The only solution would be lack of anonymity. That won't fly, but it would
cause the creepiness to go away.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:42 AM, JJ Marr <jjmarr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you propose a "take back the night" would be like?
> On Nov 30, 2014 8:12 AM, "Kathleen McCook" <klmccook(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and
>> ensuring their POV dominates.
>>
>> The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems
>> to be to create an environment where women are "free" to be what they (the
>> men discussed here ) imagine to us to be.
>>
>> I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's
>> main course are the result of continuous attacks.
>>
>> Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus
>> women attacked were told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began
>> to TAKE BACK THE NIGHT.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr <jjmarr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I
>>> dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add
>>> informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article
>>> as pictures and videos often are?” I ask why don't you take that dispute up
>>> with the editor in question?
>>>
>>> Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no
>>> context to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content
>>> dispute.
>>>
>>> Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are
>>> sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly,
>>> why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender
>>> gap community as a whole.
>>> On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley" <eiryel(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing
>>>> one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway....
>>>>
>>>> Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemi…
>>>>
>>>> ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
>>>>
>>>> In particular this comment:
>>>> "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision,
>>>> *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this
>>>> group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or
>>>> less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...."
>>>>
>>>> I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up
>>>> against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
>>>> * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex
>>>> work is the opposite of feminism?
>>>> Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a
>>>> subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
>>>>
>>>> On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories
>>>> of feminist
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790
>>>> and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to
>>>> organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists",
>>>> "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the
>>>> list
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727
>>>>
>>>> The list has recently been changed to this:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a
>>>> couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
>>>>
>>>> I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as
>>>> this, and similar work:
>>>> Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63356603…
>>>> to this:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63434390…
>>>>
>>>> Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist
>>>> Economics
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Econom…
>>>> and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability
>>>> Association
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association
>>>> then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of
>>>> the HDCA.
>>>> Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar
>>>> (births).
>>>>
>>>> These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the
>>>> grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing /
>>>> object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have
>>>> no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad"
>>>> or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly
>>>> support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and
>>>> homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human
>>>> development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality
>>>> / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic'
>>>> (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this
>>>> area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender
>>>> Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this:
>>>> http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorsh…
>>>> (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on
>>>> WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
>>>>
>>>> Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs
>>>> (a) Pro-sex work
>>>> (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and
>>>> (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV
>>>> that dare not speak its name
>>>> ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.
>>>>
>>>> I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is
>>>> all about the separation between (b) and (c)
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=546995190
>>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Feminist_sex_wars.ogv>
>>>> It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little
>>>> sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that
>>>> it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational
>>>> value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures
>>>> and videos often are?
>>>>
>>>> As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob
>>>> can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on,
>>>> obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by
>>>> editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism,
>>>> who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to
>>>> do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is
>>>> separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say
>>>> that the term is used by both (a) and (c),
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're
>>>> not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) -
>>>> and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is
>>>> (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b)
>>>> and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the
>>>> article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is
>>>> just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to
>>>> group (a) than any other group of feminists'.
>>>>
>>>> This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do
>>>> think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either
>>>> unaware or a bit *naïve* when it comes the antics of the people that
>>>> we are talking about. It is also *naïve* to think that they are not
>>>> co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki.
>>>>
>>>> Marie
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway....
Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemi…
...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
In particular this comment:
"...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, repeatedly, there is some question as to exactly which
women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether
it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...."
I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
* Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work is the opposite of feminism?
Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790 and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727
The list has recently been changed to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work:
Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63356603… to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63434390…
Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Econom…
and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association
then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA.
Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births).
These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorsh… (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs
(a) Pro-sex work
(b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and
(c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV that dare not speak its name
... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.
I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all about the separation between (b) and (c) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=546995190
It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?
As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as well.
It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the term is used by both (a) and (c), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to group (a) than any other group of feminists'.
This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either unaware or a bit naïve when it comes the antics of the people that we are talking about. It is also naïve to think that they are not co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki.
Marie
Dodbot has been down for a long time. I think the only assessment bots are run be either anomie, magioladitis and possibly going batty.
I would suggest manually verifying the subcats before assessing. Often time the subcats arent intuitive.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------
From: Marie Earley
Date: Sun, Nov 30, 2014 6:32 PM
To: Gender Gap;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
Thanks Sarah,
Yes, they does seem to be a lot more of it lately. I also thought that discussion board stuff would die down. They got their pound of flesh and now they seem to want blood as well.
I pretty much stayed off the boards but I was drawn in by a "Hey-let's-move-on" style opening post which just turned out to be a red herring.
Anyway, before all this kicked off I was looking at bots that do autoassessments, in particular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DodoBot/Requests
It works like this:
* Create a page called - Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Categories
* On the page that just been created, list the sub-categories that are of interest to the project, e.g. the way that the Toronto project has done here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Toronto/Categories
* If the sub-categories have their own sub-categories, and you want to capture all of them then add (Depth:Inf) or to the 'depth' of sub-category that you want to go e.g. (Depth:2)
* You can also assign how important you want those articles in that sub-category to be labelled, for example Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:Inf) (Importance:Mid)
- will result in all the articles in the category 'Gender and entertainment', and all the articles in the sub-categories (and the sub-categories of the sub-categories of 'Gender and entertainment' to infinity) being labelled 'mid importance'.
Depth explained a bit better:
* Category:Gender and entertainment
* Category:Feminism and the arts - (depth level = 1)
* Category:Feminist films - (depth level = 2)
* Category:Studio Ghibli - (depth level = 3)
* Category:Studio Ghibli animated films - (depth level = 4)
* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:2) will include all the articles in the categories - Gender and entertainment; Feminism and the arts; Feminist films
* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:3) will include all the articles in the categories - Gender and entertainment; Feminism and the arts; Feminist films AND Studio Ghibli
* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:Inf) will include all the articles in the category - Gender and entertainment AND all the lower levels, including any new sub-categories created for the Category:Studio Ghibli animated films or lower, such as Category:Studio Ghibli animated films X (depth level = 5), Category:Studio Ghibli animated films X1 (depth level = 6) ... etc. to an infinite depth.
But before you can do any of that you have to get consensus from the project participants on the categories that you want labelling Top, Mid, Low importance. That's the tricky bit.
I don't mind setting up the page and creating a provisional list probably based on existing assessments, but then it will have to go to discussion.
Marie
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 14:32:17 -0700
From: slimvirgin(a)gmail.com
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Marie Earley <eiryel(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
In answer to your other questions:
* Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list?
- Please explain why you think it isn't relevant, since the opening link in my last post (and given again above) is to GGTF's talk page?
* [Explain] why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole?
- Because it it provides a telling snap-shop
Marie
Hi Marie, your post was interesting and on-topic. Please don't be discouraged from letting us know about these issues. They have been happening a lot and seem to be increasing.
Sarah
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and
ensuring their POV dominates.
The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems
to be to create an environment where women are "free" to be what they (the
men discussed here ) imagine to us to be.
I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's main
course are the result of continuous attacks.
Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus women
attacked were told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began to TAKE
BACK THE NIGHT.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr <jjmarr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I
> dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add
> informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article
> as pictures and videos often are?” I ask why don't you take that dispute up
> with the editor in question?
>
> Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no context
> to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content dispute.
>
> Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are
> sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly,
> why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender
> gap community as a whole.
> On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley" <eiryel(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing
>> one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway....
>>
>> Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemi…
>>
>> ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
>>
>> In particular this comment:
>> "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision,
>> *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this
>> group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or
>> less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...."
>>
>> I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against.
>> It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
>> * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work
>> is the opposite of feminism?
>> Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a
>> subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
>>
>> On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories
>> of feminist
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790
>> and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to
>> organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists",
>> "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the
>> list
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727
>>
>> The list has recently been changed to this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a
>> couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
>>
>> I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as
>> this, and similar work:
>> Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63356603…
>> to this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63434390…
>>
>> Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist
>> Economics
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Econom…
>> and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability
>> Association
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association
>> then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the
>> HDCA.
>> Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar
>> (births).
>>
>> These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds
>> of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object).
>> The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no
>> problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or
>> "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly
>> support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and
>> homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human
>> development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality
>> / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic'
>> (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this
>> area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender
>> Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this:
>> http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorsh…
>> (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on
>> WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
>>
>> Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs
>> (a) Pro-sex work
>> (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and
>> (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV
>> that dare not speak its name
>> ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.
>>
>> I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all
>> about the separation between (b) and (c)
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=546995190
>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Feminist_sex_wars.ogv>
>> It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little
>> sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that
>> it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational
>> value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures
>> and videos often are?
>>
>> As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob
>> can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on,
>> obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by
>> editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism,
>> who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to
>> do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as
>> well.
>>
>> It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate
>> to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the
>> term is used by both (a) and (c),
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're
>> not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) -
>> and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is
>> (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b)
>> and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the
>> article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is
>> just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to
>> group (a) than any other group of feminists'.
>>
>> This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do think
>> that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either unaware
>> or a bit *naïve* when it comes the antics of the people that we are
>> talking about. It is also *naïve* to think that they are not
>> co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki.
>>
>> Marie
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incid…
After multiple complaints by other editors about this, I decided to
bring an ANI. It might not be the best constructed one possible. And
maybe I'm not the best person to do it, being a little "too" outspoken
(I even make jokes!) and "controversial" with too many enemies (guys who
don't like women who stick to their opinions on hot topics?)
But the project is so disrupted I cannot even put up the resources page
because I know that it will be gutted down to zilch by one editor
especially if I do. (He's been wikihounding me and reverting me for over
a year and multiple complaints have come to naught.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carolmooredc/My_Sandbox_1
The community has to face the fact that this is the only Wikiproject
under attack.
Like I said, other projects don't permit it.
Can you imagine if it were permitted on the Palestine or Israel
wikiprojects and they were going at each other? Or the Christian and
LGBT? Absurd...
At least Mr. Wales agrees... sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#WP:ANI_on_.E2.80.9Cdisr…
CM
>>Kevin Gorman: "It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks.
I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's
certainly
a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with
essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the
participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing."
It bears repeating that what is a "severe gendered slur" in America is
approximately 83.6% less potent as a generalized term of abuse in the UK
and Australia.[1] I'm not going to defend Eric using the word "cunt,"
however, he's well aware that he's in the metaphorical room with Americans
and if he directs that word towards anyone again there will be
repercussions beyond the usual wheel-warring and melodramatic debate...
That's not the point I wish to make. Mr. Corbett's (virtually inevitable)
future civility blocks will indeed be non-appealable because they are of
specified length as part of an Arbcom ruling. Any reversal would probably
mean the loss of tools — either those of the bad-blocker or the reverser,
based on interpretation of the specific situation at Arbitration
Enforcement, where the matter would inevitably go.
Frankly, this approach would have solved the "Malleus problem" a long time
ago. Incivility should be a block of specified and reasonable duration
(viz., the one imposed on Carol Moore for her "gang bangers" rant). There
are offenses at Wikipedia far worse than blowing one's top and being a
jerk. Like systemic copyright violation. Like faking sources. Like mass
subtle vandalism. Like repeated insertion of libelous text into BLPs. Like
dramatic disruption of the project to score political points.
Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of
CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.
Tim Davenport
Corvallis, OR
==Footnotes==
[1] Yeah, I made that number up, but it's about right.
At the end of this discussion is the query:
> we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey.
> We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but
> no data.
>
> What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this
> survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after
> the survey ran?
>
>
Are there any results at all? Is a copy of the survey available?
--Thank you, Kathleen McCook
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:07 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On the plus side, discretionary sanctions...
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 26, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> But thank you for the good comments below mine, but must reply to your
>> introductory remarks...
>>
>> On 11/26/2014 9:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> That's a slightly simplistic summary, eliding the fact that Eric C. is
>> also very often non-toxic, and has a long history of collaborating in a
>> very professional and respectful manner with many diverse women editors to
>> bring a large number of articles to good or featured status.
>>
>> **He still disrupted the GGTF with his friends in order to stop it having
>> an influencing in increasing civility or harassment enforcement.
>>
>
>
> That's why I agree with Newyorkbrad that he should be topic-banned from
> the GGTF pages. But really, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of
> this, on-wiki is not the right place, as it is with so many of these
> issues. The signal-to-noise ratio is appalling, and the end result is a
> waste of time.
>
>
>
>> A good number of those women spoke up for him on the Proposed Decision
>> talk page. And even more women took issue with the way the gender gap is
>> often framed here.
>>
>> *Women editors will have different views, but if the main reason they
>> come is to support one or more males who call women cunts,
>>
>
>
> He didn't. I won't get into that whole long discussion here; all I had to
> say about this is on the proposed decision talk page, and anyone who is
> interested can read it up there.
>
>
>
>> sorry if they don't have much credibility.
>>
>
>
>> By here you mean this email list or GGTF? If you study the GGTF timeline
>> and archives you'll see that some of the most rediculous proposals were
>> made by males and rejected, but thrown up as "typical" of what GGTF wanted;
>> there were three editors there just to harass two women editors; the
>> opponents kept knocking the project and everything said by good faith
>> participants to the point supporters either stopped commenting or got angry
>> and told them to quit it - over and over again.
>>
>
>
> I meant both here and at the GGTF. If you have a number of very capable
> women contributors – people who actually have contributed significant
> amounts of quality content – saying that they can't identify with the way
> the issue is being framed by the Foundation and those spearheading the
> gender gap effort, then not listening and entering a dialogue with those
> people is a missed opportunity.
>
>
>
>> Note also that when Eric spoke of alienating male contributors, this
>> was in the specific context of affirmative actions (which even those
>> proposing them warned carried a risk of provoking a backlash). Two
>> arbitrators had the decency to oppose that finding of fact based on the
>> omission of that context.
>>
>> *Yeah, a male came up with a proposal that two males had to OK and revert
>> of an (alleged) female editor. That didn't fly, but we kept hearing about
>> it and had to thrash the arbitrators with diffs til they realized it was a
>> strawman pushed by Corbett and crew. You didn't get the memo?
>>
>> But the good news is if Corbett does it again, he's in trouble. I have
>> predicted from the start I (and later Neotarf) would be the sacrificial
>> lambs offered up to keep Corbett's supporters from going crazy if even the
>> mildest of sanctions was imposed. (I've heard that ast time Corbett got a
>> strong sanction several high profile admins quit, started petitions, all
>> sorts of shenanigans to disrupt the project.) I still think that is so and
>> told them so....
>>
>
>
> I am a supporter of both Eric and you, inasmuch as you're both spirited
> people and I didn't wish to see either of you site-banned.
>
> The whole thing is quite a spectacular breakdown in communication. The
> term "Arbitration Committee" is really an egregious misnomer. They never
> actually arbitrate: all they do is punish.
>
> If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
>
> Commiserations.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
>
>>
>> I'm using the meme "INSTITUTIONALIZED HARASSMENT AT WIKIPEDIA" - feel
>> free to quote me...
>>
>> CM
>> _____________
>>
>>
>>
>> I do think the arbitrators should revisit Newyorkbrad's idea of a GGTF
>> topic ban for Eric. (Generally, Newyorkbrad's comments in this case were
>> spot-on for me throughout.) I did find some of Eric's contributions to the
>> GGTF pages were excessively argumentative and confrontational, and not
>> helpful. But I am very glad he is not getting banned.
>>
>> I do regret seeing the ban for Carol pass.
>>
>> Again, I would encourage people to set up their own Gendergap
>> discussion site and blog off-wiki ... and also to listen to those women who
>> spoke up in the case who feel that the current framing of the Gendergap
>> issue does not represent them.
>>
>> And since I am posting here, let me remind everyone again that
>>
>> we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor
>> survey. We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on
>> this, but no data.
>>
>> What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this
>> survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after
>> the survey ran?
>>
>> It should be a really easy question to answer: x% female, y% male.
>>
>> Best,
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>>Kevin Gorman wrote: "The case is ending with banning a bunch of women
with flimsy excuses.."
That's a gross misrepresentation of the case outcome.
The case is ending with Carol Moore being banned off for reasons which
should be obvious to anyone reading through the case documentation and
knowing of her previous case before this Arbcom.
Neotarf (who has made it clear that they have never identified as male or
female) is being topic-banned from participating in the GGTF.
Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable civility
blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
Sitush has been warned for his creation of a Carol Moore biography.
That's pretty much it.
No "bunch of women" being singled out and stricken for no reason. A couple
people judged to be disruptionists are being shown the door. The summary
Kevin makes is ridiculous.
Tim Davenport
Corvallis, OR
This is what is about to happen at the English Wikipedia ArbCom re
disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force:
*Five men and two women were involved parties in the case.
*One women is about to be site banned.
*The other woman is about to be topic banned from the GGTF.
*All five men are going to be free to edit.
It is noteworthy, IMO, that only 1 of the 12 arbitrators is a woman
(GorillaWarfare, bless her, who is not for giving WP's #1 trouble-maker,
Eric Corbet, yet *another* chance). Here is a link to the Proposed decision
page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Ga…
And to the talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gend…
Lightbreather