On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmoor...@verizon.net> wrote:
> But thank you for the good comments below mine, but must reply to your > introductory remarks... > > On 11/26/2014 9:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > ... > That's a slightly simplistic summary, eliding the fact that Eric C. is > also very often non-toxic, and has a long history of collaborating in a > very professional and respectful manner with many diverse women editors to > bring a large number of articles to good or featured status. > > **He still disrupted the GGTF with his friends in order to stop it having > an influencing in increasing civility or harassment enforcement. > That's why I agree with Newyorkbrad that he should be topic-banned from the GGTF pages. But really, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of this, on-wiki is not the right place, as it is with so many of these issues. The signal-to-noise ratio is appalling, and the end result is a waste of time. > A good number of those women spoke up for him on the Proposed Decision > talk page. And even more women took issue with the way the gender gap is > often framed here. > > *Women editors will have different views, but if the main reason they come > is to support one or more males who call women cunts, > He didn't. I won't get into that whole long discussion here; all I had to say about this is on the proposed decision talk page, and anyone who is interested can read it up there. > sorry if they don't have much credibility. > > By here you mean this email list or GGTF? If you study the GGTF timeline > and archives you'll see that some of the most rediculous proposals were > made by males and rejected, but thrown up as "typical" of what GGTF wanted; > there were three editors there just to harass two women editors; the > opponents kept knocking the project and everything said by good faith > participants to the point supporters either stopped commenting or got angry > and told them to quit it - over and over again. > I meant both here and at the GGTF. If you have a number of very capable women contributors – people who actually have contributed significant amounts of quality content – saying that they can't identify with the way the issue is being framed by the Foundation and those spearheading the gender gap effort, then not listening and entering a dialogue with those people is a missed opportunity. > Note also that when Eric spoke of alienating male contributors, this > was in the specific context of affirmative actions (which even those > proposing them warned carried a risk of provoking a backlash). Two > arbitrators had the decency to oppose that finding of fact based on the > omission of that context. > > *Yeah, a male came up with a proposal that two males had to OK and revert > of an (alleged) female editor. That didn't fly, but we kept hearing about > it and had to thrash the arbitrators with diffs til they realized it was a > strawman pushed by Corbett and crew. You didn't get the memo? > > But the good news is if Corbett does it again, he's in trouble. I have > predicted from the start I (and later Neotarf) would be the sacrificial > lambs offered up to keep Corbett's supporters from going crazy if even the > mildest of sanctions was imposed. (I've heard that ast time Corbett got a > strong sanction several high profile admins quit, started petitions, all > sorts of shenanigans to disrupt the project.) I still think that is so and > told them so.... > I am a supporter of both Eric and you, inasmuch as you're both spirited people and I didn't wish to see either of you site-banned. The whole thing is quite a spectacular breakdown in communication. The term "Arbitration Committee" is really an egregious misnomer. They never actually arbitrate: all they do is punish. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Commiserations. Best, Andreas > > I'm using the meme "INSTITUTIONALIZED HARASSMENT AT WIKIPEDIA" - feel free > to quote me... > > CM > _____________ > > > > I do think the arbitrators should revisit Newyorkbrad's idea of a GGTF > topic ban for Eric. (Generally, Newyorkbrad's comments in this case were > spot-on for me throughout.) I did find some of Eric's contributions to the > GGTF pages were excessively argumentative and confrontational, and not > helpful. But I am very glad he is not getting banned. > > I do regret seeing the ban for Carol pass. > > Again, I would encourage people to set up their own Gendergap discussion > site and blog off-wiki ... and also to listen to those women who spoke up > in the case who feel that the current framing of the Gendergap issue does > not represent them. > > And since I am posting here, let me remind everyone again that we still > do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey. We have > had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but no > data. > > What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this > survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after > the survey ran? > > It should be a really easy question to answer: x% female, y% male. > > Best, > Andreas > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing > listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
