Ok, so if this is to be a female only admin only list, then please remove me from it. I hope that at some point though, if you all are interested in actually improving systematic bias on Wikipedia and the other WMF projects, you will be open to all points of view including those of editors who were banned for insisting that admins should have to follow policy rather than be exempt from it.

Is pretty obvious to me at this point that the problem doesn't lie with my opinion that Wikipedia has a problem with bias but from the people who are in a position to do something about it refusing to listen.

Good luck!

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, GorillaWarfare was responding to the subject header.  She is an arbitrator.  She is also expressing her opinion about why, as an arbitrator, she has concerns about this list.  I think she's bang on. 

And I agree with Chris.

Risker/Anne

On 12 December 2014 at 14:08, Reguyla <reguyla@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, now, before this devolves further, let us all end this stupidity. Lets get back on topic! GW, your comments today have had nothing to do with this list other than to attack me. Enough is enough.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM, <gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
GW, accusing me of hijacking this list for a "vendetta" is a purely untrue and petty accusation. For the last couple of years my goal on the project has been to make it more fair for all editors regardless of status (admin or editor), gender, race, etc.
Well, I’m glad you got some of this very pure fight for fairness in around the harassment you were leveraging against other editors. I’ve spoken out against this behavior because I don’t think people engaging in email harassment campaigns against editors such as myself should be allowed on this list any more than they should be allowed on Wikipedia. There has been discussion on this list recently about how there are so few women (and so few people of any gender) running for the Arbitration Committee, and meanwhile one of the ones helping to keep it an incredibly thankless and often unpleasant place to be is continuing to do so on the very same list.
With that said, of the 2 of us, which one is responsible for participating in banning Carol, participating in setting in motion the series of events that have lead not only many discussion on this list but on Wikipediocracy and now news articles as well? Here's a hint, its not me.
If you read the proposed decision, you’ll see that I did not vote for this. If my participation in the case—where I voted against banning Carol—makes me “responsible for participating in banning Carol,” then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

— Molly (GorillaWarfare)

_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap