Its not surprising that the arbcom would not like comments and be critical of a venue they do not control and cannot themselves silence critical comments about their decisions. I finf it unfortunate that an arb doesnt want to join the mailing list merely because some people here do not share the view that the arbcoms decisions are not all gold.
I do agree that there were some comments that are off topic but thats true of all the lists, not just this one.
In the end, to me, if the arbs decide not to join this list because they fear discussion, then we probably dont need them anyway and if they are unwilling to listen or discuss issues pertaining to the project, including poor decisions made by them, then that makes my thought process all the more true.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------ From: Carol Moore dc Date: Fri, Dec 12, 2014 11:20 AM To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects; Subject:[Gendergap] Gender gap emails Arbitrator doesn't like
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit... Is a comment by an Arbitrator about things written last month or so here, none by me, they don't like.
Thinks it's necessary "the moderators get a grip on some of the things being said there." (Moderator comments welcome here for guidance.)
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-November/004930.html "a posting about legal repercussions"
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005008.html "suggesting doxxing/opposition research"
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005068.html "plans" to https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005079.html "block vote at ArbCom elections with new editors recruited at editathons." (actually just a suggestion by an annoyed editor)
Hopefully they aren't proposing a standard tougher than than on all the other mailing lists, none of which I personally belong to.
CM
Kumioko,
I was happy when you gave up the multiple-a-day screeds you were sending me about "arbitraitors” and how the community’s decision to ban you was somehow the Arbitration Committee “silencing a critic.” I’m disappointed that you’ve latched on to a list for productive conversation about the gendergap (including productive conversation about the arbitration case) so that you can continue to wage your own vendetta.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
GW, accusing me of hijacking this list for a "vendetta" is a purely untrue and petty accusation. For the last couple of years my goal on the project has been to make it more fair for all editors regardless of status (admin or editor), gender, race, etc. I have been aware, for quite a while, that there are multiple levels of abuse and bias on the project but perhaps you were too busy ignoring my statements and protecting your peers than to recognize that. Yes, I was pissed when I was banned and still am. But I got the review that I asked for and the result of that review was a fair one even though I did not agree with it. Whether you agree with me or not, there are serious problems in Wikipedia with regard to civility and with regard to admins and some editors being exempt from the rules.
With that said, of the 2 of us, which one is responsible for participating in banning Carol, participating in setting in motion the series of events that have lead not only many discussion on this list but on Wikipediocracy and now news articles as well? Here's a hint, its not me.
The bottom line is, if the Arbcom made better decisions and did a better job of making decisions based on whats best for Wikiepdia and not whats best for them, we probably wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. So if you are coming here to try and discredit me, you might want to take a look at your own actions first.
Reguyla
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:14 PM, gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Kumioko,
I was happy when you gave up the multiple-a-day screeds you were sending me about "arbitraitors” and how the community’s decision to ban you was somehow the Arbitration Committee “silencing a critic.” I’m disappointed that you’ve latched on to a list for productive conversation about the gendergap (including productive conversation about the arbitration case) so that you can continue to wage your own vendetta.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
GW, accusing me of hijacking this list for a "vendetta" is a purely untrue and petty accusation. For the last couple of years my goal on the project has been to make it more fair for all editors regardless of status (admin or editor), gender, race, etc.
Well, I’m glad you got some of this very pure fight for fairness in around the harassment you were leveraging against other editors. I’ve spoken out against this behavior because I don’t think people engaging in email harassment campaigns against editors such as myself should be allowed on this list any more than they should be allowed on Wikipedia. There has been discussion on this list recently about how there are so few women (and so few people of any gender) running for the Arbitration Committee, and meanwhile one of the ones helping to keep it an incredibly thankless and often unpleasant place to be is continuing to do so on the very same list.
With that said, of the 2 of us, which one is responsible for participating in banning Carol, participating in setting in motion the series of events that have lead not only many discussion on this list but on Wikipediocracy and now news articles as well? Here's a hint, its not me.
If you read the proposed decision, you’ll see that I did not vote for this. If my participation in the case—where I voted against banning Carol—makes me “responsible for participating in banning Carol,” then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
— Molly (GorillaWarfare)
Ok, now, before this devolves further, let us all end this stupidity. Lets get back on topic! GW, your comments today have had nothing to do with this list other than to attack me. Enough is enough.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM, gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
GW, accusing me of hijacking this list for a "vendetta" is a purely
untrue and petty accusation. For the last couple of years my goal on the project has been to make it more fair for all editors regardless of status (admin or editor), gender, race, etc.
Well, I’m glad you got some of this very pure fight for fairness in around the harassment you were leveraging against other editors. I’ve spoken out against this behavior because I don’t think people engaging in email harassment campaigns against editors such as myself should be allowed on this list any more than they should be allowed on Wikipedia. There has been discussion on this list recently about how there are so few women (and so few people of any gender) running for the Arbitration Committee, and meanwhile one of the ones helping to keep it an incredibly thankless and often unpleasant place to be is continuing to do so on the very same list.
With that said, of the 2 of us, which one is responsible for participating in banning Carol, participating in setting in motion the series of events that have lead not only many discussion on this list but on Wikipediocracy and now news articles as well? Here's a hint, its not me.
If you read the proposed decision, you’ll see that I did not vote for this. If my participation in the case—where I voted *against* banning Carol—makes me “responsible for participating in banning Carol,” then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
— Molly (GorillaWarfare)
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Actually, GorillaWarfare was responding to the subject header. She is an arbitrator. She is also expressing her opinion about why, as an arbitrator, she has concerns about this list. I think she's bang on.
And I agree with Chris.
Risker/Anne
On 12 December 2014 at 14:08, Reguyla reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, now, before this devolves further, let us all end this stupidity. Lets get back on topic! GW, your comments today have had nothing to do with this list other than to attack me. Enough is enough.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM, gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
GW, accusing me of hijacking this list for a "vendetta" is a purely
untrue and petty accusation. For the last couple of years my goal on the project has been to make it more fair for all editors regardless of status (admin or editor), gender, race, etc.
Well, I’m glad you got some of this very pure fight for fairness in around the harassment you were leveraging against other editors. I’ve spoken out against this behavior because I don’t think people engaging in email harassment campaigns against editors such as myself should be allowed on this list any more than they should be allowed on Wikipedia. There has been discussion on this list recently about how there are so few women (and so few people of any gender) running for the Arbitration Committee, and meanwhile one of the ones helping to keep it an incredibly thankless and often unpleasant place to be is continuing to do so on the very same list.
With that said, of the 2 of us, which one is responsible for participating in banning Carol, participating in setting in motion the series of events that have lead not only many discussion on this list but on Wikipediocracy and now news articles as well? Here's a hint, its not me.
If you read the proposed decision, you’ll see that I did not vote for this. If my participation in the case—where I voted *against* banning Carol—makes me “responsible for participating in banning Carol,” then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
— Molly (GorillaWarfare)
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
Ok, so if this is to be a female only admin only list, then please remove me from it. I hope that at some point though, if you all are interested in actually improving systematic bias on Wikipedia and the other WMF projects, you will be open to all points of view including those of editors who were banned for insisting that admins should have to follow policy rather than be exempt from it.
Is pretty obvious to me at this point that the problem doesn't lie with my opinion that Wikipedia has a problem with bias but from the people who are in a position to do something about it refusing to listen.
Good luck!
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, GorillaWarfare was responding to the subject header. She is an arbitrator. She is also expressing her opinion about why, as an arbitrator, she has concerns about this list. I think she's bang on.
And I agree with Chris.
Risker/Anne
On 12 December 2014 at 14:08, Reguyla reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, now, before this devolves further, let us all end this stupidity. Lets get back on topic! GW, your comments today have had nothing to do with this list other than to attack me. Enough is enough.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM, gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
GW, accusing me of hijacking this list for a "vendetta" is a purely
untrue and petty accusation. For the last couple of years my goal on the project has been to make it more fair for all editors regardless of status (admin or editor), gender, race, etc.
Well, I’m glad you got some of this very pure fight for fairness in around the harassment you were leveraging against other editors. I’ve spoken out against this behavior because I don’t think people engaging in email harassment campaigns against editors such as myself should be allowed on this list any more than they should be allowed on Wikipedia. There has been discussion on this list recently about how there are so few women (and so few people of any gender) running for the Arbitration Committee, and meanwhile one of the ones helping to keep it an incredibly thankless and often unpleasant place to be is continuing to do so on the very same list.
With that said, of the 2 of us, which one is responsible for participating in banning Carol, participating in setting in motion the series of events that have lead not only many discussion on this list but on Wikipediocracy and now news articles as well? Here's a hint, its not me.
If you read the proposed decision, you’ll see that I did not vote for this. If my participation in the case—where I voted *against* banning Carol—makes me “responsible for participating in banning Carol,” then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
— Molly (GorillaWarfare)
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
And for what its worth, not one of GorillaWarfare's responses had anything to do with this thread, but a way to attack me because of my views that admins should be accountable for their actions in the same way editors are, that the Arbcom has become a major part of the civility problem on Wikipedia (regardless of the gender of the Arbcom member) and that she as a drafting Arbitrator in the case, had a lot more to do with the end result in which 2 women were kicked out of the project and at least one male with a long history of abuse was allowed to stay. I'm not sure how any part of that means I should leave the list. But after hitting send for this email, I will try and figure out how to remove my name so you all can get back to discussing matters with no intention of making changes to improve the project.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Reguyla reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, so if this is to be a female only admin only list, then please remove me from it. I hope that at some point though, if you all are interested in actually improving systematic bias on Wikipedia and the other WMF projects, you will be open to all points of view including those of editors who were banned for insisting that admins should have to follow policy rather than be exempt from it.
Is pretty obvious to me at this point that the problem doesn't lie with my opinion that Wikipedia has a problem with bias but from the people who are in a position to do something about it refusing to listen.
Good luck!
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, GorillaWarfare was responding to the subject header. She is an arbitrator. She is also expressing her opinion about why, as an arbitrator, she has concerns about this list. I think she's bang on.
And I agree with Chris.
Risker/Anne
On 12 December 2014 at 14:08, Reguyla reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, now, before this devolves further, let us all end this stupidity. Lets get back on topic! GW, your comments today have had nothing to do with this list other than to attack me. Enough is enough.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM, gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
GW, accusing me of hijacking this list for a "vendetta" is a purely
untrue and petty accusation. For the last couple of years my goal on the project has been to make it more fair for all editors regardless of status (admin or editor), gender, race, etc.
Well, I’m glad you got some of this very pure fight for fairness in around the harassment you were leveraging against other editors. I’ve spoken out against this behavior because I don’t think people engaging in email harassment campaigns against editors such as myself should be allowed on this list any more than they should be allowed on Wikipedia. There has been discussion on this list recently about how there are so few women (and so few people of any gender) running for the Arbitration Committee, and meanwhile one of the ones helping to keep it an incredibly thankless and often unpleasant place to be is continuing to do so on the very same list.
With that said, of the 2 of us, which one is responsible for participating in banning Carol, participating in setting in motion the series of events that have lead not only many discussion on this list but on Wikipediocracy and now news articles as well? Here's a hint, its not me.
If you read the proposed decision, you’ll see that I did not vote for this. If my participation in the case—where I voted *against* banning Carol—makes me “responsible for participating in banning Carol,” then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
— Molly (GorillaWarfare)
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
The thread is about an arbitrator who made a comment about their views on the list:
Thanks for pointing that out, Risker. I became aware of the article when
browsing through the archives of the gendergap mailing list. Some of what is said there (on the gendergap mailing list) concerns me enough that I'm going to point out my concerns here. I'd like to join that mailing list (some very interesting things are being discussed there), but I'm a bit wary of doing so until things have calmed down a bit, or the moderators get a grip on some of the things being said there. Among other things, I noticed a posting about legal repercussions, someone suggesting doxxing/opposition research, and plans to block vote at ArbCom electionswith new editors recruited at editathons. Why would anyone go anywhere near that mailing list with that sort of thing going on? Going back to the Slate article, I think it is important to put on the record that the author of the article didn't approach us (ArbCom) for comments or a response. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You twisted this comment completely, insinuating that this arbitrator has only decided joining the list because they fear criticism:
Its not surprising that the arbcom would not like comments and be critical
of a venue they do not control and cannot themselves silence critical comments about their decisions. I finf it unfortunate that an arb doesnt want to join the mailing list merely because some people here do not share the view that the arbcoms decisions are not all gold.
I do agree that there were some comments that are off topic but thats true of all the lists, not just this one.
You then generalized to the entire Arbitration Committee:
In the end, to me, if the arbs decide not to join this list because they fear discussion, then we probably dont need them anyway and if they are unwilling to listen or discuss issues pertaining to the project, including poor decisions made by them, then that makes my thought process all the more true.
I don't see my responding to this as somehow off-topic.
she as a drafting Arbitrator in the case, had a lot more to do with the end
result in which 2 women were kicked out of the project and at least one male with a long history of abuse was allowed to stay.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the process of drafting an arbitration case. When other drafters propose remedies that they think are reasonable and I disagree, I do not show that disagreement by removing the remedies from the draft. I show that by voting, just like any other arbitrator. The drafting arbitrators do not decide the outcome of a case; they draft initial remedies so that the larger Committee can reach a decision.
I'm not sure how any part of that means I should leave the list.
Your opinions and that I drafted the GGTF case are not why you should leave this list. Those are also not the things I named that make your participation on this list problematic.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
No you want me to leave the list, because I was banned for criticizing admin abuse and the Arbcom of which you are a part. But don't worry, I have unsubscribed and am simply waiting on the confirmation so soon I will no longer be on this list and you can continue to ignore the real problems which is civility in general and the lack of desire to do anything about abusive admins interactions with editors. If you start to treat editors with respect, instead of throwaway commodities, then a lot of the problems on Wikipedia will be fixed.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:41 PM, GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
The thread is about an arbitrator who made a comment about their views on the list:
Thanks for pointing that out, Risker. I became aware of the article when
browsing through the archives of the gendergap mailing list. Some of what is said there (on the gendergap mailing list) concerns me enough that I'm going to point out my concerns here. I'd like to join that mailing list (some very interesting things are being discussed there), but I'm a bit wary of doing so until things have calmed down a bit, or the moderators get a grip on some of the things being said there. Among other things, I noticed a posting about legal repercussions, someone suggesting doxxing/opposition research, and plans to block vote at ArbCom electionswith new editors recruited at editathons. Why would anyone go anywhere near that mailing list with that sort of thing going on? Going back to the Slate article, I think it is important to put on the record that the author of the article didn't approach us (ArbCom) for comments or a response. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You twisted this comment completely, insinuating that this arbitrator has only decided joining the list because they fear criticism:
Its not surprising that the arbcom would not like comments and be critical
of a venue they do not control and cannot themselves silence critical comments about their decisions. I finf it unfortunate that an arb doesnt want to join the mailing list merely because some people here do not share the view that the arbcoms decisions are not all gold.
I do agree that there were some comments that are off topic but thats true of all the lists, not just this one.
You then generalized to the entire Arbitration Committee:
In the end, to me, if the arbs decide not to join this list because they fear discussion, then we probably dont need them anyway and if they are unwilling to listen or discuss issues pertaining to the project, including poor decisions made by them, then that makes my thought process all the more true.
I don't see my responding to this as somehow off-topic.
she as a drafting Arbitrator in the case, had a lot more to do with the
end result in which 2 women were kicked out of the project and at least one male with a long history of abuse was allowed to stay.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the process of drafting an arbitration case. When other drafters propose remedies that they think are reasonable and I disagree, I do not show that disagreement by removing the remedies from the draft. I show that by voting, just like any other arbitrator. The drafting arbitrators do not decide the outcome of a case; they draft initial remedies so that the larger Committee can reach a decision.
I'm not sure how any part of that means I should leave the list.
Your opinions and that I drafted the GGTF case are not why you should leave this list. Those are also not the things I named that make your participation on this list problematic.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
With all due respect to all parties involved: Can you please take this discussion off-list? It seems to mostly be a matter for a small number of people.
Best wishes,
Lennart Guldbrandsson
070 - 207 80 05 http://www.elementx.se - arbete http://www.mrchapel.wordpress.com - personlig blogg
Presentation @aliasHannibal - på Twitter
"Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål."
Jimmy Wales
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:37:53 -0500 From: marinka@marinkavandam.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Gender gap emails Arbitrator doesn't like
Well, I suppose Kumoiko/Reygula could have reasonably riposted that the proposed email that Arbcom finally did or did not send to his employers was harassment of a sort. However I agree that it seems something of a stretch to accuse you of voting to ban Carol and hand out a mere slap of the wrist to Corbett.
On topic, are we going to see some more debate about the Slate piece? Anne/Risker is suggesting there was a basic misunderstanding on the part of the author: that the whole thing had nothing to do with gender gap discrimination but behavior. Would that be your view, Molly? It does strike me as insular.
Marinka (a pseudonym)
On December 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
GW, accusing me of hijacking this list for a "vendetta" is a purely untrue and petty accusation. For the last couple of years my goal on the project has been to make it more fair for all editors regardless of status (admin or editor), gender, race, etc.
Well, I’m glad you got some of this very pure fight for fairness in around the harassment you were leveraging against other editors. I’ve spoken out against this behavior because I don’t think people engaging in email harassment campaigns against editors such as myself should be allowed on this list any more than they should be allowed on Wikipedia. There has been discussion on this list recently about how there are so few women (and so few people of any gender) running for the Arbitration Committee, and meanwhile one of the ones helping to keep it an incredibly thankless and often unpleasant place to be is continuing to do so on the very same list.
With that said, of the 2 of us, which one is responsible for participating in banning Carol, participating in setting in motion the series of events that have lead not only many discussion on this list but on Wikipediocracy and now news articles as well? Here's a hint, its not me.
If you read the proposed decision, you’ll see that I did not vote for this. If my participation in the case—where I voted against banning Carol—makes me “responsible for participating in banning Carol,” then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
— Molly (GorillaWarfare)
_______________________________________________
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
Regardless of whether the Arbcom actually did it, they advocated doing it so they are still responsible. As for the moderators removing me from the list, I have received emails from 5 people so far that think I am just being bullied by 2 arbs and a trustee of WMUK who probably is hoping to score political diversity points.
So its entirely possible the moderators don't think I am as much of a problem. And I agree with Lennart. This has gone on long enough. So whether I get dropped from the list or not. Its time to move on. Which strikes me as funny because I have said that at least 4 times now and its the Admins/Arbs that want to keep this going. So lets drop it ok?
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:37 PM, marinka marinkavandam.com < marinka@marinkavandam.com> wrote:
Well, I suppose Kumoiko/Reygula could have reasonably riposted that the proposed email that Arbcom finally did or did not send to his employers was harassment of a sort. However I agree that it seems something of a stretch to accuse you of voting to ban Carol and hand out a mere slap of the wrist to Corbett.
On topic, are we going to see some more debate about the Slate piece? Anne/Risker is suggesting there was a basic misunderstanding on the part of the author: that the whole thing had nothing to do with gender gap discrimination but behavior. Would that be your view, Molly? It does strike me as insular.
Marinka (a pseudonym)
On December 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
GW, accusing me of hijacking this list for a "vendetta" is a purely
untrue and petty accusation. For the last couple of years my goal on the project has been to make it more fair for all editors regardless of status (admin or editor), gender, race, etc.
Well, I’m glad you got some of this very pure fight for fairness in around the harassment you were leveraging against other editors. I’ve spoken out against this behavior because I don’t think people engaging in email harassment campaigns against editors such as myself should be allowed on this list any more than they should be allowed on Wikipedia. There has been discussion on this list recently about how there are so few women (and so few people of any gender) running for the Arbitration Committee, and meanwhile one of the ones helping to keep it an incredibly thankless and often unpleasant place to be is continuing to do so on the very same list.
With that said, of the 2 of us, which one is responsible for participating in banning Carol, participating in setting in motion the series of events that have lead not only many discussion on this list but on Wikipediocracy and now news articles as well? Here's a hint, its not me.
If you read the proposed decision, you’ll see that I did not vote for this. If my participation in the case—where I voted *against* banning Carol—makes me “responsible for participating in banning Carol,” then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
— Molly (GorillaWarfare)
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
Dude, what is wrong with you? Sending over a dozen off-topic message to a low bandwidth email list? A list about WP's gendergap, a gap which often appears online when men send a disproportionate number of messages.
My apologies, that wasn't supposed to go to the list.
On 12/12/2014 04:14 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
Dude, what is wrong with you? Sending over a dozen off-topic message to a low bandwidth email list? A list about WP's gendergap, a gap which often appears online when men send a disproportionate number of messages.
On Friday, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:38 PM, marinka marinkavandam.com marinka@marinkavandam.com, wrote: On topic, are we going to see some more debate about the Slate piece? Anne/Risker is suggesting there was a basic misunderstanding on the part of the author: that the whole thing had nothing to do with gender gap discrimination but behavior. Would that be your view, Molly? It does strike me as insular. In my view, the case centered on the behavior of a number of contributors, largely (but not solely) at he Gender Gap Task Force. I would like to think the rename to “Interactions at the GGTF” would clarify that the case was about the interactions and not the task force, but I realize the difference is perhaps too subtle.
– Molly (not a pseudonym)
Kumioko has been removed from the list - Leigh did so earlier, and I agree with her decision. Of the posts Carch had a problem with, I don't see most of them as an issue. Due to health issues I've been almost completely MIA for the last long period of time and missed the posts as they occurred, so I couldn't have taken action as they came even if I had objected to them. If Carch doesn't want to join the list because of them that's certain his choice, but I think the inappropriate elements of the posts he linked to were more or less appropriately handled by other gendergap members. If an inappropriate for the list line of discussion gets shut down by other list members, I don't think it's desirable to take harder mod action against it.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the email chain pondering about legal repercussions for people engaged in online harrassment, it's a discussion that is occurring in a wide variety of venues including plenty of other mailing lists, the popular press, and governments. It would've been different if it had been people organizing to try to create legal consequences for a particular Wikimedian, but as far as I can see it wasn't. Frankly, I don't see anything in that discussion skimming through it that couldn't have taken place on-wiki, and I've seen discussions not dissimilar to it take place on-wiki. I wouldn't like to see a discussion aiming to create legal consequences for a particular contributor here generally speaking, because if it was unjustified it would be shitty on our part, and if it was justified this list is frankly speaking a terrible mechanism for organizing around it, but I see nothing wrong with talking about it in abstract.
I don't see anything wrong with talking about the merits of particular arbcom candidates even if it results in a chunk of list members voting as a group. Arbcom's functioning has a pretty significant linkage with the health of ENWP's community, and whether or not sexism, racism, etc are accepted. The on-wiki voter guides are not dissimilar, and I would bet money they have a more significant block vote effect than any discussion here will. I don't like the suggestion of using editathons to create a cabal of new voters, but it's not a suggestion that was implemented, didn't gain significant support here, and bluntly pretty impractical. I would take issue with people actively using the list to organize a voting bloc of people who don't regularly edit, but that didn't happen and I doubt there will be a situation where that will happen. I don't see a point in taking mod action against someone who makes a suggestion that is made in good faith but isn't terribly appropriate, especially given that we *need* innovative ideas if we're likely to make a dent in anything, and it's unsurprising that some brainstormed ideas won't be viable because they violate community norms too strongly. FWIW, I wouldn't have a problem with people organizing editathons specifically about ENWP's governance structures or the problems in them even if they contained plenty of opinion as long as they weren't actively trying to create a bloc of voters who just took instructions about how to vote from other people.
Talking about doxxing or researching Eric isn't really appropriate, but I don't see any meaningful previously private information in that thread as to be worth sanctioning anyone, and Fluffernutter appropriately promptly pointed out that. I don't agree with Fluff that all discussion of individual editors is blanket inappropriate, but I can see situations where it would be, as long as it didn't delve in to undisclosed portions of their non-Wikimedia lives. On something of an individual note, if someone wrote a decent analysis of how Eric came to the prominence that he has, or other extremely prominent editors came to their positions, I would probably find it pretty interesting and could see it appropriately discussed on the list. I find ethnographic type studies of Wiki(p|m)edia quite fascinating, and think that well done case studies of particularly prominent people or events in Wikipedia's history would be pretty fascinating, too.
---- Kevin Gorman
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:18 PM, gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:38 PM, marinka marinkavandam.com < marinka@marinkavandam.com>, wrote:
On topic, are we going to see some more debate about the Slate piece? Anne/Risker is suggesting there was a basic misunderstanding on the part of the author: that the whole thing had nothing to do with gender gap discrimination but behavior. Would that be your view, Molly? It does strike me as insular.
In my view, the case centered on the behavior of a number of contributors, largely (but not solely) at he Gender Gap Task Force. I would like to think the rename to “Interactions at the GGTF” would clarify that the case was about the interactions and not the task force, but I realize the difference is perhaps too subtle.
– Molly (not a pseudonym)
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thank you kevin; i appreciate the spirit that the remarks are taken i do not appreciate being outed by an arbitrator linking a private email message to a public talk page. i would say this conduct amply justifies the remarks i have made about arbcom in public elsewhere.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Kumioko has been removed from the list - Leigh did so earlier, and I agree with her decision. Of the posts Carch had a problem with, I don't see most of them as an issue. Due to health issues I've been almost completely MIA for the last long period of time and missed the posts as they occurred, so I couldn't have taken action as they came even if I had objected to them. If Carch doesn't want to join the list because of them that's certain his choice, but I think the inappropriate elements of the posts he linked to were more or less appropriately handled by other gendergap members. If an inappropriate for the list line of discussion gets shut down by other list members, I don't think it's desirable to take harder mod action against it.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the email chain pondering about legal repercussions for people engaged in online harrassment, it's a discussion that is occurring in a wide variety of venues including plenty of other mailing lists, the popular press, and governments. It would've been different if it had been people organizing to try to create legal consequences for a particular Wikimedian, but as far as I can see it wasn't. Frankly, I don't see anything in that discussion skimming through it that couldn't have taken place on-wiki, and I've seen discussions not dissimilar to it take place on-wiki. I wouldn't like to see a discussion aiming to create legal consequences for a particular contributor here generally speaking, because if it was unjustified it would be shitty on our part, and if it was justified this list is frankly speaking a terrible mechanism for organizing around it, but I see nothing wrong with talking about it in abstract.
I don't see anything wrong with talking about the merits of particular arbcom candidates even if it results in a chunk of list members voting as a group. Arbcom's functioning has a pretty significant linkage with the health of ENWP's community, and whether or not sexism, racism, etc are accepted. The on-wiki voter guides are not dissimilar, and I would bet money they have a more significant block vote effect than any discussion here will. I don't like the suggestion of using editathons to create a cabal of new voters, but it's not a suggestion that was implemented, didn't gain significant support here, and bluntly pretty impractical. I would take issue with people actively using the list to organize a voting bloc of people who don't regularly edit, but that didn't happen and I doubt there will be a situation where that will happen. I don't see a point in taking mod action against someone who makes a suggestion that is made in good faith but isn't terribly appropriate, especially given that we *need* innovative ideas if we're likely to make a dent in anything, and it's unsurprising that some brainstormed ideas won't be viable because they violate community norms too strongly. FWIW, I wouldn't have a problem with people organizing editathons specifically about ENWP's governance structures or the problems in them even if they contained plenty of opinion as long as they weren't actively trying to create a bloc of voters who just took instructions about how to vote from other people.
Talking about doxxing or researching Eric isn't really appropriate, but I don't see any meaningful previously private information in that thread as to be worth sanctioning anyone, and Fluffernutter appropriately promptly pointed out that. I don't agree with Fluff that all discussion of individual editors is blanket inappropriate, but I can see situations where it would be, as long as it didn't delve in to undisclosed portions of their non-Wikimedia lives. On something of an individual note, if someone wrote a decent analysis of how Eric came to the prominence that he has, or other extremely prominent editors came to their positions, I would probably find it pretty interesting and could see it appropriately discussed on the list. I find ethnographic type studies of Wiki(p|m)edia quite fascinating, and think that well done case studies of particularly prominent people or events in Wikipedia's history would be pretty fascinating, too.
Kevin Gorman
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:18 PM, gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:38 PM, marinka marinkavandam.com < marinka@marinkavandam.com>, wrote:
On topic, are we going to see some more debate about the Slate piece? Anne/Risker is suggesting there was a basic misunderstanding on the part of the author: that the whole thing had nothing to do with gender gap discrimination but behavior. Would that be your view, Molly? It does strike me as insular.
In my view, the case centered on the behavior of a number of contributors, largely (but not solely) at he Gender Gap Task Force. I would like to think the rename to “Interactions at the GGTF” would clarify that the case was about the interactions and not the task force, but I realize the difference is perhaps too subtle.
– Molly (not a pseudonym)
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jim Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
i do not appreciate being outed by an arbitrator linking a private email message to a public talk page.
What?
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:53 PM, GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jim Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
i do not appreciate being outed by an arbitrator linking a private email message to a public talk page.
What?
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
Probably referring to the likely fact that most people on this list didn't know he was Kumioko. Not sure if connecting two pseudonyms together counts as outing.
I assumed that Reguyla is the same Reguyla as onwiki, the same way that I assume that Carol is the same Carol and Risker is the same Risker.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
This is also part of the problem - we have "helpful" contributions from people like Reguyla / Kumioko who is basically here to complain about how awful Arbcom are. Some months ago he was engaged in a campaign of personal abuse against arbitrators which to be frank is exactly the kind of thing that drives people away from those positions. On 12 Dec 2014 17:38, "reguyla@gmail.com" reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
Its not surprising that the arbcom would not like comments and be critical of a venue they do not control and cannot themselves silence critical comments about their decisions. I finf it unfortunate that an arb doesnt want to join the mailing list merely because some people here do not share the view that the arbcoms decisions are not all gold.
I do agree that there were some comments that are off topic but thats true of all the lists, not just this one.
In the end, to me, if the arbs decide not to join this list because they fear discussion, then we probably dont need them anyway and if they are unwilling to listen or discuss issues pertaining to the project, including poor decisions made by them, then that makes my thought process all the more true.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------
*From: *Carol Moore dc
*Date: *Fri, Dec 12, 2014 11:20 AM
*To: *Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects;
*Subject:*[Gendergap] Gender gap emails Arbitrator doesn't like
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit... Is a comment by an Arbitrator about things written last month or so here, none by me, they don't like.
Thinks it's necessary "the moderators get a grip on some of the things being said there." (Moderator comments welcome here for guidance.)
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-November/004930.html
"a posting about legal repercussions"
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005008.html
"suggesting doxxing/opposition research"
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005068.html "plans" to https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005079.html "block vote at ArbCom elections with new editors recruited at editathons." (actually just a suggestion by an annoyed editor)
Hopefully they aren't proposing a standard tougher than than on all the other mailing lists, none of which I personally belong to.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I'm not sure how I became the bad guy here just because I think there is a problem with civility and bias that needs to be addressed on Wikipedia. Personally Chris, I don't think your comments directed at me are particularly helpful to the goals of this list either. I wasn't the one that voted 2 women out of the project and left a man that has a years long history of abuse and multiple trips to the Arbcom on the site (and BTW I say that as someone who isn't the least bit bothered by Eric). That was Arbcom. But if you think that I somehow have negatively influenced anything by participating in this list, then please explain that to me. Because I for one would like to see Wikipedia change to be more inviting to all editors, and treat all editors fairly, unlike the current status of things on the project now.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
This is also part of the problem - we have "helpful" contributions from people like Reguyla / Kumioko who is basically here to complain about how awful Arbcom are. Some months ago he was engaged in a campaign of personal abuse against arbitrators which to be frank is exactly the kind of thing that drives people away from those positions. On 12 Dec 2014 17:38, "reguyla@gmail.com" reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
Its not surprising that the arbcom would not like comments and be critical of a venue they do not control and cannot themselves silence critical comments about their decisions. I finf it unfortunate that an arb doesnt want to join the mailing list merely because some people here do not share the view that the arbcoms decisions are not all gold.
I do agree that there were some comments that are off topic but thats true of all the lists, not just this one.
In the end, to me, if the arbs decide not to join this list because they fear discussion, then we probably dont need them anyway and if they are unwilling to listen or discuss issues pertaining to the project, including poor decisions made by them, then that makes my thought process all the more true.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------
*From: *Carol Moore dc
*Date: *Fri, Dec 12, 2014 11:20 AM
*To: *Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects;
*Subject:*[Gendergap] Gender gap emails Arbitrator doesn't like
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit... Is a comment by an Arbitrator about things written last month or so here, none by me, they don't like.
Thinks it's necessary "the moderators get a grip on some of the things being said there." (Moderator comments welcome here for guidance.)
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-November/004930.html
"a posting about legal repercussions"
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005008.html
"suggesting doxxing/opposition research"
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005068.html "plans" to https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005079.html "block vote at ArbCom elections with new editors recruited at editathons." (actually just a suggestion by an annoyed editor)
Hopefully they aren't proposing a standard tougher than than on all the other mailing lists, none of which I personally belong to.
CM
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
The best way for you to help the goals of this list is for you to leave it. On 12 Dec 2014 19:04, "Reguyla" reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure how I became the bad guy here just because I think there is a problem with civility and bias that needs to be addressed on Wikipedia. Personally Chris, I don't think your comments directed at me are particularly helpful to the goals of this list either. I wasn't the one that voted 2 women out of the project and left a man that has a years long history of abuse and multiple trips to the Arbcom on the site (and BTW I say that as someone who isn't the least bit bothered by Eric). That was Arbcom. But if you think that I somehow have negatively influenced anything by participating in this list, then please explain that to me. Because I for one would like to see Wikipedia change to be more inviting to all editors, and treat all editors fairly, unlike the current status of things on the project now.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
This is also part of the problem - we have "helpful" contributions from people like Reguyla / Kumioko who is basically here to complain about how awful Arbcom are. Some months ago he was engaged in a campaign of personal abuse against arbitrators which to be frank is exactly the kind of thing that drives people away from those positions. On 12 Dec 2014 17:38, "reguyla@gmail.com" reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
Its not surprising that the arbcom would not like comments and be critical of a venue they do not control and cannot themselves silence critical comments about their decisions. I finf it unfortunate that an arb doesnt want to join the mailing list merely because some people here do not share the view that the arbcoms decisions are not all gold.
I do agree that there were some comments that are off topic but thats true of all the lists, not just this one.
In the end, to me, if the arbs decide not to join this list because they fear discussion, then we probably dont need them anyway and if they are unwilling to listen or discuss issues pertaining to the project, including poor decisions made by them, then that makes my thought process all the more true.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------
*From: *Carol Moore dc
*Date: *Fri, Dec 12, 2014 11:20 AM
*To: *Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects;
*Subject:*[Gendergap] Gender gap emails Arbitrator doesn't like
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit... Is a comment by an Arbitrator about things written last month or so here, none by me, they don't like.
Thinks it's necessary "the moderators get a grip on some of the things being said there." (Moderator comments welcome here for guidance.)
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-November/004930.html
"a posting about legal repercussions"
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005008.html
"suggesting doxxing/opposition research"
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005068.html "plans" to https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005079.html "block vote at ArbCom elections with new editors recruited at editathons." (actually just a suggestion by an annoyed editor)
Hopefully they aren't proposing a standard tougher than than on all the other mailing lists, none of which I personally belong to.
CM
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
Why? Because I was banned for trying to make things fair on Wikipedia for all editors not just admins? Believe it or not, I believe in the goals of Wikipedia and I have done nothing on this list that would deserve being kicked off it. In fact, you are the one who is detracting from the point of this list by insulting me. Can we move on please?
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
The best way for you to help the goals of this list is for you to leave it. On 12 Dec 2014 19:04, "Reguyla" reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure how I became the bad guy here just because I think there is a problem with civility and bias that needs to be addressed on Wikipedia. Personally Chris, I don't think your comments directed at me are particularly helpful to the goals of this list either. I wasn't the one that voted 2 women out of the project and left a man that has a years long history of abuse and multiple trips to the Arbcom on the site (and BTW I say that as someone who isn't the least bit bothered by Eric). That was Arbcom. But if you think that I somehow have negatively influenced anything by participating in this list, then please explain that to me. Because I for one would like to see Wikipedia change to be more inviting to all editors, and treat all editors fairly, unlike the current status of things on the project now.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Chris Keating < chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> wrote:
This is also part of the problem - we have "helpful" contributions from people like Reguyla / Kumioko who is basically here to complain about how awful Arbcom are. Some months ago he was engaged in a campaign of personal abuse against arbitrators which to be frank is exactly the kind of thing that drives people away from those positions. On 12 Dec 2014 17:38, "reguyla@gmail.com" reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
Its not surprising that the arbcom would not like comments and be critical of a venue they do not control and cannot themselves silence critical comments about their decisions. I finf it unfortunate that an arb doesnt want to join the mailing list merely because some people here do not share the view that the arbcoms decisions are not all gold.
I do agree that there were some comments that are off topic but thats true of all the lists, not just this one.
In the end, to me, if the arbs decide not to join this list because they fear discussion, then we probably dont need them anyway and if they are unwilling to listen or discuss issues pertaining to the project, including poor decisions made by them, then that makes my thought process all the more true.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------
*From: *Carol Moore dc
*Date: *Fri, Dec 12, 2014 11:20 AM
*To: *Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects;
*Subject:*[Gendergap] Gender gap emails Arbitrator doesn't like
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit... Is a comment by an Arbitrator about things written last month or so here, none by me, they don't like.
Thinks it's necessary "the moderators get a grip on some of the things being said there." (Moderator comments welcome here for guidance.)
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-November/004930.html
"a posting about legal repercussions"
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005008.html
"suggesting doxxing/opposition research"
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005068.html "plans" to https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005079.html "block vote at ArbCom elections with new editors recruited at editathons." (actually just a suggestion by an annoyed editor)
Hopefully they aren't proposing a standard tougher than than on all the other mailing lists, none of which I personally belong to.
CM
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap