Jonathan, I think there's a bit of talking past each other going on.
Rehashing details of one of the many dramafest Arbcom cases is not
>From my viewpoint Sarah hit the nail on the head with "Something
systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many other
examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist."
Improving reputation and recognizing that there is a systemic problem
is a far more useful direction to take. Think about a bit of
P.S. I was approached by the Atlantic due to my work in the area of
revert-wars and the potential relationship to bias. I did a little
digging around it, but my thoughts are too slow to satisfy
journalists' deadlines. ;-)
On 22 October 2015 at 18:12, WereSpielChequers
> Hi Sarah,
> I'm not a "functionary" so I haven't seen the evidence - clearly it
> convinces you, but it did not quite convince the functionaries. Reading the
> result and for example Yunshui's comment I would simply prefer that the
> record shows we were not fully convinced by the evidence, rather than that
> we were convinced, but chose not to act. I think what we have here is more
> than a detail difference. If the decision had been, as reported in the
> Atlantic, that Arbcom had decided this "on the grounds that it may “out” the
> editor that had posted the pictures, or link his username to his real name."
> Then I would have supported a change in policy, or Arbcom membership, so
> that future Arbcoms in similar situations would be willing to risk outing
> someone, or just ban them without public reason, rather than leave a
> harasser unpunished. But if the issue is not that, but instead that the
> evidence was inconclusive, then I think we have a very different problem to
> work on. As for the broader picture I don't dispute that Wikipedia has
> several problems around gender, and some terrible publicity, but if one took
> that article at face value the obvious next step would be to get a change in
> policy so that if Arbcom were convinced of the evidence they could and would
> have acted.
> On 22 October 2015 at 17:37, Sarah (SV) <email@example.com> wrote:
>> WSC, the evidence as to who posted the porn images was, I would say,
>> conclusive. We nevertheless ended up with a situation in which a man who had
>> been engaged in harassment (much of which was onwiki and had been going on
>> for about a year) was let off the hook, and the harassed woman was banned.
>> There was a similar situation in the GGTF case, so the Lightbreather case
>> was not an unfortunate one-off. For example, the man who was blocked for
>> harassment during the Lightbreather case should have been blocked for it
>> during the GGTF case, but wasn't. He only ended up being blocked during the
>> Lightbreather case because he admitted that he had done it. Otherwise he
>> might still be editing.
>> Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many
>> other examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist.
>> (See this selection of stories.) Rather than arguing about which details
>> various journalists got wrong, we should focus on what they got right and
>> how we can fix it.
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, WereSpielChequers
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Thanks Francesca,
>>> It seems a shame that an Arbcom case in which one person was blocked for
>>> offwiki harassment and another would have been if the evidence had been
>>> conclusive has been reported as if they'd decided instead to spare the
>>> harasser for privacy reasons.
>>> As Thryduulf put it "there is no doubt that had we been able to
>>> conclusively connect the perpetrator to a Wikipedia account that action
>>> would have been taken (almost certainly a site ban)."
>>> You could point her to
>>> A story warning mysogynists that Arbcom will and has acted against those
>>> it catches would have made it easier to attract women to wikipedia and deter
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: