I actually didn't read the first few
posts because of the misspelling ;-)
But when I read in the telegraph article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7883064/MPs-scandals-covered-up-on-Wikipedia.html
*He's used multiple accounts
*Very interested in bondage
*Can be hostile to other users
I began to wonder if he was the editor who was so hostile to me in
early 2011 when someone brought me to WP:COIN on a completely
different issue. I got so annoyed at the hounding and nitpicking
defacto attacks from this editor whom I'd never run into before
that I went to his contributions page to see what his POV was. I
saw articles all of women bondage related and then asked on his
talk page if abusing women was how he got his jollies - this got
me blocked for the first time. There was a big WP:ANI brouhaha
whose details I won't go into, but he did stop editing completely
at that point. Which makes me wonder if it was a sock who felt
too much attention had been brought to him.
So if it IS the same individual, I certainly would understand the
decision... Power corrupts, even in Wikipedia. So it's good to
"impeach" the powerful from time to time to keep them all on their
best behavior. (I'll have to check WP:ANI and see why my biggest
nemesis Admin hasn't posted in two months, since we last had a
policy dispute on an article, his last series of edits. Maybe I
missed something. Some one else high profile who had a nice long
block a few years back that did somewhat improve his behavior,
though he started getting worse again lately.)
CM:
PS: Just about ready to put my Wikimania 2012 blog report on my
blog, but it might be too POV to "promote or advertise" among
wikipedians. Comments on a number of Wiki issues, and my own
naughtiness here and there, so guess I should just let people
chance upon it... :-)
Only one issue that was important enough to bring to a policy talk
page as a question, with one response so far.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:What_is_Wikisource%3F#.22WikisourceLeaks.22
Ah the things women and feminists could leak from the places of
power they need leaking from... sigh...
On 8/1/2012 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
In my opinion, it's very much within the remit of this
list to share anything that creates an environment that is not
welcoming to new contributors. It doesn't need to be proven every
time, as far as I'm concerned, that women are disproportionately
affected, for a topic to be germane to this list.
In this case, I consider it highly relevant information,
considering that someone in a position of trust in our community
(chair of the UK board) was found by English Wikipedia's highest
authority:
* (unanimously) to have violated important policies meant to
protect the health of the community (failing to disclose
information about his past accounts that he was required to
disclose)
* (by a slim majority) to have made "unacceptable personal
attacks"
* (unanimously) to have made "ad hominem attacks to discredit
others"
* to have "attempted to deceive the community" on more than
one count
* was banned (indefinitely, with opportunity for appeal
starting in 1 year) from editing the encyclopedia
I am aware that this person has made a number of high quality
contributions to our site, and is well respected for much of his
work, and do not discount that in any way. But the fact that he
would continue in a position of trust, as chair of the Board of
the UK Wikimedia chapter, in light of these findings, is
distressing to me. It seems to me that he, and the board that is
supporting him (I'm unclear whether it's the UK or WMF board) is
choosing to place his personal status above the interests of the
movement, and choosing to accept the consequences of a story
like this, which in my view will surely tend to discourage
people from participating in the Wikimedia movement.
I don't carry any ill will toward this person, or wish to
deny his efforts to continue to contribute to our projects. But
it does distress me that he would continue to carry a Wikimedia
business card, and represent our movement in a high-profile
position of trust, in light of these findings.
And I'm glad to have information about something like this
posted on a list dedicated to the removal of barriers to
participation.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Laura
Hale
<laura@fanhistory.com>
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM,
Risker
<risker.wp@gmail.com>
wrote:
I have to be honest here, I'm not really certain what
this thread has to do with the gender gap. It just
feels more like gossip than anything, particularly as
a significant portion of the reporting either (a) has
nothing to do with the purported subject of the
articles and/or (b) is inaccurate.
Risker/Anne
This. No one has provided any solid evidence of a
connection between the limited presence of a few
pornographic pictures on Wikipedia and the gendergap. At
best, the gender gap story here would be: This sort of story
discourages women from becoming involved.
--
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com