we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey. We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but no data.What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after the survey ran?
On the plus side, discretionary sanctions...George William HerbertSent from my iPhoneOn Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:But thank you for the good comments below mine, but must reply to your introductory remarks...
On 11/26/2014 9:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
**He still disrupted the GGTF with his friends in order to stop it having an influencing in increasing civility or harassment enforcement....
That's a slightly simplistic summary, eliding the fact that Eric C. is also very often non-toxic, and has a long history of collaborating in a very professional and respectful manner with many diverse women editors to bring a large number of articles to good or featured status.
That's why I agree with Newyorkbrad that he should be topic-banned from the GGTF pages. But really, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of this, on-wiki is not the right place, as it is with so many of these issues. The signal-to-noise ratio is appalling, and the end result is a waste of time.*Women editors will have different views, but if the main reason they come is to support one or more males who call women cunts,A good number of those women spoke up for him on the Proposed Decision talk page. And even more women took issue with the way the gender gap is often framed here.
He didn't. I won't get into that whole long discussion here; all I had to say about this is on the proposed decision talk page, and anyone who is interested can read it up there.sorry if they don't have much credibility.By here you mean this email list or GGTF? If you study the GGTF timeline and archives you'll see that some of the most rediculous proposals were made by males and rejected, but thrown up as "typical" of what GGTF wanted; there were three editors there just to harass two women editors; the opponents kept knocking the project and everything said by good faith participants to the point supporters either stopped commenting or got angry and told them to quit it - over and over again.I meant both here and at the GGTF. If you have a number of very capable women contributors – people who actually have contributed significant amounts of quality content – saying that they can't identify with the way the issue is being framed by the Foundation and those spearheading the gender gap effort, then not listening and entering a dialogue with those people is a missed opportunity.*Yeah, a male came up with a proposal that two males had to OK and revert of an (alleged) female editor. That didn't fly, but we kept hearing about it and had to thrash the arbitrators with diffs til they realized it was a strawman pushed by Corbett and crew. You didn't get the memo?Note also that when Eric spoke of alienating male contributors, this was in the specific context of affirmative actions (which even those proposing them warned carried a risk of provoking a backlash). Two arbitrators had the decency to oppose that finding of fact based on the omission of that context.
But the good news is if Corbett does it again, he's in trouble. I have predicted from the start I (and later Neotarf) would be the sacrificial lambs offered up to keep Corbett's supporters from going crazy if even the mildest of sanctions was imposed. (I've heard that ast time Corbett got a strong sanction several high profile admins quit, started petitions, all sorts of shenanigans to disrupt the project.) I still think that is so and told them so....I am a supporter of both Eric and you, inasmuch as you're both spirited people and I didn't wish to see either of you site-banned.The whole thing is quite a spectacular breakdown in communication. The term "Arbitration Committee" is really an egregious misnomer. They never actually arbitrate: all they do is punish.If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.Commiserations.Best,Andreas
I'm using the meme "INSTITUTIONALIZED HARASSMENT AT WIKIPEDIA" - feel free to quote me...
CM
_____________
I do think the arbitrators should revisit Newyorkbrad's idea of a GGTF topic ban for Eric. (Generally, Newyorkbrad's comments in this case were spot-on for me throughout.) I did find some of Eric's contributions to the GGTF pages were excessively argumentative and confrontational, and not helpful. But I am very glad he is not getting banned.
I do regret seeing the ban for Carol pass.
Again, I would encourage people to set up their own Gendergap discussion site and blog off-wiki ... and also to listen to those women who spoke up in the case who feel that the current framing of the Gendergap issue does not represent them.
And since I am posting here, let me remind everyone again thatwe still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey. We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but no data.
What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after the survey ran?
It should be a really easy question to answer: x% female, y% male.
Best,Andreas
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap