The Signpost has an article, "Women and Wikipedia, the world s watching" and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-21/Editorial and "In the media: Wikipedia's hostility to women" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-21/In_the_media
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all - > > As a further bit of clarification regarding the current arbcom case > request (it had not been accepted yet:) > > 1) Eric Corbett made a series of statements that Kirill Lokshin, one > of our best regarded former arbitrators, regarded as violating his > topic bans w/r/t discussion of the gendergap. Kirill, without > resulting to the AE board (which is an explicitly unnecessary step per > policy,) blocked Eric Corbett for a period of one month. The template > he used explicitly mentioned that anyone undoing the block without > agreement of the original admin, extensive discussion and consensus or > by order of the arbitration committee would be summarily desysopped. > > 2) Yngvadotttir, an administrator who posted an extremely lengthy > retirement message around six months ago (but has still been somewhat > active) chose to unblock Eric unilaterally and without any sort of > discussion, including with Kirill. Yngvadottir was almost immediately > desysopped by arbcom under their emergency desysop procedures that are > called for in any situation where one admin reverses an arb > enforcement decision of another admin (which were reinforced by > another recent case that also involved Eric.) Yngvadottir knew beyond > any reasonable doubt that her actions would result in her immediate > desysop. > > 3) Black Kite, another administrator who I feel comfortable stating > has a pro-Eric bias (significantly past the point of WP:INVOLVED,) > opened an ArbCom case against Kirill for enforcing arbitration > remedies against Eric. I'm not entirely clear on what Black Kite's > argument is. Eric may have a right of reply in terms of speaking to > The Atlantic or other media outlets, but past arbcom cases have made > it absolutely clear that Eric does not have the ability to discuss > issues of gender anywhere on Wikipedia. Eric himself is perfectly > aware of this fact, and has racked up at least seven blocks under the > arb remedies against him. BK's main points seem to be that he > disagrees with Kirill's exercise of discretion in blocking Eric (since > Kirill didn't *have* to block Eric,) but there's no question that > Kirill was well within policy to do so, and more broadly, that he > disagrees with the fact that Eric is under Arbcom sanctions in the > first place (and an arbcom case is not how to appeal Arbcom's past > remedies against Eric - Eric can do so himself any time he pleases > through a much less involved process.) > > 4) Eric's block has not been reinstated, but there's currently an arb > motion that would only allow him to edit his own userpages and pages > related to any ongoing case or case request where he is a named party. > This is pretty typical handling of disputed blocks that wind up before > arbcom, although Eric has stated he has no intention of participating > in any arb request or case about him. He's also stated that he's > leaving Wikipedia. I don't want to go through his history to count > them up, but this is certainly not the first time Eric has said he is > leaving Wikipedia only to return. > > A couple points specifically about this list: > > a) I'm uncomfortable about the idea of list discussions that people > are likely to shout CANVASSING at, but I am in full support of keeping > the list informed of any ongoing developments, since they are directly > relevant to the list. I'm not okay with anything that I consider > likely to be libelous under the laws of the state of California (where > both WMF and I are located,) or anything that either my own counsel or > WMF warns me is likely to be libelous. However, California's > defamation laws make it extremely hard to argue that a statement is > defamatory, especially if you're at least a limited purpose public > figure (which in this context, Eric is,) so I have trouble imagining a > situation where this would come in to play. Defamation laws in the UK > are significantly different, but because of how ridiculous the US > legislature has considered the in the past, no defamation judgment > made in a UK court is enforceable in the US, despite our general > extradition treaty, close relations, etc. I guess you may need to be > careful if you are a list member in the U.K. talking about the > situation, although I can't imagine Eric suing anyone. > > b) Blocks or bans on ENWP do not apply here. Emily and I fully > welcome the participation of interested participants who may be > blocked or banned on ENWP but have relevant contributions here. We do > enforce our own code of conduct, and occasionally do moderate or ban > list members altogether, but not solely because ENWP has done so. > However, it is worth keeping in mind that Gendergap-L has a public > archive and is actively monitored by ENWPians who may not contribute, > and have a range of viewpoints from "I totally believe our gender gap > is an issue" to "I'm uncertain if we have a meaningful gendergap" to > "I'm a raging misogynist." It would be wise not to comment here in a > way linkable to your ENWP identity in a manner you are uncomfortable > having discussed on ENWP (or elsewhere for that matter.) Although we > can't control altogether who looks at the list and comments elsewhere, > if you've been contacted in a manner that makes you uncomfortable by > someone who you can show is an active list member, please contact > Emily or myself, and we will look in to it and take action as needed. > > Best, > Kevin Gorman > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Chris Keating > <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In case anyone missed it, there is now an Arbcom case about this > article... > > or something - am not entirely clear what it's about but there are some > > very, erm, "interesting" arguments being made in the dozens of case > > statements..... > > > > On 21 Oct 2015 21:01, "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
