I placed an ANI about the Voice for Men article and the subsequent comments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_m…
The result being:
"We cannot take action for off-Wiki discussions
like this. However, an "announcement" on WP:AN about something like this would
have been a wise idead instead of ANI (but we all know now) - that we we can keep an eye
on things. Attacking Wikipedia would be a detriment to their cause - so is potentially
libelous statements about the Foundation's employees - dumb, dumb, dumb thing to do.
However, by posting about it here, they know that we know. Be vigilant :-) "
I suppose what it does mean is that if insults are hurled about female editors off-wiki we
can post announcements in WP:AN which begin,
I also had some nice posts sent to me on my talk page.
P.S. I clicked on the link for WP:AN and found this little gem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Topic_ban_proposal_for_Gibson_Fl…
Depressing but at least it's not all one-way traffic.
Marie
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:46:19 -0400
From: carolmooredc(a)verizon.net
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
Re: the below, yes, i was blocked in a
situation I thought was biased compared to other blocks I've seen.
(I didn't mention that originally it was a six month block but the
community of mostly guys thought that was grossly unfair and it
was reduced to two weeks.)
However, in general wikipedia is not half as bad as the Men's
rights site you mentioned. And in Wikipedia there are "Community
Sanctions" on too much conflict in men's rights areas. In fact we
just had some problems with an individual with that bias and he
was reminded of the sanctions and was stopped.
In general women tend to avoid a lot of issues in the larger world
because we don't like conflict. And that's understandable given
that when guys do it with each other its considered a team sport.
But when women jump in the middle, even if they know the rules
(which we don't always), they usually are going to be given a
harder time, expected to work harder and do better to get half the
respect. That's the nature of the reality we are trying to change
throughout the world and wikipedia is just one part of that larger
world.
We don't have to accept all the rules but we can't change them
unless we have some engagement. Even if the engagement is "these
rules are male-created and reflect male values/attitudes/etc. and
we want and equal say in creating the rules."
To understand Wikipedia dispute resolution you really have to
study this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Except in the worst cases of abuse, you don't need to go to ANI.
When the problem is guys ignoring you or reverting you too much or
whatever it is they are doing cause they think they can get away
with it (including if that reason is that you are female), there
are a variety of options. I've used them all at different times,
with more or less success depending on circumstances.
CM
On 7/1/2014 10:03 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
Gosh, I did make a pig's ear out of it didn't
I. I didn't realize the list had two Sarahs on it.
Third time lucky....
In a discussion about off-Wiki mentions of editors, I was
making a comparison between Carol Moore's suspension which
she mentioned here
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html
in answer to SlimVirgin (aka Sarah), in which Carol said:
"questioning behavior too aggressively off
wikipedia
evidently remains a no no. I was once blocked for a week for
asking an editor whether his overwhelming history of editing
in articles about bondage of females was related to his
obvious and annoying harassment of me on a noticeboard,
after which I mentioned the issue on the Wikia Feminism page
which I thought was a part of Wikipedia (duh). The latter
evidently was the bigger "no no"."
...and some of the stuff in an article on A Voice for Men's
website.
The third paragraph of this message
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004409.html
therefore should have read (correction in capital letters):
I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights
activists" and
got this
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorsh…
which has a comments section at the bottom with current
Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name
and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if
CAROL was suspended for her off-site comments then how is
this permissible?
And LtPowers point that Wikipedia may simply not know is
correct. Perhaps, editors just have to run the gauntlet /
try and recruit more women / be a bit more pro-active about
looking for and reporting off-wiki activities which break
the rules and not just leave it to moderators. With that in
mind I have reported the article to WP:ANI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incid…
Marie
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:31:42
-0700
From: slimvirgin(a)gmail.com
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of
Gendergap-L
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:22
PM, Jeremy Baron <jeremy(a)tuxmachine.com>
wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014 11:14 PM, "Sarah"
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Jeremy, which quote is this? I recall
someone on this list saying that someone
called Sarah was suspended (unclear what's
meant) for an off-wiki comment. (Or something
like that; I can't find the original.) I can't
think of how that might apply to me, and Sarah
Stierch has said it doesn't apply to her.
See this message from earlier on this
thread:
On Jun 29, 2014 8:30 PM Eastern,
"Marie Earley" <eiryel(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
My apologies it was Carol Moore
responding to Sarah Stierch earlier on, I
mentioned it from memory,
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html
If you follow Marie's link and then
dig up the original message quoted at the link
from "Sarah" you'll find it was SlimVirgin not
Sarah Stierch (Marie apparently misattributed).
I haven't read all the mails, just
did a bit of digging
.
Okay, thanks, Jeremy. I don't follow what it's
about, but the original comment wasn't made by
me or about me, and the comment that seemed to
be about Sarah Stierch was a misunderstanding.
_______________________________________________
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