Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:53, 7 May 2015

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

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

Comment on real life concerns

As one of the editors who has experienced not inconsiderable real life concerns as a result of the unfortunate remark of July 2014, and especially as a result of the ensuing community dialogue that "if it is too impolite for women here, why don't you just leave!" I shall be interested to monitor the outcome of this case. Many individuals like me who are active in the offline world of Misplaced Pages and open culture can not participate in site administration, movement leadership, or governance as a result of such concerns. That said, we should be clear that it is the remit of the Wikimedia Board, and not of Arbcom, to determine whether the US based non-profit funding this site intends to uphold the standards of a non-hostile working environment as defined in US law. Absent such guidance from the Board, we must assume that Arbcom may set social norms for the site as it sees fit. --Djembayz (talk)

This has zero to do with the events of last July, they have to do with the behaviors of editors since that time. Hostile environments are created everyday and you'd be mistaken to think that polite words and flowers can't make a hostile environment just as easily as adult language. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that there is more than one way to create a hostile environment. I'd like to point out that although your opinion is that the events of last July (which resulted in lengthy and acrimonious discussions between proponents and opponents of the use of vulgar sexual terms when interacting with other volunteers) are not relevant to the matter at hand, those events are the situation that is referred to in the opening statement by the person who filed the case, as being a source of the "battleground mentality". One additional thing to consider in this regard: it appears in this case that we may be looking at a change in direction, in which requesting interaction bans is no longer considered an appropriate way to deal with editors who one finds inappropriately vulgar/sexual-- which may exclude some of our less aggressive editors, especially female editors, from participation in specific topic areas. --Djembayz (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Djembayz and I have discussed this issue previously, including a time when we met IRL- I will preface my comments by saying that have a lot of respect for Djembayz and the work she does both IRL and on WP. And I agree that she is RIGHT about real world laws and the ability of professionals to contribute to a crowdsourced project that, for them may have real world implications. She may be onto something in that arbcom needs to be looking at ways to deescalate drama so that less aggressive/less assertive editors (who often create great content) are not run off by trolls. Montanabw 01:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

But on Lightbreather as an individual, I have a respectful difference of opinion. I do not wish to align myself with individuals who I have seen behave in sexist and misogynistic ways, but there is a dividing line between when an editor who happens to be female (or at least claims to be) is actually subjected to a "hostile work environment" versus being on the receiving end of natural consequences for her inappropriate behavior. In this instance, I have to say that a lot of the problems Lightbreather has encountered are self-inflicted and her playing the woman card is not helping either women on wikipedia (of whom I am one), or real life woman professionals who may help contribute content, or Lightbreather's own case. The truth is, LB does appear to spend more time on drama than on creating quality content and someone needs to turn off the lightbulb so that all the moths cease being drawn to it. If LB found people's attacks inappropriate, ANI was the solution, not trolling a user's talk page and baiting him, knowing he is subject to restrictions that limit his ability to respond. The focus does need to be on LB. Montanabw 01:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing at GTTF

Question about case request vs evidence

I presented some diffs in my request to open the case. Do I need to copy them to my evidence section to make sure they stay front and center, or is that a waste of limited text? Thanks, Karanacs (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This is an excellent question. In addition to herself and the seven editors Karanacs has named in her opening statement and evidence, there are three others for whom I would like to provide evidence of long-term harassment, tag-teaming, gun-control and GGTF DS violations, and socking (that contributes to these problems). Lightbreather (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that including a further ten people would be helpful so my vote would be "no". While mentioning others might sometimes be useful for context, it is primarily your conduct that is being examined.  Roger Davies 18:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've posed the questions on the clerks email list and hopefully we'll get some word about these questions today. Liz 17:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs, in general, the diffs mentioned in the opening statement are considered part of the case and may be relied upon by arbitrators when drafting the proposed decision; therefore, there is no need to repeat them on the evidence page. Salvio 19:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Battleground at User talk:Karanacs

Request for extra words and diffs

Per WP:AC/P Submission of evidence I request double the default 1000 words and 100 diffs for named parties.

In her preliminary statement on the main case page, Karanacs named seven editors whom have had disputes with me on topics that fall under the focus/locus of the gun-control and GGTF ArbComs. Three - Eric Corbett, Two kinds of pork, and Sitush - were formally involved parties in the GGTF ArbCom and another, Hell in a Bucket, was heavily involved in the case. The others - Sue Rangell, Mike Searson, and Scalhotrod - have been heavily involved in gun-control disputes with me.

As the "defendant" (so to speak) in this case, and someone whom at least a dozen (conservative guess) editors - including some admins - would like to see banned, I feel I have two burdens before me:

1. To respond to the evidence presented by Karanacs (and presumably others) on the main case page and on the evidence page, and to questions by the arbitrators and others who participate in good faith; and
2. To persuade the committee to formally add eight other editors as involved parties: EChastain, Eric Corbett, Faceless Enemy, Godsy, Hell in a Bucket, Scalhotrod, Sitush, and Sue Rangell.

If I only address the first task, I fear there will be more disputes in the future. If I concentrate on the second task only, I may be banned on the basis of one-sided evidence.

If evidence presented in my preliminary statement will be considered by the committee, I may not need to use this many words and diffs; otherwise, I will need them.

Respectfully, --Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, currently, you're presenting evidence against one person who was already sanctioned under the Gun Control discretionary sanctions for the behavior you're citing, and another who hasn't edited in around eight months. I don't see a great deal of gain to be had in going over things that are either long stale or already taken care of, so my advice would be to focus on things that are unsettled issues with active editors. Would you need additional evidence space to do that? Seraphimblade 20:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The editors you refer to are two of seven who were named in Karanacs' preliminary statement on the main case page. I included them because the case is being made that I am the problem, but the arbitrators and others who follow the case should know the background for the case presented against me.

The reason that I added those editors first is that I'm going to present evidence against other editors in the order that our interactions began. If allowed to present it, my evidence will show that my behaviors are a symptom of a larger problem on Misplaced Pages that has to do with how new editors are treated and how editors who are in the POV minority are treated.

All editors have POVs that influence their behavior when editing articles and interacting with others. Gun control and gender related subjects (which have both had ArbCom cases in the past year) have significant minority POVs within the editorial body. As a minority POV editor in these areas, I am harassed frequently and have been since August 2013. If I were like many other editors, I might have quit. In fact I did quit, albeit briefly, in October. However, I am a trained writer, and I want to contribute to the project - but in a harassment free environment.

Have I ended up in a number of disputes and at the noticeboards? Yes, because those are the places policy tells us to go to (try to) resolve disputes. Have I accused others of incivility? Yes, because there is a civility policy. Have I sometimes been uncivil myself? Yes, but considering how often I am harassed and how many people talk about me and my proposals in an uncivil, not AGF manner across many forums, I think the number of times I've lost my patience and said less-than-civil things is remarkable - especially in comparison to how often those who berate me sink to such behavior themselves. The double-standard on behavior expectations and enforcement is part of the agonistic editing environment that overshadows project policy.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And it's precisely the pushing of your POVs that has caused this near-endless conflict. That and the assumption that anyone's reaction to your POV is inherent disagreement with your POV as opposed to disagreement with your presentation and framing of it. Capeo (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather, I'm not sure if you saw Salvio's response to Karanacs: " in general, the diffs mentioned in the opening statement are considered part of the case and may be relied upon by arbitrators when drafting the proposed decision; therefore, there is no need to repeat them on the evidence page." Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. And I am proceeding with my evidence with this in mind. Lightbreather (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

1. ^ Lam, S.; Uduwage, A.; Dong, Z.; Sen, S.; Musicant, D.; Terveen, L.; Reidl, J. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Misplaced Pages's Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11. ACM: 9. Our survival analyses in H1a Gap-Exists and H3b F-Reverted-More indicate that females who become contributors stop editing Misplaced Pages sooner than males. Furthermore, both H3b F-Reverted-More and H3d F-Blocked-Less (reversed to F-Blocked-More!) suggest that females encounter more adversity in Misplaced Pages.

Request to Karanacs

Karanacs, would you mind numbering your bullets in these sections of your evidence?

• Example 1: Jan 2015 - Editor Retention
• Battleground over gender

It will help me to conserve words in my reply.

Thanks. --Lightbreather (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note to Karanacs

@Karanacs: I think you have the wrong diff for Ex. 2 @14:01 it says "Good advice HB and a beer sounds pretty good right about now... :)" and is by Scalhotrod not LB. Jbh 21:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I've replaced that one with the one that should have been there. Karanacs (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Clerk request

@L235 and Liz: LB has presented information on the evidence page that is woefully misrepresented. The entry is this...

• Asked for exclusion from GGTF ArbCom.

This is not what was requested, nor is it the full story of what transpired, and I ask that it be deleted or that they be instructed to correct it. The following notes and difs show that in the previous instance of its use, it was deleted by one of the Arbitrators.

Details

The original request here was in regard to evidence that LB posted in an ArbCom proceeding. The actual text presented was this...

• Eric Corbett replied: 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.
• Scalhotrod replies to Eric's comment: "Brilliantly put!"

This was a grossly misstated version of what was actually stated. Which was, quoting another User, "'Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me.' - Brilliantly put!!!"

I brought this situation up a second time here. In this instance Clerk Penwhale replied, but it was Arbitrator Salvio that took action stating, "However, I agree that, in context, that statement is misleading; I have therefore removed it without prejudice against it being reintroduced, if rephrased in a way which makes it clear what happened and what statement Scal was actually agreeing with." Salvio then removed the statement here with the Edit summary, "that's misleading, please rephrase if you wish to add it back".

Now it is being submitted again, in just as misleading of a manner albeit with a different presentation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll pose the question on the clerks list. Liz 18:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, I haven't had any definite word back but rest assured that arbitrators are checking into this case as it progresses. Liz 02:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod says that he didn't catch the "cunt" part of Eric's comment that he replied "brilliant" to, but I think that's implausible. Why? Because of the placement of the sentence from Eric's comment that Scalhotrod copied to his reply.

The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. To give you just one example, it's my opinion that one of the most incivil people on WP is Jimbo Wales, and very few would have the balls to block him. Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me. Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. Eric Corbett 20:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me." - Brilliantly put!!! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I might buy it if the "Added to which" sentence was at the beginning of Eric's comment, but it immediately precedes the "cunt" remark. And Scalhotrod didn't simply reply, "Brilliantly put!" He copied and pasted Eric's sentence into his reply. Scalhotrod has been uncivil with me too many times for me to AGF about this. Lightbreather (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WTF? He actually quoted the words he thought were "brilliantly put", and the quote doesn't include the c-word comment. I have difficulty knowing which is more bizarre: your original representation of Scalhotrod's comment or your last post defending that representation. Black is white. DeCausa (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It is evident from the actual diff that what Scalhotrod thought was "brilliantly put" was the sentence beginning "Added to which..." There is no evidence that he also considered any other sentence in the preceding post to also be "brilliantly put." I think it unnecessary to forcibly amend the /Evidence, but really the facts of this specific claim and counterclaim are very clear. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note to Lightbreather

@Lightbreather: you might want to check your diffs. None of the ones in the text below link to the quotes you gave. I have not looked at others, I just clicked one and found it was wrong and searched until I found the first right one going forward and backward so you might want to check the others as well.

ES: I hurt my arm, so no one else must edit while I'm uncomfortable...

They are appalling examples of bad writing, but thank you for pointing to numerous examples of where I corrected horrific.... has personally made over 350 edits to the article with the explanation behind much of it that its for the sake of "balance" and "weight", but I don't buy it when....

... after you started a "crusade" to add it....

Jbh 20:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'll check. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

above is in the edit summary.

you have to scroll down.

will fix...  Done

you have to scroll down.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sectioned discussion is now in effect on this page

With the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather's section

If it fully intends to give me a fair hearing, I respectfully request that the committee allow me to present evidence against those with whom I have ibans, in addition to those with whom I do not.

1. The central argument in the lead of Karanacs' preliminary statement was that my ibans, and those that I have asked for or that others have suggested, are evidence of what she calls my "battleground" attitude.

2. Diffs and this link (in the form of a diff) were given in reference to those IBANS - in the lead of Karanac's preliminary statement.

Now, I have been told: "while the Committee allows editors some leeway to respond to statements about them on the evidence and workshop case pages, they may not participate in the case except to respond with statements about allegations that have been made about them and may not make direct communication," and "Editors with interaction bans who fail to comply with the letter or spirit of this very limited exemption will be treated as though they breached the interaction ban."

In effect, my ibans were presented as allegations of misconduct in Karanacs' preliminary statement on the main case page, and I cannot present a proper defense of my behavior by responding only to Karanacs cherry-picked evidence on the evidence page. Nor can I expect a proper hearing if those with whom I have ibans are not added to the case as involved parties so that I (and they) have the opportunity to discuss incidents relevant to the case.

The only places I have referred to my fellow i-banned editors since this case was opened was here on these case pages, and in the user-space area that I am am using to prepare my evidence. (I did slip up here, but I immediately corrected myself when I realized what I'd done. Considering the behavior involved, and that the other person threatened to quit if he was i-banned, I still cannot believe that I received a 1-way from them.)

Meanwhile, two editors with whom I share ibans have referred to me multiple times outside these case pages.

I am removing the evidence I have presented against my fellow ibanned editors until I hear further from you.

As the lone "defendant" in this case, please allow me to prevent evidence against my fellow ibanned editors in my defense against allegations of "battleground" behavior. At least one editor - and one with whom I have had disputes - agrees that this is fair. Lightbreather (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)