Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
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 Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

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

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.: 1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good-faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.:

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.:

3) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Good one I was going to add - with one more important sentence: Paying attention to complaints about harassment from the start, and discussing them on talk pages in a rational manner, helps prevent misunderstandings or disputes from escalating to public forums.

Comment by others:

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles.:

4) Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an invasion of privacy and is always unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Wikiprojects help editors work on creating and improving articles on related topics. Those topic areas may be defined by a demographic, such as gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, physical characteristics (disabilities), etc. These Wikiprojects sometimes engage in outreach activity to increase the number of editors in their topic area. Wikiproject talk pages may be used to discuss enforcement of Wikipedia policies which impact their members and to announce dispute resolution efforts, including problems editors believe they are having because they are members of that demographic group. If editors have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject that cannot be resolved at the talk page, the proper forum for resolving the issue is discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council or through dispute resolution processes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) While on Wikipedia we assume good faith, persistant disruptive editing inevitably undermines that assumption. Such behavior includes editing articles or project spaces in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors; refusing to engage in consensus building; ignoring editors explanations for their edits or views; and organized campaigning to drive away productive contributors through incivilty and personal attacks. Wikipedia WP:Dispute dispute resolution processes exist to deal with such disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Similarly, editors should not assume editors’ support of Wikipedia policy in a controversial means the editor holds personal views for which they must be exposed or punished. Editors should not be asked or badgered to explain in detail their personal POV in order to be allowed to edit in peace. Personal or ideological inflammatory accusations perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than use of legitimate dispute-resolution methods, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) A small minority of editors build interpersonal networks of allies - editors, administrators and arbitrators - who mutually support each other in order to achieve topic-related or policy goals and even to target and harass editors who they dislike. Some speak in military terms about battles and generals and privates and even mock those who are reluctant to join such alliances. Members of such alliance use email, IRC channels or watch key editors’ talk pages and contributions for suggestions about action. While this behavior may not be technically WP:Conflict of interest or WP:Meatpuppetry behavior, when practiced regularly it similarly undermines adherence to Wikipedia policy, destroys honest editorial collaboration and drives away editors. It is not acceptable on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should strive to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks. The practice of “talk page stalking” should not be used as a means of canvassing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

6) Wikipedia harassment policy is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, to bait them into making angry and even uncivil comments or other questionable behavior, and to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target or discourage them from editing entirely. Thus editors alone, or with allied editors, should not repeatedly follow editors to articles they have not worked on before to revert their edits or argue with them; repeatedly argue with or harangue them at their user talk pages, especially if asked to leave the talk page; place numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page; repeatedly bring up old issues, resolved long ago, in current discussions; falsely and repeatedly describe ordinary editorial critiques as “personal attacks”; or post off-Wikipedia information or comments about them, especially those of an intimidating and threatening nature.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

7) WP:Harassment states: "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8) Wikipedia’s WP:civility civility policy is an extension of the Wikimedia Foundations Terms of Use policy linked from the bottom of most Wikipedia pages. It applies to editors, administrators and arbitrators. Users should treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. This applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement
9) Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on an identifiable group, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion on communal pages such as those in the Wikipedia namespace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

10) Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. It is expected that administrators will act on violations of the community's standards consistently and fairly. They should not favor parties with whom they are friendly or with whom they agree ideologically or in Wikipedia policy disputes. They should not apply "double standards", conscious or unconscious, to members of demographic groups they may think of in stereotypical fashion. Inconsistent and unfair application of sanctions to different editors for any reason, especially if they are in the same disputes, can be disheartening to all editors. Consistent refusal to enforce civility policies regarding slurs against members of demographic groups and any double standard refusal to enforce policy against members of favored demographic groups, has no place on Wikipedia. Inconsistent and unfair application of policies has no place on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[Placeholder for: Proposed findings of fact, Proposed remedies, Proposed enforcement]

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Comment by Arbitrators:

Carolmooredc, I'm currently reading through this analysis. We've never yet had to put limits on the analysis of evidence similar to the limits placed on evidence, and I hope we don't have to start with this case. This section is not meant to be a way to respond to every piece of evidence (cases would never finish if that was the case, as the discussions would grow exponentially). The hope is that those presenting evidence are able to discuss and correct misunderstandings or errors in the evidence without the need for exhaustive analysis. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Submisson link

• TKOP states re: his comment on User:LawrencePrincipe’s "two revert" proposal: “I had no idea that the proposal had actually been implemented and removed from the project page.” My August 11 comment he links to actually said the proposal was “dismissed and removed” not “implemented”.[3] [Later removal of minor, possibly debatable, correction which was irrelevant to objection in my evidence that TKOP's very first post was hostile.]
• TKOP alleges I supported “mandatory sensitivity training” at this diff.[4] A careful reading shows I am discussing how much space to give to “Do List” items. Under the bullet point "Spacewise" I write “Maybe someone else thinks the most important "Do" is....” This is followed by two speculative examples, one which I describe has having lots of support and the other - “mandatory sensitivity training” - as having far less support.
• These three TKOP examples of alleged personal attacks on other editors[5][6][7] are my references to SPECIFICO Wikhounding me to GGTF, which I detailed in the Sept. 4 and Sept. 12 ANIs.
• These three TKOP examples of alleged personal attacks[8][9][10] are my references to editors refusing to take seriously other GGTF editors’ right to express their opinions or their being badgered for it. As my evidence shows, I wasn’t the only one complaining about this badgering or wondering about their bad faith. (SPECIFICO wikihounding me at GGTF did necessitate some excessive replies by me.)
• Here is my explicit reply to a question in the thread TKOP quotes. He claims I did not answer it.[11]
• TKOP states the Wikimedia Foundation pays editors in Wikipedia:India Education Program/Analysis/Independent Report from Tory Read. I see only a mention of their paying staff, which is not paying editors. Specific quotes help.
• “Carol canvassed wikimedia mailing lists[12][13]” The strictly moderated Wikimedia Foundation run Gender Gap email list has been used to announce several GGTF projects. TKOP's first diff is an example. The second is a mention of the “Disruption of a Wikiproject” ANI. Frankly, given canvassing on the list hasn’t been an issue in over a year, it didn’t occur to me this might be a canvassing issue. I saw it as just an FYI on GGTF problems, ones similar to those the email list itself had faced months earlier. It was more a “commiseration posting”. In any case, most of the posters at the ANI who alleged disruptions were GGTF or WP:ANI regulars. And the ANI remedy was only a warning to act like Adults, so no harm was done. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carcharoth: I think most of this does discuss and correct misunderstandings or errors in the evidence. And there was quite a bit of inaccurate evidence, not to mention duplicate diffs/evidence explained in different inaccurate ways. Most of it by editors who had no involvement in the situation at all which increased the inaccuracies. Sorry if I did throw in a bit too much context of why something was inaccurate or a few sentences of further analysis here and there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Neotarf

Carolmooredc, Carcharoth is correct, I can't follow this at all. For one thing, it is mis-formatted. For an example of how to format your section and submit proposals in it, a good example might be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop, a case with a strong focus on conduct of multiple users. I really think, Carol, you need to erase this in some way, and start over, with proper formatting, a proper outline, and concrete principles and proposals.

As for myself, even though I am uninvolved in this topic area, and have never been a member of this WikiProject, I have never been the target of so much templating, talkpage vandalism, and sheer nonsense as has resulted from the misfortune spinning out of the week I had this Wikiproject somehow on my watchlist. Wikipedia is suppose to be a hobby, but I have been beleaguered on multiple fronts. If you would excuse my further participation at this point, I really need to step back from the keyboard for a while. —Neotarf (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one of the arbs, or one of the clerks should explain what this section is for and how to use it. Also, I see the evidence page is closed, but there is much written about me there that is incorrect and not supported by the diffs. Do I need to address this somehow or should I wait and see if anyone takes it seriously? —Neotarf (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is well organized compared to the last one I was in early 2014, with a hodgepodge of editors and sections and no arbitrators said there was anything wrong with it that time. (Lat time an Admin came along and told me just what you told me then a bunch of people came along and did just what I did above. Arbs never said a thing about formatting one way or the other.) Arb Guide gives no explanation.

The best thing to do is just put your explanation of what was wrong in any evidence provided about you under the name of the individual who provided it. Or add the relevant name if someone said something I didn't reply to. You don't have dozens of misrepresented diffs to deal with like I did from a bunch of editors you've hardly had anything to do with. Or just do it anyway you like, like they did at that early 2014 arbitration. I don't think they'll be much more analysis anyway for Arbs to deal with. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been convinced that anyone reads these things. My current theory is that it's just a ploy to get the principles out of project space and all bouncing around screaming at each other in one place for a while. But don't tell anyone I said that. TKOP's evidence was unusually inaccurate though, even for one of these events; it wouldn't surprise me if this section got even longer. —Neotarf (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Two kinds of pork

There is so much wrong with Carol's interpretations that it would take months of discussing the problems interspersed with wall-of-text replies by Carol. But let's take her first post as an example:

TKOP states re: his comment on User:LawrencePrincipe’s "two revert" proposal: “I had no idea that the proposal had actually been implemented and removed from the project page.” My August 11 comment he links to actually said the proposal was “dismissed and removed” not “implemented”.[3]

First of all, there is no Aug 11 comment by Carol saying the proposal was dismissed and removed. The diff above she presents is mine. Carol attempted to make my objection to the proposal as an example of disruption or my objection was overblown because I should have realized that the proposal was at one time on the main page and subsequently removed. NO WHERE on the section in question says anything like this[14]. At best, this example is Carol using diffs selectively as a sword and a shield depending upon her needs at the time. At worst, this is an attempt at obfuscation by muddying the waters and drowning the conversation by the massive responses she has generated so far. Above an arbitrator mentions their concern about having limits on replies here. Your concerns are not without merit, but limits should be strongly considered ASAP. As for my responses here, I pledge I will do my best to reply infrequently and to be concise.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I actually should have left out that minor, possibly debatable, correction which was irrelevant to objection in my evidence that TKOP's very first post was hostile. No other objections? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examine your next objection. Note that I said the Sensistivity Training was a proposal. The point was you should expect such proposals receive criticism, yet you don't handle such critiscm well. Dropping down the next set of your diffs I highlighted, you make ad hominem comments like "certain male editors". The rest of your objections either miss my point, or attempt to excuse yourself for extenuating circumstances. Short of an extraordinary objection, I won't respond to your objections to keep this page manageable.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I clearly state this was an example of a proposal that might be placed on a Do list, not a proposal from me. I used it as an example of something that would not get a lot of support and thus should not receive a lot of space on a do list. Read the diff.[15] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link

• Re: “Identity politics and battleground behavior”: Carrite only quotes one very early exchange between SlimVirgin and Obiwankenobi discussing the primacy of women on the Wikiproject and creating “safe space.” I neither remember, nor see evidence that, those ideas/wordings were proposed again. However, encouraging enforcement of existing WP:Civility and WP:Wikihounding policy did come up repeatedly.
• Re: “Both sides have engaged in combative behavior” - he only presents a link to all edits to GGTF of two editors who could be characterized on being "on the same side". He presents no evidence that the other side "engaged in combative behavior." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Carrite was explicit later that I'm not among those regarding whom he has the most serious concerns. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link.

• Regarding false accusations by the current leaders of the India Against Corruption (IAC), Johnuniqu fails to identify properly the relevant Jimbo Wales talk page “Why is Wikipedia sexist” thread. At it Sitush and User:BrownHairedGirl argued over Sitush's support for using the “C-word” and Jimbo Wales message to Sitush on Sitush's talk page is discussed. Sitush mentioned the IAC “porn” accusations in his reply to Wales[16] as he had recently at this WP:ANI.[17] He infers IAC might drive him to quit. I write (mistakenly as it turns out) that he misread the mentioned IAC link and it’s not a reason to quit. Johnuniqu objected to my bringing up an allegation Sitush has just discussed twice very publicly at Wales page and here. If Sitush and Johnuniqu want the allegation kept quiet, they shouldn’t mention it repeatedly.
• Re: complaint about my message on the Evidence talk page. Admin Bishonen wrote that the Evidence Analysis section of Workshop, not the Evidence talk page, was the place to bring up Evidence concerns. Yet in the posting immediately following her comment, User:Voceditenore[18] brought up an evidence issue. I reminded him of what she had said. Given Johnuniqu’s subsequent complaint about this, I did answer answer Voceditenore’s question on the Evidence talk page.[19] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The evidence referred to above by Carolmooredc is from Johnuniq not "JohnUnique". And for the record, I am a "she", as clearly indicated on my user page. Voceditenore (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've corrected Johnunique's user name. I don't think there's a requirement we find out the gender of every editor before we mention them or use s/he and him/her at all times. Also, last time I looked at the Arbitration clarification page, Arbitrators were ruling we don't even have to use the preferred pronoun. However, when I happen to find out someone is a woman, I try to use the proper pronoun, assuming it's no so much later I completely forget who is what. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? That is not the correct name, as Voceitenore pointed out. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush's support for using the “C-word” I may be missing something but I cannot see my support for use of that specific word in that thread. I do think there is a cultural issue with most of the civility stuff, I did link to This Be The Verse (which uses "fuck" and was a set poem at A-level English Lit back in my time), and I did have a jokey exchange about "cunt" with someone somewhere but I'd appreciate a quote of me explicitly supporting use of it in that thread, please. My enduring memory is Jimbo telling me that I needed to have "more honor" when I used the word "drama" and was castigated because apparently it is sexist to do so. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "porn" allegations misses the point: Johnuniq says in his evidence that CMDC says things without seeking to understand underlying issues. The porn allegation is not the principle issue with IAC, nor can I recall ever wanting to prevent discussion of it. Is CMDC getting confused with the request from Newyorkbrad regarding the supposed gun threat? Or am I missing something here? I also cannot figure out where Sitush has just discussed [the porn allegation] ... here - I see no mention by me on the Evidence pages but perhaps I am misunderstanding CMDC's syntax. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert to Sitush: First, BrownHairGirl says you support use of C-word and in your next 2 or 3 replies you don't deny it; in the same period using "twatt" on a woman users page as a "joke" is just another indication of your attitude.

Johnuniqu says in evidence my comment was "unrelated to the thread and which falsely associated Sitush with child pornography". However, the thread discussed what Jimmy Wales said to you on your talk page and your complaining you'd had threats and child pornography allegations and were thinking of quiting. So it was related, though like many threads you have to read the whole dang thing and, in this case, related threads on other pages to get it. Everything else Sitush adds is just speculation that confuses the reader. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) At risk of bloating an already ludicrously bloated page, Carol, I simply pointed out my gender in case you wanted to correct the pronoun in your comment. "Fixed, thanks" would have been more than adequate. Instead, you write 80 words on why you aren't going to fix it, including commentary on past Arbcom rulings on gender pronouns. While this is a very minor issue in itself, I'm afraid it's indicative of a much larger issue, i.e. that some of the most damning evidence against you in this case is the evidence you yourself present, the way you present it, and the way you react to anyone who points out a potential mistake on your part from the smallest to the most serious. And, no I'm not going to provide a supporting diff, because this whole page is one. Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Voceditenore Unfortunately as one of Sitush's diffs evidenced, I did have a problem with a woman editor running around to various forums saying I "accused" her of being a man, when I merely understood her to be one. So I was having a little negative "deja vu" there. Sorry. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link

• Re: "User:J3Mrs”, see her section below.
• Re: my statement “Some diffs indicate Sitush blames Sue Gardner’s initiative...” In Sitush second diff the topic was Jimmy Wales saying the Foundation would be “doubling down” on what Sitush calls "Gardner’s failed systemic bias intiative”. Increasing the number of women in Wikipedia, the gender gap initiative, was her best known one, widely covered in media. The other two diffs are of my interpretation of his comments and Arbitrators can ignored them. I was vaguely aware there was a separate “IEP” - India Education Program. But I do know the Indian women’s gender gap project did a lot of workshops and edit-a-thons.
• Drmies writes: "Sitush's beef was with Carolmooredc as an editor, not with her as a member of some task force or other.” However, in evidence I report this diff where Sitush writes: "Which is why that Gender Gap Task Force is so dodgy, especially when what seems to be its primary cheerleader (see WT:GGTF), Carolmooredc, is indeed a militant feminist and social activist for 'right-on' causes of the 60s and 70s." His other negative comments about the project[20][21], his defending use of the "C-Word" on Wales talk page, his leaving the "Twatt, Orley"[22] message on the talk page of a GGTF participant who objected to Corbett's use of the c-word, all show he has a real battleground attitude towards the project itself and not just towards me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• her best known one^{[citation needed]} - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It is Twatt, Orkney, not Twatt, Orley. Yes, it could be a typo but this is yet another example of your tendency to make mistakes/misrepresent etc and it is evidence most obviously in the number of times you have to correct yourself in talk page statements etc. That is one of the primary reasons why I have long been concerned about your competence: it really does worry me that if you ever venture back into actually editing article space on more than an occasional basis then we are likely to see a repeat of the many poor edits that caused a topic ban to be imposed. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Drmies is correct: any issues that I have relate to CMDC generally as a contributor far more than to the GGTF, and I said as much in one of my opening statements relating to this case. I've made very few comments about the GGTF, although I have said sthat I think it is misguided in its current form, eg: [23]. My intention was to prepare an ArbCom case (or perhaps RfC/U) regarding Carolmooredc, not to engineer the opening of this particular vaguely-defined case, as she claims. I'll try to find the diffs. (Diffs now added) - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link

• Re: my "Blame Game?" posting on your talk page on September 27. It was a poorly worded attempt to express my distress with what I felt was “pile on” harassment by you in the aftermath of the Sitush harassment biography incident and ongoing ANI. However, instead of the tete a tete I expected, a bunch of your page watchers joined and demanded diffs. Per your request I provided diffs illustrating my complaint.[24].

I did apologize for bringing up some vaguely remembered 3 month old comment or joke, probably from someone's talk page.

However, I do believe a proper query was in order, and if I hadn't been so off balance from harassment I would have asked something like: “I feel you have been harassing and blaming me for all current problems in the GGTF/civility area. I notice you are close friends with Eric Corbett who also lives in Manchester. You have 377+ edits to his talk page. So I’m wondering if there’s some sort of WP:conflict of interest here we need to discuss.” Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Carolemooredc, can you let this drop? Your uncontrolled assumptions and inability to let things go have the power to damage people who don't even edit wikipedia. I didn't accept your apology which was wise considering your inability to stop and lack of understanding of possible consequences. Three months ago you didn't know me from Adam but you still are digging that hole, provide the diff if you want to be taken seriously. I don't live in Manchester and don't understand your obsession with editors from the GM project, Eric, my wikifriend, not close friend (they are people I know outside wikipedia) has helped me since I first started, he encouraged me to take articles to GAN, copyedits my prose and you'll find he has hundreds of edits to my talk page too, mostly about content.

Is there some means of preventing Carolemooredc from bringing this unsubstantiated malicious rumour up on any more talk pages? J3Mrs (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link

• While I think Robert McClenon's motivation for requesting the Arbitration was sincere, I was disappointed at his recycling others' evidence. I did mention on his talk page that I had a couple of errors he might check for. (These were corrected for this Arbitration). I advised he should review everything. His then crossing out a lot of links that I believe are self-explanatory and relevant only adds confusion to the case. However, they don't undermine proper use of these links elsewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link

• In my evidence I show diffs indicating Sitush pushed for this Arbitration, in part, by violating policy to annoy me and start a brouhaha regarding his biography of me. He has expressed his desire to see me site banned.[25]

However, the only evidence he provides is my imperfect recent behavior of the last few weeks after he a) wrote an attack bio on me[26] that b) lead to an Admin suggesting an interaction ban at WP:ANI where c) he repeated his desire for this Arbitration to be used against me.[27] (The controversy and confusion about a certain redacted statement coming on top of that.)

• Sitush inaccurately describes as “wild assumptions” a) Sitush's meandering exposition that starts with his rejecting a two-way interaction ban of me and may or may not contain relevant diffs; b) my original assumption that I struck after review of evidence[28]; a link to my general comment against Wikihounding in another matter.
• Sitush says I ignore “correct process” because he “had my clean block log spoiled because of a drive-by admin who did not realise context of both on- and off-wiki harassment.”[29] If by that he means that those who have been baited and harassed have to be cut some slack, I agree - if they over-react to the actual harasser and not punish third parties who annoy them at the moment. By Sitush’s lights I should deserve no sanction for my less than perfect reactions to his extreme harassment. And I agree.
• Sitush describes as “behavioral problems” a) a link to my frustration about the Arbitration he pushed so hard for. I mention some of the silly issues that might be raised. The IAC sockpuppets did come along as I predicted. Also, my apology to Arbitrator Salvio giuliano for misreading his comment on LawrencePrincipe’s two-revert proposal which had been used falsely to beat on the GGTF in a number of forums.posting and c) a link per dispute resolution where I went to an editor’s talk page to explain to her that she was mischaracterizing in many forums a misunderstanding (for which I immediately apologized) as a hostile accusation. I provided ample diffs and asked her to stop do it. The diff Sitush provided makes this very clear. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Loads of problems with the above, including by violating policy to annoy me^{[citation needed]} and may or may not contain relevant diffs^[vague]. - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link

• Iridescent claims two of my statements are untrue.His first diff links to a User:Tarc talk page entry where we discuss Tarc's ANI comment about Sitush saying he would follow me around like SPECIFICO did.[30] I express my frustrated opinion on Sitush's harassment and motivation. (Sitush jumps in and tells me to “piss off.”)
• Iridescent's second claim is this long biography-related thread on Sitush's talk page. Sitush makes a vague and, to me, very “snitchy” accusation of criminal-sounding behavior; after two attempts I find out he’s referring disparagingly to an open act of civil disobedience I did in the 1980s and wrote about at an advocacy organization’s site. He claims it's for his biography of me - admitting it might not be a reliable source. In my opinion, it's Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information which reads in relevant part: Posting of personal information: The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be.
• Re: complaint about my "sources." I agree, I should not have mentioned a confused memory of 3 month old comment on some user talk page. As for private emails, we are not supposed to divulge who wrote what. In any case, they did not reveal anything I did not also read on Wikipedia talk pages on a second or third re-read. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• One of the many other misrepresentations is this, which is not Sitush saying he would follow me around. Nor, indeed, did I have a great deal more to do with CMDC until this case was accepted - I stuck to what I said I would do and raised in Evidence. Similarly, I did not say the thing that CMDC refers to as "civil disobedience" would be used in the BLP: please review the section Iridescent linked to and note, inter alia, my comment that I only bring up the link in this message because you claim I'm wrong. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with Sitush that my words appear to have been subtly misrepresented. Aside from the fact that, when talking to Sitush, I wasn't Arbitrator Salvio, but rather Wikipedian Salvio, I did not tell him not to create a BLP about Carol, with the implication that I was using my "authority" to direct Sitush not to do something. Rather, I was merely letting him know that my personal advice was against creating such a page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• Submission link
• RegentsPark writes: “she seems to be obsessed with Sitush”. No, Sitush has been obsessed with me. Why else would he put all that energy into writing a biography of me that he claimed was good work! He argued it shouldn’t be deleted and was so obsessed he ignored [what Sitush called "at least one member of ArbCom"][31]Arbitrator telling him [who later said he had been "advising"][32] him not to do it and endured six talk page threads of editors telling him it was a terrible idea. Only then did he move it to neutral space. His obsession lead to extreme battleground behavior. I'm still coping with the negative emotional effects of it.
• RegentsPark presents two diffs[33] [34] of complex Arbitration-related issues I brought up on the Evidence talk page. That is allowed and they were dealt with.
• Re: threats versus Sitush: As a 20 year legal secretary in Washington DC, in the absence of actual evidence, I can't claim knowledge of a crime after seeing only vague allegations[35] of what even others also assumed was some sort of physical threat.[36] I had over a 1000 death threats by a well-known long term abuser through the Wikimedia mail system, which it still took many email discussions and six months to deal with. I wouldn't like to see someone who had not done something like that to Sitush be accused without evidence. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Salvio giuliano. The sentence I refers to is Sitush writing: At least one member of ArbCom is aware that I am looking into the possibilities of sourcing such a revived BLP.[37] And I should have quoted you exactly my reply, verbatim, was 'I advise against creating a BLP for Carol'.[38] I have corrected both errors above. Just trying too hard to keep it short. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• I really haven't got a clue how this page is supposed to work. The numerous statements added thus far by Carolmooredc contain a swathe of misrepresentations etc and meanderings into stuff that doesn't seem to relate to GGTF. I don't want to create bloat and in any event have neither the time nor the access, so just a quick couple of points.

The now deleted attack biography was not an attack and I invite the arbitrators to examine that article and its talk page at the point where I personally stopped editing it. And the statement in this section that he ignored an Arbitrator telling him not to do it (ie: draft that BLP) misrepresents what Salvio giuliano told her only a few days ago. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and she still keeps raising something here that she was asked not to mention again on-wiki in the Evidence phase. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

endured six talk page threads of editors telling him it was a terrible idea is not entirely true. For example, I "endured" nothing (emotive and you cannot read my mind) and it wasn't unanimous that the thing was a terrible idea (nor was it in the MfD, which ended with a WP:IAR decision). - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submission link.

• TParis’s comment did help me tweak my evidence. Sitush first WP:ANI comment - “I do wish I could demonstrate it here without outing you.”[39] - indicates that in his mind he was contemplating what he then considered outing. The second one was not technically outing: “Carolmooredc is not easily intimidated, as should be obvious from her website that she one linked to via her userpage and from the subject areas that she chooses to edit on Wikipedia.”[40] However, Sitush's comment demonstrates contemptuous violation of Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information which I quoted above regarding "dredging up their off line opinions".
• That policy paragraph continues: However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. Sitush should have done a WP:COIN or even done an WP:RfC/U instead of violating policy, again, in my opinion, to push for Arbitration.
• Finally, Sitush's second statement also is problematic because he mentions my not being intimidated as if it’s a bad thing. Isn't intimidation itself a bad thing and an aspect of battleground behavior? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• as if it’s a bad thing Eh? I do not know how you can interpret my comment in that way. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suggest everyone read the diffs presented in toto, as the selective quotes and editorializing are completely and I dareay intentionally taken out of context to paint a picture of wrongdoing by many editors. My opinion is that these amount to nothing more than Neotarf standing at the rostrum to announce their offense. In a case which the use of vulgar terms is being discussed, Neotarf takes great exception if euphemisms are not used. Decorum must be balanced with practicality.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Carolmooredc's evidence includes Seven of Sitush’s 10 edits at GGTF were directed at me. There were nine such edits at the point when someone whom I don't think I've ever had any interaction before posted this analysis in response to her oft-repeated claims of hounding. CMDC has similarly misrepresented in her claims regarding my use of her talk page. There are numerous "calling outs" of her evidence on the Evidence talk page also. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares when there were 9 edits? There were ten when I entered my evidence. And anyone can follow them and see they were about me or you reverting my talk page comments which is a "no no." Not a good example of "misrepresentation." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: