Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

[Kevin Gorman]

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 

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

[Neotarf]

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  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 

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

[J Hayes]

the point about dying with a whimper is well taken;
or as Andrew Lih said: become like wikinews, a failed wiki

the librarian who said "cultural buzzsaw", also said, "would not touch
wikipedia with a 10 foot pole."

apparently, the write an article outside wiki to provide negative feedback
to the toxic culture is still on.

you'll excuse me if i work with the smithsonian on their bee metadata
transcription project; wake me when there is some adult supervision.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

> 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  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 

[Gendergap] Some comments on recent civility and diversity discussion trends

[Pine W]

I'm glad to see the uptick in the number of high profile gender gap
discussions in the past few months. I hope that this will give the theme
some momentum that leads to meaningful improvements in the civility on
Wikimedia and a variety of our community health statistics.

There's a piece in the NYTimes about Ruth Ginsburg, a jurist on the US
Supreme Court, that may be of some interest to members of this mailing
list. While I have varying views of her court decisions, I think the
overview of her leadership methodology is relevant to our discussions here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/justice-ginsburgs-cautious-radicalism.html

See also the editorial in today's Signpost. Gamaliel goes a little further
in some of his statements than I would have, but I'm glad to see this
editorial appear shortly after Frank Schulenburg's editorial about civility.

I'm also hoping that the WMF maneuvering to address the harassment issue
will start to show results soon.

So, I'd say the trend in the public dialogue gives cause for hope.

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] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

[Chris Keating]

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"  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] Harassment video from India: "Actually your creep isn't even a legit creep"

[Neotarf]

 In this soft commercial from Bollywood for a match-making app, actresses
Shweta Basu Prasad and Mansi Multani face off in a competition to describe
the creepiest guy currently stalking them on the internet: "Actually your
creep isn't even a legit creep, For my shaadi he is someone my mom would
like to meet."  Bonus linguistic lesson in how to pronounce "ROFL, ROFL,
ROFL, LMAO" in India.  Spoiler: at the end, they discover it is the same
guy harassing them both.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEC0pKHJKNM

Via
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2015/10/09/all-india-bakchod-qawwali_n_8267772.html
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap