Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence

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

Case clerk: Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Dougweller (Talk)

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

Evidence limit

Hello! Can I please get permission to exceed the evidence limit? I've submitted 2 sections and haven't even got to Esoglou's in-article behavior, and I want to make sure the necessary issues are covered in my evidence. I can also try to cut down what I've already submitted a bit if you think it would be helpful. Thanks - –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine. How many words do you think you will need? -- Euryalus (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2000? I'm not sure, sorry. I'll of course try to keep it as concise as possible, providing diffs and incidents that are representative without being exhaustive, and hopefully arbitrators will understand. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese, 2000 (plus up to 200 diffs) is fine. Anyone else that would like a similar word limit increase, please also feel free to post a request here. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended word limit also approved for Esoglou and Binksternet, per talkpage discussions. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually ask for an extension, but thank you for the courtesy. I will still try to be brief. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks too, but I have already decided to trim down to 1000 words as requested and to post today, so that it can be replied to before the time limit. Esoglou (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time limit

Uh, I guess I'll post my request here for a few days' extension to sort through years of diffs and present them in easily digestible form, and to give time to other users whose statements in the case request suggest that they might like to present evidence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese will 2 more days work? Evidence closing on the 4th? Or do you really need 3? No more. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll do my best to get evidence in by then. Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the time and evidence extensions, guys. Definitely needed and appreciated, and I hope I've been able to make it worth your while by being as concise and clear as possible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: could I get an 8 hour extension? Padresfan94 (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talking down?

@Binksternet: Could you explain what you mean by "talking down"? The diffs you've shown appear to be the same type of communication that frequently happens on Wikipedia in the course of building an article. In fact, I'm concerned that this very message could be described as talking down to you by your very loose definition. I'd like to know what specific words you consider to be "talking down". Are you making an accusation of "mansplaining"? If so, I find your comments to have a chilling effect. Are you suggesting that male editors are not allowed to discuss matters with female editors and should accept, based on gender alone, that female editors either must be right or must not be argued with? You seem to be, from my current perspective having not heard your explanation to a question I have yet to pose, to be arguing from a strong social advocacy argument here. Can you clarify what sort of (let's use patronizing) words you find present?--v/r - T P 06:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to focus on a specific disallowed word or phrase then you will not be satisfied. What I saw and tried to relay to the committee is a general impression I got from perusing archive 1 of the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism talk page. On that page Esoglou's participation is tracked for one month in mid-2013. His contributions are respectful in tone to the apparently male opponents but not to Roscelese. The evidence suffuses the second half of the talk page from the point Esoglou joins. There's no single bullet for me to point you to. To me it looked like Esoglou was unable to work collegially with a woman opponent. Binksternet (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm considering what you say and I think you're failing to show a difference between not getting along with Roscelese and not getting along with women in general. What I am saying is, you have not shown a pattern of behavior where the single common denominator is being female. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I accept your premise that Esoglou is talking down to Roscelese. You have a dispute between one person and another person. And frankly (apologies Roscelese, I'm not trying to offend you personally), there are reasons for someone not to like Roscelese. She has had disputes with SlimVirgin, Haymaker, Epeefleche, and many others. She has been reported to ANEW countless times. Her focus is on LGBT rights and human sexuality and the areas where the overlaps with religion most often involves her contributing only negative information to religion articles. From the perspective of any editor editing religion articles, it would appear that Roscelese only interest in religion articles is to bash them and push a point of view. So, there are way more reasons not to like Roscelese than her gender.

What I would need to see from you to be convinced that there is a gender-based hatred going on is evidence of a pattern of behavior against several female editors and a lack of evidence of the same behavior against male editors that this editor is in a dispute with. Because short of that, you appear to be using Roscelese's gender to gain leverage in this dispute and that is a bit scary. And, to be quite frank, Binksternet, when Roscelese is in disputes, you always appear to be just a step away to back her up. So, I invite you to find evidence of a behavior that extends past Roscelese but if you cannot find it than I implore you to reconsider the accusation you are making.--v/r - T P 17:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What happens next?

I don't think I've ever had any significant involvement in an arbitration case. What do we do in the workshop phase? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's a multi-step process. First you develop principals based in guidelines and policies. Things such as "Wikipedia editors should adhere to a neutral point of view." Next, you document findings of fact about what happened with diffs such as "Editor A misrepresented the source A in this edit. Editor A selectively used source 3 despite multiple other sources contradicting it being available 4 5 6". Once you have a finding of fact with a principal to back it up, then you propose a remedy. "Editor A is topic banned for 6 months." You can proposed multiple remedies for the same finding of fact.--v/r - T P 00:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - does "you" include, well, me? Or is this primarily something that the arbitrators do now that the parties have presented evidence? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The workshop page is for everyone. Parties, non-parties, and Arbs. Anyone can work on the workshop. The Arbs then take the recommendations in the workshop to put an actual final decision together.--v/r - T P 04:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, and I thought I was done when I submitted my evidence! :P Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roscelese, take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop. We want as many people as possible to participate at this stage. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]