Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:48, 13 November 2014

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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

Outcomes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not much on observing deadlines, are they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-discrimination policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remedy 3.3 Eric Corbett restriction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invitation to drama

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

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

Grammatical Correction

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

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

Carolmooredc comments

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

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

Question on "Non discrimination policy"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spelling error in "Fair criticism" section

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

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

Error in Sitush's section

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

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

Articles about opponents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of "Gender Gap"

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

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

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

Casting aspersions

I thought the principle on casting aspersions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is "that word"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prithee, Arbcom

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

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

Neotarf availability and a query about voting time frames

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

drama avoidance

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

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

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

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

Possible loophole leading to what might look like gravedancing

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

Carol and Neotarf

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

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

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