Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Neotarf]

There is some association with a private GLAM mailing list.  I could not
find out more, and I cannot give more details without risk of exposing
someone's identity. No idea if it is a NDA, NCA or NPA or something else,
even a misunderstanding, you know how people can be, but why would
something be secret if it does not exist? If you know people in these
institutions maybe you can count for yourself how many of them are
anonymous and how many list their employers on their talk page, and if
there is some uniformity, how that might have come to be.  I am unable to
go further with this issue, but as they say, first do no harm, my loyalty
will be to protecting the careers and reputations of real people, I do
believe this should be the best interest of the WMF as well. It is sad that
when there can be no public discussions of these issues without reprisals,
only the private channels remain.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> No, that's exactly the opposite of what was said.  I did not say I signed
> a non-disparagement agreement.  I said I signed the standard WMF
> confidentiality agreement.
>
> You can read it here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information/  Everyone signs it
> for even mundane things.  I first signed it when I processed free database
> accounts for The Wikipedia Library and had access to names and email
> addresses of editors.
>
> You can see there's nothing in it about non-disparagement.  I feel quite
> free to disparage any person or institution that I choose.
>
> Given that you are unable to distinguish between a routine confidentiality
> agreement and a non-disparagement agreement, or between normal criticism
> and the suppression of discussion, I'm pretty confident that these alleged
> NPAs have never existed.
>
> The idea that Risker "wants to suppress all discussion" of these alleged
> NPAs is nonsense.  She merely pointed out, quite correctly, that spreading
> baseless allegations is quite damaging to the very causes you profess to
> care about.Please consider that before you continue to double down on a
> baseless allegation.  There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to level at
> the Foundation and this community for ineptness and inaction in these areas
> without making things up.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> So we have two former arbitrators on this list, one of whom has offered
>> to assist in evaluating this thing privately, and who has himself signed
>> such a non-disparagement agreement, and another who wants to suppress all
>> discussion of it.  We don't know if she has signed such an agreement.
>>
>> Publications like the New York Times and Washington Post do print and
>> evaluate information without naming sources, and it is true they are
>> sometimes called "fake news" on Twitter, but does not make the information
>> "factless", or prevent Wikipedia from consider them to be RS.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Risker  wrote:
>>
>>> So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip,
>>> that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia.
>>> You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely
>>> separate from Wikipedia,
>>>
>>> It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment
>>> both societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in
>>> various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that
>>> quantification.  Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any
>>> evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to
>>> fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd.  Simply put,
>>> it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public
>>> have come to term "fake news".  Please retract your statement.
>>>
>>> Risker/Anne
>>>
>>> On 7 August 2017 at 08:21, Neotarf  wrote:
>>>
 I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
 about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
 anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
 credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
 female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
 Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0
 7/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-dispara
 gement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that
 was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little
 from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job
 would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would
 have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although
 this wasn’t the way I was 

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Robert Fernandez]

No, that's exactly the opposite of what was said.  I did not say I signed a
non-disparagement agreement.  I said I signed the standard WMF
confidentiality agreement.

You can read it here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_
agreement_for_nonpublic_information/  Everyone signs it for even mundane
things.  I first signed it when I processed free database accounts for The
Wikipedia Library and had access to names and email addresses of editors.

You can see there's nothing in it about non-disparagement.  I feel quite
free to disparage any person or institution that I choose.

Given that you are unable to distinguish between a routine confidentiality
agreement and a non-disparagement agreement, or between normal criticism
and the suppression of discussion, I'm pretty confident that these alleged
NPAs have never existed.

The idea that Risker "wants to suppress all discussion" of these alleged
NPAs is nonsense.  She merely pointed out, quite correctly, that spreading
baseless allegations is quite damaging to the very causes you profess to
care about.Please consider that before you continue to double down on a
baseless allegation.  There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to level at
the Foundation and this community for ineptness and inaction in these areas
without making things up.






On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

> So we have two former arbitrators on this list, one of whom has offered to
> assist in evaluating this thing privately, and who has himself signed such
> a non-disparagement agreement, and another who wants to suppress all
> discussion of it.  We don't know if she has signed such an agreement.
>
> Publications like the New York Times and Washington Post do print and
> evaluate information without naming sources, and it is true they are
> sometimes called "fake news" on Twitter, but does not make the information
> "factless", or prevent Wikipedia from consider them to be RS.
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
>> So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip,
>> that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia.
>> You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely
>> separate from Wikipedia,
>>
>> It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment
>> both societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in
>> various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that
>> quantification.  Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any
>> evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to
>> fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd.  Simply put,
>> it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public
>> have come to term "fake news".  Please retract your statement.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> On 7 August 2017 at 08:21, Neotarf  wrote:
>>
>>> I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
>>> about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
>>> anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
>>> credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
>>> female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
>>> Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0
>>> 7/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-dispara
>>> gement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that
>>> was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little
>>> from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job
>>> would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would
>>> have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although
>>> this wasn’t the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently
>>> left Google..." https://medium.com/@yonatanzun
>>> ger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker  wrote:
>>>


 On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf  wrote:

> ..
>
> Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who
> are quite probably minors, are being silenced.  I have heard that
> professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose 
> employers
> would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place',
> but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk
> pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement.
> They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents
> them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from
> even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA.  These women will
> join Wikipedia, and listen 

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Risker]

You're mistaken, Neotarf.  There is no non-disparagement agreement, and
arbitrators have never been required to sign one or even offered the
opportunity to sign one, nor have functionaries or anyone else.  There is a*
confidentiality* agreement that refers to private and confidential
information, which volunteers who have access to such information are
required to sign.[1]  These are two very different things.  I am not
suggesting that discussion be suppressed - I am insisting that you "show us
the money" - give us some evidence that what you are saying is true. If you
can't do thatthen you're just gossiping, and that's not what this list
is about.

You are trying to persuade this list that articles in respected journals
about policies of companies that have nothing to do with Wikipedia or
Wikimedia are somehow or other related to some rumour you have heard that
women are being forced to sign non-whatever agreements in order to edit
Wikipedia - a rumour which you have bluntly refused to back up.

At this stage, your allegation that anyone is required to post their real
name, identify their COI, and sign non-disparagement agreements in order to
edit wikipedia is...well, factless, until you can show us some facts.

Risker/Anne

[1] List of people who have current and valid confidentiality agreements:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy/Noticeboard

On 7 August 2017 at 14:11, Neotarf  wrote:

> So we have two former arbitrators on this list, one of whom has offered to
> assist in evaluating this thing privately, and who has himself signed such
> a non-disparagement agreement, and another who wants to suppress all
> discussion of it.  We don't know if she has signed such an agreement.
>
> Publications like the New York Times and Washington Post do print and
> evaluate information without naming sources, and it is true they are
> sometimes called "fake news" on Twitter, but does not make the information
> "factless", or prevent Wikipedia from consider them to be RS.
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
>> So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip,
>> that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia.
>> You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely
>> separate from Wikipedia,
>>
>> It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment
>> both societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in
>> various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that
>> quantification.  Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any
>> evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to
>> fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd.  Simply put,
>> it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public
>> have come to term "fake news".  Please retract your statement.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> On 7 August 2017 at 08:21, Neotarf  wrote:
>>
>>> I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
>>> about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
>>> anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
>>> credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
>>> female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
>>> Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0
>>> 7/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-dispara
>>> gement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that
>>> was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little
>>> from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job
>>> would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would
>>> have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although
>>> this wasn’t the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently
>>> left Google..." https://medium.com/@yonatanzun
>>> ger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker  wrote:
>>>


 On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf  wrote:

> ..
>
> Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who
> are quite probably minors, are being silenced.  I have heard that
> professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose 
> employers
> would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place',
> but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk
> pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement.
> They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents
> them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from
> even revealing they have 

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Neotarf]

So we have two former arbitrators on this list, one of whom has offered to
assist in evaluating this thing privately, and who has himself signed such
a non-disparagement agreement, and another who wants to suppress all
discussion of it.  We don't know if she has signed such an agreement.

Publications like the New York Times and Washington Post do print and
evaluate information without naming sources, and it is true they are
sometimes called "fake news" on Twitter, but does not make the information
"factless", or prevent Wikipedia from consider them to be RS.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Risker  wrote:

> So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip,
> that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia.
> You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely
> separate from Wikipedia,
>
> It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment both
> societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in
> various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that
> quantification.  Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any
> evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to
> fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd.  Simply put,
> it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public
> have come to term "fake news".  Please retract your statement.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 7 August 2017 at 08:21, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
>> about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
>> anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
>> credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
>> female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
>> Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0
>> 7/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-dispara
>> gement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that
>> was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little
>> from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job
>> would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would
>> have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although
>> this wasn’t the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently
>> left Google..." https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-
>> manifesto-1e3773ed1788
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf  wrote:
>>>
 ..

 Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who
 are quite probably minors, are being silenced.  I have heard that
 professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers
 would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place',
 but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk
 pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement.
 They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents
 them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from
 even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA.  These women will
 join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia
 gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make
 that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.

 If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to
 terms with this.



>>> This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist
>>> that you show some proof of this.  Links to discussions or requirements,
>>> please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without
>>> serious evidence.
>>>
>>> Risker/Anne
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Risker]

So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip,
that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia.
You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely
separate from Wikipedia,

It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment both
societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in
various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that
quantification.  Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any
evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to
fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd.  Simply put,
it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public
have come to term "fake news".  Please retract your statement.

Risker/Anne

On 7 August 2017 at 08:21, Neotarf  wrote:

> I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
> about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
> anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
> credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
> female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
> Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/technology/silicon-
> valley-sexual-harassment-non-disparagement-agreements.html Also the
> internal Google gender manifesto that was just leaked "Until about a week
> ago, you would have heard very little from me publicly about this, because
> (as a fairly senior Googler) my job would have been to deal with it
> internally, and confidentiality rules would have prevented me from saying
> much in public.But as it happens, (although this wasn’t the way I was
> planning on announcing it) I actually recently left Google..."
> https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-
> 1e3773ed1788
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf  wrote:
>>
>>> ..
>>>
>>> Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who
>>> are quite probably minors, are being silenced.  I have heard that
>>> professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers
>>> would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place',
>>> but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk
>>> pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement.
>>> They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents
>>> them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from
>>> even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA.  These women will
>>> join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia
>>> gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make
>>> that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
>>>
>>> If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms
>>> with this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist
>> that you show some proof of this.  Links to discussions or requirements,
>> please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without
>> serious evidence.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Neotarf]

I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
Angel List said no.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-disparagement-agreements.html
Also the internal Google gender manifesto that was just leaked "Until about
a week ago, you would have heard very little from me publicly about this,
because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job would have been to deal with it
internally, and confidentiality rules would have prevented me from saying
much in public.But as it happens, (although this wasn’t the way I was
planning on announcing it) I actually recently left Google..."
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788


On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker  wrote:

>
>
> On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> ..
>>
>> Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who
>> are quite probably minors, are being silenced.  I have heard that
>> professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers
>> would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place',
>> but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk
>> pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement.
>> They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents
>> them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from
>> even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA.  These women will
>> join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia
>> gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make
>> that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
>>
>> If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms
>> with this.
>>
>>
>>
> This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist
> that you show some proof of this.  Links to discussions or requirements,
> please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without
> serious evidence.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Robert Fernandez]

When you say professionals, in what specific capacity are they being
recruited?  Who is requiring them to sign an NDA?  The Foundation?  Their
employers?  I've worked with a number of Wikipedians in Residence and
professionals at US cultural institutions, and I know some of them well
enough to feel confident that I'd know of such a thing if they were forced
to sign something like this.  (Many people working with the private data of
editors are required by the Foundation to sign a confidentiality agreement,
but that agreement only extends to that data.  I've signed it myself.  I
believe a copy of this agreement is publicly available somewhere.  Meta?)

If this NDA requirement is true it deserves to be publicly exposed in the
interests of transparency.  If it's not true, it's a distraction from the
real problems that exist in this community and enables those opposed to
eliminating those problems to point to false claims in an attempt to
dismiss attention towards those problems.

If anyone has one of these NDAs, please send it to me privately,
anonymously if you wish, and I will take the appropriate steps to expose
them.


On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

>  I have heard that professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia,
> women whose employers would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a
> 'hostile work place', but they are being required to post their real
> identities on their talk pages, along with the names of their employers.
> and a COI form statement.  They are also required to sign a non-disclosure
> agreement that prevents them from revealing any harassment they experience
> in Wikipedia, or from even revealing they have been required to sign an
> NDA.
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Neotarf]

I doubt very much whether anyone who has been paying attention to this
thread still thinks it's about me.  The problems with arbcom have been very
public since at least the 2015 Wikiconference USA. [1] But JJ Marr does
have a point.  The Arbcom does label this a "finding of fact", although the
WMF is probably more likely to regard it as a 'poorly written personal
opinion' of the arbitrators who signed their names to it, at least from a
legal standpoint. But the arbitration committee does not have any standard
for "fact", as WP does with BLP. The arbitration committee, with a few
exceptions, is mostly very young and inexperienced with life and work, and
has no training at all with arbitration or dispute resolution.  The only
tool they are given as part of their remit to resolve disputes is to
publicly humiliate and embarrass volunteers who have given their time to
the project.

The result is that anyone who has ever objected to harassment on Wikipedia
has been driven off, either by arbitration or by doxing.

One of the problems is this non-consensual sodomy thing that's making the
rounds.  This kind of talk is very normalized in some areas of Wikipedia,
for instance in the back rooms of the Signpost when I was there it was a
standing joke. It's one thing though if consenting adult men are using
Wikipedia to hook up with each other, but the problem is that older men are
telling younger men that this is the way to impress women, and the younger
men believe them, they just don't know.

Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who are
quite probably minors, are being silenced.  I have heard that professional
women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers would
ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', but
they are being required to post their real identities on their talk pages,
along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement.  They
are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them
from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from even
revealing they have been required to sign an NDA.  These women will join
Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia gets
to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make that
second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.

If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms
with this.

[1]
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Danielle_Citron_speaks_at_WikiConference_USA_2015

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Johanna-Hypatia Cybeleia <
johanna.hypa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> JJ Marr, I hate to be the one who walks into a conversation late and asks
> "What are you talking about?" —especially since you're going to stop
> talking about it now, but... I searched all through the archives of this
> list in my mail, but so far am none the wiser...
>
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:10 PM, JJ Marr  wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe it would be better for the mailing list if we stopped talking about
>> this? Just a suggestion.
>>
>
>
> --
> __
> I have been woman
> for a long time
> beware my smile
>
> --Audre Lorde
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Johanna-Hypatia Cybeleia]

JJ Marr, I hate to be the one who walks into a conversation late and asks
"What are you talking about?" —especially since you're going to stop
talking about it now, but... I searched all through the archives of this
list in my mail, but so far am none the wiser...

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:10 PM, JJ Marr  wrote:

>
> Maybe it would be better for the mailing list if we stopped talking about
> this? Just a suggestion.
>


-- 
__
I have been woman
for a long time
beware my smile

--Audre Lorde
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Pine W]

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
implications for privacy.

Neotarf, if WMF Legal has reviewed the PII concerns, including escalating
them to C-level, and has chosen not to get involved, I'm afraid that you're
probably out of luck unless a change of policy happens on ENWP or with the
relevant WMF policies. You could lobby for a change, and you might get it,
although that is a long road to travel. My mental bandwidth is too
constrained to continue personal involvement in this discussion at this
time, but I don't want to discourage you from requesting a change in policy
if you think that would be good. You may wish to conserve your energy by
first dealing with your ban appeal; I have not reviewed the evidence in
your case and I will refrain from speculating on the merits of the appeal.
After that appeal is resolved, if there is a favorable outcome, you may
find it easier to propose one or more changes to policies. Good luck.

Pine
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[JJ Marr]

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 mailing list if we stopped talking about
this? Just a suggestion.

On 15 Jul 2017 8:20 PM, "Nathan"  wrote:


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 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 come into play, but they would almost
> certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
> intervention
>
> If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it.  If this can happen to
> me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
> like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
> silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.
>
> The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
> editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
> effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
> to.  But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
> ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
> arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
> election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
> community, and that the community process is failing?  The arbitration
> committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
> Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
> resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
> the arbcom and the community process can not?
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on
>> what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the
>> PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could
>> come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
>> politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
>> clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
>> interpretation of its privacy policy.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>>
>>> The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
>>> is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
>>> the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
>>> have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
>>> should just be removed. That's just basic safety.  Maybe they are not
>>> allowed to go against arbitrators  I also don't understand why arbitrators
>>> would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
>>> can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
>>> professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>>
 Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
 already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
 If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
 their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
 Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
 themselves.

 For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have
 significantly more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be
 issuing monthly or quarterly reports about its activities, but
 realistically the current setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable
 future.

 Pine


 ___
 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
>>>
>>
>>

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Nathan]

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 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 come into play, but they would almost
> certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
> intervention
>
> If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it.  If this can happen to
> me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
> like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
> silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.
>
> The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
> editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
> effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
> to.  But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
> ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
> arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
> election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
> community, and that the community process is failing?  The arbitration
> committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
> Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
> resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
> the arbcom and the community process can not?
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on
>> what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the
>> PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could
>> come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
>> politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
>> clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
>> interpretation of its privacy policy.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>>
>>> The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
>>> is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
>>> the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
>>> have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
>>> should just be removed. That's just basic safety.  Maybe they are not
>>> allowed to go against arbitrators  I also don't understand why arbitrators
>>> would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
>>> can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
>>> professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>>
 Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
 already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
 If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
 their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
 Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
 themselves.

 For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have
 significantly more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be
 issuing monthly or quarterly reports about its activities, but
 realistically the current setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable
 future.

 Pine


 ___
 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 

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[JJ Marr]

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
Legal.

Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time
ago


>>>a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost
certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
intervention

If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it.  If this can happen to
me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.

The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
to.  But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
community, and that the community process is failing?  The arbitration
committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
the arbcom and the community process can not?

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on
> what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the
> PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could
> come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
> politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
> clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
> interpretation of its privacy policy.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
>> is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
>> the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
>> have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
>> should just be removed. That's just basic safety.  Maybe they are not
>> allowed to go against arbitrators  I also don't understand why arbitrators
>> would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
>> can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
>> professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
>>> already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
>>> If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
>>> their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
>>> Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly
>>> more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly
>>> or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current
>>> setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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:

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Neotarf]

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 come into play, but they would almost
certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
intervention

If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it.  If this can happen to
me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.

The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
to.  But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
community, and that the community process is failing?  The arbitration
committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
the arbcom and the community process can not?

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on
> what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the
> PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could
> come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
> politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
> clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
> interpretation of its privacy policy.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
>> is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
>> the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
>> have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
>> should just be removed. That's just basic safety.  Maybe they are not
>> allowed to go against arbitrators  I also don't understand why arbitrators
>> would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
>> can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
>> professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
>>> already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
>>> If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
>>> their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
>>> Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly
>>> more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly
>>> or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current
>>> setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Pine W]

Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on what
you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the PII
situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could come
into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
interpretation of its privacy policy.

Pine


On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

> The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII is
> safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back the
> idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
> have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
> should just be removed. That's just basic safety.  Maybe they are not
> allowed to go against arbitrators  I also don't understand why arbitrators
> would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
> can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
> professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
>> already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
>> If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
>> their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
>> Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
>> themselves.
>>
>> For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly
>> more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly
>> or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current
>> setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Neotarf]

The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII is
safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back the
idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
should just be removed. That's just basic safety.  Maybe they are not
allowed to go against arbitrators  I also don't understand why arbitrators
would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm already
> backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here. If you
> have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with their
> interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF Legal,
> although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve themselves.
>
> For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly
> more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly
> or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current
> setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
>
> Pine
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Pine W]

Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm already
backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here. If you
have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with their
interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF Legal,
although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve themselves.

For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly
more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly
or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current
setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Pine
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Neotarf]

Pine, yes without a doubt a violation of WP:Privacy policy, WP:OUTING, and
WP:WHEEL for starters, since dox was removed by one admin and reinstated by
another, at the direction of yet another arbitrator whose edit history will
show nothing.  At this point I don't remember any more all the people I
took it to, they determined that the privacy policy had been violated but
declined to take any action. The point I think is not about any particular
individuals, because there were just so many; but that PII does not belong
in the hands of untrained volunteers, but rather with professionals who
have signed a meaningful NDA.

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> If Arbcom members actually posted information which could be considered
> "outing" in violation of WMF policies, please take that information to the
> Ombudsmen Commission. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission
>
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> The arbitration committee has never responded to any of my emails,
>> although some individual arbitrators were willing to communicate with me
>> while I was writing the arbitration report for the Signpost.  Would you
>> like screenshots of the bounce notifications?  In addition, four
>> arbitrators posted personally identifying information about me and did not
>> respond to my requests to remove it.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:05 AM, JJ Marr  wrote:
>>
>>> "I emailed the WMF in relation to my enwiki arbcom case"
>>>
>>> You're getting ignored because the WMF doesn't want to get involved in
>>> community processes. Sorry to be blunt, but you should try emailing ArbCom
>>> before making this type of posting.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committe
>>> e/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09 Jul 2017 1:47 AM, "Neotarf"  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to
>>> the GGTF case.
>>>
>>> It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this
>>> arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked
>>> at the diffs has found nothing.  Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy".  Even
>>> Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing.
>>> After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that
>>> half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to
>>> collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to
>>> use the program to discover IP addresses as well.  The other half of the
>>> diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence
>>> phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one
>>> of the admins--not even my edits.  I don't want to say a lot about this on
>>> a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is
>>> a false conviction.
>>>
>>> I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I
>>> have waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on
>>> 11/17/16.  I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect
>>> to hear something in mid-January.  Since then, I have made three followup
>>> queries, asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been
>>> unable to get any response at all.  At this point, there is no reason to
>>> believe the non-response is not deliberate.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Neotarf]

The arbitration committee has never responded to any of my emails, although
some individual arbitrators were willing to communicate with me while I was
writing the arbitration report for the Signpost.  Would you like
screenshots of the bounce notifications?  In addition, four arbitrators
posted personally identifying information about me and did not respond to
my requests to remove it.

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:05 AM, JJ Marr  wrote:

> "I emailed the WMF in relation to my enwiki arbcom case"
>
> You're getting ignored because the WMF doesn't want to get involved in
> community processes. Sorry to be blunt, but you should try emailing ArbCom
> before making this type of posting.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_
> Committee/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications
>
>
>
>
> On 09 Jul 2017 1:47 AM, "Neotarf"  wrote:
>
> Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to the
> GGTF case.
>
> It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this
> arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked
> at the diffs has found nothing.  Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy".  Even
> Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing.
> After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that
> half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to
> collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to
> use the program to discover IP addresses as well.  The other half of the
> diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence
> phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one
> of the admins--not even my edits.  I don't want to say a lot about this on
> a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is
> a false conviction.
>
> I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I have
> waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on 11/17/16.
> I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect to hear
> something in mid-January.  Since then, I have made three followup queries,
> asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been unable to get
> any response at all.  At this point, there is no reason to believe the
> non-response is not deliberate.
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[JJ Marr]

"I emailed the WMF in relation to my enwiki arbcom case"

You're getting ignored because the WMF doesn't want to get involved in
community processes. Sorry to be blunt, but you should try emailing ArbCom
before making this type of posting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications




On 09 Jul 2017 1:47 AM, "Neotarf"  wrote:

Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to the
GGTF case.

It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this
arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked
at the diffs has found nothing.  Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy".  Even
Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing.
After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that
half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to
collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to
use the program to discover IP addresses as well.  The other half of the
diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence
phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one
of the admins--not even my edits.  I don't want to say a lot about this on
a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is
a false conviction.

I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I have
waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on 11/17/16.
I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect to hear
something in mid-January.  Since then, I have made three followup queries,
asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been unable to get
any response at all.  At this point, there is no reason to believe the
non-response is not deliberate.

___
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