Hi Sarah, I'm not a "functionary" so I haven't seen the evidence - clearly it convinces you, but it did not quite convince the functionaries. Reading the result and for example Yunshui's comment I would simply prefer that the record shows we were not fully convinced by the evidence, rather than that we were convinced, but chose not to act. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather>I think what we have here is more than a detail difference. If the decision had been, as reported in the Atlantic, that Arbcom had decided this *"on the grounds that it may “out” the editor that had posted the pictures, or link his username to his real name."* Then I would have supported a change in policy, or Arbcom membership, so that future Arbcoms in similar situations would be willing to risk outing someone, or just ban them without public reason, rather than leave a harasser unpunished. But if the issue is not that, but instead that the evidence was inconclusive, then I think we have a very different problem to work on. As for the broader picture I don't dispute that Wikipedia has several problems around gender, and some terrible publicity, but if one took that article at face value the obvious next step would be to get a change in policy so that if Arbcom were convinced of the evidence they could and would have acted.
Jonathan <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather> On 22 October 2015 at 17:37, Sarah (SV) <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: > WSC, the evidence as to who posted the porn images was, I would say, > conclusive. We nevertheless ended up with a situation in which a man who > had been engaged in harassment (much of which was onwiki and had been going > on for about a year) was let off the hook, and the harassed woman was > banned. > > There was a similar situation in the GGTF case > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF>, > so the Lightbreather case was not an unfortunate one-off. For example, the > man who was blocked for harassment during the Lightbreather case > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather> > should have been blocked for it during the GGTF case, but wasn't. He only > ended up being blocked during the Lightbreather case because he admitted > that he had done it. Otherwise he might still be editing. > > Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many > other examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist. > (See this selection of stories > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Media_and_research>.) > Rather than arguing about which details various journalists got wrong, we > should focus on what they got right and how we can fix it. > > Sarah > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, WereSpielChequers < > werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Francesca, >> >> It seems a shame that an Arbcom case in which one person was blocked for >> offwiki harassment and another would have been if the evidence had been >> conclusive has been reported as if they'd decided instead to spare the >> harasser for privacy reasons. >> >> As Thryduulf put it "there is no doubt that had we been able to >> conclusively connect the perpetrator to a Wikipedia account that action >> would have been taken (almost certainly a site ban). >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather>" >> >> >> You could point her to >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather >> >> A story warning mysogynists that Arbcom will and has acted against those >> it catches would have made it easier to attract women to wikipedia and >> deter misogynists. >> >> WSC >> >> On 22 October 2015 at 12:04, Francesca Tripodi <fbt...@virginia.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> I was directly interviewed for this article but my contributions were >>> scrapped. I have Emma's email and I would be happy to reach out to her >>> if you'd like to list a set of uniform "corrections"? No guarantee >>> she'd be able to change them but it's a start if you'd like? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity or errors. >>> >>> > On Oct 21, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Some journos take corrections easily, and some don't. I've had people >>> > directly misquote me at major outlets where I had the call on record >>> > (with their consent, since CA is a 2 party consent state for recording >>> > calls,) and refuse to make corrections, and had other people accept my >>> > corrections at face value and put them in to place. I may not have >>> > time to do so today, but would encourage anyone interested (probably >>> > better if it's only a person or two and not a horde in this case) to >>> > contact the author of the Atlantic piece about the issues. Probably >>> > those directly interviewed by the journalist would be the best >>> > candidates to put in for a correction. >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > Kevin Gorman >>> > >>> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> Good that this story has been told, at last. Overdue. >>> >> >>> >> (Minor quibbles: Eric is not an admin, and the New York Times piece >>> was not >>> >> written by a NYT reporter. Corrections possible?) >>> >> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for sending this out Carol, you beat me by about two minutes. >>> >>> I would hugely encourage everyone to read this, and a lot of it also >>> >>> relates to why it's important that people vote in arbcom election, >>> and >>> >>> we don't have arbitrators elected with 273 support votes and fewer >>> >>> than 600 total votes... >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Kevin Gorman >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Carol Moore dc >>> >>> <carolmoor...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Goes into lots of details... >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> Gendergap mailing list >>> >>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>> please >>> >>>> visit: >>> >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>> please >>> >>> visit: >>> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Gendergap mailing list >>> >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>> please >>> >> visit: >>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Gendergap mailing list >>> > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>> please visit: >>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >>> visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
