I know that we haven't had contact previously, but that was quite a summary of recent events that you posting in the discussion. I just hope that others read it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm a long time lurker with not a whole lot of content additions, both from a lack of time and a lack of will to constantly fight all the little battles you see around here. That said, I generally check in a lot and the whole civility/gender gap battles have been to ignore without chiming in here or there. I don't want you to break your self imposed IBan so I won't go into specifics, suffice to say I don't think either of you have been angels obviously, but I think the current accusations are unfounded and some stick dropping would do everyone some good. Capeo (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree and your efforts are appreciated... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Capeo, for your kind comments at [1] about my quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia to improve articles related to freedom of speech and censorship to higher levels of quality including WP:GA and WP:FA. Please also note that the article includes commentary from secondary sources written by women, including: Carly Milne, Regina Lynn, Annalee Newitz of AlterNet, author Violet Blue, author Audacia Ray, Bonnie Ruberg of The Village Voice, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, Jessica Roy of The New York Observer, author Sarah Schaschek -- indeed, the majority of the secondary-source-commentary in the article itself is cited to female authors. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a very well written and sourced article. Well done. Capeo (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! — Cirt (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Capeo, There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: List of participants. Add userbox ((User Freedom of speech)) to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using ((WikiProject Freedom of speech)). Join in discussion at project talkpage. Notify other editors you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject. Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, -- — Cirt (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Since the AN is closed, I figured I'd at least give a partial reply here: I certainly did not expect that mess. Frankly I like the suggestion that arbs themselves should enforce their sanctions (or perhaps a group of appointed admins?) What an utter mess though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 17:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I'd think arbs probably have too much on their plate already to be responsible for AE given their current workload. I have no good ideas honestly. I prefer the idea of a consensus driven process rather than a unilateral one just on principle but then we're not too far from ANI. My thought would be that AE should be decided by a consensus of admin's only, though editors can still comment as it is currently. That would require way more admins to be active on AE than currently are though. I'm guessing that one of the reasons most admins avoid AE like the plague is the unilateral aspect of it. Every action, and the ensuing blow back, usually falls entirely on one set of shoulders usually in the form of angry editors who disagreed with their decision. Maybe a consensus based process would alleviate that pressure. I don't know though. You see stuff stew at ANI without admin intervention and get worse for days and I'd assume more admins watch ANI. Plus AE is supposed to be relatively fast by design so it would require a decent size group of attentive admins. Maybe such a group could be appointed as you mentioned. Each arb gets their choice of a willing admin for instance. Or perhaps a sort of mini-RFA where the community appoints them. But then we have more bureaucracy. Ugh, I really don't have any good ideas. Capeo (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Capeo: The idea of a consensus of admins isn't a bad idea at all. A good compromise. As I mentioned on the proposed case, I would like to see a more strict way of handling things (well, specifically with enforcing tbans, not enacting discretionary sanctions). But your idea would be more reasonable/palatable and makes sense. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 01:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Bringing this here, if I may, because it's not of truly general interest.

Yes, I've read the proposed decision with care, several times. If this chiefly concerns battleground behavior, and if the matter is as clear as so many people consider it, why not simply topic-ban and/or block LB in the usual way? Or, if admins could not agree that this was battleground behavior, address that disagreement and let it stop there.

With regard to the WP:OUTING questions, if LB had been a hardened miscreant and had actually doxxed her alleged harasser using an alias -- even a transparent alias -- then she would not have been sanctionable. Indeed, it appears no harassment can incur censure if the harasser claims that it was performed by someone else, or even if the harasser can claim that it might have been performed by someone else. Wikipedia appears to condone harassing and even extortionate behavior while showing scant concern for its editors or for outsiders harassed on our pages. Is that the community we want? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You are still asking the wrong question, Mark. The correct question is "what can be done to alleviate or prevent this situation". The answer, alas, is "very little". This has been explained to you time and again: it's the ugly side of cyberspace and any fix would require massive worldwide changes to laws, as well as corporate co-operation agreements. You'll not achieve that by banging on about it for ever more here, so maybe contact your Senator/Congressman/MP/MLA/whatever to discuss the broader issues and attempt change at an international level? - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sitush, I've done that as well. US Rep. Katherine Clark (D MA-5) has been particularly helpful in this regard. There remains, however, a great deal that Wikipedia can and should do to police its own back yard. Instructing victims to "lower their profile" and hope the harassment stops was not, in my view, a very promising approach. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to your first question above, LB's battleground behavior was spread across a few different venues of WP and wasn't immediately clear as a whole. Not to mention off-wiki stuff like her blog and twitter where she often named and shamed users without context or the opportunity to respond. She had already been topic banned once and had been collecting ibans over the last couple years. It was yet one more proposed iban that basically pushed it over the edge and brought the case to fruition. Long term, sometimes subtle, behavior is exactly what Arbcom is for. ANI doesn't have the structure to examine evidence in the same manner. It just turns into people shouting over each other.

As to the second part, I don't agree a transparent alias would have made her unsanctionable. At least one other user was site banned in response to harassing LB during the case via email using a burner email account I believe. Apparently there were other mitigating factors as well but only the Arbs are privy to them. It does seem either way though that they used at least some off-wiki info. It also seems that the Arbs and the functionaries went through great effort to connect the porn pictures to a known user but were unable to with the resources at their disposal. Though they were still waiting on info they hoped LB might be able to provide when she went to WO with her suspicions. I'd say, using your example, if they had conclusive evidence connecting an alias to a user that outed another they would ban for it. Problem is it's simply not that easy if the person is fairly adept at covering their internet tracks or the sites where they use the alias are uncooperative (which they invariably are without a court order).

More importantly though, you say a harasser could get away with it if they can claim it might have been someone else. I'd say it doesn't matter what they claim. It matters what can be proven. I'm not even sure what you're suggesting really. Ban people with no proof simply because someone claimed they have been harassed off-wiki? What's the standard of proof you'd find acceptable to start banning people in such a situation?

PS You'll note on the PD talk page I also stated that Arbcom should not be giving any advice at all in regards to such harassment as they aren't experts in that venue and things of such a serious nature should be directed to those trained to deal with it. Capeo (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So they changed it (the profile thing). What *is* your problem, aside from repeatedly misrepresenting where we're at? You come across as a very erudite person but you've got such a single-purpose tendency that surely you realise your days are numbered here? You aren't going to change anything of note regarding en-WP if you are pissing from outside the tent. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shrugs. I'd suggest that I already have changed en-WP a bit :) We’ll see. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein I am genuinely curious as to how you think the above situation could be handled differently, a situation where you have a user that has harassed a user here offsite but you can't conclusively link the two accounts. I agree that something more needs to be done but I can't think of a solution that doesn't involve pretty egregious invasions of privacy. Capeo (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's complex. We have to try, and we'd better be seen to be trying, or we'll be culpable for not trying -- perhaps at law, but certainly in the court of opinion. We might start with a consistent and emphatic expression of concern, and also an indication that great latitude will be afforded to those legitimately striving to cope with harassment and that no latitude at all will be given to factions supported by orchestrated offsite harassment campaigns. Concrete efforts to demonstrate that harassment will not be rewarded would help deter organized efforts to weaponize Wikipedia. Greater transparency may be necessary, as the secret evidence supplied to ArbCom seems always to be insufficient and the community’s faith in Arbcom’s ability to assess these issues is not improved by its record of gender-related blunders. Active patrol of suspected wikihounds, and active defense of people who are prone to be harassed, could be effective: the security of knowing that you're not alone and that powerful and experienced allies are watching your back can work wonders for the beleaguered. Visible demonstration of good will and effective enforcement from the admins and arbs helps; too much now depends on personal popularity and WikiLawyering. If it push comes to shove, we many need to decide whether Wikipedia's survival is more important than anonymous editing, or may need to find some middle ground that will satisfy our affection for routine anonymity and the public interest in responsible behavior. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To begin we see some of the recent Arb cases differently. I agree the GG case was bad and basically wrote a roadmap for concerted offsite efforts to push a particular POV on WP. Though that has been happening in one form or another for a long time. From what I understand Sitush has been through a pretty nightmarish scenario that highly effected even his everyday life outside of WP. I think ArbCom got GGTF and the LB case mostly right though. You're not going to please the public who had no real idea what was going on and you can't just ignore highly disruptive behavior simply because you're worried how it's going to be perceived when you ban people. That would be a massive disservice to editors.

As far as transparency in Arb cases dealing with private information, how is that really achievable? I'll note you still didn't really answer my question above ;). What's the standard of proof and how far should we go to attain it? Because if you wrongly ban someone for something as horrible as offsite sexual harassment that person could conceivably incur serious real life repercussions. Is that really a responsibility that should be in the hands of a bunch of volunteers pursuing what amounts to a hobby? Honestly I can't see that responsibility falling on the shoulders of anyone else but the WMF and I see them as dropping the ball on issues of harassment more than any part of the community itself. Volunteers start sticking their necks out to far concerning offsite activity and delving too far into privacy issues actually opens them up to litigation. That's a burden the WMF should handle but they somehow always get a free ride. Supposedly they do now investigate these things to some degree but clearly not very well. Capeo (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are in some agreement here. I don't know what standard of proof to use -- there's a literature here, of course, but I've not read it. In principle, "preponderance of the evidence" or "more likely than not" might to be unreasonable, but I'd be open to much. The current situation, in my experience, is not readily distinguishable from "we will ignore all evidence that can be ignored;" this may not be the case, but it is also consistent with recent experience. Another editor wrote yesterday -- SV perhaps? -- about the central role of distrust in advancing this mess, and

Mark, you ought also to consider the impact of the chronic and vindictive liars who favour but undermine your cause but I can't recall seeing you ever criticising them. Admittedly, I don't follow your every word and I've studiously avoided getting involved in the gamergate stuff, which I don't even profess to understand.

In situations such as the present one of outing vs harassment, engaging in speculation that directly connects a pseudonym to a real-life identity by constructing a house of cards, however sound the foundation may appear to be, amounts to a serious breach of responsibility unless the evidence meets a criminal standard of proof. And if it does meet that standard then I suspect the WMF will deal with it using their own terms of service etc even if local laws prevent a formal prosecution. Think of it as a duty of care where, on the one hand, an accuser remains anonymous and on the other an alleged perpetrator does not. Without information disclosure by ISPs, and bearing in mind the possibility of such things as malicious doppelganger accounts being created, there really is no way to make a certain connection. We all know of hoaxes that have existed here for years, and of multi-sock accounts that in some cases have avoided detection for similar periods.

The stuff that LB has been doing might look clever but that which she has made public is all circumstantial and once the genie is out of the bottle with a real-life connection, there is no putting it back. There was a case in the UK a few years ago when some idiot people mistook pedagogue for paedophile (or some such similar stupid failure to consult a dictionary) and went on a lynching spree.

Yes, Capeo, I had a horrific time. The WMF and police were helpful, and certain things of a legal nature happened as a consequence of their involvement. One part of the advice given to me by the police was to lie low. Unlike LB's situation, the problematic people could find me. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which chronic and vindictive liars you have in mind here. I’ve certainly been quietly critical of lots of Wikipedia editors -- quietly because that does more good -- and I've had loud public disagreements with Brianna Wu and Gorilla Warfare. I've been called a chronic and vindictive liar by Gamergate for months, but you can't mean me in this passage.

I agree that care must be taken. But care must also be taken for people who are harassed here, for editors whose silence is extorted by threat, and for those who are harassed on these pages though they do not edit here. The absence of expressed concern in Gamergate was upsetting; the repetition here was shocking as it must be an intentional omission. We are offered vague assurances that WMF might do something someday -- perhaps issue a press release again? -- but concrete assistance and policy protections are being delivered to off-site harassers, whose activities some are now accepting and normalizing as a regrettable but routine part of Wikipedia.

Choosing to lower your profile or to leave Wikipedia may well be excellent options for individuals; this was offered as the mandatory response for all victims of sexual harassment, and that proposal was in fact shameful. Today, another editor at Talk:PD is proposing that sexual harassment on Wikipedia is always the victim’s fault because on Wikipedia no one knows your gender unless you disclose it; I fancy I do not need to unpack that here. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't referring to you, although you are misrepresenting things and have just done so again. Nowhere did the PD ever say that it was mandatory to lower one's profile in certain situations, nor did it specifically mention sexual harassment in that regard. The wording was Editors can also notify their local law enforcement and consider lowering their profile until the threat is past. (my emphasis). As examples of the people to whom I was actually referring, please do your homework on people calling themselves Demiurge, Neotarf etc. I mean, getting banned from WP is one thing, getting banned also from WPO is quite another. There is rotten-ness in all states, not just the one with which you are at war. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I think I will leave here now. I don't want to abuse the hospitality of Capeo, our host. I've no objection to you having a final word, ie: there will be no accusations from me of someone playing a game of one-upmanship or whatever in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Sitush, my hospitality doesn't exhaust that easily ;). It's good to see, at least in my view, that quite a few of the current Arb comments at the case concur that the WMF needs to take the lead on serious cases of harassment. They, at least in theory, should have the resources to deal with situations that could have real life ramifications as far privacy, engaging with law enforcement where need be and any potential litigation that could arise from such cases. Capeo (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Capeo and Sitush. I don't think we're all that far apart on this. I hope I've convinced you that I'm not entirely a fire-breathing ogre. I have seen references to the editors you mention, and perhaps recall campfire stories about them, but I don’t believe I've actually crossed their path. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Capeo, in your last comment in your section of the Lightbreather Arbitration case, you made a comment which you addressed to me by pinging my username. I think you might have mistaken me for SlimVirgin or someone else. I was not involved in that Arbitration case and rarely edit Wikipedia these days. I only noticed it because I happened to sign in tonight and received your ping. I attempted to unlink my name but was reverted for modifying someone else's comment. I was hoping that you might be able to remove the link on my name. I really don't want it to look like I was involved in an Arbitation case when I wasn't. Thank you very much. Cheers, Sarah 13:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, my apologies. That ping was indeed intended for SlimVirgin. I've removed the link. Sorry about the confusion. Capeo (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, and thanks very much for taking care of it so quickly. Much appreciated. Sarah 14:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your comment at Malik's ArbCom "case". I suspect we all could use a few. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Drmies, having one now in fact and I hope Malik is enjoying whatever libation he favors at the moment himself. I'm unwatching that case page now as its equal parts sad and infuriating. Once again knee jerk reactions reward trolls and punish someone whose put enormous time and effort into this place. ArbCom might as well just write a handbook for SPAs at this point. It kind of blows my mind that the first reaction isn't just going to Malik and saying, whoa, this isn't like you, what prompted this? Because you know, when a long time admin known for having the patience of Job suddenly loses their shit there's obviously some serious context behind it. That would have nipped this in bud. But, no, let's escalate the situation. Let's start whipping our authority around because an admin lost his temper to a fucking red link user sock account. Ridiculous. And "Brad" will be back tomorrow under a different account and Malik, who I have no doubt genuinely feels bad about how he spoke, is gone. Capeo (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's exactly it. We are so eager to start blocking (and in this case ArbComming and Stewarding and Level-1 desysopping), and then we think we've actually done something. And what I find totally ironic is that experienced editors get blocked without such an inquiry, or even a warning. "Ah you should have known better" rather than "what's going on?" I remember blocking an established, experienced editor for fucking around on ANI, but I blocked him only after I asked him to knock it off, and I think I may have thrown in one more warning after I did that before I blocked. You can look at my blog (haha, my new word for "block log", a handy typo) and you'll find that the same happened to me, years ago. And of course for experienced editors the shame and injury of being blocked is even worse. No, those involved with the initial block and esp. the desysop proceedings should have asked what was going on, and that would have prevented...well, all this ungodly paperwork, and this making up for it after the fact--"can't we just call it a bad night and unblock and resysop as if nothing happened". Wait, I'm just repeating what you said, cause you're absolutely right. OK then, time for a beer. A nice American Victory tripel, and cheers to Malik. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you forgot to sign. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss that. Thanks for pointing that out. Capeo (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac, Davey2010, and AusLondonder:

Is Mz7 for real?[2] I'm having trouble how anyone could possibly believe this. Are we inhabiting different reality tunnels in an everchanging multiverse where our time streams accidentally crossed for a few minutes? How could anyone possibly believe this? Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sitting here sorting through crap redirects and moving my templates off his talk page while he takes a nice wikibreak. I'm trying to fix the encyclopedia he trashed. If any simple user did this they would be a former user, but he was an admin so he just gave up that and it is all fine again. He can start editing again tonight if he wants (except for redirects). Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the complexities of RAN's block log as a close analogy.[3]. Not an admin, but consistently blocked early on for similar, Neelix-like behavior for years on end, subject to topic bans and arbcom rulings. He's now prohibited from creating articles due to his failure to clean up a copyvio mess he made in Neelix-like fashion. But because he's not an admin, he has a huge number of blocks, unlike Neelix. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Firstly, I want to emphasize that Neelix's actions were grossly inappropriate and undoubtedly unbecoming an administrator. The role of the Arbitration Committee in this case was to hear a request for desysopping and examine administrator conduct. See WP:ARBPOL#Scope and responsibilities. It was not a situation in which the community was unable to resolve a dispute on its own—this was successfully done at ANI. An indefinite block was proposed at ANI and received no consensus, precisely because doing so would be wholly punitive. Yes, if Neelix had continued to defend his actions, thinking there was nothing wrong with them, I would have supported a block/site-ban. If Neelix had ignored the community's reaction and continued to create improper redirects, I would have definitely supported a block/site-ban. Instead, Neelix responded by accepting what he did was wrong, apologizing for it, promising to never do it again and offering to help clean up—exactly what we want to see in a serious conduct dispute. Obviously, there is still the issue of mistrust when creating redirects, which is why Neelix is prohibited from creating redirects for a year, no longer holds administrative tools, and is taking a long break from editing to reflect on the situation. My advice would be to focus on improving the encyclopedia, rather than drag this out longer, and this appears to be the view of ArbCom as well. If he comes back and there are problems, I will be glad to discuss additional sanctions. Mz7 (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple. It was quiet. The abuses were in an area nobody cared about because the subject was completely non-notable and the adim was quiet. WO brought it up but nobody cared because nobody sweared. Neelix doesn't fit into any of the current outrages of the day so it's best to be swept under the carpet. Oh, and two other admins blocked people trying to fix the articles. Blocked them for making good edits. Way to build an encyclopedia. Neelix made the same aplogies five years ago. And RAN is no way comparable. That's one of many stupid fuck ups in this place. RAN wasn't a copy and paste copyright violater. He used too many quotes and was made an example by a horrible ArbCom. He's got a ton of articles sitting pat right now that wouldn't come close to upsetting any current rules that would benefit the encyclopedia. Capeo (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, arbcom didn't come into the RAN picture until many years later, and much of the history of the dispute prior to arbcom's involvement is similar to the Neelix situation in many ways, including their failure to fix the problem. Viriditas (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Mz demonstrates remarkable ignorance of reality. Such a disconnect from the facts in an editor of an encyclopaedia causes me concern for the future of humanity. Neelix has got off scot-free despite his vandalism and Tara Teng stalking. ArbCom should be ashamed. AusLondonder (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

I am talking to a particulary dense brick wall at paleo. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain. I don't even know why I commented there again. About two weeks ago or so I went around in circles there on the talk page regarding sourcing for hours until I finally gave up. Capeo (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comment

Re [4]...

ArbCom suffers from a whole host of problems, not least of which is a lack of professionalism. I recognize that ArbCom and its clerks are all volunteers, and thus could never be described as "professionals". However, actually being professional and acting professional are two different, if related, things. ArbCom will never be professional, but they can act professional. They do not.

One of the outcomes of this is chaotic application of procedures and general procedural conduct. While there are drafting arbitrators and clerks to help manage cases, there's no cohesiveness to the process. As a result, the image left on the canvas is one of a spaghetti gun, arbitrarily aimed and creating a hell of a mess, as opposed to the brushwork of say, Rembrandt. While I could never reasonably expect any volunteer group to approach the latter higher level of mastery, ArbCom exists just barely above the spaghetti gun level. As a result, much of their work is slipshod; lacking any real organization, review, oversight, correction, etc.

An aphorism that I frequently find myself using; "Do not ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to incompetence". To be sure, ArbCom is incompetent. But, we the community make them so, a point I could labor on for a while. With this incompetence, we typically end up with cases being confused, self contradictory, poorly based, directly contravening policy/guideline, missing large elements, and more. In general, many cases tend to anger and inflame any parties interested in the case rather than truly resolve issues. I wonder at times if there are those that believe a case has succeeded if everyone is equally dissatisfied.

In this particular case, a solid shell game has been played. We are in essence told that the real issue was GamerGate and the conflict of Gamaliel being on Signpost and ArbCom at the same time. Thus, with Gamaliel's removal from both of those issues, the problem just melts away, and we need only say 'tut tut, don't do that again'. The real issue from my perspective and that of at least a few others, is the serious breaches of many policies committed by Gamaliel, the likes of which a subset would have a new user banned from the site. That is widely being ignored; in fact ArbCom can barely mention policy breaches and abuse of admin tools in the PD, much less actually sanction him for it. Mind you; an admonishment is no sanction at all. Administrators have been removed with and without prior admonishments. While they are sometimes cited in admin removals, there's no requirement for them at all. I.e. Gamaliel's cleared of all charges, and there's nothing to see here. Move along. Is this malice or incompetence? I say the latter, rather than the former.

In short; while you are quite correct, do not expect more. You will not get it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetence seems a given the way the case was handled on a technical level. Evidence removal, a highly restrictive scope which the drafters couldn't even stick to. It's a mess. As far as malice? I see no malice but it's hard not to see some bias. Bias from friendship or tenure or simply liking Gamaliel's political stances or because he's facing off-site harassment, who knows? It just seems like a lot of slack is being cut considering the actions and lack of accountability. A lot is usually forgiven around here, rightly so in my estimation, so long as some acknowledgment that you screwed up is proffered. Basically thumbing your nose at the community and even casting them as in collusion with GamerGate is really beyond the pale though. Capeo (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Gamaliel apparently has finally accepted some responsibility for his mistakes. See this diff; apparently he e-mailed the committee last night and said the he "affirmed that his mistakes (his word) were his fault, no one else's". At this very late point in the process, it's the 11th hour of the 11th hour of the 11th hour. Had he taken any responsibility for what he did far earlier in the process, we wouldn't be where we are. That in itself shows a serious level of lack of judgment. I think for me a metric on desysopping would be "If this person were to run for RfA now, is it reasonable to think they could achieve more than 50% support?" Given the events that have happened, if Gamaliel were to stand at RfA right now, it's likely it would be a snow close no. There just wouldn't be a chance. That ArbCom can't separate his conduct out from Gamergate (see the diff again) is a dereliction of duty. Everybody makes mistakes. Lord knows I've made them. When I'm aware of them, I try hard to fix them. That's our duty here; from the small to the big, we find an error (ours or others) and we fix them. That's how this project works. When a person goes off the rails as Gamaliel did, he breaks with the community. When he does so in a week long spree, it worsens the situation. When he fails to own up to his obvious errors, he breaks trust. Admitting error on his part at this late hour does very little. He's wasted a lot of people's time and effort...for what? A joke? That ArbCom has struggled to even begin to consider that his conduct was grossly in error is very telling. C'est la vie. The case is now closing, and all of this will wash away under the bridge. This is what I suspect ArbCom wanted all along; they were very reluctant to even accept the case in the first place.
• I still find it interesting that four hours before the case was even accepted [5], the scope was limited. See history of scope notice. I note that in the two cases this 2016 committee has closed (Kevin Gorman and Wikicology) neither had scope limitations. Looking at the last three editor conduct cases from 2015 (so we have the 5 most recent cases to look at in total), the 2015 ArbCom didn't place a scope on those either (Catflap08 and Hijiri88, Neelix, and Kww and The Rambling Man). Of those 5 cases, two involved desysoppings (Kevin Gorman and KWW) and DID point to earlier misconduct. Why was earlier misconduct evidence in the Gamaliel case specifically not allowed? People could point to not wanting to devolve this into GG, but again incompetence/malice; ArbCom failed to realize limiting the scope would dramatically affect the admin conduct areas of the case. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

Hi Capeo. I want to let you know that I agree with all of your comments here. However, could you consider refactoring them slightly to not be commenting on editors directly? We've made a strong point of having the moderating admins enforce this rule. It would help to give some editors less ammunition that like to claim they are being treated unfairly when admins warn about sanctions for their attacks on editors at the RfC. We've tried to deal with advocacy and original research issues originating with David in the past that you just described pretty well, but the best thing to do during the RfC is to not personalize comments at all and make the comments only about the content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That right there was a great example of why one shouldn't make a comment on WP late at night after having a few scotches with friends. Lowered inhibitions and increasing frustration are not a good mix lol. It's just tiring to see that same line of reasoning trotted out repeatedly. Capeo (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sometimes I check my watchlist after coming home from the bar at the end of the day ; I just have to say to myself "not today" after some of the things I see in this topic. Sometimes agriculture is worse than politics both on wiki and in real life. Thanks for your comments at the RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

..any idea what ECT is getting at on Jimbo's page? I have tried to find a point but failed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad, I'm lost too. As far as I can tell it's "patents are bad" but beyond that I have no clue what she's getting at.Capeo (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTI

Were you looking at US patent 4,166,112? Where do you see 44 days? EllenCT (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was actually wrong about that... it was hours. Based on cell concentration. By cells that means individual bacterium and how long it took a particular concentration of bacterium to kill a particular concentration of larvae. Is there any reason you're still pursuing this? You're blatantly wrong. You made a ridiculously outrageous and unfounded claim. I was dropping it because it was silly at this point and you clearly didn't look at the multitude of easy to find scientific papers I pointed you to. This bacterium can't live in a water environment for very long and it dies to UV extremely quickly. Where your five year claim, which you could never solidify with any source, came from is beyond me. I already pointed you to the research. Decades of research of trying to genetically modify this bacterium to be both more potent and UV resistant with little success. You're claim, the best that I can make of it, that the BT strains were purposely made to be less effective are, frankly, bizarre. Particularly given that every BTI application is cheap as dirt. The fact that you are insinuating that there once was some miracle anti-mosquito application, that literally could have cured the world of all mosquito borne diseases if it lasted that long, was intentionally made not to work anymore dives so deeply into the bizzaro conspiracy world that it's impossible to take your inquiries seriously.

You realize, as I have pointed out repeatedly, BTI is a living thing. Any country, anywhere in the world has the same access to it as any other. Patents don't apply. Do you honestly think these countries, many of which are quite wealthy but still suffer from mosquito borne outbreaks, wouldn't use this supposed five year long miracle version of this bacteria?Capeo (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth that I didn't say. But why should I even care about that? You've been unable to guess my motivations. I strongly approve of patents, for your information, but I think their terms, including term lengths, are woefully under-optimized.

But I want to know why you think:

• "This bacterium can't live in a water environment for very long" -- BTI was isolated from pond soil samples at larval breeding sites missing viable mosquitos where they were an ongoing, sustained organism that didn't die out in three weeks or five years. They were probably there for millennia or orders of magnitude longer.
• "it dies to UV extremely quickly" -- do you have a source for that?
• "Where your five year claim, which you could never solidify with any source, came from is beyond me." -- I told you, that was the original WHO guidance. Do you think I am lying? I have no reason to lie about that or Tabex, or EpiPens, or any other product caught up in market failures.
• "I already pointed you to the research. Decades of research of trying to genetically modify this bacterium to be both more potent and UV resistant with little success." -- where did you point that out?
• "You're claim, the best that I can make of it, that the BT strains were purposely made to be less effective are, frankly, bizarre." -- I think you mean "Your claim" but let me ask you this: do you think ONR-60A would die out naturally in the field before it was marketed as BTI? EllenCT (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. You're inability to actually read scientific papers and understand what they are saying is your downfall. You don't even seem to understand the specific meaning of soil, spore, bacterium or endotoxin or where they even fall into the life cycle of a bacterium. I can't even make sense of your last question because it again betrays a massive misunderstanding of what this bacteria is. It lives just fine "in the field". You could go likely dig some up yourself IN SOIL. It naturally lives below ground in moist soil. It doesn't live in water. How the hell you think any BTI strain is caught up with any market failures is beyond me. I told you to simply search any number of searchable scientific databases for Bacillus thuringiensis. Decades of research because in the seventies they thought it was going to the holy grail of mosquito control. It would be if it wasn't so susceptible to UV [6]. I mean, really, think about what you're saying. If there were a bacterium that naturally shared, and could live and proliferate in, the same environment as an organism that it 100% eradicates, in this case mosquitos, then mosquitos wouldn't exist. Capeo (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad you were unable or unwilling to refrain from personal attacks. Thanks for the link. EllenCT (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about experiments to change UV photosensitivity relative to those designed to change the buoyancy of spores? In particular, into two populations, floating and sinking? EllenCT (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, it's questions like this that lead to my frustration. Rather than just saying what you want to say you ask oddly open ended questions dripping with some implication that only you seem to be aware of. Obviously you feel some way about these experiments so starting there would make much more sense. I don't know if you mean to do this but that's how it comes off. You're asking me how I feel about experiments that aim to improve a natural pesticide that could have a profound effect on mosquito borne disease. Obviously my feelings would be that I'd wish for success. With the caveat that you can't make the bacterium so resilient that it completely takes over an ecosystem and replaces native species, as they are generally quite important to the bottom of the food chain. For instance, one of the papers I read expressed some concern that BTI seems to be persisting in the leaf litter in areas of the Swiss Alps which is far outside its natural range. Capeo (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I share your frustration on the subject, and do not mean to intentionally frustrate you. Do you think if the manufacturer knew how to create a strain which would devastate their market by persisting in the environment, would they have any interest in sharing it, even if it was much more useful than the more lucrative strains? EllenCT (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one there's many manufacturers of BTI products so there's market competition there. When you say "persisting" do you mean, like, essentially forever? To start that would massively environmentally irresponsible. That's the equivalent of introducing an invasive species and that never ends well. If you mean "persisting" more along the lines of many months in a water environment, then yes, I'm quite sure said manufacturer would sell it as they'd dominate the market. You specifically say "share" so I'm not quite sure what you mean in that regard. They surely would patent the strain. That said, to patent it they'd have to explain how they did it which would mean any country that doesn't honor said patents could reproduce or improve on it itself. Also, from looking at most of the current GM work regarding BT strains it all seems to be funded by government grants and these strains wouldn't end up privatized anyway.

Either way BT strains will never be the be all, end all of mosquito control due to its nature as a soil bacteria. There has been work in trying to insert the toxin forming genes in bacteria that do better in UV and water though. There's also the inherent issue that water comes and goes. In the wet seasons in tropical areas new, short term, small bodies of water are being created daily which makes keeping up with any pesticide application difficult. The ideal bacteria would be water based, but either survives or goes dormant as water recedes, so that the next time it rains the spores activate again. That's a pretty super bacteria though and it replacing native bacteria would be a serious concern. Capeo (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the handful of toxins that BTI produces, serving to convert viable larvae into food, would have evolved in nature if they weren't acting against the specific organisms they affect at least part of the time? Is a BTI strain that only produces floating spores more viable commercially than one which produces both floating and sinking spores? EllenCT (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BTI most certainly evolved to kill mosquitoes, but not their larvae as we use it for. BT strains live in the very thin film of moisture that surrounds grains of soil. Mosquitoes, and many insects, will "drink" from these areas of damp soil and thus ingest the bacteria. Upon sporification in the mosquito's gut the toxins are formed, killing the mosquito, which then serves as nutrients. Now BT can live and reproduce just fine without doing this but it is an evolutionary bonus to be able to have the chance to have a big burst of reproduction from the available nutrients of a dead insect. There's actually many, many species of bacteria that produce cry toxins specific to certain insects. We just care primarily about BT due to its mosquito killing properties.

For pesticide use though, humans need to eradicate mosquitoes before their adult, biting stage. Hence we apply it to water. As to the second question, as I understand it, only the different suspension formulations (i.e. the matrix that carries the spores) has any bearing on where in the water column they begin to precipitate but they will always eventually sink. Though there might be some new stuff I missed. Either way it depends on what species you are targeting. The mosquito that carries dengue likes clear water near the surface for instance. So formulations that that float are better. Other mosquito larva can prefer murkier water and be further down the water column. In general though, from what I've read, formulations that keep spores closer to the surface are more desirable as no mosquito larva like deep water. As far as I know every commercial formulation floats though they differ in how long. Here's a study that tested different floating formulations: [7]. Capeo (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patent proposal

Want to go in on a patent for tennis balls filled with gravel, porous but very high surface area media, and BTI dunks with me? EllenCT (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! We could try patenting that but nobody would buy it. Capeo (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your second diff is not to a statement by SageRad but to Wikipedia talk:Civil POV pushing... Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Fixed. Thanks. Capeo (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capeo, inasmuch as the AE case about SageRad is now over, I'm redacting that entire section from my talk page, using the usual editing mechanisms. I've also redacted most of what I said at Jimbo Wales talk, and at AE. If you or @Jytdog: have any concerns about what's remaining, I would have no objections to having the entire matter completely deleted (removed from the database) by oversight. Let me know if I need to do anything more with regards to this matter. JerryRussell (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not OS worthy. At least what I saw. Good on you for withdrawing it though. In general, if you have an issue with an editor you need to take it to the proper venue with the proper evidence otherwise it's just considered casting aspersions. You particularly have to avoid outing or opposition research, even threats of them. Depending on the admin what I saw there could well of gotten you blocked for a bit. Outing is an instant indef. It's taken extremely seriously around here. There are exceptions, such as some editors who declare their real names on their user pages. Obviously you can't out them. Even if someone is open about their identity opposition research is still not allowed though. In general, conflicts on WP involve only evidence produced on WP. There are some exceptions in the most egregious of circumstances, such as an editor harassing another editor outside of WP, but even the evidence is sent privately to ArbCom or the proper WMF channel. Never on WP. Not meaning to lecture, by the way, just giving some advice on how things tend to go around here. Capeo (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I told Dab - see this. :) Doug Weller talk 19:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! He's on to you, D Water Well. Capeo (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new RfC at Plummer v. State RfC, dealing with the Internet meme section. Please visit and comment on the proposed language for the section. This is revised from the first proposal, and you are receiving this notice due to your participation in the first RfC. GregJackP Boomer! 20:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike "Republican POV". Simply wanting the lede of James Comey to have less than a paragraph of coverage of Dismissal of James Comey is not a Republican POV, and I don't know where else I have made any comments that could be viewed as having a POV. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Capeo, nice meeting you. In answer to your edit, first, there has been no synthesizing as you claim. I have simply made two relative statements connected to one another as we all know, under the definition of "Intelligent Design" widely-construed. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You as well. At this point we can just keep the discussion at the relevant talk page. Not that I mind you posting on my TP, you're welcome to, but just so we're not having two concurrent conversations about the same thing. I have the talkpage watchlisted so I won't miss anything. Thanks. Capeo (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for so clearly expressing what proper journalistic conduct would look like in the case in question. I wish I could have put it so well. Haukur (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I got a bit carried away with the number of words though. Capeo (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

"Can I give you some advice?"

Thank you for improving quality articles such as Immanuel Velikovsky and H. P. Lovecraft, for (intermittent) service from 2006, for good comments and sound advice in and about arbcom cases, including "I'm unwatching that case page now as its equal parts sad and infuriating." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2287 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda. I appreciate that. Though I don’t think I improved H.P. Lovecraft much. I wanted to. I was finally in a place where I had a lot of time. I bought all of his biographies and intended to really contribute to an article but never finished. Unfortunately, life threw a harsh curveball and I’ve not got back to working on that article. Now I’m mostly a spectator but hopefully that will change. Capeo (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a comment of yours at ANI--you may have seen that I also supported an indef-block, but this is a personal attack by any standard. Please let cooler heads prevail. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]