Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Page format

I'm wondering whether I placed my new request in the wrong place. The instructions say to place the request template "below the first header" when editing–which I thought I had done, though the page is showing a repeated, red-bordered "To make an arbitration case request:" instruction block. I'm unsure whether it is supposed to have that block repeated, and apologies if my insertion broke something. • Astynax ^talk 02:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

GGTF

Noting that since the 13th it appears that an accept is numerically impossible, unless the "other" or a "decline" vote changes, can this be closed? Dedicated Wikipedians are welcome to visit the task force talk page and make postiivee non-confrontational contributions, which might help the underlying issues. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC).

I'm a bit concerned to see that this is being accepted. The issues seem to have calmed down, at least as far as that page is concerned, and we're getting on with things in a constructive way. Pinging Carcharoth, Newyorkbrad and GorillaWarfare (only because, I believe, you were the three accepts that changed the outcome). I know there are broader issues that could be examined (e.g. incivility, sexism), but the accept comments are quite a mixed bag, and it's not clear what direction is envisaged. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As can be seen from Carcharoth's accept comment, it would be a mistake to assume that the behaviour complained about by the original arbitation request is the only issue. It may have "calmed down". The behaviour of the complainants will also be under scrutiny. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa is correct. All those involved will be under scrutiny. My view is that things are not calming down. An example is this thread, where things appear (to some extent) to be escalating. SlimVirgin is right, though, to say that the accept comments are quite a mixed bag. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Carcharoth, and the link. I hadn't seen that discussion, although it's not really related to the GGTF. I'm worried because the GGTF talk page is meant to be a relaxed place where people feel comfortable swapping ideas. At one point a small group tried to stir things up, but they've either departed or they're interacting constructively now, so all is currently well there.

Some of the Arb comments imply that people might be sanctioned for having reacted poorly to the earlier situation. That would be an unfortunate outcome. If the committee has a particular direction in mind, that's one thing, but if it's "let's open this and see where it goes," it risks creating weeks or months of people being furious with each other for no clear benefit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I take your point that things are calming down at the GGTF talk page. My point in linking to that thread on a user talk page was that the dispute between some of those active in the previous dispute seems to have changed location (and people are continuing to react poorly and with a battleground attitude). I know that came off the back of an ANI thread where the message was 'people have leeway on their talk pages', but have things really got to the stage where it is acceptable to talk about another editor the way people are talking on that user talk page? If you have a problem with someone, you go and talk to them about it, or try and sort it out at some other stage of dispute resolution (the irony here is that the RfC/U option was mentioned in the previous section, but ignored). You don't engage in a 'what shall we do about this editor' discussion on someone else's user talk page, though I see the same sort of thing happening at Jimmy's user talk page. There's been too much of that sort of thing going on recently. Too much dispute escalation and too little dispute resolution. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with SlimVirgin here - this could get really ugly and we have to weigh up the benefits and risks - WRT role of conflict resolution vs governance FWIW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe this case should be limited to the issues that have occurred or are occurring on the GGTF page. It should discuss the behavior of those involved regardless of the venue. Although things may have calmed down at the GGTF page, I agree with Carcharoth that these issues have been cropping up elsewhere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with GorillaWarfare broadly as to my rationale for accepting. The issue is cropping up all over the place, and I think a review of all the conduct that's taken place is necessary here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me predict what will happen, whether those 6 parties are only ones or even if others are added). Three editors and hordes of their supporters will scream "It's all Carolmooredc's fault" and maybe a couple other gender gappers. Other more rational people will list those 3 parties faults and/or defend the attacked gender gappers. (Oh, yuk. I'm not even going to read evidence until right before the deadline.) Maybe a rational point or two will be raised, mostly about issues that are no longer relevant. Then a few arbitrators will slog through all the evidence and rhetoric, list some nice principles which admins largely will ignore and deal with a few people, leaving dozens of others out there unscathed to continue to fight the battles. IMHO, you should have taken the Civility Arbitration, cause this is just Civility Arbitration #2. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it would be great if this Arbitration could be used to set some boundaries on disruption of Wikiprojects, in case someone starts "CounteringSystemicBiaS/African-Americans Task force" or rejuventates Wikiprojects Latino and discusses things that attract vehement critics. Thus arbitrators should specify editors only present evidence on what happened on the GGTF page and previous outside discussions explicitly mentioning GGTF.

Otherwise expect long discussions of the uses of personal attacks like "stupid" and "idiot" and "f*ck you" in edit summaries elsewhere; or long discussions (as opposed to a few diffs) related to C*nt-gate or CMDC-Biography-gate or GunBarrel-gate or DogsPeeingAnalogyOnUserTalkPage-gate, or PornographyEditWarring or 4 year old Israel-Palestine ANIs, and this month's India Against Corruption ("IAC") ANI (bad rs or racist deletionism run riot?; socks or all those damned women recruited by the Indian Gender Gap project?; is Carolmooredc an IAC operative?) etc.

That's how absurd it is out there, so thus my heartily rejecting the idea of an Arbitration on this. Additionally annoying is that one individual (and his friends, no doubt) wants this Arbitration to focus on getting me site banned for being a rabble rousing female who's a "libertarian" just like that awful Jimmy Wales.(I have several such explicit diffs.)

Keep the arbitration tightly focused on facts of principles that should guide Wikiproject discussions (and critics of any project) and evidence on what happened on that Wikiproject task force. Then it won't be just Civility Arbitration #2 - or something far uglier. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Carcharoth, GorillaWarfare, Seraphimblade, thanks for the replies. Would you consider calling the case something other than gender gap task force? The issues at that page have stopped, and I'm concerned that having a case appear to focus on it will discourage people from getting involved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. "Disruption of Wikiprojects" better to deal with the issues of disruption of mere discussions of ideas or proposals. As several people have said, if anything ever gets to the stage it's going to have a wide community impact on En.Wikipedia, it will have to go to Village Pump or where ever. (Proposals that start on an En.Wikiproject but would be implemented by the Foundation are in the same category.) Keep it simple and general to Wikiproject decorum and it will be positive and useful. (Later note: Obviously specific examples from GGTF and GGTF related (hopefully now) historical discussions/incidents would be used, but the implications should be broader.]

Make it specific to GGTF and use it to try to site ban any individuals on the list and it could end up in the New York Times and other RS. And then there's the government funded study on sexism on Wikipedia that's monitoring Wikipedia right now. I strongly urge you to see the 50 odd RS articles and various outside research studies on Wikipedia/gender gap/sexism since this is a high profile topic. Draft GGTF Resources page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that, in my opinion, "Disruption of Wikiprojects" would not be a neutral case name, in that it would assume that the behaviour of certain editors has been disruptive even before evidence is presented – by the way, proposing to use that name also betrays a somewhat agonistical approach to the issue, which, again in my opinion, is part of the problem. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

More neutral would be "Criticism at Wikiprojects" or "Discussion at Wikiprojects". I'm sure arbitrators could come up with something more general, unless of course they want to focus on this actual project and its alleged nefarious agenda. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How about "battleground mentality 1" or "civility 3" or......"2014" plus a number as the nth case of this year? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that other Wikiprojects with gender gap groups include India, Editor Retention and Gender studies. (GGTF hasn't even discussed if it wants to propose something about that.) ) Also, if it's OK for Wikiproject critics to unrelentingly and often mockingly demand answers to questions about individual comments or barely noticed or discussed individual proposals, I think most Wikiprojects would like to know. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

However, I see now on Request page that Salvio believes the false assertion that GGTF supports "the proposal to make edits made by women harder to revert." This was something a MAN put up on the main page and no one noticed or discussed because there was so much else going on; I noticed and then removed it after a couple weeks. There have been at least two other dubious proposals like that by men. I hope Arbitrators will look at the evidence showing the falsity of such accusations. False accusations repeated over and over are certainly disruptive and battleground behavior. The diffs are legion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I can provide Salvio with diffs of entry and removal of MrPrincipe's proposal and two much later discussions where several us denied supporting this project. Perhaps he should then amend his statement as to not unwittingly mislead other arbitrators. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that it was a trolling proposal? See details in sub-section below. It was put in in early July and taken out by you at the end of July. It was discussed on the talk page 26-29 July. See this arcived version of the page, thread entitled "43. Affirmative action program...". The main objection to the proposal appears to be that it would compromise editors by having to disclose their gender to avail themselves of it. There was one post objecting to it because it would give women's edits an "unfair advantage over those of men". I don't get any sense from that thread that it wasn't treated as a serious proposal. DeCausa (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It was never proposed, DeCausa, but was something added to the main GGTF page by an editor who (as I recall) was only briefly active on the talk page. It stayed on the page only because we didn't notice it had been added. It was added on 5 July, someone wondered about it on the talk page on 26 July, and when Carol saw it she removed it, on 29 July. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, those are diffs I've already linked to on this page. Of course it was a proposal: someone put it on the project page, it stayed there a few weeks and then the proposal was rejected. Any addition aded to a WP page is a proposal until accepted by consensus. I don't see anything strange or unusual about that. Equally, in the talk page thread, the proposal was discussed and no one supported it, and it was clear that consensus was against the proposal. I don't see anything strange about that (or inconsistent with what any of the arbs said either). But, what is strange is the over reaction to arbs mentioning it. It's not as though anyone in that talk page thread said: "I've just noticed a ridiculous idea someone's posted on the project page. Obviously, let's delete it now because no one could support that". No, it was discussed over several days. It wasn't treated as trolling/vandalism/an idea to be instantly dismissed. It was given thoughtful consideration, and rejected by all the posters (although it's opaque as to whether the OP of that thread actually rejected it), and almost all of them did so on practical grounds; how would women maintain anonymity if they disclosed their gender? etc. Only one post rejected it on the ground of unfairness. That being the context, I see nothing wrong with how the arbs have referred to it. DeCausa (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I've just seen the ambiguity how we are using the word "proposal". I think you're taking it as a formal proposal from the GGTK, whereas I'm meaning it as a proposal to the GGTK to consider adopting it. It's clear to me that it's also in the latter context that the arbs are referring to it. DeCausa (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest case title: "Battleground behaviour that started at the Gender Gap Task Force then spread all around the 'pedia through forum shopping, canvassing and not spending enough time editing articles to the general annoyance and boredom of everyone else." DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Really if any specific Arbitrator wants to hang Eric and/or Carol out to dry, then they should resign their Arb bit, and bring a case. Hijacking this case to further their own agenda (however noble) would be ethically bankrupt. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC).

This is a catch-22. The committee refuses to take the case because it has only been at one ANI, then when subsequent attempts are made to solve the problems piecemeal at various appropriate forums, the claim is made that "the problem is spreading beyond the project". In fact, some would say the problem is spreading into the project from outside the Wikipedia —Neotarf (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Allegations made by arbitrators

• At the request main page, Salvio giuliano wrote "the Task Force are considering changes aimed at increasing the number of women editing Wikipedia and, assuming they are successful in proposing feasible innovations, these will have an impact over Wikipedia in its entirety. Case in point, the proposal to make edits made by women harder to revert." And Worm That Turned wrote "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." No diffs were provided for this allegation, and I would request that such diffs are provided, so that we can see whether this was a serious proposal by sincere and core members of the task force, or if this might have been some male trolling as Carol's comment suggests. Since this includes arbitrators, we need to sort out this particular point before the case starts. Carolmooredc, I also request that you provide the diffs regarding the "2 editors to revert a woman" claim.
• (In my own statement, I presented diff for a different incident that I consider male trolling to bring the Gender Gap project in discredit; and as I said there, male ridiculing of women's issue is a very old and persistent phenomena. I will come back to that case in the evidence/workshop section.)
• Iselilja (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The two editors to revert idea was on the project page under the heading "Possible affirmative action program". See this version of the page. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit seems to have introduced it and this edit seems to have taken it out. It was in situ most of July it looks like. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, DeCause. The statement "there could be an affirmative strengthening of registered women editors by requiring that two editors be required to form consensus before being allowed to revert edits placed by women editors" was inserted by LawrencePrincipe in the beginning of July and taken out by Carol at the end of the month. Principe seems to be a fine and serious editor, so I don't suspect trolling anymore. Iselilja (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that something that just sat on the main page without anyone really noticing it or discussing it until it was removed has been used as a primary excuse for Arbitrators to accept Arbitration.

• July 4 LawrencePrincipe entry of two revert proposal on main page, buried in a mass of text.
• July 29th removal by me after I never saw it proposed or discussed on the talk page. I figured if he was serious he could bring it up there (and it would get shot down). He didn't.
• I'm sure there were some questions about it and discussion on GGTF talk page or somewhere else and a general dismissal of the idea. Maybe someone else can find them.
• Sept 16 Grognard Chess queried about the proposal and four editors expressed impatience with his bringing up something that was not a real proposal of the project and [bring it up] just looked like trouble making.
  

If admins were misinformed about these proposals and took the Arbitration on that basis, it certainly taints the decision. I haven't even read all the Arbitrators comments yet but will soon.
[Strike misunderstanding of comment as explained below: Also questionable is Salvio writing: The Task Force are considering changes aimed at increasing the number of women editing Wikipedia - Yes, that's the goal of the foundation and many women and men editors. I hope you don't have a problem with that. He then writes and, assuming they are successful in proposing feasible innovations, these will have an impact over Wikipedia in its entirety. So? Women don't have a right to a say in an organization they are a part of? Please explain. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused by this. If you're suggesting changes which will hopefully increase the proportion of female editors - a clearly laudable aim - why would you complain when someone points out that this might have an impact on Wikipedia - which it will? For example, your suggestion that only admins that have undergone diversity training should be allowed to close certain debates. Please feel free to explain this if I have missed something obvious. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I talked with a friend who said I misunderstood and I took a second look. The accusation that "two reverts/blue sky" is something central to GGTF has been made and debunked a number of times, in general and with specific diffs, so it was upsetting to see it show up yet again here as a central part of the rationale of two Arbitrators to vote for Arbitration. And it felt like a plant from opponents of the project, a trumped up accusations to get rid of the project and/or one or more of its members.

In that context, put at the end of the sentence The Task Force are considering changes aimed at increasing the number of women editing Wikipedia and, assuming they are successful in proposing feasible innovations, these will have an impact over Wikipedia in its entirety. it sounded like Salvio was saying: "Oh No! They want a lot of crazy women in here to do crazy shit like this." My apologies to User:Salvio giuliano for misunderstanding.

That User:Worm_That_Turned also seems to be under the impression this was some major interest of ours when it was a Straw Man set up by people who just don't like the project compounds the problem. It would be nice if both Arbitrators re-thought their reasons for wanting arbitration in light of the fact that what they heard or were told or mistakenly understood was not necessarily relevant. That editors' sound proposals were attacked in the past is certainly a good reason, of course. Though I keep hoping from evidence of last couple days things really are better now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

The group has no control whatsoever over membership, cannot even archive disruptive posts without getting reverted and edit warred, and then is forced to answer to the arbcom for whatever someone has posted on a wiki that anyone can edit? —Neotarf (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The committee now has two chances to kill what little is left of this WikiProject. They can treat all comers to the project equally, whether they oppose women's participation in Wikipedia or not. If the arbitration committee forces the group to spend all its energy arguing about whether women's participation is a real issue, the group will soon be left with only those who wish to distract the group from the goal of furthering women's participation. The other opportunity to kill the project is to impose discretionary sanctions, as would be implied by naming the case after the project, and thus legitimizing the opponents of women's participation and legitimizing hostile modes of interaction towards the group. As research has shown that women prefer non-confrontational forums, defining the group as a battleground area and subjecting it to soul-sucking Arbitration Enforcement would quickly get rid of any women participants who did not wish to become battle-scarred. —Neotarf (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I wrote a piece about how blue-sky thinking should work as part of a process and mentioned in passing the only example that came to mind. I am not part of the Gender Gap Task Force, so I haven't gone through and looked at every proposal, but I did see a number of ones which I would consider "blue-sky" - for example, amending the Sexology or Bradley Manning arbitration cases to cover GGTF in discretionary sanctions[1]. I never said that the example was a "major interest" or even endorsed by the GGTF as a whole, I was explaining that when unusual ideas came up, criticism should be expected. I stand by that. Worm^TT(talk) 08:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, context coming clear now. At least no one anywhere on Wikipedia took seriously and complained about TwoKindsofPork's proposal that WMF hire a bunch of Filipino high school girls to edit to boost up the numbers of women on Wikipedia!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand the meaning of "blue sky" in this context. I took it for something having to do with citations, along the lines of the WP:BLUE essay. But if Carol is advocating for discretionary sanctions on women's topics, I can only say, be careful what you wish for, and if you need to reach for the "retired" template as a result, there's one on my talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a management speak term. The concept is that you come up with open minded ideas for improving a situation, not grounded in the restrictions of the present. See Wikt:Blue-sky thinking. Worm^TT(talk) 13:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My proposal about paying Filipinas (either directly or indirectly) was a real one. It sure wouldn't cost too much. I still think it would be a good idea, as there is a Filipino gap on Wikipedia as well. English is a major language in their culture, yet as we all know that here mostly UK and American topics dominate.

Despite the claims that we are toasting smores and singing kumbaya into the wee hours of the morning, problems are still occurring, mostly from Carol and Neotarf. The "two voter override proporosal" (2VOP), was not problem in of itself. It was the reaction of the criticism to the proposal that was the problem. In fact the appearance of any criticism, real or imagined caused a select few (mostly Carol and Neotarf) to circle the wagons which led to a flood of (poorly) drummed up ANI threads and user talk page discussions. Those editors in particular left a pall of "What are you doing here? This is for women only" over the place. The attitudes that are fostering such behavior are still on displayTwo kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 14:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf: I'm arguing for No Arbitration. Period. Though I will sugguest topic bans on some editors if it comes to pass. And that I be allowed to see if Sitush's threat of gun violence which earned him whopping 24 hour block was directed at me as well as other editors, considering his overt hostility, crappy biography of me, the resultant ANI brought by an Admin, not me. He rev'd up the heat to force this ANI so everything he said needs to be scrutinized and not redacted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

TwoKindsofPork: The GGTF discussions allowed lots of editors finally to see SPECIFICO's constant, and Sitush's intermittent but nasty, year plus long harassment of me. That's one of the things that originally led to this request. Other people brought the ANIs that led to the interaction ban against SPECIFOC, Sitush's resultant acting out with the biography, and the Sitush interaction ban still at ANI. You want me punished for that, and the whole GGTF for not sitting quietly and taking several editors abuse. Just that simple. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)