This seems more about Neotarf's personal ban more than anything else.
Looking at the arbcom findings of fact (which I won't quote here), it
doesn't look like the ban was related to the gender gap on Wikipedia as
much as behaviour displayed towards other editors.
Maybe it would be better for the mailing list if we stopped talking about
this? Just a suggestion.
On 15 Jul 2017 8:20 PM, "Nathan" <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I believe because the ArbCom case regards the 'Gender Gap Task Force'
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:24 PM, JJ Marr <jjmarr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia
again?
On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf" <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded. I appreciate them taking
time to review these concerns.
>>your best course of action is to discuss
the PII situation with WMF
Legal.
Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time
ago
>>a few other remedies which could come into
play, but they would almost
certainly take longer and be more politically
problematic than a minimal
intervention
If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it. If this can happen to
me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.
The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
to. But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
community, and that the community process is failing? The arbitration
committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
the arbcom and the community process can not?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately I don't think there is much
more I can do here. Based on
what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the
PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could
come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
interpretation of its privacy policy.
Pine
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The privacy policy as written certainly leads
users to expect their PII
is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
should just be removed. That's just basic safety. Maybe they are not
allowed to go against arbitrators I also don't understand why arbitrators
would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this,
but unfortunately I'm
already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
themselves.
For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have
significantly more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be
issuing monthly or quarterly reports about its activities, but
realistically the current setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable
future.
Pine
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit: