Rationalobserver has posted a survey related to the Gender Gap Task Force Arbitration decision on the Civility talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Survey
Seems pretty relevant to the recent discussions here.
Kaldari
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Russia Aviation russiaviation@gmail.com wrote:
The answer to a hypothetical query by TDA https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367632.10;wap2 "Simon Tushingham [Sitush]"
"I was an active user in Wikipedia for the past many many years. I had more than 30,000 edits to my name. From 2011, most of the sections in Wikipedia were under the control of organized cabals. I wrote to Jimmy Wales many times warning against this. But many of the users who voiced against this were later banned. In the section I was following, the leader of the Cabal was from Manchester, known by his alibi "Simon Tushingham". Despite this guy committing all sorts of one-sided edits, Wales supported him. Tushingham frequently bragged in Wikipedia that he regularly talked to Wales in his cell phone and were good friends in real life. I had enough and quit Wikipedia in 2011. I know many more who did the same. Wikipedia is similar to a ponzi scheme. They publicized themselves as a "free" and "unbiased" online encyclopedia. Once they had enough following, they kicked out the old users and showed their true colors."
In reply to :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=6...
"So you won't comment on the case, but how about a hypothetical? Let's say there is a male editor who, after the conclusion of an arbitration case, begins following a female editor from the same case all over the site for months. When that editor is reported for this behavior and there is a proposal to bar the male editor from interacting with the female editor, another male editor comes to his defense and suggests if the male editor is barred from interacting with the female editor that maybe he will start "following her around" instead. After the proposal is passed the other male editor announces he is going to be doing work on Wikipedia regarding a link, which just happens to be the personal website of the female editor. The female editor objects and questions his intentions. This male editor then begins taunting her with personal details researched online and plainly expresses his intentions to write a bio about her here. Despite several other objections and the female editor's own protests, this male editor creates a draft that he explains is fully intended to be made into a live article all about the female editor. It is apparent that certain details have been cherry-picked from primary sources and articles about the female editor and presented in a way that is clearly aimed at being unflattering towards her. Despite numerous editors suggesting his actions are woefully inappropriate he insists that he is a perfectly good editor who is being neutral towards this person he detests. Would you consider it acceptable for the Arbitration Committee to ban the female editor for commenting about this male editor's behavior, while giving the male editor essentially nothing more than a warning after praising his efforts on this site?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)"
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Gender Gap" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gender-gap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The URL I just posted goes to the wrong survey (since there are two sections with the same header on that page). Here is a better URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Arbcom.27s_position_on...
Kaldari
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Rationalobserver has posted a survey related to the Gender Gap Task Force Arbitration decision on the Civility talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Survey
Seems pretty relevant to the recent discussions here.
Kaldari
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Russia Aviation russiaviation@gmail.com wrote:
The answer to a hypothetical query by TDA https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367632.10;wap2 "Simon Tushingham [Sitush]"
"I was an active user in Wikipedia for the past many many years. I had more than 30,000 edits to my name. From 2011, most of the sections in Wikipedia were under the control of organized cabals. I wrote to Jimmy Wales many times warning against this. But many of the users who voiced against this were later banned. In the section I was following, the leader of the Cabal was from Manchester, known by his alibi "Simon Tushingham". Despite this guy committing all sorts of one-sided edits, Wales supported him. Tushingham frequently bragged in Wikipedia that he regularly talked to Wales in his cell phone and were good friends in real life. I had enough and quit Wikipedia in 2011. I know many more who did the same. Wikipedia is similar to a ponzi scheme. They publicized themselves as a "free" and "unbiased" online encyclopedia. Once they had enough following, they kicked out the old users and showed their true colors."
In reply to :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=6...
"So you won't comment on the case, but how about a hypothetical? Let's say there is a male editor who, after the conclusion of an arbitration case, begins following a female editor from the same case all over the site for months. When that editor is reported for this behavior and there is a proposal to bar the male editor from interacting with the female editor, another male editor comes to his defense and suggests if the male editor is barred from interacting with the female editor that maybe he will start "following her around" instead. After the proposal is passed the other male editor announces he is going to be doing work on Wikipedia regarding a link, which just happens to be the personal website of the female editor. The female editor objects and questions his intentions. This male editor then begins taunting her with personal details researched online and plainly expresses his intentions to write a bio about her here. Despite several other objections and the female editor's own protests, this male editor creates a draft that he explains is fully intended to be made into a live article all about the female editor. It is apparent that certain details have been cherry-picked from primary sources and articles about the female editor and presented in a way that is clearly aimed at being unflattering towards her. Despite numerous editors suggesting his actions are woefully inappropriate he insists that he is a perfectly good editor who is being neutral towards this person he detests. Would you consider it acceptable for the Arbitration Committee to ban the female editor for commenting about this male editor's behavior, while giving the male editor essentially nothing more than a warning after praising his efforts on this site?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)"
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Gender Gap" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gender-gap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
On 12/4/2014 3:41 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
The URL I just posted goes to the wrong survey (since there are two sections with the same header on that page). Here is a better URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Arbcom.27s_position_on...
They are discussing whether to make this GGTF ArbCom statement part of civility: "Although there are cultural differences in the use of certain expletives, there is rarely any need to use such language on Wikipedia and so they should be avoided. Editors who know, or are told, that a specific word usage is reasonably understood as offensive by other Wikipedians should refrain from using that word or usage, unless there is a specific and legitimate reason for doing so in a particular instance."
I really didn't pay much attention to this at the time, I'm afraid, but see several issues:
*Expletives generally are more like Shit, damn, hell, bloody, F*cking this that or the other, etc. There can be some leeway with those on user talk pages and even talk page conversations, if not used in a direct attack. *Slurs (generally against whole group of people) - in this case C*nt and Tw*t - were the words most objected to in this arbitration, even when not used in a direct personal attack. (Though my use of "Brit" was highly objected to, before the "Gang" phrases were uttered.) *Insults direct at individuals like stupid, fool, idiots, etc. were relevant to the discussion and a number of diffs presented for a couple of editors. Are they included?
Frankly, the whole thing brings up the issues of competence by the committee, bias aside. Sigh...
CM
Don't let RO close that before I can vote... which will December 7, unless the editors who are baiting me many to get my block extended.
Lightbreather
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Rationalobserver has posted a survey related to the Gender Gap Task Force Arbitration decision on the Civility talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Survey
Seems pretty relevant to the recent discussions here.
Kaldari
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Russia Aviation russiaviation@gmail.com wrote:
The answer to a hypothetical query by TDA https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367632.10;wap2 "Simon Tushingham [Sitush]"
"I was an active user in Wikipedia for the past many many years. I had more than 30,000 edits to my name. From 2011, most of the sections in Wikipedia were under the control of organized cabals. I wrote to Jimmy Wales many times warning against this. But many of the users who voiced against this were later banned. In the section I was following, the leader of the Cabal was from Manchester, known by his alibi "Simon Tushingham". Despite this guy committing all sorts of one-sided edits, Wales supported him. Tushingham frequently bragged in Wikipedia that he regularly talked to Wales in his cell phone and were good friends in real life. I had enough and quit Wikipedia in 2011. I know many more who did the same. Wikipedia is similar to a ponzi scheme. They publicized themselves as a "free" and "unbiased" online encyclopedia. Once they had enough following, they kicked out the old users and showed their true colors."
In reply to :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=6...
"So you won't comment on the case, but how about a hypothetical? Let's say there is a male editor who, after the conclusion of an arbitration case, begins following a female editor from the same case all over the site for months. When that editor is reported for this behavior and there is a proposal to bar the male editor from interacting with the female editor, another male editor comes to his defense and suggests if the male editor is barred from interacting with the female editor that maybe he will start "following her around" instead. After the proposal is passed the other male editor announces he is going to be doing work on Wikipedia regarding a link, which just happens to be the personal website of the female editor. The female editor objects and questions his intentions. This male editor then begins taunting her with personal details researched online and plainly expresses his intentions to write a bio about her here. Despite several other objections and the female editor's own protests, this male editor creates a draft that he explains is fully intended to be made into a live article all about the female editor. It is apparent that certain details have been cherry-picked from primary sources and articles about the female editor and presented in a way that is clearly aimed at being unflattering towards her. Despite numerous editors suggesting his actions are woefully inappropriate he insists that he is a perfectly good editor who is being neutral towards this person he detests. Would you consider it acceptable for the Arbitration Committee to ban the female editor for commenting about this male editor's behavior, while giving the male editor essentially nothing more than a warning after praising his efforts on this site?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)"
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Gender Gap" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gender-gap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap