I am now on digest mode with this mailing list. The traffic is often too much for me and the voice of this list is frustrating for me sometimes..so... remember that please :) ---
I have been asked to share my thoughts by many people this morning on the internet, here they are:
I have been editing Wikipedia for ten years and i have no clue what has been going on with the feminist/gamergate thing. As one of the more well known female editors i have cut back heavily on my involvement after last year. I don't know any of the editors, personally, who "went to court" but I have seen this stuff happen to both sides in men's rights articles in the past.
After reviewing the Arbcom case, I don't even know who got the idea that any of the contributing editors are feminist, per se. No one even mentions the word, except once, when describing a subject that was "slandered" in the gamer gate article(s).
I also don't think that the edits made to the article are overwhelmingly feminist in nature. It appears to be just a bunch of people editing the Wikipedia article to protect it from being a hot mess of 4chan junk.
Note: most of the "in trouble" editor's aren't that productive at contributing feminist content to Wikipedia. I have interacted with only four of them - Black Kite, Future Perfect at Sunrise, TarainDC and Bilby - only one is a female in real life and I know her from GLAM editing projects. She is the only one that I know who has actively edited feminist topics prior to this. I actually consider Bilby an ally, but, I have never heard him or any of the other editors blatantly identify themselves as feminists.
From what I know, only one of the editors on the entire "trial list"
identifies out as a female.
So, it appears a bunch of editors trying to keep the article clean had to run through the gauntlet. I don't think the end of the world has come to any of their lives - they have plenty of other subjects of interest to keep them busy on Wikipedia.
I also think people invest *too much* into Wikipedia to where it's what they live for..per se. I see a lot of that in this case, and many others that "go to court" on Wikipedia. I stopped participating on Wikipedia when it screwed up my personal life so much, and I lost sleep over it. So... that's my advice to anyone involved in that Arbcom case :) Go on vacation and get another hobby and edit Wikipedia when you feel like it. It isn't life. It's just an encyclopedia.
Sarah
well said, Sarah! Thanks for reading through all that stuff - I tried and failed
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I am now on digest mode with this mailing list. The traffic is often too much for me and the voice of this list is frustrating for me sometimes..so... remember that please :)
I have been asked to share my thoughts by many people this morning on the internet, here they are:
I have been editing Wikipedia for ten years and i have no clue what has been going on with the feminist/gamergate thing. As one of the more well known female editors i have cut back heavily on my involvement after last year. I don't know any of the editors, personally, who "went to court" but I have seen this stuff happen to both sides in men's rights articles in the past.
After reviewing the Arbcom case, I don't even know who got the idea that any of the contributing editors are feminist, per se. No one even mentions the word, except once, when describing a subject that was "slandered" in the gamer gate article(s).
I also don't think that the edits made to the article are overwhelmingly feminist in nature. It appears to be just a bunch of people editing the Wikipedia article to protect it from being a hot mess of 4chan junk.
Note: most of the "in trouble" editor's aren't that productive at contributing feminist content to Wikipedia. I have interacted with only four of them - Black Kite, Future Perfect at Sunrise, TarainDC and Bilby - only one is a female in real life and I know her from GLAM editing projects. She is the only one that I know who has actively edited feminist topics prior to this. I actually consider Bilby an ally, but, I have never heard him or any of the other editors blatantly identify themselves as feminists.
From what I know, only one of the editors on the entire "trial list" identifies out as a female.
So, it appears a bunch of editors trying to keep the article clean had to run through the gauntlet. I don't think the end of the world has come to any of their lives - they have plenty of other subjects of interest to keep them busy on Wikipedia.
I also think people invest *too much* into Wikipedia to where it's what they live for..per se. I see a lot of that in this case, and many others that "go to court" on Wikipedia. I stopped participating on Wikipedia when it screwed up my personal life so much, and I lost sleep over it. So... that's my advice to anyone involved in that Arbcom case :) Go on vacation and get another hobby and edit Wikipedia when you feel like it. It isn't life. It's just an encyclopedia.
Sarah
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Note: most of the "in trouble" editor's aren't that productive at contributing feminist content to Wikipedia. I have interacted with only four of them - Black Kite, Future Perfect at Sunrise, TarainDC and Bilby - only one is a female in real life and I know her from GLAM editing projects. She is the only one that I know who has actively edited feminist topics prior to this. I actually consider Bilby an ally, but, I have never heard him or any of the other editors blatantly identify themselves as feminists.
Black Kite, Future Perfect at Sunrise and Bilby are not mentioned on the Proposed decision page, so I don't see how they are in trouble.
The Guardian article is talking about the five editors dubbed "the five horsemen" by the Gamergate movement, e.g. here:
http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Projects:Operation_5_Horsemen
They're Ryulong, NorthBySouthBaranof, Tarc, TheRedPenOfDoom, and TaraInDC.
As things stand,
-- Ryulong, Tarc and TaraInDC are currently heading for topic bans; -- TheRedPenOfDoom and NorthBySouthBaranof are being admonished.
A potential downside of this decision is that in future, fewer established editors will be eager to deal with situations like this, as they can expect that it will ultimately result in their being drawn into an arbcom case and sanctioned in some way.
Andreas
I largely agree with Sarah.
After several years taking a break from using the Checkuser tool, in early January I decided to actively join the the team again. So, I read all the active ArbCom cases to familarize myself with the current controversies on Wikipedia. During my reading of the GamerGate controversy evidence, workshop, and proposed decison I never saw this case as people who were feminists or strong advocates for eliminating systemic bias in Wikipedia. So, I was shocked to see it being reported that ArbCom was purging feminists!
This is not the first dispute that has been imported into Wikipedia English, but it is one of the biggest and worst. Right now the people who have reported on GamerGate in the media for months are reporting on the ArbCom case. Some of these people have pretty entrenched points of view. This is true of both sides.
The issue of off site harassment that is happening to Wikipedia editors. is something that need to be addressed in a broader way and not put on ArbCom to fix because that is beyond their ability to investigate and resolve. If you are being harassed take Sarah's advice and take a break and find something off or on wiki to do that feeds your soul.. Life is too short to let Wikipedia ruin your life.
There are some reasonable people who are working to keep violations of BLP out of the articles and off the talk pages and stop the constant fighting. These people are not getting sanctioned. I truly appreciate the work that they are doing in the face of the harassment and negative publicity in the media.
Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I am now on digest mode with this mailing list. The traffic is often too much for me and the voice of this list is frustrating for me sometimes..so... remember that please :)
I have been asked to share my thoughts by many people this morning on the internet, here they are:
I have been editing Wikipedia for ten years and i have no clue what has been going on with the feminist/gamergate thing. As one of the more well known female editors i have cut back heavily on my involvement after last year. I don't know any of the editors, personally, who "went to court" but I have seen this stuff happen to both sides in men's rights articles in the past.
After reviewing the Arbcom case, I don't even know who got the idea that any of the contributing editors are feminist, per se. No one even mentions the word, except once, when describing a subject that was "slandered" in the gamer gate article(s).
I also don't think that the edits made to the article are overwhelmingly feminist in nature. It appears to be just a bunch of people editing the Wikipedia article to protect it from being a hot mess of 4chan junk.
Note: most of the "in trouble" editor's aren't that productive at contributing feminist content to Wikipedia. I have interacted with only four of them - Black Kite, Future Perfect at Sunrise, TarainDC and Bilby - only one is a female in real life and I know her from GLAM editing projects. She is the only one that I know who has actively edited feminist topics prior to this. I actually consider Bilby an ally, but, I have never heard him or any of the other editors blatantly identify themselves as feminists.
From what I know, only one of the editors on the entire "trial list" identifies out as a female.
So, it appears a bunch of editors trying to keep the article clean had to run through the gauntlet. I don't think the end of the world has come to any of their lives - they have plenty of other subjects of interest to keep them busy on Wikipedia.
I also think people invest *too much* into Wikipedia to where it's what they live for..per se. I see a lot of that in this case, and many others that "go to court" on Wikipedia. I stopped participating on Wikipedia when it screwed up my personal life so much, and I lost sleep over it. So... that's my advice to anyone involved in that Arbcom case :) Go on vacation and get another hobby and edit Wikipedia when you feel like it. It isn't life. It's just an encyclopedia.
Sarah
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Sydney, have a look at the findings of fact for TaraInDC, and check the diffs provided:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/...
I don't think those diffs demonstrate that she was somehow less "reasonable", only that she was frustrated. And there are extenuating circumstances for that. I don't think Wikipedia has ever been through a Twitter- and Reddit-driven POV war quite like this one.
In general, Newyorkbrad pretty much said it best for me throughout this page (there is only one case where I disagree with him, and it concerns an editor on the other side of the debate).
YMMV.
Best, Andreas
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
I largely agree with Sarah.
After several years taking a break from using the Checkuser tool, in early January I decided to actively join the the team again. So, I read all the active ArbCom cases to familarize myself with the current controversies on Wikipedia. During my reading of the GamerGate controversy evidence, workshop, and proposed decison I never saw this case as people who were feminists or strong advocates for eliminating systemic bias in Wikipedia. So, I was shocked to see it being reported that ArbCom was purging feminists!
This is not the first dispute that has been imported into Wikipedia English, but it is one of the biggest and worst. Right now the people who have reported on GamerGate in the media for months are reporting on the ArbCom case. Some of these people have pretty entrenched points of view. This is true of both sides.
The issue of off site harassment that is happening to Wikipedia editors. is something that need to be addressed in a broader way and not put on ArbCom to fix because that is beyond their ability to investigate and resolve. If you are being harassed take Sarah's advice and take a break and find something off or on wiki to do that feeds your soul.. Life is too short to let Wikipedia ruin your life.
There are some reasonable people who are working to keep violations of BLP out of the articles and off the talk pages and stop the constant fighting. These people are not getting sanctioned. I truly appreciate the work that they are doing in the face of the harassment and negative publicity in the media.
Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I am now on digest mode with this mailing list. The traffic is often too much for me and the voice of this list is frustrating for me sometimes..so... remember that please :)
I have been asked to share my thoughts by many people this morning on the internet, here they are:
I have been editing Wikipedia for ten years and i have no clue what has been going on with the feminist/gamergate thing. As one of the more well known female editors i have cut back heavily on my involvement after last year. I don't know any of the editors, personally, who "went to court" but I have seen this stuff happen to both sides in men's rights articles in the past.
After reviewing the Arbcom case, I don't even know who got the idea that any of the contributing editors are feminist, per se. No one even mentions the word, except once, when describing a subject that was "slandered" in the gamer gate article(s).
I also don't think that the edits made to the article are overwhelmingly feminist in nature. It appears to be just a bunch of people editing the Wikipedia article to protect it from being a hot mess of 4chan junk.
Note: most of the "in trouble" editor's aren't that productive at contributing feminist content to Wikipedia. I have interacted with only four of them - Black Kite, Future Perfect at Sunrise, TarainDC and Bilby - only one is a female in real life and I know her from GLAM editing projects. She is the only one that I know who has actively edited feminist topics prior to this. I actually consider Bilby an ally, but, I have never heard him or any of the other editors blatantly identify themselves as feminists.
From what I know, only one of the editors on the entire "trial list" identifies out as a female.
So, it appears a bunch of editors trying to keep the article clean had to run through the gauntlet. I don't think the end of the world has come to any of their lives - they have plenty of other subjects of interest to keep them busy on Wikipedia.
I also think people invest *too much* into Wikipedia to where it's what they live for..per se. I see a lot of that in this case, and many others that "go to court" on Wikipedia. I stopped participating on Wikipedia when it screwed up my personal life so much, and I lost sleep over it. So... that's my advice to anyone involved in that Arbcom case :) Go on vacation and get another hobby and edit Wikipedia when you feel like it. It isn't life. It's just an encyclopedia.
Sarah
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
After reviewing the Arbcom case, I don't even know who got the idea that any of the contributing editors are feminist, per se. No one even mentions the word, except once, when describing a subject that was "slandered" in the gamer gate article(s).
Hi Sarah, I think the point is that editors who were defending the rights and privacy of the women involved in Gamergate are being sanctioned because (I assume) they did it in some sense inappropriately, perhaps too aggressively, I don't know. (I don't know the details.)
In that sense it looks like a repeat of the gender gap task force decision. In the latter, those trying to stop disruption were sanctioned even harder than those causing it.
The message those cases send is that, if you're trying to protect women's interests, you have to creep around and not stick your neck out. The Chelsea Manning case had similar problems, and Sceptre recently expressed the same concern about the Sexology case.
Another aspect of this is that we've been undermining admins for years so that they (we) are reluctant to act at an early stage to nip things in the bud. As Tony Sidaway wrote: "The administrator corps must be coaxed out of their inappropriate and destructive timidity." I was glad to see the ArbCom's proposed decision thank the admins who have worked on this.
Sarah
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
After reviewing the Arbcom case, I don't even know who got the idea that any of the contributing editors are feminist, per se. No one even mentions the word, except once, when describing a subject that was "slandered" in the gamer gate article(s).
Hi Sarah, I think the point is that editors who were defending the rights and privacy of the women involved in Gamergate are being sanctioned because (I assume) they did it in some sense inappropriately, perhaps too aggressively, I don't know. (I don't know the details.)
In that sense it looks like a repeat of the gender gap task force decision. In the latter, those trying to stop disruption were sanctioned even harder than those causing it.
The message those cases send is that, if you're trying to protect women's interests, you have to creep around and not stick your neck out. The Chelsea Manning case had similar problems, and Sceptre recently expressed the same concern about the Sexology case.
Another aspect of this is that we've been undermining admins for years so that they (we) are reluctant to act at an early stage to nip things in the bud. As Tony Sidaway wrote: "The administrator corps must be coaxed out of their inappropriate and destructive timidity." I was glad to see the ArbCom's proposed decision thank the admins who have worked on this.
Sarah
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was, there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply requesting his bit back.
I'm sure it's hard to remain calm and thoughtful when 8chan is running 24/7 discussion threads to: 1. Strategize on how to subvert the consensus process to take over the article 2. Target Wikipedia editors for doxxing and harassment so that they will stop defending the article
The assault was literally relentless. I think Ryulong nearly had a nervous breakdown and the other editors didn't fair much better. They all deserve a barnstar and some kittens, IMO...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryulong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TaraInDC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tarc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
After reviewing the Arbcom case, I don't even know who got the idea that any of the contributing editors are feminist, per se. No one even mentions the word, except once, when describing a subject that was "slandered" in the gamer gate article(s).
Hi Sarah, I think the point is that editors who were defending the rights and privacy of the women involved in Gamergate are being sanctioned because (I assume) they did it in some sense inappropriately, perhaps too aggressively, I don't know. (I don't know the details.)
In that sense it looks like a repeat of the gender gap task force decision. In the latter, those trying to stop disruption were sanctioned even harder than those causing it.
The message those cases send is that, if you're trying to protect women's interests, you have to creep around and not stick your neck out. The Chelsea Manning case had similar problems, and Sceptre recently expressed the same concern about the Sexology case.
Another aspect of this is that we've been undermining admins for years so that they (we) are reluctant to act at an early stage to nip things in the bud. As Tony Sidaway wrote: "The administrator corps must be coaxed out of their inappropriate and destructive timidity." I was glad to see the ArbCom's proposed decision thank the admins who have worked on this.
Sarah
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was, there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply requesting his bit back.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Suppose I should say a brief something since some of the posts here talk about me. I have been caustic and acerbic at the Wikipedia over the years, though in fits and starts I am trying to take it down a few notches. So, yea, I'm quite aware that I'm not the best poster-child for any sort of movement or change or whatnot. I dived into Gamergate after hearing about some of the really awful things that were being said about Zoe Quinn elsewhere, thinking (correctly) that her Wiki bio was going to be a harassment magnet. As far as I am concerned, there is no debate; if one identifies as a "pro-Gamergater", than that one stands side-by-side with the harassment that was done under the hashtag. I did not want to allow these people to direct the narrative of the Gamergate article. So, yes, sometimes one loses one's cool when dealing with dirtbags from 8chan/reddit. However, it is a shame that we who kept the hordes at bay, while being harassed by 8chan/reddit and hell, harassed by Jimmy Wales himself for a time til his eyes belatedly opened, were not cut a little more slack. We were doing something right (with using some wrong words/tone at times) and got the same treatment as a bunch of throwaway accounts. That is the narrative that the mainstream media seems to be running with, and while it isn't accurate for them to say "feminists and women were banned", they are still correctly portraying the WIkipedia's Arbcom as doing a pretty bad thing here. -t
I think in both your case and Devil's Advocate (even though you take opposite positions) there may have been annoyance that you both very vocally took the "wrong" position on GGTF on the arbitration talk pages so this may be at least partial payback...
On 1/25/2015 8:12 PM, Tarc . wrote:
Suppose I should say a brief something since some of the posts here talk about me. I have been caustic and acerbic at the Wikipedia over the years, though in fits and starts I am trying to take it down a few notches. So, yea, I'm quite aware that I'm not the best poster-child for any sort of movement or change or whatnot. I dived into Gamergate after hearing about some of the really awful things that were being said about Zoe Quinn elsewhere, thinking (correctly) that her Wiki bio was going to be a harassment magnet. As far as I am concerned, there is no debate; if one identifies as a "pro-Gamergater", than that one stands side-by-side with the harassment that was done under the hashtag. I did not want to allow these people to direct the narrative of the Gamergate article.
So, yes, sometimes one loses one's cool when dealing with dirtbags from 8chan/reddit. However, it is a shame that we who kept the hordes at bay, while being harassed by 8chan/reddit and hell, harassed by Jimmy Wales himself for a time til his eyes belatedly opened, were not cut a little more slack. We were doing something right (with using some wrong words/tone at times) and got the same treatment as a bunch of throwaway accounts.
That is the narrative that the mainstream media seems to be running with, and while it isn't accurate for them to say "feminists and women were banned", they are still correctly portraying the WIkipedia's Arbcom as doing a pretty bad thing here.
-t
st want to make it clear that don't consider myself to be a feminist, whatever that is. I was not a member of GGTF and have never edited in the topic of gender. I saw the disruptions on the page, and tried to give some support and validation to the only admin I saw trying to deal with the situation. When the ANI discussions seemed like they had gone on for too long, I tried to use my position as an uninvolved editor to get them to agree to a voluntary topic ban. I'm pretty much of a newbie with regards to ANI and have no experience at all with topic bans at all, so maybe I was too naive in thinking that users could just talk things out and come to some agreement. If I had succeeded, there would not have been a case.
At the time, I was in the process of deleting my unnecessary sub-pages and storing them off site, as I had decided to retire. On a whim, I asked for an RFA review from an admin who was offering to do them, remembering that Kevin Gorman had a successful RFA after working with KillerChihuahua on Men's Rights issues. After seeing the comments on the RFA review, I started to wonder if my Wikipedia experience had really been as negative as I remembered it. Incidentally, this admin had seen my name on the Gender Gap case, but did not even consider that anyone might take the accusations against me seriously.
It's telling that the diffs that were presented about me in the Gender Gap case had nothing to do with gender or with GGTF. They were copy-pasted from the statement of an individual whose disruptions the Arbitration committee had been asked to investigate. The committee even copied his error in citing BADNAMES policy.
It's clear to me that the Foundation has reached some kind of Seldon Crisis--if I may borrow a page from Isaac Asimov-- with off-site meatpuppets, and the arbitration committee is not able to deal with it. This page is instructive: http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2lxw4x/effort_gamergates_latest_...
GamerGate's latest "Arbitration Request" is 15,000 words and climbing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate. That's about 60 typed, double-spaced pages. That's not counting the dozens (hundreds?) of hyperlinks you have to read to digest it.
It owes its size to 8chan canvasing for "meatpuppets" https://archive.today/nmsBK to target specific editors.
Their users dutifully dredged up countless old, investigated and already settled accusations, and material not appropriate for Arbitration....
But perhaps the main takeaway?
This is a typical day in a 3-month ordeal on Wikipedia. It must be exhausting, which GG must know...
Yes, it is exhausting, especially if you have already stopped editing and have many pressing things in real life. Even if you come out with your reputation intact, you will never get those three months of your life back.
The Arbitration Committee is being expected to do too much here. The arbs are real individuals, who, in many cases, have had their real life identities ferreted out. And they are volunteers. They cannot possibly be expected to investigate these Gamergate individuals who are so well organized off-site, and who are adept at issuing death threats, and getting campus events cancelled for security threats. At this point, all the Arbcom can do, as they did in the Gender Gap case, is to ignore the mountains of diffs, and make scapegoats of good faith editors. The Foundation needs to step in here, and protect its editors, not only from the Gamer Gaters, but from the Arbitration Committee, which is being asked to do the impossible without any resources.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Tarc . tarc@hotmail.com wrote:
Suppose I should say a brief something since some of the posts here talk about me. I have been caustic and acerbic at the Wikipedia over the years, though in fits and starts I am trying to take it down a few notches. So, yea, I'm quite aware that I'm not the best poster-child for any sort of movement or change or whatnot. I dived into Gamergate after hearing about some of the really awful things that were being said about Zoe Quinn elsewhere, thinking (correctly) that her Wiki bio was going to be a harassment magnet. As far as I am concerned, there is no debate; if one identifies as a "pro-Gamergater", than that one stands side-by-side with the harassment that was done under the hashtag. I did not want to allow these people to direct the narrative of the Gamergate article.
So, yes, sometimes one loses one's cool when dealing with dirtbags from 8chan/reddit. However, it is a shame that we who kept the hordes at bay, while being harassed by 8chan/reddit and hell, harassed by Jimmy Wales himself for a time til his eyes belatedly opened, were not cut a little more slack. We were doing something right (with using some wrong words/tone at times) and got the same treatment as a bunch of throwaway accounts.
That is the narrative that the mainstream media seems to be running with, and while it isn't accurate for them to say "feminists and women were banned", they are still correctly portraying the WIkipedia's Arbcom as doing a pretty bad thing here.
-t
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Tarc, I felt your "lipstick on a pig" comment about a transexual was not just disgusting, but was a key example of why we needed a WM-LGBT user group to both highlight and gradually improve a hostile culture on Wikimedia projects that appeared to allow blatantly anti-LGBT attitudes and language on its projects under the guise of "being a joke" or "teasing".
I stopped following any of the crap related to your defamatory language, so if you apologised I missed it. If you did apologize, could you give a link to it, or if not then maybe a thread here or Wikimedia-l might be a good way of building some bridges with members of minority groups that you took part in driving away from Wikipedia through comments like this?
Thanks, Fae
On 26 January 2015 at 01:12, Tarc . tarc@hotmail.com wrote:
Suppose I should say a brief something since some of the posts here talk about me. I have been caustic and acerbic at the Wikipedia over the years, though in fits and starts I am trying to take it down a few notches. So, yea, I'm quite aware that I'm not the best poster-child for any sort of movement or change or whatnot. I dived into Gamergate after hearing about some of the really awful things that were being said about Zoe Quinn elsewhere, thinking (correctly) that her Wiki bio was going to be a harassment magnet. As far as I am concerned, there is no debate; if one identifies as a "pro-Gamergater", than that one stands side-by-side with the harassment that was done under the hashtag. I did not want to allow these people to direct the narrative of the Gamergate article.
So, yes, sometimes one loses one's cool when dealing with dirtbags from 8chan/reddit. However, it is a shame that we who kept the hordes at bay, while being harassed by 8chan/reddit and hell, harassed by Jimmy Wales himself for a time til his eyes belatedly opened, were not cut a little more slack. We were doing something right (with using some wrong words/tone at times) and got the same treatment as a bunch of throwaway accounts.
That is the narrative that the mainstream media seems to be running with, and while it isn't accurate for them to say "feminists and women were banned", they are still correctly portraying the WIkipedia's Arbcom as doing a pretty bad thing here.
-t
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Tarc, I felt your "lipstick on a pig" comment about a transexual was not just disgusting, but was a key example of why we needed a WM-LGBT user group to both highlight and gradually improve a hostile culture on Wikimedia projects that appeared to allow blatantly anti-LGBT attitudes and language on its projects under the guise of "being a joke" or "teasing".
I stopped following any of the crap related to your defamatory language, so if you apologised I missed it. If you did apologize, could you give a link to it, or if not then maybe a thread here or Wikimedia-l might be a good way of building some bridges with members of minority groups that you took part in driving away from Wikipedia through comments like this?
Thanks, Fae
Hi Fae, Tarc wrote during or after the Chelsea Manning case that his
comments had been a false-flag operation, intended to shine a spotlight on transphobia. He acknowledged that this was not a good way to do it, and as I recall he apologized.
Sarah
There is a thread on the PD talk page that will explain it, but I can't seem to find the original. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mannin...
Tarc was using a rhetorical device called "reductio ad absurdum" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
It always backfires on the internet, since no one can tell the difference between a real bigot and someone pretending to be a bigot in order to mock bigotry. I would like to think I'm good at spotting sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek statements, but I was fooled completely. I remember thinking that Tarc's political views were not what I had thought them to be. But as it turned out, he was the same old Tarc after all. The tactic might have had the desired effect, and who knows, maybe tilted the case in the direction that Tarc had intended. But people don't like to be fooled, this kind of thing usually ends in hostility.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Tarc, I felt your "lipstick on a pig" comment about a transexual was not just disgusting, but was a key example of why we needed a WM-LGBT user group to both highlight and gradually improve a hostile culture on Wikimedia projects that appeared to allow blatantly anti-LGBT attitudes and language on its projects under the guise of "being a joke" or "teasing".
I stopped following any of the crap related to your defamatory language, so if you apologised I missed it. If you did apologize, could you give a link to it, or if not then maybe a thread here or Wikimedia-l might be a good way of building some bridges with members of minority groups that you took part in driving away from Wikipedia through comments like this?
Thanks, Fae
Hi Fae, Tarc wrote during or after the Chelsea Manning case that his
comments had been a false-flag operation, intended to shine a spotlight on transphobia. He acknowledged that this was not a good way to do it, and as I recall he apologized.
Sarah
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Thanks for the link and explanation. It fooled me then, I saw it as simple bigotry and stopped reading about it, or anything that Tarc had to say from there on.
I agree with your comment about being cautious about sarcasm or reductio ad absurdum on the internet. Bigoted language as a joke, parody or rhetorical trick is not just prone to back-firing but when at this level of nastiness, is going to stick, and be incredibly hard to return from.
Fae
On 26 January 2015 at 18:15, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
There is a thread on the PD talk page that will explain it, but I can't seem to find the original. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mannin...
Tarc was using a rhetorical device called "reductio ad absurdum" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
It always backfires on the internet, since no one can tell the difference between a real bigot and someone pretending to be a bigot in order to mock bigotry. I would like to think I'm good at spotting sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek statements, but I was fooled completely. I remember thinking that Tarc's political views were not what I had thought them to be. But as it turned out, he was the same old Tarc after all. The tactic might have had the desired effect, and who knows, maybe tilted the case in the direction that Tarc had intended. But people don't like to be fooled, this kind of thing usually ends in hostility.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Tarc, I felt your "lipstick on a pig" comment about a transexual was not just disgusting, but was a key example of why we needed a WM-LGBT user group to both highlight and gradually improve a hostile culture on Wikimedia projects that appeared to allow blatantly anti-LGBT attitudes and language on its projects under the guise of "being a joke" or "teasing".
I stopped following any of the crap related to your defamatory language, so if you apologised I missed it. If you did apologize, could you give a link to it, or if not then maybe a thread here or Wikimedia-l might be a good way of building some bridges with members of minority groups that you took part in driving away from Wikipedia through comments like this?
Thanks, Fae
Hi Fae, Tarc wrote during or after the Chelsea Manning case that his comments had been a false-flag operation, intended to shine a spotlight on transphobia. He acknowledged that this was not a good way to do it, and as I recall he apologized.
Sarah
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Jan 26, 2015, at 2:43 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Tarc, I felt your "lipstick on a pig" comment about a transexual was not just disgusting, but was a key example of why we needed a WM-LGBT user group to both highlight and gradually improve a hostile culture on Wikimedia projects that appeared to allow blatantly anti-LGBT attitudes and language on its projects under the guise of "being a joke" or "teasing".
Fæ, please don't refer to someone as "a transsexual"; it's objectifying and demeaning. Imagine someone calling you "a gay" - doesn't that just sound *wrong*? Adjective, not noun.
-- Allie
I suggest that as a supporter and administrator of a website that labels me as a faggot, and a participant and advocate of another website that has been home to trolling me with homophobic language for years, you avoid finding silly reasons to pick tiny holes in my text.
I am in a same sex marriage recognized by UK law. Being called /a gay/ is the least of my worries. In comparison your access to OTRS and personal oversighted material on Wikimedia projects worries me and others greatly.
Fae
On 26 January 2015 at 19:02, Alison Cassidy cooties@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 26, 2015, at 2:43 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Tarc, I felt your "lipstick on a pig" comment about a transexual was not just disgusting, but was a key example of why we needed a WM-LGBT user group to both highlight and gradually improve a hostile culture on Wikimedia projects that appeared to allow blatantly anti-LGBT attitudes and language on its projects under the guise of "being a joke" or "teasing".
Fæ, please don't refer to someone as "a transsexual"; it's objectifying and demeaning. Imagine someone calling you "a gay" - doesn't that just sound *wrong*? Adjective, not noun.
-- Allie _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Fae, this is really very off-topic for this thread at this point. Would mind going off-list if you want to discuss personal history with others?
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest that as a supporter and administrator of a website that labels me as a faggot, and a participant and advocate of another website that has been home to trolling me with homophobic language for years, you avoid finding silly reasons to pick tiny holes in my text.
I am in a same sex marriage recognized by UK law. Being called /a gay/ is the least of my worries. In comparison your access to OTRS and personal oversighted material on Wikimedia projects worries me and others greatly.
Fae
On 26 January 2015 at 19:02, Alison Cassidy cooties@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 26, 2015, at 2:43 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Tarc, I felt your "lipstick on a pig" comment about a transexual was not just disgusting, but was a key example of why we needed a WM-LGBT user group to both highlight and gradually improve a hostile culture on Wikimedia projects that appeared to allow blatantly anti-LGBT attitudes and language on its projects under the guise of "being a joke" or "teasing".
Fæ, please don't refer to someone as "a transsexual"; it's objectifying
and demeaning. Imagine someone calling you "a gay" - doesn't that just sound *wrong*? Adjective, not noun.
-- Allie _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 1/25/2015 6:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was, there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply requesting his bit back.
The problem being that ArbCom is so political that most members see editors they dislike/disagree with on issues/content as disruptive even if their disruption is minor compared to that of the editors they feel more sympatico with. And of course if the "community" (i.e., gangs of editors who are allies) decide to target someone it's just easier politically to sanction those persons than not. And if they have a lot of supporters it is safer NOT to sanction them.
This issue was very clear in GGTF arbitration where a few people were targeted by most posters, over and over for the same issues, at least til the end when an Arbitrator added a couple more needing sanctions. It's less clear in Gamergate because there are more participants being targeted by many more participants on many different issues.
CM
I don't know a lot about this case, but taking a cursory look at the diffs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
...presumably an "excessive edit" is a derogatrory way of saying "a single large edit". In which case I would probably have said the same as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
To be feminist or to not be feminist...
I once read about a mother who went into a toy shop with her little girl. She was walking towards the check-out with a toy fire truck and some Lego when she was stopped by a member of staff who pointed out that the store had dolls. The mother said that her daughter didn't like dolls, that she likes trucks. She was about to move off again when the staff member pointed out that the store sold pastel Lego (as opposed to the primary coloured bucket of Lego that she had picked up). I'm sure she didn't think of herself as a feminist until that moment.
I find that most people who join feminist groups / gender gap mailing list etc. never thought of themselves as feminists until they had a "Lego moment".
My Lego moment was reading this article: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fashion-news/the-wag-wannabes-94... about a 19 year-old who was hoping to become the wife or girlfriend of a footballer (soccer player).
"The lifestyle is amazing. Nice house, expensive cars. Wherever
footballers go they are recognised and
have people looking up to them.
They know they can be with anyone - it's a privilege when they pick you."
Marie
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:24:12 -0500 From: carolmooredc@verizon.net To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
On 1/25/2015 6:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was, there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply requesting his bit back.
The problem being that ArbCom is so political that most members see editors they dislike/disagree with on issues/content as disruptive even if their disruption is minor compared to that of the editors they feel more sympatico with. And of course if the "community" (i.e., gangs of editors who are allies) decide to target someone it's just easier politically to sanction those persons than not. And if they have a lot of supporters it is safer NOT to sanction them.
This issue was very clear in GGTF arbitration where a few people were targeted by most posters, over and over for the same issues, at least til the end when an Arbitrator added a couple more needing sanctions. It's less clear in Gamergate because there are more participants being targeted by many more participants on many different issues.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Double standard. Where are all the usual voices protesting about "civility police"? Where are all the arbitrators opining that they cannot set objective standards for language?
Beeblebrox used to have an article about "fuck off" in his user space. It didn't get him banned. In fact, he went on to become an administrator and arbitrator.
In the absence of objective standards, subjective standards are emerging, based on gender. Using the f-word, or even criticizing male users, is becoming a male privilege on en.wp. Anyone else who uses the word is "hostile" and exhibiting "battleground behavior". I must also say I am very disappointed in GorillaWarfare's role here.
Maybe, just maybe, instead of just dismissing anything that is said by a woman editor, the arbitration committee should investigate it. I am looking in particular at this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic... If it is true, there are a huge number of users recruited on external sites, who are not there to build an encyclopedia, that will have huge implications for the survival of women editors on Wikipedia. The arbitration committee is looking at WP:SPA, they should look at WP:MEAT. And they should pay attention to who the ringleaders are, not just the throwaway accounts. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Wome...
But, as has been pointed out on the current RFC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_should_the_poli... that would change the WP:OUTING policy to prohibit all mention of outside accounts, including Reddit Men's Rights and Reddit Gamergate, "trying to address the issues without being able to talk openly about the evidence is difficult".
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
I don't know a lot about this case, but taking a cursory look at the diffs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
...presumably an "excessive edit" is a derogatrory way of saying "a single large edit". In which case I would probably have said the same as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
To be feminist or to not be feminist...
I once read about a mother who went into a toy shop with her little girl. She was walking towards the check-out with a toy fire truck and some Lego when she was stopped by a member of staff who pointed out that the store had dolls. The mother said that her daughter didn't like dolls, that she likes trucks. She was about to move off again when the staff member pointed out that the store sold pastel Lego (as opposed to the primary coloured bucket of Lego that she had picked up). I'm sure she didn't think of herself as a feminist until that moment.
I find that most people who join feminist groups / gender gap mailing list etc. never thought of themselves as feminists until they had a "Lego moment".
My Lego moment was reading this article: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fashion-news/the-wag-wannabes-94... about a 19 year-old who was hoping to become the wife or girlfriend of a footballer (soccer player).
"The lifestyle is amazing. Nice house, expensive cars. Wherever
footballers go they are recognised and
have people looking up to them. They know they can be with anyone - it's
a privilege when they pick you."
Marie
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:24:12 -0500 From: carolmooredc@verizon.net To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
On 1/25/2015 6:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was, there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply requesting his bit back.
The problem being that ArbCom is so political that most members see editors they dislike/disagree with on issues/content as disruptive even if their disruption is minor compared to that of the editors they feel more sympatico with. And of course if the "community" (i.e., gangs of editors who are allies) decide to target someone it's just easier politically to sanction those persons than not. And if they have a lot of supporters it is safer NOT to sanction them.
This issue was very clear in GGTF arbitration where a few people were targeted by most posters, over and over for the same issues, at least til the end when an Arbitrator added a couple more needing sanctions. It's less clear in Gamergate because there are more participants being targeted by many more participants on many different issues.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
There is something I thought I should mention as a UK member of this list.
Hate speech (including online) is illegal in the UK.
When the Bank of England announced that Elizabeth Fry would be dropped from the new £5 notes and replaced with Winston Churchill, it meant that there would be no women on sterling bank notes (apart from the Queen).
Caroline Criado-Perez successfully campaigned for Jane Austin to be added to £10 notes and received threats of rape and death. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10207231/Woman-who-campaigned-for-Jane...
That instigated an online campaign which resulted in Twitter adding its 'report' button.
Isabella Sorley, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tweets included: "die you worthless piece of crap", "go kill yourself" and, "I've only just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried!!"
John Nimmo, 25, of South Shields, made references to rape and added: "I will find you (smiley face)".
Sorley was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison, and Nimmo was jailed for 8 weeks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026
The law they broke was Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
If UK-based Wikipedian 'X' breaches s.127 of the Comms. Act due to something they said on Wikipedia about UK-based Wikipedian 'Y' then they face criminal prosecution and possibly jail.
The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' but, 'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal systems and thresholds would make no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to see what the public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action should be taken against X whilst the UK jailed him / her.
Marie
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:41:36 -0500 From: neotarf@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
Double standard. Where are all the usual voices protesting about "civility police"? Where are all the arbitrators opining that they cannot set objective standards for language?
Beeblebrox used to have an article about "fuck off" in his user space. It didn't get him banned. In fact, he went on to become an administrator and arbitrator.
In the absence of objective standards, subjective standards are emerging, based on gender. Using the f-word, or even criticizing male users, is becoming a male privilege on en.wp. Anyone else who uses the word is "hostile" and exhibiting "battleground behavior". I must also say I am very disappointed in GorillaWarfare's role here.
Maybe, just maybe, instead of just dismissing anything that is said by a woman editor, the arbitration committee should investigate it. I am looking in particular at this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic... If it is true, there are a huge number of users recruited on external sites, who are not there to build an encyclopedia, that will have huge implications for the survival of women editors on Wikipedia. The arbitration committee is looking at WP:SPA, they should look at WP:MEAT. And they should pay attention to who the ringleaders are, not just the throwaway accounts. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Wome...
But, as has been pointed out on the current RFC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_should_the_poli... that would change the WP:OUTING policy to prohibit all mention of outside accounts, including Reddit Men's Rights and Reddit Gamergate, "trying to address the issues without being able to talk openly about the evidence is difficult".
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
I don't know a lot about this case, but taking a cursory look at the diffs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
...presumably an "excessive edit" is a derogatrory way of saying "a single large edit". In which case I would probably have said the same as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
To be feminist or to not be feminist...
I once read about a mother who went into a toy shop with her little girl. She was walking towards the check-out with a toy fire truck and some Lego when she was stopped by a member of staff who pointed out that the store had dolls. The mother said that her daughter didn't like dolls, that she likes trucks. She was about to move off again when the staff member pointed out that the store sold pastel Lego (as opposed to the primary coloured bucket of Lego that she had picked up). I'm sure she didn't think of herself as a feminist until that moment.
I find that most people who join feminist groups / gender gap mailing list etc. never thought of themselves as feminists until they had a "Lego moment".
My Lego moment was reading this article: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fashion-news/the-wag-wannabes-94... about a 19 year-old who was hoping to become the wife or girlfriend of a footballer (soccer player).
"The lifestyle is amazing. Nice house, expensive cars. Wherever
footballers go they are recognised and
have people looking up to them.
They know they can be with anyone - it's a privilege when they pick you."
Marie
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:24:12 -0500 From: carolmooredc@verizon.net To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
On 1/25/2015 6:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was, there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply requesting his bit back.
The problem being that ArbCom is so political that most members see editors they dislike/disagree with on issues/content as disruptive even if their disruption is minor compared to that of the editors they feel more sympatico with. And of course if the "community" (i.e., gangs of editors who are allies) decide to target someone it's just easier politically to sanction those persons than not. And if they have a lot of supporters it is safer NOT to sanction them.
This issue was very clear in GGTF arbitration where a few people were targeted by most posters, over and over for the same issues, at least til the end when an Arbitrator added a couple more needing sanctions. It's less clear in Gamergate because there are more participants being targeted by many more participants on many different issues.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi Marie,
Surely this would cover more than just examples where both parties were in the UK? For example if the victim was anywhere in the world but the offender was in the UK, wouldn't the UK law apply?
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
On 30 Jan 2015, at 16:46, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
There is something I thought I should mention as a UK member of this list.
Hate speech (including online) is illegal in the UK.
When the Bank of England announced that Elizabeth Fry would be dropped from the new £5 notes and replaced with Winston Churchill, it meant that there would be no women on sterling bank notes (apart from the Queen).
Caroline Criado-Perez successfully campaigned for Jane Austin to be added to £10 notes and received threats of rape and death. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10207231/Woman-who-campaigned-for-Jane...
That instigated an online campaign which resulted in Twitter adding its 'report' button.
Isabella Sorley, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tweets included: "die you worthless piece of crap", "go kill yourself" and, "I've only just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried!!"
John Nimmo, 25, of South Shields, made references to rape and added: "I will find you (smiley face)".
Sorley was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison, and Nimmo was jailed for 8 weeks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026
The law they broke was Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
If UK-based Wikipedian 'X' breaches s.127 of the Comms. Act due to something they said on Wikipedia about UK-based Wikipedian 'Y' then they face criminal prosecution and possibly jail.
The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' but, 'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal systems and thresholds would make no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to see what the public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action should be taken against X whilst the UK jailed him / her.
Marie
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:41:36 -0500 From: neotarf@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
Double standard. Where are all the usual voices protesting about "civility police"? Where are all the arbitrators opining that they cannot set objective standards for language?
Beeblebrox used to have an article about "fuck off" in his user space. It didn't get him banned. In fact, he went on to become an administrator and arbitrator.
In the absence of objective standards, subjective standards are emerging, based on gender. Using the f-word, or even criticizing male users, is becoming a male privilege on en.wp. Anyone else who uses the word is "hostile" and exhibiting "battleground behavior". I must also say I am very disappointed in GorillaWarfare's role here.
Maybe, just maybe, instead of just dismissing anything that is said by a woman editor, the arbitration committee should investigate it. I am looking in particular at this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic... If it is true, there are a huge number of users recruited on external sites, who are not there to build an encyclopedia, that will have huge implications for the survival of women editors on Wikipedia. The arbitration committee is looking at WP:SPA, they should look at WP:MEAT. And they should pay attention to who the ringleaders are, not just the throwaway accounts. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Wome...
But, as has been pointed out on the current RFC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_should_the_poli... that would change the WP:OUTING policy to prohibit all mention of outside accounts, including Reddit Men's Rights and Reddit Gamergate, "trying to address the issues without being able to talk openly about the evidence is difficult".
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote: I don't know a lot about this case, but taking a cursory look at the diffs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
...presumably an "excessive edit" is a derogatrory way of saying "a single large edit". In which case I would probably have said the same as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
To be feminist or to not be feminist...
I once read about a mother who went into a toy shop with her little girl. She was walking towards the check-out with a toy fire truck and some Lego when she was stopped by a member of staff who pointed out that the store had dolls. The mother said that her daughter didn't like dolls, that she likes trucks. She was about to move off again when the staff member pointed out that the store sold pastel Lego (as opposed to the primary coloured bucket of Lego that she had picked up). I'm sure she didn't think of herself as a feminist until that moment.
I find that most people who join feminist groups / gender gap mailing list etc. never thought of themselves as feminists until they had a "Lego moment".
My Lego moment was reading this article: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fashion-news/the-wag-wannabes-94... about a 19 year-old who was hoping to become the wife or girlfriend of a footballer (soccer player).
"The lifestyle is amazing. Nice house, expensive cars. Wherever footballers go they are recognised and have people looking up to them. They know they can be with anyone - it's a privilege when they pick you."
Marie
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:24:12 -0500 From: carolmooredc@verizon.net To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
On 1/25/2015 6:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was, there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply requesting his bit back.
The problem being that ArbCom is so political that most members see editors they dislike/disagree with on issues/content as disruptive even if their disruption is minor compared to that of the editors they feel more sympatico with. And of course if the "community" (i.e., gangs of editors who are allies) decide to target someone it's just easier politically to sanction those persons than not. And if they have a lot of supporters it is safer NOT to sanction them.
This issue was very clear in GGTF arbitration where a few people were targeted by most posters, over and over for the same issues, at least til the end when an Arbitrator added a couple more needing sanctions. It's less clear in Gamergate because there are more participants being targeted by many more participants on many different issues.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
David Auerbach in Slate on "The Wikipedia Ouroboros":
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate...
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:40 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Marie,
Surely this would cover more than just examples where both parties were in the UK? For example if the victim was anywhere in the world but the offender was in the UK, wouldn't the UK law apply?
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
On 30 Jan 2015, at 16:46, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
There is something I thought I should mention as a UK member of this list.
Hate speech (including online) is illegal in the UK.
When the Bank of England announced that Elizabeth Fry would be dropped from the new £5 notes and replaced with Winston Churchill, it meant that there would be no women on sterling bank notes (apart from the Queen).
Caroline Criado-Perez successfully campaigned for Jane Austin to be added to £10 notes and received threats of rape and death. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10207231/Woman-who-campaigned-for-Jane...
That instigated an online campaign which resulted in Twitter adding its 'report' button.
Isabella Sorley, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tweets included: "die you worthless piece of crap", "go kill yourself" and, "I've only just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried!!"
John Nimmo, 25, of South Shields, made references to rape and added: "I will find you (smiley face)".
Sorley was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison, and Nimmo was jailed for 8 weeks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026
The law they broke was Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
If UK-based Wikipedian 'X' breaches s.127 of the Comms. Act due to something they said on Wikipedia about UK-based Wikipedian 'Y' then they face criminal prosecution and possibly jail.
The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' but, 'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal systems and thresholds would make no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to see what the public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action should be taken against X whilst the UK jailed him / her.
Marie
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:41:36 -0500 From: neotarf@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
Double standard. Where are all the usual voices protesting about "civility police"? Where are all the arbitrators opining that they cannot set objective standards for language?
Beeblebrox used to have an article about "fuck off" in his user space. It didn't get him banned. In fact, he went on to become an administrator and arbitrator.
In the absence of objective standards, subjective standards are emerging, based on gender. Using the f-word, or even criticizing male users, is becoming a male privilege on en.wp. Anyone else who uses the word is "hostile" and exhibiting "battleground behavior". I must also say I am very disappointed in GorillaWarfare's role here.
Maybe, just maybe, instead of just dismissing anything that is said by a woman editor, the arbitration committee should investigate it. I am looking in particular at this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic... If it is true, there are a huge number of users recruited on external sites, who are not there to build an encyclopedia, that will have huge implications for the survival of women editors on Wikipedia. The arbitration committee is looking at WP:SPA, they should look at WP:MEAT. And they should pay attention to who the ringleaders are, not just the throwaway accounts. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Wome...
But, as has been pointed out on the current RFC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_should_the_poli... that would change the WP:OUTING policy to prohibit all mention of outside accounts, including Reddit Men's Rights and Reddit Gamergate, "trying to address the issues without being able to talk openly about the evidence is difficult".
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
I don't know a lot about this case, but taking a cursory look at the diffs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
...presumably an "excessive edit" is a derogatrory way of saying "a single large edit". In which case I would probably have said the same as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
To be feminist or to not be feminist...
I once read about a mother who went into a toy shop with her little girl. She was walking towards the check-out with a toy fire truck and some Lego when she was stopped by a member of staff who pointed out that the store had dolls. The mother said that her daughter didn't like dolls, that she likes trucks. She was about to move off again when the staff member pointed out that the store sold pastel Lego (as opposed to the primary coloured bucket of Lego that she had picked up). I'm sure she didn't think of herself as a feminist until that moment.
I find that most people who join feminist groups / gender gap mailing list etc. never thought of themselves as feminists until they had a "Lego moment".
My Lego moment was reading this article: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fashion-news/the-wag-wannabes-94... about a 19 year-old who was hoping to become the wife or girlfriend of a footballer (soccer player).
"The lifestyle is amazing. Nice house, expensive cars. Wherever
footballers go they are recognised and
have people looking up to them. They know they can be with anyone - it's
a privilege when they pick you."
Marie
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:24:12 -0500 From: carolmooredc@verizon.net To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
On 1/25/2015 6:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was, there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply requesting his bit back.
The problem being that ArbCom is so political that most members see editors they dislike/disagree with on issues/content as disruptive even if their disruption is minor compared to that of the editors they feel more sympatico with. And of course if the "community" (i.e., gangs of editors who are allies) decide to target someone it's just easier politically to sanction those persons than not. And if they have a lot of supporters it is safer NOT to sanction them.
This issue was very clear in GGTF arbitration where a few people were targeted by most posters, over and over for the same issues, at least til the end when an Arbitrator added a couple more needing sanctions. It's less clear in Gamergate because there are more participants being targeted by many more participants on many different issues.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-fro... Note that they have changed it from original "five feminists banned" to more accurate account. I see some other reports on Guardian article also updated their versions.
Also, I just got around to replying to Slate article writing the below. I'm sure the trashers will immediately reply as they did last time. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate...
CM wrote:
Wikipedia’s Gender Gap task force arbitration (decided in December 2014) and the more recent "Gamergate" arbitration are strikingly similar in that both cases involve harassment by a gang of males opposed to what they considered “feminist” influences, in Wikipedia and in the coverage of “Gamergate” on Wikipedia. In both cases, these “gangs” aggressively assaulted the ideas and individuals they considered to be feminist. In the first case, those whose goal was promoting greater female participation in the Wikipedia community, including through asking for more a more civil environment; in the second those whose goal was making sure the Wikipedia article properly reflected the major media’s reporting on Gamergate, which happened to be supportive of harassed women.
Some individuals involved in the Gender Gap task force admitted being feminists. Those opposing the imposition of the Gamergate view point on the article were defacto acting to advance the feminist cause, even if they don't consider themselves feminists.
The predominantly male Arbitrators in both cases made it clear that heavy duty harassment of individuals perceived as feminists is a minor crime compared to anyone, feminist or otherwise, strongly opposing such harassment. In their final decisions, they site banned two supporters of the Gender Gap task force and only wrist slapped the harassers; a few weeks later they topic banned those who protested massive sock puppetry and/or harassment by Gamergaters while showing little concern for the harassment that provoked protest.
That’s why many believe that the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is institutionalizing harassment of women especially on Wikipedia. Some feminists have written that the primary value of patriarchy is to allow males to prove their manhood through incivility, putting down women and ultimately violence. In sanctioning those who stand up to such bad behavior, the Arbitration committee reveals its patriarchal and anti-woman mind set.
I don't know of a case of hate speech under UK law that has been brought by a non-UK resident. Looking online tends to push you towards information regarding extradition, but that's not really what we are talking about.
This week laws against revenge porn came into force within the UK with a potential sentence of two years. Since revenge porn is mostly committed online then I would have said yes, if the perpetrator is a UK citizen, acting online within the UK against someone abroad then I would have thought they could be prosecuted by the UK.
This is an article in The Independent about the new law coming into force, the last paragraph seems to hint that that would be the case: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/revenge-porn-criminalised-what-is... "The apparent leaking of nude images of celebrities including Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton, who had their private accounts hacked and which thrust the issue into the limelight, would also be classified as revenge porn."
A couple of other points to note, does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats refer to criminal as well as civil law? The UK has no such thing as District Attorneys or pre-trial hearings, preliminary hearing etc., so I get lost around US law. Cases in the UK are brought by the police and then the file is passed to the Crown Prosection Service. The CPS the decides whether to go ahead, it bases that decision on (a) is there enough evidence for there to be a reasonable chance of conviction, and (b) is the case in the public interest.
I heard about a case some years ago where three men went out for the night, two of them got into a physical scrap in he middle of the street which became quite violent. The third man made a few attempts to break up the fight. Eventually they cooled off and all three went home. No crime was reported, there was no threat of legal action by any of the parties, but the whole thing had been caught on CCTV. The police arrested the two men and the one of them was jailed for attempted murder.
If a concerned member of the public, not necessarily an editor, brought hate speech by a British editor to the attention of the police in the UK, then the police might arrest that editor and the Crown Prosection Service could bring charges using the evidence which is available online. As far as I know it would not require any action or any threat of action on the part of the other editor concerned.
Marie
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 21:22:35 +0000 From: jayen466@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
David Auerbach in Slate on "The Wikipedia Ouroboros": http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate...
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:40 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote: Hi Marie, Surely this would cover more than just examples where both parties were in the UK? For example if the victim was anywhere in the world but the offender was in the UK, wouldn't the UK law apply?
Regards Jonathan Cardy
On 30 Jan 2015, at 16:46, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
There is something I thought I should mention as a UK member of this list.
Hate speech (including online) is illegal in the UK.
When the Bank of England announced that Elizabeth Fry would be dropped from the new £5 notes and replaced with Winston Churchill, it meant that there would be no women on sterling bank notes (apart from the Queen).
Caroline Criado-Perez successfully campaigned for Jane Austin to be added to £10 notes and received threats of rape and death. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10207231/Woman-who-campaigned-for-Jane...
That instigated an online campaign which resulted in Twitter adding its 'report' button.
Isabella Sorley, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tweets included: "die you worthless piece of crap", "go kill yourself" and, "I've only just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried!!"
John Nimmo, 25, of South Shields, made references to rape and added: "I will find you (smiley face)".
Sorley was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison, and Nimmo was jailed for 8 weeks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026
The law they broke was Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
If UK-based Wikipedian 'X' breaches s.127 of the Comms. Act due to something they said on Wikipedia about UK-based Wikipedian 'Y' then they face criminal prosecution and possibly jail.
The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' but, 'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal systems and thresholds would make no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to see what the public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action should be taken against X whilst the UK jailed him / her.
Marie
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:41:36 -0500 From: neotarf@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
Double standard. Where are all the usual voices protesting about "civility police"? Where are all the arbitrators opining that they cannot set objective standards for language?
Beeblebrox used to have an article about "fuck off" in his user space. It didn't get him banned. In fact, he went on to become an administrator and arbitrator.
In the absence of objective standards, subjective standards are emerging, based on gender. Using the f-word, or even criticizing male users, is becoming a male privilege on en.wp. Anyone else who uses the word is "hostile" and exhibiting "battleground behavior". I must also say I am very disappointed in GorillaWarfare's role here.
Maybe, just maybe, instead of just dismissing anything that is said by a woman editor, the arbitration committee should investigate it. I am looking in particular at this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic... If it is true, there are a huge number of users recruited on external sites, who are not there to build an encyclopedia, that will have huge implications for the survival of women editors on Wikipedia. The arbitration committee is looking at WP:SPA, they should look at WP:MEAT. And they should pay attention to who the ringleaders are, not just the throwaway accounts. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Wome...
But, as has been pointed out on the current RFC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_should_the_poli... that would change the WP:OUTING policy to prohibit all mention of outside accounts, including Reddit Men's Rights and Reddit Gamergate, "trying to address the issues without being able to talk openly about the evidence is difficult".
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
I don't know a lot about this case, but taking a cursory look at the diffs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
...presumably an "excessive edit" is a derogatrory way of saying "a single large edit". In which case I would probably have said the same as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
To be feminist or to not be feminist...
I once read about a mother who went into a toy shop with her little girl. She was walking towards the check-out with a toy fire truck and some Lego when she was stopped by a member of staff who pointed out that the store had dolls. The mother said that her daughter didn't like dolls, that she likes trucks. She was about to move off again when the staff member pointed out that the store sold pastel Lego (as opposed to the primary coloured bucket of Lego that she had picked up). I'm sure she didn't think of herself as a feminist until that moment.
I find that most people who join feminist groups / gender gap mailing list etc. never thought of themselves as feminists until they had a "Lego moment".
My Lego moment was reading this article: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fashion-news/the-wag-wannabes-94... about a 19 year-old who was hoping to become the wife or girlfriend of a footballer (soccer player).
"The lifestyle is amazing. Nice house, expensive cars. Wherever
footballers go they are recognised and
have people looking up to them.
They know they can be with anyone - it's a privilege when they pick you."
Marie
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:24:12 -0500 From: carolmooredc@verizon.net To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
On 1/25/2015 6:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was, there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply requesting his bit back.
The problem being that ArbCom is so political that most members see editors they dislike/disagree with on issues/content as disruptive even if their disruption is minor compared to that of the editors they feel more sympatico with. And of course if the "community" (i.e., gangs of editors who are allies) decide to target someone it's just easier politically to sanction those persons than not. And if they have a lot of supporters it is safer NOT to sanction them.
This issue was very clear in GGTF arbitration where a few people were targeted by most posters, over and over for the same issues, at least til the end when an Arbitrator added a couple more needing sanctions. It's less clear in Gamergate because there are more participants being targeted by many more participants on many different issues.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
After thought: Crimestoppers in the UK is anonymous, which would make https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats unenforceable, https://crimestoppers-uk.org/give-information/give-information-online/
Marie
From: eiryel@hotmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 03:48:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
I don't know of a case of hate speech under UK law that has been brought by a non-UK resident. Looking online tends to push you towards information regarding extradition, but that's not really what we are talking about.
This week laws against revenge porn came into force within the UK with a potential sentence of two years. Since revenge porn is mostly committed online then I would have said yes, if the perpetrator is a UK citizen, acting online within the UK against someone abroad then I would have thought they could be prosecuted by the UK.
This is an article in The Independent about the new law coming into force, the last paragraph seems to hint that that would be the case: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/revenge-porn-criminalised-what-is... "The apparent leaking of nude images of celebrities including Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton, who had their private accounts hacked and which thrust the issue into the limelight, would also be classified as revenge porn."
A couple of other points to note, does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats refer to criminal as well as civil law? The UK has no such thing as District Attorneys or pre-trial hearings, preliminary hearing etc., so I get lost around US law. Cases in the UK are brought by the police and then the file is passed to the Crown Prosection Service. The CPS the decides whether to go ahead, it bases that decision on (a) is there enough evidence for there to be a reasonable chance of conviction, and (b) is the case in the public interest.
I heard about a case some years ago where three men went out for the night, two of them got into a physical scrap in he middle of the street which became quite violent. The third man made a few attempts to break up the fight. Eventually they cooled off and all three went home. No crime was reported, there was no threat of legal action by any of the parties, but the whole thing had been caught on CCTV. The police arrested the two men and the one of them was jailed for attempted murder.
If a concerned member of the public, not necessarily an editor, brought hate speech by a British editor to the attention of the police in the UK, then the police might arrest that editor and the Crown Prosection Service could bring charges using the evidence which is available online. As far as I know it would not require any action or any threat of action on the part of the other editor concerned.
Marie
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 21:22:35 +0000 From: jayen466@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
David Auerbach in Slate on "The Wikipedia Ouroboros": http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate...
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:40 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote: Hi Marie, Surely this would cover more than just examples where both parties were in the UK? For example if the victim was anywhere in the world but the offender was in the UK, wouldn't the UK law apply?
Regards Jonathan Cardy
On 30 Jan 2015, at 16:46, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
There is something I thought I should mention as a UK member of this list.
Hate speech (including online) is illegal in the UK.
When the Bank of England announced that Elizabeth Fry would be dropped from the new £5 notes and replaced with Winston Churchill, it meant that there would be no women on sterling bank notes (apart from the Queen).
Caroline Criado-Perez successfully campaigned for Jane Austin to be added to £10 notes and received threats of rape and death. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10207231/Woman-who-campaigned-for-Jane...
That instigated an online campaign which resulted in Twitter adding its 'report' button.
Isabella Sorley, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tweets included: "die you worthless piece of crap", "go kill yourself" and, "I've only just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried!!"
John Nimmo, 25, of South Shields, made references to rape and added: "I will find you (smiley face)".
Sorley was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison, and Nimmo was jailed for 8 weeks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026
The law they broke was Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
If UK-based Wikipedian 'X' breaches s.127 of the Comms. Act due to something they said on Wikipedia about UK-based Wikipedian 'Y' then they face criminal prosecution and possibly jail.
The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' but, 'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal systems and thresholds would make no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to see what the public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action should be taken against X whilst the UK jailed him / her.
Marie
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:41:36 -0500 From: neotarf@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
Double standard. Where are all the usual voices protesting about "civility police"? Where are all the arbitrators opining that they cannot set objective standards for language?
Beeblebrox used to have an article about "fuck off" in his user space. It didn't get him banned. In fact, he went on to become an administrator and arbitrator.
In the absence of objective standards, subjective standards are emerging, based on gender. Using the f-word, or even criticizing male users, is becoming a male privilege on en.wp. Anyone else who uses the word is "hostile" and exhibiting "battleground behavior". I must also say I am very disappointed in GorillaWarfare's role here.
Maybe, just maybe, instead of just dismissing anything that is said by a woman editor, the arbitration committee should investigate it. I am looking in particular at this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic... If it is true, there are a huge number of users recruited on external sites, who are not there to build an encyclopedia, that will have huge implications for the survival of women editors on Wikipedia. The arbitration committee is looking at WP:SPA, they should look at WP:MEAT. And they should pay attention to who the ringleaders are, not just the throwaway accounts. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Wome...
But, as has been pointed out on the current RFC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_should_the_poli... that would change the WP:OUTING policy to prohibit all mention of outside accounts, including Reddit Men's Rights and Reddit Gamergate, "trying to address the issues without being able to talk openly about the evidence is difficult".
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
I don't know a lot about this case, but taking a cursory look at the diffs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
...presumably an "excessive edit" is a derogatrory way of saying "a single large edit". In which case I would probably have said the same as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
To be feminist or to not be feminist...
I once read about a mother who went into a toy shop with her little girl. She was walking towards the check-out with a toy fire truck and some Lego when she was stopped by a member of staff who pointed out that the store had dolls. The mother said that her daughter didn't like dolls, that she likes trucks. She was about to move off again when the staff member pointed out that the store sold pastel Lego (as opposed to the primary coloured bucket of Lego that she had picked up). I'm sure she didn't think of herself as a feminist until that moment.
I find that most people who join feminist groups / gender gap mailing list etc. never thought of themselves as feminists until they had a "Lego moment".
My Lego moment was reading this article: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fashion-news/the-wag-wannabes-94... about a 19 year-old who was hoping to become the wife or girlfriend of a footballer (soccer player).
"The lifestyle is amazing. Nice house, expensive cars. Wherever
footballers go they are recognised and
have people looking up to them.
They know they can be with anyone - it's a privilege when they pick you."
Marie
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:24:12 -0500 From: carolmooredc@verizon.net To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
On 1/25/2015 6:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was, there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply requesting his bit back.
The problem being that ArbCom is so political that most members see editors they dislike/disagree with on issues/content as disruptive even if their disruption is minor compared to that of the editors they feel more sympatico with. And of course if the "community" (i.e., gangs of editors who are allies) decide to target someone it's just easier politically to sanction those persons than not. And if they have a lot of supporters it is safer NOT to sanction them.
This issue was very clear in GGTF arbitration where a few people were targeted by most posters, over and over for the same issues, at least til the end when an Arbitrator added a couple more needing sanctions. It's less clear in Gamergate because there are more participants being targeted by many more participants on many different issues.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Marie I always find your replies so interesting. Glad you share. On Jan 30, 2015 5:46 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
There is something I thought I should mention as a UK member of this list.
Hate speech (including online) is illegal in the UK.
When the Bank of England announced that Elizabeth Fry would be dropped from the new £5 notes and replaced with Winston Churchill, it meant that there would be no women on sterling bank notes (apart from the Queen).
Caroline Criado-Perez successfully campaigned for Jane Austin to be added to £10 notes and received threats of rape and death. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10207231/Woman-who-campaigned-for-Jane...
That instigated an online campaign which resulted in Twitter adding its 'report' button.
Isabella Sorley, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tweets included: "die you worthless piece of crap", "go kill yourself" and, "I've only just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried!!"
John Nimmo, 25, of South Shields, made references to rape and added: "I will find you (smiley face)".
Sorley was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison, and Nimmo was jailed for 8 weeks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026
The law they broke was Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
If UK-based Wikipedian 'X' breaches s.127 of the Comms. Act due to something they said on Wikipedia about UK-based Wikipedian 'Y' then they face criminal prosecution and possibly jail.
The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' but, 'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal systems and thresholds would make no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to see what the public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action should be taken against X whilst the UK jailed him / her.
Marie
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:41:36 -0500 From: neotarf@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
Double standard. Where are all the usual voices protesting about "civility police"? Where are all the arbitrators opining that they cannot set objective standards for language?
Beeblebrox used to have an article about "fuck off" in his user space. It didn't get him banned. In fact, he went on to become an administrator and arbitrator.
In the absence of objective standards, subjective standards are emerging, based on gender. Using the f-word, or even criticizing male users, is becoming a male privilege on en.wp. Anyone else who uses the word is "hostile" and exhibiting "battleground behavior". I must also say I am very disappointed in GorillaWarfare's role here.
Maybe, just maybe, instead of just dismissing anything that is said by a woman editor, the arbitration committee should investigate it. I am looking in particular at this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic... If it is true, there are a huge number of users recruited on external sites, who are not there to build an encyclopedia, that will have huge implications for the survival of women editors on Wikipedia. The arbitration committee is looking at WP:SPA, they should look at WP:MEAT. And they should pay attention to who the ringleaders are, not just the throwaway accounts. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Wome...
But, as has been pointed out on the current RFC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_should_the_poli... that would change the WP:OUTING policy to prohibit all mention of outside accounts, including Reddit Men's Rights and Reddit Gamergate, "trying to address the issues without being able to talk openly about the evidence is difficult".
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
I don't know a lot about this case, but taking a cursory look at the diffs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
...presumably an "excessive edit" is a derogatrory way of saying "a single large edit". In which case I would probably have said the same as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&di...
To be feminist or to not be feminist...
I once read about a mother who went into a toy shop with her little girl. She was walking towards the check-out with a toy fire truck and some Lego when she was stopped by a member of staff who pointed out that the store had dolls. The mother said that her daughter didn't like dolls, that she likes trucks. She was about to move off again when the staff member pointed out that the store sold pastel Lego (as opposed to the primary coloured bucket of Lego that she had picked up). I'm sure she didn't think of herself as a feminist until that moment.
I find that most people who join feminist groups / gender gap mailing list etc. never thought of themselves as feminists until they had a "Lego moment".
My Lego moment was reading this article: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fashion-news/the-wag-wannabes-94... about a 19 year-old who was hoping to become the wife or girlfriend of a footballer (soccer player).
"The lifestyle is amazing. Nice house, expensive cars. Wherever
footballers go they are recognised and
have people looking up to them. They know they can be with anyone - it's
a privilege when they pick you."
Marie
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:24:12 -0500 From: carolmooredc@verizon.net To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
On 1/25/2015 6:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was, there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply requesting his bit back.
The problem being that ArbCom is so political that most members see editors they dislike/disagree with on issues/content as disruptive even if their disruption is minor compared to that of the editors they feel more sympatico with. And of course if the "community" (i.e., gangs of editors who are allies) decide to target someone it's just easier politically to sanction those persons than not. And if they have a lot of supporters it is safer NOT to sanction them.
This issue was very clear in GGTF arbitration where a few people were targeted by most posters, over and over for the same issues, at least til the end when an Arbitrator added a couple more needing sanctions. It's less clear in Gamergate because there are more participants being targeted by many more participants on many different issues.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' but, 'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal >systems and thresholds would make no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to see what the >public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action should be taken against X whilst the UK jailed him / her.
Well, there’s this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Threats_of_violence which never became policy (probably because, it seems, people discussed it more in light of threats of suicide rather than threats to others). But it may be time to revisit that. I assume, in the hypothetical you’re talking about, the question would be whether someone was punished in real life for threats made on-wiki that resulted in no action from the ArbCom? Or from anyone? In the former, yes, the public fallout would be interesting; in the latter, it would depend on whether anyone with the power to take action knew. I do recall some past cases, once described on the now-deleted “List of banned users”, where the trigger for the formal ban (as opposed to the never-lifted indefinite block) was a user threatening violence against someone (usually via their latest sock). Of course, if someone were to be incarcerated in real life as a result of their on-wiki threats, any action after that other than blocking the account to prevent some hacker from making use of it would really be superfluous. Daniel Case
Yes, no action from ArbCom or however, followed by a criminal conviction. Quotes from the judge in the criminal trial appearing in the media alongside quotes from those on-wiki who just said, "Closing this... no action... trivial... this isn't a matter for administrators..." etc.
Perhaps even a judge who expresses surprise and/or disappointment at a lack of action from Wikipedia, a headline along the lines of: "Judge accuses Wikipedia for failing to support victim of hate speech."
There is also the crime of defamation which is also a more serious offence under UK law than it is under US law. US - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Criminal_defamati... UK - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013
Marie
From: dancase@frontiernet.net To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:55:30 -0500 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
The
litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' but, 'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal >systems and thresholds would make no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to see what the
public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action should be taken
against X whilst the UK jailed him / her.
Well, there’s this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Threats_of_violence
which never became policy (probably because, it seems, people discussed it more in light of threats of suicide rather than threats to others). But it may be time to revisit that.
I assume, in the hypothetical you’re talking about, the question would be whether someone was punished in real life for threats made on-wiki that resulted in no action from the ArbCom? Or from anyone? In the former, yes, the public fallout would be interesting; in the latter, it would depend on whether anyone with the power to take action knew.
I do recall some past cases, once described on the now-deleted “List of banned users”, where the trigger for the formal ban (as opposed to the never-lifted indefinite block) was a user threatening violence against someone (usually via their latest sock).
Of course, if someone were to be incarcerated in real life as a result of their on-wiki threats, any action after that other than blocking the account to prevent some hacker from making use of it would really be superfluous.
Daniel Case
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
Yes, no action from ArbCom or however, followed by a criminal conviction. Quotes from the judge in the criminal trial appearing in the media alongside quotes from those on-wiki who just said, "Closing this... no action... trivial... this isn't a matter for administrators..." etc.
Perhaps even a judge who expresses surprise and/or disappointment at a lack of action from Wikipedia, a headline along the lines of: "Judge accuses Wikipedia for failing to support victim of hate speech."
There is also the crime of defamation which is also a more serious offence under UK law than it is under US law. US - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Criminal_defamati... UK - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013
Marie
With reference to Marie and Daniel's emails , an d to Maia's email under a different subject line – where she discusses the US cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment laws http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/cyberstalking-and-cyberharassment-laws.aspx#overview – one difficulty for Wikipedians is whether they would be blocked from editing if they were to invoke the law in their defence. (This assumes the editor causing the problem hasn't been banned, in which case I can't imagine that NLT would ever be applied.)
Wikipedia:No legal threats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats (NLT) says: "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels."
This is arguably more likely to have an impact on women. People aren't blocked from Twitter or Facebook for using the law to defend themselves, and women are generally encouraged to seek legal help rather than deal with bad online situations alone. NLT should be updated to distinguish between invoking the law merely to intimidate and invoking it as a legitimate defence, though it would need careful wording.
Sarah
More articles, a couple of which I may answer. Let's face it, the main issue in both GGTF and Gamergate is males going NUTS because females want a more civil and less violent atmosphere and world. As I write in article linked below, Robin Morgan (formerly MS. Editor) has written that the main value to males is proving their manhood through violence (including cursing and swearing, especially at women). So in the end both these arbitrations were about males going psycho because females challenged their civility/violence/manhood. Oh, yuk!! So GOOD that the media made the story about banning feminists, though in the end it was mostly guys who were rightly pissed about pov-pushing gamer meatpuppets...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/01/29/gamergate-wik...
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/28/7927425/wikipedia-bans-gamergate-editors-v...
http://www.themarysue.com/wikipedia-gamergate/ and http://www.themarysue.com/wikipedia-gamergate-update/ and http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-asked-leigh-alexander-about-pushing-valu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-01-28/I...
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/81659.html
http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/26/3615559/wikipedia-wants-ban-femi...
http://www.inquisitr.com/1786642/gamergate-wikipedia-ruling-bans-harassed-fe...
I see the German version of Wired has an article. I wonder if they'll do any better...
CM
On 1/31/2015 2:47 PM, Carol Moore dc wrote:
As I write in article linked below, Robin Morgan (formerly MS. Editor) has written that the main value to males is proving their manhood through violence (including cursing and swearing, especially at women).
http://www.carolmoore.net/sfm/cooptation.html
forgot link
One more, by Andy Cush:
http://internet.gawker.com/the-gamergate-decision-shows-exactly-whats-broken...
Quote:
Maher's email, and the official Wikipedia statements on Gamergate, are careful to point out that the arbitration committee has the authority to govern disputes about the conduct of Wikipedia's editors, but not about the content of the site. For that reason, Maher wrote, the committee's decision shouldn't be understood as a "referendum on Gamergate itself." In other words, the decision isn't about whose ideas are right; it's about who is best behaved.
Leaving aside the long history of punishable behavior by Gamergate supporters, that defense highlights one of Wikipedia's most fundamental flaws: aside from the purely democratic groupthink of its editors, no mechanism exists for governing the site's content. If enough web-savvy pseudoscientists decided tomorrow to use Wikipedia to espouse the merits of phrenology, or a racist campaign in support of eugenics flooded the site, there's not much Wikipedia could do about it. Good editors would work against the crazies, of course, and if ArbCom found evidence of conduct violations it could punish the interlopers that way, but there's no system in place for Wikipedia's administrators to say, *Your ideas are wrong, and they're not welcome here.*
Don't believe me? That's exactly what happened to the Croatian version of Wikipedia when a group of far-right reactionaries seized it in a coup in 2013. http://www.dailydot.com/politics/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controversy-right-wing/ The Daily Dot reported at the time [...]
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/31/2015 2:47 PM, Carol Moore dc wrote:
As I write in article linked below, Robin Morgan (formerly MS. Editor) has written that the main value to males is proving their manhood through violence (including cursing and swearing, especially at women).
http://www.carolmoore.net/sfm/cooptation.html
forgot link
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re the Threats of Violence page...
It's an essay in name only. That was a workaround for getting what was actually being done by admins and senior editors documented and standardized after some intractable philosophical fights over what "should be" poisoned the well on normal process.
It is policy in every meaningful sense.
(I wrote the first and many subsequent drafts)
George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2015, at 9:55 AM, "Daniel and Elizabeth Case" dancase@frontiernet.net wrote:
The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' but, 'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal >systems and thresholds would make no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to see what the >public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action should be taken against X whilst the UK jailed him / her.
Well, there’s this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Threats_of_violence
which never became policy (probably because, it seems, people discussed it more in light of threats of suicide rather than threats to others). But it may be time to revisit that.
I assume, in the hypothetical you’re talking about, the question would be whether someone was punished in real life for threats made on-wiki that resulted in no action from the ArbCom? Or from anyone? In the former, yes, the public fallout would be interesting; in the latter, it would depend on whether anyone with the power to take action knew.
I do recall some past cases, once described on the now-deleted “List of banned users”, where the trigger for the formal ban (as opposed to the never-lifted indefinite block) was a user threatening violence against someone (usually via their latest sock).
Of course, if someone were to be incarcerated in real life as a result of their on-wiki threats, any action after that other than blocking the account to prevent some hacker from making use of it would really be superfluous.
Daniel Case _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 1/25/2015 1:03 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
After reviewing the Arbcom case, I don't even know who got the idea that any of the contributing editors are feminist, per se. No one even mentions the word, except once, when describing a subject that was "slandered" in the gamer gate article(s).
I read the article and some discussion in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy And skimmed evidence and current proposal (all that convoluted info/opinion that makes Arbitrations so difficult).
Off hand this is what I think about media labeling it feminist:
*Obviously the quoted Mark Bernstein's labeling sanctioned editors as feminists helped frame it; looks like he might have brought this to the media.
*Reading the article in its current state it's clear that the whole "Gamergate" movement is a bunch of misogynists who ignore real big corporate ethics issues while picking on small mostly female efforts. Anyone fighting against imposing the Gamergate view point obvious is defacto acting to advance the feminist cause, even if they don't consider themselves feminists. (Not that it was entirely clear to me who all the pro-feminist editors were, including the banned 5; that would take too much research.)
*I did note that two editors who were very supportive of ending disruptions at GGTF and the banning of pro-GGTF editors took opposite views on gamergate - and both got site banned.