[Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[LB]

This is what is about to happen at the English Wikipedia ArbCom re
disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force:
*Five men and two women were involved parties in the case.
*One women is about to be site banned.
*The other woman is about to be topic banned from the GGTF.
*All five men are going to be free to edit.

It is noteworthy, IMO, that only 1 of the 12 arbitrators is a woman
(GorillaWarfare, bless her, who is not for giving WP's #1 trouble-maker,
Eric Corbet, yet *another* chance). Here is a link to the Proposed decision
page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision

And to the talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision

Lightbreather
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Tim Davenport]

>>Kevin Gorman wrote: "The case is ending with banning a bunch of women
with flimsy excuses.."

That's a gross misrepresentation of the case outcome.

The case is ending with Carol Moore being banned off for reasons which
should be obvious to anyone reading through the case documentation and
knowing of her previous case before this Arbcom.

Neotarf (who has made it clear that they have never identified as male or
female) is being topic-banned from participating in the GGTF.

Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable civility
blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.

Sitush has been warned for his creation of a Carol Moore biography.

That's pretty much it.

No "bunch of women" being singled out and stricken for no reason. A couple
people judged to be disruptionists are being shown the door. The summary
Kevin makes is ridiculous.


Tim Davenport
Corvallis, OR
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Tim Davenport]

>>Kevin Gorman: "It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks.
I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's
certainly
a depressing topic.  Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with
essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the
participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing."

It bears repeating that what is a "severe gendered slur" in America is
approximately 83.6% less potent as a generalized term of abuse in the UK
and Australia.[1]  I'm not going to defend Eric using the word "cunt,"
however, he's well aware that he's in the metaphorical room with Americans
and if he directs that word towards anyone again there will be
repercussions beyond the usual wheel-warring and melodramatic debate...

That's not the point I wish to make. Mr. Corbett's (virtually inevitable)
future civility blocks will indeed be non-appealable because they are of
specified length as part of an Arbcom ruling. Any reversal would probably
mean the loss of tools — either those of the bad-blocker or the reverser,
based on interpretation of the specific situation at Arbitration
Enforcement, where the matter would inevitably go.

Frankly, this approach would have solved the "Malleus problem" a long time
ago. Incivility should be a block of specified and reasonable duration
(viz., the one imposed on Carol Moore for her "gang bangers" rant). There
are offenses at Wikipedia far worse than blowing one's top and being a
jerk. Like systemic copyright violation. Like faking sources. Like mass
subtle vandalism. Like repeated insertion of libelous text into BLPs. Like
dramatic disruption of the project to score political points.

Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of
CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.

Tim Davenport
Corvallis, OR


==Footnotes==

[1] Yeah, I made that number up, but it's about right.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Marie Earley]

Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've 
checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway

Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward

...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?

In particular this comment:
"...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, 
repeatedly, there is some question as to exactly which
 women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether
 it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective"

I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's 
a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism 
* Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work is 
the opposite of feminism?
Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a subversive 
who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game. 

On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of 
feminist 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790 
and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it 
chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", 
"anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the list 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727 

The list has recently been changed to this: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple 
of editors to see how we can improve it further. 

I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and 
similar work:
Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=633566034#Major_works
 to this: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=634343909#Major_works
  
Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economics 
 and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association 
then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA. 
Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar 
(births). 

These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the 
perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem 
with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn 
etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text 
that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral 
right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that 
the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist 
economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single 
broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit 
in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the 
Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: 
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/ 
(if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP 
then there would be no Pornography Project).

Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs 
(a) Pro-sex work
(b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and
(c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV that 
dare not speak its name
... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.   

I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all about 
the separation between (b) and (c) 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=546995190
It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little sense and 
does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that it "makes 
little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't 
it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?

As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob can't 
get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, obstensibly for 
technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by editors whose other edits 
are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, who have pretty much hijacked 
the Feminism project and they are trying to do as much damage as possible to 
the Gender Studies project as they can as well. 

It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate to 
the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the term is 
used by both (a) and (c), 
https://e

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Ryan Kaldari]

If Carol Moore is banned from Wikipedia and Eric Corbett is not, I will be
retiring from Wikipedia, as it will prove that the project is completely
dysfunctional.

Kaldari

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, LB  wrote:

> This is what is about to happen at the English Wikipedia ArbCom re
> disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force:
> *Five men and two women were involved parties in the case.
> *One women is about to be site banned.
> *The other woman is about to be topic banned from the GGTF.
> *All five men are going to be free to edit.
>
> It is noteworthy, IMO, that only 1 of the 12 arbitrators is a woman
> (GorillaWarfare, bless her, who is not for giving WP's #1 trouble-maker,
> Eric Corbet, yet *another* chance). Here is a link to the Proposed
> decision page:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision
>
> And to the talk page:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision
>
> Lightbreather
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Nathan]

ArbCom is weak, and loathe to make any decision that might trigger a
backlash. They are incapable of dealing with serious, long-term problems
and seem able only to address minor issues that would otherwise resolve on
their own. The English Wikipedia is ungoverned and ungovernable, and the
norms of behavior are too palsied to make enforcement of policy even
slightly consistent. The whole endeavor makes more sense if we simply
accept that it exists in a state of anarchy and that this will likely not
change.

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, LB  wrote:

> This is what is about to happen at the English Wikipedia ArbCom re
> disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force:
> *Five men and two women were involved parties in the case.
> *One women is about to be site banned.
> *The other woman is about to be topic banned from the GGTF.
> *All five men are going to be free to edit.
>
> It is noteworthy, IMO, that only 1 of the 12 arbitrators is a woman
> (GorillaWarfare, bless her, who is not for giving WP's #1 trouble-maker,
> Eric Corbet, yet *another* chance). Here is a link to the Proposed
> decision page:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision
>
> And to the talk page:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision
>
> Lightbreather
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Krystle]

Would anyone be willing to give a TL;DR of what happened here?

-- 
Krystle Chung
Community Support
http://www.wikihow.com/User:Krystle



On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Nathan  wrote:

> ArbCom is weak, and loathe to make any decision that might trigger a
> backlash. They are incapable of dealing with serious, long-term problems
> and seem able only to address minor issues that would otherwise resolve on
> their own. The English Wikipedia is ungoverned and ungovernable, and the
> norms of behavior are too palsied to make enforcement of policy even
> slightly consistent. The whole endeavor makes more sense if we simply
> accept that it exists in a state of anarchy and that this will likely not
> change.
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, LB  wrote:
>
>> This is what is about to happen at the English Wikipedia ArbCom re
>> disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force:
>> *Five men and two women were involved parties in the case.
>> *One women is about to be site banned.
>> *The other woman is about to be topic banned from the GGTF.
>> *All five men are going to be free to edit.
>>
>> It is noteworthy, IMO, that only 1 of the 12 arbitrators is a woman
>> (GorillaWarfare, bless her, who is not for giving WP's #1 trouble-maker,
>> Eric Corbet, yet *another* chance). Here is a link to the Proposed
>> decision page:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision
>>
>> And to the talk page:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision
>>
>> Lightbreather
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Sarah Stierch]

Here, here. Carol Moore is one of the reasons I EDIT Wikipedia.



On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Ryan Kaldari 
wrote:

> If Carol Moore is banned from Wikipedia and Eric Corbett is not, I will be
> retiring from Wikipedia, as it will prove that the project is completely
> dysfunctional.
>
> Kaldari
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, LB  wrote:
>
>> This is what is about to happen at the English Wikipedia ArbCom re
>> disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force:
>> *Five men and two women were involved parties in the case.
>> *One women is about to be site banned.
>> *The other woman is about to be topic banned from the GGTF.
>> *All five men are going to be free to edit.
>>
>> It is noteworthy, IMO, that only 1 of the 12 arbitrators is a woman
>> (GorillaWarfare, bless her, who is not for giving WP's #1 trouble-maker,
>> Eric Corbet, yet *another* chance). Here is a link to the Proposed
>> decision page:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision
>>
>> And to the talk page:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision
>>
>> Lightbreather
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 

Sarah Stierch

-

Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.

www.sarahstierch.com
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Nathan]

It's really two issues - one, there was some disruption and misconduct
around the Gender Gap wikiproject that really got overblown a bit and never
needed to be an arbitration case to begin with. Granted that some of the
participants weren't really contributing in good faith, and that there was
a little bit of misunderstanding and overreaction on the part of some who
were.

The second issue is that there is a particular person who is an absolutely
outstanding article writer, but has a longstanding habit of acting like a
jerk on a regular basis. The community and the committee have repeatedly
shown themselves to be incapable of finding a solution to that problem, and
this is no exception.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Sarah Stierch]

Also, wacky question:

could there ever be any legal repercussion - like the "real" legal system,
not an internet community - that could be taken to support a person who
should not be "banned" from a website? like carol?  If you're called lots
of nasty names, if men aren't being banned, etc but women are, blahblahblah
- that's sexist and discrimination IMHO.

I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers who would look at all of this and go
"UH WHAT" ...

I really don't know how things like Arbcom stand up in the court of law. I
just think sometimes it's a matter of making a shit storm even shittier by
bring in the law - the world needs to see that Wikipedia is more of a mess
then they think. Makes it a lot harder to donate to Wikipedia when you see
these types of things happening, right?

And frankly, Carol might be outspoken, but this is sexist crap when a man
can act all disruptive but be "oh so valuable" and women like Carol (and me
and others) are seen as psychos and angry women who bring nothing to the
project (she's an amazing writer and has contributed a lot too).

I have a lawyer on standby for every single threat that comes my way now on
the internet, and that includes Wikipedia - I'm not rich, but, frankly, I
just can't do it alone anymore and the system isn't solving anything. From
Twitter to Wikipedia, a day doesnt' go by when myself or a woman I know
isn't threatened on the internet. I'm just so sick of it.

I'm also really pissed off in general about the last 24 hours in america.
So whatever.

-Sarah


On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Nathan  wrote:

> It's really two issues - one, there was some disruption and misconduct
> around the Gender Gap wikiproject that really got overblown a bit and never
> needed to be an arbitration case to begin with. Granted that some of the
> participants weren't really contributing in good faith, and that there was
> a little bit of misunderstanding and overreaction on the part of some who
> were.
>
> The second issue is that there is a particular person who is an absolutely
> outstanding article writer, but has a longstanding habit of acting like a
> jerk on a regular basis. The community and the committee have repeatedly
> shown themselves to be incapable of finding a solution to that problem, and
> this is no exception.
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 

Sarah Stierch

-

Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.

www.sarahstierch.com
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Krystle]

Thank you Nathan.

"there is a particular person who is an absolutely outstanding article
writer, but has a longstanding habit of acting like a jerk on a regular
basis. The community and the committee have repeatedly shown themselves to
be incapable of finding a solution to that problem, and this is no
exception."

Is there a term for this phenomenon? There has to be, somewhere. It happens
offline all the time - that super accomplished professional who gets to
treat everyone like dirt and get away with it because everyone admires
their work. So exacerbated in an online community though because this
person can terrorize so many more people with their behavior in so much
less time.

(And if there isn't a term, there should at least be a meme...)

-- 
Krystle Chung
Community Support
http://www.wikihow.com/User:Krystle



On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Nathan  wrote:

> It's really two issues - one, there was some disruption and misconduct
> around the Gender Gap wikiproject that really got overblown a bit and never
> needed to be an arbitration case to begin with. Granted that some of the
> participants weren't really contributing in good faith, and that there was
> a little bit of misunderstanding and overreaction on the part of some who
> were.
>
> The second issue is that there is a particular person who is an absolutely
> outstanding article writer, but has a longstanding habit of acting like a
> jerk on a regular basis. The community and the committee have repeatedly
> shown themselves to be incapable of finding a solution to that problem, and
> this is no exception.
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Carol Moore dc]

On 11/25/2014 2:48 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:


And frankly, Carol might be outspoken, but this is sexist crap when a 
man can act all disruptive but be "oh so valuable" and women like 
Carol (and me and others) are seen as psychos and angry women who 
bring nothing to the project (she's an amazing writer and has 
contributed a lot too).


I'm also really pissed off in general about the last 24 hours in 
america. So whatever.


-Sarah

First, I  do a mea culpa on not being the perfect little lady editor. I 
edit in controversial areas (which according to some guys in itself 
proves I'm a drama queen!), disagree with and revert male editors, argue 
in a strong manner, sometimes get as competitive as some male editors, 
take issues to noticeboards when there's a stalemate and sometimes 
editors to ANI when they really get out of line. There is a small 
percentage of guys who just go crazy over this sort of thing and from 
time to time I say snotty things to them. Nothing like some of the 
things that have been said to me!


 In the last 3 months I've been under intense harassment and have 
written a couple stupid things and today I really let ArbCom know just 
what I think. (Per Sarah's comment about Ferguson; having lived in a 95% 
black area for almost 20 years, I do take it emotionally).


Anyway my Arbitration Evidence provides a timeline of disruption at GGTF 
and detailed the battleground attitudes of a nasty little coterie of 
editors who set out to disrupt GGTF and harass a few individual 
editors.  As I came to learn as Arbitration progressed, over the years 
they have driven off a number of editors who disagreed with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Carolmooredc

Since they love to yap about "Carol's biggest crimes (all two)" here 
they are.  Much fewer and far more excusable than much of the stuff 
they've pulled.


* After two editors harassing me were either Ibanned or chastised, I got 
fed up with another harasser who I believed might be married to the the 
King pin editor of this gang and asked her if that was why she was 
harassing me, in a not very diplomatic manner.  What can I say, 
PTSD  I immediately apologized when it was denied, but have been 
hearing about it over and over ever since.


* Last week I got really pissed that even after ArbCom voted to site ban 
me, King pin's friends KEPT harassing me! I got pissed and wrote: "This 
is a [[gang bang]] over [[C*nt-gate]] by individuals who I mostly am 
unfamiliary with" in text and edit summary.  The comment was ignored but 
at least an arbitrator told them to cut it out which they did for a 
couple days. Then it started up again the last few days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision&diff=634164393&oldid=634163134

Today I got pissed that two other individuals who had insulted and 
harassed me repeatedly in the past were doing it there. I wrote my REAL 
OPINION of what is going on with the whole Arbitration. And cc'd to 
Jimmy Wales (who has said the same kind of things about this group, 
basically told them to get lost, but refuses to get the WMF board to do 
anything about enforcing terms of service.)


/Some people seem to think that ArbCom is so naive they don't know that 
the Manchester Gangbangers and their cronies/minions are engaged in 
'''institutionalized harassment''' using ArbCom as one of their 
harassment tools. They think just explaining that will open their eyes 
and they'll do the right thing.//
//No, the only thing that will clear Wikipedia of this vicious coterie 
is a national publicity campaign to pressure the WMF into enforcing its 
Terms of Service, including against culpable ArbCom members. (I see 
several Sitush/Corbett/ cronies/minions are running for the next 
Arbitration Committee.) And I'm one of dozens who see it that way, we 
just haven't decided where to organize our efforts. Just because their 
tactic worked on silencing 1.2 billion Indians with their Brit 
imperialist drivel doesn't mean it will work on silencing 3.3 billion 
women. After all 1/2 the members of the Board are women. /

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision&diff=635382518&oldid=635381128

Which got me blocked for (now) 72 hours.  By which time I'll be site 
banned anyway.


So that's how evil I am!!!  Needlesstosay I feel very liberated and 
wonder why I didn't quit years ago. (Besides fact I'm a stubborn taurus 
the bull.) Now that I'll finally after 8 years be able to update my 
website, I'll be creating http://carolmoore.net/wikipedia with all sorts 
of things I've learned over the years. Plus obviously GGTF stuff and a 
side by side comparison of the evidence provided against me (mostly me 
getting pissed after intensive harassment) vs. the obnoxious things that 
se

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[LB]

I cannot believe the crap going on on that talk page now! Having watched
this case develop over the past few weeks, I finally ventured to share my
disgust with the way things ended up, and now I'm being accused of basing
my opinion *completely* on gender. Another guy chimed in to say: "Some
people aren't happy unless they are 'the victim', as odd as this sounds.
The perpetual contrarian underdog. And no, I don't say this to be mean, it
is simply a fact in human behavior that some people are like that."

Both of these remarks were made by (male) admins.

This is the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision#A_strong_signal_to_the_GGTF

Lightbreather
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Risker]

I'm not going to opine on the decision that's being voted upon by Arbcom;
I've been there, and ultimately the decision is based on the quality and
nature of the evidence that people bother to present - which often means
that the decision that ultimately gets posted, because entire "sides" of
the story are not presented by someone as evidence, seems to have very
little to do with the original reason for accepting the case. I have,
however, entered a plea that they rename the case.  The decision they're
voting on now has almost nothing at all to do with the Gender Gap Task
Force, and isn't really addressing any of problematic behaviours that are
evident on the talk pages of the wikiproject.  (It's obvious to me that a
significant proportion of people posting there, including ones whom I
otherwise hold in fairly high regard, just really don't get gender gap
issues. There was belittling of suggestions, an insistence that the way
things are done now is the "right" way to do them, that there's no such
thing as topics of particular interest to womenwell, we all know the
story.

I've asked Arbcom to rename the case to something that doesn't include the
name of the GGTF.  It's hard enough to attract editors to participate
constructively on the topic now because of all the nonsense noted above.
It will just become that much more difficult to attract editors who prefer
to work in a non-confrontational environment once this case is closed.
Note that the wikiproject will be the subject of discretionary sanctions
effective at the close of the case, as well. [1]  As if that will make any
difference.

Risker/Anne


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision#Discretionary_sanctions

On 25 November 2014 at 20:14, LB  wrote:

> I cannot believe the crap going on on that talk page now! Having watched
> this case develop over the past few weeks, I finally ventured to share my
> disgust with the way things ended up, and now I'm being accused of basing
> my opinion *completely* on gender. Another guy chimed in to say: "Some
> people aren't happy unless they are 'the victim', as odd as this sounds.
> The perpetual contrarian underdog. And no, I don't say this to be mean, it
> is simply a fact in human behavior that some people are like that."
>
> Both of these remarks were made by (male) admins.
>
> This is the link:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision#A_strong_signal_to_the_GGTF
>
> Lightbreather
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Fæ]

Thank you for this Carol. I was driven off En.wp / suffered a death of a
thousand wikilawyering cuts after ridiculously blatant homophobia, outing
and off wiki attacks against my personal life. Even the, now hidden from
view, Arbcom case against me was allowed to bang on about fisting, clearly
intended as abuse. There seem clear parallels, if you are a woman or gay,
you are advised to stay in the closet.

Last week Jimmy Wales was asked to say something, anything, in support of a
more welcoming culture for LGBT editors. Silence in return. The content may
be a marvel, but the 1970s culture is rotten.
On 26 Nov 2014 00:59, "Carol Moore dc"  wrote:

>  On 11/25/2014 2:48 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>
>
> And frankly, Carol might be outspoken, but this is sexist crap when a man
> can act all disruptive but be "oh so valuable" and women like Carol (and me
> and others) are seen as psychos and angry women who bring nothing to the
> project (she's an amazing writer and has contributed a lot too).
>
> 
>
> I'm also really pissed off in general about the last 24 hours in america.
> So whatever.
>
>  -Sarah
>
>  First, I  do a mea culpa on not being the perfect little lady editor. I
> edit in controversial areas (which according to some guys in itself proves
> I'm a drama queen!), disagree with and revert male editors, argue in a
> strong manner, sometimes get as competitive as some male editors, take
> issues to noticeboards when there's a stalemate and sometimes editors to
> ANI when they really get out of line. There is a small percentage of guys
> who just go crazy over this sort of thing and from time to time I say
> snotty things to them. Nothing like some of the things that have been said
> to me!
>
>  In the last 3 months I've been under intense harassment and have written
> a couple stupid things and today I really let ArbCom know just what I
> think. (Per Sarah's comment about Ferguson; having lived in a 95% black
> area for almost 20 years, I do take it emotionally).
>
> Anyway my Arbitration Evidence provides a timeline of disruption at GGTF
> and detailed the battleground attitudes of a nasty little coterie of
> editors who set out to disrupt GGTF and harass a few individual editors.
> As I came to learn as Arbitration progressed, over the years they have
> driven off a number of editors who disagreed with them.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Carolmooredc
>
> Since they love to yap about "Carol's biggest crimes (all two)" here they
> are.  Much fewer and far more excusable than much of the stuff they've
> pulled.
>
> * After two editors harassing me were either Ibanned or chastised, I got
> fed up with another harasser who I believed might be married to the the
> King pin editor of this gang and asked her if that was why she was
> harassing me, in a not very diplomatic manner.  What can I say, PTSD  I
> immediately apologized when it was denied, but have been hearing about it
> over and over ever since.
>
> * Last week I got really pissed that even after ArbCom voted to site ban
> me, King pin's friends KEPT harassing me! I got pissed and wrote: "This is
> a [[gang bang]] over [[C*nt-gate]] by individuals who I mostly am
> unfamiliary with" in text and edit summary.  The comment was ignored but at
> least an arbitrator told them to cut it out which they did for a couple
> days. Then it started up again the last few days.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision&diff=634164393&oldid=634163134
>
> Today I got pissed that two other individuals who had insulted and
> harassed me repeatedly in the past were doing it there. I wrote my REAL
> OPINION of what is going on with the whole Arbitration. And cc'd to Jimmy
> Wales (who has said the same kind of things about this group, basically
> told them to get lost, but refuses to get the WMF board to do anything
> about enforcing terms of service.)
>
>   *Some people seem to think that ArbCom is so naive they don't know that
> the Manchester Gangbangers and their cronies/minions are engaged in
> '''institutionalized harassment''' using ArbCom as one of their harassment
> tools. They think just explaining that will open their eyes and they'll do
> the right thing.*
> *No, the only thing that will clear Wikipedia of this vicious coterie is a
> national publicity campaign to pressure the WMF into enforcing its Terms of
> Service, including against culpable ArbCom members. (I see several
> Sitush/Corbett/ cronies/minions are running for the next Arbitration
> Committee.) And I'm one of dozens who see it that way, we just haven't
> decided where to organize our efforts. Just because their tactic worked on
> silencing 1.2 billion Indians with their Brit imperialist drivel doesn't
> mean it will work on silencing 3.3 billion women. After all 1/2 the members
> of the Board are women. *
>
> 

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Carol Moore dc]

On 11/26/2014 12:52 AM, Risker wrote:
 I have, however, entered a plea that they rename the case.  The 
decision they're voting on now has almost nothing at all to do with 
the Gender Gap Task Force, and isn't really addressing any of 
problematic behaviours that are evident on the talk pages of the 
wikiproject.
GGTF was targeted for disruption because males (and some alleged females 
who support them)  were afraid that the  GGTF's concern with civility 
would lead to more restrictions on guys' right to talk dirty and be 
hostile when they felt like it.  Over time I realized it also was about 
their right to harass the heck out of people they don't like to drive 
them off the project and they've been at it for a few years.) The story 
is pretty clear if you read the evidence in my timeline.


I already was being harassed by two individuals (who don't like what 
they assume to be my politics) who then came to GGTF primarily to harass 
and badmouth me. (Their nasty efforts got me topic banned for a couple 
angry comments in a case where one of them was topic banned for chronic  
BLP violations! )


Both also supported the "incivility caucus" and were delighted to make 
me the number 1 target.  The other now topic banned editor - who has 
avoided revealing his/her sex - obviously got under someone's skin for 
some flippant (or sometimes too on target?) comments and was the second 
major target.


The Arbitrators were NOT going to take the case until someone else took 
one of my harassers to WP:ANI about the wikihounding, a bunch of GGTF 
people complained about him and he got Ibanned from me. This caused a 
lot of complaints among the anticivility caucus about GGTF canvassing 
and meat puppetry and I believe angered and terrified them. It freaked 
out the other editor who came to harass me and he started  threatening 
to follow me, dig up dirt and then wrote a crappy draft biography of me, 
trashing me freely on his talk page. I took it to MfD. One of his Admin 
friends took the mess to ANI, where he started screaming there about 
bringing in Arbcom.  And Arbitrators suddenly started to change their 
votes.  (He has at least two powerful friends on the committee.)


The anticivility caucus claimed it was all about getting rid of that 
awful CarolMoore (even though almost all their evidence came from my 
complaint about all the harassment in August and September!)  But it 
really was about terrifying and intimidating GGTF so it couldn't get any 
more of their harassers interaction banned.


During the Arbitration  a few people stepped forward to say they also 
had been harassed by this crew and quit or knew others who had; a couple 
more emailed me privately. So I began to see that not just incivility 
but the right to drive off editors through harassment was what they were 
fighting for.   I call it a "gang bang" because probably two dozen 
editors came out of no where to say how awful I was - all based on being 
part of this incivility/harassment clique.


If I had not joined GGTF and tried to deal with the disruptions, I 
wouldn't have gotten the first harasser off my back - but I wouldn't 
have had the whole crew attack me.


Despite their efforts, two of the incivility crew did end up getting 
admonished, so in that way it WAS a successful arbitration.  We'll see 
if the discretionary sanctions are used fairly or to keep true GGTF 
participants from complaining about future disruption.


Believe me I'm VERY happy to be free on a personal level.  Just really 
ticked off that these guys got away with it. And I'm one of those people 
who never learned to suffer in silence.  Expect the video soon and the 
analysis in a couple months. Meanwhile, I'll watch with interest to see 
how things develop.


CM

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Sarah Stierch]

Yes, here here to Carol and LB. I commend everyone who is still fighting
the power and voicing rage (calm or not) on talk pages and representing
what so many of us feel. You are putting your wikilove on the line and it
is not to go unnoticed or unappreciated.

I'm genuinely too freaked out anymore to even try, especially after this
year. So thank you thank you thank you thank you.

-Sarah

(who is basically over witch hunts, rape and death threats towards her and
her friends. all this because of being outspoken, and making one regretful
mistake in the wikiworld.)



On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> Thank you for this Carol. I was driven off En.wp / suffered a death of a
> thousand wikilawyering cuts after ridiculously blatant homophobia, outing
> and off wiki attacks against my personal life. Even the, now hidden from
> view, Arbcom case against me was allowed to bang on about fisting, clearly
> intended as abuse. There seem clear parallels, if you are a woman or gay,
> you are advised to stay in the closet.
>
> Last week Jimmy Wales was asked to say something, anything, in support of
> a more welcoming culture for LGBT editors. Silence in return. The content
> may be a marvel, but the 1970s culture is rotten.
> On 26 Nov 2014 00:59, "Carol Moore dc"  wrote:
>
>>  On 11/25/2014 2:48 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>>
>>
>> And frankly, Carol might be outspoken, but this is sexist crap when a man
>> can act all disruptive but be "oh so valuable" and women like Carol (and me
>> and others) are seen as psychos and angry women who bring nothing to the
>> project (she's an amazing writer and has contributed a lot too).
>>
>> 
>>
>> I'm also really pissed off in general about the last 24 hours in america.
>> So whatever.
>>
>>  -Sarah
>>
>>  First, I  do a mea culpa on not being the perfect little lady editor. I
>> edit in controversial areas (which according to some guys in itself proves
>> I'm a drama queen!), disagree with and revert male editors, argue in a
>> strong manner, sometimes get as competitive as some male editors, take
>> issues to noticeboards when there's a stalemate and sometimes editors to
>> ANI when they really get out of line. There is a small percentage of guys
>> who just go crazy over this sort of thing and from time to time I say
>> snotty things to them. Nothing like some of the things that have been said
>> to me!
>>
>>  In the last 3 months I've been under intense harassment and have written
>> a couple stupid things and today I really let ArbCom know just what I
>> think. (Per Sarah's comment about Ferguson; having lived in a 95% black
>> area for almost 20 years, I do take it emotionally).
>>
>> Anyway my Arbitration Evidence provides a timeline of disruption at GGTF
>> and detailed the battleground attitudes of a nasty little coterie of
>> editors who set out to disrupt GGTF and harass a few individual editors.
>> As I came to learn as Arbitration progressed, over the years they have
>> driven off a number of editors who disagreed with them.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Carolmooredc
>>
>> Since they love to yap about "Carol's biggest crimes (all two)" here they
>> are.  Much fewer and far more excusable than much of the stuff they've
>> pulled.
>>
>> * After two editors harassing me were either Ibanned or chastised, I got
>> fed up with another harasser who I believed might be married to the the
>> King pin editor of this gang and asked her if that was why she was
>> harassing me, in a not very diplomatic manner.  What can I say, PTSD  I
>> immediately apologized when it was denied, but have been hearing about it
>> over and over ever since.
>>
>> * Last week I got really pissed that even after ArbCom voted to site ban
>> me, King pin's friends KEPT harassing me! I got pissed and wrote: "This is
>> a [[gang bang]] over [[C*nt-gate]] by individuals who I mostly am
>> unfamiliary with" in text and edit summary.  The comment was ignored but at
>> least an arbitrator told them to cut it out which they did for a couple
>> days. Then it started up again the last few days.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision&diff=634164393&oldid=634163134
>>
>> Today I got pissed that two other individuals who had insulted and
>> harassed me repeatedly in the past were doing it there. I wrote my REAL
>> OPINION of what is going on with the whole Arbitration. And cc'd to Jimmy
>> Wales (who has said the same kind of things about this group, basically
>> told them to get lost, but refuses to get the WMF board to do anything
>> about enforcing terms of service.)
>>
>>   *Some people seem to think that ArbCom is so naive they don't know
>> that the Manchester Gangbangers and their cronies/minions are engaged in
>> '''institutionalized harassment''' using ArbCom as one of their harassment
>> tools. They thi

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Erik Moeller]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Risker  wrote:
> I'm not going to opine on the decision that's being voted upon by Arbcom;
> I've been there, and ultimately the decision is based on the quality and 
> nature
> of the evidence that people bother to present

Risker, I think your remarks are overall spot-on. I take your point
about any decision only being as good as the evidence which informs
it, but what I'm seeing happening in this case specifically goes
beyond that, IMO.

Just reading through the diffs and links in this case, it's hard for
me to see the proposed decisions as being based solely or ultimately
on the evidence presented. From my reading, there's a pretty visible
undercurrent here of babying an editor with a clear and unambiguous
history of toxic behavior. The best outcome ArbCom was able to muster
is apparently to give air cover to admins who enforce basic site
policy, as opposed to the ludicrous state of affairs where admins who
enforce civility policy are reverted by other admins and the
individual is openly declared to be "untouchable".

That this same individual is also on record ranting about a "feminist
agenda" and "alienation of male editors" while a topic-ban isn't being
seriously considered speaks volumes about the impact of the gender gap
on the set of shared beliefs and consciousness in our community. If
our community was majority-female, would such remarks be regarded as
conducive to neutral participation in a topic? If it was
gender-balanced, would they be?

I think inclusion is often about treating the same behaviors the same
way. If you imagined people switching roles in the case, would the
sanctions remain the same? From my understanding of some of the
history here, it seems more likely that one particular contributor who
is anti-social to the point of toxicity is being protected by an old
boys club in the community, and ArbCom's weak enforcement approach is
simply an institutional reflection of that bias.

As with any institution implicitly acting in accordance with biases
that exist in the larger community it serves and from which it
constitutes itself, these biases are expressed more explicitly and
openly in informal venues, such as user talk pages. But I see in this
case the trappings of an evidence-based approach, not the reality.

Erik

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Kevin Gorman]

I'm incredibly disappointed by arbcom's current approach to this case, to
the point that I haven't responded to this thread yet because I'm so
flabbergasted that I have little idea what to say.  The case is ending with
banning a bunch of women with flimsy excuses (mostly that when harrassed,
they eventually pushed back,) and is ending with Eric getting another slap
on the wrist for gross and repeated vicious personal attacks on other
editors.  I have no doubt that this will both worsen our gendergap and is
even disappointing to the point that I am reconsidering my own degree of
participation on the projects until something is done about these issues.

Erik: I would encourage you to reach out to arbcom directly, whether via
direct message or a talk page.  WMF isn't always liked by the ENWP
community, but closing the gendergap is supposed to be one of WMF's few
primary strategic priorities, and this is a decision by the highest regular
authority on ENWP that flies in the face of both general editor retention
issues and flies in the face of the WMF's goals.  I will be making personal
appeals to Jimbo (who does have at least the theoretical authority to
overturn the decision and Lila (who, I would hope as ED, whose word would
carry substantial weight to intervene in this case.  It's completely
ludicrous.  Eric has become an editor retention problem as bad or worse
than Betacommand was years ago (at the first edu summit, I met at least
three editors - who, mind you, were significant enough contributors that
they received scholarships to come out) who all almost quit over
Betacommand's behavior - this is worse.

I'm sorry to those emails I haven't replied to yet; I've been fairly sick,
and was hospitalized while arbcom nominations were ongoing - otherwise,
despite my reluctance to run, I'd be a listed candidate.  Wikipedia is a
critically important project, and is too important to be sabotaged by
bullshit like this.  Arbcom need substantial and immediate reform.  As list
moderator and an ENWP admin, I would encourage everyone here to discuss
issues openly and candidly.  Although blocks based off of mailing list
posts are uncommon, if anyone receives a block in part or whole based on a
post to gendergap-l over this, unless it's an arb block, I will personally
reverse it.


Kevin Gorman

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Risker  wrote:
> > I'm not going to opine on the decision that's being voted upon by Arbcom;
> > I've been there, and ultimately the decision is based on the quality and
> nature
> > of the evidence that people bother to present
>
> Risker, I think your remarks are overall spot-on. I take your point
> about any decision only being as good as the evidence which informs
> it, but what I'm seeing happening in this case specifically goes
> beyond that, IMO.
>
> Just reading through the diffs and links in this case, it's hard for
> me to see the proposed decisions as being based solely or ultimately
> on the evidence presented. From my reading, there's a pretty visible
> undercurrent here of babying an editor with a clear and unambiguous
> history of toxic behavior. The best outcome ArbCom was able to muster
> is apparently to give air cover to admins who enforce basic site
> policy, as opposed to the ludicrous state of affairs where admins who
> enforce civility policy are reverted by other admins and the
> individual is openly declared to be "untouchable".
>
> That this same individual is also on record ranting about a "feminist
> agenda" and "alienation of male editors" while a topic-ban isn't being
> seriously considered speaks volumes about the impact of the gender gap
> on the set of shared beliefs and consciousness in our community. If
> our community was majority-female, would such remarks be regarded as
> conducive to neutral participation in a topic? If it was
> gender-balanced, would they be?
>
> I think inclusion is often about treating the same behaviors the same
> way. If you imagined people switching roles in the case, would the
> sanctions remain the same? From my understanding of some of the
> history here, it seems more likely that one particular contributor who
> is anti-social to the point of toxicity is being protected by an old
> boys club in the community, and ArbCom's weak enforcement approach is
> simply an institutional reflection of that bias.
>
> As with any institution implicitly acting in accordance with biases
> that exist in the larger community it serves and from which it
> constitutes itself, these biases are expressed more explicitly and
> openly in informal venues, such as user talk pages. But I see in this
> case the trappings of an evidence-based approach, not the reality.
>
> Erik
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap m

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Carol Moore dc]

On 11/26/2014 6:42 AM, Kevin Gorman wrote:
I'm incredibly disappointed by arbcom's current approach to this case, 
to the point that I haven't responded to this thread yet because I'm 
so flabbergasted that I have little idea what to say.  The case is 
ending with banning a bunch of women with flimsy excuses (mostly that 
when harrassed, they eventually pushed back,)


*Mea culpa.  The fact that I had one of those head/chest colds that just 
drags on and on definitely made me over reactive on the one hand. But 
I'm not using it as an excuse or even apologizing for my getting fed up 
at the end and using the metaphor of gang rape about the hysterical 
hostility against me during arbitration by friends of the "perpetrators" 
or about my calling them the "Manchester Gang bangers", which I did mean 
more as related to them being thuggish. However, obviously they did 
organize a metaphorical gang bang against me, so I don't even apologize 
for that intepretation.


Pedantic note: gang bangs can be consensual, can be all male or 
male/female, so aren't always male on female rape scenarios.


Not surprisingly there was total outrage among the Arbs about my 
comments.  Yet nary a bit of outrage over the incident that really got 
the ball rolling: one guy writing as an obvious reply to the woman who 
started a civility thread "/the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt 
is not to act like one".  (/Another wasn't even chastised for writing to 
a woman who objected /"//I'm sure that the families of [[Twatt, Orkney]] 
will be impressed. Especially those whose spelling is poor".)


///So frankly I can't feel too bad about my gang bang and gangbangers 
analogies as symbols of what is acceptable and allowed to go on at 
Wikipedia among the powers that be. (Hopefully I'll feel the same if my 
brains ever de-fog from head cold and PTSD of 3 months of intensive 
harassment.)


CM


//
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Risker  wrote:
> > I'm not going to opine on the decision that's being voted upon by Arbcom;
> > I've been there, and ultimately the decision is based on the quality and
> nature
> > of the evidence that people bother to present
>
> Risker, I think your remarks are overall spot-on. I take your point
> about any decision only being as good as the evidence which informs
> it, but what I'm seeing happening in this case specifically goes
> beyond that, IMO.
>
> Just reading through the diffs and links in this case, it's hard for
> me to see the proposed decisions as being based solely or ultimately
> on the evidence presented. From my reading, there's a pretty visible
> undercurrent here of babying an editor with a clear and unambiguous
> history of toxic behavior. The best outcome ArbCom was able to muster
> is apparently to give air cover to admins who enforce basic site
> policy, as opposed to the ludicrous state of affairs where admins who
> enforce civility policy are reverted by other admins and the
> individual is openly declared to be "untouchable".
>
> That this same individual is also on record ranting about a "feminist
> agenda" and "alienation of male editors" while a topic-ban isn't being
> seriously considered speaks volumes about the impact of the gender gap
> on the set of shared beliefs and consciousness in our community. If
> our community was majority-female, would such remarks be regarded as
> conducive to neutral participation in a topic? If it was
> gender-balanced, would they be?
>
> I think inclusion is often about treating the same behaviors the same
> way. If you imagined people switching roles in the case, would the
> sanctions remain the same? From my understanding of some of the
> history here, it seems more likely that one particular contributor who
> is anti-social to the point of toxicity is being protected by an old
> boys club in the community, and ArbCom's weak enforcement approach is
> simply an institutional reflection of that bias.
>
> As with any institution implicitly acting in accordance with biases
> that exist in the larger community it serves and from which it
> constitutes itself, these biases are expressed more explicitly and
> openly in informal venues, such as user talk pages. But I see in this
> case the trappings of an evidence-based approach, not the reality.
>
> Erik
>
>
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.

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.

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.

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

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Carol Moore dc]

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

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

>  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.
>


That's why I agree with Newyorkbrad that he should be topic-banned from the
GGTF pages. But really, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of
this, on-wiki is not the right place, as it is with so many of these
issues. The signal-to-noise ratio is appalling, and the end result is a
waste of time.



>   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,
>


He didn't. I won't get into that whole long discussion here; all I had to
say about this is on the proposed decision talk page, and anyone who is
interested can read it up there.



> 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.
>


I meant both here and at the GGTF. If you have a number of very capable
women contributors – people who actually have contributed significant
amounts of quality content – saying that they can't identify with the way
the issue is being framed by the Foundation and those spearheading the
gender gap effort, then not listening and entering a dialogue with those
people is a missed opportunity.



>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 am a supporter of both Eric and you, inasmuch as you're both spirited
people and I didn't wish to see either of you site-banned.

The whole thing is quite a spectacular breakdown in communication. The term
"Arbitration Committee" is really an egregious misnomer. They never
actually arbitrate: all they do is punish.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Commiserations.

Best,
Andreas


>
> 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 t

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Kevin Gorman]

Carol's productive contributions outweigh the trolling she's been put
through and occasional policy issue she has run in to, at least not to the
point of warranting a site ban.  Neotarf is being topic-banned from a
project they were a productive contributor to on a handful of flimsy
diffs.  I'd bet $20 that either no civility block sticks to Eric or it ends
in another arb case within four months.  Eric's a prolific content
contributor who has for at least two years regularly used the same gendered
slur and refused to acknowledge a problem with it or with his behavior in
general.  Like Betacommand, the content contributions driven off by his
behavior greatly outnumber his own.  The decision as it stands is ENWP's
arbcom explicitly saying they don't care about one of five aimed metrics
WMF to back strategic priorities.


Kevin Gorman

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Tim Davenport  wrote:

> >>Kevin Gorman wrote: "The case is ending with banning a bunch of women
> with flimsy excuses.."
>
> That's a gross misrepresentation of the case outcome.
>
> The case is ending with Carol Moore being banned off for reasons which
> should be obvious to anyone reading through the case documentation and
> knowing of her previous case before this Arbcom.
>
> Neotarf (who has made it clear that they have never identified as male or
> female) is being topic-banned from participating in the GGTF.
>
> Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable civility
> blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
>
> Sitush has been warned for his creation of a Carol Moore biography.
>
> That's pretty much it.
>
> No "bunch of women" being singled out and stricken for no reason. A couple
> people judged to be disruptionists are being shown the door. The summary
> Kevin makes is ridiculous.
>
>
> Tim Davenport
> Corvallis, OR
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

>Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable civility 
>blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.

One wonders if it’s really time for someone to just initiate a discussion on AN 
as to whether the community’s patience with him is exhausted enough to 
community-ban him indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of any ArbCom case. 
We have done things like this before—after one such editor prompted multiple 
suggestions that he be banned among the many opposes he received when he ran 
for ArbCom with the premise of effectively abolishing it by voting against 
hearing any new cases, I initiated that discussion, which led to the editor in 
question pretty much jumping before he was pushed.

And I say this as someone who has never interacted with him in any meaningful 
way, at least not for years, but sees and hears him increasingly discussed as 
the one user who represents all the shortcomings of our disciplinary processes. 
Whether he is a genuinely toxic person or not seems to be a matter of some 
debate, but I think there is no doubt that the perception that he is has 
increasingly mooted that question.

Of course we could also consider the suggestion Jimmy had in his closing speech 
at Wikimania this year that we deal with toxic people on the site who also 
happen to be good content creators by giving them their own wikis where they, 
and anyone who wanted to work with them, could develop and improve whatever 
content they wanted to.for reimportation. Maybe part of the problem is that we 
offer too limited a choice of 

(And per other emails, this is really beyond the scope of this list, so any 
followups should probably directed to me personally or taken on-wiki. Besides I 
don’t want to ruin anyone’s Thanksgiving, regardless of whether you celebrate 
it or not—we all deserve a break).

Daniel Case___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Kevin Gorman]

It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks.  I honestly don't
think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a
depressing topic.  Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with
essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the
participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing.  I know there's
been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are
appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be.

Best,
Kevin Gorman

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:

>
>
> >Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable
> civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
>
> One wonders if it’s really time for someone to just initiate a discussion
> on AN as to whether the community’s patience with him is exhausted enough
> to community-ban him indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of any ArbCom
> case. We have done things like this before—after one such editor prompted
> multiple suggestions that he be banned among the many opposes he received
> when he ran for ArbCom with the premise of effectively abolishing it by
> voting against hearing any new cases, I initiated that discussion, which
> led to the editor in question pretty much jumping before he was pushed.
>
> And I say this as someone who has never interacted with him in any
> meaningful way, at least not for years, but sees and hears him increasingly
> discussed as the *one* user who represents all the shortcomings of our
> disciplinary processes. Whether he is a genuinely toxic person or not seems
> to be a matter of some debate, but I think there is no doubt that the
> perception that he is has increasingly mooted that question.
>
> Of course we could also consider the suggestion Jimmy had in his closing
> speech at Wikimania this year that we deal with toxic people on the site
> who also happen to be good content creators by giving them their own wikis
> where they, and anyone who wanted to work with them, could develop and
> improve whatever content they wanted to.for reimportation. Maybe part of
> the problem is that we offer too limited a choice of
>
> (And per other emails, this is really beyond the scope of this list, so
> any followups should probably directed to me personally or taken on-wiki.
> Besides I don’t want to ruin anyone’s Thanksgiving, regardless of whether
> you celebrate it or not—we all deserve a break).
>
> Daniel Case
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Carol Moore dc]

On 11/26/2014 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman wrote:
It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks.  I honestly 
don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's 
certainly a depressing topic.  Allowing severe gendered slurs to be 
bandied about with essentially no penalty is likely something that is 
going to decrease the participation of women on ENWP - which is not a 
good thing.  I know there's been some debate in the past about whether 
or not ENWP specific issues are appropriate for this list, but I 
believe this is a large enough one to be.


Best,
Kevin Gorman

Since en.Wikipedia is the largest one and WMF in US, obviously large 
developments regarding the gender gap are relevant.


I was content for the first six years to be on my best behavior (except 
for occasional outbursts when provoked) and work on topics of interest, 
though I wasted a lot of time in BLP disputes with people out to trash 
subjects of BLP.


But for almost the last two years I've had to deal with insulting 
editors pulling outrageous numbers and no adults willing to tell them to 
cut it out.  This Arbitration is just the culmination of it.  So I feel 
no desire to associate with Wikipedia UNTIL the culture is changed so 
BLP violations and insults and harassment are taken seriously. And I see 
no need to be a well-behaved woman any more. If I'm ever allowed to edit 
my talk page again, I'll tell them I do not apologize for using the 
terms gang banger and gang rape to describe the goings on of the last 
six months. When I'm allowed to come back despite saying that, I'll know 
the culture has changed.


Sitush said I'm a rabble rouser.  All he did was pump up my ego and now 
I really want to rouse some rabble.  This isn't the place, and Wikipedia 
certainly is not the prime target.  However, as a former standup comic 
and long term satirist, I will have to have my satisfaction by making 
sure certain individuals and certain events go down in youtube history 
in song, photographs and screenshots. Hope I don't change my mind when I 
get the bees nest out of my sinuses.  But then given my long history of 
exposes of B.S., not likely. In fact, I've got a couple I should have 
published in on-demand book form by now if I hadn't been messing around 
on Wikipedia.


Call me disruptive, Tim. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn...

CM

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Sarah Stierch]

Damn straight!

Shit stirrers unite :)

(And yes, until you've met Carol Moore in person you don't know the real
Carol Moore!! She's most epic and well worth it to go out of your way to
have a pint with her!).

-Sarah
[I've just shifted my shit starting back to GLAM stuff these days...]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

> On 11/26/2014 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman wrote:
>
>> It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks.  I honestly
>> don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a
>> depressing topic.  Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with
>> essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the
>> participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing.  I know there's
>> been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are
>> appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be.
>>
>> Best,
>> Kevin Gorman
>>
>>  Since en.Wikipedia is the largest one and WMF in US, obviously large
> developments regarding the gender gap are relevant.
>
> I was content for the first six years to be on my best behavior (except
> for occasional outbursts when provoked) and work on topics of interest,
> though I wasted a lot of time in BLP disputes with people out to trash
> subjects of BLP.
>
> But for almost the last two years I've had to deal with insulting editors
> pulling outrageous numbers and no adults willing to tell them to cut it
> out.  This Arbitration is just the culmination of it.  So I feel no desire
> to associate with Wikipedia UNTIL the culture is changed so BLP violations
> and insults and harassment are taken seriously. And I see no need to be a
> well-behaved woman any more. If I'm ever allowed to edit my talk page
> again, I'll tell them I do not apologize for using the terms gang banger
> and gang rape to describe the goings on of the last six months. When I'm
> allowed to come back despite saying that, I'll know the culture has changed.
>
> Sitush said I'm a rabble rouser.  All he did was pump up my ego and now I
> really want to rouse some rabble.  This isn't the place, and Wikipedia
> certainly is not the prime target.  However, as a former standup comic and
> long term satirist, I will have to have my satisfaction by making sure
> certain individuals and certain events go down in youtube history in song,
> photographs and screenshots. Hope I don't change my mind when I get the
> bees nest out of my sinuses.  But then given my long history of exposes of
> B.S., not likely. In fact, I've got a couple I should have published in
> on-demand book form by now if I hadn't been messing around on Wikipedia.
>
> Call me disruptive, Tim. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn...
>
> CM
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>



-- 

Sarah Stierch

-

Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.

www.sarahstierch.com
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[George Herbert]

On the plus side, discretionary sanctions...

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 26, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Carol Moore dc  
>> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 
> That's why I agree with Newyorkbrad that he should be topic-banned from the 
> GGTF pages. But really, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of this, 
> on-wiki is not the right place, as it is with so many of these issues. The 
> signal-to-noise ratio is appalling, and the end result is a waste of time. 
> 
>  
>>> 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, 
> 
> 
> He didn't. I won't get into that whole long discussion here; all I had to say 
> about this is on the proposed decision talk page, and anyone who is 
> interested can read it up there.
> 
>  
>> 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.
> 
> 
> I meant both here and at the GGTF. If you have a number of very capable women 
> contributors – people who actually have contributed significant amounts of 
> quality content – saying that they can't identify with the way the issue is 
> being framed by the Foundation and those spearheading the gender gap effort, 
> then not listening and entering a dialogue with those people is a missed 
> opportunity.
> 
>  
>>> 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 am a supporter of both Eric and you, inasmuch as you're both spirited 
> people and I didn't wish to see either of you site-banned.
> 
> The whole thing is quite a spectacular breakdown in communication. The term 
> "Arbitration Committee" is really an egregious misnomer. They never actually 
> arbitrate: all they do is punish. 
> 
> If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
> 
> Commiserations. 
> 
> Best,
> Andreas
>  
>> 
>> 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 

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Jim Hayes]

yes ,
i would say that arbcom might be unaware of how negatively it will be viewed
clearly newyorkbrad was angling for block both sides,
to make it easier to block the "unblockable"
and the majority appears to have tilted in one direction.
keep in mind that a life ban worked real well on betacommand

as for "new regimen of non-appealable civility blocks"
i'll believe it when i see it, just as when i will believe Jimbo Wales'
talk at wikimania.

at this late date, it is show me - soft is hard.
we can plan a culture change, off wiki if necessary, but the revanchism
will be ugly.


On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks.  I honestly don't
> think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a
> depressing topic.  Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with
> essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the
> participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing.  I know there's
> been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are
> appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be.
>
> Best,
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
> danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> >Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable
>> civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
>>
>> One wonders if it’s really time for someone to just initiate a discussion
>> on AN as to whether the community’s patience with him is exhausted enough
>> to community-ban him indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of any ArbCom
>> case. We have done things like this before—after one such editor prompted
>> multiple suggestions that he be banned among the many opposes he received
>> when he ran for ArbCom with the premise of effectively abolishing it by
>> voting against hearing any new cases, I initiated that discussion, which
>> led to the editor in question pretty much jumping before he was pushed.
>>
>> And I say this as someone who has never interacted with him in any
>> meaningful way, at least not for years, but sees and hears him increasingly
>> discussed as the *one* user who represents all the shortcomings of our
>> disciplinary processes. Whether he is a genuinely toxic person or not seems
>> to be a matter of some debate, but I think there is no doubt that the
>> perception that he is has increasingly mooted that question.
>>
>> Of course we could also consider the suggestion Jimmy had in his closing
>> speech at Wikimania this year that we deal with toxic people on the site
>> who also happen to be good content creators by giving them their own wikis
>> where they, and anyone who wanted to work with them, could develop and
>> improve whatever content they wanted to.for reimportation. Maybe part of
>> the problem is that we offer too limited a choice of
>>
>> (And per other emails, this is really beyond the scope of this list, so
>> any followups should probably directed to me personally or taken on-wiki.
>> Besides I don’t want to ruin anyone’s Thanksgiving, regardless of whether
>> you celebrate it or not—we all deserve a break).
>>
>> Daniel Case
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Reguyla]

As I have read the responses on this mail list, several people have made
some very good points, but others not so much. Some focus specifically on
Eric and others are more broad commenting on cultural issues within the
project itself. Eric said some bad words, most of us are adults here, so
deal with it. Its really not that big of a deal nor is it worth all the
effort being put into it. There are far worse problems in the project doing
far more to bring it down than Eric and a few cusswords.

One point point for example by a couple folks indicated that Eric is
responsible for running a lot of people off the project. Eric can be a jerk
sometimes and use fowl language but I am not familiar with one editor who
has stated they stopped editing because of him. I have met quite a lot that
have stopped editing because of abuse by some admin. People are leaving,
but Eric is not the biggest culprit, its the us and them mentality of some
of the admins and their being exempt from the rules. So if folks are
concerned about people leaving the project, I would suggest they start
there.

Some have also suggested some issues with the Arbcom. Sarah Stierch
questions its legality (as do I and others) and some have indicated they
intend to go around the Arbcom and appeal its verdicts. To this I say good
luck. I really wish they would, and its high time they do get more involved
with the Arbitration sanctions and verdicts, but its not likely that the
WMF has any interest in doing so and its even less likely they will
overturn one of their decisions.

On the topic of sanctions against Eric at AE, he is as good as gone. The
folks at AE have a long history of hounding and harassing editors to give
them a reason to block. They do not care about admins baiting them or
provoking a response and they do not care how far off topic the edit is, if
they want to block someone, the "broadly construed" language gives them
that ability. It also removes the Arbcom from the need to make a
controversial decision by passing the buck to AE.

This Arbcom decision is going to have one definite result. People are going
to avoid gender related topics and Wikipedia is going to have even more
trouble getting more women involved in the project.

So I would encourage the WMF to get more involved with Arbcom and its
decisions, because many of their decisions are directly responsible for the
death spiral the project is in. The WMF needs to seriously start reviewing
the conduct of admins if it wants to deal with editors leaving the site and
they need to start addressing those abusive admin tactics like personal
attacks, baiting, turning peoples talk pages into battle grounds and other
tactics used to justify blocking them. Civility on Wikipedia goes far
beyond Eric and a few swear words and if you want editors to follow the
rules then you need to enforce them on admins as well as editors. Otherwise
the editors see what the admins get away with and it makes the think they
should be able to do it as well.

Reguyla

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks.  I honestly don't
> think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a
> depressing topic.  Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with
> essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the
> participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing.  I know there's
> been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are
> appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be.
>
> Best,
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
> danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> >Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable
>> civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
>>
>> One wonders if it’s really time for someone to just initiate a discussion
>> on AN as to whether the community’s patience with him is exhausted enough
>> to community-ban him indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of any ArbCom
>> case. We have done things like this before—after one such editor prompted
>> multiple suggestions that he be banned among the many opposes he received
>> when he ran for ArbCom with the premise of effectively abolishing it by
>> voting against hearing any new cases, I initiated that discussion, which
>> led to the editor in question pretty much jumping before he was pushed.
>>
>> And I say this as someone who has never interacted with him in any
>> meaningful way, at least not for years, but sees and hears him increasingly
>> discussed as the *one* user who represents all the shortcomings of our
>> disciplinary processes. Whether he is a genuinely toxic person or not seems
>> to be a matter of some debate, but I think there is no doubt that the
>> perception that he is has increasingly mooted that question.
>>
>> Of course we could also consider the suggestion Jimmy had in his 

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[JJ Marr]

ArbCom isn't illegal. I have no idea how you'd be able to appeal an online
pseudotribunal to an actual court. It baffles the mind, especially since
they provided clear rationale and the WMF is allowed to associate with
whoever they want. I'm fairly sure that the hypothetical case would
probably be dismissed extremely quickly.
On Nov 27, 2014 3:13 AM, "Jim Hayes"  wrote:

> yes ,
> i would say that arbcom might be unaware of how negatively it will be
> viewed
> clearly newyorkbrad was angling for block both sides,
> to make it easier to block the "unblockable"
> and the majority appears to have tilted in one direction.
> keep in mind that a life ban worked real well on betacommand
>
> as for "new regimen of non-appealable civility blocks"
> i'll believe it when i see it, just as when i will believe Jimbo Wales'
> talk at wikimania.
>
> at this late date, it is show me - soft is hard.
> we can plan a culture change, off wiki if necessary, but the revanchism
> will be ugly.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>
>> It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks.  I honestly
>> don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a
>> depressing topic.  Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with
>> essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the
>> participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing.  I know there's
>> been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are
>> appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be.
>>
>> Best,
>> Kevin Gorman
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
>> danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable
>>> civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
>>>
>>> One wonders if it's really time for someone to just initiate a
>>> discussion on AN as to whether the community's patience with him is
>>> exhausted enough to community-ban him indefinitely, regardless of the
>>> outcome of any ArbCom case. We have done things like this before--after one
>>> such editor prompted multiple suggestions that he be banned among the many
>>> opposes he received when he ran for ArbCom with the premise of effectively
>>> abolishing it by voting against hearing any new cases, I initiated that
>>> discussion, which led to the editor in question pretty much jumping before
>>> he was pushed.
>>>
>>> And I say this as someone who has never interacted with him in any
>>> meaningful way, at least not for years, but sees and hears him increasingly
>>> discussed as the *one* user who represents all the shortcomings of our
>>> disciplinary processes. Whether he is a genuinely toxic person or not seems
>>> to be a matter of some debate, but I think there is no doubt that the
>>> perception that he is has increasingly mooted that question.
>>>
>>> Of course we could also consider the suggestion Jimmy had in his closing
>>> speech at Wikimania this year that we deal with toxic people on the site
>>> who also happen to be good content creators by giving them their own wikis
>>> where they, and anyone who wanted to work with them, could develop and
>>> improve whatever content they wanted to.for reimportation. Maybe part of
>>> the problem is that we offer too limited a choice of
>>>
>>> (And per other emails, this is really beyond the scope of this list, so
>>> any followups should probably directed to me personally or taken on-wiki.
>>> Besides I don't want to ruin anyone's Thanksgiving, regardless of whether
>>> you celebrate it or not--we all deserve a break).
>>>
>>> Daniel Case
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[JJ Marr]

>From the terms of use

"
We reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or
without cause, and with or without notice.
"
On Nov 27, 2014 10:34 AM, "regu...@gmail.com"  wrote:

> I dont think its illegal, its just that it doesnt have any legal standing
> at all. The terms of use used to have a condition for it yearsvago but that
> was removed.
>
>
>
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original message--
>
> *From: *JJ Marr
>
> *Date: *Thu, Nov 27, 2014 10:25 AM
>
> *To: *Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
> participation of women within Wikimedia projects.;
>
> *Subject:*Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
>
>
>
> ArbCom isn't illegal. I have no idea how you'd be able to appeal an online
> pseudotribunal to an actual court. It baffles the mind, especially since
> they provided clear rationale and the WMF is allowed to associate with
> whoever they want. I'm fairly sure that the hypothetical case would
> probably be dismissed extremely quickly.
> On Nov 27, 2014 3:13 AM, "Jim Hayes"  wrote:
>
>> yes ,
>> i would say that arbcom might be unaware of how negatively it will be
>> viewed
>> clearly newyorkbrad was angling for block both sides,
>> to make it easier to block the "unblockable"
>> and the majority appears to have tilted in one direction.
>> keep in mind that a life ban worked real well on betacommand
>>
>> as for "new regimen of non-appealable civility blocks"
>> i'll believe it when i see it, just as when i will believe Jimbo Wales'
>> talk at wikimania.
>>
>> at this late date, it is show me - soft is hard.
>> we can plan a culture change, off wiki if necessary, but the revanchism
>> will be ugly.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>>
>>> It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks.  I honestly
>>> don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a
>>> depressing topic.  Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with
>>> essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the
>>> participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing.  I know there's
>>> been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are
>>> appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Kevin Gorman
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
>>> danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable
>>>> civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
>>>>
>>>> One wonders if it's really time for someone to just initiate a
>>>> discussion on AN as to whether the community's patience with him is
>>>> exhausted enough to community-ban him indefinitely, regardless of the
>>>> outcome of any ArbCom case. We have done things like this before--after one
>>>> such editor prompted multiple suggestions that he be banned among the many
>>>> opposes he received when he ran for ArbCom with the premise of effectively
>>>> abolishing it by voting against hearing any new cases, I initiated that
>>>> discussion, which led to the editor in question pretty much jumping before
>>>> he was pushed.
>>>>
>>>> And I say this as someone who has never interacted with him in any
>>>> meaningful way, at least not for years, but sees and hears him increasingly
>>>> discussed as the *one* user who represents all the shortcomings of our
>>>> disciplinary processes. Whether he is a genuinely toxic person or not seems
>>>> to be a matter of some debate, but I think there is no doubt that the
>>>> perception that he is has increasingly mooted that question.
>>>>
>>>> Of course we could also consider the suggestion Jimmy had in his
>>>> closing speech at Wikimania this year that we deal with toxic people on the
>>>> site who also happen to be good content creators by giving them their own
>>>> wikis where they, and anyone who wanted to work with them, could develop
>>>> and improve whatever content they wanted to.for reimportation. Maybe part
>>>> of the problem is that we offer too limited a choic

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Carol Moore dc]

On 11/27/2014 11:22 AM, Tim Davenport wrote:


Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue 
of CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.


If you read the evidence and the GGTF page you'd see Eric Corbett was 
being disruptive (while not always uncivil) because he did not want the 
group to have any effective voice against incivility.  Many women 
consider personal attacks AND harassment to be a major issues driving 
women off the site, once they sign up and start to edit.


Thus Corbett's actions are highly relevant, as are those of a whole list 
of his friends and supporters and fellow travelers, on GGTF, at other 
gender gap related discussions, and at the Arbitration.


Of course, we all can disagree on whether  "gang bang" and "gang 
bangers" are good /metaphors/ to describe their behavior at 
Arbitration.  I still think it is, though if I wasn't totally fed up 
with Wikipedia, I probably would not use it.  :-)  For now, it's the 
best metaphor I've got to describe what I now see as Wikipedia's 
institutionalized harassment.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Sarah Stierch]

I must admit, I'm really fascinated by the fact that Eric Corbett is being
called "Mr. Corbett" and Carol Moore is being called "Carol Moore' in some
of these conversations.

And anyone who has spent time on this mailing list and reads interviews,
articles, surveys, blahblah with women who edit Wikipedia (not just us
"uppity types"), knows damn well that CIVILITY is one of the reasons we
have a gender gap.

So this is in fact, about the gender gap.

-Sarah

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

>  On 11/27/2014 11:22 AM, Tim Davenport wrote:
>
>
> Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of
> CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.
>
>  If you read the evidence and the GGTF page you'd see Eric Corbett was
> being disruptive (while not always uncivil) because he did not want the
> group to have any effective voice against incivility.  Many women consider
> personal attacks AND harassment to be a major issues driving women off the
> site, once they sign up and start to edit.
>
> Thus Corbett's actions are highly relevant, as are those of a whole list
> of his friends and supporters and fellow travelers, on GGTF, at other
> gender gap related discussions, and at the Arbitration.
>
> Of course, we all can disagree on whether  "gang bang" and "gang bangers"
> are good *metaphors* to describe their behavior at Arbitration.  I still
> think it is, though if I wasn't totally fed up with Wikipedia, I probably
> would not use it.  :-)  For now, it's the best metaphor I've got to
> describe what I now see as Wikipedia's institutionalized harassment.
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 

Sarah Stierch

-

Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.

www.sarahstierch.com
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Jeremy Baron]

On Nov 25, 2014 2:48 PM, "Sarah Stierch"  wrote:
> could there ever be any legal repercussion - like the "real" legal
system, not an internet community - that could be taken to support a person
who should not be "banned" from a website? like carol?  If you're called
lots of nasty names, if men aren't being banned, etc but women are,
blahblahblah - that's sexist and discrimination IMHO.

There's a few options, sticks and a carrot. But I don't think any of them
are appropriate here.

I'm not even sure if solutions to the arbcom mess(es) should come from the
foundation at all.

Stick: find a law that would be violated by such a ban. maybe in order to
have standing, the banned user would herself have to be party to the suit.
(i.e. couldn't be filed by an arbitrary bystander) I doubt such a law
exists. Women are a protected class under some laws but I don't see how
they would apply here.

WMF is AFAIK a relatively ordinary 501(c)(3). (legally speaking) It was not
chartered by an act of a legislature nor is it a part of any government
department or agency.

Or find a part of the bylaws, articles of incorporation or a policy of the
foundation that this ban would violate.

I don't think this would work.

(Although, taking this a step further, if editors were employees rather
than volunteers then I guess there would be substantial remedies available)

Stick version 2: convince the voting membership of the foundation to make
some sort of change.

WMF is not a membership organization so that doesn't work.

Carrot: get a major funder of the foundation to reverse course or to ask
the foundation to do something. or get the legislature or executive of a
government sponsor to make funds conditional on X. (like the way US federal
policies dictate state drinking ages though highway maintenance funding (or
withholding thereof))

I don't think WMF gets any government funds now and could probably do well
enough with just banners to survive without major donors. (at least given
current trends; already most revenue is from small individual donations)

> I have a lawyer on standby for every single threat that comes my way now
on the internet, and that includes Wikipedia - I'm not rich, but, frankly,
I just can't do it alone anymore and the system isn't solving anything.
>From Twitter to Wikipedia, a day doesnt' go by when myself or a woman I
know isn't threatened on the internet. I'm just so sick of it.

:(

> I'm also really pissed off in general about the last 24 hours in america.
So whatever.

+1 :(

-Jeremy
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[LtPowers]

Are you seriously suggesting that we must find an explicit instance in which
one person solely and completely drove an editor off from the project in
order to declare that his behavior is unacceptable in a community such as
ours?

 

 

Powers  &8^]

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Reguyla [mailto:regu...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 26 November 2014 17:48
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
participationof women within Wikimedia projects.
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

 

Eric can be a jerk sometimes and use fowl language but I am not familiar
with one editor who has stated they stopped editing because of him 

 

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Reguyla]

Carol: My guess is that pretty much everyone commenting here has and
continues to, read the GGTF case. I also agree that Eric can be harsh and
his use of certain words offends people. Likewise others in this case also
didn't act very well.

Personally I think the term he used or the references you used are only
offensive if people let them be and a lot of folks seem to be acting like
children about using "naughty" words and language. Personally, I agree with
your metaphor and it suits the situation quite well because I think parties
on both sides of this debate are getting screwed and I don't think the
Arbcom result is going to do anything but make sure no one wants to touch
any gender/gender gap related articles.

Its also noteworthy that disruption of talk pages is a common tactic used
on WP by both sides of arguments, that's not an Eric specific thing but I
do agree that needs to be addressed as an institutional problem on the
project in general including the Arbcom. Turning pages into a battle
grounds to justify blocks are something I have become familiar with lately.

Sarah: My guess is that calling one Mr. and one Carol is because they do
not know if its Miss, Ms. or Mrs and Mr. is what it is. I doubt its
deliberately being disrespectful to her.


On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Sarah Stierch 
wrote:

> I must admit, I'm really fascinated by the fact that Eric Corbett is being
> called "Mr. Corbett" and Carol Moore is being called "Carol Moore' in some
> of these conversations.
>
> And anyone who has spent time on this mailing list and reads interviews,
> articles, surveys, blahblah with women who edit Wikipedia (not just us
> "uppity types"), knows damn well that CIVILITY is one of the reasons we
> have a gender gap.
>
> So this is in fact, about the gender gap.
>
> -Sarah
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Carol Moore dc 
> wrote:
>
>>  On 11/27/2014 11:22 AM, Tim Davenport wrote:
>>
>>
>> Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of
>> CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.
>>
>>  If you read the evidence and the GGTF page you'd see Eric Corbett was
>> being disruptive (while not always uncivil) because he did not want the
>> group to have any effective voice against incivility.  Many women consider
>> personal attacks AND harassment to be a major issues driving women off the
>> site, once they sign up and start to edit.
>>
>> Thus Corbett's actions are highly relevant, as are those of a whole list
>> of his friends and supporters and fellow travelers, on GGTF, at other
>> gender gap related discussions, and at the Arbitration.
>>
>> Of course, we all can disagree on whether  "gang bang" and "gang bangers"
>> are good *metaphors* to describe their behavior at Arbitration.  I still
>> think it is, though if I wasn't totally fed up with Wikipedia, I probably
>> would not use it.  :-)  For now, it's the best metaphor I've got to
>> describe what I now see as Wikipedia's institutionalized harassment.
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Sarah Stierch
>
> -
>
> Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
>
> www.sarahstierch.com
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Kevin Gorman]

Tim: They actually are appealable at AE, they just can't be as undone as
quickly as most Eric blocks. Consensus needed to unblock rather than
consensus needed for a block to stay.  I suspect most of the initial blocks
will stick since they aren't too long, but the remedy does call for set
longer blocks with additional offenses, and then just escalating blocks -
those will almost certainly result in an appeal. Eric isn't Wikipedia's
gendergap, but he's certainly both a symptom of and contributor to it.  It
is unusual to discuss cases like this at length on this list, but when it
directly explicitly pertains to the gendergap, has the arbcom of ENWP
prohibiting some editors from *mentioning* that there is even a gendergap
anywhere on Wikipedia, and where a lot of the language involved is
incredibly sexist, we are certainly discussing problems related to the
gendergap of the English Wikipedia, which is a discussion that is certainly
within the scope of the list.

Best,
Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Tim Davenport  wrote:

> >>Kevin Gorman: "It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable
> blocks.
> I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although
> it's certainly
> a depressing topic.  Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about
> with
> essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the
> participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing."
>
> It bears repeating that what is a "severe gendered slur" in America is
> approximately 83.6% less potent as a generalized term of abuse in the UK
> and Australia.[1]  I'm not going to defend Eric using the word "cunt,"
> however, he's well aware that he's in the metaphorical room with Americans
> and if he directs that word towards anyone again there will be
> repercussions beyond the usual wheel-warring and melodramatic debate...
>
> That's not the point I wish to make. Mr. Corbett's (virtually inevitable)
> future civility blocks will indeed be non-appealable because they are of
> specified length as part of an Arbcom ruling. Any reversal would probably
> mean the loss of tools — either those of the bad-blocker or the reverser,
> based on interpretation of the specific situation at Arbitration
> Enforcement, where the matter would inevitably go.
>
> Frankly, this approach would have solved the "Malleus problem" a long time
> ago. Incivility should be a block of specified and reasonable duration
> (viz., the one imposed on Carol Moore for her "gang bangers" rant). There
> are offenses at Wikipedia far worse than blowing one's top and being a
> jerk. Like systemic copyright violation. Like faking sources. Like mass
> subtle vandalism. Like repeated insertion of libelous text into BLPs. Like
> dramatic disruption of the project to score political points.
>
> Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of
> CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.
>
> Tim Davenport
> Corvallis, OR
>
>
> ==Footnotes==
>
> [1] Yeah, I made that number up, but it's about right.
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Carol Moore dc]

On 11/27/2014 12:36 PM, Reguyla wrote:
Carol: My guess is that pretty much everyone commenting here has and 
continues to, read the GGTF case. I also agree that Eric can be harsh 
and his use of certain words offends people. Likewise others in this 
case also didn't act very well.


Personally I think the term he used or the references you used are 
only offensive if people let them be and a lot of folks seem to be 
acting like children about using "naughty" words and language. 
Personally, I agree with your metaphor and it suits the situation 
quite well because I think parties on both sides of this debate are 
getting screwed and I don't think the Arbcom result is going to do 
anything but make sure no one wants to touch any gender/gender gap 
related articles.

The issue is NOT words, as I put it at GGTF talk page right now:

   /Every set back is just an opportunity for advancement./ Current
   events only have clarified and dramatized that harassment of those
   considered powerless (including women) is institutionalized within a
   small but powerful coterie of editors and administrators and now
   within ArbCom. (Harass those you want to get rid of til they leave
   or they over-react, then get them in trouble.)  (NOTE HERE: My use
   of those terms was only because I was harassed so much at
   Arbitration those words seemed like the most accurate way to
   describe what was going on!! Also note that I got banned from
   posting at Arbitration talk page because of the use of words to
   describe the complicity of ArbCom and the harassers.  Truth hurts?)

   Obviously WMF is going to have to take some incisive interventions.
   Listing and discussing various alternatives and lobbying for them is
   the solution. (Plus fun with videos.) Gender gap mailing list will
   at least have announcements about various steps taken by various
   individuals, some of which will be post-able here without getting
   anyone in trouble. (And if trolls have a fit and become disruptive,
   there's discretionary sanctions.) Meanwhile as a reminder of
   previously mentioned outside efforts: Genderdesk @ wordpress.com;
   twitter.com/SaidOnWP; and Wikipediocracy which needs to take a
   firmer stand; there do seem to be several sexist commentators there.
   I'm still undecided if want to deal with the drama there or not, and
   if with my real name or an anonymous handle for fun (and see how
   long before they figure out it's me). Anyway, as I always say,
   /onward and upward!/

/That's my story and I'm sticking to it - except as I elaborate further 
with more insights "-)

/

/CM
/


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[JJ Marr]

To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I
dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add
informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article
as pictures and videos often are?" I ask why don't you take that dispute up
with the editor in question?

Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no context
to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content dispute.

Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are
sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly,
why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the  Wikimedia gender
gap community as a whole.
On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley"  wrote:

>  Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one
> (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway
>
> Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward
>
> ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
>
> In particular this comment:
> "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision,
> *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this
> group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or
> less of a more or less radical feminist perspective"
>
> I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against.
> It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
> * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work
> is the opposite of feminism?
> Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a
> subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
>
> On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of
> feminist
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790
> and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to
> organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists",
> "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the
> list
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727
>
> The list has recently been changed to this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a
> couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
>
> I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this,
> and similar work:
> Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=633566034#Major_works
> to this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=634343909#Major_works
>
> Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist
> Economics
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economics
>  and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability
> Association
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association
> then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the
> HDCA.
> Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar
> (births).
>
> These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds
> of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object).
> The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no
> problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or
> "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly
> support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and
> homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human
> development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality
> / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic'
> (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this
> area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender
> Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this:
> http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/
> (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on
> WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
>
> Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs
> (a) Pro-sex work
> (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and
> (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV
> that dare not speak its name
> ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.
>
> I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all
> about the separation between (b) and (c)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=546995190
> 
> It was deleted 

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Carol Moore dc]

Pulling out a couple of  comments for reply from Marie's statement:
On 11/30/2014 1:46 AM, Marie Earley wrote:

..
In particular this comment:
"...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, 
/repeatedly,/ there is some question as to exactly /which/ women this 
group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is 
more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective"
**There definitely are all sorts of feminists. But what happened here 
was that Eric Corbett defined what is an isn't an acceptable level of 
feminism and then various of his women friends who may or may not 
identify as feminists would pop up during GGTF and even more during 
Arbitration to complain about the horrible radical feminists at GGTF.  I 
have yet to see these horrible radical feminist quotes. Off hand I know 
there were a couple rather radical proposals by males; my joke about the 
"systemic bias card" (which is evidence against me in Arbitration!); and 
angry reactions by a number of males and females who protested the 
sexist badgering and rejection of opinions of those who supported the 
project. So Eric, who has been helpful to some women, had lots of women 
supporters jumping up to poison the well.  I'm sure some women who have 
lower key approaches than others of us were genuinely upset by some 
womens strong reactions; but maybe their definitions of proper female 
behavior are way too narrow.


It was quite disappointing when I realized that one editor who 
identified as female (though not on her user pages) and kept boasting 
about being a feminist, put down other women she disagreed with and 
badgered us to make alliance with her on articles she wanted to change.  
Much later I discovered that early in 2014 she was joking with Eric on 
his talk page about his not having been naughty enough and causing 
controversy lately!!  She got all the controversy she wanted at GGTF!!!  
(I put that in evidence.)


...These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the 
grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing 
/ object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is 
they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box 
labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people 
that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are 
probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA 
have is that, human development and capability, which includes 
feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively 
constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to 
stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The 
natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. 
Which is why they write nonsense like this: 
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/ 
(if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking 
about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
**As a libertarian I don't want to see it illegal (unless it portrays 
violence forced on women or men). As a feminist I think it's quite often 
a sick addiction and higher consciousness humans would have little use 
for it.  But that's the bottom line issue at Wikipedia: too many male 
editors motivated by base emotions and addictions, angry at women for 
competing with them on wikipedia or not fulfilling their emotional and 
sexual needs in the real world, and thus engaging in personal attacks, 
harassment and "gang banger" behavior.  Maybe it is only a few hundred 
like that, out of thousands of male editors, but that's enough to make 
Wikipedia an incredibly hostile environment for most women, males, 
mature people, professionals, etc.


CM
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:


> my joke about the "systemic bias card" (which is evidence against me in
> Arbitration!);
>


Yeah, this is one of the more bizarre diffs. I am glad a couple of
arbitrators opposed on the basis of that. I would be even happier if it
were struck.

This reminds me – someone said at GGTF a few weeks ago that the fact that –
according to a recent study – women on average worked in slightly more
contentious articles than males proved that women didn't mind
contentiousness. What they forgot to take into account there is that
articles women contribute to often *become* contentious because their edits
are being contested by males.

In that sense, I believe Marie's anecdotes are quite to the point.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Marie Earley]

I'm getting my GG notifications through now. 

JJ Marr: Re: context, I was having trouble getting the GG e-mails so I couldn't 
hit reply and keep my messages in the same thread (although I did use the same 
title). It should have been the next message in this thread: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-November/004957.html 

I didn't take my dispute up with the editor as I had previously had run-ins 
with him. His profile says that he edits pornography and radical feminism 
topics and he is critical of what he sees as "POV pushing and conflicts of 
interest
 around a number of articles on individual feminists and feminist 
organizations"

His deletion of the video, speaks for itself. The same is true of the 
discussion I linked to previously, 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward
 It is not about my being "selective", and I'm not even trying to get rid of 
the pornography project or any of its articles, but if that is what interests 
these two editors then their involvement in GGTF is spurious. 

They try to sugar-coat their comments with "why don't you explain it to me?" 
and faux concern, "I don't like what GGTF is becoming." 

Perhaps members of GGTF should go over to the Pornography Project, become 
members and behave equally disruptively.

In answer to your other questions:
* Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending 
it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list?
- Please explain why you think it isn't relevant, since the opening link in my 
last post (and given again above) is to GGTF's talk page?
* [Explain] why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia 
gender gap community as a whole?
- Because it it provides a telling snap-shop

Marie

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 15:54:49 +
From: jayen...@gmail.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF



On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Carol Moore dc  
wrote:
 my joke about the "systemic bias card" (which is evidence
against me in Arbitration!); 

Yeah, this is one of the more bizarre diffs. I am glad a couple of arbitrators 
opposed on the basis of that. I would be even happier if it were struck.
This reminds me – someone said at GGTF a few weeks ago that the fact that – 
according to a recent study – women on average worked in slightly more 
contentious articles than males proved that women didn't mind contentiousness. 
What they forgot to take into account there is that articles women contribute 
to often become contentious because their edits are being contested by males.
In that sense, I believe Marie's anecdotes are quite to the point.

___
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

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Sarah]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Marie Earley  wrote:

>  In answer to your other questions:
> * Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are
> sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list?
> - Please explain why you think it isn't relevant, since the opening link
> in my last post (and given again above) is to GGTF's talk page?
> * [Explain] why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the
> Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole?
> - Because it it provides a telling snap-shop
>
> Marie
>
> --
>

​Hi Marie, your post was interesting and on-topic. Please don't be
discouraged from letting us know about these issues. They have been
happening a lot and seem to be increasing.

Sarah​
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Marie Earley]

Thanks Sarah,

Yes, they does seem to be a lot more of it lately. I also thought that 
discussion board stuff would die down. They got their pound of flesh and now 
they seem to want blood as well. 

I pretty much stayed off the boards but I was drawn in by a "Hey-let's-move-on" 
style opening post which just turned out to be a red herring.

Anyway, before all this kicked off I was looking at bots that do 
autoassessments, in particular 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DodoBot/Requests 

It works like this:
* Create a page called - Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Categories
* On the page that just been created, list the sub-categories that are of 
interest to the project, e.g. the way that the Toronto project has done here, 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Toronto/Categories
* If the sub-categories have their own sub-categories, and you want to capture 
all of them then add (Depth:Inf) or to the 'depth' of sub-category that you 
want to go e.g. (Depth:2)
* You can also assign how important you want those articles in that 
sub-category to be labelled, for example Category: Gender and entertainment 
(Depth:Inf) (Importance:Mid)
- will result in all the articles in the category 'Gender and entertainment', 
and all the articles in the sub-categories (and the sub-categories of the 
sub-categories of 'Gender and entertainment' to infinity) being labelled 'mid 
importance'.

Depth explained a bit better:
* Category:Gender and entertainment
* Category:Feminism and the arts - (depth level = 1)
* Category:Feminist films - (depth level = 2)
* Category:Studio Ghibli - (depth level = 3)
* Category:Studio Ghibli animated films - (depth level = 4)

* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:2) will include all the articles in 
the categories - Gender and entertainment; Feminism and the arts; Feminist films

* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:3) will include all the 
articles in the categories - Gender and entertainment; Feminism and the 
arts; Feminist films AND Studio Ghibli


* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:Inf) will include all the 
articles in the category - Gender and entertainment AND all the lower levels, 
including any new sub-categories created for the Category:Studio Ghibli 
animated films or lower, such as Category:Studio Ghibli animated films X (depth 
level = 5), Category:Studio Ghibli animated films  X1 (depth level = 6) ... 
etc. to an infinite depth.


But before you can do any of that you have to get consensus from the project 
participants on the categories that you want labelling Top, Mid, Low 
importance. That's the tricky bit.

I don't mind setting up the page and creating a provisional list probably based 
on existing assessments, but then it will have to go to discussion.

Marie 

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 14:32:17 -0700
From: slimvir...@gmail.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Marie Earley  wrote:






In answer to your other questions:
* Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending 
it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list?
- Please explain why you think it isn't relevant, since the opening link in my 
last post (and given again above) is to GGTF's talk page?
* [Explain] why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia 
gender gap community as a whole?
- Because it it provides a telling snap-shop

Marie


​Hi Marie, your post was interesting and on-topic. Please don't be discouraged 
from letting us know about these issues. They have been happening a lot and 
seem to be increasing.

Sarah​ 

___
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

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Jim Hayes]

the case is instructive because we have a test of the thesis of whether
wikipedia is merely a bitey place, or whether it is a corrupt place, where
men get sternly warned and women get a lifetime ban.

i go to many meetups with expert editors who have all been bitten, and who
will only edit at meetups. don't imagine that they won't draw an
unflattering conclusion about wikiculture from arbcoms actions in this case.

the thesis is that the toxic culture is the direct cause of the gender gap,
and until the culture changes the gap will remain. this case is an attempt
to change the culture that is being squashed.

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> Tim: They actually are appealable at AE, they just can't be as undone as
> quickly as most Eric blocks. Consensus needed to unblock rather than
> consensus needed for a block to stay.  I suspect most of the initial blocks
> will stick since they aren't too long, but the remedy does call for set
> longer blocks with additional offenses, and then just escalating blocks -
> those will almost certainly result in an appeal. Eric isn't Wikipedia's
> gendergap, but he's certainly both a symptom of and contributor to it.  It
> is unusual to discuss cases like this at length on this list, but when it
> directly explicitly pertains to the gendergap, has the arbcom of ENWP
> prohibiting some editors from *mentioning* that there is even a gendergap
> anywhere on Wikipedia, and where a lot of the language involved is
> incredibly sexist, we are certainly discussing problems related to the
> gendergap of the English Wikipedia, which is a discussion that is certainly
> within the scope of the list.
>
> Best,
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Tim Davenport 
> wrote:
>
>> >>Kevin Gorman: "It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable
>> blocks.
>> I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although
>> it's certainly
>> a depressing topic.  Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about
>> with
>> essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the
>> participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing."
>>
>> It bears repeating that what is a "severe gendered slur" in America is
>> approximately 83.6% less potent as a generalized term of abuse in the UK
>> and Australia.[1]  I'm not going to defend Eric using the word "cunt,"
>> however, he's well aware that he's in the metaphorical room with Americans
>> and if he directs that word towards anyone again there will be
>> repercussions beyond the usual wheel-warring and melodramatic debate...
>>
>> That's not the point I wish to make. Mr. Corbett's (virtually inevitable)
>> future civility blocks will indeed be non-appealable because they are of
>> specified length as part of an Arbcom ruling. Any reversal would probably
>> mean the loss of tools — either those of the bad-blocker or the reverser,
>> based on interpretation of the specific situation at Arbitration
>> Enforcement, where the matter would inevitably go.
>>
>> Frankly, this approach would have solved the "Malleus problem" a long
>> time ago. Incivility should be a block of specified and reasonable duration
>> (viz., the one imposed on Carol Moore for her "gang bangers" rant). There
>> are offenses at Wikipedia far worse than blowing one's top and being a
>> jerk. Like systemic copyright violation. Like faking sources. Like mass
>> subtle vandalism. Like repeated insertion of libelous text into BLPs. Like
>> dramatic disruption of the project to score political points.
>>
>> Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of
>> CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.
>>
>> Tim Davenport
>> Corvallis, OR
>>
>>
>> ==Footnotes==
>>
>> [1] Yeah, I made that number up, but it's about right.
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Jim Hayes]

in re: video - addressing the video issue alone -

i think you've sailed upon the shoals of multi-media phobia
"i don't like it" = merely decorative

better to argue:
that the video, or a diagram illustrates the divergence between
sex-positive and anti-sex work feminism;
that the diagram certainly adds to your (or the reader's) understanding;
that certain reliable sources include such a diagram (so it's not original
to you)

keep in mind that one tenet of white male privilege is "5. worship of the
written word" so it is a frequent "content dispute" masking ideology.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Marie Earley  wrote:

>  Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one
> (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway
>
> Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward
>
> ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
>
> In particular this comment:
> "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision,
> *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this
> group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or
> less of a more or less radical feminist perspective"
>
> I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against.
> It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
> * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work
> is the opposite of feminism?
> Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a
> subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
>
> On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of
> feminist
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790
> and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to
> organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists",
> "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the
> list
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727
>
> The list has recently been changed to this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a
> couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
>
> I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this,
> and similar work:
> Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=633566034#Major_works
> to this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=634343909#Major_works
>
> Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist
> Economics
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economics
>  and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability
> Association
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association
> then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the
> HDCA.
> Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar
> (births).
>
> These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds
> of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object).
> The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no
> problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or
> "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly
> support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and
> homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human
> development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality
> / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic'
> (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this
> area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender
> Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this:
> http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/
> (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on
> WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
>
> Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs
> (a) Pro-sex work
> (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and
> (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV
> that dare not speak its name
> ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.
>
> I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all
> about the separation between (b) and (c)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=546995190
> 
> It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little
> sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Andreas Kolbe]

The conclusion of the case has sparked the inevitable questions on Jimmy
Wales' talk page. Current status of that Q&A session:


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=636186356#GGTF_interactions_arbcom_case_has_now_closed
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Risker]

Hmm. I look at it and think "why is the term "sex-positive" being used in
this way?" It's highly biased, and it's certainly not terminology used in
most of the world amongst those who support prostitution as a career
choice; in fact the two have nothing to do with each other.  I'd never
heard of it being used in this manner before, although I'd heard and read
the term being used in a lot of other ways - including the validation for
including sex education in the school curriculum.

Risker

On 30 November 2014 at 16:13, Jim Hayes  wrote:

> in re: video - addressing the video issue alone -
>
> i think you've sailed upon the shoals of multi-media phobia
> "i don't like it" = merely decorative
>
> better to argue:
> that the video, or a diagram illustrates the divergence between
> sex-positive and anti-sex work feminism;
> that the diagram certainly adds to your (or the reader's) understanding;
> that certain reliable sources include such a diagram (so it's not original
> to you)
>
> keep in mind that one tenet of white male privilege is "5. worship of the
> written word" so it is a frequent "content dispute" masking ideology.
>
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Marie Earley  wrote:
>
>>  Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing
>> one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway
>>
>> Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward
>>
>> ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
>>
>> In particular this comment:
>> "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision,
>> *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this
>> group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or
>> less of a more or less radical feminist perspective"
>>
>> I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against.
>> It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
>> * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work
>> is the opposite of feminism?
>> Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a
>> subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
>>
>> On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories
>> of feminist
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790
>> and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to
>> organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists",
>> "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the
>> list
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727
>>
>> The list has recently been changed to this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a
>> couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
>>
>> I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as
>> this, and similar work:
>> Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=633566034#Major_works
>> to this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=634343909#Major_works
>>
>> Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist
>> Economics
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economics
>>  and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability
>> Association
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association
>> then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the
>> HDCA.
>> Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar
>> (births).
>>
>> These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds
>> of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object).
>> The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no
>> problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or
>> "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly
>> support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and
>> homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human
>> development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality
>> / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic'
>> (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this
>> area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender
>> Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this:
>> http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/
>> (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on
>> WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
>>
>> Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs
>> (a) Pro-sex work
>> (b) Rig

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[reguyla]

Dodbot has been down for a long time. I think the only assessment bots are run 
be either anomie, magioladitis and possibly going batty.

I would suggest manually verifying the subcats before assessing. Often time the 
subcats arent intuitive.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device


-- Original message--
From: Marie Earley
Date: Sun, Nov 30, 2014 6:32 PM
To: Gender Gap;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

Thanks Sarah,

Yes, they does seem to be a lot more of it lately. I also thought that 
discussion board stuff would die down. They got their pound of flesh and now 
they seem to want blood as well.

I pretty much stayed off the boards but I was drawn in by a "Hey-let's-move-on" 
style opening post which just turned out to be a red herring.

Anyway, before all this kicked off I was looking at bots that do 
autoassessments, in particular 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DodoBot/Requests

It works like this:
* Create a page called - Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Categories
* On the page that just been created, list the sub-categories that are of 
interest to the project, e.g. the way that the Toronto project has done here, 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Toronto/Categories
* If the sub-categories have their own sub-categories, and you want to capture 
all of them then add (Depth:Inf) or to the 'depth' of sub-category that you 
want to go e.g. (Depth:2)
* You can also assign how important you want those articles in that 
sub-category to be labelled, for example Category: Gender and entertainment 
(Depth:Inf) (Importance:Mid)
- will result in all the articles in the category 'Gender and entertainment', 
and all the articles in the sub-categories (and the sub-categories of the 
sub-categories of 'Gender and entertainment' to infinity) being labelled 'mid 
importance'.

Depth explained a bit better:
* Category:Gender and entertainment
* Category:Feminism and the arts - (depth level = 1)
* Category:Feminist films - (depth level = 2)
* Category:Studio Ghibli - (depth level = 3)
* Category:Studio Ghibli animated films - (depth level = 4)

* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:2) will include all the articles in 
the categories - Gender and entertainment; Feminism and the arts; Feminist films

* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:3) will include all the articles in 
the categories - Gender and entertainment; Feminism and the arts; Feminist 
films AND Studio Ghibli

* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:Inf) will include all the articles 
in the category - Gender and entertainment AND all the lower levels, including 
any new sub-categories created for the Category:Studio Ghibli animated films or 
lower, such as Category:Studio Ghibli animated films X (depth level = 5), 
Category:Studio Ghibli animated films X1 (depth level = 6) ... etc. to an 
infinite depth.

But before you can do any of that you have to get consensus from the project 
participants on the categories that you want labelling Top, Mid, Low 
importance. That's the tricky bit.

I don't mind setting up the page and creating a provisional list probably based 
on existing assessments, but then it will have to go to discussion.

Marie

 
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 14:32:17 -0700
From: slimvir...@gmail.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Marie Earley  wrote:
In answer to your other questions:
* Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending 
it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list?
- Please explain why you think it isn't relevant, since the opening link in my 
last post (and given again above) is to GGTF's talk page?
* [Explain] why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia 
gender gap community as a whole?
- Because it it provides a telling snap-shop

Marie

 

​Hi Marie, your post was interesting and on-topic. Please don't be discouraged 
from letting us know about these issues. They have been happening a lot and 
seem to be increasing.

Sarah​


___ 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