Good that this story has been told, at last. Overdue.

(Minor quibbles: Eric is not an admin, and the New York Times piece was not written by a NYT reporter. Corrections possible?)

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks for sending this out Carol, you beat me by about two minutes. I would hugely encourage everyone to read this, and a lot of it also relates to why it's important that people vote in arbcom election, and we don't have arbitrators elected with 273 support votes and fewer than 600 total votes...

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:

...

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hosti...

...

Goes into lots of details...

---

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

feel free to correct about Clara H. Hasse not Nellie A. Brown, and

there were a handful of women contributors at EB1911 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Agnes_Mary_Clerke https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Contributor...

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:

Some journos take corrections easily, and some don't. I've had people directly misquote me at major outlets where I had the call on record (with their consent, since CA is a 2 party consent state for recording calls,) and refuse to make corrections, and had other people accept my corrections at face value and put them in to place. I may not have time to do so today, but would encourage anyone interested (probably better if it's only a person or two and not a horde in this case) to contact the author of the Atlantic piece about the issues. Probably those directly interviewed by the journalist would be the best candidates to put in for a correction.

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

Good that this story has been told, at last. Overdue.

(Minor quibbles: Eric is not an admin, and the New York Times piece was

not

...

written by a NYT reporter. Corrections possible?)

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:

...

Thanks for sending this out Carol, you beat me by about two minutes. I would hugely encourage everyone to read this, and a lot of it also relates to why it's important that people vote in arbcom election, and we don't have arbitrators elected with 273 support votes and fewer than 600 total votes...

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:

...

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hosti...

...

...

...

Goes into lots of details...

---

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

Thanks Francesca,

It seems a shame that an Arbcom case in which one person was blocked for offwiki harassment and another would have been if the evidence had been conclusive has been reported as if they'd decided instead to spare the harasser for privacy reasons.

As Thryduulf put it "there is no doubt that had we been able to conclusively connect the perpetrator to a Wikipedia account that action would have been taken (almost certainly a site ban). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather"

You could point her to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreat...

A story warning mysogynists that Arbcom will and has acted against those it catches would have made it easier to attract women to wikipedia and deter misogynists.

WSC

On 22 October 2015 at 12:04, Francesca Tripodi fbt8pa@virginia.edu wrote:

I was directly interviewed for this article but my contributions were scrapped. I have Emma's email and I would be happy to reach out to her if you'd like to list a set of uniform "corrections"? No guarantee she'd be able to change them but it's a start if you'd like?

Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity or errors.

...

On Oct 21, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:

Some journos take corrections easily, and some don't. I've had people directly misquote me at major outlets where I had the call on record (with their consent, since CA is a 2 party consent state for recording calls,) and refuse to make corrections, and had other people accept my corrections at face value and put them in to place. I may not have time to do so today, but would encourage anyone interested (probably better if it's only a person or two and not a horde in this case) to contact the author of the Atlantic piece about the issues. Probably those directly interviewed by the journalist would be the best candidates to put in for a correction.

Best, Kevin Gorman

...

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

Good that this story has been told, at last. Overdue.

(Minor quibbles: Eric is not an admin, and the New York Times piece was

not

...

...

written by a NYT reporter. Corrections possible?)

...

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

...

Thanks for sending this out Carol, you beat me by about two minutes. I would hugely encourage everyone to read this, and a lot of it also relates to why it's important that people vote in arbcom election, and we don't have arbitrators elected with 273 support votes and fewer than 600 total votes...

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:

...

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hosti...

...

...

...

...

Goes into lots of details...

---

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

Hi Sarah,

I'm not a "functionary" so I haven't seen the evidence - clearly it convinces you, but it did not quite convince the functionaries. Reading the result and for example Yunshui's comment I would simply prefer that the record shows we were not fully convinced by the evidence, rather than that we were convinced, but chose not to act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_LightbreatherI think what we have here is more than a detail difference. If the decision had been, as reported in the Atlantic, that Arbcom had decided this *"on the grounds that it may “out” the editor that had posted the pictures, or link his username to his real name."* Then I would have supported a change in policy, or Arbcom membership, so that future Arbcoms in similar situations would be willing to risk outing someone, or just ban them without public reason, rather than leave a harasser unpunished. But if the issue is not that, but instead that the evidence was inconclusive, then I think we have a very different problem to work on. As for the broader picture I don't dispute that Wikipedia has several problems around gender, and some terrible publicity, but if one took that article at face value the obvious next step would be to get a change in policy so that if Arbcom were convinced of the evidence they could and would have acted.

Jonathan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather

On 22 October 2015 at 17:37, Sarah (SV) slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

WSC, the evidence as to who posted the porn images was, I would say, conclusive. We nevertheless ended up with a situation in which a man who had been engaged in harassment (much of which was onwiki and had been going on for about a year) was let off the hook, and the harassed woman was banned.

There was a similar situation in the GGTF case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF, so the Lightbreather case was not an unfortunate one-off. For example, the man who was blocked for harassment during the Lightbreather case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather should have been blocked for it during the GGTF case, but wasn't. He only ended up being blocked during the Lightbreather case because he admitted that he had done it. Otherwise he might still be editing.

Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many other examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist. (See this selection of stories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Media_and_research.) Rather than arguing about which details various journalists got wrong, we should focus on what they got right and how we can fix it.

Sarah

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks Francesca,

It seems a shame that an Arbcom case in which one person was blocked for offwiki harassment and another would have been if the evidence had been conclusive has been reported as if they'd decided instead to spare the harasser for privacy reasons.

As Thryduulf put it "there is no doubt that had we been able to conclusively connect the perpetrator to a Wikipedia account that action would have been taken (almost certainly a site ban). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather"

You could point her to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreat...

A story warning mysogynists that Arbcom will and has acted against those it catches would have made it easier to attract women to wikipedia and deter misogynists.

WSC

On 22 October 2015 at 12:04, Francesca Tripodi fbt8pa@virginia.edu wrote:

...

I was directly interviewed for this article but my contributions were scrapped. I have Emma's email and I would be happy to reach out to her if you'd like to list a set of uniform "corrections"? No guarantee she'd be able to change them but it's a start if you'd like?

Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity or errors.

...

On Oct 21, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:

Some journos take corrections easily, and some don't. I've had people directly misquote me at major outlets where I had the call on record (with their consent, since CA is a 2 party consent state for recording calls,) and refuse to make corrections, and had other people accept my corrections at face value and put them in to place. I may not have time to do so today, but would encourage anyone interested (probably better if it's only a person or two and not a horde in this case) to contact the author of the Atlantic piece about the issues. Probably those directly interviewed by the journalist would be the best candidates to put in for a correction.

Best, Kevin Gorman

...

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

Good that this story has been told, at last. Overdue.

(Minor quibbles: Eric is not an admin, and the New York Times piece

was not

...

...

written by a NYT reporter. Corrections possible?)

...

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

...

Thanks for sending this out Carol, you beat me by about two minutes. I would hugely encourage everyone to read this, and a lot of it also relates to why it's important that people vote in arbcom election,

and

...

...

...

we don't have arbitrators elected with 273 support votes and fewer than 600 total votes...

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote: > >

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hosti...

...

...

...

> > Goes into lots of details... > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

FWIW: speaking as a non-functionary who is not aware of what information our functionaries had at the time but used to handle abuse cases like this for a major website (and also briefly worked as an actual skiptracer, using purely legal means) the evidence I dug up on my own I would consider absolutely sufficient to tie the two together conclusively. More significantly, as Sarah pointed out, this is happening time after time after time. It becomes much harder to argue that something is incidental, a one-off, or a result of an inability to gather sufficient evidence when a larger pattern presents itself.

Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last year. That's not even a gender thing for me at this point - it's just broken (although it certainly has implications w/r/t gender.)

(As a tangent, it amuses me that most people in my experience who ever use the expression 'one bad apple' forget that the full idiom is "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.")

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

Jonathan, I think there's a bit of talking past each other going on. Rehashing details of one of the many dramafest Arbcom cases is not worthwhile.

From my viewpoint Sarah hit the nail on the head with "Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many other examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist."

Improving reputation and recognizing that there is a systemic problem is a far more useful direction to take. Think about a bit of "reframing".

P.S. I was approached by the Atlantic due to my work in the area of revert-wars and the potential relationship to bias. I did a little digging around it, but my thoughts are too slow to satisfy journalists' deadlines. ;-)

Fae

On 22 October 2015 at 18:12, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Sarah,

I'm not a "functionary" so I haven't seen the evidence - clearly it convinces you, but it did not quite convince the functionaries. Reading the result and for example Yunshui's comment I would simply prefer that the record shows we were not fully convinced by the evidence, rather than that we were convinced, but chose not to act. I think what we have here is more than a detail difference. If the decision had been, as reported in the Atlantic, that Arbcom had decided this "on the grounds that it may “out” the editor that had posted the pictures, or link his username to his real name." Then I would have supported a change in policy, or Arbcom membership, so that future Arbcoms in similar situations would be willing to risk outing someone, or just ban them without public reason, rather than leave a harasser unpunished. But if the issue is not that, but instead that the evidence was inconclusive, then I think we have a very different problem to work on. As for the broader picture I don't dispute that Wikipedia has several problems around gender, and some terrible publicity, but if one took that article at face value the obvious next step would be to get a change in policy so that if Arbcom were convinced of the evidence they could and would have acted.

Jonathan

On 22 October 2015 at 17:37, Sarah (SV) slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

...

WSC, the evidence as to who posted the porn images was, I would say, conclusive. We nevertheless ended up with a situation in which a man who had been engaged in harassment (much of which was onwiki and had been going on for about a year) was let off the hook, and the harassed woman was banned.

There was a similar situation in the GGTF case, so the Lightbreather case was not an unfortunate one-off. For example, the man who was blocked for harassment during the Lightbreather case should have been blocked for it during the GGTF case, but wasn't. He only ended up being blocked during the Lightbreather case because he admitted that he had done it. Otherwise he might still be editing.

Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many other examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist. (See this selection of stories.) Rather than arguing about which details various journalists got wrong, we should focus on what they got right and how we can fix it.

Sarah

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:

...

Thanks Francesca,

It seems a shame that an Arbcom case in which one person was blocked for offwiki harassment and another would have been if the evidence had been conclusive has been reported as if they'd decided instead to spare the harasser for privacy reasons.

As Thryduulf put it "there is no doubt that had we been able to conclusively connect the perpetrator to a Wikipedia account that action would have been taken (almost certainly a site ban)."

You could point her to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreat...

A story warning mysogynists that Arbcom will and has acted against those it catches would have made it easier to attract women to wikipedia and deter misogynists.

WSC

-- 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

Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics.

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case dancase@frontiernet.net wrote:

...

Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last year.

Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly, although I rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might reflect the oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize do the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so to speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion amongst themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to care who care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a greater proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote.

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

I'm pretty sure it was at least the year before, though I could be wrong. I don't agree that arbcom is irrelevant to WP editors generally speaking. Arbcom has a significant effect on culture, which effects everyone, and additionally, many eligible voters who likely don't realize they are eligible are both significant contributors of content - direct or indirect - like a lot of GLAM and EDU folks, are likely to spend enough to time to evaluate and vote for the candidates that best support their values and interests.

As a minor example, Brian Carver (who meets the eligibility requirements, though he only has 300 edits under his own account, since he normally edits anonymously) has taught grad students using Wikipedia longer than I've edited Wikipedia, and is the reason why a huge number of cyberlaw articles exist at all, let alone are generally well-sourced and pretty comprehensive (the list of articles his userpage lists is significantly less than complete - not every student adds theirs.) I don't know if he votes or not (I've never asked him,) but I know he has an interest in the climate of ENWP as a whole, and certainly a significant investment in the education program (which at times, especially before the WEF, was likely headed to a nasty arb case.) I'm also pretty positive he'd spend the time necessary to be an informed voter - and he is far from the only such person. (He's prominent and public enough that I feel comfortable naming him without asking first, but I can think of plenty of other examples of similar situations.)

It is generally accepted to be best practice by pretty much any group that holds elections to inform eligible voters that they are eligible to vote,

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case dancase@frontiernet.net wrote:

...

Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics.

It wasn't a "suggestion". My point, more bluntly, was that there are an awful lot of Wikipedians, maybe not all or even many of them people who make edits on a daily basis, but do so regularly, for whom the ArbCom is irrelevant. And that perception would be independent of any editing metrics.

On another note, was 2014 the year we went to a secret ballot to elect arbitrators? Or had that been the year before?

Dan Case

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

If the editing metrics are still up, could this a reflect a shift in the type of user to coordinated offsite editing. Judging by the huge amount of interest in a certain obscure IdeaLab proposal, we could be looking at a new editing paradigm.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:

Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics.

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case dancase@frontiernet.net wrote:

...

...

Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last year.

Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly,

although I

...

rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might reflect

the

...

oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize do the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so to speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion

amongst

...

themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to care

who

...

care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a

greater

...

proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote.

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

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Kevin,

2014 was the nadir for some raw editing numbers on English Wikipedia, on at least one count numbers have been rising since then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-26/In_focus. The problem in estimating the electorate is that our best metrics are unrelated to the arbcom voting criteria, so for example we know that the number of editors saving over 100 edits per month in mainspace is up in 2015, September's figure was 15.3% up on 2014 and the highest September figure since 2010 https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm.

5 edits is more volatile, some months even show a small decline since the

same month in 2014. People entitled to vote is going to be a much larger group than the >100 edits per month brigade, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a correlation between edit count and propensity to vote.

On 23 October 2015 at 02:21, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:

Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics.

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case dancase@frontiernet.net wrote:

...

...

Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last year.

Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly,

although I

...

rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might reflect

the

...

oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize do the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so to speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion

amongst

...

themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to care

who

...

care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a

greater

...

proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote.

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

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

WSC -

Though true that 2014 appears to have been the nadir for many editing metrics, even if you set the bar really high, I'd be impressed if you could find any relevant metric that was only 60% of what it was the year before. A lot more went in to dismal arbcom turnout than simply the fact that 2014 was our lowest year for most metrics. (I say that not just based on the metrics, but on dozens of private comments I've received from parties ranging from those who knew they coud vote but didn't, knew they could vote and did, and sitting functionaries. Yes, my inbox is painful this week.)

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:

It might be interesting to look at when the 500-edit requirement was put in place for certain articles that were targeted by off-site editing groups, and whether that correlates with anything. It looks like the number of new articles peaked some time ago.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:45 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:

...

Kevin,

2014 was the nadir for some raw editing numbers on English Wikipedia, on at least one count numbers have been rising since then. The problem in estimating the electorate is that our best metrics are unrelated to the arbcom voting criteria, so for example we know that the number of editors saving over 100 edits per month in mainspace is up in 2015, September's figure was 15.3% up on 2014 and the highest September figure since 2010. >5 edits is more volatile, some months even show a small decline since the same month in 2014. People entitled to vote is going to be a much larger group than the >100 edits per month brigade, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a correlation between edit count and propensity to vote.

On 23 October 2015 at 02:21, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:

...

Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics.

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case dancase@frontiernet.net wrote:

...

...

Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last year.

Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly, although I rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might reflect the oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize do the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so to speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion amongst themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to care who care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a greater proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote.

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

---

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

Jonathan and Fae, I see the disagreement about details as part of the systemic bias. The evidence in question was widely available; one did not have to be a functionary to see it. I looked at it with a view to searching for the holes, because of course it was possible that someone was making mischief. (And I don't mean Lightbreather; I mean simply that someone may have taken the opportunity to troll.) So I examined it extremely carefully, but I found no holes.

It's important to bear in mind that the porn images were just the last straw. The person suspected of posting them had been harassing Lightbreather onwiki for about a year. The ArbCom either looked at that evidence and didn't see harassment, or didn't look at it. We don't know which.

The LB and GGTF cases are mirrors of the O. J. Simpson verdict, in that two groups of Wikipedians appear to have examined the same evidence, but ideology inclined them to radically different conclusions.

What can we do to bridge that gap? I would say that one of the things we should do is question whether we need an Arbitration Committee. But if we do, we urgently need to fill the committee with people who can demonstrate insight into sexism, racism, homophobia and harassment, and who are deeply committed to ending it on Wikipedia. As things stand too many people feel excluded by the committee and fearful of becoming involved with it, either as a committee member or party to a case.

Sarah

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

Jonathan, I think there's a bit of talking past each other going on. Rehashing details of one of the many dramafest Arbcom cases is not worthwhile.

From my viewpoint Sarah hit the nail on the head with "Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many other examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist."

Improving reputation and recognizing that there is a systemic problem is a far more useful direction to take. Think about a bit of "reframing".

P.S. I was approached by the Atlantic due to my work in the area of revert-wars and the potential relationship to bias. I did a little digging around it, but my thoughts are too slow to satisfy journalists' deadlines. ;-)

Fae

On 22 October 2015 at 18:12, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Sarah,

I'm not a "functionary" so I haven't seen the evidence - clearly it convinces you, but it did not quite convince the functionaries. Reading

the

...

result and for example Yunshui's comment I would simply prefer that the record shows we were not fully convinced by the evidence, rather than

that

...

we were convinced, but chose not to act. I think what we have here is

more

...

than a detail difference. If the decision had been, as reported in the Atlantic, that Arbcom had decided this "on the grounds that it may “out”

the

...

editor that had posted the pictures, or link his username to his real

name."

...

Then I would have supported a change in policy, or Arbcom membership, so that future Arbcoms in similar situations would be willing to risk outing someone, or just ban them without public reason, rather than leave a harasser unpunished. But if the issue is not that, but instead that the evidence was inconclusive, then I think we have a very different problem

to

...

work on. As for the broader picture I don't dispute that Wikipedia has several problems around gender, and some terrible publicity, but if one

took

...

that article at face value the obvious next step would be to get a

change in

...

policy so that if Arbcom were convinced of the evidence they could and

would

...

have acted.

Jonathan

On 22 October 2015 at 17:37, Sarah (SV) slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

...

WSC, the evidence as to who posted the porn images was, I would say, conclusive. We nevertheless ended up with a situation in which a man

who had

...

...

been engaged in harassment (much of which was onwiki and had been going

on

...

...

for about a year) was let off the hook, and the harassed woman was

banned.

...

...

There was a similar situation in the GGTF case, so the Lightbreather

case

...

...

was not an unfortunate one-off. For example, the man who was blocked for harassment during the Lightbreather case should have been blocked for it during the GGTF case, but wasn't. He only ended up being blocked during

the

...

...

Lightbreather case because he admitted that he had done it. Otherwise he might still be editing.

Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and

many

...

...

other examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist. (See this selection of stories.) Rather than arguing about which details various journalists got wrong, we should focus on what they got right

and

...

...

how we can fix it.

Sarah

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:

...

Thanks Francesca,

It seems a shame that an Arbcom case in which one person was blocked

for

...

...

...

offwiki harassment and another would have been if the evidence had been conclusive has been reported as if they'd decided instead to spare the harasser for privacy reasons.

As Thryduulf put it "there is no doubt that had we been able to conclusively connect the perpetrator to a Wikipedia account that action would have been taken (almost certainly a site ban)."

You could point her to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreat...

...

...

...

A story warning mysogynists that Arbcom will and has acted against

those

...

...

...

it catches would have made it easier to attract women to wikipedia and

deter

...

...

...

misogynists.

WSC

-- 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

It is very tempting to say that. Unfortunately, as functionaries are even more likely to be trolled than just about anyone else on Wikipedia, and almost all of them have been impersonated on multiple places (some of them even on porn sites - seriously), it takes more to persuade them.

I speak only for myself when I say that I have had to have three different LinkedIn accounts using my name taken down, two Facebook accounts, a Twitter account, and I've received numerous emails asking me to "confirm" my registration on various sites that I've never been to and never want to be on. I've actually had it mildly compared to some of the other functionaries. One arbitrator found himself subscribed to hundreds of porn mailing lists, for example.

So yeah, we have been on the other side of that abyss. Impersonation is awful, and I do not for a moment think that what happened to Lightbreather was okay. Not for a moment. But it's gonna take more than "this picture is the same one on Person X's personal website" to do it for me - because any experienced Wikimedian knows that "stolen" images from personal websites are constantly showing up where they don't belong...like Commons and Wikipedia. Joe Jobs can sometimes have more than one target.

Risker/Anne

On 22 October 2015 at 12:37, Sarah (SV) slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

WSC, the evidence as to who posted the porn images was, I would say, conclusive. We nevertheless ended up with a situation in which a man who had been engaged in harassment (much of which was onwiki and had been going on for about a year) was let off the hook, and the harassed woman was banned.

There was a similar situation in the GGTF case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF, so the Lightbreather case was not an unfortunate one-off. For example, the man who was blocked for harassment during the Lightbreather case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather should have been blocked for it during the GGTF case, but wasn't. He only ended up being blocked during the Lightbreather case because he admitted that he had done it. Otherwise he might still be editing.

Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many other examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist. (See this selection of stories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Media_and_research.) Rather than arguing about which details various journalists got wrong, we should focus on what they got right and how we can fix it.

Sarah

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks Francesca,

It seems a shame that an Arbcom case in which one person was blocked for offwiki harassment and another would have been if the evidence had been conclusive has been reported as if they'd decided instead to spare the harasser for privacy reasons.

As Thryduulf put it "there is no doubt that had we been able to conclusively connect the perpetrator to a Wikipedia account that action would have been taken (almost certainly a site ban). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather"

You could point her to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreat...

A story warning mysogynists that Arbcom will and has acted against those it catches would have made it easier to attract women to wikipedia and deter misogynists.

WSC

On 22 October 2015 at 12:04, Francesca Tripodi fbt8pa@virginia.edu wrote:

...

I was directly interviewed for this article but my contributions were scrapped. I have Emma's email and I would be happy to reach out to her if you'd like to list a set of uniform "corrections"? No guarantee she'd be able to change them but it's a start if you'd like?

Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity or errors.

...

On Oct 21, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:

Some journos take corrections easily, and some don't. I've had people directly misquote me at major outlets where I had the call on record (with their consent, since CA is a 2 party consent state for recording calls,) and refuse to make corrections, and had other people accept my corrections at face value and put them in to place. I may not have time to do so today, but would encourage anyone interested (probably better if it's only a person or two and not a horde in this case) to contact the author of the Atlantic piece about the issues. Probably those directly interviewed by the journalist would be the best candidates to put in for a correction.

Best, Kevin Gorman

...

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

Good that this story has been told, at last. Overdue.

(Minor quibbles: Eric is not an admin, and the New York Times piece

was not

...

...

written by a NYT reporter. Corrections possible?)

...

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

...

Thanks for sending this out Carol, you beat me by about two minutes. I would hugely encourage everyone to read this, and a lot of it also relates to why it's important that people vote in arbcom election,

and

...

...

...

we don't have arbitrators elected with 273 support votes and fewer than 600 total votes...

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote: > >

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hosti...

...

...

...

> > Goes into lots of details... > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

We have to do something. Suggestion: women coming before the committee could require that certain >committee members not participate.

How about anyone? (As I think your next comment seems to realize)

We could extend that to any harassment case. Or we could set up a jury system, instead of one fixed >committee, with limited challenges permitted.

Peremptory? Or not? Daniel Case

Daniel, I happen to think that any Arb who is asked to excuse themselves from a case should do so, within reason.

But in particular I think women who see certain Arbs as sexist should be able to require recusal. Otherwise the case is hobbled before it begins. Ditto for anyone with concerns about racism or homophobia.

I would like to see a jury system replace the committee, with small groups chosen to resolve particular issues. The committee has not worked for a long time. It isn't the fault of any individual or group. It's a combination of the way Arbs are nominated and elected, and the way they end up cloistered away from the community. It creates a "thin blue line" mentality. I would like to see a grassroots approach, at least as an experiment.

Sarah

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:

...

We have to do something. Suggestion: women coming before the committee

could require that certain >committee members not participate.

How about *anyone*? (As I think your next comment seems to realize)

...

We could extend that to any harassment case. Or we could set up a jury

system, instead of one fixed >committee, with limited challenges permitted. Peremptory? Or not?

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

Some ideas:

*People are elected to the committee for two years, and not allowed to stand again for another five. No more tranches.

*Arbs are not given access to CU or oversight. This will weed out people who nominate themselves to gain access to the tools. It will decrease the amount of work the committee can do; should increase their work rate on cases; and will decrease the "them and us" mentality.

*Arbs must excuse themselves if asked, including from trying to influence cases behind the scenes, unless the request for recusal is clearly silly.

*Most Arb discussion must take place in public. The mailing list should be used only in exceptional cases involving privacy. But most privacy issues should be left to functionaries. The mailing list should have a functionary as clerk to ensure that it isn't misused.

*Functionaries would not be chosen by ArbCom.

*Abolish the workshops. They're used to continue the dispute or harassment.

*We should maintain a small list of experienced editors who are willing to do jury duty. Anyone brought before the committee can request a jury "trial". Jurors would be chosen randomly. Any juror involved with a party should say no, and the next editor on the list would be picked. The parties would then have the right to object to a certain number.

*Cases must be resolved within a much shorter time frame, or closed as unresolved.

*The Foundation should be asked to pay for an expert in dispute resolution to offer regular classes on Skype for any Wikipedian who wants to sign up.

The above wouldn't solve everything, but I think it would help.

Sarah

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:

On 22 October 2015 at 16:27, Sarah (SV) slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

...

Daniel, I happen to think that any Arb who is asked to excuse themselves from a case should do so, within reason.

I tend to agree with you on this, Sarah.

...

But in particular I think women who see certain Arbs as sexist should be able to require recusal. Otherwise the case is hobbled before it begins. Ditto for anyone with concerns about racism or homophobia.

I'm a little less certain about this one: if there are five parties to a case, and everyone decides to brand three different arbitrators as sexist/racist/homophobic etc, you're down to .... nobody.

...

I would like to see a jury system replace the committee, with small groups chosen to resolve particular issues. The committee has not worked for a long time. It isn't the fault of any individual or group. It's a combination of the way Arbs are nominated and elected, and the way they end up cloistered away from the community. It creates a "thin blue line" mentality. I would like to see a grassroots approach, at least as an experiment.

That was what RFCs and mediation committees did, although I grant that their "decisions" were not binding. They fell apart - RFCs because genuinely uninvolved Wikipedians stopped participating. The Mediation committee fell apart because there were so few people who were any good at dispute resolution actually mediating them, and also because mediation required the "participation agreement" of long lists of supposed parties. (I was once listed as a "party" for a mediation on an article where I made one edit to remove poop vandalism.)

There's no evidence at all that jury systems are any more fair or accurate or impartial or unbiased than any other dispute resolution systems. (A quick look at the number of convicted prisoners who have subsequently been exonerated proves my point.) Add to that the simple fact that "volunteer" pools of jurors are, simply by dint of numbers, going to be made up of the same types of people who are already arbitrators/functionaries/admins (or potentially people who were rejected for those responsibilities because they were unsuitable), and that compelling participation of people who have deliberately NOT wanted to participate in such activities is more likely to result in those individuals leaving the project entirely rather than making great decisions (other than the obvious "this is stupid, ban them all so I can get back to my categorization"). In fact, I suspect that a jury system made up of conscripted jurors would actually result in much harsher sanctions all around. There are some who argue that would not be a bad thing.

Risker/Anne

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

It seems like every time I ask this question I get vague answers regarding "legal issues" "liability" "can't determine content" "community backlash" etc. Yet under https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use it looks like there is more than enough room for the Foundation to propose and make it VERY clear it supports things like:

a) Make Wikimedia mediation training a requirement for applying as admin. And term limit admins (say, one year off for every two years on). Make an informal quota of 25% plus women and continuously encourage women to apply.

b) Change structure so 10-20 (as needed) mediators are hired and trained to be professional. They'll also be given admin powers and will take on harder cases volunteer admins and other dispute resolution processes can't handle. (Structured processes for dealing with alleged abuses will be implemented.) The Foundation will set a firm goal of at least 50% women hirees.

c) Change structure so 4-6 arbitrators are hired but only used for most intractable or original issues. (Structured processes for dealing with alleged abuses will be implemented.) The Foundation will set a firm goal of at least 50% women hirees.

d) Change structure so editors who step out of line too often will have to phone verify who they are and register with a verified account. Enforcing this will be another job for "arbitrators".

e) Foundation advertises new policies far and wide so that editors fed up with the nonsense will come back in such numbers that losing the 50-100 chronic editor and admin abusers of the system will be no great loss. (Wales has invited such people to quit, and said more users would come back if they did, but still doesn't want to make necessary Foundation policy changes to make this happen.)

Without these changes decent editors will continue to stay away or be driven away in droves.

In the last week I've read at least 10 articles - biographies and factual articles on countries and policies - that were severely outdated, with 2012-13 seemingly the last time most were updated. I'd hate to see what happened if I checked references for various assertions. It's pretty sad...

On 10/22/2015 7:36 PM, Risker wrote:

Carol, I think you're missing something important here. Aside from the fact that this would cost about $2 million a year, the structure you are proposing would only be providing support for English Wikipedia.

First, even as a radical decentralist friendly to all sorts of governmental anarchism, I'm not into the kind of oppressive chaos that the current Wikipedia structure encourages... See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness

But let's say at most 30 mediators or arbitrators are hired just for English Wikipedia (what percentage of all articles/edits on all the wikipedias is that, by the way? 10% 30%? 80%?)

30 x $50,000 (salary and admin) = $1,500,000. Add a few more hirees and or admin. expenses and perhaps higher salaries (though dozens of level headed experienced editors would be delighted to make that much doing what they lover). You might reach $2 million a year.

And the Wikimedia Foundation's budget is $50 million a year? If WMF's flagship enterprise English WIKIPEDIA keeps getting these horrible mainstream media reviews, it's going to keep going down hill and soon enough those millions will dry up.

WMF should do this now before it's too late and too many editors are too discouraged by how out-dated and/or crappy so many articles have become they won't be interested in re-upping any more even if such changes are belatedly made.

OR a better alternative MIGHT come along. It doesn't take that many millions for some saavy entrepreneurs to copy the software and whole database of articles, throw on the required licenses, add just enough unobtrusive and/or entertaining tech advertisements to pay the bills, and recruit a bunch of editors because of their ability to swiftly deal with trolls/sockpuppets/undeclared paid editors/extreme partisans and to provide good mediators for honestly disagreeing editors. They might even offer small financial incentives and the potential to graduate to a part- for full-time employment as admin/mediator/arbitrator.

I know of some billionaires fed up with certain vicious POV pushing on Wikipedia who might be talked into it by the right entrepreneurs. Too bad I clam up when rich people are in the vicinity... Must overcome that hangup!! ;-)

CM

On 22 October 2015 at 19:08, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:

b) Change structure so 10-20 (as needed) mediators are hired and
trained to be professional. They'll also be given admin powers and
will take on harder cases volunteer admins and other dispute
resolution processes can't handle. (Structured processes for dealing
with alleged abuses will be implemented.) The Foundation will set a
firm goal of at least 50% women hirees.

c) Change structure so 4-6 arbitrators are hired but only used for
most intractable or original issues. (Structured processes for
dealing with alleged abuses will be implemented.) The Foundation
will set a firm goal of at least 50% women hirees.

On 22 October 2015 at 18:09, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

Another option is to invest in training arbs and functionaries. Both on technical training - if Sarah and Kevin are right re the Lightbreather case then it may just be that they didn't know how to get or read the evidence; Also they could be given the sort of training that UK magistrates go on. Question to Risker, what sort of training do they currently undertake?

In theory, the community selects as arbitrators individuals whom it believs have already demonstrated sound judgment in handling disputes or other problematic situations. In past years, it has had a plethora of choices; however, as the pool of people who are pretty good at this sort of stuff has diminished - either the editors who are good at it are not interested in doing it full-time, or they simply don't exist in the numbers they used to - we've seen an increasing number of arbitrators being selected who may be fine Wikipedians but they're just not really suited, or they've been carefully building their careers to this point. Being able to make decisions is important. One of the best arbitrators Wikipedia ever had was Wizardman - and he was also one of the least appreciated, despite the fact that he was almost always on time, his proposed decisions were bang on, and there was almost never any chit-chat in the background about the cases he wrote.

The reality is that there's no training provided to new arbitrators. In years past, we had developed an orientation program (I do not know if it is still in existence) that went through very basic stuff. But you have to keep in mind that historically, as far back as I can remember, most "new" arbitrator candidates campaign on the idea of "changing" arbcom in various ways. The problem is that almost none of them want to change it in the same way, and it gets deadlocked just the way that things get deadlocked onwiki. There is one topic that one or two arbitrators have been chasing for a long, long time, but have been unwilling to bend in their own personal vision so it has never been effectively resolved. I worked very hard during my last term to try to get out of the mailing list system and move to a case-based CRM system but it was adamantly opposed by one colleague and most of the rest simply didn't care enough about the issue to come out one way or the other - so arbcom is still stuck in that same circle. In other words, Arbcom does in a lot of ways reflect the community it "serves" - amateurs at what they're discussing, with difficulty achieving consensus on any kind of change, and with the same sort of problems of dominating editors turning off those who have no strong opinions on matters.

Risker/Anne

Hi all -

As a further bit of clarification regarding the current arbcom case request (it had not been accepted yet:)

1) Eric Corbett made a series of statements that Kirill Lokshin, one of our best regarded former arbitrators, regarded as violating his topic bans w/r/t discussion of the gendergap. Kirill, without resulting to the AE board (which is an explicitly unnecessary step per policy,) blocked Eric Corbett for a period of one month. The template he used explicitly mentioned that anyone undoing the block without agreement of the original admin, extensive discussion and consensus or by order of the arbitration committee would be summarily desysopped.

2) Yngvadotttir, an administrator who posted an extremely lengthy retirement message around six months ago (but has still been somewhat active) chose to unblock Eric unilaterally and without any sort of discussion, including with Kirill. Yngvadottir was almost immediately desysopped by arbcom under their emergency desysop procedures that are called for in any situation where one admin reverses an arb enforcement decision of another admin (which were reinforced by another recent case that also involved Eric.) Yngvadottir knew beyond any reasonable doubt that her actions would result in her immediate desysop.

3) Black Kite, another administrator who I feel comfortable stating has a pro-Eric bias (significantly past the point of WP:INVOLVED,) opened an ArbCom case against Kirill for enforcing arbitration remedies against Eric. I'm not entirely clear on what Black Kite's argument is. Eric may have a right of reply in terms of speaking to The Atlantic or other media outlets, but past arbcom cases have made it absolutely clear that Eric does not have the ability to discuss issues of gender anywhere on Wikipedia. Eric himself is perfectly aware of this fact, and has racked up at least seven blocks under the arb remedies against him. BK's main points seem to be that he disagrees with Kirill's exercise of discretion in blocking Eric (since Kirill didn't *have* to block Eric,) but there's no question that Kirill was well within policy to do so, and more broadly, that he disagrees with the fact that Eric is under Arbcom sanctions in the first place (and an arbcom case is not how to appeal Arbcom's past remedies against Eric - Eric can do so himself any time he pleases through a much less involved process.)

4) Eric's block has not been reinstated, but there's currently an arb motion that would only allow him to edit his own userpages and pages related to any ongoing case or case request where he is a named party. This is pretty typical handling of disputed blocks that wind up before arbcom, although Eric has stated he has no intention of participating in any arb request or case about him. He's also stated that he's leaving Wikipedia. I don't want to go through his history to count them up, but this is certainly not the first time Eric has said he is leaving Wikipedia only to return.

A couple points specifically about this list:

a) I'm uncomfortable about the idea of list discussions that people are likely to shout CANVASSING at, but I am in full support of keeping the list informed of any ongoing developments, since they are directly relevant to the list. I'm not okay with anything that I consider likely to be libelous under the laws of the state of California (where both WMF and I are located,) or anything that either my own counsel or WMF warns me is likely to be libelous. However, California's defamation laws make it extremely hard to argue that a statement is defamatory, especially if you're at least a limited purpose public figure (which in this context, Eric is,) so I have trouble imagining a situation where this would come in to play. Defamation laws in the UK are significantly different, but because of how ridiculous the US legislature has considered the in the past, no defamation judgment made in a UK court is enforceable in the US, despite our general extradition treaty, close relations, etc. I guess you may need to be careful if you are a list member in the U.K. talking about the situation, although I can't imagine Eric suing anyone.

b) Blocks or bans on ENWP do not apply here. Emily and I fully welcome the participation of interested participants who may be blocked or banned on ENWP but have relevant contributions here. We do enforce our own code of conduct, and occasionally do moderate or ban list members altogether, but not solely because ENWP has done so. However, it is worth keeping in mind that Gendergap-L has a public archive and is actively monitored by ENWPians who may not contribute, and have a range of viewpoints from "I totally believe our gender gap is an issue" to "I'm uncertain if we have a meaningful gendergap" to "I'm a raging misogynist." It would be wise not to comment here in a way linkable to your ENWP identity in a manner you are uncomfortable having discussed on ENWP (or elsewhere for that matter.) Although we can't control altogether who looks at the list and comments elsewhere, if you've been contacted in a manner that makes you uncomfortable by someone who you can show is an active list member, please contact Emily or myself, and we will look in to it and take action as needed.

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:

In case anyone missed it, there is now an Arbcom case about this article... or something - am not entirely clear what it's about but there are some very, erm, "interesting" arguments being made in the dozens of case statements.....

On 21 Oct 2015 21:01, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:

...

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hosti...

Goes into lots of details...

---

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 point about dying with a whimper is well taken; or as Andrew Lih said: become like wikinews, a failed wiki

the librarian who said "cultural buzzsaw", also said, "would not touch wikipedia with a 10 foot pole."

apparently, the write an article outside wiki to provide negative feedback to the toxic culture is still on.

you'll excuse me if i work with the smithsonian on their bee metadata transcription project; wake me when there is some adult supervision.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:

The Signpost has an article, "Women and Wikipedia, the world s watching" and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-21/Editor... and "In the media: Wikipedia's hostility to women" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-21/In_the...

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi all -

As a further bit of clarification regarding the current arbcom case request (it had not been accepted yet:)

1. Eric Corbett made a series of statements that Kirill Lokshin, one

of our best regarded former arbitrators, regarded as violating his topic bans w/r/t discussion of the gendergap. Kirill, without resulting to the AE board (which is an explicitly unnecessary step per policy,) blocked Eric Corbett for a period of one month. The template he used explicitly mentioned that anyone undoing the block without agreement of the original admin, extensive discussion and consensus or by order of the arbitration committee would be summarily desysopped.

2. Yngvadotttir, an administrator who posted an extremely lengthy

retirement message around six months ago (but has still been somewhat active) chose to unblock Eric unilaterally and without any sort of discussion, including with Kirill. Yngvadottir was almost immediately desysopped by arbcom under their emergency desysop procedures that are called for in any situation where one admin reverses an arb enforcement decision of another admin (which were reinforced by another recent case that also involved Eric.) Yngvadottir knew beyond any reasonable doubt that her actions would result in her immediate desysop.

3. Black Kite, another administrator who I feel comfortable stating

has a pro-Eric bias (significantly past the point of WP:INVOLVED,) opened an ArbCom case against Kirill for enforcing arbitration remedies against Eric. I'm not entirely clear on what Black Kite's argument is. Eric may have a right of reply in terms of speaking to The Atlantic or other media outlets, but past arbcom cases have made it absolutely clear that Eric does not have the ability to discuss issues of gender anywhere on Wikipedia. Eric himself is perfectly aware of this fact, and has racked up at least seven blocks under the arb remedies against him. BK's main points seem to be that he disagrees with Kirill's exercise of discretion in blocking Eric (since Kirill didn't *have* to block Eric,) but there's no question that Kirill was well within policy to do so, and more broadly, that he disagrees with the fact that Eric is under Arbcom sanctions in the first place (and an arbcom case is not how to appeal Arbcom's past remedies against Eric - Eric can do so himself any time he pleases through a much less involved process.)

4. Eric's block has not been reinstated, but there's currently an arb

motion that would only allow him to edit his own userpages and pages related to any ongoing case or case request where he is a named party. This is pretty typical handling of disputed blocks that wind up before arbcom, although Eric has stated he has no intention of participating in any arb request or case about him. He's also stated that he's leaving Wikipedia. I don't want to go through his history to count them up, but this is certainly not the first time Eric has said he is leaving Wikipedia only to return.

A couple points specifically about this list:

a) I'm uncomfortable about the idea of list discussions that people are likely to shout CANVASSING at, but I am in full support of keeping the list informed of any ongoing developments, since they are directly relevant to the list. I'm not okay with anything that I consider likely to be libelous under the laws of the state of California (where both WMF and I are located,) or anything that either my own counsel or WMF warns me is likely to be libelous. However, California's defamation laws make it extremely hard to argue that a statement is defamatory, especially if you're at least a limited purpose public figure (which in this context, Eric is,) so I have trouble imagining a situation where this would come in to play. Defamation laws in the UK are significantly different, but because of how ridiculous the US legislature has considered the in the past, no defamation judgment made in a UK court is enforceable in the US, despite our general extradition treaty, close relations, etc. I guess you may need to be careful if you are a list member in the U.K. talking about the situation, although I can't imagine Eric suing anyone.

b) Blocks or bans on ENWP do not apply here. Emily and I fully welcome the participation of interested participants who may be blocked or banned on ENWP but have relevant contributions here. We do enforce our own code of conduct, and occasionally do moderate or ban list members altogether, but not solely because ENWP has done so. However, it is worth keeping in mind that Gendergap-L has a public archive and is actively monitored by ENWPians who may not contribute, and have a range of viewpoints from "I totally believe our gender gap is an issue" to "I'm uncertain if we have a meaningful gendergap" to "I'm a raging misogynist." It would be wise not to comment here in a way linkable to your ENWP identity in a manner you are uncomfortable having discussed on ENWP (or elsewhere for that matter.) Although we can't control altogether who looks at the list and comments elsewhere, if you've been contacted in a manner that makes you uncomfortable by someone who you can show is an active list member, please contact Emily or myself, and we will look in to it and take action as needed.

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

In case anyone missed it, there is now an Arbcom case about this

article...

...

or something - am not entirely clear what it's about but there are some very, erm, "interesting" arguments being made in the dozens of case statements.....

On 21 Oct 2015 21:01, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net

wrote:

...

...

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hosti...

...

...

Goes into lots of details...

---

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