| Revision as of 22:56, 17 September 2014 view sourceJMP EAX (talk | contribs)4,280 edits →Comment by JMP EAX← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,350 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| =<includeonly>]</includeonly>= | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| == Gender Gap Task Force Issues == | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 16:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Robert McClenon}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Eric Corbett}} | |||
| *{{userlinks| Two kinds of pork}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|SPECIFICO}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Carolmooredc}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Neotarf}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case will automatically be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| 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 <small>(Added by clerk: <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 09:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC))</small> | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| 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, ], were taken to ] 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. | |||
| ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Update by filing party==== | |||
| Since the task force has not been disrupted since the ANI thread was closed inconclusively, I am willing to withdraw this filing ''without prejudice'' and refile it in the future if the disruption resumes. (I am not optimistic, but I am willing to wait and see.) ] (]) 23:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Additional comment by filing party==== | |||
| First, the climate at ] is toxic. The hostility at GGTF hasn't really cleared, only gone to WP:ANI. | |||
| Second, I will note that Sitush wrote, at WP:ANI: "We've got the wrong target here and her ] (]) 15:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :]: I wasn't suggesting that you be added as a party because of your conduct at GGTF, but because of your blustering against Carol Moore at WP:ANI. You apparently are implying that she needs to be taken to ArbCom. If you would prefer to file a separate case against her, you can, but a case against an editor is usually (not always) preceded by a ]. ] (]) 16:38, 17 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 ] on Robert's part. ] ] 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. | |||
| One of the problems that this project has is some of the participants seem to believe that the project should be owned by, run by, and for women only. No one believes (or should) that any project should be owned or run by one set of editors with specific traits. This project is not just supposed to benefit women, because closing the gender gap benefits ''everyone''. | |||
| Example 1: {{user|Neotarf}} asked for clarification about whether a video could be used as a RS, I suggested they check RSN and the response was {{tq|Why don't you present it to them yourself if you think they may be interested. I posted it here as an FYI for consideration '''by the women''', in the context of '''their''' project.}} | |||
| Example 2: Neotarf again makes ad-hominem attacks and continues to assert the project is owned by gender. {{tq|That Cla68 is concerned about misogyny I find surprising--from the comments he has made off wiki I would have guessed the opposite. Likewise with the individuals '''who were previously interested in editing pornography articles''' and who are now engaging with the Gender Gap project--I can't seem to follow why they are unarchiving threads that were previously archived '''by the women''' as off-topic or disruptive.}} | |||
| Could you imagine the hue raised if someone on another project made similar comments but replaced "by the women" with "by the white Protestants?" I'm willing to cut Neotarf a little slack because I recognize there ''is'' a gender gap, but the small minority that are claiming feminine ownership and making ad-hominem attacks are digging in their heels and show no signs of relenting. | |||
| === Statement by SPECIFICO === | |||
| I had no comment when this request was initially opened. Events since that time have made it clear that the community and nearly a dozen Admins have not been able to address things in a rational, orderly, or equitable manner. The credibility of fundamental WP processes is at stake. I now urge Arbcom to hear this case, possibly with revised or expanded definition as to its scope and involved parties. ]] 00:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Carolmooredc === | |||
| #I think this request is premature since the three parties who have been ] have not even been given a chance to prove they can work collaboratively. So I believe this request should be closed by the nominator. | |||
| #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 ], much of it from links posted at the . 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. | |||
| #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 ]. They too should be listed: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. Other individuals tangetially involved in the project have had useful ideas and critiques; some explicit supporters of the most critical individuals also have commented. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 21:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] and @]. First I believe I cannot talk about the past proceeding you mention. However, I believe I can say that as I have evidenced ] of the Disruption of a Wikiproject ANI, I have been under unrelenting Wikihounding from SPECIFICO for more than a year. See especially the . Staying away from certain articles and ignoring his following me to to articles he's never edited before hasn't stopped it. Failing to respond at all often was difficult once his Wikihounding started at the Gender Gap task force. Thus I brought it up at ANI that SPECIFICO's motivation for disrupting the project seemed to be more animus of me personally (as others have noted in the ANI, on the GGTF talk page, on his talk page and even here). (Note I had intended to take other action regarding SPECIFICO on the Wikihounding issue, but this seemed the more pressing matter.) <small>'''] (])'''</small> 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::User:Sitush wrote on : ''The sooner the misconceived "Task Force" (why not "Project", instead of a military-inspired term that implies official status?) is disbanded, the sooner harmony will be restored.'' He still posts at the project. (Also ] lists ''seven'' "task forces".) <small>'''] (])'''</small> 18:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If Admins would just page ban the people opposed to and/or disrupting the project there would be no need for arbitration- but some people want it! (]), () <small>'''] (])'''</small> 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Sceptre === | |||
| <!-- Other editors are free to make relevant comment on this request as necessary. | |||
| Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. | |||
| Please copy this section for the next person. --> | |||
| 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 {{la|2014 Isla Vista killings}}, 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. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 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. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 23:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by EvergreenFir === | |||
| I am somewhat involved in this, particularly in the . 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 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. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 03:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Ihardlythinkso === | |||
| ANI was {{tq|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. ] (]) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by slightly involved AnonNep === | |||
| Given that any decisions by ] 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 {{userlinks|Carolmooredc}}'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. ] (]) | |||
| === 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. - ] (]) 03:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Rschen7754=== | |||
| SPECIFICO and Carolmooredc were both parties to ], and had topic bans passed against them. To see the same two parties here too is concerning. --''']]]''' 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 ].) The ANI/community participants failed to resolved the conflict, but the issue(s) keep coming up. ] (]) 12:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Arbcom, you were saying... ? It is funny how an edit war that could be easily solved with blocks became the banning case despite being featured in exactly one ANI thread, but this isn't worth your attention. ] (]) 15:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: In a rare case of the community managing to not deadlock itself (on a brouhaha like this), that thread was closed with a tangible result . And it was soon followed by the opening of another thread . It's probably wise to wait and see how that turns out. ] (]) 22:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Tarc === | |||
| Only tangentially involved in this one, no worries Arbcommers! As I see this, there is a serious problem if an editor or several editors join and comment in a WikiProject to which they appear to be diametrically opposed to the very premise of said project. There's a line between healthy dissent and intentional thwarting of a project's aims, and if you accept this case, I think the evidence will show disruption, e.g. and | |||
| What would one do with an atheist who holds religion in utter contempt if they joined WikiProject Christianity? Or a Republican that sought to stymie efforts at WikiProject Democratic Party to bring Democratic politician pages to FA status? | |||
| *A new wrinkle to consider; ], trending towards deletion. Revenge article-writing on one's wiki-opponents is quite an old tactic around here, one thought to be long-forgotten. | |||
| === Statement by Scottywong === | |||
| My only involvement in this was to close the ANI thread. My opinion is that an arbcom case on this situation would be a colossal waste of time. I admit that I might be biased, however, because I believe that the majority of arbcom cases are colossal wastes of time. The primary activities that occur on Misplaced Pages can be lumped into 3 categories, in order of usefulness to the project: | |||
| #Editing articles | |||
| #Talking about editing articles | |||
| #Talking about talking about editing articles | |||
| We're currently doing #3, and this RFAR is a request to extend #3 to an extreme degree. My opinion is that we'd be better off jumping back a level to #2. | |||
| As I said in my closing statement at ANI, this is simply a case of editors (on both sides) that need to grow up and act like adults. The Wikiproject members need to realize that criticism is not always disruption, and learn how to accept criticism and use it to strengthen their ideas, rather than rejecting it and attempting to silence it by banning editors from the discussion. The editors who are accused of disruption need to realize that their criticism will be easier to swallow if it is delivered compassionately, as opposed to delivering it in a cantankerous and argumentative manner. | |||
| Now, we could either end this now and encourage the editors to work this out among themselves, or we can spend weeks generating gigabytes of discussion to come to the same conclusion, shoot out a couple of toothless admonishments, and end up at the same point. ]] 17:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Milowent === | |||
| I'm uninvolved; stumbled across all this after seeing ] and then creating ] in a moment of epiphany that it was hard evidence the gender gap exists. | |||
| But taking this case would be premature, as Carolmooredc says. if the project fully supported it as now necessary, I might think differently. But once I realized Eric is the artist formerly known as Malleus, I laughed my ass off. I like the guy from afar, but he's a drama magnet who can offend whoever he has a mind to, women have no lock on that. A few cranky editors causing problems at a project is unfortunately par for the course around here (oh the abuse ] has suffered!), and while it may be more problematic due to the greater focus now rightfully being given to our norms which may deter female editing, this current dispute is not something an arbitration can solve at this point. Maybe down the road. Declining to take this spat doesn't mean Arbcom believes ] (a ha another one I just created; wtf, how did it not already exist?) is not of crucial importance.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 18:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by I JethroBT === | |||
| Also not involved in this situation. | |||
| Based on the ANI close, I'm not convinced other editors or the parties involved are able to meaningfully resolve the issue. Conflicts on this particular project page may cease, but they will likely arise someplace else with some of the same players, perhaps on an article or on another project. I'd like to point to findings of fact in ] that are worth evaluating in this situation: | |||
| *] - Was the discourse around the merits / criticism of the project dignified and did it involve personal attacks? | |||
| *]: Was the discussion around criticisms disruptive, even if it was made in good faith? | |||
| *]: Were comments made that would understandably provoke another edtior? | |||
| Arbcom has been reluctant to rule on civility-based issues in the past, but many committee members agree that it is a significant issue. What is clear to me that when committee members say things like {{tq|when there is no need to escalate with snark and rudeness, please don't escalate with snark and rudeness}} () that are flagrantly obvious to most of us, there are some editors who persistently do not care, and it's really not OK to believe that repeating such things, correct as they are, is going to mitigate the conflicts surrounding behavior that is inconsistent with the above principles. | |||
| === Statement by The Devil's Advocate === | |||
| Just gonna say that ArbCom should not accept cases on the basis of the Dear Leader giving his blessing. I get that some may be tempted to see a case because Eric's name is attached to it, but he actually seemed to be nicer than usual in this instance. The only thing I see of particular concern that might need to be addressed is the interaction between SPECIFICO and Carolmoore. Given the nature of their interactions in the Austrian economics arbitration case, there may be a need for a more general restriction, such as an interaction ban. ArbCom does not really need to take a case to do that and it doesn't even really need to go to ArbCom should that be considered necessary. Perhaps people can take it ].--] <sub>] ]</sub> 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Rich Farmbrough === | |||
| {{@|Newyorkbrad}} and everyone ''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 very issue came up ]. Notably the two editors SPECIFICO and TwoKindsofPork raised it. I hope I put their minds at rest. | |||
| It seems to me that the idea of closing (or narrowing) the gender gap is one that, like ]<sub><small>2</small></sub>, everyone agrees to. And in a general way, of course, so they should. | |||
| However when one wants to discuss proposed actions it is important to establish the parameters, and for this we need a basis in evidence. And we need to be very careful. Example: one editor extrapolated from general Internet research "So women online place more importance than men on spending time with people congenial to them" however research on Misplaced Pages editing shows that women are ''more likely to edit contentious articles than men''. | |||
| In an environment where these sorts of statements are being made ''ab initio'' they are likely to be challenged. These challenges come from a number of quarters, and while Eric's are abrupt and abrasive in what I understand is his normal manner (which does not mean they are invalid), the majority seem to be fairly phrased objections. | |||
| Given also that there seems to be an assumption that there will be a gendered divide (including I believe at least two women miscast as men, as they were seen as opposing a female editor's statements) it is not surprising that conflict flares from time to time. | |||
| I have asked (]) that: ''If someone is being disruptive, please follow one of the usual procedures'' so I suppose I must take some responsibility for the ANI and this request, but I did add a rider ''my preferred procedure is to ignore disruption, thus making it non-disruptive'', and I believe this is by far the best way forward thought this prickly thicket. | |||
| All the best: ''] ]'', <small>20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| === Statement by Montanabw === | |||
| *'''Arbs: Please vote to decline—I beg you''': Gender issues on wikipedia are a legitimate concern, but this is neither the time, the place, nor the right parties. This does not excuse anyone who may have exhibited poor behavior, but such things should be handled on a case by case basis. Discussions at the GGTF page involving the named parties are mostly just (sometimes heated) banter about ideas and any action at this time is premature. Worse yet, it could create a "bad facts make bad law" scenario. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Anne Delong=== | |||
| *I have been only an occasional contributor at the Gender Gap task force, but each time I have visited I have observed that whenever a new thread is started which suggests some kind of positive action or direction to be taken by the task force, the thread is almost immediately flooded with discussions and questions about more general or peripherally related topics, complaints, disparaging comments, repetition of arguments from other threads, etc., rather than constructive suggestions. While these posts are mostly couched in civil language, the result has been that in many cases the thread was derailed and no progress could be made in working toward consensus on the actual threaded topic. I have no idea what this arbitration can or should do about this, but it seems that the task force has been rendered ineffective for as long as the problem persists. —] (]) 01:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Neotarf === | |||
| I have no idea who has added me as a party to this case or why. According to a message on my talk page, my name was added by a clerk as proxy for an anonymous arbitrator. Let me know if I need to pay attention to this discussion. —] (]) 02:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Suggestion by Cla68 === | |||
| While we're here, even if this case is declined the ArbCom can do its part to help with the GenderGap project. ArbCom governs en.wp's administrator selection process, correct? I suggest that ArbCom mandate that self-identifying female RfA candidates be considered as successfully passing the RfA with a 50% approval rate as opposed to the 65% rate that is currently used. This will help gain more female administrators on the project as the RfA, the way it currently operates, is such an unfair shark tank. No, I'm not joking or trolling. ] (]) 05:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, I've made a proposal . ] (]) 06:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Carrite=== | |||
| There are POV warriors on both sides of this issue. If one side believes their "enemies" (and I don't use that term lightly) are going to be routed and that they themselves will escape unscathed if this issue goes through a full fact-finding process, they are sadly mistaken. I myself believe this entire "WikiProject" should probably be disbanded and moved off-wiki as inherently disruptive. Their mission is noble, their tactics and rhetoric is not. ] (]) 13:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : @CLA. Really, really terrible idea. ] (]) 13:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Sitush=== | |||
| I'd promised myself to stay out of this but the latest events have tipped me over the edge. For those arbs who expressed a willingness to be persuaded, please note , which has turned into something of a Gender Gap Task Force pile-on probably because of notification by an involved party. Please also note that the GGTF, which is swamped by Carolmooredc commentary, is censoring perfectly valid discussion, most recently by hatting and then, when challenged, rapidly archiving . You'll note that my initial challenge there was polite enough; my response to Carolmooredc's mostly off-topic personalisation was, alas, not. | |||
| There is something rotten in the state of Denmark and freedom to discuss is being stifled by process. - ] (]) 17:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :@Carolmooredc. You can't stop forum shopping the same comments at numerous venues, can you? It;s like the written version of verbal diarrhoea, sprayed everywhere, irritating, usually unwanted and, frankly, tedious. My views on the existence or otherwise of the GGTF are not relevant here and I won't be commenting in those terms. The problem here is behavioural. Yours, in particular because all you ever seem to do is try to use Misplaced Pages processes to censor other people and to rewrite your own history. You've been censured before but it seems to me that a review of the behaviour of yourself and perhaps others may be in order. - ] (]) 18:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Carolmooredc, re: . You've misunderstood me, again. I'm looking at filing a case about your behaviour generally (latest example , which seems absurd to me). Nothing directly related to the GGTF, although obviously you have been active in matters relating to that of late and so your behaviour wrt that might be a part of the whole. I'm not sure whether ArbCom would prefer to roll all this up or not but my intention was a separate case, which will inevitably also put me and numerous other people under the spotlight. - ] (]) 15:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::@@Robert McClenon, I've made the grand total of nine edits to ] and there will be a few others knocking around elsewhere. I'm not a major player in this. Feel free to add me as a party but don't expect that I'll bother responding unless the Committee decide to roll up as per my message above. - ] (]) 16:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by J3Mrs=== | |||
| Carolmooredc conflates criticism of opinions or ideas expressed on the project page with personal attacks. As such she is proving to be a net negative by commenting on everything and drowning out more reasonable and measured voices. Until she learns the difference between such criticism and what constitutes a personal attack, nothing will improve. Some editors on that page who see incivility in others do not see it in themselves generating more drama for nil improvement to the encyclopedia. Stifling dissent is not the way to go and neither is looking for anti-feminist bias in every comment or criticism. Bad ideas are just that. ] (]) 15:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| *Noting that there are 12 active arbitrators for the purposes of this request (Beeblebrox is inactive), so 7 is a majority. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 03:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Gender Gap Task Force Issues: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/5/0/1> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=Gender Gap Task Force Issues: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| *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. ] (]) 22:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Accept'''. Noxious behavior on the wikiproject talkpage is continuing. ] (]) 20:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC) And it has spread to other venues, and some of the user conduct is unacceptable. ] (]) 14:00, 17 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 {{Endash}} 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 {{endash}} 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. <p>In this case, in my opinion, both sides have conducted themselves in a way that bears review, so I vote to '''accept''' the case. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 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. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 13:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Like WTT, I'm leaning decline, but could be convinced otherwise. There's certainly a reason we say "ANI is not dispute resolution". That's not in any way intended as an endorsement of the conduct I see taking place here, and we may need to handle the issue via arbitration at some point if things continue down that road. I'm just not convinced the issue has reached the point of intractable and hopeless for community resolution at this time. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who thinks it is already at that point, and why. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Accept''', this shows all signs of becoming a very toxic situation, and developing events have convinced me they're not going to get any better at this point. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per David Fuchs. ] (]) 20:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * It's a '''decline''' from me too, per David, ] <sup>]</sup> 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Hi {{u|Cla68}}. Interesting idea but, no, ArbCom has nothing to do with RFA; it's an entirely community process. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per Fuchs, and also broadly per the line of reasoning presented by TDA above. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 01:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per David Fuchs. ] <small>]</small> 19:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.