On 7/19/2013 2:31 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
That's an incredibly extreme interpretation of it.
If one has led an incredibly sheltered life, it might seem so. But in
the real world today...
And it only takes 1 out of 20 users getting their jollies from it to
lead to 1 out of 5 of them acting out on it - so you are encouraging 1%
of editors to be sexual harassers. (Or maybe 4 or 5%?) Now how many
thousands of editors is that? So every time an editor thinks twice and
does NOT make a post that can be misinterpreted, it lessens the chance
of giving that 1% "permission" to act out.
Again, talking about possible double standards as to what is considered
"untoward".
The one time I got blocked it was because (after incredible harassment
on one article for sticking to policy when several editors were pushing
OR) I lost my temper at another editor who was giving me a hard time at
a noticeboard thread about the topic. I asked at his/her user page if
the fact that s/he was being so aggressive with me was related to the
fact most of the articles s/he dealt with were related to various forms
of women in bondage. (I also posted it on the feminism
wikia.com which I
incorrectly thought was part of wikipedia; this was pre-Gender gap
activism. The editor soon quit Wikipedia claiming something like it was
not a safe place to edit.)
When s/he complained at ANI, did an admin just pooh pooh it as no big
deal? As the editor having an extreme interpretation of what is a
personal attack? Or did I get a six month block?
.
.
.
I won't keep you guessing; a six month block brought down to one week
after I realized that asking questions based on editing habits was not
right and apologized. Plus a bunch of editors said the fact I was being
harassed and Wikiquette complaints had not stopped it were mitigating
circumstances.
However, in a 30-40% women wikipedia world the harassment might have
ended sooner - and it might not be considered untoward to ask that
editor what the heck s/he was up to and ask for opinions here...
CM