From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk)

Case clerks: Ks0stm ( Talk) & Penwhale ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned ( Talk) & GorillaWarfare ( Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes


The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Lightbreather

Past conduct of Eric Corbett

It is clear from his block log, first as Malleus Fatuorum [1] and then as Eric Corbett, [2] that Eric has little or no respect for civility policies. The arbcom "Civility enforcement" case that closed February 2012 proposed these findings of fact: [3] [4] [5], including his being banned from RFA discussions. [6]

Recent conduct of Eric corbett

His conduct since July 24, 2014, makes clear that his opinion about the WP civility policy is unchanged and that his opinion of WP:GGTF is that it is, in a word, bad, and overrun with editors with a "feminist agenda." It is also clear that his participation in GGTF discussions is meant to disrupt, mostly through baiting and comments that some interpret as personal attacks.

24-29 July 2014 at WT:AN, GGTF, Jimbo Wales' talk page, ANI
  • [7] Lightbreather asked: "Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make [civility] a unique noticeboard area?"
  • [8] Eric Corbett replied: [The] easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. Baiting at least. Others agreed that it was a personal attack.
  • [9] Lightbreather joined GGTF.
  • [10] Scalhotrod joined GGTF.
  • [11] Lightbreather complained and [12] quit.
  • [13] During related discussion on Jimbo's talk page, Eric asked Saffron Blaze if they were "hiding behind the door when God handed out brains." [14]
  • [15] Eric was blocked by BrownHairedGirl for 72 hours. (DangerousPanda unblocked him.)
1 August - 17 September 2014 at GGTF (87 edits by Eric over nine discussions)
Civility board [16] OP SlimVirgin 27 July 2014 notified GGTF about the civility board discussion at AN.
  • 1 August [17] many of those complaining about incivility seem to feel that actually writing content is a menial job for those lesser beings they want to police
94% of wiki users female [18] OP Rich Farmbrough 26 August 2014.
Re "On average, males and females have different interests" [25] OP Anne Delong 28 August 2014.
Back to Hatting vs. closing vs. immediate archiving [37] OP Carolmooredc 29 August 2014.
Active nomination of women for administrators [39] OP LawrencePrincipe 31 August 2014.
ANI on “disruption of Wikiproject” [50] OP Carolmooredc 4 September 2014.
Effect of 16/84 ratio [55] OP Eric Corbett 4 September 2014.
  • [56] Nothing would be different (about WP's content if its editors were 50% women rather than 16%).
  • [57] The gender gap is just the current fad
  • [58] I really couldn't care less whether or not more women are recruited. I'm here because I think that too many of you have got your heads up your proverbial arses, attacking windmills that are simply mirages.
  • [59] I'm tired and I'm fed up with these repeated accusations that I'm some kind of monster misogynist. Can you can find any evidence at all to support the accusation that I hate all women? (No one said or suggested that.)
  • [60] Why should I be expected to leave lies alone? (In response to q: If you don't believe in [this task force], can't you just leave it alone?
  • [61] Frankly I think I'm one of the few here who's actually not seeing everything through the prism of some feminist agenda.
An idea... [62] OP Knowledgekid87 4 September 2014.
Notice of relevant discussion elsewhere [66] OP Carolmooredc 16 September 2014.

Evidence presented by Two kinds of pork ( talk · contribs)

General issues at the GGTF

Some at the GGTF intend to treat the project as a "safe space". This was neatly summarized [71] by Nikkimaria within she quotes "Every space where feminist theory and issues are discussed must be a “safe” one" [which is to say a conformist one]. Do some participants at the GGTF feel this way? Slim Virgin, who started the group gives this impression [72] [73] [74]. Neotarf's comments that the GGTF belongs to "the women" echos this [75] [76]. Carolmooredc agrees, and gives advice how men ought to behave [77].

Some proposals at GGTF promote stereotypes, e.g "...pages need improvement so the language is clearer and less unnecessarily technical" which imply women can't "do" technology, or the visual design of Wikipedia contributes to the GG. Editors of both genders have objected to these stereotypes [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]

Background of my involvement

My involvement with the GGTF began when Carol filed a notice at RSN. At issue was the use of Transadvocate.com (TA) as a RS. Curiosity about the source led me to examine the contribution history of both which led me to the GGTF.

Note: My username has never been an issue except for those involved with GGTF who attack me in ad-hominen fashion. My usernname comes from a play on Chinese menu items, not intercourse . "Makin' Bacon" a phrase heard throughout kitchens across the English speaking world is harmless. Indeed, the image search provided by Carol shows a game called "Makin' Bacon" (ages 8-adult). Neither Neotarf nor Carolmooredc (whom didn't make an issue until she filed her evidence) bothered to use any of the methods described at WP:BADNAME.

Carolmooredc has been a divisive personality

My first comment to the GGTF was to a section titled "Affirmative action program" [83] discussing a policy where women would be protected from reversions and that protection would serve "as a carrot [for women to participate at Wikipedia]". I stated my disbelief (perhaps too forcefully) that this was even being considered [84]. At the time, I had no idea that the proposal had actually been implemented and removed from the project page. There was no mention of this on the talk page. I became further alarmed when Carol claimed to use the existence of the GG as a bludgeon to try and "win" disputes [85] [86] [87] [88].

Anyone that makes proposals that are likely to be considered controversial, such as mandatory sensitivity training should expect their proposal to be critiqued. Carol is not exempt from this expectation. However she is prone to raise a hue with claims of personal attacks, disruption and "nitpicking" when dissenting opinion is offered [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]. On more than one occasion she makes ad-hominem gender based attacks on other editors [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]. Sometimes she makes a claim [105], which may be a valid claim, but when asked to provide evidence or solutions [106], she gets defensive and accuses others of disruption [107] and/or says she will produce evidence later [108]. This "later" turns out to be a list including blogs and essays. However pointing to a specific source for the claim in question is more helpful instead of making comments about "spoonfeeding". She equates of opinion to women being attacked [109] [110] [111] [112]. When an edit was deleted from public view, despite not having seen the diff (and after several admins said there was no threat) she made several comments about fearing for her personal safety [113] [114] [115] [116]. Others concluded that she purposely misread the misread the situation in order to claim victimization [117] [118].

Several ANI sections (at least one which was canvassed) were filed, as an attempt to silence those asking questions. I urge the arbitrators to read the self-serving diffs [119] she presented. Her analysis is full of half-truths and misrepresentations . As an example, I misread systemic bias to be systematic bias which Carol used in a mud-flinging-see-what-sticks ANI filing as a diff [120]. Remember, I only came to this page because I was following up a dubious RS claim -- only a conspiracy theorist would claim bias at Wikipedia is systematic. From this diff [121] Evergreenfir obviously knew I misread the word. I apologized for the confusion [122]. No doubt Carol saw this exchange, but chose to intentionally ignore it so as to use the Mondegreen as ammunition. Recently she admitted her ANI filing contained errors [123]. When did she realize these errors, which not surprisingly benefited her position existed and why did she not make corrections until on the eve of arbitration?

Carol repeatedly [124] [125] [126] claims that others don't support closing the GG. These claims continue about me after I specifically stated my support [127] [128] [129] [130]..

Instead of issuing a "mea cupla" when she's proven incorrect or someone challenges her on a personal attack she made, she backs away by claiming she was joking or under stress [131] [132]

I made two proposals to the GGTF. One was to pay secondary aged girls in the Philippines to edit. Unbeknownst to me a similar similar proposal was actually enacted by the WMF in 2011 (with negative results). Carol questioned my sincerity [133]. The second was to communicate with Wales and the WMF to see what they were doing to close the GG. Now she calls the suggestion "mocking" however she didn't have a problem with it at the time [134].

Based on zero evidence, Carol engaged in rumor mongering [135] about the marital status of her opponents.

Carol canvassed wikimedia mailing lists [136] [137]

Neotarf has made unfounded accusations and personal attacks

Several editors have opined that Neotarf has exhibited passive-aggressive behavior [138] [139] [140]. An analysis of the last 3 months of edits by Neotarf both in and outside of the GGTF area supports this position:

  • Egregious personal attack [149]. Despite calls for diffs, none were provided nor the attack struck.
  • Pattern of treating the GGTF as a "safe place" [150] [151] [152]
  • Despite championing civility, Neotarf via edit summary tells a user to "GFY" [153] then has the audacity to claim that "GFY" doesn't mean "go fuck yourself" [154]
  • Neotarf plays the Godwin card and compares me to a Nazi troll [155].
  • Forgery accusation [156]
  • Unsubstantiated claims of doxxing [157]

Evidence presented by Carolmooredc

This is a timeline of four editors’ editing disruptively related to GGTF. As will be evidenced, several editors questioned these editors' motives and actions. In his original filing User:Robert McClenon identified me as the target of hostility [158], though some want to scapegoat me for all problems. I believe Arbitrator’s goal should be preventing further disruption of GGTF by any editors acting in bad faith, not punish those of us who found it frustrating, and disheartening to Wikipedia editing in general.

Timeline of disruptions

WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force (GGTF) is related to the Wikimedia Foundation Gender Gap project. Some participants are on the strictly moderated Gender Gap email list, conducted in English.

  • July 24: Lightbreather initiates WP:AN question on a “Civility board”. User:Eric Corbett replies to her writing Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. [161]. Sitush wrote to a GGTF participant upset about Corbett's comment: I'm sure that the families of Twatt, Orkney will be impressed. Especially those whose spelling is poor ;) [162] Corbett also wrote re: WP:DICK someone should try writing the equivalent WP:CUNT if gender equality really is the goal, which I doubt. [163] At this thread Sitush and User:BrownHairedGirl argue over use of “cunt” [164] [165] [166], his disruption of GGTF mentioned [167]. During this period Corbett criticized "strident feminists" running riot [168] and Lighbreather's "prissy militant feminist friends". [169]) July 27 SlimVirgin links to "Civility Board" thread from GGTF page. [170]
  • July-August: SPECIFICO had been wikihounding me for over a year (see September Iban ANI). He comes to GGTF and many SPECIFICO GGTF edits were directed at me. Sitush enters and both badmouth me. [175] [176] User:The Vintage Feminist [177] and User:Elaqueate [178] criticize them. I informed GGTF of the harassment problem. [179] Lightbreather writes “Sitush and Specifico, you're not adding anything constructive to this page.” [180] SlimVirgin posts messages to “appeal to people who may have arrived for reasons other than the stated purpose of the page” [181], discussing a possible trip to ArbCom [182], and wondering if “MRM people are causing a problem here.” [183].
  • August 1: Given Corbett's history, well-known to Arbitrators and several GGTF participants, skepticism of his good faith was only natural. On first posting, Corbett immediately wrangles with User:Gandydancer. [184]. (See Corbett's GGTF edits.)
  • August 27: Corbett uses "bollocks" as insult. [208] Elequate and Corbett wrangle over it. [209] [210] [211]. EvergreenFir warns Corbett about "incivility and personal attacks." [212]
  • August 28: TKOP proposes the Foundation pay "high school aged girls in the Philippines" to edit to close the numerical gap. [213] [214]
  • August 28: SlimVirgin asks SPECIFICO to "cut Carol slack" [215], later to keep the page friendly [216], and finally suggesting "staying away from Carol's posts". [217] September 3 SPECIFCO tells me "please consider departing the Project". [218]
  • August 28: User:Anne Delong's new thread states if “incivility, complicated formatting, belittling of some topics as trivial, or whatever other barriers come up” is deterring editors, we need improvement. SPECIFICO/Corbett/TKOP demand evidence. EvergreenFir mentions "clear personal attacks and derailment in these discussions." [219] Elaqueate says Corbett is "needlessly personal and belligerent". [220] Neotarf writes: "This project seems to be dominated by men who are hostile to it." [221] I mention possibile project bans. [222]
  • September 8: Robert McClenon submits GGTF Arbitration request naming Corbett, TKOP and SPECIFICO as being disruptive, noting SPECIFICO’s hostility towards me. [226]
  • September 11: Administrator Scottywong blocks TKOP for "disruptive editing" at GGTF. [233] September 13 TKOP writes to "semi-retired" Scottywong: "My first reaction was to tell you to remove the "semi" from in front of your name, or go step in front of one. But I'm over that now. look both ways when crossing the street please." [234] Scottywong on "threat": [235] (Weeks later TKOP tries to shut down a civility-related thread. [236] [237] VintageFeminist brings it back. [238])

Other editors' battleground attitudes

* User:J3Mrs Her five edits at GGTF, and elsewhere regarding GGTF issues and editors (see list), are deprecating or hostile. From Manchester, England, like Corbett, she is extremely supportive of him [247]; she's posted to his talk page hundreds of times. [248] So per WP:COI I queried her on her talk page about a rumor that seemed credible they are married. [249] (Apologies! They're not!!)

  • User:Sitush has stated opposition to GGTF. [273] [274] [275] Some diffs indicate Sitush blames Sue Gardner’s gender gap "initiative" for bringing unwanted “newbie” (i.e., women) editors into Wikipedia. This especially [276], and perhaps these. [277]
Since 2013 Sitush repeatedly bad mouths me at my talk page [278] [279] [280] [281] (including after I banned him, details here); his talk page [282], other user talk pages [283] [284] [285] [286] and elsewheres. [287] [288] [289] Seven of Sitush’s 10 edits at GGTF were directed at me. [290]
During the SPECIFICO Wikihounding ANI Sitush writes he “might have to start following her around” [291], says “do some research on her” [292], and ruminates on outing me: "I do wish I could demonstrate it here without outing you."] [293] Then he mentions my long-ago mentioned website and hints at using it for future harassment, i.e., "dredging up of personal information" against policy. [294] (Clarify per TParis evidence below.)
SPECIFICO ANI concludes with an Interaction ban at 13:31 EST, 09/15/14. Hours later Scottywong tells Sitush to stop reverting my talk page edits. [295] Sitush, who already stated he wants me site banned [296], announces he's analyzing my website [297] and then creates the now-deleted biography of me. Six talk page threads largely criticize the biography. User:Bishonen advises him to delete it. [298]
When he refuses she starts Interaction ban ANI. There he admits he wants Arbitration against me [299] as he does in his GGTF Arbitration statement. [300]
At redacted 13:17, 9/16/14? edit Sitush outs his identity - in defense of outing? User:TParis tries for voluntary interaction ban between us here and here which is never finalized; Sitush's edit summary reads "no taking it, TParis" [301]
Sitush receives an "indefinite block" for "threats of violence" [302]. He doesn't ask for an unblock but was unblocked 19 hours later [303] leading to this ANI. There the threat was described as being "gun-barrell" related [304] and Sitush has not denied it. whose actual text and targets remains redacted and unknown to non-admins. (Some concerning speculation here: [305] [306] [307]) Alleged threats against Sitush [308] [309] are not an excuse. The episode is more evidence of his aggressive and upsetting battleground attitude. Will GGTF participants who lost their tempers at chronic bad faith harassment and battleground behavior get greater sanctions than 19 hour blocks?

Evidence presented by User:Carrite

I'm sorry to see stones being cast by the usual suspects...

This is about identity politics and battleground behavior.

(1) The root of the problem is identity politics and battleground behavior, shared by both sides but prompted in the first instance by GGTF itself. Slim Virgin notes she set up the task force exclusively with women in mind: "I hoped women could use it to discuss the gender gap." [310]

(2) Obiwankenobi immediately called her on this, noting "Slim, your continued referencing of 'women' is unhelpful. You can have off-wiki women-only mailing lists if you like, but especially in a place where many editors don't even declare their gender, attempting to suggest that a space or project or collaboration is primarily for women goes against the aims of the project, and suggests that men can't be part of the solution, it's exclusionary, and I'd suggest you check your language on that point." [311]

Everything else flows from this basic problem.

Both sides have engaged in combative behavior

For ease of reference:

Edits by Carolmooredc to GGTF:Talk are HERE.

Edits by Lightbreather to GGTF:Talk are HERE.

In my opinion both of these need to be topic-banned from the GGTF project as provocateurs. The behavior of both is already well familiar to ArbCom from other cases and should be taken into consideration, just as the behavior of Tarc in a previous case was taken into account as part of the "Edits of Banned Editors" case. I'm sure sanctions will be appropriately levied on a couple of people who trolled the project from the other side as well.

Carrite ( talk) 19:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Johnuniq

Carolmooredc makes inappropriate comments without seeking to understand underlying issues

  • Jimbo's talk: see one screen above this permalink

    Background: Some IAC abusers had made false accusations at ANI.

    • Carolmooredc: "Moreover, unless I missed something, Sitush seems confused about being accused of uploading kiddie porn" 02:01, 3 August 2014

      [a comment unrelated to the thread and which falsely associated Sitush with child pornography]

    • Carolmooredc: "My post made the point amply clear that it was not an accusation against him ... Thus he misunderstood" 02:41, 3 August 2014

      [a blatantly incorrect statement as shown by the comment that this replies to]

    • Carolmooredc: "And not to scare other editors that in the future someone can make such false accusations that can hurt them" 04:01, 3 August 2014

      [rather than apologize for mistake, suggest that Sitush was at fault]

  • Evidence talk ( permalink)

    Background: The WP:India Education Program (IEP) caused massive problems at enwiki ( Signpost), and an editor replied to Carolmooredc to say that part of her evidence regarding Sitush's comments on the IEP was based on a misunderstanding that confused IEP with the Gender gap project in India. Rather than ask what was meant so any problems in the evidence could be fixed, a quick and dismissive comment was posted.

    • Carolmooredc: "I don't think Arbitrators are going to be reading you opinions and opinions aren't relevant to evidence" 23:38, 14 October 2014
  • At the Workshop, Carolmooredc performed an analysis of my above evidence. Typos are trivial, but there appears to be a fundamental problem that prevents Carolmooredc taking the time to engage with an issue and understand the point, even for something as minor as spelling. The following timeline shows the varieties of my user name:

Evidence presented by Drmies

Note: just two brief comments, for now.

Accusations about Eric Corbett

I do not claim to support all of Eric's statements diffed here, but Lightbreather's diffs in the "94% of wiki users female" section, above, are not evidence of disruptions. Eric is arguing, with his usual vehemence but within civil bounds, that given the lack of evidence about readership and participation we should be very wary about drawing broad conclusions. Drmies ( talk) 14:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I see how easy it is: simply post a list of diffs. User:Robert McClenon, below, posts a list of supposed infractions by Eric, and starts with this one--someone please find me the incivility there. That's the first one--I see no reason to look further on down the list. Drmies ( talk) 18:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments on statements by Carolmooredc

  1. Carolmooredc, in her section "User:J3Mrs Her five edits at GGTF", attempts to prove J3Mrs is disruptive. The last diff in that section leads to a talk page conversation initiated by Carolmooredc on JrMrs's talk page, and contains some of the most disruptive material I've seen in a long day: Carolmooredc queries whether J3Mrs is married to Eric Corbett, which is incredibly inappropriate and showing an utmost lack of good faith and decency (at long last). If someone says, as Carolmooredc does in that section, "I had this thing [the marriage question] in the back of my mind for several weeks", they need to be doing something else than working here. The following comment, "If I see it again I will forcefully debunk it!", is only evidence of an attempt to sneak out rhetorically, as if she saw those claims elsewhere and will now be an agent to counter them--the claims were hers. And does Carolmooredc realize how sexist those claims are? As if, if J3Mrs were in fact married to Eric Corbett, she would be unable to make up her own mind? I could go on--but really, I find that thread alone reason enough for censure. Carolmooredc should have been warned, perhaps blocked, and the question on J3Mrs's talk page stricken immediately. For the record, I am not married to EC, or to Carolmooredc, or to J3Mrs. My engagement to Sitush was broken up: he was too British for my taste.
  2. The section starting "User:Sitush has stated opposition to GGTF", the claim that "Some diffs indicate Sitush blames Sue Gardner’s gender gap "initiative" for bringing unwanted “newbie” (i.e., women) editors into Wikipedia" is patently false, as anyone can see who clicks on the diffs. Sitush may blame Gardner for the original India project fiasco (and I was there when those boxes and boxes of paper symbolizing "new content" were triumphantly paraded on a stage), but he does not draw the (ridiculous) connection Carolmooredc says he draws.
  3. To put the Sitush issue to rest: in that same section she draws attention to many of the unpleasant interactions between the two of them. Whoever was right or wrong there about which statement in which forum is for the historians; what should interest ArbCom is that the problems here were a. not a one-way street and b. completely unrelated to the GGTF. Sitush's beef was with Carolmooredc as an editor, not with her as a member of some task force or other.

Evidence presented by User:Robert McClenon

Evidence originally provided by User:EvergreenFir at WP:ANI

  • I am happy to see that this issue has finally be brought up. The talk page on WP:GGTF has been particularly plagued by polemic and disruptive comments by some editors. Of particular concern to me is Eric Corbett who has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and general FORUM behavior. While no single edit was particularly egregious, their sum shows a pattern of incivility, disrespect, and disruptive behavior as well as the edit summaries. While he did relent a bit after I gave him a warning ( [312]) (which he dismissed as "nonsense") and the resulting "conversation" on my user talk page, his actions continued. Eric appears to have a history of personal attacks judging by his extensive block log.
FORUM behavior and incivility
[313]
[314]
[315]
[316]
[317]
[318] ("feminist bluster")
[319] (see edit summary as well)
[320] (always has to have the last word)
[321]
[322]
[323] ("anti male editors")
[324] (forum)
[325] (commenting on other editors)
[326] (forum) (Personal attack)
[327] (thinly veiled comment to Carol)
[328] ("launching a crusade the primary purpose of which appears to be to alienate every male editor by imposing a series of affirmative actions")
[329] (Accusing project of "hyperbolic rhetoric")

Striking the above comments except one because, while they were using the talk page as a forum, the Gender Gap Task Force, unlike most pages, has the nature of a forum. They do show hostility by EC to the concept of a GGTF, but he is entitled to his opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Personal attacks and harassment toward Carolmooredc and others
[330]
[331]
[332]
[333]
[334]
[335]

Uncivil comments that are not personal attacks struck. The personal attacks are sufficient. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Evidence originally provided by User:Carolmooredc at WP:ANI

Eric Corbett

  • Corbett’s views against civility policy were a major topic at this ANI complaint and this Wales talk page. Here Corbett states: "The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars". He obviously dislikes the GGTF's interest in promoting more civility.
  • On Wales talk page Corbett opines there are no problems existing regarding gender gap issues [336], [337]. On his own talk page he opposes allowing "..strident feminists to run riot.." [338] and criticizes someone's alleged "prissy militant feminist friends". [339]

Striking uncivil comments that are not personal attacks. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments using talk page as forum struck because talk page was forum (right or wrong). Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Two kinds of pork

Original proposal had been asinine. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Later at this diff he wonders if systemic bias exists - in a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. reply

Bad jokes by TKOP left standing. On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic, so that sarcasm in serious controversial topics is disruptive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Evidence originally provided by User:Nyth83 at User talk: Jimbo Wales

Personal attacks and incivility by Eric Corbett, not necessarily related to GGTF

I'm late to this argument but I don't see Jimbo abusing people like this Eric person. Took a look through his user contribution page since 1 July and noted the following:

Have you got nothing better to do? Why not try writing an article yourself? Or what about taking a long walk off a short pier?
Let's face the facts. You're an incompetent editor determined for whatever reason to add unnecessary clutter to an article that you couldn't have written even in your dreams. Do you understand now?
Well think again.
That might be a first. Have you ever significantly improved anything?
When did you start reasoning?
I appear to have overestimated you Alfie; obviously you can't read.
Who cares what the article says? Haven't you got anything better to do?
Only in your rather ill-informed opinion.
I'm annoyed that you're wasting my time.
Bloodofox is even more incompetent than you are, so his displeasure is of no consequence to me, or I dare say Sagaciousphil either.
Unlike you I do not consider myself to be a superior source to the OED
It's you that's simple.
You really are a tedious twat.
I learned years ago that arguing with a fool make you the greater fool.

Comment by myself regarding the above "evidence" with respect to the formum rule: Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning.
  1. My original intention with above list (which was reposted here without my knowledge) was to show how easy it was to find "diffs" as the above list only took about 10 minutes to compile and only tends to show that perhaps that Mr. Corbett is rather a rude person but certainly not a misogynist.
  2. I am willing to give Mr. Corbett the benefit of the doubt and in the penultimate item in the list he actually meant the word twit and not the more vulgar twat.
Nyth83 ( talk) 13:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by MONGO

Of course we have heard and most agree that good content doesn't substitute for repeat instances of incivility. However, writing an encyclopedia is why we are here and few do better at that than Eric Corbett. Corbett has nearly 50 Featured Articles as evidenced at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations and that doesn't even tell us how many times he has been an active participant in the Featured Article Candidates nominations pages, where he is assisting others get their articles to featured level. Corbett also has at least 30 Good Articles and like the FAC process, is active there as well assisting others, and at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles it says that while he used his previous username of Malleus Fatuorum he reviewed 423 Good Articles....423. I don't know if that includes his efforts there as Eric Corbett as well but that's a lot of good work....for no pay...Corbett is fourth among GAN reviewers and is tenth in currently successful FAC nominations. I've written a few FA's myself and its a lot of work... for no pay. Let's not forget the good Corbett has done for this website.-- MONGO 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply


Evidence presented by J3Mrs

Carolmooredc shows absolutely no awareness of her tendentious editing and batteground mentality

I wasn't going to say anything but I can't believe that Carolmooredc has referred to the malicious rumour [340] she started on my talk page. That rumour could be more damaging, not only to me, than any intemperate language. The whole thread is full of her typical sweeping assumptions, inability to drop the stick, seeing disagreement as disruption and she even alleged a "gun threat" was made towards her. Incredible. J3Mrs ( talk) 07:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Robert McLenon appears unwilling to share his own view but acts as a mouthpiece for others.

Robert McLenon who instigated this "trial" with the blessing of Jimmy Wales, [341] and the subsequent drama that has ensued, although he thinks he didn't, [342] spends his time collecting diffs from other places and pasting them here. I don't know whether he considers the arbitrators incapable of forming their own opinions or whether he sees himself as a self-appointed judge and jury, but he spends an inordinate amount time policing behaviour and telling others how to behave. This sort of behaviour is not helpful in creating an encyclopedia.

Evidence presented by Sitush

Sorry that this is a bit of a mess: limited resources to research diffs etc and there are far too many points to make. Am hoping the arbs are reviewing the evidence talk page also for background purposes.

Example of tendentious commentary/fallacious assumption

Despite this and this and this, Carolmooredc continues to revisit her wild assumptions and conspiracy theories. On just one theme, for example, she acknowledges there was no threat of violence against her (and seems to think there is a cabal of "Indian Manchester" editors) in this thread, yet hours later was again pointing to it, and here, here, here, here, particularly bizarrely here and here. There are others after this and at one point (not found the diff yet), she said that the threat was against members of the Greater Manchester Wikiproject. Even in this case, and after this comment about correct process from me at WP:AN (a thread in which she later participated), she has continued to raise this erroneous and inconsistently applied assumption. She could have nailed it on the very day the event occurred instead of getting herself into a tizz (just ask an admin whether the threat referred to her), but of course that would have massively lessened the drama. She did say she would "pursue other means" to check but seemingly didn't.

Misunderstandings, lack of AGF, and personalising issues

Among the other Carolmooredc behavioural problems evidenced recently and mostly in connection with GGTF, this reference to the Indian Gender Gap project comes out of nowhere, while this is just one instance where she struggles to AGF even in the most evident circumstances (I think she struck it later, but her numerous strikings/modifications/belated insertions etc just make life more complicated for everyone, hence my discussion with Scottywong that she refers to in her evidence). Her frequent references to her being a woman and that fact (in her opinion) being the cause of people disagreeing with her is also something of a broken record, and has led to very odd situations such as this regarding the possibility of Montanabw being male.

There is a net negative here. The problems of poor comprehension, bizarre assumptions, lack of good faith, sense of martyrdom, intent on involvement in polarising areas, drama seeking and general tendentiousness, all leading to a battleground mentality, has gone on for years now. I intend to stick to my statement (linked above) of not referring to her outside very specific circumstances, of which this case is one, but I seriously question her competence and purpose here. She is bringing her past off-wiki activism on to the wiki, as with the earlier Mises Institute case, and is trying to stifle anyone who disagrees with her, often by repeatedly stating poor assumptions and failing to AGF. - Sitush ( talk) 18:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Struck the last paragraph. It is opinion, not evidence. Oen for the workshop phase, really. - Sitush ( talk) 20:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by EvergreenFir

I have little to add beyond what has already been copy-pasted from my previous comments. My thanks to Robert McClenon for that. My only other comment is that Eric Corbett's behavior in GGTF is but a part of a larger pattern of egregious behavior that is (1) blatantly repeatedly uncivil and (2) above any community recourse as seen in this ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 05:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Feyd Huxtable

Evidence Carolmooredc is here to build an encyclopedia, as requested by Cas

Im against sanctions for any party here, but only posting for Carol as 1) She is the only one I've interacted with significantly these last few years, 2) the evidence about her seems a little unbalanced, 3) Unlike Eric she might not have a well known reputation for quality contributions.

Carol arrived at Lord Keynes's talk page with a suggestion I initially disagreed with. She took not the slightest offense, and instead produced some good sources that supported her position. which she later took the time to add to the article. She also pointed out an issue with a caption that might have been confusing readers, and weighed in on another issue where she favored what could be seen as the mainstream / socially conservative presentation. All her other Keynes related posts looked good too. I especially appreciated how pleasant Carol was to collaborate with, especially as I'd initially disagreed with her, and while I hope my article work is neutral, she'd only have had to look at my user page to see I have mostly opposite biases.

So going on admittedly limited interaction, Carol is an editor who interacts peacefully and politely with those of opposing views, puts encyclopedic neutrality ahead of personal bias, and is all about building an encyclopedia.

Evidence presented by Iridescent

Carolmooredc repeatedly makes untrue claims

No comment on the rights or wrongs of anyone else's conduct here, but Carolmooredc has repeatedly made untrue claims about others involved in this case ( "Sitush has hounded me to mostly administrative situations to trash me for a) not doing everything he's told me I should or should not do and b) not keeping my editing to knitting or whatever it is he thinks well behaved females should be allowed to edit.", this bizarre exchange in which CMDC initially denies making a comment, and when confronted with proof by Sitush says "I guess everyone on Wikipedia will hear through the grapevine now that Sitush is a Snitch", (admin only), "There's a reference/rumor/joke I saw on someone's talk page last week related to your being Eric's wife", "I assume (per my evidence) that's the info Sitush was after", "While I initially did not think Sitush "gun barrell" threat was addressed at me, others soon pointed out evidence it might have been and that I should investigate further"). On what are arguably the two most egregious examples, she has claimed to be relaying information from unspecified "others", but has refused to say who has provided her with this supposed information. (Both the "wife" and the "gun threat" claims are demonstrably untrue.) In light of this, she is either (1) acting in good faith, but being played by someone intentionally feeding her false information, and subsequently trying to protect this person's identity; (2) intentionally lying, and has fabricated the "people who told her" in an effort to deflect attention, or (3) is a fantasist who genuinely believes she has received this information but it is actually the product of her imagination. In the case of (1) or (2) she is intentionally disrupting this RFAR process for the sake of personal advantage; in the case of (3) she is demonstrating a willingness to fabricate sources and Wikipedia is possibly not an appropriate environment for her.

On the term "Task force"

One of the things which has been raised by both sides (e.g. here and here) are issues relating to the term " task force" and its implications. I think this is a genuine cultural misunderstanding; in US English "task force" denotes a group of people tasked with a particular project, while in British English it has no other meaning than as a military group tasked to destroy or capture a specific objective (even now, 30 years on, "the task force" without qualifiers invariably refers to the naval attack on Argentine shipping prior to the recapture of the Falklands), and a non-military company or organisation using the term to refer to a group of their staff or members would be looked at very askance.


Evidence presented by Patrol forty

(Edited to meet the 500 word limit. For the prior version, see here)

Eric Corbett's use of the C-word

In the last 6 months, Eric has twice used the C-Word in way that is unambiguously intended at a direct personal insult [343] [344].

His position on its use lacks credibility

In America at least, the C-Word is widely recognised as being a slur on women, and a woman neither has to be the target or even present, for that to still be the case.

As late as today, despite this being pointed out to him repeatedly ( example from a few days ago), Eric is still asking the question, "Where have I ever issued any slurs against women?" [345]

Tolerance of his use of it undermines WP:NPA

In any variety of English, the C-word is ranked as one of the most offensive insults you can use toward another person, male or female.

The sanctions Eric has received do not reflect his repeated, deliberate, and totally unapologetic deployment of it as a targeted insult.

Attempts to discuss his usage are often misdirected

As a Brit living in a working class northern city, I can attest that while the C-word is used liberally in many situations in the UK without causing offence, context matters. None of those contexts apply to an environment like Wikipedia.

Users frequently divert attention away from Eric's use of the word by referring to these non-Wikipedia contexts. Eric's usage is neither Brit-style banter as Dr Blofeld suggests [346], nor would it ever be received in the way Giano suggests [347] (and the misogyny of his comment was not lost on people either).

Eric Corbett's disruption of the GGTF

The gender gap is a real phenomena, and has real consequences [348]

The GGTF is a centralised location where interested editors can co-ordinate efforts to close the gender gap (GGTF front page).

Between 1 Aug and 12 Oct 2014, Eric made 88 edits to Talk:GGTF [349]

Approximately 2/3 had absolutely no relevance to the GGTF at all, and were simply general bickering or insults (some quite serious and personal), repeated accusations of misconduct in others, and some general complaining about his own personal situation on Wikipedia. I found no evidence that any one of the accusations of misconduct were followed up by Eric through official channels.

All of the remaining 1/3 edits [350] [351] [352] [353] [354] [355] [356] [357] [358] [359] [360] [361] [362] [363] [364] [365] [366] [367] [368] [369] [370] [371] [372] [373] [374] [375] [376] [377] [378] [379] can be classified as one or more of the following:

  • Questioning whether there even is a gender gap
  • Questioning whether a gender gap is bad for Wikipedia
  • Questioning the quality of the research on the gender gap
  • Questioning the conclusions of the research on the gender gap based on his own personal experiences or other anecdotal evidence

Every single one of them is combative in tone (some overtly hostile), most are repetitive of the same themes, and several ignored previous answers and simply repeat the same question again, either in an identical form or trivially re-framed. The vast majority fail to meet the dictionary definition of constructive criticism.

Evidence presented by RegentsPark

Carolmooredc's approach to the case is concerning

Not a comment on what's going on at GGTF nor one on who is good or bad but I must admit I'm completely flabbergasted by the way Carolmooredc has dealt with this arb case. For one, she seems to be obsessed with Sitush and has made numerous claims about him that are unsupported and don't stand up when scrutinized and that she then refuses to drop. Irididescent has listed many above but here are a few I've gathered. The threats thing and the biography thing [380], [381]. Then there is the lack of AGF about the threats against Sitush with the repeated use of "alleged" even after the existence of these treats has been certified by other editors [382]. The repeated complaining about a gangup of Corbett and Sitush friends (I counted at least 4 mentions of Sitush or Corbett friends by her - there could be more) is - at best - symptomatic of a siege mentality and at worst an attempt to discredit evidence provided by other editors. Finally, there is stuff like this, implying that 'Corbett and his friends' defend 'slurs against women' with no diffs to back up that assertion. All this gives the appearance of "throw lots of mud and hope some of it sticks".

GGTF

I won't pretend to understand what the nature of this arbitration is because I don't. For one thing, the case is nominally about disruption in the GGTF but the evidence presented is all over the place and barely refers to that task force. A second point of confusion is the nature of the GGTF itself. Is it a 'for women' only task force (which apparently is one view) or is it open to all (another view)? If the former, are the members confirming their gender with the foundation or do we AGF on gender self-identification (as we've seen before can we really rely on gender self identification?). Do we have hard evidence on gender imbalances? Does the task force have some science behind whatever it does or is it going to address the imbalance using the layperson consensus approach? I realize that these issues are probably outside the remit of arbcom but all this is very puzzling and the lack of clarity regarding GGTF seems to be at the heart of whatever it is we're supposed to be doing on this page. -- regentspark ( comment) 17:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by TParis

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

No outing has occurred

I have seen outing mentioned once here before. To be clear, Carolmooredc outed herself in this deleted edit in 2006 by posting a link to her website. The article was eventually deleted for notability on 14 September 2009. For three years, Carol's identity remained publicly posted by her and was not deleted for privacy reasons. WP:Outing says "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." Carol neither redacted the information nor had it oversighted. She also does not make any reference to privacy in the AFD. The fact remains that Carol's self-published outing remained on Wikipedia for three years between 2006 and 2009.

I may post additional evidence throughout this Arb case to correct inaccuracies by others.

Evidence presented by Neotarf

This group's talk page somehow got on my watchlist for about a week before I got disgusted and removed it. I have never edited in this topic area, or been a member of this group.

Prequel

I had noticed this group earlier on Jimbo's talk page, and the following comments stood out:

John

[383] Anyone who feels this site is too rude or too male-dominated has the freedom to leave, or the freedom to fork.

Eric Corbett

[384] gender-based epithet (also in edit summary)

Dennis Brown

[385] Block rationale uses gender-specific insult

[386] linked to pornographic image of a woman

Hell in a Bucket

[387] gender-, sexual orientation-, and race-specific epithets, embellished with the f-word

Sitush

[388] Get a sense of humour. (comment on HIAB's epithets)

Into the GenderGap

I quickly noticed the page was totally unusable, walls of text, people who didn't like or didn't understand the project, some individuals who appeared to be men acting pushy and domineering, disruptive posts not being archived, or being repeatedly unarchived, and two or three women active on the page who seemed to know what to do, but were outnumbered by chaos.

Eric Corbett: (sample interactions)

[389] Do you ever actually work on articles, or do you consider that to be somehow beneath you?

[390] Why don't you just mind your own business?

Two kinds of pork

[391] ...do better the next time. Complains inappropriately about a proper notification, admonishes editor and tells them to go to a different project.

[392] I fail to see how this is relevant (argues with an editor who has delivered a notification to the talk page) I'll AGF and assume BoboMeowCat was a good kitty condescending remark to user

Crude comments about thighs and double entendre and douchebags.

Privacy issues in attempts to determine my gender on various talk pages [393] [394].

Personalized and sexualized invitations to me involving various parts of TKOP's anatomy. [395] (edit summary) [396]

Continuously played with the archiving of the GG talk pages so that disruptive edits do not stay archived. In fact, after being blocked for disruptive archiving, the first thing out of the block, went over and messed with the archiving again. And then the next day continued with the archiving disruptions. [397] [398] [399] [400] [401] (with an edit summary "quit stirring things up").

Tutelary

[402] Complains inappropriately about a proper notification


Sequelae

The disturbance has spread: users are subjected to an onslaught of crude language on a daily basis, a constant flow of profanity, gender-derogatory topics, pervasive abusive and sexually degrading language, and gender-specific epithets.

Eric Corbett

[403] (in response to an editor's request to help bring an article up to FA standards) I understand you to be a woman... therefore I can't possibly help; my misogyny simply wouldn't allow it. However This subsequent post suggests some difficulty with GG participants finding assistance with improving articles.

[404] gender-specific epithet

Blofeld

[405] gender-specific epithet

RexxS

[406] gender-specific epithet

Two kinds of pork

[407] gender-specific insult

HiLo48

[408] gender-specific insult (also in edit summary)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: criteria for choosing diffs loosely based on Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. [409]

Response to R Farmbrough "not a gender specific epithet"

It sure enough is a gender specific epithet:

Evidence presented by Rich Farmbrough

"Twat" is not a gender specific epithet

According to Wiktionary a twat(2) is (in UK and NZ English) "A contemptible and stupid person... sometimes affectionate". As a native UK English speaker I can confirm that as an epithet "twat" is used by males of males, just as "prat" is, and moreover is about as mild as you can get. Similar terms such as "plonker" and (now somewhat dated) rhyming slang "berk", despite a gendered etymology are also mild ungendered epithets. To appreciate how mild in the socio-linguistic context, it is worth noting that the UK Red Nose Day 1991, a television charity fundraiser largely based around family entertainment was billed as "The Stonker" which was then current slang for an erection, and hence by extension for anything "large".

Even further I fail to see how "gender specific" can be considered an aggravating factor - if indeed the concept is that using a term related to gender of the insultee is bad, as an attack on their gender, but a term related to another gender isn't, then "Carol's talking bollocks" isn't - and by the same token one must use "cowshit" when insulting the speech of males, and "bullshit" only to insult the speech of females.

Eric and Carol not necessarily disruptive

These editors do have a tendency to include extraneous matter in their responses. We all do that. The reason that they are noticed is because in Eric's case he tends to phrase things in a way that can be taken as personal ( "Carol's talking bollocks"), and in Carol's case she tends to leap off at a tangent with a broad brush negative connotations to a group of editors.

It is simply a question of not responding to the parts of their posts which are not germane to determining whether and how it is possible to achieve the goals of the task force. This should really be the standard modus operandi of any established Wikipedian, and, where it is widely observed, not only defangs conflict before it can begin, but leads to constructive contributions.

Feminist narrative not necessarily disruptive

Due to the nature of the Gender Gap Task Force there are a significant number of contributions versed and invested in feminist theory. Consequently posts such as:

And so forth - really do not matter. The things we need to do on that page are basically establish effective non-harmful methods to close the gender gap. People have proposed harmful methods (like vote-rigging AfDs about females, or vote-rigging RfAs for females) - these will not happen. Conversely people have proposed non-harmful methods about which we have yet to establish the effectiveness. Importantly (and often overlooked) methods to help female editors (to arrive, to stay, to be effective) often will be (as far as we know) equally effective for male editors, thus not addressing the "gap" per se but still being a Good Thing.

None of this is affected by ideology, long running enmities, grudges or robust language.

Censorship harmful

There have been several attempts to censor by ridicule, hatting and manual archiving. One that springs to mind is the proposal that GGTF should liaise with WMF. This is clearly a good idea. Attempts were made to close down this thread, and indeed the idea, perhaps one of the most simple and easiest to implement, was lost in a welter of bad faith.

Salvio involved party

Stunningly Salvio giuliano has had a party to the case add another party to the case. This is to all intents and purposes equivalent to Salvio being a plaintiff alongside Callenc. (If one prefers, it can be seen as an aggravated form of maintenance.)

Moreover Salvio is already involved in the dispute between Carol and Sitush as a Wikipedian.

It is egregious bad behaviour to be unrecused in this case. Arbitrators will know I consider it unethical for sitting Arbitrators to bring cases at all, but to be involved in bringing a case and to sit in judgement on it, is an unambiguous breach of ethics of the first water.

Responses

Neotarf

It is clear that the etymology is gendered (and that it is obscure to most people, as the OED states, for example, "3. U.S. dial. The buttocks. ") just as it is for "fanny" (also ungendered in the US - but gendered vulgar slang in the UK, unless used in the sense of "fanny about" which is merely slang) and "prat" (historically buttocks, but more recently vul. slang vagina).

However the derived term is not- even using your sources.

  1. Merriam Webster: British : a stupid or annoying person
  2. Online etymology: A general term of abuse since 1920s.
  3. Urban dictionary (really?): An offensive term for a person.
  4. Oxford : A term of vulgar abuse (or the more modern "Oxford Dictionaries" A person regarded as stupid or obnoxious."

The term rapidly becomes divorced from its etymological roots, as evidenced both by the US meaning of "fanny" and "prat" to mean buttocks, and also the use of these terms as both affectionate, and in family entertainment.

I find it amusing that the day before I posted my evidence here I was reading a feminist book entitled "Cunt: A Declaration of Independence" which disowns the word "vagina" based on its etymology "Vagina! I ain't got no vagina!".

It might be worth giving another example "git", which etymologically means "bastard" - in UK slang has general meaning of "an annoying or contemptible person" being slightly ruder than "twat" or "prat" - unless modified, for example "lucky git" would be a generally affectionate way of expressing both congratulations and envy. Similarly, and less obscured by generations of usage, when a colleague referred to me as "you brave bastard" he was in no way questioning my parentage, but giving an unabashed compliment. The key is context.

And specifically the examples of "twat" that are being cited are being used, are

  1. To Jimbo Wales, who in return made his State of the Wiki 2014 address about getting Eric blocked, as far as I can see.
  2. In discussion between Rexxs and Eric, who are both not only British, but from a part of the country where "twat" in particular might be considered an extremely mild term, and Dr Blofeld, who is also British, I believe.

In neither case is the term being used against females, making it even clearer that it is not a gendered epithet.

Evidence presented by isaacl

Wikipedia's consensus tradition can homogenize discussion

One of the issues raised by the arbitrators in accepting this case was how to balance constructive feedback in a discussion thread against disruption. This is a difficult problem given Wikipedia's tradition of consensus governing all aspects. A WikiProject or a task force is essentially a group of editors who have a self-declared common area of interest within Wikipedia. In a volunteer environment, any editor can choose to contribute towards any topic, and so there is no bar to entry for a WikiProject or task force. This has its strengths, such as providing a broader base for input and constructive feedback, as described by Salvio giuliano and Worm That Turned in their initial opinions. It also has its weaknesses: by definition, a WikiProject or task force's scope is whatever its participants decide it should be. Once a project group attracts the attention of a larger group of highly-opinionated editors, its focus can be dissipated into the perennial concerns of the larger group.

A case in point is WikiProject Editor Retention, which was created with the original intent of providing a place to co-ordinate discussion of issues and potential solutions related to improving the retention of editors. At present, its talk page is largely indistinguishable from that of a half-dozen others where editors air their grievances. By Wikipedia's consensus tradition, if that's what most editors would like to discuss, then they are free to proceed. This openness has the beneficial effect of avoiding a closed clubhouse group that excludes reasoned discussion from outsiders. But it also means the scope of any group is prone to drift towards the same set of common concerns that a large body of engaged editors like to discuss.

Consensus decision-making is problematic in a large group setting

When an entire group is strongly aligned in their goals, consensus decision-making can be effective in maintaining a unity of purpose. Unfortunately, as a group increases in size, it also becomes increasingly unlikely that all members will be strongly aligned. Consensus decision-making favours those who are less accommodating over those who are more accommodating, and so Wikipedia's discussion environment selects for less collegial editors over more collegial ones. Asking for proof with on-wiki diffs that it is the more collegial editors who are leaving is a catch-22: first, it would not be collegial to discuss someone else's lack of social graces; second, most people who stop posting to a web site just do so, without bothering to tell anyone about it.

In addition, the percentage of editors who weigh in on any discussion is a small percentage of the number of active editors on a whole. (As of January 2014, the top 4000 editors contribute 25% of all edits to Wikipedia (see File:Top Wikipedians compared to the rest of the community, 8 January 2014.svg), and 75% of the edits for the top 10,000 contributors (see File:Top Wikipedian editors, 8 January 2014.svg)). Thus Wikipedia's consensus model gives undue weight to the most activist editors.

Wikipedia's unmoderated discussions leads to overly-verbose, repetitive discussions

The lack of moderation in discussion threads and their multi-branching discussion format leads to a great deal of repetition and often overly-long statements. This reduces the effectiveness of discussion and works against building up a consensus from small agreements to larger ones. This effect is exacerbated when the participants have a diverse set of goals: an attempt to discuss one topic can easily be sidetracked by a larger group into another discussion area.

Evidence presented by SPECIFICO

Many editors have gathered pertinent observations and diffs here, so I need not post redundant citations. Instead I will offer some context which demonstrates that the dysfunctional behavior of Carolmooredc is not the result of circumstance or duress but is an incurable and intolerable disruption of every topic in which she participates on WP.

Despite a longstanding narrative in which she depicts herself as a defender of WP policy, pillars, and process, Carolmooredc has a history of ownership and battleground behavior.

Less than 11% of Carolmooredc's 2014 edits are to article pages. [410] [411] [412] Beginning line 333: [413] [414]

Despite her narrative to the contrary, Carolmooredc has a history of gender-related personal attacks and incivility.

After stalking newbie editor Steeletrap, a transgender female Ashkenazi Jew, Carolmooredc addresses Steeletrap with anti-Trans slurs: [415] [416] The victim attempted to mend fences here, only to be met with further attacks from Carolmooredc: [417] Three and six months later, Carol was continuing to make gender-based attacks and references to Steeletrap's religion: [418] [419] The context is the following BLP and gender threads in which she soapboxes her anti-male, anti-transsexual, and anti-Clinton agendas. [420] [421] [422] rebuked for posting a link to outing. A transgender editor whom she stalked and insulted brought this ANI. After she was rebuked at an ANI she initiated against SPECIFICO (referenced below) she posted anti-male gender-based text on her talk page (see the second link, "might get you") [423]

Carolmooredc is uncivil while claiming to be a defender of civility.

[424] [425]

Carolmooredc has pursued her off-wiki fringe political agenda on WP often in uncivil terms.

Here she relates her anti-male, anti-transsexual and other gender-related political agendas to her anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli POV. [426] [427] On her website, she boasts that she inserted her personal website's material in a Wikipedia article on Israel: [428] [429] [430]

Carolmooredc has advocated canvassing and use of ANI as a battleground

[431]

Carolmooredc fails to engage in discussion or respond to requests for evidence and diffs, but instead responds with personal attacks and accusations.

[432]

Carolmooredc has engaged in canvassing and soliciting meatpuppets on and off WP.

[433] [434] "It really would help if editors could come to the thread and tell us what they think about leaving all those disruptive posts up there." [435] "We also need a more coordinated fuss throughout Wikipedia..."

Carolmooredc stalks, denigrates, and accuses editors whom she dislikes.

Despite being told repeatedly to desist, she continues to smear Sitush on many pages. Here she is warned. She has stalked and falsely denigrated SPECIFICO for nearly two years. After the discussion on that ANI nearly resulted in a boomerang block for her, Carolmoore angrily posted gender-based polemics on her talk page (see above.)

Competence is Required

The root cause of the dysfunctional environment on GGTF is the participation and battleground, ownership attitude and incivility of Carolmooredc. She has freely shared her strident real-life activism, including her involvement with subjects of some WP articles she edits, and a link to her "biography page" on her personal website detailing her activism. She has stated that her real-world activism is winding down and that she now focuses her efforts on Wikipedia. She constantly denigrates and disparages other editors, claiming (perhaps in a projection of her own behavior) that they are here to promote a personal POV agenda: [436] Carolmooredc has a longstanding personal narrative depicting herself as a defender of Wikipedia who's burdened with staving off hordes of disruptive and destructive new editors. [437]. Her edit summaries and talk page comments are conspicuously replete with personal ruminations and first- and second-person remarks. She has proven herself unable to "discuss content not contributors". [438] She believes she is personally under siege at Wikipedia and that this justifies her Wikilawyering tactics" [439]. [440]. [441] A recurring tactic is to feign ignorance, error, or remorse when her behavior is challenged. Here, this tactic was exposed at ANI: [442] [443] She believes that she is persecuted by editors who are her political opponents: [444] She attempts to backtrack with a litany of now-familiar apologies, excuses, and claims of carelessness, fatigue, old age, and preoccupation with her busy daily affairs. If these were true they would indicate lack of WP:COMPETENCE to edit.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF/Evidence&oldid=1143559480"