No. You said before it was about cliques (i.e. power) and I concurred but demurred that the motivation was just point of view as you seem to think, that community hat of yours fairly blinkering you (to use your own imagery) to truths I suspect you yourself may be reluctant to inspect. Now you say it was just about behaviors (i.e. civility).
It was about harassing the Gender Gap Task Force in a sexist way, and Arbcom effectively sanitized and reduced it to a dispute about civility with the extremely unsatisfactory result we have just witnessed. The main point of the piece was to highlight that and note that Wikipedia cannot survive if it does not reform.
Marinka
On December 11, 2014 at 10:10 PM Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
Risker/AnneIf 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.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.
_______________________________________________
On 11 December 2014 at 21:58, reguyla@gmail.com <reguyla@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@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap