Im sorry if its not happening fast enough for you.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------
From: Risker
Date: Fri, Dec 12, 2014 3:03 PM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries
More likely, it is the fact that none of the moderators happen to be online right now. If you want to leave the list, as is your stated intention, you can go to your own Mailman preferences and decide which lists to unsubscribe without waiting for a moderator.
Risker
On 12 December 2014 at 14:49, Reguyla <reguyla(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, its also possible that whomever is removing me from the list, doesn't agree that I am a problem. Its funny that the people who want me off the list are or were members of the Arbcom I have often criticized as being self serving and problematic.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Kumioko, you can change your gmail preferences to have this list automatically dump to spam if you're not getting a fast enough response to your "unsubscribe".
Risker
On 12 December 2014 at 14:43, Reguyla <reguyla(a)gmail.com> wrote:
While I am waiting for the email confirmation disenrolling me from this email list, I think this is only going to work if:
1) Someone establishes some metric for determining if the training is helping
2) If there is some teeth to failure to adhere to the training once its been taken. If the WMF has no intention of dealing with admins who continue to violate policy, then there is no reason to force them to take the training.
3) The training is also taken by editors. The majority of the problems come from the editors so they should also have some need to take the training
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Siko Bouterse <sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Along similar lines, this pilot training has been suggested for admins:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Gender-gap_admin_training
And The Ada Initiative said they were interested in providing training for such a pilot. WMF grantmakers like myself would be pleased to see something like this develop into a proposal, if folks felt it was worth trying.
It might make sense to pilot at the admin level before focusing on functionaries like stewards, because admins have more day-to-day interactions with individual editors (and thus more opportunities to facilitate an on-wiki environment that supports diversity).
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Reguyla <reguyla(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think this might be a good idea but it would be pretty hard to implement and I think, unnecessary. Most of the functionaries got to where they are because they have a calm demeanor and generally are fair in how they treat others. Additionally, its not usually the functionaries who are the problem. So without requiring the editors to perform the diversity training, I'm not sure how much it would help.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Don't know if this has been floated before - apologies if so - but:
Part of the problem we have is the sheer depth of ignorance among otherwise well-intentioned community members.
This depth of ignorance is naturally shared by the people who play leadership roles in the community. So we end up with stewards, arbitrators and bureaucrats who potentially end up reinforcing the gender gap problem because they just have no clue how the structure they maintain can sometimes be a tool to exclude people.
How about offering some form of diversity training to functionaries to help broaden perspectives and raise understanding? Obviously, from the point of view of supporting them to do their difficult and fairly thankless roles better, rather than beating them with diversity sticks.
It could happen (indeed, WMF could make it happen with some volunteer input); could it help?
Chris
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Siko Bouterse
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
Donate or click the "edit" button today, and help us make it a reality!
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commi…
Is a comment by an Arbitrator about things written last month or so
here, none by me, they don't like.
Thinks it's necessary "the moderators get a grip on some of the things
being said there." (Moderator comments welcome here for guidance.)
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-November/004930.html
"a posting about legal repercussions"
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005008.html
"suggesting doxxing/opposition research"
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005068.html
"plans" to
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005079.html "block
vote at ArbCom elections with new editors recruited at editathons."
(actually just a suggestion by an annoyed editor)
Hopefully they aren't proposing a standard tougher than than on all the
other mailing lists, none of which I personally belong to.
CM
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carolmooredc
After adding links to the Slate article to Carol's talk page, the page
has now been protected against all edits apart from sysops. In my
view, the gradual change over the last two years to seeing the edit
rights of banned users changed so they can no longer discuss their ban
or related issues, is a poor move for openness of the project, and a
distinct lack of belief in reform or the ability of the project to
welcome back past banned or blocked users.
This case is doubly offensive as now nobody can use Carol's talk page
to ask about the ban or develop evidence that might help with an unban
request.
I have raised a polite request with the admin that took this action at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ricky81682#User_talk:Carolmooredc>,
should this fail, then I can escalate to have this reviewed at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection>.
If anyone on this list would like to support removing the edit block
on Carol's page, now is the time to make yourself heard on-wiki.
Thanks,
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
I totally agree with that statement. In the old days bans were done to protect the project from harm, but more and more they are done as a punishment (which is supposedly counter to the rules) or to protect a popular point of view. The end result is bans do more harm to the project than they prevent. They only affect those that want to obey them and are easily ignored.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------
From: Fæ
Date: Fri, Dec 12, 2014 5:52 AM
To: GenderGap;
Subject:[Gendergap] Carolmooredc's talk page now made uneditable
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carolmooredc
After adding links to the Slate article to Carol's talk page, the page
has now been protected against all edits apart from sysops. In my
view, the gradual change over the last two years to seeing the edit
rights of banned users changed so they can no longer discuss their ban
or related issues, is a poor move for openness of the project, and a
distinct lack of belief in reform or the ability of the project to
welcome back past banned or blocked users.
This case is doubly offensive as now nobody can use Carol's talk page
to ask about the ban or develop evidence that might help with an unban
request.
I have raised a polite request with the admin that took this action at
,
should this fail, then I can escalate to have this reviewed at
.
If anyone on this list would like to support removing the edit block
on Carol's page, now is the time to make yourself heard on-wiki.
Thanks,
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I agree, i pretty much knew that the ggtf stuff wkuld hitbthe news somewhere.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------
From: Carol Moore dc
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 9:01 PM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] ya'll are in slate
On 12/11/2014 6:13 PM, Risker wrote:
> Well, I suppose the Arbitration Committee will now figure out why I
> thought the case name should be changed.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
The name is accurate. It was the interactions at GGTF that started the
hullabaloo. The Arbitration committee was coming out against it until
someone brought SPECIFICO's harassment of me to ANI, several GGTF people
got up to document/complain about it happening at GGTF, and SPECIFICO
got interaction banned.
At that point Sitush went crazy, screaming about outing and researching
me, site banning me, writing the bio, which ended up with and Misc for
Deletion and an ANI.
Suddenly Arbitration comittee decided "GGTF" was important enough.
Like Sitush, did enough Arbitrators think these WOMEN (and their
supporters) were getting just TOO uppity and getting males in trouble
for their mere boys will be boys (harassment) behavior?
Remember a couple of them were convinced by some liars that GGTF was
strongly behind the proposal that a woman's edits only could be reverted
by TWO male editors? It took several people with diffs to disabuse them
of that notion!!!
So this really was very much about GGTF and interactions there.
CM
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I dont disagree that there was some bad behavior, but i didnt see anything ban worthy. I do disagree that the case had nothing to do with ggtf though.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------
From: Risker
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 10:11 PM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] ya'll are in slate
Well perhaps it would have made the news. Or perhaps the author was priming the pump for the GamerGate arbitration case, with which his name is closely associated. Or perhaps it's just coincidence that someone who has a platform also happens to be watching the arbitration committee at this particular time and commented on the case that just happened to close at the same time.
I disagree, however, that it was ever about the GGTF. This was a pretty simple behaviour case and the behaviours submitted in evidence and obviously considered by Arbcom went far beyond the GGTF, in the case of pretty well everyone involved. It didn't take me long into my first term as an arbitrator to realise that if an editor behaved problematically in one venue, they were pretty much always behaving problematically in other venues; in other words, the locus of the dispute was almost never a key factor, it was the behaviour.
If people on this list insist that it really was all about the GGTF, then the fact that the behaviours that resulted in the most significant sanctions were all pointed at people who had a longer history of activity at the GGTF than those who had a short history may be telling a truth that many are reluctant to hear.
Risker/Anne
On 11 December 2014 at 21:58, reguyla(a)gmail.com <reguyla(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I agree, i pretty much knew that the ggtf stuff wkuld hitbthe news somewhere.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------
From: Carol Moore dc
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 9:01 PM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] ya'll are in slate
On 12/11/2014 6:13 PM, Risker wrote:
> Well, I suppose the Arbitration Committee will now figure out why I
> thought the case name should be changed.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
The name is accurate. It was the interactions at GGTF that started the
hullabaloo. The Arbitration committee was coming out against it until
someone brought SPECIFICO's harassment of me to ANI, several GGTF people
got up to document/complain about it happening at GGTF, and SPECIFICO
got interaction banned.
At that point Sitush went crazy, screaming about outing and researching
me, site banning me, writing the bio, which ended up with and Misc for
Deletion and an ANI.
Suddenly Arbitration comittee decided "GGTF" was important enough.
Like Sitush, did enough Arbitrators think these WOMEN (and their
supporters) were getting just TOO uppity and getting males in trouble
for their mere boys will be boys (harassment) behavior?
Remember a couple of them were convinced by some liars that GGTF was
strongly behind the proposal that a woman's edits only could be reverted
by TWO male editors? It took several people with diffs to disabuse them
of that notion!!!
So this really was very much about GGTF and interactions there.
CM
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Sorry about the health issues and i have also removedvmyself from that other list.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------
From: Kevin Gorman
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 2:07 PM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] Google Group invite
Sorry for not letting your message through sooner Russavia, for some reason it didn't show up in the queue until today (the queue was completely empty yesterday.) You aren't on +mod over this, though I'd have to look back to remember why you were (and I'd be surprised if we didn't tell you at the time.)
FWIW: I know who set up the list and it wasn't Russavia and wasn't anyone with an interest in gendergap issues. I've been having major health issues and know I'm not on the ball on this one, but would advise not engaging with anyone affiliated with the alternate list. The group that created it is a group that has harrassed ENWP editors irl in serious ways in the past and present.
----
Kevin Gorman
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks to those who have sent me the info on the list. I've reported
it for "spam" and "other" -- unfortunately Google doesn't appear to
let you add any comments.
If anyone is still a member of the list and they make the membership
list available check to see if this "Russavia" is
russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com
All I am seeing there is:
"You must be a member of this group to view and participate in it.
Apply for membership or contact the owner.
Report this group"
Also, I've left a message for Leigh over on Meta at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leigh_Honeywell#Gender_gap_mailin…
noting also that I am on moderation on this list. I don't know who did
that or why, I wasn't advised about it, but if it was due to this case
it'd be great to have that lifted as well.
Thanks.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Marie Earley <eiryel(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I got one and thought, "Wait a minute, doesn't that get you into trouble?"
> I've unsubscribed too. If I was ever going to burn my bridges I would do it
> in a more considered and constructive way than something like that.
>
> Marie
>
> ________________________________
> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 02:21:35 -0500
> From: risker.wp(a)gmail.com
> To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Google Group invite
>
> I got one and promptly unsubscribed. I don't do google groups, and every
> time someone has invited me to one, I've found they were not to my taste.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 1 December 2014 at 02:08, Alison Cassidy <cooties(a)mac.com> wrote:
>
> I didn't get one. Now, I feel .... cheated! :D
>
> -- Allie
>
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Leigh Honeywell <leigh(a)hypatia.ca> wrote:
>
> Someone purporting to be Russavia appears to have added a number of people
> from this list to a Google Group with a similar title to this list. Wearing
> my mod hat, I just want to be clear: this list isn't going anywhere, the
> Google Group is not WMF-sanctioned as far as I know, and scraping list
> members to add people to a third-party mailing list is terrible netiquette
> that will get you kicked off this list.
>
> -Leigh
>
>
>
> --
> Leigh Honeywell
> http://hypatia.ca
> @hypatiadotca
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap