The more I hear about this, the more I think this is something that
WMF needs to address at an institutional level (Board etc.) to resolve
these process issues and loopholes. Has this ever been taken "up the
chain"?
-Leigh
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You know, I sat on Arbcom for five years, and there were several occasions
>> when I practically begged those complaining about the behaviour of certain
>> individuals to initiate a case....but nobody wanted to do that...
>
>
> Well, you know I did actually take one of the worst misogynists on en.wiki
> to ArbCom,[1] and it was such a horrible experience that I decided to never
> do it again. After giving up a month of my life to the case and enduring
> constant harassment during the process, all of the evidence that I
> painstakingly assembled, presented, and defended was completely ignored by
> ArbCom, and instead he was banned for a year for making a legal threat. He
> is now free to return on the condition that he simply agrees not to make any
> more legal threats. You were actually on that ArbCom panel, Risker, so I
> don't really understand your argument that taking incivil editors to ArbCom
> is a good idea. To me it is worse than a waste of effort, it is actually
> counterproductive and an invitation to be relentlessly harassed.
>
> 1.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair_Haines_2&oldid=360884518
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
> _______________________________________________Leigh Honeywell
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
--
http://hypatia.ca
@hypatiadotca
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap