Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

Hi JJ, I can't speak for anyone else, but I was responding specifically to the statement "four arbitrators posted personally identifying information about me and did not respond to my requests to remove it.", which would be a concern to me both in regards to the specific case and also the broader

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

This seems more about Neotarf's personal ban more than anything else. Looking at the arbcom findings of fact (which I won't quote here), it doesn't look like the ban was related to the gender gap on Wikipedia as much as behaviour displayed towards other editors. Maybe it would be better for the

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

I believe because the ArbCom case regards the 'Gender Gap Task Force' On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:24 PM, JJ Marr wrote: > How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again? > > On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf" wrote: > > Just to follow up, the WMF

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again? On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf" wrote: Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded. I appreciate them taking time to review these concerns. >>>your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded. I appreciate them taking time to review these concerns. >>>your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF Legal. Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time ago >>>a few other remedies which could