Indeed not, and the bondage imagery the articles mention was generally from gay contexts.
However, the BLP edit mentioned in the arbitration decision (re-)inserted a link to a commercial porn site into the Karrine Steffans BLP, featuring an uncensored clip from a sex video the BLP subject had tried to suppress, and showing her having sex.
Rather unusual BLP sourcing, even for Wikipedia. Yet he defended it vigorously last summer, and only recently acknowledged that it was inappropriate.
Andreas
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
Carol- I do not think they are the same people. In fact,I am 95% sure. Just FYI.
Sarah
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2012, at 8:50 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
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-... *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#.22Wikis...
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap