Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

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

Evidence presented by Cas Liber

Editing patterns

Part of the problem is a lack of objectivity and assumptions made by editors about other editors' behaviour. One way of taking stock and getting a more objective view is to do a quantitative analysis of editing patterns of the people involved. I intend to start this by examining the last 500 contributions of each party up until the end of September in the first instance. The reason for doing this is that it just antedates the acceptance of the case, i.e. before folks realised a case was going to be opened and hence dial it back for fear of sanctions. These will be listed below. I might go further back, not sure. May even look until the present to compare. Comments can be made below. Also, ultimately we are about building an encyclopedia, so below each party, folks are invited to provide (with diffs) how that editor has helped them build an encyclopedia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon

last 500 contribs until Oct 1

How has this editor helped build an encyclopedia

• Folks invited to comment here with diffs.

How has this editor been disruptive or hindered building an encyclopedia

• Folks invited to comment here with diffs.

Eric Corbett

last 500 contribs until Oct 1

How has this editor helped build an encyclopedia

• Folks invited to comment here with diffs.

How has this editor been disruptive or hindered building an encyclopedia

• Folks invited to comment here with diffs.

Two kinds of pork

last 500 contribs until Oct 1

How has this editor helped build an encyclopedia

• Folks invited to comment here with diffs.

How has this editor been disruptive or hindered building an encyclopedia

• Folks invited to comment here with diffs.

SPECIFICO

last 500 contribs until Oct 1

How has this editor helped build an encyclopedia

• Folks invited to comment here with diffs.

How has this editor been disruptive or hindered building an encyclopedia

• Folks invited to comment here with diffs.

Carolmooredc

last 500 contribs until Oct 1

How has this editor helped build an encyclopedia

• Folks invited to comment here with diffs.

How has this editor been disruptive or hindered building an encyclopedia

• Folks invited to comment here with diffs.

Neotarf

last 500 contribs until Oct 1

How has this editor helped build an encyclopedia

• Folks invited to comment here with diffs.

How has this editor been disruptive or hindered building an encyclopedia

• Folks invited to comment here with diffs.

{Write your assertion here}

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

Evidence presented by Lightbreather

Past conduct of Eric Corbett

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

Recent conduct of Eric corbett

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

24-29 July 2014 at WT:AN, GGTF, Jimbo Wales' talk page, ANI

• [7] Lightbreather asked: "Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make [civility] a unique noticeboard area?"
• [8] Eric Corbett replied: [The] easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. Baiting at least. Others agreed that it was a personal attack.
• [9] Scalhotrod replies to Eric's comment: "Brilliantly put!"

• I was not replying to Eric's use of the "c word" and the dif shows this. I object to this misrepresentation. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• [10] Lightbreather joined GGTF.
• [11] Scalhotrod joined GGTF.
• [12] Lightbreather complained and [13] quit.
• [14] During related discussion on Jimbo's talk page, Eric asked Saffron Blaze if they were "hiding behind the door when God handed out brains."[15]
• [16] Eric was blocked by BrownHairedGirl for 72 hours. (DangerousPanda unblocked him.)

1 August - 17 September 2014 at GGTF (87 edits by Eric over nine discussions)

Civility board [17] OP SlimVirgin 27 July 2014 notified GGTF about the civility board discussion at AN.

• 1 August [18] many of those complaining about incivility seem to feel that actually writing content is a menial job for those lesser beings they want to police

94% of wiki users female [19] OP Rich Farmbrough 26 August 2014.

• 27 August - Baiting Carolmooredc, Elaqueate [20][21][22][23][24][25]

Re "On average, males and females have different interests" [26] OP Anne Delong 28 August 2014.

• Baiting Carolmooredc, EvergreenFir, Anne Delong, Elaqueate [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]

Back to Hatting vs. closing vs. immediate archiving [38] OP Carolmooredc 29 August 2014.

• Baiting Carolmooredc [39]

Active nomination of women for administrators [40] OP LawrencePrincipe 31 August 2014.

• 2 September Baiting LawrencePrincipe, Carolmooredc, EvergreenFir, Anne Delong [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]

ANI on “disruption of Wikiproject” [51] OP Carolmooredc 4 September 2014.

• Baiting Neotarf [52][53][54][55]

Effect of 16/84 ratio [56] OP Eric Corbett 4 September 2014.

• [57] Nothing would be different (about WP's content if its editors were 50% women rather than 16%).
• [58] The gender gap is just the current fad
• [59] I really couldn't care less whether or not more women are recruited. I'm here because I think that too many of you have got your heads up your proverbial arses, attacking windmills that are simply mirages.
• [60] I'm tired and I'm fed up with these repeated accusations that I'm some kind of monster misogynist. Can you can find any evidence at all to support the accusation that I hate all women? (No one said or suggested that.)
• [61] Why should I be expected to leave lies alone? (In response to q: If you don't believe in [this task force], can't you just leave it alone?
• [62] Frankly I think I'm one of the few here who's actually not seeing everything through the prism of some feminist agenda.

An idea... [63] OP Knowledgekid87 4 September 2014.

• Baiting Knowledgekid87, Neotarf [64][65][66]

Notice of relevant discussion elsewhere [67] OP Carolmooredc 16 September 2014.

• Direct rudeness, belittling Carolmooredc, GRuban; baiting EvergreenFir, Milowent [68][69][70][71]

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

General issues at the GGTF

Some at the GGTF intend to treat the project as a "safe space". This was neatly summarized[72] by Nikkimaria within she quotes "Every space where feminist theory and issues are discussed must be a “safe” one" [which is to say a conformist one]. Do some participants at the GGTF feel this way? Slim Virgin, who started the group gives this impression [73][74][75]. Neotarf's comments that the GGTF belongs to "the women" echos this [76][77]. Carolmooredc agrees, and gives advice how men ought to behave[78].

Some proposals at GGTF promote stereotypes, e.g "...pages need improvement so the language is clearer and less unnecessarily technical" which imply women can't "do" technology, or the visual design of Wikipedia contributes to the GG. Editors of both genders have objected to these stereotypes[79][80][81][82][83]

Background of my involvement

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

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

Carolmooredc has been a divisive personality

My first comment to the GGTF was to a section titled "Affirmative action program"[84] discussing a policy where women would be protected from reversions and that protection would serve "as a carrot [for women to participate at Wikipedia]". I stated my disbelief (perhaps too forcefully) that this was even being considered [85]. At the time, I had no idea that the proposal had actually been implemented and removed from the project page. There was no mention of this on the talk page. I became further alarmed when Carol claimed to use the existence of the GG as a bludgeon to try and "win" disputes[86][87][88][89].

Anyone that makes proposals that are likely to be considered controversial, such as mandatory sensitivity training should expect their proposal to be critiqued. Carol is not exempt from this expectation. However she is prone to raise a hue with claims of personal attacks, disruption and "nitpicking" when dissenting opinion is offered[90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99]. On more than one occasion she makes ad-hominem gender based attacks on other editors[100][101][102][103][104][105]. Sometimes she makes a claim[106], which may be a valid claim, but when asked to provide evidence or solutions[107], she gets defensive and accuses others of disruption[108] and/or says she will produce evidence later[109]. This "later" turns out to be a list including blogs and essays. However pointing to a specific source for the claim in question is more helpful instead of making comments about "spoonfeeding". She equates of opinion to women being attacked[110][111][112][113]. When an edit was deleted from public view, despite not having seen the diff (and after several admins said there was no threat) she made several comments about fearing for her personal safety[114][115][116][117]. Others concluded that she purposely misread the misread the situation in order to claim victimization[118][119].

Several ANI sections (at least one which was canvassed) were filed, as an attempt to silence those asking questions. I urge the arbitrators to read the self-serving diffs[120] she presented. Her analysis is full of half-truths and misrepresentations . As an example, I misread systemic bias to be systematic bias which Carol used in a mud-flinging-see-what-sticks ANI filing as a diff[121]. Remember, I only came to this page because I was following up a dubious RS claim -- only a conspiracy theorist would claim bias at Wikipedia is systematic. From this diff[122] Evergreenfir obviously knew I misread the word. I apologized for the confusion[123]. No doubt Carol saw this exchange, but chose to intentionally ignore it so as to use the Mondegreen as ammunition. Recently she admitted her ANI filing contained errors[124]. When did she realize these errors, which not surprisingly benefited her position existed and why did she not make corrections until on the eve of arbitration?

Carol repeatedly[125][126][127] claims that others don't support closing the GG. These claims continue about me after I specifically stated my support[128][129][130][131]..

Instead of issuing a "mea cupla" when she's proven incorrect or someone challenges her on a personal attack she made, she backs away by claiming she was joking or under stress[132][133]

I made two proposals to the GGTF. One was to pay secondary aged girls in the Philippines to edit. Unbeknownst to me a similar similar proposal was actually enacted by the WMF in 2011 (with negative results). Carol questioned my sincerity[134]. The second was to communicate with Wales and the WMF to see what they were doing to close the GG. Now she calls the suggestion "mocking" however she didn't have a problem with it at the time[135].

Based on zero evidence, Carol engaged in rumor mongering [136] about the marital status of her opponents.

Carol canvassed wikimedia mailing lists[137][138]

Neotarf has made unfounded accusations and personal attacks

Several editors have opined that Neotarf has exhibited passive-aggressive behavior[139][140] [141]. An analysis of the last 3 months of edits by Neotarf both in and outside of the GGTF area supports this position:

• Ad-hominem attacks[142][143][144][145][146][147][148]. This one is so bizarre it bears isolation[149].

• Egregious personal attack [150]. Despite calls for diffs, none were provided nor the attack struck.
• Pattern of treating the GGTF as a "safe place" [151][152][153]
• Despite championing civility, Neotarf via edit summary tells a user to "GFY"[154] then has the audacity to claim that "GFY" doesn't mean "go fuck yourself" [155]
• Neotarf plays the Godwin card and compares me to a Nazi troll [156].
• Forgery accusation [157]
• Unsubstantiated claims of doxxing [158]

Evidence presented by Carolmooredc

This is a timeline of four editors’ editing disruptively related to GGTF. As will be evidenced, several editors questioned these editors' motives and actions. In his original filing User:Robert McClenon identified me as the target of hostility[159], though some want to scapegoat me for all problems. I believe Arbitrator’s goal should be preventing further disruption of GGTF by any editors acting in bad faith, not punish those of us who found it frustrating, and disheartening to Wikipedia editing in general.

Timeline of disruptions

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

• Late June 2014: In 2013 User:Obiwankenobi de-railed an attempt to consense on a WP:Canvass policy for all Foundation lists which includes Gender gap and LGBT lists. Now he badgers the project about his categorization scheme which others considered questionable, per User:BoboMeowCat.[160] User:SlimVirgin initiates discussion with User:Drmies re: Men's rights sanctions. Obiwankenobi desists. Drmies writes a "plethora of discussion/talking points" interrupting the "smooth functioning of the project" could be disruptive.[161]

• July 24: Lightbreather initiates WP:AN question on a “Civility board”. User:Eric Corbett replies to her writing Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.[162]. Sitush wrote to a GGTF participant upset about Corbett's comment: I'm sure that the families of Twatt, Orkney will be impressed. Especially those whose spelling is poor ;)[163] Corbett also wrote re: WP:DICK someone should try writing the equivalent WP:CUNT if gender equality really is the goal, which I doubt.[164] At this thread Sitush and User:BrownHairedGirl argue over use of “cunt”[165][166][167], his disruption of GGTF mentioned[168]. During this period Corbett criticized "strident feminists" running riot[169] and Lighbreather's "prissy militant feminist friends".[170]) July 27 SlimVirgin links to "Civility Board" thread from GGTF page.[171]

• Late July: User:Lightbreather alleges a user wikihounded her to GGTF, resulting in three threads (1, 2, 3). User:BoboMeowCat mentions discretionary sanctions and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology.[172] Users QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV[173], User:Bbb23[174] and SlimVirgin[175] discuss options.

• July-August: SPECIFICO had been wikihounding me for over a year (see September Iban ANI). He comes to GGTF and many SPECIFICO GGTF edits were directed at me. Sitush enters and both badmouth me.[176][177] User:The Vintage Feminist[178] and User:Elaqueate[179] criticize them. I informed GGTF of the harassment problem.[180] Lightbreather writes “Sitush and Specifico, you're not adding anything constructive to this page.”[181] SlimVirgin posts messages to “appeal to people who may have arrived for reasons other than the stated purpose of the page”[182], discussing a possible trip to ArbCom[183], and wondering if “MRM people are causing a problem here.”[184].

• August 1: Given Corbett's history, well-known to Arbitrators and several GGTF participants, skepticism of his good faith was only natural. On first posting, Corbett immediately wrangles with User:Gandydancer.[185]. (See Corbett's GGTF edits.)

• August 11: Two Kinds of Pork ("TKOP") first posts; his tagline “motto” is "Makin’ Bacon” - colloquial for pigs fornicating. (See GGTF edits). His first post is hostile to a proposal we've already dismissed.[186] August 21st TKOP starts thread mocking imprecise main page wording. He asks "Did Malibu 'Math is Hard' Barbie propose this?"[187]. SPECIFICO insists we're engaging in sexist denigration of women.[188][189]

• For several weeks: SPECIFICO/TKOP/Corbett badger the group for answers to accusatory or strawman questions[190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197] and/or make personal attacks [198][199][200][201][202] Several editors criticize them.[203][204][205][206][207][208] This section is a prime example.

• August 27: Corbett uses "bollocks" as insult.[209] Elequate and Corbett wrangle over it.[210][211][212]. EvergreenFir warns Corbett about "incivility and personal attacks."[213]

• August 28: TKOP proposes the Foundation pay "high school aged girls in the Philippines" to edit to close the numerical gap.[214][215]

• August 28: SlimVirgin asks SPECIFICO to "cut Carol slack"[216], later to keep the page friendly[217], and finally to stay "away from Carol's posts".[218] September 3 SPECIFCO tells me "please consider departing the Project".[219]

• August 28: User:Anne Delong's new thread states if “incivility, complicated formatting, belittling of some topics as trivial, or whatever other barriers come up” is deterring editors, we need improvement. SPECIFICO/Corbett/TKOP demand evidence. EvergreenFir mentions "clear personal attacks and derailment in these discussions."[220] Elaqueate says Corbett is "needlessly personal and belligerent".[221] Neotarf writes: "This project seems to be dominated by men who are hostile to it."[222] I mention possibile project bans.[223]

• August 29: I announce big Draft Resources page filled with the demanded "evidence". Critics ignore evidence.[224][225]

• September 2: User:Rich Farmbrough, mentioning the DeLong thread, recommends "WP Options" addressing "disruption".[226] September 4 Carolmooredc brings Disruption of Wikiproject ANI. User:Scottywong closes, urging maturity.

• September 8: Robert McClenon submits GGTF Arbitration request naming Corbett, TKOP and SPECIFICO as being disruptive, noting SPECIFICO’s hostility towards me.[227]

• September 11: TKOP starts "another mocking thread. SPECIFICO[228] and TKOP joke around[229][230]. User:Milowent mocks them[231][232] which TKOP reverts.[233]

• September 11: Administrator Scottywong blocks TKOP for "disruptive editing" at GGTF.[234] September 13 TKOP writes to "semi-retired" Scottywong: "My first reaction was to tell you to remove the "semi" from in front of your name, or go step in front of one. But I'm over that now. look both ways when crossing the street please."[235] Scottywong on "threat":[236] (Weeks later TKOP tries to shut down a civility-related thread.[237][238] VintageFeminist brings it back.[239])

• September 11: SPECIFICO reverts me at September 11 attacks article, leading to criticism of him on talk page.[240], [241]

• September 12: User:A Quest For Knowledge initiates a Wikihounding ANI leading to SPECIFICO Iban from me.

• September 16: Notice of a relevant "WP:Wikiproject Editor Retention" discussion leads to brouhaha and User:Knowledgekid87 initiates a WP:ANI against Eric Corbett.

• October 14: In yet another Wales talk page discussion of Eric Corbett's for incivility, User:Chillum blocks Corbett [242] for using slur “cunt” against admin Wales.[243]. Wales objects to slur.[244][245] Another editor documents recent Corbett incivility.[246] This GGTF Arbitration where slurs against women a concern is mentioned as possible remedy.[247]

Other editors’ battleground attitudes

• User:J3Mrs Her five edits at GGTF, and elsewhere regarding GGTF issues and editors(see list), are deprecating or hostile. From Manchester, England, like Corbett, she is extremely supportive of him[248]; she's posted to his talk page hundreds of times.[249] So per WP:COI I queried her on her talk page about a rumor that seemed credible they are married.[250] (Apologies! They're not!!)
• User:Sitush has stated opposition to GGTF.[251][252][253] Some diffs indicate Sitush blames Sue Gardner’s gender gap "initiative" for bringing unwanted “newbie” (i.e., women) editors into Wikipedia. (India's Gender Gap project is very active.) [254][255][256]
  

Since 2013 Sitush repeatedly bad mouths me at my talk page[257][258][259][260] (including after I banned him, details here); his talk page[261], other user talk pages[262][263][264][265] and elsewheres.[266][267][268] Seven of Sitush’s 10 edits at GGTF were directed at me.[269]

During the SPECIFICO Wikihounding ANI Sitush writes he “might have to start following her around”[270], says “do some research on her”[271], and ruminates on outing me: "I do wish I could demonstrate it here without outing you."][272] Then he mentions my long-ago mentioned website and hints at using it for future harassment, i.e., "dredging up of personal information" against policy.[273] (Clarify per TParis evidence below.)

SPECIFICO ANI concludes with an Interaction ban at 13:31, 09/15/14. Hours later Scottywong tells Sitush to stop reverting my talk page edits.[274] Sitush, who already stated he wants me site banned[275], announces he's analyzing my website[276] and then creates the now-deleted biography of me. User:Bishonen advises him delete it.[277]. When he refuses she starts Interaction ban ANI. There he admits he wants Arbitration against me[278] as he does in his GGTF Arbitration statement[279].

At redacted 13:17, 9/16/14? edit he outs his identity - in defense of outing? User:TParis tries for voluntary interaction ban between us here and here which is never finalized.[280] After six talk page threads criticizing his biography, Sitush makes a "gun barrel" threat whose actual text and targets remains redacted and unknown to non-admins. (Some concerning speculation here:[281][282][283]) (Alleged threats against Sitush[284][285] are not an excuse.) The violence threat resulted in only a 15-odd hour block.

Will GGTF participants who lost their tempers at chronic bad faith harassment and battleground behavior get greater sanctions? User:AnonNep wrote recently about "...culturally, the idea that women make false claims and men are always just misunderstood..."[286] I hope Arbitrators will not be affected by such subconscious double standards.

Evidence presented by User:Carrite

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

This is about identity politics and battleground behavior.

(1) The root of the problem is identity politics and battleground behavior, shared by both sides but prompted in the first instance by GGTF itself. Slim Virgin notes she set up the task force exclusively with women in mind: "I hoped women could use it to discuss the gender gap." [287]

(2) Obiwankenobi immediately called her on this, noting "Slim, your continued referencing of 'women' is unhelpful. You can have off-wiki women-only mailing lists if you like, but especially in a place where many editors don't even declare their gender, attempting to suggest that a space or project or collaboration is primarily for women goes against the aims of the project, and suggests that men can't be part of the solution, it's exclusionary, and I'd suggest you check your language on that point." [288]

Everything else flows from this basic problem.

Both sides have engaged in combative behavior

For ease of reference:

Edits by Carolmooredc to GGTF:Talk are HERE.

Edits by Lightbreather to GGTF:Talk are HERE.

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

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

Evidence presented by Johnuniq

Carolmooredc makes inappropriate comments without seeking to understand underlying issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Evidence talk (permalink)

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

  • Carolmooredc: "I don't think Arbitrators are going to be reading you opinions and opinions aren't relevant to evidence" 23:38, 14 October 2014

Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Drmies

Note: just two brief comments, for now.

Accusations about Eric Corbett

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

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

Comments on statements by Carolmooredc

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

Evidence presented by User:Robert McClenon

Evidence originally provided by User:EvergreenFir at WP:ANI

• I am happy to see that this issue has finally be brought up. The talk page on WP:GGTF has been particularly plagued by polemic and disruptive comments by some editors. Of particular concern to me is Eric Corbett who has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and general FORUM behavior. While no single edit was particularly egregious, their sum shows a pattern of incivility, disrespect, and disruptive behavior as well as the edit summaries. While he did relent a bit after I gave him a warning ([289]) (which he dismissed as "nonsense") and the resulting "conversation" on my user talk page, his actions continued. Eric appears to have a history of personal attacks judging by his extensive block log.

FORUM behavior and incivility

[290]

[291]

[292]

[293]

[294]

[295] ("feminist bluster")

[296] (see edit summary as well)

[297] (always has to have the last word)

[298]

[299]

[300] ("anti male editors")

[301] (forum)

[302] (commenting on other editors)

[303] (forum) (Personal attack)

[304] (thinly veiled comment to Carol)

[305] ("launching a crusade the primary purpose of which appears to be to alienate every male editor by imposing a series of affirmative actions")

[306] (Accusing project of "hyperbolic rhetoric")

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

Personal attacks and harassment toward Carolmooredc and others

[307]

[308]

[309]

[310]

[311]

[312]

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

Evidence originally provided by User:Carolmooredc at WP:ANI

Eric Corbett

• Corbett’s views against civility policy were a major topic at this ANI complaint and this Wales talk page. Here Corbett states: "The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars". He obviously dislikes the GGTF's interest in promoting more civility.
• On Wales talk page Corbett opines there are no problems existing regarding gender gap issues[313],[314]. On his own talk page he opposes allowing "..strident feminists to run riot.."[315] and criticizes someone's alleged "prissy militant feminist friends".[316]

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

• Given his POV, it is no surprise that at the Wikiproject itself Corbett has, among other things: said "bullocks" about two women's opinions; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force&diff=623121791&oldid=623121276 hectored other editors for opinions]; disputed WP:NOTAFORUM comments; presented a strawman argument; hectored some more; title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force&diff=623927058&oldid=623925161 made personal attack on Jimmy Wales for promoting the Foundation's goal of increasing the number of women editors. Comments using talk page as forum struck because talk page was forum (right or wrong). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Two kinds of pork

• His first posting at GGTF criticizes someone's proposal as assinine and asks if it's a joke.

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

• At this diff he proposes the Foundation pay "high school aged girls in the Philippines" to edit to close the gap. And puts a similar "Pay to play" proposal on the main page. Not sure if he's serious, I revert, and he defends his proposal on the talk GGTF page.
• At this diff he started a derisive thread about a phrase that needed tweaking; SPECIFICO joined the hectoring. ( Whole thread archived here.) See also his response to an editor's complaints about "personal attacks and derailment in these discussions".

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by MONGO

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

Evidence presented by J3Mrs

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

I wasn't going to say anything but I can't believe that Carolmooredc has referred to the malicious rumour [317] she started on my talk page. That rumour could be more damaging, not only to me, than any intemperate language. The whole thread is full of her typical sweeping assumptions, inability to drop the stick, seeing disagreement as disruption and she even alleged a "gun threat" was made towards her. Incredible. J3Mrs (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Robert McLenon who instigated this "trial" with the blessing of Jimmy Wales,[318] and the subsequent drama that has ensued, although he thinks he didn't,[319] spends his time collecting diffs from other places and pasting them here. I don't know whether he considers the arbitrators incapable of forming their own opinions or whether he sees himself as a self-appointed judge and jury, but he spends an inordinate amount time policing behaviour and telling others how to behave. This sort of behaviour is not helpful in creating an encyclopedia.

Evidence presented by Sitush

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

Example of tendentious commentary/fallacious assumption

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

Misunderstandings, lack of AGF, and personalising issues

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

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

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

Evidence presented by EvergreenFir

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

Evidence presented by Feyd Huxtable

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Iridescent

Carolmooredc repeatedly makes untrue claims

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

On the term "Task force"

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

Evidence presented by Patrol forty

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

Carrite engages in the same behaviour he seeks to condemn in others

On 12 October, User:Lightbreather posted a statement on their talk page indicating she was retiring, complaining of the "aggressive, uncivil editing environment on Wikipedia".

On the afternoon of 14 October, Lightbreather seemingly acting on that desire, posted a final farewell to another user. [320]

In the evening of 14 October, Carrite posts their evidence here, in which they describe this dispute in terms of "battleground behavior", going on to accuse Lightbreather of "combative behavior".

Just a few hours later, he summarizes Lightbreather's role in the dispute on Talk:Jimbo Wales, accusing her of being a "drama monger" [321]

Just 20 minutes after that, he trolls Lightbreather's talk page [322]

The trolling remained in place for over 2 days (I've just removed it now).

J3Mrs has the same issues she seeks to criticizes in others

In her evidence section, J3Mrs complains about another editors inability to show awareness of their own behaviour. She complains about people who spread malicious rumours. She condemns those who make sweeping assumptions.

On Talk:Jimbo Wales, she recently claimed "This situation has been stirred by Jimbo Wales who won't/can't do anything but gets others to do his dirty work for him." [323] She also claimed Eric has helped more editors than Mr Wales ever has [324]. This was followed an assumption that Mr Wales would engage in canvassing [325]

On her own talk page, she recently stated "These attention seeking dramamongering "feminists" are the sort of people I would cross the road to avoid.", presumably in reference to one or more of the parties here. [326]

According to J3Mrs, Wikipedia talk pages are only read mostly by editors, and the only reason they do so is to catch up on the soap operas [327]

It took me all of half an hour to compile this evidence, and I didn't even have to examine anything past her last 50 edits. Patrol forty (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The C-word

In the last 6 months, Eric has used the C-Word in way that is unambiguously intended at a direct personal insult [328][329].

Eric Corbett's position on its use lacks credibility

According to several editors, Eric is highly intelligent, a skilled user of the English language.

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

As late as today, despite this being pointed out to him repeatedly (example from a few days ago), Eric is still asking the question, "Where have I ever issued any slurs against women?" [330]

Tolerance of it undermines WP:NPA

WP:NPA outlines the ways and means personal attacks should be dealt with.

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

The sanctions Eric has received for his repeated, deliberate, and totally unapologetic deployment of it as a targeted insult, have been extremely short, and have in no way prevented re-occurrences.

Attempts to discuss Eric's usage are misdirected

As a Brit living in a working class northern city myself, I can attest that while the C-word is used liberally in many situations in the UK without causing offence, context matters.

None of those contexts apply to an environment like Wikipedia, where all communications are seen by everyone, and there is an expectation of mutual respect at all times, especially during disputes.

Users frequently attempt to divert attention away from Eric's use of the word by referring to these other, non-Wikipedia contexts. Eric's use of the word is neither Brit-style banter as Dr Blofeld suggests [331], nor would it ever be received in the way Giano suggests [332] (and the misogyny of his comment was not lost on people either).

Eric's use of the word is indicative of a pattern of abuse

Some of his supporters have claimed Eric's deployment of the C-bomb are simply out of character outbursts delivered in the heat of the moment.

His usage is characterised by a distinct lack of remorse, and even surprise at being treated so leniently [333].

He often approaches disputes with other users through a series of demeaning and degrading personalised comments, questioning their intelligence, education, lifestyle, etc. This is currently occurring at a rate of at least one article talk page dispute a month (per Robert's evidence).

{Write your assertion here}

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

Evidence presented by RegentsPark

Carolmooredc's approach to the case is concerning

Not a comment on what's going on at GGTF nor one on who is good or bad but I must admit I'm completely flabbergasted by the way Carolmooredc has dealt with this arb case. For one, she seems to be obsessed with Sitush and has made numerous claims about him that are unsupported and don't stand up when scrutinized and that she then refuses to drop. Irididescent has listed many above but here are a few I've gathered. The threats thing and the biography thing [334], [335]. Then there is the lack of AGF about the threats against Sitush with the repeated use of "alleged" even after the existence of these treats has been certified by other editors [336]. The repeated complaining about a gangup of Corbett and Sitush friends (I counted at least 4 mentions of Sitush or Corbett friends by her - there could be more) is - at best - symptomatic of a siege mentality and at worst an attempt to discredit evidence provided by other editors. Finally, there is stuff like this, implying that 'Corbett and his friends' defend 'slurs against women' with no diffs to back up that assertion. All this gives the appearance of "throw lots of mud and hope some of it sticks".

GGTF

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

Evidence presented by TParis

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

No outing has occurred

I have seen outing mentioned once here before. To be clear, Carolmooredc outed herself in this deleted edit in 2006 by posting a link to her website. The article was eventually deleted for notability on 14 September 2009. For three years, Carol's identity remained publicly posted by her and was not deleted for privacy reasons. WP:Outing says "However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums." Carol neither redacted the information nor had it oversighted. She also does not make any reference to privacy in the AFD. The fact remains that Carol's self-published outing remained on Wikipedia for three years between 2006 and 2009.

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

Evidence presented by Neotarf

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

Prequel

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

John

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

Eric Corbett

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

Dennis Brown

[339] Block rationale uses gender-specific insult

Hell in a Bucket

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

Sitush

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

Into the GenderGap

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

Eric Corbett: (sample interactions)

[342] Do you ever actually work on articles, or do you consider that to be somehow beneath you? [343] Why don't you just mind your own business?

Two kinds of pork

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

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

Crude comments about thighs and double entendre and douchebags.

Privacy issues in attempts to determine my gender on various talk pages [346][347].

Personalized and sexualized invitations to me involving various parts of TKOP's anatomy. [348] (edit summary)[349]

Continuously played with the archiving of the GG talk pages so that disruptive edits do not stay archived. In fact, after being blocked for disruptive archiving, the first thing out of the block, went over and messed with the archiving again. And then the next day continued with the archiving disruptions. [350][351][352][353][354] (with an edit summary "quit stirring things up").

Tutelary

[355] Complains inappropriately about a proper notification

Sequelae

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

Eric Corbett

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

[357] gender-specific epithet

Blofeld

[358] gender-specific epithet

RexxS

[359] gender-specific epithet

Two kinds of pork

[360] gender-specific insult

HiLo48

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

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

Note: criteria for choosing diffs loosely based on Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. [362]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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