As I've mentioned, the biggest problem we're having now is male attack
posts, female complaints about such attacks, generally
disruptive/tendentious threads which really are driving off people who
join the project, probably look at the page, and quickly leave.
I started this thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Hatting_vs._closing_vs._immediate_archiving_vs._indexing_on_subpages
"Hatting vs. closing vs. immediate archiving vs. indexing on subpages"
It initially was responded to by all males, two of them wikihounders,
one who has some odd ball agenda, and a sensible one. (There also was a
discussion at another thread about the way another guy came in and
hatted complaint discussions about sexism that hadn't been finished,
which muddied the waters.)
Sarah (SlimVirgin) suggested a 30 day archiving regime which we've had
for a week or two. But I just got fed up and changed it to 15 days, but
don't know how long that would last.
It really would help if editors could come to the thread and tell us
what they think about leaving all those disruptive posts up there as
opposed to having ''active and constructive members" close/hat/archive
the most problematic ones as seems sensible on a case by case basis.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
