the case is instructive because we have a test of the thesis of whether wikipedia is merely a bitey place, or whether it is a corrupt place, where men get sternly warned and women get a lifetime ban.

i go to many meetups with expert editors who have all been bitten, and who will only edit at meetups. don't imagine that they won't draw an unflattering conclusion about wikiculture from arbcoms actions in this case.

the thesis is that the toxic culture is the direct cause of the gender gap, and until the culture changes the gap will remain. this case is an attempt to change the culture that is being squashed.

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman@gmail.com> wrote:
Tim: They actually are appealable at AE, they just can't be as undone as quickly as most Eric blocks. Consensus needed to unblock rather than consensus needed for a block to stay.  I suspect most of the initial blocks will stick since they aren't too long, but the remedy does call for set longer blocks with additional offenses, and then just escalating blocks - those will almost certainly result in an appeal. Eric isn't Wikipedia's gendergap, but he's certainly both a symptom of and contributor to it.  It is unusual to discuss cases like this at length on this list, but when it directly explicitly pertains to the gendergap, has the arbcom of ENWP prohibiting some editors from *mentioning* that there is even a gendergap anywhere on Wikipedia, and where a lot of the language involved is incredibly sexist, we are certainly discussing problems related to the gendergap of the English Wikipedia, which is a discussion that is certainly within the scope of the list.

Best,
Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Tim Davenport <shoehutch@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Kevin Gorman: "It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks.  
I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly 
a depressing topic.  Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with
essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the
participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing."

It bears repeating that what is a "severe gendered slur" in America is approximately 83.6% less potent as a generalized term of abuse in the UK and Australia.[1]  I'm not going to defend Eric using the word "cunt," however, he's well aware that he's in the metaphorical room with Americans and if he directs that word towards anyone again there will be repercussions beyond the usual wheel-warring and melodramatic debate...

That's not the point I wish to make. Mr. Corbett's (virtually inevitable) future civility blocks will indeed be non-appealable because they are of specified length as part of an Arbcom ruling. Any reversal would probably mean the loss of tools — either those of the bad-blocker or the reverser, based on interpretation of the specific situation at Arbitration Enforcement, where the matter would inevitably go. 

Frankly, this approach would have solved the "Malleus problem" a long time ago. Incivility should be a block of specified and reasonable duration (viz., the one imposed on Carol Moore for her "gang bangers" rant). There are offenses at Wikipedia far worse than blowing one's top and being a jerk. Like systemic copyright violation. Like faking sources. Like mass subtle vandalism. Like repeated insertion of libelous text into BLPs. Like dramatic disruption of the project to score political points.

Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.

Tim Davenport
Corvallis, OR


==Footnotes==

[1] Yeah, I made that number up, but it's about right.

_______________________________________________
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