This is an archive of past discussions with User:Carolmooredc, for the period 2014. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The request for formal mediation concerning Austrian economics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
[Later note: rejected by the two editors referred to below.]
Arbcom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Austrian economics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Two concerns: 1. Are you exceeding the 500 word limit? 2. Why get into more of the diffs at this stage? It looks like there are 5 arbitrators accepting the case. When they announce the formal opening, then you can get into making the case with the evidence. I recommend you remove the last bit of diff posting as unneeded. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I think they give you a bit of leeway which I have taken. I was going to stop, but do have the philosophy that a lie that's not contested becomes a truth in the mind of the hearer. Hopefully once the first lie is countered, I won't have to do anymore unless they accept. (Or see from this alone what the problem is and deal with it.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)02:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey Carol, I'm not sure your last edit in the Workshop did what you intended. It appears to have just duplicated the section / sub-sections. Were you intending to move it to the Evidence page? Morphh(talk)16:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Fixed it. (Hopefully.) After this is over I'm going to provide some suggestions on how to make Arbitrations easier to negotiate, especially for those new to it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)17:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Steeletrap (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Steeletrap may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
SPECIFICO (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
Carolmooredc (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Carolmooredc may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
Editors who have not previously been involved in editing the articles at issue in this case are urged to review these articles to ensure that they are in compliance with the applicable policies and best practices, including neutrality and the policies governing biographical content.
5)(A) Carolmooredc (talk·contribs) has focused a significant portion of her editing in the past year on articles relating to the Austrian school of economics, including BLPs.
(B) In the course of disputes concerning editing of these articles, Carolmooredc has made certain insufficiently supported personal attacks on other editors. See for example this ANI thread, which was closed by an administrator's stating that "[w]hile Carolmooredc's concerns are not unfounded, she is advised to focus more on content and refrain from discussing others' motives on article talk pages."
(C) While many of Carolmooredc's edits in this topic-area have addressed legitimate BLP concerns, overall it appears that she became overly involved in editing the topic-area on a personal or ideological level. Carolmooredc's userpage opines that "[p]artisan tugs of war are better played outside Wikipedia!", a view that is fully consistent with Wikipedia policy and prior decisions of this Committee.
(D) Carolmooredc has proposed on the workshop that she be "topic-banned from all pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, broadly construed" for six months, adding that "I really don’t care if I am banned from this area permanently" so long as the articles are kept neutral.
Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm probably the only Wikipedia editor ever topic banned for "insufficiently supported personal attacks on other editors." As one Arbitrator wrote here: I might suggest a tweak in that "insufficiently supported personal attacks" suggests that "sufficiently supported personal attacks" are acceptable.
Per the ANI quoted, yes, I did whine a lot about and lose my temper because Administrators refused to deal with the chronic policy violations - especially of WP:Biographies of living people. But judge for yourself.
Hint: Don't say you don't care if they topic ban you because then they probably will. (DUH!!)
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your Austrian economics topic ban, as discussed at AE, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Sandstein 15:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
On April 15 at the Arbitration Proposed Decision talk page I asked at this diff about other editors subject to the ban: "will we topic banned editors be allowed to warn them on talk pages and/or complain at Arbitration enforcement about such violations?" I got no response.
On April 22 at the same page I tried again, and I asked at this diff "And can I complain about SPECIFICO's edits at Arbitration enforcement?" referring to edits during the last day or so of the Arbitration.
@Beeblebrox: replied: "There is no merit to complaining at AE as the case is not quite closed yet, although if your accusations are true it certainly doesn't reflect well on that user." He did not say topic banned editors have no right to complain about another sanctioned editor at Arbitration enforcement or that I could not complain about future edits once the Arbitration went into effect. I believe other Arbitrators also may believe topic banned editors can complain there. @Floquenbeam:
In that context, I don't believe my comments related to the reasons SPECIFICO was banned or to his editing on specific articles of individuals who may or may not be within the parameters of the ban should be considered a violation of the Arbitration. I certainly tried to find out what the policy was, thought I had found out what it was, and had no intention of violating it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)20:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello Carol. Admins have expressed a number of opinions at WP:AE#Appeal by Carolmooredc. Depending on how consensus is read, it might end with a continuation of the block, an unblock or even an overturn of the original sanction. In my opinion you'd have a stronger case for unblock if you will agree to comply with a strict reading of your ban:
You would agree not to use AE or other admin boards to make complaints about other editors who are also banned under the Austrian Economics decision.
You would agree not to participate in complaints opened by others unless your own behavior has been mentioned.
You would agree to treat all talk pages as falling under your topic ban from Austrian Economics.
None of this would prevent you from asking AE or Arbcom to clarify your *own* restriction. If you accept this deal it would influence my vote, but I don't know if it would influence others. I personally believe that these restrictions are already in force against all the banned editors, but the opinion of admins about this question is not unanimous. You can also add to your own statement in the appeal if you wish; use {{adminhelp}} to get someone to copy it over. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting me. Frankly, I don't think it would be helpful for me to agree to restrictions that might apply only to myself when it has become clear there is confusion and disagreements among Arbitrators, Administrators and the community on various aspects of Wikipedia:Banning policy. And I'll let my current statement stand. I'm really busy the next two weeks so I don't mind being unable to participate and then later waiting for the usual processes to clear up these issues.
I do now agree that topic banned editors only should be allowed to respond to complaints about alleged violations of their own topic bans or to appeal blocks at Arbitration Enforcement. However, given the obvious confusion even among Arbitrators and Administrators as to what the policy is, and the uneven application of sanctions in the current situation, I do not want to commit myself to something Arbitrators and/or the community ultimately may reject.
Specifically, I still do want to seek clarification on your statement: "The phrase 'other pages' in the ban wording covers AE, in fact, it covers every page on Wikipedia where something related to the {topic redacted} might be discussed." This was not enforced as a policy in the preceding AE complaint. Since I do edit a lot of libertarian political articles where the {topic redacted} or its close associates might be mentioned or, more likely, used as a reference in some unrelated part of the article, I do not want to agree to have that policy applied only to me. If you are correct and that is the policy, Wikipedia:Banning policy or arbitrators must make that kind of wording explicit and ensure it is evenly enforced.
I agree topic banned editors should not be using current discussions in talk pages to promote their topic banned agenda. However, I also know there is no consensus on this currently at Wikipedia:Banning policy. Nevertheless, after the block expires I finally will be able to remove some topic banned material put up in old sandboxes before the topic ban.
When I commented at AE, I thought that noting that I answered your email the way I did, even if it turns out my advice was wrong, would have resulted in a lifted block and a final warning, but evidently asking for clarification and acting on the answer doesn't count for anything at AE. This seems Kafkaesque, but it's not like that's a rare occurrence around here. I'm in a position where an Arb breaking WP:AE rules being seen by some as breaking WP:AE rules by unblocking without a clear consensus would probably do more damage to the system than a poor block or an incorrect block would, and there is not clear overwhelming consensus at AE to overturn the block.
Thanks to Carol for the reply and to User:Floquenbeam for explaining their thinking. In fact, while it can't hurt to discuss WP:Banning policy such a decision wouldn't decide this question one way or the other. Bans issued by Arbcom mean whatever they want them to mean, since WP:ARBPOL does not place a limit on what they do in this area. They can create any kind of ban they think is beneficial. The only people who are limited by the wording of WP:TBAN are those who say 'I hereby issue a ban from topic X per WP:TBAN'. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. No problems Floquenbeam, especially since another Arbitrator inferred the same advice.
I see Sandstein unblocked me, but have other deadlines and will try to stay away for another week anyway and get a rest. (Except for some needed user page cleanup.) .
I do think that if there is to be a WP:Banning policy page it does need to clear up any issues of confusion, but I won't even try to think about what they are or how they should be phrased for another week! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)01:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Unblock and warning
Following discussion on my talk page indicating that you may have been given misleading advice about what you may do, I am unblocking you.
You are however warned that, according to the topic ban policy, you are forbidden to edit absolutely anything related to the topic you are banned from. The only exception, as described in WP:BANEX, is appealing or asking for clarification of your own topic ban, or undoing obvious vandalism and BLP violations. This means that you may not report others to AE or other fora in relation to this topic, and you may not comment about enforcement requests or other discussions concerning the conduct of others in this topic area. You must leave the topic area entirely behind you. Any further violation of your topic ban is likely to lead to a longer block. Sandstein 21:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see this closure of your appeal. Per Sandstein's message above your block is lifted, but the warning is left in place. You are warned not to open complaints about the conduct of others in the topic area or to add your own views to others' complaints. You are still free to respond if your own edits are questioned. You can ask an admin or ask at AE if you want to clarify what is included in your own ban. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Other 2014
A cute kitty and some photos for you!
A cute kitten says you deserve this barnstar
Who can make any sense of whatever it is these WikiWomen are trying to tell us?
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jesus Huerta de Soto. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please read the BRD essay and observe its protocols. The source you've added is a primary source which does not support your two-time insertion of article text. Your edit is your WP:OR interpretation and WP:SYNTH inference from a primary source. It's particularly inadvisable to open a talk thread and then to precipitously undo a colleague's revert before engaging in discussion or responding to the reverting editor's edit summary on talk. Please undo your most recent edit and use talk to explain your views. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk20:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I note that an article talk page section was opened by Carolmooredc 30 minutes before this notice was posted. Posting on that thread, rather than a 3RR warning here, would encourage collaboration. The second edit actually added another source. Also, a review of the edits indicates the material is RS. The fact that HdS is the Spanish version editor is not a bit of information that needs to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is a simple fact, and no SYNTH is involved. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and this guideline allows for primary source material. If there is contradiction, the particulars should be pointed out on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No. Not until you remove your warning. (You can remove the entire section, including my comments.) Take a look – you are addressing RS questions here, and my addition relates directly to these comments. – S. Rich (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, SRich, for pointing out that if you add new refs that are a good faith attempt to deal with issues, it's perfectly fine. If SPECIFICO really wanted to improve the article he'd suggest how to properly ref it, instead of looking for excuses to remove evidence of notability. Just more SPECIFICO harassment under false pretenses. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)02:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thornton talk page
This edit, even with the change, is a mistake. You are not adding anything that helps to resolve the issue. The article is tagged with refimprove, etc., and that's enough. In any event, I do not think the notability tag will be re-added because per template guidance the template is added when one editor thinks notability is an issue. That guidance, along with the closed AfD, is enough to keep the notability tag off the page. But your comments about "so many articles" and "editors adding" tags does not help. Considering that Thornton is Austrian, and sanctions might apply, I was doing you a favor. Take advantage of my effort and please remove the comment. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Nitpicking or not, your edits and comments are problematic. In this edit at the Laudatio RSN, you again bring up behaviour and motivation issues of other editors. Instead of complaining about nitpicking, you'd be far better off by taking my friendly comments (and the comments of other non-involved editors) to heart. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
First, WP:RSN behavior issues directly related to the RSN can be brought up. However, in general should I take SPECIFICO to ANI for his constant badgering of other editors? Or just do a big tendentious editing ANI on him with this and other serious issues? I'm not in the mood for drama, but he obviously intends to keep removing material when he shouldn't or should add a tag and give people a chance. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)19:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think ANI is the way to go at all. And I think you'd do well to listen to SRich on this, rather than responding to his tone or pointing to others' behavior. Just my 2 cents. ~Adjwilley (talk)23:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
As you provided a number of useful references here, I'd encourage you to incorporate the material into the article. At present I've got other irons in the fire. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it's better to focus on the articles certain collaborators intend to AfD, not the ones that recently have come through an AfD. The material is there to survive another AfD and maybe some waggy tailed editor will get there first :-) So many articles, so little time... I think I'll make that my motto and then I can just link to it instead of having to say it all the time! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)17:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Warning RE: Murphy talk
In this diff [1] you have failed to "comment on content, not contributors". If you continue to do so, you may be blocked per Austrian School sanctions. Please comment on content, not contributors. SPECIFICOtalk18:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Since when is it illegal to mention someone reverted something? I think I have a list of about 8 bogus warnings from you over the last 6 weeks. Haven't we already been to ANI about that sort of thing once?? Rhetorical question: Please do not respond, since you are banned here except for such warnings because of past behavior I experienced as harassing. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)21:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
When you make gratuitous personal remarks and denigrate or unnecessarily refer to your fellow editors, rather than WP content and policy, it is disruptive and it discourages and repels other contributors. The best way to support improvement of articles is to focus on clear, civil, and content-based discussion. SPECIFICOtalk23:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Austerians
Instead of asserting that Austerians is a term of mockery (without evidence), I suggest that AGF is the better course. E.g., just assume it is a typo (even though it is repeated). Otherwise your assertion is without support. Yes, interested readers might Google the term and find that UrbanDictionary, etc. have discussed it. But so what? In WP it has no meaning related to mockery. Off-wiki it might or might not be mockery. Consider, if either you (or Ubikwit) come out and explain how the term is mocking (or simply descriptive), you only divert readers and the ArbCom from the real issues in the discussion. (Remember, the ArbCom does not have subject matter experts and will not rule on content issues.) I recommend that you go back to your edit [2] and simply remove the first sentence. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
He mentioned Krugman who said it and had an article with that title and mentioned it in another one. Added that for context; don't know if "links" would be "new evidence". He should strike it. And least I didnt say "BS" all over my evidence! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)04:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I used the term bullshit because the editor postings were bullshit. This ArbCom is not about the merits or demerits of the Austrians or Krugman. It is about editor behavior. No one scores any points by saying the Austrians are espousing bullshit or that Krugman is espousing bullshit. Focus on the issues being presented to the ArbCom – the issues which they will decide upon. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
WP Countering Systemic Bias in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom Diffs
I did a rough count of the diffs and links in your evidence. It looks like you have exceeded the 100 diff limit for ArbCom evidence. As I look at the diffs, several are not evidence of editor misbehavior. My diff count includes those in your first paragraph that have no evidentiary value (e.g., they are are about issues not related to this ArbCom). Nor does your TTD list. This remark: "However, tendentious, POV editing has wasted hundreds of hours of my time and most BLPs remain biased or worse...." needlessly adds to your word count (1,000) and serves to make the evidence TLDR. Moreover, certain diffs are posted just for the sake of posting – they do not have explanation or indication as to how they pertain to the ArbCom issues. In your section "Steeletrap misrepresents Arbitration Evidence", you do not provide a comparison or diffs to explain how Steeletrap misrepresents the evidence. Your effort in providing evidence has been prodigious, but it needs trimming and spiffing up. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, my Wordperfect word/diff combined count is around 1075; yours 2100. Context matters which is why I provide it. I'm showing she even misrepresents in Arbitration - several times didn't even both with any evidence, though I mentioned those at talk. Otherwise, let's agree to disagree.
I have expressed concerns someone else will dump 1100 (or 2100?) new and more BS than usual words and diffs 4 hours before close and some of us will have to ask for more time. That should be editors' concern.
I'm concerned about the layout of your diffs. The piped diffs repeat 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, section by section and line by line. I suggest you add a letter to them, like A-1, A-2, A-3, B1, B2, B3, or C.1, C.2. C.3, etc. Then, as it comes time to analyze and discuss the diffs, we can refer to them easily. "CDMC's diff A-4 is on point, it shows .... Whereas diff C.6 is vague and doesn't tell us anything. Using the letters allows for changes (additions or deletions) within the sections as compared to a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...97, 98, 99 scheme. You should do so before evidence closes. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Frankly this sort of thing should be discussed at talk evidence. I make a clear distinction between diffs (to single comments) and links (which can be to various things). I don't know if Arbcom does. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)04:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Take a good look at my "evidence". It is laid out in order. By simple referrals to A/1, A/2, etc., it is easy to say which diffs and links are saying this or that. (Just as I did on my commentary in the Workshop.) Assume the Arbcom will look at the diffs. Assume others want to comment on your diffs/links. And make it easier for them to comment on and discuss. This is advice to you, not needed on the talk page, about how to present your evidence in a clearer fashion. – S. Rich (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You are right. Just want nightmare over. Can cut some cruft and quite a few unnecessary/duplicative diffs/links. Realized that my diff numbers were being affected by previous ones, so I at least better number mine by section and then they if someone really needs to comment can quote the section's name which is easier for everyone than referring back to all those danged letter/numbers. oi oi... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)06:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Arbcom Pronouns – will take some work to read, but please follow the advice therein
Why don't cha' go back to the Arbcom Workshop page and correct the stinking pronoun from he to she so that this issue as to how one should politely address Steeletrap [or Specifico as it turns out] does not come back to bite you in the ass and while you're at it you can remind yourself to be more careful when typing! Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)19:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit [3] does not help one bit. In fact, it hurts your cause. Why? It is poorly composed (a locus is the center of attention, activity, concentration - not details of what happened). Then you suggest that more locusts be added, which is not the purpose of describing The locus. But worst of all you go off with commentary about new editors, walled garden, fringe, annoyance, noticeboards, harassment, emotional involvement, policy violations, etc. The only thing you've done is to make yourself look bad. My comment (I thought) was directed towards a needed and simple re-write of the Locus. Next time (and in general) Focus on the Locus. – S. Rich (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
But you are not being more careful! You reply to Specifico's personal comment with a personal comment of your own [4]. Just go back and delete the comment. Don't clutter the thread with more nonsense. Don't let it become a garbage dump of stricken comments. – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's try to keep process questions on appropriate talk page so everyone can get involved. Tt this point I'm not even sure if we're supposed to discuss anything at Evidence talk page any more. I am going to ask about what to do when people assert things not in evidence or which actually prove something completely different than they are claiming. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)20:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Move of comment in Workshop
While revising my evidence analysis, I saw a remark you made in the "Others" section. I moved it. In so doing, it has lost context. I suggest you revise the remark to clarify it. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Srich32977. @Srich32977: I still don't know what of my comments in "others" section you moved, after looking at you Feb 13 diffs at the Workshop page. You linked to my error above; please feel free to link to whatever you did there so I don't have to read everything in workshop/parties sections to figure out what it is and "provide context" if necessary. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)17:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Just you. I am disinvited from his talk page. He follows my edits and your talkpage (I'm sure). So he'll get the message. In any event, I observe that both of you have transgressed, and thereby have provided more evidence supporting a IBAN between youztwo. – S. Rich (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Reread the talk page. The Arbitrator said it was ok to reply to last minute submissions, especially new smearing evidence. And you know I"m all for the IBAN though I'm not convinced it would stop him from harassing me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)01:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Srich, let me explain. I've got manifestos to write and revolutions to make. I'm more interested in truth than anything else. If they happen to site ban me it would be a wonderful relief!!!! I doubt that will happen. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)01:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
To continue while watching the big blue yin yang sign at Sochi closing, I'd like to be able to spend a couple hours a week adding factoids of interest to articles of interest, but if these outrageous violations of policy continue unpunished, I just don't want to have to worry about what new outrages will turn 3-4 hours a week into 15 or 20. But I am going to add several things to my recommendations for improving Wikipedia on my user page (hint, more efficient admins wielding more blocks) and an analysis of POV on Rothbard article talk page, a couple structural flaws and an analysis of best refs which need to be exploited better in hopes someone will come along and fix it up. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)01:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Just a few paragraphs earlier, the drafting arbitrator advised to stop pinging "so [s/he] can watch another ridiculous argument unfold...". This sort of comment [5], while lacking a ping, is entirely personal and not related to the arbitration. I'm afraid you are shooting yourself in the foot with these off-hand remarks. And as you repeat them, your aim seems to be moving to the cranial region. (IOW, I think this arbitration is going to go badly for you.) I advise you to stop making such remarks before it gets worse. – S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You mean like running to the Arbitrators and complaining SRich won't stop being a martinet on my user page?? You're retired. Smoke dope and relax. By the way, are they following you every place and messing with you? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)03:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
When I'm truly retired I'll move to Colorado. And, No, they are not messing with me. Occasional comments are made that allege I don't understand or cite WP policy correctly. But such comments, while annoying, haven't amounted to squat. – S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hola
It's good to see you've been promoted to Senior Editor since we last spoke.
I've made a list of articles that I think should eventually be added, which you can see here. Most are libertarian.
Please be aware per this (non-article improvement) edit [6] there is a possibility that Austrian School sanctions may be requested. – S. Rich (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Darkness Shines wrote "I swear to god you people are a shower of c**ts, fucking grow up" on 12-27-13.I don't see an AE warnings to him from you about it in his history. But I say "gobbly gook" and it's a crime against humanity? Why not remove his header and his close. I guess I'll have to. Rediculous. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)00:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed what he wrote back in December. And since I was not involved in the discussion, it would have been proper for me to close or modify the closure. But I didn't (and won't) comment to him because I don't want to. That's why. As you were an involved editor, you'd best not change the 2 month old thread. (Sooner or later it will archive automatically.) And bringing up an ANI 2 months after the fact won't do the community any good. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Anyone can remove repulsive personal attacks, and I did per policy as I quoted twice. I can't believe how many blocks that guy has! Even though he may agree with me on content/policy a good percentage of the time, the fact that such disruptive editors (and probable socks of somebody) can survive shows why Wikipedia is doomed. And why women are smart to stay away. And don't bother to scold me about mentioning his f**king block log. Geez.... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)17:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
You did not simply remove the comments. You re-opened the discussion. I have re-closed it. It's a 2 month old thread. Just leave it. It will archive. It's over. – S. Rich (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't believe you want to be an administrator when you don't even bother to read policy. Yes, you remove the comments. I don't care about the closing one way or another, if the topic is closed and I really don't have energy to figure that out right now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)17:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
You believe incorrectly. The information (not policy) on challenging closures is here: WP:CLD. You could have read the closure summary from the get-go. You could have asked DS to revise the remark. You could have asked me to make a change. You could have asked an admin to change it. But as an editor involved in the previously closed discussion it not proper for you to reopen it. – S. Rich (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Unneeded personal comment
The reference to "multiple blocks" here: [7] has nothing to do with article improvement or the closure of the 2 month old thread. Indeed, because it clearly refers to another editor, it is PA. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and retract it. – S. Rich (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I have a better idea. You stop posting on my talk page and I'll stop posting on yours. I don't know why you don't ban Steeletrap and SPECIFICO unless you enjoy the drama. Enough is enough. I'm unwatching your page. Please unwatch mine since I don't want to hear and more nitpicking here. Nitpick me on article or other talk pages. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)18:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Warning re Talk:Murray Rothbard
Commenting about old edit summaries and saying "Insulting edit summary" in a subsection heading has nothing to do with article improvement. Why? Because we discuss edits and prospective edits on the article talk page. If you think an editor has behaved improperly with their edit summary, post a notice on their talk page or report them on a notice board. Few people go back and look at the edit summaries to figure out how to improve the article. Even if they did, commenting about an old edit summary on the talk page is disruptive because it leads editors to start discussing the old edit summary. This is a serious warning. I will report you if I see such behavior again. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Unhatting the comment is fine, except you still have the sentences "You are referring to material that was in a reference which Steeletrap or SPECIFICO removed. Don't blame me for your own sloppy editing." This is disruptive personal commentary (WP:TPNO) directed towards other editors. With this in mind, you can either strike or remove the sentences. If you do not, I will re-hat the section or {{rpa}} the sentences. – S. Rich (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I await your fixing of the edit. (Even without the needed NPA fixes, it has little to do article improvement. It simply refers to an old edit and you offer nothing pertaining to article improvement.) My gosh, the article is under general sanctions! So, if you leave your comment as is, I will rpa it or re-hat it. Then, if you revert, I will go to the ANI. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I told you this is a serious warning because it is. It is preliminary to taking you to the ANI. (Remember, these articles are under general sanctions.) You can characterize my comments, in you own mind, as nitpicking. But you do so at your peril. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Gee, I missed the "Warning" Pictogram. Well, I fixed it, didn't I. So enough Big Bloodly Loads of Bull Shit. To elaborate on your favorite expletive. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)05:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd support a rename but then you'd have to rename violence against women which is a far more common term than violence against females. So perhaps better is to say violence against men includes violence against boys. If you have more articles to add please do so, I've categorized some but the point has to be where the majority of victims are men - war doesn't always meet that (eg WWII I bet a boatload of women died too in various circumstances). But I've added some to VAM if you have others please do so. Thanks for your !vote btw.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As a watcher of Radical feminism, I would like to invite you to comment or edit on User:EvergreenFir/sandbox2#Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism_.28TERF.29. I am attempting to prepare a subsection about TERFs for Radical feminism once the page protection expires. I am striving for balance, NPOV, and sourcing as I know it will be a WP:BOLD edit (and honestly I thought you might be the R in WP:BRD) and would like to make it as robust as possible. The lack of any mention of TERF on the article is an oversight in my opinion. However, we do not have enough RS to create its own article (or at least I do not). Because TERF is a neologism, many of the sources are "meh" quality. However, they do seem to be WP:RS, even if they are not neutral (which they are not required to be). I welcome any comments on improving this section and you are welcome to edit it yourself. If you do not think the section should be included, please let me know why so we can discuss it and perhaps reach a compromise. I am AGF, but you have expressed reservations about "TERF" in other edits so I wanted your input on it before I take it to the article. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
In 7 years a lot of work was done to actually make it about a metaphysical philosophy, so you should review the past discussion on that talk page and bring it up on that talk page first. Also, currently the disambiguation page Voluntarism with a couple options. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)04:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Roadmap links
You appear to be removing a bunch of links to the TS Roadmap because the notable Wikipedia that runs that site ( but was not the one that added the links ) has been banned for other issues. Just because someone has been banned does not make other resources that they have been involved with outside of wikipedia as verboten. Consider a sports presenter / researcher that has a large curated site with collection of sports history, perspectives from those involved etc. Suppose that presenter also had an issue with a ball player who both had wikipedia accounts and ended up fighting such that they both got banned, that does not mean that there site is any less notable or important. Though would probably be best for example to avoid POV issues with sections on the ball player. To me a site that collects and curates useful first hand information on experiences with various surgeons and procedures is a useful link. PaleAqua (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be a new user. I think you need to read Wikipedia:RS#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. TS Roadmap is a personal and advocacy website, though the editor being banned is the icing on the cake. I see A LOT of Advocacy sites on this topic at wikipedia and have been thinking of doing a general WP:RSN on a whole list of such sites, rather than wasting time dealing with them one article at a time. It also may be relevant to extending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. So please read up on sourcing, especially as related to WP:Biographies of living people. Also see the overview essay Wikipedia:Advocacy. Advocates are not supposed to violate core policies to advance their cause. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)18:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I am familiar with BLP, RS, EL, the arbitration case you mention, a bunch of the history involved, etc. ( For what it's worth my account and your account are only about a month different in longevity, and while I assume you didn't mean it that way your phrasing comes across as insulting. ) If the site was used ( especially certain parts of the site ) as either a source or external link to an article on Blanchard, Cantor, Feminine essence concept of transsexuality, etc. then could differently see it being removed under BLP and NPOV ( and would be strongly tempted to remove it myself ). But we are not talking about those articles, and the guidelines for external links and reliable sources are slightly different. I do think they their probably should be a broader discussion on what to do with the lot of the links, which is why I only reverted one of the removals and then started the discussion with you. I'm not sure the arbitration case page is the right spot for that discussion though, Arbcon is not for dealing with content issues. Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is probably a better place, and as such have opened a discussion there. PaleAqua (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have gotten you confused with a new editor's contributions I looked at within a short space of time. ArbCom might only be relevant for the whole range of different sources if a discussion at WP:RSN showed an inability of the community to apply policy to that particular issue for whatever reason. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)08:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
No worries, easy mistake. Hopefully a few more will chime in there. Though I really only notified, you, Joketress ( who obviously can't comment ) and the original inserter of the link. I avoided notifications of the pages themselves as to avoid stirring up the possibility of old wars, especially as I'm hoping some neutral EL-N watchers can chime-in. I can see your concern with site even if I don't completely agree that it is an issue. So if others agree with you, I won't stand in the way. And if no one else comments I'm likely to drop it and self-revert anyways. PaleAqua (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW If we are to be consistent the same removal should be done with other similar links such as the Anne Lawerence ones. Since I still disagree and didn't revert any original removal of them ( discounting replacing multiple deadline tagged ones with a single live link ), I am not going to remove them myself; but won't stand directly in the way. Though if someone else objects in which case I'll might take part in any future discussions that arise. PaleAqua (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Carol, I don't want to trouble there further on these points so am bringing this here for your consideration. I've always appreciated your views and do not want to offend or annoy people further.
Yes, I appreciate that people want that project to focus on the gender gap going forward as a priority. That's fine. But what I'd appreciate is (a) A recognition that this is a change in stated scope - I'm not the only one who felt this - previously it seemed to be much more about content, not contributors. I can see from the discussions on GenderGap that Slim has been explicit there about wanting to revive the project AND change the scope (b) A recognition that systemic gender BIAS in wikipedia is not ONLY driven through a lack of female editors, and that the solutions to such bias do not simply involve adding more female editors. There are lots of other things we need to change, and lots of things we can change and fix even in the absence of solving the gender gap itself. (As you know, one of those issues I've been working on is categorization, and making sure categories are not ghettoizing women).
As I mentioned earlier, probably the key reason we have fewer female bios than male ones has fairly little to do with our % of female editors, but rather more with how RS treat things. A paper which studied this found that there was an ADDITIONAL marginal bias in wikipedia beyond the "societal" bias one might expect, but are we only interested in fixing that gap, or are we interested in also fixing the gap that RS leave us with? If we go beyond the focus JUST on the gender gap, I just don't see how one can imagine there isn't potential systemic bias against certain issues of interest to men, or trangender people, or two spirit people, or any other gender that isn't "female". Frankly I've never really thought this was a major issue until the mess around Category:Violence against men convinced me otherwise - I don't think this is a simple content dispute nor even necessarily an issue of a few biased editors. It's actually embedded in the way our society talks about violence - to some people it is completely impossible to imagine that gender-based violence could possibly exist (in spite of dozens of sources which study exactly that - they ignore the sources and !vote with their gut).
I provided the search for example which shows that "100 people killed, including 10 women and 3 children" is completely common, totally uncontroversial way of describing death. One of the commentators in the discussion said that massacres of men are irrelevant because it's the same thing as just massacring people. Ironically it is feminists who have pointed this out, that the men are the "people" and the women are special and apart - but it's also an area where perhaps feminism and masculism combine - I think both sides might agree that men should not be "people" and women should not be "women" in these cases. Thus, wouldnt fixing such language be in the purvue of this project?
One of the issues of systemic bias that I've seen people working on is how do we use language, but language can be used in a way that discriminates against women, against men, against trans* people, etc. That people are reacting so strongly to the suggestion that "gender bias" might be bigger than just "bias against women" - even if such bias against women is the priority project - suggests a closed-mindedness I wouldn't expect from the participants there, and that saddens me.
Actually, I started the latest round of "let's do something about this issue" on gender gap email list and it lead to us all being reminded the project even existed. However, even in April the scope including closing the gender gap was quite clear, even if not quite as explicit as I'd like to see it written. Busy finishing off an off-wiki project so haven't even started messing with the lead and scope yet...
Yes RS is an issue with women and others ignored by the white male dominated MSM that wiki relies on. So instead of 8 books and 50 misc refs lauding a male, you only have 1 or two for a female and 5 or 6 misc refs. Being an inclusionist, I think that's enough for a stub.
I don't have a problem for fixing that kind of language in Wikipedia. If someone stops you, then you can bring it as an issue. That's the sort of thing you can waste more time discussing than it would take to just do it.
Frankly, I've always dismissed the word "gender" as incomprehensible and in last year as have started reading up on the subject and various current controversies, I don't much like the word. I do like pangender cause I'm above nitpicking which stereotype people want to classify themselves under. Where there is truly crappy stuff happening to males/male topics I'll speak out. If it's just guys who are pissed off cause women are demanding to, and succeeding in some small ways, at being co-creators of the world and it's culture, get hip. Human consciousness is evolving... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)12:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thanks Carol - however correcting such language is nontrivial - since it may involve original research - eg subtraction. Is that acceptable? It seems that board would be a great place to get views on how to fix, since it's actually a feminist POV - eg man as person, woman as different. Another example for systemic bias is calling ships 'she', a debate is currently raging on same. It's just too bad because now if I see some systemic bias that is mitigating against how male or trans* issues are covered, some at that board have been unwelcoming and would consider it out of scope - for example if categories of men are ghettoized can we not place them on the todo list? It's all very exclusionary.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I barely understood what you wrote above about subtraction or a couple general statements without an example re: woman and man, etc; as for ships, what do RS say? That's all that matters. But I really think you need to discuss category issues at Categories for Discussion where people won't feel like they are being blindsided but their own inexperience. Then announced the discussion at the noticeboard. At this point trying to force discussions is just pissing most of us off. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)13:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I mean, if the source says '100 people killed including 2 women and 3 children" - can we change this to " 100 people killed including 95 men, 2 women and 3 children"? Same with ships - some sources say 'she' some say 'it' it's a dynamic area.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with first example. Ship-wise, it does seem to be more in touch with current usage to say "it", especially if "it" is used more often in RS for an article. Of course, old time ship-references with exclusively "she" uses probably should use "She" at least in closely reflecting a source. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)13:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
yes, I don't really mean to start a discussion about ship naming here and you should weigh in at the manual of style page - but the more general question is are such language issues aligned with the goal of that project in your mind? And if so, wouldn't language issues that bias men also be included? I just feel like some there are being very binary - eg gender is only women - whereas I think it would be wasteful to start separate projects to deal with gender bias in language that impacted non-women as a whole separate task force. As for categories, I have shared that algorithm with a number of category experts and posted it to various boards and have never gotten any pushback except compliments. Of course it impacts ghettoization of ethnicities or sexuality, etc, I just started it at the task force that seemed to be actively working in the are and as you can see a number of people engaged with it at the time. How would you feel if we had a list of cats to fix and stored the algorithm elsewhere with a link out - and then created a special talk page for such deghettoization work - (sorry I know you don't like that word I just don't have a simpler better one yet)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid Obi is spot on correct here. If the mainstream RS say "it's a man's world" then so must WP. Otherwise it's a slippery slope. SPECIFICOtalk13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
OBI, feel free to explain at the talk page which definition of "ghettoization" you mean, since at least two of thought it mean not populating categories, not eliminating categories. Why do I feel like I have sticky sheep fur in my eyes?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)13:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Carol. Not sure I understand the fur bit. Anyway, I've moved everything re: categorization to a subpage of that project for now, so that the further discussions about it won't distract the main flow of the conversation, which I think is a reasonable compromise. Is that ok? As you saw, I've also opened up a discussion at WP:EGRS about perhaps moving that particular "set of steps" elsewhere. Re: one of your comments there, nothing in that algorithm proposes deleting categories about women, and I'm not suggesting that this be added. The sequence of steps was more for people who have found a category full of women and want to make sure all of them are properly categorized, that is all. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and I did not mean to imply that deghettoization means "delete the categories", although sometimes that is an approach taken, but it's not really "deghettoization" any more than razing a building is a remodel...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Carolmooredc, the informal talk page vote was moved to a formal request for page move. Just an FYI in case you want to tweak your rationale for "support" cause it seems to rely on previous talk page context. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Mainly because the biggest war mongers say that they are acting in the name of peace and I don't want to see any "humanitarian" wars etc. promoted as "wars for peace" here. I was tempted by the inclusion of (international and civil) conflict resolution studies, but since someone pointed out that academics might not want to be in the same category as pro-peace protesters, and thus might withdraw at some point. So it might as well stay "antiwar" to avoid Big Brothers coming in to enforce peace through militaristic police states, which is all the rage these days (and through history).
Thanks for your input. There's been a lot of confusion and misinterpretations based on my pithy proposal, so I take responsibility for the bulk of the confusion. I sometimes forget that the Wikipedia community tends to see things quite differently than other communities, and brief proposals always lead to unintentional ambiguity and multiple interpretations. I'm not going to address your interpretation of my proposal because I feel we can be more constructive by moving to another proposal altogether. It saves a lot of debate and arguing and allows us to move forward on other pressing issues without spending an excessive amount of time on discussing misinterpretations. I'm sure you know what I mean; you've probably encountered similar situations where you say one thing, and members of the community think you are saying something completely different. With that said, I would like to clear up a few things to help smooth out our relationship moving towards the future. After all, I'm going to need your help and participation to move this project cleanup forward. So to clear up a few things:
I don't see what "war mongers acting in the name of peace" has to do with peace studies, nor can I envision how this would have anything to do with including such wars within the project scope. Therefore, I'm not sure why you brought it up or how it is relevant. Perhaps you can correct me or give me some added insight so I can see your point. I do understand what you are trying to say (and I don't disagree with it), but I fail to see the relevance to the topic at hand. This is why I've concluded that you (and obviously others) are misreading my proposal. And just so you know, I think it is safe to say that the current proposal is dead in the water. I acknowledge that.
I think the point about academics was another misinterpretation of this proposal. Peace studies encompasses such people along with activists and protesters.
Again, I don't see what "Big Brother enforcing peace through militaristic police states" has to do with this proposal. I suppose the question to ask then is, do you believe that the peace studies curriculum has been infiltrated by the government or watered down in some way?
Finally, I'm curious about your own personal approach. On the membership page, you said your primary interest is in the I/P conflict, and the current project watchlist shows that those articles have the most activity. However, I question whether those articles fall under the scope of "antiwar", when they are actually centered around peace activism and peace movements. As a result, it would seem your own personal preferences (and the watchlist activity) would support my proposal to rename this project. Again, I'm not all that concerned about the proposal, but it is a tad ironic that you seem to support it in action but oppose it in words.
There is a stigma associated with the term "antiwar", as the media actively uses it in combination with violent rhetoric, and as you know, certain sectors of the US government have been spying on and infiltrating antiwar groups and inciting violence to support this false media narrative. However, you never see the media associating violent acts with groups who work on nonviolence or peace programs. Peace activists have also noted how the term "antiwar" can be abused, and tends to focus on aggressive rhetoric and action rather than on the philosophy and practice of peace that support it. Obviously, the media and the government takes advantage of this weakness and exploits it. This is why you will rarely, if ever, see a depiction of any so-called "antiwar" group as peaceful in the mainstream media. This is not a mistake nor a coincidence. In other words, it is the government and the media itself that has insisted on the "antiwar" label, not the movement nor the activists. You should really think about that for a minute.
Finally, the current scope of the project utterly fails to encapsulate and describe the topic in any comprehensive manner. Most relevant articles are not tagged by the project, and many that are appear to be off-topic. When you study anti-war sources, you find the same topics covered under peace and nonviolence studies. There is also an overlap with the study of weapons proliferation and anti-militarism that has yet to be addressed. And the scope of the project is flawed. I take issue with a project scope of "articles related to Anti-war movements and ideologies" as much as I took (and still take) issue with the scope of WikiProject Conservatism. The fact is, there is no academic or educational interest in "ideologies". That ceased to be interesting in the last four decades of the 20th century. As anyone still alive and kicking knows, ideologies are officially passé in the 21st century. What is of interest here is a data driven approach to understanding the study of peace, based on its historical antecedents, significant events and people, and most importantly, its relationship to society and culture through its movements and milestones. To view all of this as simply a single idea called "anti-war" and to narrowly track this idea independently of its time and place is the wrong approach. The right approach is to focus on the practice of peace and its adherents, and the important contributions that have resulted from the opposition to war. The ideas are embedded in the actions of the individuals and their movements, and in their relationship to the wider world, and that's where the project scope resides.
Carolmooredc response put on an removed from Wikiproject talk page:
United States Institute of Peace supported War on Iraq. All sorts of neocons talk about war for peace and some of them edit here. It's a reality in the world and on Wikipedia.
Someone mentioned academics above. I've had trouble with editors who are - or say they are - "academics" throwing their weight around here or wanting to make it clear they are not mere activists or Wiki editors. So just a concern based on Wikipedia experience.
Israel is NOT making war on Gaza right now?? See Operation_Protective_Edge. That's a "peace action" according to lots of partisan editors, paid and unpaid. They'd love to have it part of a "peace" wikiproject.
Now a days - except for a few black bloc machos - the only violent people at peace demonstrations are govt provacateurs. Mainstream media stereotypes and stigmas should not dictate Wikipedians' actions.
Re "current scope of the project". Yes, it is narrow but needs to be to avoid phony "peace" efforts. Why not just start Wikiproject Nonviolent conflict resolution? It includes REAL peace efforts and isn't too long and confusing a name. I might join it myself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)14:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This is just a note to let you know that I removed the comments from the project page that you added. I specifically said I posted them on your talk page so as not to interfere with the discussion on the project page, yet you ignored me and moved my comments there anyway. To me, this illustrates my initial concern about misinterpretation; it seems that you did read what I wrote and saw something different in it that was intended. Your reply to my concerns indicates more of the same. I'm getting the sense that you aren't the slightest bit interested in what I have to say, which is fine, but don't go changing venues when I start out by explaining why I chose this venue. Of course, you are welcome to copy the discussion to my talk page, but I get the sense you have no desire to read what I wrote in the first place, and you'll just respond with further off-topic remarks. Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I just went back to read your reply for a second time and I'm amazed. What does the United States Institute of Peace have to do with the subject of peace studies? Well, absolutely nothing. It sounds like you misread and misunderstood something again. Which editors claimed to be academics and were throwing their weight around? None, of course. You confused the notion of Wikipedia taking an academic approach based on its use of academic sources about the subject with academics themselves. This discussion never occured. Operation Protective Edge has nothing to do with anything that has been said yet you've referred to it twice. You missed the point about the strong relationship between the media and the government and repeated a point I already made about infiltration. It's like you never read what I wrote. Finally, you close with another tangent about fake peace efforts while telling me to create a separate project that duplicates the current scope. Again, it's like you completely ignored what I said and launched into your own agenda. Carol, I can't have a discussion with anyone who responds like this, so I won't be communicating with you again here on this page. However, I want to thank you for giving me real insight into the reasons the antiwar project has become totally defunct and irrelevant. Lastly, I'm not the one that needs to start a new project. As far as I can see, you're the one who needs to stop impeding its progress and development. It's hard to imagine that you mistakenly changed the subject and avoided the subject of discussion twice in a row. As far as I can see, you have no real interest in the antiwar topic, you're just using it to continue the I/P conflict in another project, even though it is not under its scope. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Many editors experience editors going to their talk pages to dispute their points instead of article/project talk pages to be problematic and thus move discussions to talk pages. I experience quite negatively. Please do not do it again here. Thanks. 23:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Did you even read the original comment (now deleted)? I specifically explained that I was not interested in disputing your points on the talk page as I did not want to detract from the community discussion, and I forfeited the dispute, telling you that my proposal was dead in the water. Why then, would you move my request for clarification, made in the spirit of trying to figure out how to work with you, to the talk page after I told you that? Seriously? Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
And now you did it again. Carol, this is just a note that I will not attempt to work with you again in the future and I will not solicit your input or your opinion anymore. It is clear to me that Wikipedia is secondary to your primary agenda, and I'm not here to discuss or argue about your personal beliefs or motivations. Thanks, but no thanks. I'm going to get back to improving articles now. You keep doing whatever it is you do here. Since what you do has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia, I'm sure we won't cross paths again. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Double edit conflict. Now I'll have to replace your original and my reply and figure out what you are saying about dead in the water. So ditto on "huh". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No, please just delete it in its entirety. I'm sure you are a lovely person, but it's impossible to communicate with you. I can't believe you once again repeated the academic thing on the talk page after I clarified it. You've confused the RS recommendations for using the highest quality sources (such as scholarly sources) with a straw man argument you created about how we must rely on academic peace studies arguments made by neocons. Seriously, Carol? It's hard to tell if you are doing this on purpose or just don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Let's just put an end to this comedy of errors. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Carol, communication has implicit assumptions. For example, I assumed you were aware of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which forms part of my proposal and includes your objection. You seem to be intent on reinventing the wheel. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Archives
Don't modify talk page archives like this. And don't make wild stalking accusations - I'd already been to that page earlier in the day. I deal with enough fucking idiots here without having to add you to the list. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't notice she had archived it. Or rather, per her edit summary: (Djembayz moved page User talk:Djembayz to User talk:Djembayz/Archive July 2014: Archiving page) Never saw anyone do that before so thought I still was on the user page.
In any case, is this the third or fourth time I've told you to stop harassing me on my talk page. However, you just proved the point you reverted, so I guess it's all moot. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)00:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I came here to talk to Carol about something else, but dang, Sitush. Watch it. That "f*cking idiots" comment was uncivil. Lightbreather (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Right to respond: I didn't call her a fucking idiot - I said that I'm already dealing with (unnamed) fucking idiots and have no desire to add another to the list. What I actually think about CMDC is probably unprintable, on- or off-wiki, ergo I don't say it. I will say with confidence that she is incompetent and displays that almost continuously on talk pages, despite past attempts to set her on the right path.
For an example of real fucking idiots (all now blocked), see the recent ANI thread accusing me of uploading child porn or previous ones that refer to death threats. You lot don't realise how trivial your own civility concerns are and how much they are US-centric, as if we don't have enough US-driven bias on this project already. Now I'm gone, with apologies for the intrusion and for my initial forgetfulness about the ridiculous talk page ban. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe next time we are in the same conversation I should write: " I deal with enough fucking idiots here without having to add you to the list." and see how long it takes someone to go running to WP:ANI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)16:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
It sounded as if you were trying to give me advice, but the pages are overwhelming. If I understood, you're suggesting tell a fan or one of my editors or publishers to add stuff to the page? Thanks, Lmccullough (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
From your listing, I think you should have enough good references to keep the article, but someone has to put it together properly.
If you knew someone who already was an experienced editor, you could ask for help. But if your friends were not, they'd probably get "in trouble" by making newcomer errors too. Hang in there, Wikipedia can be fun to edit on topics of interest and we're trying to deal with some editors' rough edges. Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)20:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, it's not a good idea to have friends come and support keeping your article at the deletion page or "learning" how to edit first and only on your article. Best to just make refs available on the article's talk page and encourage current editors to beef up the article. There are a lot of articles, so sometimes it takes a while for the right editors to come along to work on it and get it right. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)01:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Question
Not terribly familiar with Wiki Projects. Can anyone join them or do you need to be invited? Saw your message to Bridenh and was curious about that particular project. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 04:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, anyone can join and invite people. I haven't started systematically inviting editors yet, but felt motivate to invite Bridenh since she seems to be a very new newbie and they can be easily discouraged. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)04:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
While reviewing WP:SCV entries, I came across Draft:Lynn Hagen. It clearly has some copyright issues, and one option is to simply delete it and let someone else start over, doing a better job.
However, in view of the under-representation issue, I wondered if you would like to take a stab at salvaging it, or persuading some to do so. I'm sure you have too much on you plate, so no pressure, but wanted to bring it to your attention. (Caution, I'm not the only one who reviews SCV, so someone else might see it and summarily delete it. I'll add a note which may buy some time, but no guarantees.)--S Philbrick(Talk)18:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind pointing me to the diff or text in question that TA was being used to support? I'm afraid I will have to create an RfC on the matter because of Everfur's recalcitrance over TA being a RS.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think RfCs are supposed to over-ride WP:RSN. Is the issue they still want to use it for BLP? If so, that's the place to take it. That was my main complaint at RSN; don't have that much a problem if used for opinions of authors if properly context, identified, etc. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)01:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of an RfC at RSN. I don't even think the opinions are notable unless a RS makes note of the opinion or author. Indeed one of the author's opinion may certainly noteworthy, but its bordering a blog at the moment.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I've never heard of an RfC at RSN. OK, I've asked the question of what the problem is now. I think they've accepted can't use in WP:BLP. Have they accepted it's an SPS?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)
By default, it's acceptable as a SPS as much as any other blog. EF has (finally) acknowledged it's not a RS, which was the big sticking point at RSN. I wouldn't worry about the SPS part until someone uses it as such; Examine the context of its usage first, and weigh the merits of using a blog against vs what it brings to the article. Burn that bridge if and when it ever comes.
On a side-note, I gather there is some animus and/or agenda between some of the editors in this matter. A lot of sexual identifications complicates matters. Until a year ago, I basically thought there were only a few categories: Straight, gay and "X trapped in a Y's body". Then there are all the "phlilas". The number of categories is immense. The internet must be liberating for the tortured souls who have felt hopeless and alone all of these years. I think with gay marriage being on the cusp of legalized across the US, polygamy and polyandry will be next on the list. And why shouldn't it be legal? The only downside I envision is the havoc it would wreak on family law and tax codes.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
My mistake; tried to close it earlier and missed the brackets ... inserted the brackets and missed your comment. Thanks for fixing. GoPhightins!04:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Well it did give a good idea for a Gender Gap Task Force essay: "Self-control vs. macho flashing: doing what's good for Wikipedia." Or something like that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)04:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, just meant that if issues related to that come up and if there was clear disruptiveness by individuals. Of course, if someone brought up an issue related to women in any area of arbitration (see WP:General Sanctions), say Israel-Palestine, or Tea Party or women and longevity or any trashed WP:BLP of a woman, it could come under existing sanctions in those areas. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)13:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, maybe I'm missing something. Are you saying that if "disruption" occurs at the Gender gap task force, the sexology arbitration would apply? It seems to me the decision in that case is rather specific. The findings of fact mainly involve James Cantor, a published researcher on paraphilias in the real world, and Jokestress, a prominent trans woman and transgender activist in the real world. The Arbcom remedies:
a mutual interaction ban between Jokestress and James Cantor is enacted
Jokestress is indefinitely topic-banned from human sexuality, including biographies
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary_sanctions reads: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia). As it happens, some (not all) transgender activists say nasty things about radical feminists in bios and relevant articles and really about any woman who criticizes and doesn't adopt their ideology and some editors put such things in Wikipedia articles with very poor sourcing and were they to violate various policies in order to keep such things in, obviously it would be a violation of the above. Plus one of many Gender Gap interests is to deal with articles where women are trashed.
A perfect example of this is this neutrally worded RSN notice I put at the Gender Gap Task force and Feminism wikiproject about an article on Radical Feminism. Rather than bringing up ther (IMHO questionable) allegations at RSN, they brought them up at the Task force which was disruptive, which I really should have said immediately. Bringing them up at the Feminism wikiproject also would be. Obviously, some women who saw that will be reluctant to bring up any concerns about this issue on that page again. I'll be less likely myself, though I may again. Got it? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)20:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom often goes from the specific to the general; in this case from, don't trash that guy, to don't trash anyone who may disagree with you over sources, POVS, etc.
As for reports, first you have to have evidence what their motivation is and then you have to warn editors with a template. The third step is ArbCom. If it's general disruption for mixed motivations, which may or may not be related to a specific Arbitration, then there's always WP:ANI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)20:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I know WP:ANI is a little unexpected. I was reported there recently for "spamming passive-aggressive, sarcastic attempts to derail discussions, edit warring, and meatpuppetry". But it seems to have boomeranged and the editor that reported me got a six-month topic ban. Parabolooidal (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I got taken to ani once by some %$# and one of his buddies lost his temper and ended up getting blocked while I got a very limp pencil warning. ha ha. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)22:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
WikiBigotry essay
Hi Carol, your recent addition just gave me an idea that I'd like to run by you. In the section for User directed bigotry there should probably something to the effect of bigotry towards other Editors because of their gender, cultural differences, and/or any language barriers such as ESL. What do you think? It definitely ties the subject back to its original premise. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, since you've contributed to the essay previously I did not think it was much of an imposition. My apologies, but any advice that you're willing to share would be appreciated. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Reading comprehension was never my strong suit I admit. I thought you were talking about the body of the text not the header. Like you say, live and learn. :) EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 04:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
At first I was, and then at second reading realized, "OH! The subject line is worse!" and entered that maybe 10 minutes later. Too many threads, too little time. (I love using and abusing hackneyed phrases :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)12:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
How much longer will Eric be tolerated? He has made multiple personal attacks against you and has been generally disruptive on the project page. At this point it's WP:ROPE, but ANI seems to be in order. As it's related to you, I would not be comfortable starting one without your blessing. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 03:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Give him a couple days and see if he takes the hint. Even SPECIFICO turned against him after a discussion on S's talk page. Who needs unnecessary ANI drama? Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)04:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Carol. I have the "Syntax highlighter" gadget turned on in my preferences. It is helpful, because it makes links one colour, tags another colour, etc. However, whenever I edit a page with your signature on it, everything after your name shows up in pink. Likely others are having the same problem. Would you consider moving the /small tag at the end of your signature after the final quotation marks instead of before? It would be more syntactically correct, and would fix the highlighter problem. It's a minor thing, so if you don't want to bother, no problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
ARBCOM clarification request regarding use of "TERF"
I have initiated a request for clarification from the ARBCOM regarding the use of "TERF" per discussions on Talk:Radical feminism. I am messaging you because you have been involved in past discussions regarding this issue and may wish to participate in the new discussion at the ARBCOM. The discussion can be found here. Thank you and best wishes. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 20:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The recent thread you posted is a non-starter. By including 3 editors, you set up a situation where the discussion will be diverse x3 and feckless x33. If there are specific WP:TPNO issues with particular editors which need addressing, they should be brought up one-by-one as they occur. If there is an overall pattern with any particular editor, you could start a RFC/U as to the editor. (Above all, bringing up editor behavior problems on the Gender Project talk page would be most unworthwhile.) I urge you to withdraw the thread/close the discussion as soon as possible. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, is Jimbo a participant on the project? Since he is not, what is the point of posting a notice on his talkpage? It looks like an effort to drag someone onto the drama board. Again, I urge you to closeout the discussion. Say so to me and I will do so on your behalf. I will simply say "Upon further consideration, OP has determined that pursuance of this particular thread would no be helpful to WP as a whole nor to the Gender project. – S. Rich (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
As I thought would happen, the discussion deteriorated. Among other things, various editors were saying "so-and-so should be banned for having these-and-those opinions", and "you are making a personal attack on me". I have "closed" the discussion with a {{NOTHERE}} template. – S. Rich (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You aren't an admin and others are expressing concerns so I think you should take you opinion off the top of the posting and put your own opinions in there just like any other editor. Another nail in your administrators coffin?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)17:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Please note in the ANI instructions the ANI calls for the attention/intervention of administrators and experienced editors. If I was an admin, I would have archived it. In any event, you will see that nothing will come of your thread. There is some risk of a boomerang. First, the thread reflects badly on you. Second, a thread about a Project talk page diverts attention from the actual goals of the Project. The real work on the problem is listed at WP:CSBOT. – S. Rich (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 20:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Regrettably, the ANI you opened is not constructive. You can see so by the results thus far. (I have not looked at Palestine or Israel, but suspect that similar long, drawn-out, endless discussions about the opinions of others would not be constructive either.) I and another editor have tried to close the ANI without success. And I am sad to see that Admins are contributing to the drama rather than dropping the curtain. – S. Rich (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's going well, getting a good discussion going, etc. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
I wonder if it will end up in the new government funded study of sexism on Wikipedia. (See Resources list.) I assume they'll be reading all the relevant threads. Also assume they won't use real names, knock wood.
By the way, I've read that more males get raped by other males in the military than females. Perhaps you have some insights on this or know about some abstruse military sources that might be open to the public. Or that we could do FOIs on? Something I just have a couple articles on right now from a year ago; haven't thoroughly research. And, as always, so many articles, so little time. Sexual assault in the United States military is the relevant article. I guess I can start by at least throwing in the couple refs I have saying it's more guys, though of course they rarely report it. (It seems it was a higly reliable source.) Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)20:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, the Barnstar below, for your editing efforts, is certainly deserved. Congrats. But I wish you'd withdraw the WP:ASPERSIONS you made about me being biased. Such is hardly the case. (And I dont know anything about the male/female rape issue. I presume you mean FOIA, but crafting one would be difficult.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)20:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
WP is not intended to be an outlet for your real-life activism of whatever stripe. That's the basis of your problem. Srich is your best friend here, from what I can see. SPECIFICOtalk21:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You said "way too biased" and "obvious biases". These remarks, especially when brought up on Gender Project discussions, imply gender-bias and other bias. It easily construed as a personal attack. If you would be so kind as to replace "biased" and "biases" with "nick-picking pain in the butt", I'd be quite happy. – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::I suspect that some of the editors on the GG talk page misunderstand the use of "bias" in that context. A less upsetting example of bias in the real world is due to the fact that 70% or more of humans are right-handed. This leads to systemic bias against left-handedness in product design, common speech, and many other areas. If WP editor population is overwhelmingly male, similar biases may result. That does not justify the inference that there is hateful intention behind the evident effects of such bias. This should be obvious on a Project with the hallmark Pillar "AGF" but unfortunately that is not the case. SPECIFICOtalk21:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It's in different places, and can get pretty confusing, but the main ones I found and put in the ani are ANI vs him (and perhaps the next one down in archives) and in different places on these Wales archives 167, 168, 169. Search the word. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)21:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, wow. I had an impression they were always talking about some past event, where he "only" was talking in generalities. But I see he was gotten on a specific... Bad behavior does encourage more. I've said a few obnoxious things the last month I wouldn't have except my internal censor got dislodged by thinkng "if Eric can do it, why not me." Geez...
His conflict of interest vs. the GGTF is pretty clear now. I mean I was reading terms of use today and see the Foundation can block people if it wants. The fly in the anarchist ointment. (I'm an organized decentralist myself.) Now if only there weren't so many admins defending that sort of nonsense. Well, raising consciousness is a much better option for solving the problem anyway. Though you'll always have that tiny number of individuals with a brown shirt/right sector/black bloc/gang banger mentality to deal with. Ugh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)22:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It's all a spectrum of gang behavior by a tiny minority of individuals. I could have listed hotel room destroying rock bands and hockey and football teams, etc. etc. too. Chill... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)23:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Eric and Carol ban each other - for future reference
How you have the absolute gall to say "chill" to me after initiating the most ridiculous AN/I report I've ever seen just beggars belief. Here's a warning for you. Don't try that stunt or anything like it again. EricCorbett23:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You do make me laugh, so I thank you for that. But naturally you're no longer allowed to post anything on my talk page either. EricCorbett23:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Carol, I know you think that Eric is attacking all women and all that, but the honest truth is that most of his work and interactions over the years have seemed to have been with female editors and he generally gets on very well with them. I'm sure @Gerda Arendt: would vouch for that. He just simply doesn't buy the gender inequality argument and that gender identify matters. I'm all for a higher number of female editors, and I fully support what Rosiestep is doing with WP:Women writers as some of the coverage of female writers in the Latin world or encyclopedists etc is pathetic. But I do also find it a bit offensive that gender identity matters in quality of writing for instance. Eric used the example of Enid Blyton which we co-authored, it wouldn't have made any difference if it had been written by women. Where gender identity might matter more, aside from projects like Rosie's which try teven up coverage, there's quite a few topics which most male editors wouldn't edit and might be more likely to be edited by females, so that would be a good thing in addressing systematic bias, but by no means does that mean that simply because an editor is female they'll want to edit a "female" topic like nursing or fashion or whatever. Eric just seems to find it highly offensive that they think it's a major issue in terms of quality writing I think. I think you've taken a lot of what he's said as an attack on all women in general, which given my experience of his interactions with female editors, I really don't think is true. And no, I'm not defending him because I'm male, but I am saying that I don't think he's quite what you think. It also concerns me Carol that you keep talking about "guy editors" a lot, as if it really matters. I welcome anybody who does anything constructive on the website, I couldn't give a toss who the editor is and what they're like in real life.♦ Dr. Blofeld10:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
You know too little then. To me he mentioned his reputation, adding "I'll try and be gentle", and "chin up" when I needed it (helpful every single day, thank you, Eric), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
On Bbb23's talk page, you mentioned me as ' He just put an edit war notice on her talk page.' I'm a woman, so I just wanted to state that. Obviously, Wikipedia is male dominated, but yes, there are still some woman contributors...even if they have a different opinion than you. So yeah. Tutelary (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I have a tendency to build them and continue building them. No doubt my readability is low, so I appreciate the help. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
RFAR
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender Gap Task Force Issues and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Here's the answers for the two questions you may or may not have known you had: why was your template not working, and why did I remove your request:
The template you used wasn't working because you were trying to substitute a template named {{Carolmooredc}} instead of {{RMassist}}. (You can probably figure out what happened there.)
With the way your request was inputted, you were asking to move a page title to the same title as itself. I'm not sure what your requested destination actually was, so I just removed it. Also, I don't know if you were aware of this, but your move request was built to move a talk page instead of the article itself.
Carol, I don't know what your issues with Eric and SPECIFO are (though I gather there is a history with the latter), but my only involvement with you was at RSN where you asked a question about a source and I subsequently followed you to the talk page and became interested in the subject matter. Eric has asked some pertinent questions, abrasively at times. I have asked some as well, and I'll admit I haven been as polite as I should have been. I'll try to work on that. I'm not questioning the need for the project. You are doing fine work with your resource guide. However if you dial back the volume a bit, I think you will find others will be more accommodating to claims you are making. This "spoon fed" business is annoying you, but rather than just say "read the resources", tell us the exact source in question. I promise I'll read it. If I have questions, I'll ask you to elaborate. Let's try and close the GG instead of fighting. It's more fun that way.Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon20:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I don't think you are quite as bad, but put together with the other two, especially before the ANI, one may feel like tearing one's hair out. If you are interested in the project you can look through the list once yourself. Who knows, you may come out a %$&*&#&*# %$*5$%*, just like the rest of us allegedly are :-) I'll give you one link, however: Geek feminism on why guys need to learn about this stuff themselves. I think I mentioned it before on the page. Think I'll have to add it again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)20:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I read it, and I suppose its a resource of sorts, however I'm not sure a lot of people are going to give much credence to wiki sites for establishing metrics of a GG. I suppose its useful to educate people however.Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon22:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Have you been following the message I left on SPECIFICO's talk page regarding a possible interaction ban? He has responded here, and I think this could be very helpful. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Definitely one of my favorite pics I've put up so far. A bunch more I'd like to put up and otehrs I put up and haven't gotten around to entering into articles. At least photos don't get AfD'd as much Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)15:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, well Sitush sh*ts his pants if I change anything he has to look at, so in this case will let it go. Guess I'm a bit unbalanced from all the B.S. Do you live in Manchester, England, too? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)15:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The only foreign country I ever visited. Driving from Detroit to whereever you end up on the other side in the US. I know I saw Niagara Falls when I got there. Way back in 1971. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)15:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to ask if someone other than Sitush wrote an article about you would you still be offended? I don't know the full history of you and the editors you have been in constant disagreement with but I hope things get better =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If Eric Corbett and Sitush and SPECIFICO were kept off it, that would help. I have a lot of refs and info from sources like 'Washington City Paper, Los Angeles Times, Reason Magazine, The Washington Post, Associated Press, Philadelphia Inquirer which could be used and were last time. But frankly, I am a minor activist like a lot of other people whose articles also have been deleted and I'm sure the second deletion will stick if first one doesn't. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)19:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking along the lines of notability here (no offense) but if your article is kept I had suggested that moving it into draft-space per Black Kite might generate a more neutral audience to edit it. There are rules and policies here on Wikipedia as you know when it comes to BLP articles if one of the editors you mentioned even were to include anything bias then it would be picked up just as any other article would. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The real purpose is to harass me and keep me busy deleting crap from the article so that I get pissed off and can't work on other things and maybe get site banned. Probably all I'd do is drop by every couple days and tell them what shit it is. And complain at BLPN once a month. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)19:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Last comment
You added a lengthy comment in the Sitush interaction ban section and it seems very out of place and unnecessary. I strongly urge you to delete it or move it to another section. Please.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I have a question for you. Did you, or did you not, previously post the link to the website Sitush posted on their talk page anywhere on Wikipedia? I would appreciate a straight and direct answer to this please.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes.(Note: I'm not sure if the Sitush talk page linked where I discussed that. Sorry if not made clear at ani). It was back in 2007-8, maybe early 2009. Then someone said I was "self-promoting." First time I'd heard it was a problem, so I took it off. (I see others do it without that charge, of course.) The issue was it was just part of his year of on and off wikihounding me and casting aspersion, and right after close of the first wikihounding case which was much more severe. So obviously I was a bit upset. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)12:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Baiting
Hi Carol, I'm really sorry to see that the baiting continues. Please consider not responding to it. When you reply, it means they have something to respond to, so it continues for longer, and it makes it harder for others later on to see who was at fault. SlimVirgin(talk)14:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I have stopped replying as much. But often others do instead. I've just about had it myself and won't post proactively for a while. (And I am serious about doing the civility organizing off line, but will bring that up soon when recent brouhaha ends.)
It's the baiting that has to stop. If these admins think they can let this stuff go on without the ever-watchfull Govt financed Study and the Media noting the absurdity of males closing down the project, they are naive. Especially those using their real names to harass women, or revealing them publicly. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)14:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Advice
A word of advice, and I realize that it's uninvited. I don't want to discuss, just make a suggestion. Can you take a few days off or something? I think there are enough people who sympathize with the problem who are willing to help, but some of your responses might push potential allies away. And they certainly just feed the anti-Carol posse's list of grievances. You've presented your evidence... Maybe take a long weekend? (BTW: I am going to un-watch your page after I post this. As I said, I don't really want to discuss. Also, you won't hurt my feelings if you delete this.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You analysis and suggestion is spot on. I've been further aggravated by having problems with my phone lines and filters, which won't be fixed til next week. And my housemate, who's congenitally half-deaf (and a transgender to boot) has a sadistic boss whose been threatening to fire him for a week and he's been freaking out and keeping me up half the night noisily vomiting. (Of course, the guy's almost a millionaire, but some guys feel like if they aren't working every day, they'll end up in the poor house.) So I don't need this nonsense on top of it! Also I'm three days behind now on far more important projects and will now have to play catch up. And between you and me, kudos to you not backing down and running away every time someone tells you to! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)22:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Two-way Interaction Ban
Sitush may agree to a two way interaction ban provided that any Arbcom action including filing, commenting on, enforcement, clarifications, ect are exempted. Such an iBan would include talking about each other, commenting to each other, writing articles about each other, reverting anothers edits, and commenting on ANI cases involving one another. Would you agree to those terms if he did?--v/r - TP15:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. I shall be VERY relieved. And I certainly would need the same exemption if ArbCom got involved with this silliness. My only question is, where's the "go to" place if he violates it? (
And I do believe, as someone said in last 24 hours, that if there is some general wikiproject/community-type discussion a number of people are involved with that we are involved with, we can generally comment on the kinds of points the other might make, but not specifically quote/reply/bait/etc them and thus must be very careful of anything we should say in any such discussion. Hopefully there will be little of that!! I never did run into him until last year anyway. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)15:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The go-to place would probably be an email to an admin that you trust or Arbcom at this point.--v/r - TP15:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
As an aside, I plan to meet with Jimbo Monday, and hope to chat about Gender Gap issues. I'm interested in knowing what initiatives the Foundation is actively working on at the moment.--S Philbrick(Talk)23:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I assume it's just a continuation of whatever, including funding for research studies. But you should read his comments on his talk page recently where he's thrown out some ideas that would impact retaining women editors, if not specifically gender gap-focused. Will be interesting to see.
I looked at an earlier version of the resources page, but you've added a lot, nice. One thing I like is that it is organized. Some of the lists I have seen are hodge-podges, which is understandable, but frustrating. --S Philbrick(Talk)00:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I had chats with both Jimbo and Lila Tretikov. While gender gap did not come in in the conversation with Jimbo, it did in the conversation with Lila. it did not go into detail, but I was encouraged by her response, which indicated strong support for addressing the issue.--S Philbrick(Talk)18:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I am seeding that page with items taken from the wonderful resource list you created (which I also linked) I want to make sure that you get the credit for the heavy lifting; I added a note at the beginning, let me know if there is a better way to give you credit.
Will check it out soon (crappy verizon internet connection and storms permitting). Getting credit isn't that a deal to me on Wikipedia, since content changes so much, but thanks for thinking of it. Getting out the word is my big thing. Hopefully that Arbitration won't happen and things will get calmer soon since I have a delicious list of articles I'd like to work on. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)00:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I know, I said "initiated OR were involved with" however, seeing that the language is imperfect, I'll do the next one differently.--S Philbrick(Talk)15:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
No problems. It is an established procedure to write a single statement that is delivered to all parties. That said, even as I wrote it I realized that the word "initiated" refers to only one of the parties and I wondered if there would be an issue. However, I had hit save on eleven tabs while considering this. I had one more Arbcom item to close, and I wrote out two separate messages, one for the initiator and one for the other named parties. Not a big issue, but a better process.--S Philbrick(Talk)16:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I do. 11 is close to an edge case - a few more and I would trot out AWB, but AWB and I do not get along well. It usually takes me several tries to open it, so I save that for larger tasks. I also think there is a mass notification tool, but again, eleven names - probably would take me longer to find it than to open 11 tabs and cut and paste.--S Philbrick(Talk)16:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Monument to Wikipedia in Slubice
Hi there, I noticed your comment at pl:Dyskusja:Pomnik Wikipedii. In short - we don't know as the monument hasn't been unveiled yet. We know that the original project had two men and two women, but that was a long time ago. Judging from this picture it still is true, but we can't be sure. Let me know should you have any more questions. //Halibutt19:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't use Google translate for Polish. While it might seem an obvious choice, it really doesn't work for Polish. It took me a while to decipher your question about memorial plaques on the monument (or did you mean something else?). Actually the monument is said to be adorned by three plaques, one in Polish, one in German and one in English. I have no idea what the text would be though and it seems the sponsors are not willing to spill the milk before the opening ceremony. We'll have our guys there though (our gals, actually :) ), and we'll have pictures of it as soon as the monument is unveiled next week.
When replying to someone's comment please either reply at their talk page or {{ping}} them. It's easier to keep track of the conversation that way. :)
I noticed your edit on Talk:Earthquake prediction in support of another editor's comment against Sitush. Since you'd never edited either that article or Talk page before that edit, it looks to me like you followed Sitush to that page for the sole purpose of making what appears to me to be a snarky comment. I understand that the two of you don't get along but please don't come to articles just to continue your argument with him. Aside from the fact that this behaviour appears to be WP:WIKIHOUNDING, there's enough strife and negative energy on that Talk page already and the kind of comment you made is not helpful. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
As I explained here at Arbitration/evidence/talk: After I noticed some one claiming to be you, back and insulting me, I had to check out if it really was you. I thus read another editor noting your continued "pattern of hectoring and intimidation".[8] So it was just human nature to opine to a true statement with "Hear! Hear!" Wait a couple days and you'll see the context in the evidence.
One such incident hardly makes Wikihounding. In my experience it can take dozens of complaints over a year before there's any action, though it is gratifying when it finally happens. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)18:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
It may be your nature to respond positively to what you believe to be a true negative statement about another editor but it was inappropriate to post your comment because it focused on an editor, not content. That another editor was commenting on Sitush, and that you and Sitush have a history of conflict, are not justifications for your edit.
When I first saw the comment it came across to me as part of a broader wikihounding campaign because it came out of nowhere and had no collaborative or constructive purpose. However, I recognize that your edit wasn't actually wikihounding because AFAIK it involved just that one page. Ca2james (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
After years of it from different editors who don't like my POV or my uppity ways, and 1000 death threats from one long-banned crazy sock through the Wikipedia mail system, I know better than to get into that sort of thing. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)20:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Just a side comment that you may wish to see my reply to TKOP on my talk. And I do wish you'd cease to confuse your own personality with a cause, which makes it much harder for those of us who are trying for actual change and not endless drama over useless personality conflicts. Montanabw(talk)17:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Sitush
Next time you follow Sitush to a page that you weren't actively editing and reply to him (no matter what you say) you will be blocked. Don't repeat the wikistalking that you did here. Secondly, don't mention the name of any banned editors that you don't want to continue harassing you. Banned editors get a rise when somebody takes notice of them. Banned editors can't post here; it's rude to talk about them needlessly in a venue where they are not welcome to respond. JehochmanTalk12:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually Admin Noticeboard has been on my watch list since the "Civility Board" brouhaha, so technically it wasn't wikistalking. However, now I know who the effective admins to go to are, next time I'm wikistalked! I guess re: banned editor, the best thing is to say "well-known banned editor." Frankly, I've heard so much hectoring on "providing evidence" the last few months I just figured editors wouldn't believe me if I don't provide such evidence. But if you think that's not an issue, I am now apprised. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)12:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
If you see a thread about Sitush, don't join it. If you see a comment by Sitush, don't reply to it. If he comments on a community issue, and then some other people comment, you are welcome to participate. Just try to avoid stressing him or anybody else. Clue is your friend. As for the user banned in 2005, I think he's a riot, but we shouldn't encourage him. You may want to ask User:JzG for a can of his patented Troll-B-Gone spray. The trick is to be super-boring or annoying to the troll. JehochmanTalk13:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see that as a "Sitush" issue with a "Sitush only" header, but a community issue. And it is an issue a lot of women face.
Additionally I think my experience of how long it takes Wikimedia foundation to act on serious stalking: 1000 death threats of a number of months; forgot to mention the GIF of "Carol Moore" being beaten up put on Wikicommons and removed or all the hangup calls I got around that time. Most of the harassment was conducted through WMF website and email systems. (After a while I just filtered emails into a folder and only looked once a week.) So that would be of interest to anyone interested in how quickly the Foundation handles threats. My only interest in Sitush's edits the last month or so is collecting diffs of his bad mouthing me on a variety of project and user talk pages.
On your post, My "joke" was purely about people discussing the term en passant, and I have literally been accused of cheating for using that chess move. I'm sorry if you thought I was making light of your concern. I see your concern as legitimate, but I also see it being adequately answered. EC seems to be self-immolating, so I would maybe back down on the outrage in your posts, it does not serve you well - don't give the arbs and others excuses to ignore you or take blanket actions. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Don't play chess. But it helped me further get the point across.
The evidence phase of the current ArbCom case is almost at an end, so not much time left for digging out those diffs.
Why anyone ever thinks that initiating an ArbCom case might be a good idea is a mystery to me, but now we all have to wait for our inevitable sanctions, whether or not they're justified. I think ArbCom made a big mistake in accepting the case, as I think that you do as well, but events overtook us.
Part of the punishment of course is the protracted proceedings, and I'm sure we both know that none of the arbitrators will actually look at the evidence; they'll simply vote the way they were going to vote when they decided to accept the case. EricCorbett20:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
While ArbCom sounded like a good idea at first, the messier things got (and as ANI started working), the less good an idea it sounded. I didn't know what Robert was up to til it happened. Only a couple of those recycled diffs were a bit off and needed deleting. But what can we chubby white haired old people do with these kids today?
S, wise. Don't you get it? Arb's decision. They were voting against it until he started his bio nonsense (15th) which forced an MfD (my idea) and an ANI (not my idea)(16th), then there was the threat and that ANI(20-21st). In the middle of all that, two Arb no's switched to yes and three others decided to accept. Sounds like cause and effect to me. You did see the diffs I presented that S. wanted it bad.
PS, yes, it's a pain to have to delete all the curse words before posting, as I did from these threads. (And many others in the past except when my finger slipped a few times.) But it makes for a happier life boat... Remember, big brother is out there prowling for ways to sink Wikipedia (or control it) so all that WP:RS dirt about their dirty doings isn't constantly entered by anonymous nobodies - or people in the know?; they even are funding a study hoping it will help find more excuses. Why help them? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)23:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Arb/Workshop
You probably want to sign in each section. Not doing so is very, very confusing as we can't tell who made what comment. This will get more confusing as more material is added. Dennis2¢00:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C☎17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Changes to Feminists Engage Wikipedia
Why did you add links and articles to the archived feminists engage wikipedia meetup page? The page has already been archived and has that banner saying not to edit it. The additions make it look like what you added were part of the meetup when they weren't, which is misleading to anyone coming across the page. It would be better if you self-reverted your changes. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to answer of your question on Polish Wikipedia. No, the persons are not only man. There are two man and two women. --Piotr967 (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
This [9], repeated on Jimbo Wales' talkpage [10] is so far beyond the line that I have blocked you. It seems likely that you will be banned rather soon anyway, so I suggest that if you feel a pressing need to make some other (constructive) contributions to the arb proceedings until that time, you'd better contact the committee by mail directly. Fut.Perf.☼14:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Carol, when you've only got to convince one arbitrator to change its vote to oppose, it's best not to rock the boat. Recommend you stay away from the page-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@User:Bishonen shows her ignorance. Probably more guys get gang banged by other guys in prison, torture chambers, fraternities, and militaries worldwide than women. It's actually a gender neutral term. (Not to mention "gang bangers" is a phrase for members of gangs who may or may not do any sexual gang bangs of males or females. So it's appropriate for individuals in question.) You say "attacks" - are their other terms you do not understand?
Carol, that's quite enough of this line of discussion. I get that you're angry and trying to make a point, but it is absolutely unacceptable to...well, to do most of the things you're doing right now: compare other Wikipedians to rapists (or gang members), belittle male victims of rape, defend your saying horrible things about people because it happens to women too so it must be ok to do to men...none of those things are ok, and if you continue doing them I or someone else is going to have to remove your access to this talk page to stop them happening. You're blocked; you're intended to use your talk page to discuss and appeal the block, not continue any and all disputes you aren't able to let go of. Please give some thought to whether moderating yourself, even just somewhat, is more likely to pay off for you than continuing in the vein you've been going along in. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In my version of the English language, "gangbanger" means someone who has taken an active part in a gang rape, and is therefore a shocking insult, quite inappropriate to use in this context. Throwing it around as an insult demeans all victims of rape by likening their ordeal to having a few nasty things said about them online. Get real, please. PamD17:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Having looked further (because I'm a retired librarian): WP has a dab page giving two meanings of Gangbanger; [11] gives 3 meanings including "someone who gangbangs", and the def of the verb "gangbang" doesn't quite include rape explicitly; OED defines "gangbanger" as "A member of a criminal or street gang, esp. one who engages in gang violence; a gangster"; but to me personally, female 60+ UK English-speaker, it still sounds like a rapist. PamD18:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Where I come from "gang bang" implies sex, but not necessarily rape (there is a whole genre of porn for it, some of which simulates rape, some of which is just an orgy involving only one girl). "Gang-banger" is a term for one who is in a gang, but does not specifically imply that the participate in gang-bangs. Its more of a synonym for thug/gangste/etc). Although I think Carol's post was improper for other reasons, I don't read it as her accusing anyone of actual rapes (even figurative ones). However, as part of the larger dispute here is that different words mean different things to different people, I do not preclude the possibility that people in other areas would read it as a sexual reference. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that in some cases the word gangbang implies sex or in some way alludes in some metaphorical way to sex. Also, to Carol, I really would suggest that you follow the advice of Fluffernutter above. There are only a very few uses of user talk pages considered acceptable by users who are actively blocked, and any editing not included in those acceptable uses can and often does lead to the ability to edit even that restricted. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with this block. Yes, Carol is expressing herself forcefully, but I don't see that as a reason to shut her down for a week. The issue at hand is of considerable importance to numerous Wikipedians, some of whom may have difficulty standing up to the intimidating culture here, and a block at this juncture is counterproductive to open debate. I'd say it compounds the problem. Jusdafax19:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
First, if someone only mentions I'm blocked because they don't understand what a word means, it's my right to define it. And if others want to add other understandings or clarifications, that is fine too.
Second, the only phrase of relevance here is "Manchester Gangbangers". Living in the US I heard the phrase used a lot to describe gangs of males who engage in thuggish behavior. That's the way I see the year or more of harassment and the harassment since I joined GGTF, and especially since September, including at Arbitration by friends of Manchester editors. If you all choose to think more of it than that, whatever.
Thanks for reminding me that sexual gang bangs can be consensual and I have heard that way, most in gay culture, but also sometimes involving women who like it (like a roommate I had who I had to ask to leave after a week) or who agree to please their guys, as in biker culture. (Though we can debate how "consensual" the latter really is.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)22:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The irony. "Gang banger" in the US means member of a gang. The phrase is not used in the UK at all but the nearest term is "gang bang" (I.e. group sex) so a British person would assume that "gang banger" would only refer to a participant in group sex. Wait, wasn't there a US/non-US disagreement over what another word meant recently...? DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The difference being that "gang banger" as member of a gang can be gangs that include women and even are made up entirely of women. The Manchester gang obviously includes both. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)22:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
If the Brits are ignorant of the primary US meaning of a word, known by a hundred million plus Americans, now they've learned it. However, they (and most Brits I'm sure) know exactly how it's used in US and have heard numerous protestations. So again, no comparison. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)22:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
If you genuinely fail to see the irony of what you're saying then it really does explain how you've got yourself into this situation. DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
No I got myself in this situation because guys kept harassing me with BS comments, including ones like this they refuse to explain in plain English, and from time to time I lost my temper. Happily, I am liberated from all that kind of nonsense. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)23:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Carol, you were blocked for making personal attacks, not for using non-gender-neutral language. Read Fluffernutter's post again. Take a day off, then come back, think things over again, and make an unblock request. If you continue as you are right now somebody is going to simply remove your talk page access. ~Adjwilley (talk)23:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I know that some consider it a personal attack, I just did not want to leave the impression I meant one definition rather than another. Of course, when I make my list of my alleged personal attacks compared to all those issued over time by other parties to Arbitration on me and others, the double standard will be clear. Obviously that won't be done here. It would help if people like DeCausa would stop harassing me, but that's why I'm delighted to leave. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)23:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
There. I've reduced the block length to 72 hours, the same as I believe should be done with Eric Corbett. [12] I hope you can use this time to relax, enjoy your Thanksgiving, and hopefully disengage from this conflict. ~Adjwilley (talk)23:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Ban from Gender Gap Task Force case pages
As a result of your poor conduct on the case pages, in spite of Bishonen's warning and the edit notice for the proposed decision talk page, I am, as an arbitration clerk, taking the additional action of barring you from participating on any of the Gender Gap Task Force case pages. For clarity, this means no editing the main case page, evidence page, workshop page, proposed decision page, or any of those pages' talk pages. This restriction is enforceable by block, if necessary. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)20:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Why the ban is nonsense
User:Ks0stm: Because you guys don't understand "gang bangers" in the US means gang members and can include women and even be all women? Sure, block me for saying things I think are true about the "Manchester gangbangers". But it's pretty far stretch to ban me from GGTF for saying it's some sort of sexual attack. That means any one you want to ban from any project can be banned cause a Admin doesn't understand what a word means? Someone ask him about that at Arbitration election candidate questions. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies for not getting to this sooner. I've been traveling last night and today, and I'll reply this evening my time (in about 4-6 hours) once I have a chance to sit down and actually write up a detailed answer. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Interested editors might Google "Manchester gangbangers" and see what comes up. For more provocative results, turn off the filters. Then opine on whether the term is appropriate for WP discussions. – S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If I call someone an asshole and get blocked, then say that what I meant was this[13], then I would expect the same level of skepticism. Dennis - 2¢02:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Carol would do well to say she got carried away, didn't consider the various implications and usages of the term, apologize, and ask to have the block lifted so she can go back and redact the term. Her request can be made off-Wiki and would do well to quote what she meant to say with less ad hominem (NPA) language. – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I think Carol said exactly the right set of words to the exactly right set of people who needed to be told those words, to be honest. All this is is continuation of the same old stereotypes; men who commit aggressive act after aggressive act are shown no end of leniency, but the "uppity" woman who dares get within the ballpark of same gets the ax. Tarc (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Tarc. I am a Neanderthal about such things, so I really can't believe we're the only one seeing what is happening.--Milowent • hasspoken17:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Carol, your behaviour and accusations in that diff, repeated on Jimbo's talk page, after multiple warnings about "sniping" on the arbcom pages were beyond the pale. Banning you from that page is a very reasonable clerk action and taken correctly. WormTT(talk) 08:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tarc: Two observations: 1. Because we have more male editors, by far, we are more likely to see instances of inappropriate NPA comments from editors we perceive to be male. That does not mean males are more likely to NPA. 2. Seeing more NPA behavior from one gender does not excuse NPA behavior from any other gender or from any particular individual. – S. Rich (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
That is absurdly stupid and denies reality. Of course males generally tend to have a harshed tone with eachother. Apparently there is one culture in northern Papua New Guinea where it is the other way round but I am pretty sure you dont live there.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·17:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Tarc. This part seems especially spot on "men who commit aggressive act after aggressive act are shown no end of leniency, but the "uppity" woman who dares get within the ballpark of same gets the ax" Also what's the rationale for banning Carol from GGTF? I hope it's not to deny Carol an outlet to work within WP to change this apparent double standard.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
When even GW shifter her vote regarding the topic ban, it should a signal. I think the current situation is unfortunate, as based on the pre-case evidence, parity outcomes do seem to be more "fair". However during the case, Eric has made overtures (credible to some, not so to others) of getting in line - he gave those sympathetic an excuse to hand him some more rope. Carol has made attacks and polemics. Maybe shes justified in them, but doing so in front of the arbs was not a smart move. She gave everyone an excuse to throw the book at her, including from those were supporting her. Since she is blocked at this point I'm not sure what alternatives she has, perhaps somehow throwing herself on the mercy of the Arbs via email. Supporters and detractors of both eric and carol need to stop throwing gas on the fire and goading and encouraging themselves to regularly express righteous indignation its not helpful to anyone's cause. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42 pretty much said everything that comes to mind to me about this matter above. Eric has said he is willing to change his behavior, and, considering this is an arbitration and many people behave badly in them, hasn't been particularly obnoxious during it. We more or less have to take him by his word that he will, time will of course tell. Carol, on the other hand, seems to have escalated the level and frequency of her dubious conduct during arbitration, and it very much to me looks like the decision being made is strongly influenced by Carol's recently heightened problematic behavior. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The gangbangers as a means of gang members didn't occur to me at all until I read this thread and it is quite possible it was meant that way. I sympathize in a way because I have called the committee out on hypocritical things before and got blocked for it too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
[14] confirms that you are waging a battle and you are Wikipedia:NOTHERE. Why you target Salvio giuliano, Eric Corbett and SPECIFICO when they have not participated on any Indian articles? It is also interesting that you labelled User:SPECIFICO as one of the Brit. You know that those 3.3 billion women includes 600 million women who are Indians? You must note that not even 1% of them are editing this website, and those who are editing, nearly no one is reading your thoughts. You must know by now that wikipedia is not right platform for your gossiping and soapboxing. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Prohibition remedy proposal
Hello Carol. I've proposed a prohibition remedy at the GGTF case. If you were to apologize for your recent posts (which led to your block) & agree to comply with my remedy proposal. I believe the arbitrators might adopt my proposal, support it & thus reverse their ban-votes. Please consider. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please don't comment on this page while Carol can't reply
People may not be aware that when Adjwilley reduced the block length,[15][16] they also removed talkpage access. Carol can't reply, so please stop commenting on her. Actual information, like that in the "Prohibition remedy proposal" section above, may well be helpful, but above that, I see a number of accusatory/defensive comments about her actions, posted after tpa was removed. It was perhaps unfortunate that Adjwilley didn't mention it on the page. Please hold off those for at least 24 hours, until she's free to reply. That goes for Arbs too. (And even after she gets tpa back, you know, please think hard about it before hitting "Save".) Bishonen | talk14:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC).
Carol's Last? Comments
Re: Block: Considering the dozens of personal attacks I’ve had to listen to on the Gender Gap Task Force Arbitration talk pages, with little attempt by Arbitrators to stop it or to sanction repeated attackers, you’ll have to excuse me if I’ve lost track of what is and is not a personal attack!
Re: Sexualize language, I’m confused:
Admins don’t block for Corbett saying "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one"
Admins and Arbs don’t think Sitush writing to a woman who objected to the above "I'm sure that the families of Twatt, Orkney will be impressed.”
Arbs don’t think “Makin Bacon” means pigs fornicating.
Admins and Arbs didn’t have a problem with a guy mocking other guys on GGTF page as engaging in a “circle jerk.” In fact, they blocked “Makin Bacon” for removing it from the talk page!
Yet suddenly using the metaphors gang bang and gangbangers to describe institutionalized psychological harassment on Wikipedia is suddenly “sexualized language.” The double standards reek.
To be pedantic and clarify the uses of the terms:
“Gang bang” does not always describe male on female rape scenarios. It also can describe male on male scenarios, as often happen in prisons/private schools/fraternities/militaries/torture chambers. However, sexual gang bangs can be consensual, can be all male sex orgies or male and female orgies. I do believe “gang bang” as unwanted and violent attention is an appropriate metaphor to describe unwanted psychological harassment of a male or female on Wikipedia. Including in the Gender Gap Task Force Arbitration. In fact, someone should write the essay: WP:NoGangBangs.
“Gang banger”, even in the US and even England, largely means gang members, usually of a thuggish kind. In a context where actual sexual “gang bangs” are discussed, it might be used to refer to those. I do believe “gang banger” is an appropriate metaphor to describe those who engage in personal attacks on and psychological harassment of a male or female. Including in the Gender Gap Task Force Arbitration. In fact, someone should write the essay: WP:GangBangersGoAway.
Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Commenting about old edit summaries and saying "Insulting edit summary" in a subsection heading has nothing to do with article improvement. Why? Because we discuss edits and prospective edits on the article talk page. If you think an editor has behaved improperly with their edit summary, post a notice on their talk page or report them on a notice board. Few people go back and look at the edit summaries to figure out how to improve the article. Even if they did, commenting about an old edit summary on the talk page is disruptive because it leads editors to start discussing the old edit summary. This is a serious warning. I will report you if I see such behavior again. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
![[13]](http://www.ceremonyheals.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/asshole-1.jpg){kind=link}