, and who writes me,
"The problem is silence does not solve the problem for women. Remaining silent only works until we can't deal with it, and then we leave the project. Meeting fire with fire is the only workable solution, and the culture is so toxic that this generally leads to pretty bad things for female edits and bad things but less bad things for the other side. (I get my job threatened. What does Eric Corbett get? Not the same thing.)
"I had the first paragraph ready to hit save on that but couldn't do it. Can't risk the personal fall out. I wish I could participate, but the reality is it is too dangerous. I tell other women that too."
The user has given permission for me to post this, but wishes to remain anonymous. — Neotarf ( talk) 17:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
To Neotarf's point about "hostile work environment", the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to building an encyclopedia. They work with other organizations and commercial services in distributing their product, [133] an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. People who build the content are volunteers, and while they may leave at any time, [134] there have been a few court rulings in the USA, whom have legal jurisdiction over the Florida incorporated Wikimedia Foundation, that explicitly demonstrate that volunteers have the same "employment" rights to be free of a hostile work environment that their paid employees have a right to. [135] [136] The right to be free of a hostile work environment extends beyond the person being subjected directly to the behavior. [137] As Wikimedia has become more professionalized with students completing coursework, semi-professional editors working on community and content development as part of their employment, grants from the Wikimedia Foundation supporting work that leads to content development and community growth aimed at new content development, [138] open tolerance of harassment of women (and other groups such as people with different sexual orientations, of different nationalities, people with disabilities, etc.) is just that with increasing potential to demonstrate real damages. [139]
Beyond that, the tolerance for such behavior sends a clear and overriding message to women that they are not wanted [140] and the current advice to women of ignore has proven largely ineffective. Openly encouraging such behavior as that status quo and providing zero resource to fix it other than escalating the situation through non-functional dispute resolution processes makes Wikipedia prime for its own version of GamerGate. [141] [142] [143] At some point, the Wikimedia Foundation may very well find itself having to do what Adobe did. [144] [145] The only reason that has not happened to date is because many of the women who have dealt with sexually based harassment, have had their employment targeted because they are female, have had their academic work targeted because they are and dealt with gender specific crap have either lacked the media resources to put the story out there, cannot take the professional risk of exposing the systemic problem or at their hearts of hearts believe so much in the movement (where editors seek to actively destroy them because they are women) that they have not willingly thrown the Wikimedia Foundation under the bus. The last part is probably the most important reason. <names redacted> are prime examples.
The tactics being employed in general on English Wikipedia towards women as a form of harassment include: Sabotaging a person's contribution, Post complaint retaliation, name calling, threatening punishment, Interfering with employment, Boasting of own success and proficiency with the intention of using this success as a weapon. For all of these, the research has shown that males are much more likely to engaged in these forms of harassment. [146] The type of harassment given to males is markedly different, and the type of harassment women are more likely to engage in compared to males is markedly different. English Wikipedia provides a format where male specific harassment techniques are much easier to do, and do effectively. Given the already large male participation numbers in pure percentages, ... Go back to hostile work environment.
Note: the first paragraph of this has been cross-posted to Jimmy Wales' talk page. [147] — Neotarf ( talk) 17:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
1) Wikipedia is a project which involves large numbers of people. It is inevitable that some participants will share a similar opinion regarding some matters, although they may not share a similar opinion regarding all matters. Calling such shared opinions detrimental to the project merely because it differs from the opinion held by another person or group of people is disruptive. Claiming an alliance without proper evidence may constitute a personal attack.
2) Consensus is a vital aspect of how Wikipedia works. Achieving it often comes through debate. Disagreement, discussion, and criticism should not be mischaracterised as incivility or personal attack.
3) Contributors should always be prepared to substantiate any claim they make about other contributors by providing specific evidence if challenged within a reasonable time. Failure to substantiate can be disruptive and repeated or habitual failure may be sanctionable. Responses such as "I saw it somewhere" are unacceptable.
1) False accusations of harassment constitute a personal attack. Tracking a user's contributions to monitor policy violations of, for example, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NPA is not harassment, provided that any concerns are expressed civilly and substantively. The contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.
2) Tendentious editing, which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole, or which promotes the personal views of the editor, is disruptive. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out or an inadvertent misstatement. Repeated attempts to promote or suppress content, to denigrate editors with whom one disagrees, or any other behavior that frustrates WP discussions and processes is unacceptable. If the disruption is longstanding, repeated, or severe, the editor may be banned.
3) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.
4) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.
1) Battleground behavior by a small number of GGTF members has driven off many editors, not only male gendered editors, and has hobbled discussion at GGTF. CarolmooreDC and a small number of other activist members have denigrated, personally attacked and falsely accused both male and female editors who presented cogent, civilly stated views concerning the Gender Gap and ways to mitigate its effects on WP.
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
There is so much wrong with Carol's interpretations that it would take months of discussing the problems interspersed with wall-of-text replies by Carol. But let's take her first post as an example:
First of all, there is no Aug 11 comment by Carol saying the proposal was dismissed and removed. The diff above she presents is mine. Carol attempted to make my objection to the proposal as an example of disruption or my objection was overblown because I should have realized that the proposal was at one time on the main page and subsequently removed. NO WHERE on the section in question says anything like this [159]. At best, this example is Carol using diffs selectively as a sword and a shield depending upon her needs at the time. At worst, this is an attempt at obfuscation by muddying the waters and drowning the conversation by the massive responses she has generated so far. Above an arbitrator mentions their concern about having limits on replies here. Your concerns are not without merit, but limits should be strongly considered ASAP. As for my responses here, I pledge I will do my best to reply infrequently and to be concise. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 05:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Sitush's support for using the “C-word”I may be missing something but I cannot see my support for use of that specific word in that thread. I do think there is a cultural issue with most of the civility stuff, I did link to This Be The Verse (which uses "fuck" and was a set poem at A-level English Lit back in my time), and I did have a jokey exchange about "cunt" with someone somewhere but I'd appreciate a quote of me explicitly supporting use of it in that thread, please. My enduring memory is Jimbo telling me that I needed to have "more honor" when I used the word "drama" and was castigated because apparently it is sexist to do so. - Sitush ( talk) 11:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
without seeking to understand underlying issues. The porn allegation is not the principle issue with IAC, nor can I recall ever wanting to prevent discussion of it. Is CMDC getting confused with the request from Newyorkbrad regarding the supposed gun threat? Or am I missing something here? I also cannot figure out where
Sitush has just discussed [the porn allegation] ... here- I see no mention by me on the Evidence pages but perhaps I am misunderstanding CMDC's syntax. - Sitush ( talk) 12:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
her best known onecitation needed - Sitush ( talk) 11:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
by violating policy to annoy mecitation needed and
may or may not contain relevant diffsvague. - Sitush ( talk) 11:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Sitush saying he would follow me around. Nor, indeed, did I have a great deal more to do with CMDC until this case was accepted - I stuck to what I said I would do and raised in Evidence. Similarly, I did not say the thing that CMDC refers to as "civil disobedience" would be used in the BLP: please review the section Iridescent linked to and note, inter alia, my comment that
I only bring up the link in this message because you claim I'm wrong.- Sitush ( talk) 11:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
attack biographywas not an attack and I invite the arbitrators to examine that article and its talk page at the point where I personally stopped editing it. And the statement in this section that
he ignored an Arbitrator telling him not to do it(ie: draft that BLP) misrepresents what Salvio giuliano told her only a few days ago. - Sitush ( talk) 10:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
endured six talk page threads of editors telling him it was a terrible ideais not entirely true. For example, I "endured" nothing (emotive and you cannot read my mind) and it wasn't unanimous that the thing was a terrible idea (nor was it in the MfD, which ended with a WP:IAR decision). - Sitush ( talk) 12:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
as if it’s a bad thingEh? I do not know how you can interpret my comment in that way. - Sitush ( talk) 12:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Seven of Sitush’s 10 edits at GGTF were directed at me. There were nine such edits at the point when someone with whom I don't think I've ever had any interaction before posted this analysis in response to her oft-repeated claims of hounding. CMDC has similarly misrepresented in her claims regarding my use of her talk page. There are numerous "calling outs" of her evidence on the Evidence talk page also. - Sitush ( talk) 13:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
... know each other personally ... Corbett, Sitush, J3Mrs, Richerman, are a few of themI've never met J3Mrs, Eric Corbett has said more than once that he has not done so either, and Richerman said the same at some point in the past. I've met Eric and Richerman exactly once, and I couldn't follow what was going on that time due to my profound deafness, as has been explained more than once. (Also why I do not use the phone.) Perhaps we are all liars, though? Is that what you mean? And who are the others whom I am supposed to know "personally", or is that just another of the many vaguities that I've been seeing here?
I am utterly flabbergasted by
Carol's response to Richerman. She accuses him of defense of Sitush and knowledge and strong opinions regarding the matter
. In that diff on the evidence talk page, he pointed out Neotarf's error in the insinuations that an alleged "death threat" was directed at Carol. Neotarf and Carol's insinuations had continued despite
three
separate
arbitrators having already confirmed that this was not the case. There were several other editors who also pointed out errors in those insinuations. However, Richerman's sin seems to be pointing out an error and belonging to
WikiProject Greater Manchester. The pièce de résistance is the veiled threat that word could get out that WikiProject Greater Manchester encourages sexual slurs against women and their members could all end up on the front page of
The Guardian. (By the way, it hasn't been called the Manchester Guardian in 50 years and isn't a local Manchester paper.) Really, Carol, you should strike that whole paragraph, it damages no one but yourself.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
With the existing conventions of English Wikipedia, it is difficult to resolve the problems with its consensus approach, due to the stalemate of requiring consensus to adopt new variations. However, it may be feasible to gain agreement, on a case-by-case basis, to deploy various techniques to streamline discussion. For example, a moderator can be agreed upon to build up a summary of the discussion, with a consolidated pros and cons list, so that repetition of the same points can be minimized.
In order to encourage the shepherding of ideas from an initial idea to a more fully developed state, within Wikipedia's current consensus tradition, I suggest it is reasonable for the editors interested in a topic to consider allowing a working group of editors to specify a fixed period of time during which they can complete an initial analysis, after which they will open up discussion to the larger community. During this preliminary phase, the working group can self-select those who can participate. Care should be taken to not unduly limit participation: In order to maximize the value of the initial analysis, it should look at all points of view for the topic of discussion, and seek to provide an even-handed summary that considers the positives and negatives of all sides.
Any mitigation approach requires the co-operation of the key participants, which may be a problem for contentious issues. Nonetheless, anything that can be done to reduce repetitive discussion will both increase the likelihood of greater participation from more editors, and free up time to make other Wikipedia contributions. Given these highly desirable effects, these options should be given due consideration when the opportunity arises. isaacl ( talk) 03:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Case clerks: Ks0stm ( Talk) & Penwhale ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned ( Talk) & GorillaWarfare ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. 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 unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
1)
2)
3)
Enough. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1) Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 48 hours for Gross incivility on 14 October. Then his talk page was protected for continued inappropriate use by Eric et. al. [1]. Thus far Eric has also refused to restrain insults, when asked politely. Also, the way the block was as it were provoked by Eric, with an insult directed at Jimbo may deserve some scrutiny. 1.1 For good order it would probably be best to ask this participant of the current case whether or not he wants to defend his case here, and if not, agree to never dispute its outcome in a later stage. 1.2 Alternatively, if the participant only wants to defend his case under the provision he is free to use whatever banter he chooses, the temporary injunction would probably be best to impose a ban on Eric Corbett, so he can be struck as a participant to the case, and the current case can go its course without him. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
|
2)
3)
4)
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.: 1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good-faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.:
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.:
3) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.:
4) Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an invasion of privacy and is always unacceptable.
1) Wikiprojects help editors work on creating and improving articles on related topics. Those topic areas may be defined by a demographic, such as gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, physical characteristics (disabilities), etc. These Wikiprojects sometimes engage in outreach activity to increase the number of editors in their topic area. Wikiproject talk pages may be used to discuss enforcement of Wikipedia policies which impact their members and to announce dispute resolution efforts, including problems editors believe they are having because they are members of that demographic group. If editors have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject (see Wikiproject council guide) that cannot be resolved at the talk page, editors should use dispute resolution processes.
@User:EChastain: Thanks for focusing on this issue. I knew I'd seen something that seemed relevant and just never got back to find it. (My guess now is it was about getting advice from them on creation of new wikiprojects.) So I've linked to another page that at least overviews relevant issues Wikiprojects face and provides some minimal guidance. I note now only WP:Dispute should be consulted for resolution. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 19:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Carolmooredc: This one also looks useful: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject, if you haven't seen it. Has bunches of formating code and other stuff. EChastain ( talk) 21:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Carolmooredc: I don't see anything in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Getting_into_fights that will help with fighting. It basically says for: "Fighting with other WikiProjects or unaffiliated editors: No project can control another project or other editor", and "In disputes with another project or with editors outside your project, your only effective tool is negotiation. If you need the cooperation of another project, approach them in a spirit of cooperation and look for appropriate compromises." EChastain ( talk) 20:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Carolmooredc: I'm not saying anything about the five pillars. I only quoted you from WhatamIdoing 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". [4] I believe you would have to take it up with them if you want them to modify their scope to include procedures you want them to have to deal with editors having problems. They do stress that they have no control over editors or conflict between projects. EChastain ( talk) 23:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
2) While on Wikipedia we
assume good faith, persistant
disruptive editing inevitably undermines that assumption. Such behavior includes editing articles or project spaces in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors; refusing to engage in consensus building; ignoring editors explanations for their edits or views; and organized campaigning to drive away productive contributors through
incivilty and
personal attacks. Wikipedia
WP:Dispute dispute resolution processes exist to deal with such disruption.
3) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Similarly, editors should not assume editors’ support of Wikipedia policy in a controversial topic area means the editor holds personal views for which they must be exposed or punished. Editors should not be asked or badgered to explain in detail their personal POV in order to be allowed to edit in peace. Personal or ideological inflammatory accusations perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than use of legitimate dispute-resolution methods, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.
4) Editors should not build interpersonal networks of allies who mutually support each other in order to achieve topic-related or policy goals which violate any Wikipedia policies. Using battleground terminology and metaphors to describe debates or badgering editors to join such alliances only exacerbates conflict. Use of WP:Canvassing to further such efforts is discouraged. Such alliances technically may not involve WP:Conflict of interest or WP:Meatpuppetry behavior. However, when practiced regularly such behavior similarly undermines adherence to Wikipedia policy, destroys honest editorial collaboration and drives away editors. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
interpersonal networks of allies who mutually support each other in order to achieve [...] goals which violate Wikipedia policy and to target and harass other Wikipediansnor that anyone has tried to
badger editors to join such alliancesnor that anyone has used
canvassing to further such efforts. The proposals above which LauraHale quoted from another Arbcom case are much more relevant to this case as well as being clear and succinct. 2. Asking arbitrators to outlaw a specific metaphor in discussions, i.e
editors should not talk in military terms, is beyond the scope of what arbitration does. It also completely misses the point that editors can (and frequently do) engage in profoundly battleground and tendentious behaviour during discussions without using a single military metaphor or term. Voceditenore ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
in order to achieve topic-related or policy goals which violate Wikipedia policy and to target and harass other Wikipedians, i.e it's ok for editors to form
interpersonal networks of alliesas long as they don't do it to violate policy or harass people. Interestingly, a principle explicitly deprecating military terminology refers to these putative groups as "allies". Maybe it's just my age showing but "allies" makes me think of these folk. But like I said, I don't see the relevance to this case, even in the current wording. There has been no evidence provided that any of the parties did this. What people on both sides did do was follow each other around to various drama boards and/or turned the Gender Gap talk page into a drama board. None of them had the sense to drop the stick until things got totally out of hand and ArbCom loomed, and even now, some plow on undaunted. In my view, people on both sides said and did things which were disruptive, ill-judged, and discourteous in the extreme. However, even at this late stage, introspection and self-awareness amongst many of the participants is pretty thin on the ground. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
5) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should strive to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks. Talk page stalking should not be used as a means of frustrating editors' attempts to discuss issues with the user. Any practice of watching editors user pages for clues or even directions as to action items could be considered a means of canvassing, especially if its intent is to undermine Wikipedia policies or harass individuals.
6) Wikipedia harassment policy is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, to bait them into making angry and even uncivil comments or other questionable behavior, and to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target or discourage them from editing entirely. Thus editors alone, or with allied editors, should not repeatedly follow editors to articles they have not worked on before to revert their edits or argue with them; repeatedly argue with or harangue them at their user talk pages, especially if asked to leave the talk page; place numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page; repeatedly bring up old issues, resolved long ago, in current discussions; falsely and repeatedly describe ordinary editorial critiques as “personal attacks”; or post off-Wikipedia information or comments about them, especially those of an intimidating and threatening nature.
7) WP:Harassment states under " Posting of personal information": "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums."
8) Wikipedia’s WP:civility civility policy is written in line with the Wikimedia Foundations Terms of Use policy linked from the bottom of most Wikipedia pages. It applies to all Wikipedians. Users should treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. This applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.
Per
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement
9) Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on an identifiable group, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion on communal pages such as those in the Wikipedia namespace.
10) Wikipedia:Civility notes that "personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs" will "contribute to an uncivil environment". If editors of articles or projects regarding gender are known to use, or defend use of, gender-related slurs on Wikipedia it may lead to assumptions of bad faith and conflict with others. This is true for all slurs. The fact that some small groups in some English speaking countries may use such terms in an allegedly innocent fashion does not excuse their use on Wikipedia. Millions of English speakers know such terms are slurs and their use injures Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia.
As a side note, Use of slurs against women may have a particularly negative effect on their participation, slurs against any category of people have a negative effect on their participation. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Another way to look at the situation is that I have my personal opinion as to how the civility policy should be enforced; why should I get to impose it on the community? Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Good point Patrol forty re: not knowing who you may be offending. Re: mansplaining vs. TERF, the former is usually a mild criticism or humorous put down, the latter is often used in the phrase "Die, TERF, die." Both have been called slurs by various parties. (Search each with term slur.) So use of either against an editor is likely to cause annoyance at best. If someone finds either used in what they consider a truly offensive manner, they always can take it to WP:ANI. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 09:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I too salute Rich for his assessment below. Let me ask and answer a question. When is a word or phrase considered a slur? Only when its usage is directed at an individual or group. That some may be offended by seeing such a word because it is sometimes, or even often used as a slur is only a concern if this usage is intended to cause disruption. Also disruptive is proclaiming "I'm offended" in attempt to apply your standards to others. I find lots of things on Wikipedia offensive (for example, doe-eyed anime artwork), but I don't complain about them because my i accept that my personal preferences are different than others. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 20:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, nobody knows you're not a woman, even proud feminists. Just ask Sagaciousphil. The defence of 'sorry, I though she was a man' after dropping the c-bomb, is simply never going to fly, since if they're that angry, they're never going to stop and check that they know for sure their intended target is not a women. There are simply too many ways for mistakes to occur (a clearly identified woman with a male sounding username, a non-identified woman with a gender neutral name being assumed to be a man, a women who thinks it's common knowledge she's a women but has never actually made it clear on her user page, etc, etc). The horror story is of course the prospect that it may have already happened, and the user simply didn't report it because she didn't want to be blamed for not making it clear/enough that she was a woman. Patrol forty ( talk) 03:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@ EvergreenFir: Who decides a word is a gender-related slur? e.g. Contrary to what you say above, according to arbcom TERF may or may not be, depending whether it's a personal attack. See: [14] Is it the same for Mansplaining? Who decided it was only a social phenomenon and not a derogatory remark? EChastain ( talk) 21:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Carolmooredc Is the c word a gender-related slur when said to a male? According to the evidence provided by User:Patrol forty, in his section Eric Corbett's use of the C-word, "In the last 6 months, Eric has twice used the C-Word in way that is unambiguously intended at a direct personal insult [15] [16]." Are these diffs referring to males also gender-related slurs? I'm unclear. EChastain ( talk) 21:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Evergreenfir is correct on that point.Really? It certainly is not the case in the area that I come from, and this has been explained to you previously. It may be the case in your area but, please, do at least acknowledge that you have been told it is not so in some other places. Similarly, could you possibly stop repeatedly referring to a statement that you know you have taken out of context and that, again, has been explained to you on several occasions. Arbitrators are unlikely to give it more weight just because you say it more often. - Sitush ( talk) 22:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Per
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement
11) 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.
12) Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. It is expected that administrators will act on violations of the community's standards consistently and fairly. They should not favor parties with whom they are friendly or with whom they agree ideologically or in Wikipedia policy disputes. They should not apply " double standards", conscious or unconscious, to members of demographic groups they may think of in stereotypical fashion. Inconsistent and unfair application of sanctions to different editors for any reason, especially if they are in the same disputes, can be disheartening to all editors. Consistent refusal to enforce civility policies regarding slurs against members of demographic groups, or any double standard refusal to enforce policy against members of favored demographic groups, has no place on Wikipedia.
1) The Wikiproject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force (GGTF) is one of eight task forces of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Participants are interested in increasing the number and quality of articles about notable women, as well as increasing the number of women editors. As noted in the Wikiproject Council Guide to Wikiprojects “Getting into Fights” section “unaffiliated editors” can be the source of fights. And, indeed, the project has been targeted for harassment by editors who hold or advocate for one or more of the following views: a) Men’s rights [18] [19]; b) pro-pornography [20]; c) anti-civility on Wikipedia [21] (particularly use of sexist slurs [22] [23] [24] [25] and hostility to GGTF’s concern with better enforcement of Wikipedia civility and anti-harassment policies. [26]); d) transgender activists opposed to radical feminist “gender critical” views [27] [28] [29] A couple editors followed women editors to GGTF to harass them. [30] [31]. Some of these editors already were or quickly became battleground allies. [32] [33]. These attacks lead to complaints by more sincere participants that they were badgered with bad faith questions and demands and mocking and offensive commentary that disrupted the project. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] A WP:ANI regarding " Disruption of Wikiproject" and other WP:ANIs and administrative actions followed, described below. The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project. (Note, the highly critical parties have supported increasing the number and quality of articles about women. However, most become hostile at discussions of remedies to the behavioral problems that many women find offensive or even harassing.) There already has been a lot of media attention to Wikipedia’s Gender Gap issue. Arbitrators failure to discourage what the world considers bigoted attempts to shut down a diversity-oriented Wikipedia project could seriously undermine Wikipedia’s credibility.
No project can control another project or other editor: No project can demand that another project support an article, change its scope, quit working on an article, or otherwise do what you want. Disputes may arise between projects or outside editors over formatting, such as the preferred system for organizing an article or the contents of a template. Disputes may also arise over quality standards. [...] In disputes with another project or with editors outside your project, your only effective tool is negotiation. (emphasis added)
2) Some administators refuse to take seriously some editors' complaints, while protecting favored editors, no matter how bad their behavior. Some allow themselves to be intimidated or discouraged by loosely organized policy violators who create a phony consensus against policy on Administrative noticeboards. Administrators refused to take seriously editors’ complaints about Eric Corbett's gratuitous use of a gender-related slur which was a direct reply to a GGTF participant's posting regarding a possible "Civility Board". [44] Yet when Corbett used it again a few months later only somewhat more directly against a man, he was blocked. [45] Similarly Carolmooredc’s long-term complaints about harassment by SPECIFICO to administrators and on WP:ANI were ignored for almost a year until finally someone else launched a complaint, resulting in an Iban against SPECIFICO. In another situation administrators refused to impose even a two-way interaction ban on Sitush who according to here evidence there harassed Carolmooredc, including with an attack biography. This despite another administrator requesting an interaction ban be imposed, a second administrator trying to work out a voluntary interaction ban which Sitush refused, and Carolmooredc and other editors supporting such a ban.
3) Evidence indicates that Carolmooredc joined Wikipedia using her own name and even originally linking to her website. The fact that she edited in some high conflict areas like Israel-Palestine, libertarianism, radical feminism and ending the gender gap has led multiple editors to do “opposition research” on her and accuse her of WP:POV and WP:COI editing. Other editors may have felt she did not have the subservience or diplomacy they expect/demand of a female editor. All this only exacerbated the taunting and personal attacks for her views - or for views some editors thought she had, based on her strong support for Wikipedia policies in WP:Biographies of living persons. She has sometimes lost her temper at these negative reactions to her. She contends that the fact that she is a woman has made it easier for harassers to get away with such behavior, as her complaints to administrators and at WP:ANI largely were ignored by a community that is overwhelmingly male. Her participation in the Gender Gap task force, where such harassment is taken more seriously, made it possible for her to deal with one long-term harassing editor. However, the repetitive evidence and hostile commentary submitted by uninvolved parties at this Arbitration indicates that the harassment is now more organized. Carolmooredc's block log shows one block that was significantly lowered in length in part because it was related to ongoing harassment of her by several parties [46] and one block for doing something one Arbitrator inferred she could do and another said she could do. [47]
Other editors may have felt she did not have the subservience or diplomacy they expect/demand of a female editor) and "writing when having lost her temper". I'm just throwing this idea out there; I'm not saying that harassment by anyone is reasonable or justified no matter what the circumstances. Ca2james ( talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that harassment by anyone is reasonable or justified no matter what the circumstances.but you are implying it heavily. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
4) Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs) on many occasions has made personal attacks and provocative and/or uncivil comments. [48] He has become particularly infamous recently because of his use and defense of a phrase widely considered to be a slur against women. [49] [50] [51] Concurrently he joined GGTF and began to badger participants and others. [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] Participants in the task force repeatedly complained his behavior was annoying or disruptive. [57] [58] [59] [60]
5) Eric Corbett originally edited under User:Malleus Fatuorum. The 2012 Civility enforcement arbitration largely centered on his activity under that name. His block log under that name [61] from May 2008 to May 2013 shows he had been blocked 20 times for personal attacks and related issues. His Eric Corbett block log since May 28, 2013 shows he’s been blocked at least eight times for similar cause. A number of these blocks have lead to controversial unblocks which lead to the impression he is a privileged editor, immune from sanction no matter how uncivil he is.
6) SPECIFICO ( talk · contribs) received a November 2013 block after another editor filed a complaint about his personal attack on Carolmooredc at this TPNO ANI. In September 2014 another editor filed a complaint he was WP:Wikihounding Carolmooredc, which she evidenced in detail; an administrator imposed a one way interaction ban on SPECIFICO to stop the harassment. He has not contributed to GGTF since. However, the evidence he presented at this Arbitration shows he is willing to cast aspersions on Carolmooredc on flimsy and exaggerated evidence, including repeatedly calling her an “antisemite” which he already has been warned is a blockable offense under Palestine-Israel Arbitration. [62]
In my experience Carolmoordc claims she is being "attacked" when actually people are just disagreeing with her attempts to spin encyclopedia articles to her own point of view. Wikipedia is not a platform for social activism. If you don't want to maintain WP:NPOV, please write for Huffington Post, Fox News, Tumblr or any other website besides Wikipedia. Finally, let me make it perfectly clear that I haven't been following the dispute that lead to this arbitration, and I have no opinion on whether you (CarolMDC) were actually harassed or not. It may be the case that you were. I very much don't like the idea of a Wikipedia editor creating a biography of another editor while they are in any sort of conflict or disagreement. Jehochman Talk 13:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Carol, please read what I wrote again. I said offline comments should not be used to attack you or anyone, though they may indicate a COI. There is no need to debunk others offline opinions about you. You should recall I was very much against the BLP Sitush created, not due to the content, but rather i felt it was inappropriate due to the current proceedings. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 19:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I trust that the drafting Arbs and the Committee will click through to the diffs CMDC presents in her Evidence submission. The links appear to be of two types: 1) Links to prior assertions of her own unfounded opinions, and 2) Links to entire threads or wholesale categories of diffs, for example to every one of my edits on GGTF hidden in a single link. None of tie the diffs to findings of fact, nor do any of them support the opinions she states there or in the Workshop. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
7) Two kinds of pork ( talk · contribs) has made mocking comments [66] [67], proposals [68] and threads. [69] He reverted a users talk page comments, leading to a block [70], after which he joked about the administrator being hit by a truck. [71] Soon after he hatted one thread he did not like and then prematurely archived that thread [72] and others which are of interest to project participants. [73] [74]
y guys! Can I join your circle jerk? I see this is a section where no member of the GGTF has posted, and I'm not one either, so let's keep it that way! I would like to appoint myself Minister of Male Asshattedness. Perhaps I should have just seconded his nomination, as he appeared to be qualified for the position. But I foolishly took his bait, hook line and sinker. But the exchange wasn't a total loss, as later he graciously helped me rescue a previously deleted article I was having trouble finding sources, for which I am grateful. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 11:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
8) Sitush ( talk · contribs) has engaged in hostile and repeated nitpicking of Carolmooredc over minor differences in approach, as in formatting. [76] He continued to edit her talk page after she asked him to stop. [77] He’s expressed hostility towards her presumed political views [78] and her association with GGTF. [79] He entered the GGTF and immediately cast aspersions on her. [80] He has been accused of supporting the use of a gender slur against women [81] and left a "joke" slur on a woman GGTF participants talk page. [82] He has expressed the desire to have Carolmooredc site banned [83] and discussed harassing actions against her at a WP:ANI. [84] [85] [86] [87] He created a now-deleted biography of Carol Moore. An administrator brought a WP:ANI recommending an interaction ban. Sitush admitted he wanted an Arbitration focused on Carolmooredc, this current one if necessary. [88] [89] However, the only evidence he presents here is Carolmooredc's upset reactions to his recent harassment of her. [90]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Carolmooredc obviously has had many negative experiences on Wikipedia with editors who may not like her views, or assumed views, or just have trouble dealing with assertive women. Given the “gang-up” in this arbitration, she doubtless will continue to have them. She will be much happier re-focusing her activity on sharing with the world libertarian decentralist and consensus-democracy principles, the same ones upon which Wikipedia was built by its visionary founders. She obviously is interested in perfecting such principles so they are more workable than they have proved to be so far on Wikipedia. She also should be better able to work on ending Wikipedia gender gap and any related sexism if she is not wasting time defending herself from personal attacks and harassment. However, if she chooses to occasionally edit on Wikipedia, she should be allowed to edit unmolested by personal attacks and harassment and her complaints about such incidents should be taken more seriously.
re-focusing her activity on sharing with the world libertarian decentralist and consensus-democracy principlesand
libertarians for the most part aren't left or right - they're aheadindicate a severe misunderstanding about what editing on Wikipedia means. KonveyorBelt 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
1) SPECIFICO's evidence present here shows he continues to be obsessed with Carolmooredc. Therefore the one-way interaction ban imposed through community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents shall continue.
1) Sitush ( talk · contribs) recently has engaged in obsessive harassment of Carolmooredc related to GGTF and other issues [92] [93] [94] [95] [96], also biography and WP:ANI on two-way interaction ban. She sometimes has reacted in an intemperate manner. [97] Therefore an indefinite two-way interaction ban is imposed upon them.
1) Adopted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Fair_criticism: Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project and how they may be best addressed. It is expected that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to use the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in continuous criticism across available forums.
2) From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Good_faith_and_disruption: Disruptive behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
3) Adopted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Baiting: Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as harassment.
1) Editors should not cast inappropriate aspersions against other editors or make repeated personal remarks on them in any namespace, especially when the claim concerns an editor's personal life. Such real-life aspersions may be removed under WP:BLP and if the aspersions are repeated, the offending user can be blocked, per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption (gross incivility, breaching the policies or guidelines, namely BLP).
Carolmooredc repeatedly made unfounded accusations against other editors; [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence#Other editors' battleground attitudes where she accuses Eric Corbett of having "battleground alliances", [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112] (the Eric cabal again), [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119] (including edit summary), [120], where she accuses me of driving her off of Wikipedia with my "buddies", despite the fact I did not contribute to anything about the GGTF before submitting a proposal here, and especially [121] and [122] where she accuses an editor of being the wife of another editor, and accuses yet another of having uploaded "kiddie porn", real-life claims that could have serious implications.
That rumour could be more damaging, not only to me, than any intemperate languageand has called it a "malicious rumor" [123]. As for kiddie porn, I don't think you yourself knew what you were saying there. You looked and found somebody complaining about Sitush and ate it hook line and sinker, without bothering to note that the accuser was one of a long line of sock/meatpuppets. But that's not really for me to comment on. I just took evidence that other had presented in the evidence page. The two diffs were from J3Mrs and Johnuniq (not Johnunique, nor Johnuniqu), and if you want to challenge the diffs, you can bring it up in the analyses of their evidences. Literally one link links to your evidence, and I don't see any formatting errors. No diffs are irrelevant here. Even if they are not directly related to GGTF, they are evidence of long term behavioral issues. Again, if you want to challenge the diffs, bring it up in the evidence analysis. KonveyorBelt 23:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Neotarf repeatedly made unfounded accusations against other editors; [124], [125], [126], and [127].
Eric Corbett repeatedly made unfounded accusations against other editors; [128] and [129]
I'm just going to post two points.
1) First, I want to repost the link about the court case I posted earlier
[130], Reeves v. C.H. Robinson, a case about gender-based profanity and hostile work environment. It is very readable and addresses exactly the same issues that have been raised in this case. Nothing I could write would be better. I wish all the participants and arbs would look through it.
2) Second, I would like to note the exhaustion of the female participants.
I see Laura Hale has posted above me--I haven't seen her around any of the projects for a long time.
Lightbreather was a member of the Gender Gap group but left Wikipedia during the course of this case, after posting her evidence here. She was involved in the lengthy C-Bomb thread on Jimbo's talk page that resulted in the Civility case request, as well as the brutal thread at the Editor Retention Wikiproject, where she was basicly told that no one cares how painful the editing experience is for women, and that now that she had expressed her minority views, she should "lick her wounds" and get back to work. Her edit summary there says it all: "I don't have the energy to discuss 'just ignore incivility' again." — Neotarf ( talk) 10:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
all his sausagefest talk. As far as I can see, he mentioned the term once. Voceditenore ( talk) 19:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Neotarf, so you're saying that female editors of Wikipedia around the world are unpaid "employees" of WMF? And to determine whether an editor is an "employee" of WMF, since the Supreme Court has instructed courts to use the common law principles of agency in lieu of a substantive definition of ‘employee’, the following considerations are relevant rather than payment status, as stated in a Illinois Federal Court decision:
"Relevant factors” include the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party, it said. “No one of these factors is determinative.( from NONPROFIT ISSUES, cited in "Comment by a anonymous user")
So, for example, a female editor of Wikipedia anywhere in the world should have the same claims regarding a "hostile work environment" as a volunteer firefighter in the US?( Volunteer Firefighter Stated a Claim for Hostile Work Environment Based on Racial Harassment, cited in "Comment by a anonymous user")
And the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's definition of Harassment:
Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. ( EEOC, cited in "Comment by a anonymous user")
These are just examples from the anonymous user's post. I just don't see how the "hostile work environment" can be applied here in a virtual environment where race, gender, ethnicity may be unknown and where the "employee" as you put it, is free to stop participating at any time with no fear that a Palm Springs police officer will appear at the editors home. ( Why Women Aren't Welcome on the Internet, cited in "Comment by a anonymous user") It boggles my mind. EChastain ( talk) 23:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
[Note: I am posting this on behalf of a user who contacted me by email, and who writes me,
"The problem is silence does not solve the problem for women. Remaining silent only works until we can't deal with it, and then we leave the project. Meeting fire with fire is the only workable solution, and the culture is so toxic that this generally leads to pretty bad things for female edits and bad things but less bad things for the other side. (I get my job threatened. What does Eric Corbett get? Not the same thing.)
"I had the first paragraph ready to hit save on that but couldn't do it. Can't risk the personal fall out. I wish I could participate, but the reality is it is too dangerous. I tell other women that too."
The user has given permission for me to post this, but wishes to remain anonymous. — Neotarf ( talk) 17:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
To Neotarf's point about "hostile work environment", the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to building an encyclopedia. They work with other organizations and commercial services in distributing their product, [133] an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. People who build the content are volunteers, and while they may leave at any time, [134] there have been a few court rulings in the USA, whom have legal jurisdiction over the Florida incorporated Wikimedia Foundation, that explicitly demonstrate that volunteers have the same "employment" rights to be free of a hostile work environment that their paid employees have a right to. [135] [136] The right to be free of a hostile work environment extends beyond the person being subjected directly to the behavior. [137] As Wikimedia has become more professionalized with students completing coursework, semi-professional editors working on community and content development as part of their employment, grants from the Wikimedia Foundation supporting work that leads to content development and community growth aimed at new content development, [138] open tolerance of harassment of women (and other groups such as people with different sexual orientations, of different nationalities, people with disabilities, etc.) is just that with increasing potential to demonstrate real damages. [139]
Beyond that, the tolerance for such behavior sends a clear and overriding message to women that they are not wanted [140] and the current advice to women of ignore has proven largely ineffective. Openly encouraging such behavior as that status quo and providing zero resource to fix it other than escalating the situation through non-functional dispute resolution processes makes Wikipedia prime for its own version of GamerGate. [141] [142] [143] At some point, the Wikimedia Foundation may very well find itself having to do what Adobe did. [144] [145] The only reason that has not happened to date is because many of the women who have dealt with sexually based harassment, have had their employment targeted because they are female, have had their academic work targeted because they are and dealt with gender specific crap have either lacked the media resources to put the story out there, cannot take the professional risk of exposing the systemic problem or at their hearts of hearts believe so much in the movement (where editors seek to actively destroy them because they are women) that they have not willingly thrown the Wikimedia Foundation under the bus. The last part is probably the most important reason. <names redacted> are prime examples.
The tactics being employed in general on English Wikipedia towards women as a form of harassment include: Sabotaging a person's contribution, Post complaint retaliation, name calling, threatening punishment, Interfering with employment, Boasting of own success and proficiency with the intention of using this success as a weapon. For all of these, the research has shown that males are much more likely to engaged in these forms of harassment. [146] The type of harassment given to males is markedly different, and the type of harassment women are more likely to engage in compared to males is markedly different. English Wikipedia provides a format where male specific harassment techniques are much easier to do, and do effectively. Given the already large male participation numbers in pure percentages, ... Go back to hostile work environment.
Note: the first paragraph of this has been cross-posted to Jimmy Wales' talk page. [147] — Neotarf ( talk) 17:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
1) Wikipedia is a project which involves large numbers of people. It is inevitable that some participants will share a similar opinion regarding some matters, although they may not share a similar opinion regarding all matters. Calling such shared opinions detrimental to the project merely because it differs from the opinion held by another person or group of people is disruptive. Claiming an alliance without proper evidence may constitute a personal attack.
2) Consensus is a vital aspect of how Wikipedia works. Achieving it often comes through debate. Disagreement, discussion, and criticism should not be mischaracterised as incivility or personal attack.
3) Contributors should always be prepared to substantiate any claim they make about other contributors by providing specific evidence if challenged within a reasonable time. Failure to substantiate can be disruptive and repeated or habitual failure may be sanctionable. Responses such as "I saw it somewhere" are unacceptable.
1) False accusations of harassment constitute a personal attack. Tracking a user's contributions to monitor policy violations of, for example, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NPA is not harassment, provided that any concerns are expressed civilly and substantively. The contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.
2) Tendentious editing, which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole, or which promotes the personal views of the editor, is disruptive. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out or an inadvertent misstatement. Repeated attempts to promote or suppress content, to denigrate editors with whom one disagrees, or any other behavior that frustrates WP discussions and processes is unacceptable. If the disruption is longstanding, repeated, or severe, the editor may be banned.
3) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.
4) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.
1) Battleground behavior by a small number of GGTF members has driven off many editors, not only male gendered editors, and has hobbled discussion at GGTF. CarolmooreDC and a small number of other activist members have denigrated, personally attacked and falsely accused both male and female editors who presented cogent, civilly stated views concerning the Gender Gap and ways to mitigate its effects on WP.
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
There is so much wrong with Carol's interpretations that it would take months of discussing the problems interspersed with wall-of-text replies by Carol. But let's take her first post as an example:
First of all, there is no Aug 11 comment by Carol saying the proposal was dismissed and removed. The diff above she presents is mine. Carol attempted to make my objection to the proposal as an example of disruption or my objection was overblown because I should have realized that the proposal was at one time on the main page and subsequently removed. NO WHERE on the section in question says anything like this [159]. At best, this example is Carol using diffs selectively as a sword and a shield depending upon her needs at the time. At worst, this is an attempt at obfuscation by muddying the waters and drowning the conversation by the massive responses she has generated so far. Above an arbitrator mentions their concern about having limits on replies here. Your concerns are not without merit, but limits should be strongly considered ASAP. As for my responses here, I pledge I will do my best to reply infrequently and to be concise. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 05:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Sitush's support for using the “C-word”I may be missing something but I cannot see my support for use of that specific word in that thread. I do think there is a cultural issue with most of the civility stuff, I did link to This Be The Verse (which uses "fuck" and was a set poem at A-level English Lit back in my time), and I did have a jokey exchange about "cunt" with someone somewhere but I'd appreciate a quote of me explicitly supporting use of it in that thread, please. My enduring memory is Jimbo telling me that I needed to have "more honor" when I used the word "drama" and was castigated because apparently it is sexist to do so. - Sitush ( talk) 11:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
without seeking to understand underlying issues. The porn allegation is not the principle issue with IAC, nor can I recall ever wanting to prevent discussion of it. Is CMDC getting confused with the request from Newyorkbrad regarding the supposed gun threat? Or am I missing something here? I also cannot figure out where
Sitush has just discussed [the porn allegation] ... here- I see no mention by me on the Evidence pages but perhaps I am misunderstanding CMDC's syntax. - Sitush ( talk) 12:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
her best known onecitation needed - Sitush ( talk) 11:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
by violating policy to annoy mecitation needed and
may or may not contain relevant diffsvague. - Sitush ( talk) 11:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Sitush saying he would follow me around. Nor, indeed, did I have a great deal more to do with CMDC until this case was accepted - I stuck to what I said I would do and raised in Evidence. Similarly, I did not say the thing that CMDC refers to as "civil disobedience" would be used in the BLP: please review the section Iridescent linked to and note, inter alia, my comment that
I only bring up the link in this message because you claim I'm wrong.- Sitush ( talk) 11:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
attack biographywas not an attack and I invite the arbitrators to examine that article and its talk page at the point where I personally stopped editing it. And the statement in this section that
he ignored an Arbitrator telling him not to do it(ie: draft that BLP) misrepresents what Salvio giuliano told her only a few days ago. - Sitush ( talk) 10:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
endured six talk page threads of editors telling him it was a terrible ideais not entirely true. For example, I "endured" nothing (emotive and you cannot read my mind) and it wasn't unanimous that the thing was a terrible idea (nor was it in the MfD, which ended with a WP:IAR decision). - Sitush ( talk) 12:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
as if it’s a bad thingEh? I do not know how you can interpret my comment in that way. - Sitush ( talk) 12:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Seven of Sitush’s 10 edits at GGTF were directed at me. There were nine such edits at the point when someone with whom I don't think I've ever had any interaction before posted this analysis in response to her oft-repeated claims of hounding. CMDC has similarly misrepresented in her claims regarding my use of her talk page. There are numerous "calling outs" of her evidence on the Evidence talk page also. - Sitush ( talk) 13:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
... know each other personally ... Corbett, Sitush, J3Mrs, Richerman, are a few of themI've never met J3Mrs, Eric Corbett has said more than once that he has not done so either, and Richerman said the same at some point in the past. I've met Eric and Richerman exactly once, and I couldn't follow what was going on that time due to my profound deafness, as has been explained more than once. (Also why I do not use the phone.) Perhaps we are all liars, though? Is that what you mean? And who are the others whom I am supposed to know "personally", or is that just another of the many vaguities that I've been seeing here?
I am utterly flabbergasted by
Carol's response to Richerman. She accuses him of defense of Sitush and knowledge and strong opinions regarding the matter
. In that diff on the evidence talk page, he pointed out Neotarf's error in the insinuations that an alleged "death threat" was directed at Carol. Neotarf and Carol's insinuations had continued despite
three
separate
arbitrators having already confirmed that this was not the case. There were several other editors who also pointed out errors in those insinuations. However, Richerman's sin seems to be pointing out an error and belonging to
WikiProject Greater Manchester. The pièce de résistance is the veiled threat that word could get out that WikiProject Greater Manchester encourages sexual slurs against women and their members could all end up on the front page of
The Guardian. (By the way, it hasn't been called the Manchester Guardian in 50 years and isn't a local Manchester paper.) Really, Carol, you should strike that whole paragraph, it damages no one but yourself.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
With the existing conventions of English Wikipedia, it is difficult to resolve the problems with its consensus approach, due to the stalemate of requiring consensus to adopt new variations. However, it may be feasible to gain agreement, on a case-by-case basis, to deploy various techniques to streamline discussion. For example, a moderator can be agreed upon to build up a summary of the discussion, with a consolidated pros and cons list, so that repetition of the same points can be minimized.
In order to encourage the shepherding of ideas from an initial idea to a more fully developed state, within Wikipedia's current consensus tradition, I suggest it is reasonable for the editors interested in a topic to consider allowing a working group of editors to specify a fixed period of time during which they can complete an initial analysis, after which they will open up discussion to the larger community. During this preliminary phase, the working group can self-select those who can participate. Care should be taken to not unduly limit participation: In order to maximize the value of the initial analysis, it should look at all points of view for the topic of discussion, and seek to provide an even-handed summary that considers the positives and negatives of all sides.
Any mitigation approach requires the co-operation of the key participants, which may be a problem for contentious issues. Nonetheless, anything that can be done to reduce repetitive discussion will both increase the likelihood of greater participation from more editors, and free up time to make other Wikipedia contributions. Given these highly desirable effects, these options should be given due consideration when the opportunity arises. isaacl ( talk) 03:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)