The proposed decision in the Lightbreather case was posted yesterday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreat...
It comments extensively on harassment.
The proposed decision has already been controversially discussed on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/eastgate/status/620337415669026816
A.
The good news is this time they actually have a long list of problematic issues and are not just getting rid of editors for trumped up ones like that did with Neotarf and I, i.e., just listing of 5 or 6 examples of being snotty to (powerful and connected) editors who were obnoxiously harassing either ourselves or the GGTF group...
On 7/13/2015 10:50 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
The proposed decision in the Lightbreather case was posted yesterday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreat...
It comments extensively on harassment.
The proposed decision has already been controversially discussed on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/eastgate/status/620337415669026816
A.
Don't you think it's bizarre that ArbCom is punishing Lightbreather for discussing the identity of the guy who posted porn images, claiming they depicted Lightbreather? He posted those images off-wiki, and she discussed it off-wiki.
In my opinion, she had every moral right to.
ArbCom's fixation on "outing" reminds me of all the Redditors who wailed when someone put a name to "Violentacrez".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks8xuYRPnWM
Seriously, does anyone think ArbCom's gallant protection of the dude, while site-banning the woman at whose expense he was having his fun on those porn sites, will help women's participation?
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
The good news is this time they actually have a long list of problematic issues and are not just getting rid of editors for trumped up ones like that did with Neotarf and I, i.e., just listing of 5 or 6 examples of being snotty to (powerful and connected) editors who were obnoxiously harassing either ourselves or the GGTF group...
On 7/13/2015 10:50 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
The proposed decision in the Lightbreather case was posted yesterday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreat...
It comments extensively on harassment.
The proposed decision has already been controversially discussed on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/eastgate/status/620337415669026816
A.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 7/14/2015 8:30 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Don't you think it's bizarre that ArbCom is punishing Lightbreather for discussing the identity of the guy who posted porn images, claiming they depicted Lightbreather? He posted those images off-wiki, and she discussed it off-wiki.
**I guess that's an object lesson in why we have to read these Arbitrations more carefully. I get the impression some of the charges are NOT bogus; the question is, how many guys would get away with all the same withOUT being warned or sanctioned. Lots, in my experience. But a few incidents definitely looked like mentoring warranted.
Also following twitter I see Mark Bernstein writes: "New Wikipedia Arbcom proposed decision officially recommends harassed women "lower their profile" until harassment stops."
Of course I did that by largely stopping editing articles through much of 2014 (since I was being followed and harassed and admins just poo poo'd my complaints). But critics screamed:"Carol doesn't contribute anything so she doesn't have the same rights to opine on anything as those of us who contribute a lot and thus have a right to insult people all we want." And ArbCom fell for that one...
In my opinion, she had every moral right to.
ArbCom's fixation on "outing" reminds me of all the Redditors who wailed when someone put a name to "Violentacrez".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks8xuYRPnWM
Seriously, does anyone think ArbCom's gallant protection of the dude, while site-banning the woman at whose expense he was having his fun on those porn sites, will help women's participation?
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
The good news is this time they actually have a long list of problematic issues and are not just getting rid of editors for trumped up ones like that did with Neotarf and I, i.e., just listing of 5 or 6 examples of being snotty to (powerful and connected) editors who were obnoxiously harassing either ourselves or the GGTF group... On 7/13/2015 10:50 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: The proposed decision in the Lightbreather case was posted yesterday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision It comments extensively on harassment. The proposed decision has already been controversially discussed on Twitter: https://twitter.com/eastgate/status/620337415669026816 A. _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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