Actually that wasn't too bad a closing reply, since too often real complaints are just ignored and there is no close.
Also, the good news is that *if* someone on wikipedia had linked to that article and said that "Sue Gardner is not good like this article says blah blah", there might be some hope of a sanction. Last fall one editor who linked to a truly libelous blog posting about me that included a wish that I and my family be gassed. Another editor filed an ANI on him and he did get a whole 48 hour block. Less than the 6th months I originally was given for less before the community objected, but there is some limit to the nastiness they can get away with.
On 7/2/2014 10:38 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
I placed an ANI about the Voice for Men article and the subsequent comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_mu... The result being:
"We cannot take action for off-Wiki discussions like this. However,
an "announcement" on WP:AN about something like this would have been a wise idead instead of ANI (but we all know now) - that we we can keep an eye on things. Attacking Wikipedia would be a detriment to their cause - so is potentially libelous statements about the Foundation's employees - dumb, dumb, dumb thing to do. However, by posting about it here, they know that we know. Be vigilant :-) "
I suppose what it does mean is that if insults are hurled about female editors off-wiki we can post announcements in WP:AN which begin,
"Based on this ruling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_mu... I to inform the community about..."
I also had some nice posts sent to me on my talk page.
P.S. I clicked on the link for WP:AN and found this little gem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Topic_ban_proposal_for_Gibson_Fly... Depressing but at least it's not all one-way traffic.
Marie
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:46:19 -0400 From: carolmooredc@verizon.net To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
Re: the below, yes, i was blocked in a situation I thought was biased compared to other blocks I've seen. (I didn't mention that originally it was a six month block but the community of mostly guys thought that was grossly unfair and it was reduced to two weeks.)
However, in general wikipedia is not half as bad as the Men's rights site you mentioned. And in Wikipedia there are "Community Sanctions" on too much conflict in men's rights areas. In fact we just had some problems with an individual with that bias and he was reminded of the sanctions and was stopped.
In general women tend to avoid a lot of issues in the larger world because we don't like conflict. And that's understandable given that when guys do it with each other its considered a team sport. But when women jump in the middle, even if they know the rules (which we don't always), they usually are going to be given a harder time, expected to work harder and do better to get half the respect. That's the nature of the reality we are trying to change throughout the world and wikipedia is just one part of that larger world.
We don't have to accept all the rules but we can't change them unless we have some engagement. Even if the engagement is "these rules are male-created and reflect male values/attitudes/etc. and we want and equal say in creating the rules."
To understand Wikipedia dispute resolution you really have to study this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Except in the worst cases of abuse, you don't need to go to ANI. When the problem is guys ignoring you or reverting you too much or whatever it is they are doing cause they think they can get away with it (including if that reason is that you are female), there are a variety of options. I've used them all at different times, with more or less success depending on circumstances.
CM