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
listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap