User talk:Carolmooredc

Green Box Links to Barnstars, Archives, Other Stuff Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors. Otherwise I may move it there. Thanks. See here for my Arbitration-related topic ban info. and remember: Well-behaved women (and people of color) seldom make history.
Barnstars/Kittens/et al My Cheatsheet - My Sandbox - Sanbox 1x - /My Sandbox 2 - /My Sandbox 3 - /My Sandbox 4 Archive I: 2006-2007 - Archive II: Jan-March 2008 - Archive III: March-Dec 2008 - Archive IV: 2009 - Archive V: 2010 - Archive VI: 2011 -Archive VII: 2012 - Archive VIII: 2013 - Archive IX: 2014

This user wants to see everything in its place.

Last of the Mohicans

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For being the "Last of the Mohicans"--one of the few women who has not been driven off the Gender Gap Task Force or the GGTF ArbCom case.

Hi, Carolmooredc. I have seen this rather amusing barnstar floating around and cannot think of anyone who deserves it more than you do. You have continued to Assume Good Faith, and have patiently answered even the most hostile statements, long after anyone else would have lost patience and concluded that they were being trolled. Just for the record, this is no longer a gender-specific barnstar, but the irony of the original version is just too perfect. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually looked up WP:NOTSUICIDE and I don't get it. As I asked at talk "Does it mean we can kick obvious trolls butts? Or that we should quit rather than commit suicide?" Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha, ha, enjoy. —Neotarf (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Feminists Engage Wikipedia

	The Feminists Engage Wikipedia Award!
	If Adrianne Wadewitz were here, she'd give you this award for all you have done! Djembayz (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Back at ya! But you know my definition of feminist: any woman who doesn't take any bull in any part of her life. So that's most of 3.6 billion women on the planet :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Kittens and puppies for helpful and friendly editors

Don't have energy to post separately. Especially for those who have seen through the nonsense of the last six months.

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Also feel free to delete any of those negative/nasty/harassing comments I always get if anyone leaves them here, since I probably won't be allowed to.

Blocked

This [1], repeated on Jimbo Wales' talkpage [2] is so far beyond the line that I have blocked you. It seems likely that you will be banned rather soon anyway, so I suggest that if you feel a pressing need to make some other (constructive) contributions to the arb proceedings until that time, you'd better contact the committee by mail directly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Truth hurts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I warned Carol recently, explicitly about sexualized personal attacks such as "gang bang". I was in fact typing up my own block notice, Future Perfect got there just before me. Bishonen | talk 14:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

Carol, when you've only got to convince one arbitrator to change its vote to oppose, it's best not to rock the boat. Recommend you stay away from the page-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@User:Bishonen shows her ignorance. Probably more guys get gang banged by other guys in prison, torture chambers, fraternities, and militaries worldwide than women. It's actually a gender neutral term. (Not to mention "gang bangers" is a phrase for members of gangs who may or may not do any sexual gang bangs of males or females. So it's appropriate for individuals in question.) You say "attacks" - are their other terms you do not understand?

Again, ArbCom dare not sanction King Corbett without having a couple sacrifices to throw to his subjects, like me and Neotarf. It's a joke. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Where was gender mentioned? Rape is rape no matter the gender of the victim, surely? pablo 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly. Bishonen should apologize to all the guys who have been raped and to all the gang bangers who haven't raped anyone. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Now I am even more confused as to your point. pablo 17:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Carol, that's quite enough of this line of discussion. I get that you're angry and trying to make a point, but it is absolutely unacceptable to...well, to do most of the things you're doing right now: compare other Wikipedians to rapists (or gang members), belittle male victims of rape, defend your saying horrible things about people because it happens to women too so it must be ok to do to men...none of those things are ok, and if you continue doing them I or someone else is going to have to remove your access to this talk page to stop them happening. You're blocked; you're intended to use your talk page to discuss and appeal the block, not continue any and all disputes you aren't able to let go of. Please give some thought to whether moderating yourself, even just somewhat, is more likely to pay off for you than continuing in the vein you've been going along in. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In my version of the English language, "gangbanger" means someone who has taken an active part in a gang rape, and is therefore a shocking insult, quite inappropriate to use in this context. Throwing it around as an insult demeans all victims of rape by likening their ordeal to having a few nasty things said about them online. Get real, please. PamD 17:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Having looked further (because I'm a retired librarian): WP has a dab page giving two meanings of Gangbanger; [3] gives 3 meanings including "someone who gangbangs", and the def of the verb "gangbang" doesn't quite include rape explicitly; OED defines "gangbanger" as "A member of a criminal or street gang, esp. one who engages in gang violence; a gangster"; but to me personally, female 60+ UK English-speaker, it still sounds like a rapist. PamD 18:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Where I come from "gang bang" implies sex, but not necessarily rape (there is a whole genre of porn for it, some of which simulates rape, some of which is just an orgy involving only one girl). "Gang-banger" is a term for one who is in a gang, but does not specifically imply that the participate in gang-bangs. Its more of a synonym for thug/gangste/etc). Although I think Carol's post was improper for other reasons, I don't read it as her accusing anyone of actual rapes (even figurative ones). However, as part of the larger dispute here is that different words mean different things to different people, I do not preclude the possibility that people in other areas would read it as a sexual reference. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that in some cases the word gangbang implies sex or in some way alludes in some metaphorical way to sex. Also, to Carol, I really would suggest that you follow the advice of Fluffernutter above. There are only a very few uses of user talk pages considered acceptable by users who are actively blocked, and any editing not included in those acceptable uses can and often does lead to the ability to edit even that restricted. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't agree with this block. Yes, Carol is expressing herself forcefully, but I don't see that as a reason to shut her down for a week. The issue at hand is of considerable importance to numerous Wikipedians, some of whom may have difficulty standing up to the intimidating culture here, and a block at this juncture is counterproductive to open debate. I'd say it compounds the problem. Jusdafax 19:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

First, if someone only mentions I'm blocked because they don't understand what a word means, it's my right to define it. And if others want to add other understandings or clarifications, that is fine too.

Second, the only phrase of relevance here is "Manchester Gangbangers". Living in the US I heard the phrase used a lot to describe gangs of males who engage in thuggish behavior. That's the way I see the year or more of harassment and the harassment since I joined GGTF, and especially since September, including at Arbitration by friends of Manchester editors. If you all choose to think more of it than that, whatever.

Thanks for reminding me that sexual gang bangs can be consensual and I have heard that way, most in gay culture, but also sometimes involving women who like it (like a roommate I had who I had to ask to leave after a week) or who agree to please their guys, as in biker culture. (Though we can debate how "consensual" the latter really is.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• The irony. "Gang banger" in the US means member of a gang. The phrase is not used in the UK at all but the nearest term is "gang bang" (I.e. group sex) so a British person would assume that "gang banger" would only refer to a participant in group sex. Wait, wasn't there a US/non-US disagreement over what another word meant recently...? DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The difference being that "gang banger" as member of a gang can be gangs that include women and even are made up entirely of women. The Manchester gang obviously includes both. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You did understand what I said, right? DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand you are making a false comparison between c*nt and gangbanger. Did I miss something else? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And you think it's false because you can have women gangbangers? Priceless. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If the Brits are ignorant of the primary US meaning of a word, known by a hundred million plus Americans, now they've learned it. However, they (and most Brits I'm sure) know exactly how it's used in US and have heard numerous protestations. So again, no comparison. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If you genuinely fail to see the irony of what you're saying then it really does explain how you've got yourself into this situation. DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No I got myself in this situation because guys kept harassing me with BS comments, including ones like this they refuse to explain in plain English, and from time to time I lost my temper. Happily, I am liberated from all that kind of nonsense. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Carol, you were blocked for making personal attacks, not for using non-gender-neutral language. Read Fluffernutter's post again. Take a day off, then come back, think things over again, and make an unblock request. If you continue as you are right now somebody is going to simply remove your talk page access. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that some consider it a personal attack, I just did not want to leave the impression I meant one definition rather than another. Of course, when I make my list of my alleged personal attacks compared to all those issued over time by other parties to Arbitration on me and others, the double standard will be clear. Obviously that won't be done here. It would help if people like DeCausa would stop harassing me, but that's why I'm delighted to leave. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There. I've reduced the block length to 72 hours, the same as I believe should be done with Eric Corbett. [4] I hope you can use this time to relax, enjoy your Thanksgiving, and hopefully disengage from this conflict. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ban from Gender Gap Task Force case pages

As a result of your poor conduct on the case pages, in spite of Bishonen's warning and the edit notice for the proposed decision talk page, I am, as an arbitration clerk, taking the additional action of barring you from participating on any of the Gender Gap Task Force case pages. For clarity, this means no editing the main case page, evidence page, workshop page, proposed decision page, or any of those pages' talk pages. This restriction is enforceable by block, if necessary. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Why the ban is nonsense

User:Ks0stm: Because you guys don't understand "gang bangers" in the US means gang members and can include women and even be all women? Sure, block me for saying things I think are true about the "Manchester gangbangers". But it's pretty far stretch to ban me from GGTF for saying it's some sort of sexual attack. That means any one you want to ban from any project can be banned cause a Admin doesn't understand what a word means? Someone ask him about that at Arbitration election candidate questions. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting to this sooner. I've been traveling last night and today, and I'll reply this evening my time (in about 4-6 hours) once I have a chance to sit down and actually write up a detailed answer. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Bad block. Plz undo.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Good block. Please leave in place. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Interested editors might Google "Manchester gangbangers" and see what comes up. For more provocative results, turn off the filters. Then opine on whether the term is appropriate for WP discussions. – S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  Carolmooredc knew exactly what she was saying. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• If I call someone an asshole and get blocked, then say that what I meant was this[5], then I would expect the same level of skepticism. Dennis - 2¢ 02:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  I express no opinion about the appropriateness of the block, but please see the urbandictionary definitions of gangbanger or the Wiktionary definition or the Merriam Webster definition. It generally has nothing to do with sex. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  But "Manchester gangbangers" image search brings up quite different results (NSFW at all--do NOT click if you're at work). She knew what she was writing. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's move along here. Speculating on what she may or may not have meant isn't going to be productive. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Carol would do well to say she got carried away, didn't consider the various implications and usages of the term, apologize, and ask to have the block lifted so she can go back and redact the term. Her request can be made off-Wiki and would do well to quote what she meant to say with less ad hominem (NPA) language. – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Carol said exactly the right set of words to the exactly right set of people who needed to be told those words, to be honest. All this is is continuation of the same old stereotypes; men who commit aggressive act after aggressive act are shown no end of leniency, but the "uppity" woman who dares get within the ballpark of same gets the ax. Tarc (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tarc. I am a Neanderthal about such things, so I really can't believe we're the only one seeing what is happening.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Carol, your behaviour and accusations in that diff, repeated on Jimbo's talk page, after multiple warnings about "sniping" on the arbcom pages were beyond the pale. Banning you from that page is a very reasonable clerk action and taken correctly. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Tarc: Two observations: 1. Because we have more male editors, by far, we are more likely to see instances of inappropriate NPA comments from editors we perceive to be male. That does not mean males are more likely to NPA. 2. Seeing more NPA behavior from one gender does not excuse NPA behavior from any other gender or from any particular individual. – S. Rich (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That is absurdly stupid and denies reality. Of course males generally tend to have a harshed tone with eachother. Apparently there is one culture in northern Papua New Guinea where it is the other way round but I am pretty sure you dont live there.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Tarc. This part seems especially spot on "men who commit aggressive act after aggressive act are shown no end of leniency, but the "uppity" woman who dares get within the ballpark of same gets the ax" Also what's the rationale for banning Carol from GGTF? I hope it's not to deny Carol an outlet to work within WP to change this apparent double standard.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

When even GW shifter her vote regarding the topic ban, it should a signal. I think the current situation is unfortunate, as based on the pre-case evidence, parity outcomes do seem to be more "fair". However during the case, Eric has made overtures (credible to some, not so to others) of getting in line - he gave those sympathetic an excuse to hand him some more rope. Carol has made attacks and polemics. Maybe shes justified in them, but doing so in front of the arbs was not a smart move. She gave everyone an excuse to throw the book at her, including from those were supporting her. Since she is blocked at this point I'm not sure what alternatives she has, perhaps somehow throwing herself on the mercy of the Arbs via email. Supporters and detractors of both eric and carol need to stop throwing gas on the fire and goading and encouraging themselves to regularly express righteous indignation its not helpful to anyone's cause. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 pretty much said everything that comes to mind to me about this matter above. Eric has said he is willing to change his behavior, and, considering this is an arbitration and many people behave badly in them, hasn't been particularly obnoxious during it. We more or less have to take him by his word that he will, time will of course tell. Carol, on the other hand, seems to have escalated the level and frequency of her dubious conduct during arbitration, and it very much to me looks like the decision being made is strongly influenced by Carol's recently heightened problematic behavior. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Prohibition remedy proposal

Hello Carol. I've proposed a prohibition remedy at the GGTF case. If you were to apologize for your recent posts (which led to your block) & agree to comply with my remedy proposal. I believe the arbitrators might adopt my proposal, support it & thus reverse their ban-votes. Please consider. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of information, given that the page in question is already a monster in terms of length and is likely to get worse, the section is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Proposed decision#Carolmooredc Prohibition remedy?. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)