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.
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, 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.
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'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 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