Revision as of 15:26, 9 September 2014

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Gender Gap Task Force Issues

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 16:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Carolmooredc: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ACarolmooredc&diff=624688611&oldid=624677750

Eric Corbett: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AEric_Corbett&diff=624688858&oldid=624686942

Two kinds of pork https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATwo_kinds_of_pork&diff=624689176&oldid=624112702

SPECIFICO https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASPECIFICO&diff=624689498&oldid=624236287

Neotarf https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ANeotarf&action=view&diff=624785214 (Added by clerk: Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC))

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=624112438

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=624433683&oldid=624432719

Closed version of ANI thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=624420359&oldid=624419734#Disruption_of_Wikiproject

Statement by Robert McClenon

Recent reports of disruption of the Gender Gap Task Force, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, were taken to WP:ANI and were closed inconclusively. The suggestion was made that the issue of disruption of the GGTF should be addressed by the ArbCom. The founder of Misplaced Pages concurred: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=624271238&oldid=624271124

The Arbitration Committee is asked to open a case to consider user conduct issues at the GGTF. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Wikiproject on countering systemic bias, and the Gender Gap Task Force, are ongoing activities for the improvement of Misplaced Pages. The Gender Gap Task Force (GGTF) is being disrupted by disparaging comments by two editors (EC and TKOP) who are not participants in the task force who question the need to address the gender gap, and by hostility by one participant in the task force (SPECIFICO) to another participant in the task force (CM). The ANI was closed inconclusively. A full evidentiary case is needed to identify the issues more fully. It is requested that the ArbCom consider whether topic bans for disruptive editing or interaction bans are necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Eric Corbett

I can only assume, given ArbCom's predisposition to blame everyone and apportion blame across the board without bothering to look at the evidence, that this is a form of seppuku on Robert's part. Eric Corbett 02:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Two kinds of pork

This request is premature and should be declined. There are problems, however these problems can be resolved if everyone examines their own behavior and makes some adjustments. Yes, there have been unwarranted accusations on the group talk page. Yes there is some incivility. I think all parties should bend over backwards to AGF. Don't assume someone has an agenda (other than wanting to close the GG). Don't make ad-hominem arguments. Don't try to look for a personal attack in every sentence, as it only fosters ill will. The arbitration guide says this is not to be a debate, so I won't address some points raised by some others that I naturally disagree with. I suggest an examination of the talk archives would give the arbitrators an unadulterated version on the background of this filing.

Statement by SPECIFICO

Statement by Carolmooredc

1. I think this request is premature since the three parties who have been criticized as disruptive have not even been given a chance to prove they can work collaboratively. So I believe this request should be closed by the nominator.
2. Note that everything they've complained about has been individual opinions ignored too long on the main page, discussion points, poorly formed proposals, odd ball comments and annoyed reactions to their constant criticism and nitpicking. About the only thing accomplished since the project became more active again in early July is creation of a Draft Gender Gap Task Force Resources page, much of it from links posted at the Wikimedia Foundation-sponsored Gender Gap email list. Because of the disruption it has been impossible to discuss in a serious and collaborative fashion what we think the scope, goals and projects of the task force should be. However, one would like to think that editors would take the advice of the ANI closer.
3. I should not be the only complainant mentioned because these individuals will single me out as the real problem as they have done in this issue and as one has in the past. A number of other individuals also have been supportive of the project and expressed some or a great deal of dismay at the process on the talk page; half of them commented at the WP:ANI. They too should be listed: User:Anne Delong, User:BoboMeowCat, User:Elaqueate, User:EvergreenFir, User:Rich Farmbrough, User:Knowledgekid87, User:Lightbreather, User:Montanabw, User:Neotarf, User:LawrencePrincipe, User:SlimVirgin, User:Thebrycepeake. Other individuals tangetially involved in the project have had useful ideas and critiques; some explicit supporters of the most critical individuals also have commented. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre

The community has proved itself unwilling to improve itself in how it treats women editors, and issues regarding women. Thus, it falls to the Arbitration Committee—or even more drastically, Foundation fiat—to bring the hammer down. This is something which has been obvious to women editors for a very long time. For example, see the article about the 2014 Isla Vista killings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in which organised POV pushers insisted on the inclusion of category because the opposite category was included (for a multitude of good reasons), despite said inclusion being in violation of our foundational policies.

I recall an incident about five years ago in which Jimbo Wales stepped in when an admin edit warred to keep misogynist content on the front page. I honestly doubt that he would be able to do so now. The lunatics are running the asylum, and it's driving editors away by the day. I honestly feel the Misplaced Pages's "woman problem" is not going to get any better unless drastic action is taken. We've tried the carrot; it's now time for the stick. Sceptre 23:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I think there may be parallels to be drawn with the Chelsea Manning debacle. For almost certainly the same reasons. Neutrality in an hostile environment is abetting hostility. Sceptre 23:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

I am somewhat involved in this, particularly in the now-closed ANI. As I expressed there, I have serious concerns about Eric Corbett's incivility, general disruption, and personal attacks against Carolmooredc and other users. Please see this section for details about my concerns and evidence supporting my claims.

I am on the fence about this ARBCOM filing. I agree with Carolmooredc's above comment that more time could/should be given to the editors in question after the close of the ANI. However, I am highly pessimistic about the ultimate outcome and feel that the ANI was not given the serious attention it deserved and that what is clearly unacceptable behavior by Eric Corbett was overlooked or ignored. As I mentioned in the ANI, threats of administrative attention/punishment has been enough to temporarily halt the offending behavior from Eric Corbett, but the behavior soon-after resumed.

Something does need to be done about the disruptive behavior on the project. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

I just read this and I can definitely confirm that expert female editors are made to feel unwelcome at Misplaced Pages by plagiarist hacks when we report them. The "ARBCOM" should control plagiarism and gender discrimination. Lindashiers (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Ihardlythinkso

ANI was closed inconclusively?! Perhaps you simply didn't like the close and are now forum shopping. The close clearly implied that grounds for allegation of disruption were misconstrued. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by slightly involved AnonNep

Given that any decisions by Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force will need to be approved by the broader WP community, through relevant processes, in order to take effect, I believe ongoing comments by those questioning the very existence of the project, at the 'in project' discussion stage, are disruptive. (There will be be plenty of discussions they can argue against if any proposal reaches the WP policy stage).

I do think it is unfortunate that Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s personal history has been brought into this but I don't think this can be completely laid against those accused of disruption. A project like this needs to represent all those effected not just a chosen figurehead. Some people bring unconnected baggage with them.

I don't want to see anyone banned, but would have preferred some form of warning at ANI, to give the project some space to develop ideas that will be then be taken to WP forums where they may well be cut down. That hasn't happened. I would at least like to see some prohibition on questioning the project's very existence before it has time to bring any proposals to the broader community for debate. AnonNep (talk)

Comment by Knowledgekid87

This is not going to be solved by shaking hands and making up, it is clear that there is editor dis-function going on with this project. Something or someone has to give in order for this to be resolved and I do not see any clear path towards this. I just undid an edit that linked Carol's alleged passive-aggressiveness to a mental disorder: the attacks keep piling on, no editor or editors should have to go through this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Rschen7754

SPECIFICO and Carolmooredc were both parties to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics, and had topic bans passed against them. To see the same two parties here too is concerning. --Rschen7754 04:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JMP EAX

For what's worth, I'm repeating here the opinion I've already expressed on Jimbo's talk page: this is exactly the kind of case that ArbCom should take on. (The older discussion is now archived.) The ANI/community participants failed to resolved the conflict, but the issue(s) keep coming up. JMP EAX (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Gender Gap Task Force Issues: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/1/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• It is essential that the Misplaced Pages community be able to discuss why women are drastically underrepresented among our editors, and what can or should be done about it, in a mature and sensible way. Formulating one's points in such a discussion will not always be easy; for example, how does one best discuss making Misplaced Pages more appealing to "female editors" without crossing the line into role-ascription or gender stereotyping? (This is not a concern unique to Misplaced Pages; it comes up time and again as all parts of society move toward true gender equality.) An interesting philosophical question (again with precedents extending well beyond Misplaced Pages) is whether a task force devoted to assessing how to solve a problem may properly move forward from the starting point that some form of problem exists, or put differently, whether questioning the existence or the nature of the problem represents participation in the task force's work or a derogation of it. And for us arbitrators, the main question presented by the request for arbitration is whether the petty bickering and feuding on the taskforce's talk page will stop soon without our involvement. I hope so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• The Gender Gap Task Force is, in my opinion, somewhat different from the other WikiProjects, in that, to some extent, it is political in nature (and I'm using the term "political" latu sensu): I mean, the members of the Task Force are considering changes aimed at increasing the number of women editing Misplaced Pages and, assuming they are successful in proposing feasible innovations, these will have an impact over Misplaced Pages in its entirety. Case in point, the proposal to make edits made by women harder to revert. For that reason, I can see how having someone criticising proposals and possibly presenting alternatives can be useful for the project and can also prevent the Task Force from becoming an echo chamber. Of course, there is a difference between criticism and disruption: if, after review, it turns out that a person's actions are disrupting the Task Force, then that person should be asked to leave – and, failing that, be topic banned from participating further. On the other hand, the other members of the Task Force should be open to criticism, when made in good faith, without confusing criticism with disruption and calling for sanctions merely because someone disagrees with them – and also, though this is just my unsolicited opinion, in general all participants should try to avoid letting their voice drown all the others, regardless of how strongly they feel about the issue at hand.

  In this case, in my opinion, both sides have conducted themselves in a way that bears review, so I vote to accept the case. Salvio 09:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• There's certainly problems with the Gender Gap on Misplaced Pages, one that was a key focus for the Foundation last year (or was it the year before?) As it's such a "big" issue, tying outside problems like societal bias and technical issues with behaviour on Misplaced Pages, I'm not sure it can ever be solved. However, the Gender Gap Task Force is there to try and good on them for doing so.

  I've seen some "blue-sky thinking" on that task force, with "un-wiki" ideas such as requiring consensus of 2 editors to revert a female editor. "Blue-sky thinking" is all well and good, but many people don't understand that it's the first step in a process. After the ideas are created, however "out-there" they may be, they need to be criticised - it needs to be discussed what is wrong with these ideas. If there was nothing wrong with them, they would be happening or very easy to implement. From there, a pragmatic view should be taken on what realistic improvement can be made. Without these following steps, "blue-sky thinking" can actually be harmful - insulting those who are working hard on a project and demoralising those who cannot see these ideas come to fruition.

  Whilst I'm very happy that the Gender Gap Task Force is trying to increase the number of women on Misplaced Pages, I'm not happy with the fact that a subset of that task force is complaining about the criticism that they are receiving. Similarly, I believe the level of criticism could be improved, actually explaining where the issues are are rather than stating that they won't work.

  Overall, I don't believe this issues is ripe for arbitration, but I do think it's getting close. I'm leaning decline, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Worm(talk) 10:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm voting to decline at this point. I completely understand why this is such a fractious issue and where good faith on both sides isn't enough to bridge a fundamental divide between what the wider wiki community views as its goals and what the GGTF views as its goals. But one AN/I doesn't make this case within our remit as of yet. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Praveen Togadia dispute

Initiated by Kautilya3 (talk) at 15:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Bladesmulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff Bladesmulti
• Diff AmritasyaPutra
• Diff Vanamonde93

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• talk page section
• DRN request
• BLPN section

Statement by Kautilya3

Bladesmulti has repeatedly deleted sourced content on the Praveen Togadia page:

• 31 August
• 2 September
• 3 September
• 7 September

His justifications for removing the content ranged from "it is not notable" to "nobody agreed with the petition". Each time he removed it, I provided more justification, which included references to national newspapers, endorsements by professional journals, a request for dispute resolution (which was closed by him) and a reference to BLP/N (made by User:AmritasyaPutra) which received a detailed response from me. His last statement "We have enough reliable sources for claiming that world will end in 2012. Doesn't means we promote such gossips, you have to verify each" shows his limited understanding of sources and reliability of sources. Even without receiving any support on DR/N or BLP/N, he deleted the content again this morning. I am requesting that he be informed of the Misplaced Pages policies and cautioned. -- Kautilya3

@Linadashiers: I can confirm that I have read the BLP policies more than once. Can you tell me what principles of BLP are violated by this content? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lindashiers: I was always given to believe that we don't try to evaluate primary sources on Misplaced Pages. We depend on secondary sources to do it for us. The fact that their petition was reported in the national newspapers and national journals is what we are mentioning. It is not our job to evaluate the organisation. It looks like you are in need of refreshing our policies on WP:RS. Secondly, I am not "POV pushing". I am merely writing up what is reported in the media and other sources. If there were positive statements made there, I would be glad to include them too. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I am also quite cognizant of the presumption of innocence principles. My writing in the article never accused him of anything. It merely reported on accusations that others have made. In a country where law and order is sluggish and the powerful people can easily manipulate the government machinery to subvert the law, spreading information is all that the poor victims can hope for. You are saying we have to put a lid on the spread of information? For what purpose?

Another user called User:Lindashiers, who joined this dispute as a "non-party" has now deleted a large amount of sourced content from the Praveen Togadia page:

• diff

and started accusing the source, award-winning journalist Dionne Bunsha, as being biased. His/her comments said "Who received large sums of money and fellowships from overseas sources .. to write such books ???" As a result, I am afraid this user is also now a party to the dispute.

Note added I see 2 decline votes at this stage, and I am expecting that the overall result is likely to be "decline". Can this be referred to an administrator who knows the policies and can caution the editors involved (under the ARBIPA perhaps)? There is a group of editors that have been campaigning for information to be suppressed, and these are the same editors that are participating in the BLP/N discussion. The BLP experts are not getting involved. So, that discussion is going nowhere. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Bladesmulti

1 diff include no 'deletion', 3 of them matters, I removed them because it is some petition by non-notable school students, "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion" like we all know. Anyone file petition and get on the news. It is just a petition, there is hardly any limit. If allegation has not been proved or investigated, it should not be added to article. I am not sure what Kautilya3 meant from "without receiving support on DR/N or BLP/N", because DRN section was closed under few minutes. On BLPN Kautilya3 is the one having no support. As the content was newly added and violation of BLP it was legible for quick removal. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Also the section on BLPN is being actively discussed. See Bladesmulti (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AmritasyaPutra

Statement by Vanamonde93

Statement by {Non-party}

This is a frivolous petition which deserves to be rejected outright. User:Bladesmulti has upheld Misplaced Pages principles by his BLP edits/ reverts, which core principles the filing party would be well advised to read, before rushing here. Lindashiers (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Unproven allegations (or deliberately made to a forum lacking jurisdiction) cannot be placed in a BLP article per WP:BLPCRIME, WP:WELLKNOWN. Lindashiers (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Since some of these libels you are POV pushing for are made by the Pune-based "Medico Friend Circle" please read their own website , , and see if this "organisation" has any credibility whatsoever. In any case the MFC's 2003 complaint, tellingly, seems to have been taken down from their website . Lindashiers (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Praveen Togadia dispute: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/0/0>-Praveen_Togadia_dispute-2014-09-07T20:28:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Decline to open an arbitration case. Arbitration is the last step of Misplaced Pages dispute resolution. It is an adversarial and lengthy process that should be used only if the issues cannot be resolved through other means. Here, the discussion on the BLP noticeboard is continuing and it appears the relevant points are being made there. I urge all interested editors to participate in that discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)"> ">
• Decline as not ripe for arbitration. If necessary, this dispute can be referred to arbitration enforcement for the imposition of discretionary sanctions under the terms of WP:ARBIPA. Salvio 20:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per the above. Seraphimblade 04:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per colleagues. NativeForeigner 07:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Decline Worm(talk) 10:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)