Well, here's the issue.  It's never been clear to me whether this is a WMF-wide issue or it's an English Wikipedia specific issue.  The overwhelming majority of people participating on this list work almost exclusively on enwiki, and almost every single experience discussed here involves enwiki.
 
As important as we all know English Wikipedia to be (if nothing else, it's the fundraising driver from which the bulk of donations derives), it's also only one of hundreds of projects.  There are issues with the Board micromanaging a single project directly, and pretty serious issues when the Board tries to fix a problem on one project by creating a global policy or rule that may actually be counterproductive in other areas.  (And as we can see from the obtuseness that Commons shows about such issues as personality rights - a major gendergap issue in my mind - even when the Board does try to intervene, it's often ineffective.)
 
Risker/Anne
 


 
On 3 July 2014 14:58, Leigh Honeywell <leigh@hypatia.ca> wrote:
The more I hear about this, the more I think this is something that
WMF needs to address at an institutional level (Board etc.) to resolve
these process issues and loopholes. Has this ever been taken "up the
chain"?

-Leigh

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You know, I sat on Arbcom for five years, and there were several occasions
>> when I practically begged those complaining about the behaviour of certain
>> individuals to initiate a case....but nobody wanted to do that...
>
>
> Well, you know I did actually take one of the worst misogynists on en.wiki
> to ArbCom,[1] and it was such a horrible experience that I decided to never
> do it again. After giving up a month of my life to the case and enduring
> constant harassment during the process, all of the evidence that I
> painstakingly assembled, presented, and defended was completely ignored by
> ArbCom, and instead he was banned for a year for making a legal threat. He
> is now free to return on the condition that he simply agrees not to make any
> more legal threats. You were actually on that ArbCom panel, Risker, so I
> don't really understand your argument that taking incivil editors to ArbCom
> is a good idea. To me it is worse than a waste of effort, it is actually
> counterproductive and an invitation to be relentlessly harassed.
>
> 1.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair_Haines_2&oldid=360884518
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>



--
Leigh Honeywell
http://hypatia.ca
@hypatiadotca

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