Hi all -
As a further bit of clarification regarding the current arbcom case request (it had not been accepted yet:)
1) Eric Corbett made a series of statements that Kirill Lokshin, one of our best regarded former arbitrators, regarded as violating his topic bans w/r/t discussion of the gendergap. Kirill, without resulting to the AE board (which is an explicitly unnecessary step per policy,) blocked Eric Corbett for a period of one month. The template he used explicitly mentioned that anyone undoing the block without agreement of the original admin, extensive discussion and consensus or by order of the arbitration committee would be summarily desysopped.
2) Yngvadotttir, an administrator who posted an extremely lengthy retirement message around six months ago (but has still been somewhat active) chose to unblock Eric unilaterally and without any sort of discussion, including with Kirill. Yngvadottir was almost immediately desysopped by arbcom under their emergency desysop procedures that are called for in any situation where one admin reverses an arb enforcement decision of another admin (which were reinforced by another recent case that also involved Eric.) Yngvadottir knew beyond any reasonable doubt that her actions would result in her immediate desysop.
3) Black Kite, another administrator who I feel comfortable stating has a pro-Eric bias (significantly past the point of WP:INVOLVED,) opened an ArbCom case against Kirill for enforcing arbitration remedies against Eric. I'm not entirely clear on what Black Kite's argument is. Eric may have a right of reply in terms of speaking to The Atlantic or other media outlets, but past arbcom cases have made it absolutely clear that Eric does not have the ability to discuss issues of gender anywhere on Wikipedia. Eric himself is perfectly aware of this fact, and has racked up at least seven blocks under the arb remedies against him. BK's main points seem to be that he disagrees with Kirill's exercise of discretion in blocking Eric (since Kirill didn't *have* to block Eric,) but there's no question that Kirill was well within policy to do so, and more broadly, that he disagrees with the fact that Eric is under Arbcom sanctions in the first place (and an arbcom case is not how to appeal Arbcom's past remedies against Eric - Eric can do so himself any time he pleases through a much less involved process.)
4) Eric's block has not been reinstated, but there's currently an arb motion that would only allow him to edit his own userpages and pages related to any ongoing case or case request where he is a named party. This is pretty typical handling of disputed blocks that wind up before arbcom, although Eric has stated he has no intention of participating in any arb request or case about him. He's also stated that he's leaving Wikipedia. I don't want to go through his history to count them up, but this is certainly not the first time Eric has said he is leaving Wikipedia only to return.
A couple points specifically about this list:
a) I'm uncomfortable about the idea of list discussions that people are likely to shout CANVASSING at, but I am in full support of keeping the list informed of any ongoing developments, since they are directly relevant to the list. I'm not okay with anything that I consider likely to be libelous under the laws of the state of California (where both WMF and I are located,) or anything that either my own counsel or WMF warns me is likely to be libelous. However, California's defamation laws make it extremely hard to argue that a statement is defamatory, especially if you're at least a limited purpose public figure (which in this context, Eric is,) so I have trouble imagining a situation where this would come in to play. Defamation laws in the UK are significantly different, but because of how ridiculous the US legislature has considered the in the past, no defamation judgment made in a UK court is enforceable in the US, despite our general extradition treaty, close relations, etc. I guess you may need to be careful if you are a list member in the U.K. talking about the situation, although I can't imagine Eric suing anyone.
b) Blocks or bans on ENWP do not apply here. Emily and I fully welcome the participation of interested participants who may be blocked or banned on ENWP but have relevant contributions here. We do enforce our own code of conduct, and occasionally do moderate or ban list members altogether, but not solely because ENWP has done so. However, it is worth keeping in mind that Gendergap-L has a public archive and is actively monitored by ENWPians who may not contribute, and have a range of viewpoints from "I totally believe our gender gap is an issue" to "I'm uncertain if we have a meaningful gendergap" to "I'm a raging misogynist." It would be wise not to comment here in a way linkable to your ENWP identity in a manner you are uncomfortable having discussed on ENWP (or elsewhere for that matter.) Although we can't control altogether who looks at the list and comments elsewhere, if you've been contacted in a manner that makes you uncomfortable by someone who you can show is an active list member, please contact Emily or myself, and we will look in to it and take action as needed.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
In case anyone missed it, there is now an Arbcom case about this article... or something - am not entirely clear what it's about but there are some very, erm, "interesting" arguments being made in the dozens of case statements.....
On 21 Oct 2015 21:01, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hosti...
Goes into lots of details...
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap