Kevin Gorman wrote: "The case is ending with banning a bunch of women
with flimsy excuses.."
That's a gross misrepresentation of the case outcome.
The case is ending with Carol Moore being banned off for reasons which should be obvious to anyone reading through the case documentation and knowing of her previous case before this Arbcom.
Neotarf (who has made it clear that they have never identified as male or female) is being topic-banned from participating in the GGTF.
Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
Sitush has been warned for his creation of a Carol Moore biography.
That's pretty much it.
No "bunch of women" being singled out and stricken for no reason. A couple people judged to be disruptionists are being shown the door. The summary Kevin makes is ridiculous.
Tim Davenport Corvallis, OR
Carol's productive contributions outweigh the trolling she's been put through and occasional policy issue she has run in to, at least not to the point of warranting a site ban. Neotarf is being topic-banned from a project they were a productive contributor to on a handful of flimsy diffs. I'd bet $20 that either no civility block sticks to Eric or it ends in another arb case within four months. Eric's a prolific content contributor who has for at least two years regularly used the same gendered slur and refused to acknowledge a problem with it or with his behavior in general. Like Betacommand, the content contributions driven off by his behavior greatly outnumber his own. The decision as it stands is ENWP's arbcom explicitly saying they don't care about one of five aimed metrics WMF to back strategic priorities.
---- Kevin Gorman
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Tim Davenport shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin Gorman wrote: "The case is ending with banning a bunch of women
with flimsy excuses.."
That's a gross misrepresentation of the case outcome.
The case is ending with Carol Moore being banned off for reasons which should be obvious to anyone reading through the case documentation and knowing of her previous case before this Arbcom.
Neotarf (who has made it clear that they have never identified as male or female) is being topic-banned from participating in the GGTF.
Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
Sitush has been warned for his creation of a Carol Moore biography.
That's pretty much it.
No "bunch of women" being singled out and stricken for no reason. A couple people judged to be disruptionists are being shown the door. The summary Kevin makes is ridiculous.
Tim Davenport Corvallis, OR
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
One wonders if it’s really time for someone to just initiate a discussion on AN as to whether the community’s patience with him is exhausted enough to community-ban him indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of any ArbCom case. We have done things like this before—after one such editor prompted multiple suggestions that he be banned among the many opposes he received when he ran for ArbCom with the premise of effectively abolishing it by voting against hearing any new cases, I initiated that discussion, which led to the editor in question pretty much jumping before he was pushed.
And I say this as someone who has never interacted with him in any meaningful way, at least not for years, but sees and hears him increasingly discussed as the one user who represents all the shortcomings of our disciplinary processes. Whether he is a genuinely toxic person or not seems to be a matter of some debate, but I think there is no doubt that the perception that he is has increasingly mooted that question.
Of course we could also consider the suggestion Jimmy had in his closing speech at Wikimania this year that we deal with toxic people on the site who also happen to be good content creators by giving them their own wikis where they, and anyone who wanted to work with them, could develop and improve whatever content they wanted to.for reimportation. Maybe part of the problem is that we offer too limited a choice of
(And per other emails, this is really beyond the scope of this list, so any followups should probably directed to me personally or taken on-wiki. Besides I don’t want to ruin anyone’s Thanksgiving, regardless of whether you celebrate it or not—we all deserve a break).
Daniel Case
It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks. I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing. I know there's been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable
civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
One wonders if it’s really time for someone to just initiate a discussion on AN as to whether the community’s patience with him is exhausted enough to community-ban him indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of any ArbCom case. We have done things like this before—after one such editor prompted multiple suggestions that he be banned among the many opposes he received when he ran for ArbCom with the premise of effectively abolishing it by voting against hearing any new cases, I initiated that discussion, which led to the editor in question pretty much jumping before he was pushed.
And I say this as someone who has never interacted with him in any meaningful way, at least not for years, but sees and hears him increasingly discussed as the *one* user who represents all the shortcomings of our disciplinary processes. Whether he is a genuinely toxic person or not seems to be a matter of some debate, but I think there is no doubt that the perception that he is has increasingly mooted that question.
Of course we could also consider the suggestion Jimmy had in his closing speech at Wikimania this year that we deal with toxic people on the site who also happen to be good content creators by giving them their own wikis where they, and anyone who wanted to work with them, could develop and improve whatever content they wanted to.for reimportation. Maybe part of the problem is that we offer too limited a choice of
(And per other emails, this is really beyond the scope of this list, so any followups should probably directed to me personally or taken on-wiki. Besides I don’t want to ruin anyone’s Thanksgiving, regardless of whether you celebrate it or not—we all deserve a break).
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
yes , i would say that arbcom might be unaware of how negatively it will be viewed clearly newyorkbrad was angling for block both sides, to make it easier to block the "unblockable" and the majority appears to have tilted in one direction. keep in mind that a life ban worked real well on betacommand
as for "new regimen of non-appealable civility blocks" i'll believe it when i see it, just as when i will believe Jimbo Wales' talk at wikimania.
at this late date, it is show me - soft is hard. we can plan a culture change, off wiki if necessary, but the revanchism will be ugly.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks. I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing. I know there's been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable
civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
One wonders if it’s really time for someone to just initiate a discussion on AN as to whether the community’s patience with him is exhausted enough to community-ban him indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of any ArbCom case. We have done things like this before—after one such editor prompted multiple suggestions that he be banned among the many opposes he received when he ran for ArbCom with the premise of effectively abolishing it by voting against hearing any new cases, I initiated that discussion, which led to the editor in question pretty much jumping before he was pushed.
And I say this as someone who has never interacted with him in any meaningful way, at least not for years, but sees and hears him increasingly discussed as the *one* user who represents all the shortcomings of our disciplinary processes. Whether he is a genuinely toxic person or not seems to be a matter of some debate, but I think there is no doubt that the perception that he is has increasingly mooted that question.
Of course we could also consider the suggestion Jimmy had in his closing speech at Wikimania this year that we deal with toxic people on the site who also happen to be good content creators by giving them their own wikis where they, and anyone who wanted to work with them, could develop and improve whatever content they wanted to.for reimportation. Maybe part of the problem is that we offer too limited a choice of
(And per other emails, this is really beyond the scope of this list, so any followups should probably directed to me personally or taken on-wiki. Besides I don’t want to ruin anyone’s Thanksgiving, regardless of whether you celebrate it or not—we all deserve a break).
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
ArbCom isn't illegal. I have no idea how you'd be able to appeal an online pseudotribunal to an actual court. It baffles the mind, especially since they provided clear rationale and the WMF is allowed to associate with whoever they want. I'm fairly sure that the hypothetical case would probably be dismissed extremely quickly. On Nov 27, 2014 3:13 AM, "Jim Hayes" slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
yes , i would say that arbcom might be unaware of how negatively it will be viewed clearly newyorkbrad was angling for block both sides, to make it easier to block the "unblockable" and the majority appears to have tilted in one direction. keep in mind that a life ban worked real well on betacommand
as for "new regimen of non-appealable civility blocks" i'll believe it when i see it, just as when i will believe Jimbo Wales' talk at wikimania.
at this late date, it is show me - soft is hard. we can plan a culture change, off wiki if necessary, but the revanchism will be ugly.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks. I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing. I know there's been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable
civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
One wonders if it's really time for someone to just initiate a discussion on AN as to whether the community's patience with him is exhausted enough to community-ban him indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of any ArbCom case. We have done things like this before--after one such editor prompted multiple suggestions that he be banned among the many opposes he received when he ran for ArbCom with the premise of effectively abolishing it by voting against hearing any new cases, I initiated that discussion, which led to the editor in question pretty much jumping before he was pushed.
And I say this as someone who has never interacted with him in any meaningful way, at least not for years, but sees and hears him increasingly discussed as the *one* user who represents all the shortcomings of our disciplinary processes. Whether he is a genuinely toxic person or not seems to be a matter of some debate, but I think there is no doubt that the perception that he is has increasingly mooted that question.
Of course we could also consider the suggestion Jimmy had in his closing speech at Wikimania this year that we deal with toxic people on the site who also happen to be good content creators by giving them their own wikis where they, and anyone who wanted to work with them, could develop and improve whatever content they wanted to.for reimportation. Maybe part of the problem is that we offer too limited a choice of
(And per other emails, this is really beyond the scope of this list, so any followups should probably directed to me personally or taken on-wiki. Besides I don't want to ruin anyone's Thanksgiving, regardless of whether you celebrate it or not--we all deserve a break).
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
As I have read the responses on this mail list, several people have made some very good points, but others not so much. Some focus specifically on Eric and others are more broad commenting on cultural issues within the project itself. Eric said some bad words, most of us are adults here, so deal with it. Its really not that big of a deal nor is it worth all the effort being put into it. There are far worse problems in the project doing far more to bring it down than Eric and a few cusswords.
One point point for example by a couple folks indicated that Eric is responsible for running a lot of people off the project. Eric can be a jerk sometimes and use fowl language but I am not familiar with one editor who has stated they stopped editing because of him. I have met quite a lot that have stopped editing because of abuse by some admin. People are leaving, but Eric is not the biggest culprit, its the us and them mentality of some of the admins and their being exempt from the rules. So if folks are concerned about people leaving the project, I would suggest they start there.
Some have also suggested some issues with the Arbcom. Sarah Stierch questions its legality (as do I and others) and some have indicated they intend to go around the Arbcom and appeal its verdicts. To this I say good luck. I really wish they would, and its high time they do get more involved with the Arbitration sanctions and verdicts, but its not likely that the WMF has any interest in doing so and its even less likely they will overturn one of their decisions.
On the topic of sanctions against Eric at AE, he is as good as gone. The folks at AE have a long history of hounding and harassing editors to give them a reason to block. They do not care about admins baiting them or provoking a response and they do not care how far off topic the edit is, if they want to block someone, the "broadly construed" language gives them that ability. It also removes the Arbcom from the need to make a controversial decision by passing the buck to AE.
This Arbcom decision is going to have one definite result. People are going to avoid gender related topics and Wikipedia is going to have even more trouble getting more women involved in the project.
So I would encourage the WMF to get more involved with Arbcom and its decisions, because many of their decisions are directly responsible for the death spiral the project is in. The WMF needs to seriously start reviewing the conduct of admins if it wants to deal with editors leaving the site and they need to start addressing those abusive admin tactics like personal attacks, baiting, turning peoples talk pages into battle grounds and other tactics used to justify blocking them. Civility on Wikipedia goes far beyond Eric and a few swear words and if you want editors to follow the rules then you need to enforce them on admins as well as editors. Otherwise the editors see what the admins get away with and it makes the think they should be able to do it as well.
Reguyla
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks. I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing. I know there's been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable
civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement.
One wonders if it’s really time for someone to just initiate a discussion on AN as to whether the community’s patience with him is exhausted enough to community-ban him indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of any ArbCom case. We have done things like this before—after one such editor prompted multiple suggestions that he be banned among the many opposes he received when he ran for ArbCom with the premise of effectively abolishing it by voting against hearing any new cases, I initiated that discussion, which led to the editor in question pretty much jumping before he was pushed.
And I say this as someone who has never interacted with him in any meaningful way, at least not for years, but sees and hears him increasingly discussed as the *one* user who represents all the shortcomings of our disciplinary processes. Whether he is a genuinely toxic person or not seems to be a matter of some debate, but I think there is no doubt that the perception that he is has increasingly mooted that question.
Of course we could also consider the suggestion Jimmy had in his closing speech at Wikimania this year that we deal with toxic people on the site who also happen to be good content creators by giving them their own wikis where they, and anyone who wanted to work with them, could develop and improve whatever content they wanted to.for reimportation. Maybe part of the problem is that we offer too limited a choice of
(And per other emails, this is really beyond the scope of this list, so any followups should probably directed to me personally or taken on-wiki. Besides I don’t want to ruin anyone’s Thanksgiving, regardless of whether you celebrate it or not—we all deserve a break).
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Are you seriously suggesting that we must find an explicit instance in which one person solely and completely drove an editor off from the project in order to declare that his behavior is unacceptable in a community such as ours?
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- From: Reguyla [mailto:reguyla@gmail.com] Sent: 26 November 2014 17:48 To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
Eric can be a jerk sometimes and use fowl language but I am not familiar with one editor who has stated they stopped editing because of him
On 11/26/2014 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman wrote:
It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks. I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing. I know there's been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be.
Best, Kevin Gorman
Since en.Wikipedia is the largest one and WMF in US, obviously large developments regarding the gender gap are relevant.
I was content for the first six years to be on my best behavior (except for occasional outbursts when provoked) and work on topics of interest, though I wasted a lot of time in BLP disputes with people out to trash subjects of BLP.
But for almost the last two years I've had to deal with insulting editors pulling outrageous numbers and no adults willing to tell them to cut it out. This Arbitration is just the culmination of it. So I feel no desire to associate with Wikipedia UNTIL the culture is changed so BLP violations and insults and harassment are taken seriously. And I see no need to be a well-behaved woman any more. If I'm ever allowed to edit my talk page again, I'll tell them I do not apologize for using the terms gang banger and gang rape to describe the goings on of the last six months. When I'm allowed to come back despite saying that, I'll know the culture has changed.
Sitush said I'm a rabble rouser. All he did was pump up my ego and now I really want to rouse some rabble. This isn't the place, and Wikipedia certainly is not the prime target. However, as a former standup comic and long term satirist, I will have to have my satisfaction by making sure certain individuals and certain events go down in youtube history in song, photographs and screenshots. Hope I don't change my mind when I get the bees nest out of my sinuses. But then given my long history of exposes of B.S., not likely. In fact, I've got a couple I should have published in on-demand book form by now if I hadn't been messing around on Wikipedia.
Call me disruptive, Tim. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn...
CM
Damn straight!
Shit stirrers unite :)
(And yes, until you've met Carol Moore in person you don't know the real Carol Moore!! She's most epic and well worth it to go out of your way to have a pint with her!).
-Sarah [I've just shifted my shit starting back to GLAM stuff these days...]
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/26/2014 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman wrote:
It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks. I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing. I know there's been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be.
Best, Kevin Gorman
Since en.Wikipedia is the largest one and WMF in US, obviously large
developments regarding the gender gap are relevant.
I was content for the first six years to be on my best behavior (except for occasional outbursts when provoked) and work on topics of interest, though I wasted a lot of time in BLP disputes with people out to trash subjects of BLP.
But for almost the last two years I've had to deal with insulting editors pulling outrageous numbers and no adults willing to tell them to cut it out. This Arbitration is just the culmination of it. So I feel no desire to associate with Wikipedia UNTIL the culture is changed so BLP violations and insults and harassment are taken seriously. And I see no need to be a well-behaved woman any more. If I'm ever allowed to edit my talk page again, I'll tell them I do not apologize for using the terms gang banger and gang rape to describe the goings on of the last six months. When I'm allowed to come back despite saying that, I'll know the culture has changed.
Sitush said I'm a rabble rouser. All he did was pump up my ego and now I really want to rouse some rabble. This isn't the place, and Wikipedia certainly is not the prime target. However, as a former standup comic and long term satirist, I will have to have my satisfaction by making sure certain individuals and certain events go down in youtube history in song, photographs and screenshots. Hope I don't change my mind when I get the bees nest out of my sinuses. But then given my long history of exposes of B.S., not likely. In fact, I've got a couple I should have published in on-demand book form by now if I hadn't been messing around on Wikipedia.
Call me disruptive, Tim. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn...
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap