message--
From: Marie Earley
Date: Sun, Nov 30, 2014 6:32 PM
To: Gender Gap;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
Thanks Sarah,
Yes, they does seem to be a lot more of it lately. I also thought that
discussion board stuff would die down. They got their pound of flesh
Hmm. I look at it and think why is the term sex-positive being used in
this way? It's highly biased, and it's certainly not terminology used in
most of the world amongst those who support prostitution as a career
choice; in fact the two have nothing to do with each other. I'd never
heard of it
Pulling out a couple of comments for reply from Marie's statement:
On 11/30/2014 1:46 AM, Marie Earley wrote:
..
In particular this comment:
...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision,
/repeatedly,/ there is some question as to exactly /which/ women this
group seems to
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net
wrote:
my joke about the systemic bias card (which is evidence against me in
Arbitration!);
Yeah, this is one of the more bizarre diffs. I am glad a couple of
arbitrators opposed on the basis of that. I would be even
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Marie Earley eir...@hotmail.com wrote:
In answer to your other questions:
* Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are
sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list?
- Please explain why you think it isn't relevant, since
Carol: My guess is that pretty much everyone commenting here has and
continues to, read the GGTF case. I also agree that Eric can be harsh and
his use of certain words offends people. Likewise others in this case also
didn't act very well.
Personally I think the term he used or the references you
Tim: They actually are appealable at AE, they just can't be as undone as
quickly as most Eric blocks. Consensus needed to unblock rather than
consensus needed for a block to stay. I suspect most of the initial blocks
will stick since they aren't too long, but the remedy does call for set
longer
On 11/27/2014 12:36 PM, Reguyla wrote:
Carol: My guess is that pretty much everyone commenting here has and
continues to, read the GGTF case. I also agree that Eric can be harsh
and his use of certain words offends people. Likewise others in this
case also didn't act very well.
Personally I
Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've
checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway
Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say I
dispute that it makes little sense and why does it even need to add
informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article
as pictures and videos often are? I ask why don't you take that dispute up
with the
yes ,
i would say that arbcom might be unaware of how negatively it will be viewed
clearly newyorkbrad was angling for block both sides,
to make it easier to block the unblockable
and the majority appears to have tilted in one direction.
keep in mind that a life ban worked real well on betacommand
As I have read the responses on this mail list, several people have made
some very good points, but others not so much. Some focus specifically on
Eric and others are more broad commenting on cultural issues within the
project itself. Eric said some bad words, most of us are adults here, so
deal
of women within Wikimedia projects.;
*Subject:*Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
ArbCom isn't illegal. I have no idea how you'd be able to appeal an online
pseudotribunal to an actual court. It baffles the mind, especially since
they provided clear rationale and the WMF
Kevin Gorman: It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks.
I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's
certainly
a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with
essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to
On 11/27/2014 11:22 AM, Tim Davenport wrote:
Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue
of CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.
If you read the evidence and the GGTF page you'd see Eric Corbett was
being disruptive (while not always uncivil)
I must admit, I'm really fascinated by the fact that Eric Corbett is being
called Mr. Corbett and Carol Moore is being called Carol Moore' in some
of these conversations.
And anyone who has spent time on this mailing list and reads interviews,
articles, surveys, blahblah with women who edit
On Nov 25, 2014 2:48 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
could there ever be any legal repercussion - like the real legal
system, not an internet community - that could be taken to support a person
who should not be banned from a website? like carol? If you're called
lots of nasty
Message-
From: Reguyla [mailto:regu...@gmail.com]
Sent: 26 November 2014 17:48
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
participationof women within Wikimedia projects.
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
Eric can be a jerk sometimes and use
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not going to opine on the decision that's being voted upon by Arbcom;
I've been there, and ultimately the decision is based on the quality and
nature
of the evidence that people bother to present
Risker, I think your
Kevin Gorman wrote: The case is ending with banning a bunch of women
with flimsy excuses..
That's a gross misrepresentation of the case outcome.
The case is ending with Carol Moore being banned off for reasons which
should be obvious to anyone reading through the case documentation and
knowing
Carol's productive contributions outweigh the trolling she's been put
through and occasional policy issue she has run in to, at least not to the
point of warranting a site ban. Neotarf is being topic-banned from a
project they were a productive contributor to on a handful of flimsy
diffs. I'd
Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable civility
blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
One wonders if it’s really time for someone to just initiate a discussion on AN
as to whether the community’s patience with him is exhausted enough to
community-ban
On 11/26/2014 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman wrote:
It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks. I honestly
don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's
certainly a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be
bandied about with essentially no penalty is
Damn straight!
Shit stirrers unite :)
(And yes, until you've met Carol Moore in person you don't know the real
Carol Moore!! She's most epic and well worth it to go out of your way to
have a pint with her!).
-Sarah
[I've just shifted my shit starting back to GLAM stuff these days...]
On Wed,
If Carol Moore is banned from Wikipedia and Eric Corbett is not, I will be
retiring from Wikipedia, as it will prove that the project is completely
dysfunctional.
Kaldari
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote:
This is what is about to happen at the English
ArbCom is weak, and loathe to make any decision that might trigger a
backlash. They are incapable of dealing with serious, long-term problems
and seem able only to address minor issues that would otherwise resolve on
their own. The English Wikipedia is ungoverned and ungovernable, and the
norms of
Here, here. Carol Moore is one of the reasons I EDIT Wikipedia.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
If Carol Moore is banned from Wikipedia and Eric Corbett is not, I will be
retiring from Wikipedia, as it will prove that the project is completely
It's really two issues - one, there was some disruption and misconduct
around the Gender Gap wikiproject that really got overblown a bit and never
needed to be an arbitration case to begin with. Granted that some of the
participants weren't really contributing in good faith, and that there was
a
Also, wacky question:
could there ever be any legal repercussion - like the real legal system,
not an internet community - that could be taken to support a person who
should not be banned from a website? like carol? If you're called lots
of nasty names, if men aren't being banned, etc but women
Thank you Nathan.
there is a particular person who is an absolutely outstanding article
writer, but has a longstanding habit of acting like a jerk on a regular
basis. The community and the committee have repeatedly shown themselves to
be incapable of finding a solution to that problem, and this
I cannot believe the crap going on on that talk page now! Having watched
this case develop over the past few weeks, I finally ventured to share my
disgust with the way things ended up, and now I'm being accused of basing
my opinion *completely* on gender. Another guy chimed in to say: Some
people
I'm not going to opine on the decision that's being voted upon by Arbcom;
I've been there, and ultimately the decision is based on the quality and
nature of the evidence that people bother to present - which often means
that the decision that ultimately gets posted, because entire sides of
the
Thank you for this Carol. I was driven off En.wp / suffered a death of a
thousand wikilawyering cuts after ridiculously blatant homophobia, outing
and off wiki attacks against my personal life. Even the, now hidden from
view, Arbcom case against me was allowed to bang on about fisting, clearly
On 11/26/2014 12:52 AM, Risker wrote:
I have, however, entered a plea that they rename the case. The
decision they're voting on now has almost nothing at all to do with
the Gender Gap Task Force, and isn't really addressing any of
problematic behaviours that are evident on the talk pages of
Yes, here here to Carol and LB. I commend everyone who is still fighting
the power and voicing rage (calm or not) on talk pages and representing
what so many of us feel. You are putting your wikilove on the line and it
is not to go unnoticed or unappreciated.
I'm genuinely too freaked out anymore
35 matches
Mail list logo
