Re: [Gendergap] "A Call to Men UK " manhood workshops

[Pine W]

I'm unfamiliar with this situation, but if there's a functionary whose
off-wiki behavior calls into question of the appropriateness of his/her
continuing
to have access to PII, please do forward that information to SuSa, the
Ombudsman Committee, and/or (as applicable) the local arbitration committee
that would have the ability to investigate the situation.

Pine


On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 8:29 PM, J Hayes  wrote:

> yes, that functionary and his behavior on meta has chilled the
> participation of some librarian editors
> they are highly skeptical of wiki harrassment efforts as long as he is in
> a position to see personal identifying information.
> they do not trust check user to be done responsibly as well
>
> this is impacting our efforts to engage a GLAM institution.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> Speaking of dox and in-person events, a few months ago one of the
>> WP:BADSITES known for dox had a thread about attending a WMF
>> harassment workshop. So anyone who is not comfortable with a paper
>> trail, and would prefer face-to-face conversations with allies, could
>> actually find themselves face to face with their harassers instead.
>>
>
___
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] "A Call to Men UK " manhood workshops

[J Hayes]

yes, that functionary and his behavior on meta has chilled the
participation of some librarian editors
they are highly skeptical of wiki harrassment efforts as long as he is in a
position to see personal identifying information.
they do not trust check user to be done responsibly as well

this is impacting our efforts to engage a GLAM institution.


On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

> Speaking of dox and in-person events, a few months ago one of the
> WP:BADSITES known for dox had a thread about attending a WMF
> harassment workshop. So anyone who is not comfortable with a paper
> trail, and would prefer face-to-face conversations with allies, could
> actually find themselves face to face with their harassers instead.
>
> On 4/12/17, Neotarf  wrote:
> > I had meant to revisit this discussion after my thinking on the
> > subject had come together a little better, unfortunately that isn't
> > happening, so I will just express my concerns.
> >
> > Perhaps this is only anecdotal, but it has been my observation that a
> > good many admins are students and either stop editing or cut back
> > their participation drastically in their junior year. So if they start
> > at age 12, which I think has happened a lot, they are basically
> > editing for about ten years. I find it hard to believe there are that
> > many older admins, the photos from events certainly don't bear this
> > out.
> >
> > The link from enwiki is interesting, I do recognize names of a few
> > professionals but even more who fit the 'advanced student' pattern.
> > The pattern on Meta seems similar.
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%
> 3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop&creationSort=1&desc=1&limit=2000
> >
> > So the problem I am trying to solve is basically the "endless
> > September" one that Sue pointed out in her 2011 editor retention talk
> > to WMUK.  I know this information is dated, but the concept still
> > might be a useful starting point. I have not spent a lot of time on
> > Meta, but a while back I was quite startled to have an individual on
> > Meta demand I engage with him in a discussion about vulgar words for
> > reproductive organs
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
> Ajraddatz&diff=15715606&oldid=15715064
> > , and even more startled to find out this was a functionary. Not only
> > that, it is someone who appears to be deeply opposed to the concept of
> > safe space
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:
> IdeaLab/Inspire/Meta&oldid=15729581
> > and whose name appears on a key committee for Wikimania, which as I
> > understand it, will be under a safe space policy. So my original
> > question was how can we get newcomers up to speed on the social norms,
> > but considering the number of past privacy violations by
> > functionaries, both on WP and on WP criticism sites, now the question
> > seems to be who has access to PII, especially for in-person events.  I
> > know of no policy for this. Perhaps it is time to restrict all access
> > to PII to WMF staff and contractors.
> >
> > On 2/20/17, WereSpielChequers  wrote:
> >> *Re "** young men from 11-19", which if you think about it, is pretty
> >> much
> >> the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and functionaries."* That's an old
> >> joke, but nowadays a joke that looks a tad out of touch. Yes a
> >> significant
> >> proportion of  people were that age when they became admins in
> 2004-2008.
> >> But if there is one thing we know about the people who became admins ten
> >> years ago, it is that they are ten years older today. I couldn't
> >> guarantee
> >> that none of our current admins were that young now, but I'd be
> surprised
> >> if more than one or two were. Only twenty of our current admins created
> >> their accounts in the last six years
> >>  3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop&creationSort=1&desc=1&limit=2000>.
> >> RFA has been difficult for teenagers to pass for several years now, If
> >> any
> >> have got through in the last six years they have been unusually mature
> in
> >> behaviour. As for Functionaries, Functionaries other than crats have to
> >> prove they are 18 or over when they become Functionaries. So it is
> >> theoretically possible that any new functionaries who first became so in
> >> the last two years could be 18 or 19, but it isn't exactly likely.
> >>
> >> The template bombers who tag lots of articles for admins to delete
> >> probably
> >> do include some people in that age group, but admins? If 1% of the 1200
> >> admins on English Wikipedia were still under 21 I would be stunned. Far
> >> more admins are over 60 than could possibly be 11-19.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 20 February 2017 at 18:53, Neotarf  wrote:
> >>
> >>> "A Call to Men UK has 55 coaches working in schools, youth justice
> >>> departments and youth centres across Worcestershire. The organisation
> >>> has
> >>> one principal aim, explains development

Re: [Gendergap] [Wikimedia-l] Let's go gender neutral

[J Hayes]

that was a nice editathon - Council on Foreign Relations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/CFR

yes, the drive by tagging by patrollers is mainly useless
if you used it as a process to add and remove tags is might work, but for
now it is adversive backlog creating for gnomes

smallbones got chastised for removing an old tag, and now they have
"instructions on removal"

that's very good i have not had any luck engaging partollers.

cheers


On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

> Yes, the article was templated less than an hour after it was moved
> out from a user page. Looks like they removed 3 refs at the same time.
> At that point it had 6 refs, including WaPo and Foreign Policy, now it
> has 17, including BBC News, Guardian, Independent, NYT.
>
> Adding templates seems to be automatic, but for what? No one seems to
> be monitoring them, or using them to track articles, but who has the
> authority to remove them when they are outdated?  In this case it
> seems to be casting doubt on a solid article.  The person who put it
> there is averaging an edit every two minutes, they have long moved on
> to something else.
>
> The last time I got templated by a patroller, I convinced him to write
> his first article, lol, it was a decent article too, and he even
> joined my WikiProject.
>
> On 4/12/17, J Hayes  wrote:
> > yes, i remember the meetup, where they created the manel article.
> > there is a  distinct lack of self-awareness in the community.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
> >
> >> Nicely done.  If you want to tweak the language, I would suggest to
> >> put the recommended usage first, then the suggested corrections, as it
> >> sometimes confuses people to give them examples then say they are
> >> examples of incorrect usage. Also it would be nice to explain things
> >> in very plain language, so people don't have to look things up.  For
> >> example, Urban Dictionary tells me there are "10 kinds of people in
> >> the world, those who understand 'binary' and those who don't."
> >>
> >> The enwiki RFC I think is confusing because it was rewritten to answer
> >> objections of people who originally voted against it, but the rewrite
> >> was not introduced as a new proposal, "option 2" or whatever.  Perhaps
> >> this was the best thing to do, but whoever closes the discussion may
> >> not be able to tell what people are voting for.
> >>
> >> Originally I wondered if such a proposal was really necessary as we
> >> have MOS:GNL.  Editors often use WP:MOS as a convenience even if the
> >> page they are working with does not have its own guidelines.  But when
> >> I looked at the policy page for the requested change, the first thing
> >> I saw was a photograph of sixteen men, two of them smoking pipes, and
> >> zero women, with the caption: "Talk page discussions are usually held
> >> before substantive changes are made to policies."[1] IIRC this is
> >> called a "manel".  A quick check of the "manel" article reveals a big
> >> orange template disputing notability at the top of the page, in spite
> >> of ample citations from the usual RS.[2]
> >>
> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_
> >> guidelines#Content
> >> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manel_(term)
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/12/17, Fæ  wrote:
> >> > I am delighted to say that Wikimedia Commons is today the /first/
> >> > project to have an official Gender-neutral language policy for its
> >> > policies and help pages, so that the project is a welcoming
> >> > environment for all. Thanks to everyone that took part in the
> >> > discussions and vote!
> >> >
> >> > * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Use_of_gender_
> >> neutral_language
> >> > *
> >> >
> >> > The proposal was an unplanned outcome from the WM-LGBT+ user group
> >> > taking part in this year's Wikimedia Conference in Berlin, part of all
> >> > the creative discussions that go on when so many international
> >> > Wikimedians get together.
> >> >
> >> > If you missed it, the English Wikipedia has an ongoing 'lively'
> >> > Request for Comment for its own Gender-neutral policy for policies,
> >> > see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/RFC_GNL
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > Fae
> >> > Wikmedia LGBT+ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+
> >> > https://telegram.me/wmlgbt
> >> >
> >> > On 8 April 2017 at 14:04, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >> >> I beg to differ with Anders final comment;
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> And our standpoint is that we as Wikipedians should not be first in
> >> >>> introducing new use of language but wait until it has become
> >> >>> mainstream
> >> >>> (if
> >> >>> it ever will be)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I have no issue within our policies and projects being a leader the
> >> >> use
> >> of
> >> >> neutral language that encompasses all equally because neutrality is
> >> >> one
> >> of
> >> >> the key pillars of the community.  We can and must do better to
> ensure
> >> >> that
> >>

Re: [Gendergap] [Wikimedia-l] Let's go gender neutral

[Neotarf]

Yes, the article was templated less than an hour after it was moved
out from a user page. Looks like they removed 3 refs at the same time.
At that point it had 6 refs, including WaPo and Foreign Policy, now it
has 17, including BBC News, Guardian, Independent, NYT.

Adding templates seems to be automatic, but for what? No one seems to
be monitoring them, or using them to track articles, but who has the
authority to remove them when they are outdated?  In this case it
seems to be casting doubt on a solid article.  The person who put it
there is averaging an edit every two minutes, they have long moved on
to something else.

The last time I got templated by a patroller, I convinced him to write
his first article, lol, it was a decent article too, and he even
joined my WikiProject.

On 4/12/17, J Hayes  wrote:
> yes, i remember the meetup, where they created the manel article.
> there is a  distinct lack of self-awareness in the community.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> Nicely done.  If you want to tweak the language, I would suggest to
>> put the recommended usage first, then the suggested corrections, as it
>> sometimes confuses people to give them examples then say they are
>> examples of incorrect usage. Also it would be nice to explain things
>> in very plain language, so people don't have to look things up.  For
>> example, Urban Dictionary tells me there are "10 kinds of people in
>> the world, those who understand 'binary' and those who don't."
>>
>> The enwiki RFC I think is confusing because it was rewritten to answer
>> objections of people who originally voted against it, but the rewrite
>> was not introduced as a new proposal, "option 2" or whatever.  Perhaps
>> this was the best thing to do, but whoever closes the discussion may
>> not be able to tell what people are voting for.
>>
>> Originally I wondered if such a proposal was really necessary as we
>> have MOS:GNL.  Editors often use WP:MOS as a convenience even if the
>> page they are working with does not have its own guidelines.  But when
>> I looked at the policy page for the requested change, the first thing
>> I saw was a photograph of sixteen men, two of them smoking pipes, and
>> zero women, with the caption: "Talk page discussions are usually held
>> before substantive changes are made to policies."[1] IIRC this is
>> called a "manel".  A quick check of the "manel" article reveals a big
>> orange template disputing notability at the top of the page, in spite
>> of ample citations from the usual RS.[2]
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_
>> guidelines#Content
>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manel_(term)
>>
>>
>> On 4/12/17, Fæ  wrote:
>> > I am delighted to say that Wikimedia Commons is today the /first/
>> > project to have an official Gender-neutral language policy for its
>> > policies and help pages, so that the project is a welcoming
>> > environment for all. Thanks to everyone that took part in the
>> > discussions and vote!
>> >
>> > * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Use_of_gender_
>> neutral_language
>> > *
>> >
>> > The proposal was an unplanned outcome from the WM-LGBT+ user group
>> > taking part in this year's Wikimedia Conference in Berlin, part of all
>> > the creative discussions that go on when so many international
>> > Wikimedians get together.
>> >
>> > If you missed it, the English Wikipedia has an ongoing 'lively'
>> > Request for Comment for its own Gender-neutral policy for policies,
>> > see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/RFC_GNL
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Fae
>> > Wikmedia LGBT+ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+
>> > https://telegram.me/wmlgbt
>> >
>> > On 8 April 2017 at 14:04, Gnangarra  wrote:
>> >> I beg to differ with Anders final comment;
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> And our standpoint is that we as Wikipedians should not be first in
>> >>> introducing new use of language but wait until it has become
>> >>> mainstream
>> >>> (if
>> >>> it ever will be)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I have no issue within our policies and projects being a leader the
>> >> use
>> of
>> >> neutral language that encompasses all equally because neutrality is
>> >> one
>> of
>> >> the key pillars of the community.  We can and must do better to ensure
>> >> that
>> >> everyone has the ability to contribute on an equal basis.
>> >>
>> >> If a language doesnt have a gender neutral way to express an
>> >> individual
>> >> then we should be encouraging speakers to find alternative ways which
>> can
>> >> best express our neutral position
>> >>
>> >> On 8 April 2017 at 20:32, Fæ  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Thanks for the French experience. :-) You may not have picked up on
>> >>> the specific comment about the French Wikipedia a few days ago in the
>> >>> general Wikimedia Commons Village Pump discussion:[1]
>> >>>
>> >>> "* Total Support. This is not only useful to the trans community, but
>> >>> in the case of French, it is more inclusive for women also, as the
>> >>>

Re: [Gendergap] "A Call to Men UK " manhood workshops

[Neotarf]

Speaking of dox and in-person events, a few months ago one of the
WP:BADSITES known for dox had a thread about attending a WMF
harassment workshop. So anyone who is not comfortable with a paper
trail, and would prefer face-to-face conversations with allies, could
actually find themselves face to face with their harassers instead.

On 4/12/17, Neotarf  wrote:
> I had meant to revisit this discussion after my thinking on the
> subject had come together a little better, unfortunately that isn't
> happening, so I will just express my concerns.
>
> Perhaps this is only anecdotal, but it has been my observation that a
> good many admins are students and either stop editing or cut back
> their participation drastically in their junior year. So if they start
> at age 12, which I think has happened a lot, they are basically
> editing for about ten years. I find it hard to believe there are that
> many older admins, the photos from events certainly don't bear this
> out.
>
> The link from enwiki is interesting, I do recognize names of a few
> professionals but even more who fit the 'advanced student' pattern.
> The pattern on Meta seems similar.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop&creationSort=1&desc=1&limit=2000
>
> So the problem I am trying to solve is basically the "endless
> September" one that Sue pointed out in her 2011 editor retention talk
> to WMUK.  I know this information is dated, but the concept still
> might be a useful starting point. I have not spent a lot of time on
> Meta, but a while back I was quite startled to have an individual on
> Meta demand I engage with him in a discussion about vulgar words for
> reproductive organs
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ajraddatz&diff=15715606&oldid=15715064
> , and even more startled to find out this was a functionary. Not only
> that, it is someone who appears to be deeply opposed to the concept of
> safe space
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Inspire/Meta&oldid=15729581
> and whose name appears on a key committee for Wikimania, which as I
> understand it, will be under a safe space policy. So my original
> question was how can we get newcomers up to speed on the social norms,
> but considering the number of past privacy violations by
> functionaries, both on WP and on WP criticism sites, now the question
> seems to be who has access to PII, especially for in-person events.  I
> know of no policy for this. Perhaps it is time to restrict all access
> to PII to WMF staff and contractors.
>
> On 2/20/17, WereSpielChequers  wrote:
>> *Re "** young men from 11-19", which if you think about it, is pretty
>> much
>> the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and functionaries."* That's an old
>> joke, but nowadays a joke that looks a tad out of touch. Yes a
>> significant
>> proportion of  people were that age when they became admins in 2004-2008.
>> But if there is one thing we know about the people who became admins ten
>> years ago, it is that they are ten years older today. I couldn't
>> guarantee
>> that none of our current admins were that young now, but I'd be surprised
>> if more than one or two were. Only twenty of our current admins created
>> their accounts in the last six years
>> .
>> RFA has been difficult for teenagers to pass for several years now, If
>> any
>> have got through in the last six years they have been unusually mature in
>> behaviour. As for Functionaries, Functionaries other than crats have to
>> prove they are 18 or over when they become Functionaries. So it is
>> theoretically possible that any new functionaries who first became so in
>> the last two years could be 18 or 19, but it isn't exactly likely.
>>
>> The template bombers who tag lots of articles for admins to delete
>> probably
>> do include some people in that age group, but admins? If 1% of the 1200
>> admins on English Wikipedia were still under 21 I would be stunned. Far
>> more admins are over 60 than could possibly be 11-19.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20 February 2017 at 18:53, Neotarf  wrote:
>>
>>> "A Call to Men UK has 55 coaches working in schools, youth justice
>>> departments and youth centres across Worcestershire. The organisation
>>> has
>>> one principal aim, explains development manager Michael Conroy: to spark
>>> a
>>> 'cultural shift in the way boys relate to girls', and through this to
>>> prevent violence against women and girls  'As a culture it’s time
>>> that we gave our young men permission to be complex, sensitive and happy
>>> human beings who transmit positivity and respect to others'.” [1]
>>>
>>> They have a program "for young men from 11-19", which if you think about
>>> it, is pretty much the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and
>>> functionaries.
>>> [2]
>>>
>>> This is all the more interesting right now because of the recent