"A Call to Men UK has 55 coaches working in schools, youth justice departments and youth centres across Worcestershire. The organisation has one principal aim, explains development manager Michael Conroy: to spark a 'cultural shift in the way boys relate to girls', and through this to prevent violence against women and girls.... 'As a culture it’s time that we gave our young men permission to be complex, sensitive and happy human beings who transmit positivity and respect to others'.” [1]
They have a program "for young men from 11-19", which if you think about it, is pretty much the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and functionaries. [2]
This is all the more interesting right now because of the recent Newmark Foundation grant to combat harassment, which it seems is to be used for developing more forceful blocking tools for admins and functionaries "with the participation and support of the volunteers who will be using the tools". If anyone has not seen the Susan J Fowler / Uber piece on harassment that has started going viral in the last 24 hours, it is here. "...they didn't do anything because the manager who threatened me was a 'high performer.'" [3] Sound familiar? This happened in a company with HR oversight; Wikimedia admins and functionaries have no oversight at all.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2017/feb/20/teaching-boys-ab... [2] http://acalltomenuk.org.uk/ [3] https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-y...
Hi Neotarf,
Sounds like an interesting program. There are similar programs in the US to encourage males in their younger years (under 18) to treat other people respectfully and to try to inspire them with visions of hopeful futures (e.g. high-quality jobs instead of membership in gangs). I'm not sure how applicable this kind of training would be in the Wikiverse, but I'm glad to see the progress happening on anti-harrassment initiatives and I hope that those will yield benefits. In general I'd like to see high-quality, modular training available for administrators on a variety of topics. Individual Wikimedia projects could have the option to encourage or require admin candidates to complete portions of the training, as well as require "re-certification" on a periodic basis to retain certain permissions.
I'm not aware of studies of the age range of Wikimedia admins, but I'd venture that most are 18+. There are a few younger than that, but my impression is that they're a minority.
How much and what kind of supervision Wikimedia admins and functionaries have depends on the project. ENWP Arbcom has desysopped admins including functionaries. But I imagine that on smaller projects, demoting a problematic administrator could be next to impossible.
Pine
*Re "** young men from 11-19", which if you think about it, is pretty much the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and functionaries."* That's an old joke, but nowadays a joke that looks a tad out of touch. Yes a significant proportion of people were that age when they became admins in 2004-2008. But if there is one thing we know about the people who became admins ten years ago, it is that they are ten years older today. I couldn't guarantee that none of our current admins were that young now, but I'd be surprised if more than one or two were. Only twenty of our current admins created their accounts in the last six years https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop&creationSort=1&desc=1&limit=2000. RFA has been difficult for teenagers to pass for several years now, If any have got through in the last six years they have been unusually mature in behaviour. As for Functionaries, Functionaries other than crats have to prove they are 18 or over when they become Functionaries. So it is theoretically possible that any new functionaries who first became so in the last two years could be 18 or 19, but it isn't exactly likely.
The template bombers who tag lots of articles for admins to delete probably do include some people in that age group, but admins? If 1% of the 1200 admins on English Wikipedia were still under 21 I would be stunned. Far more admins are over 60 than could possibly be 11-19.
On 20 February 2017 at 18:53, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
"A Call to Men UK has 55 coaches working in schools, youth justice departments and youth centres across Worcestershire. The organisation has one principal aim, explains development manager Michael Conroy: to spark a 'cultural shift in the way boys relate to girls', and through this to prevent violence against women and girls.... 'As a culture it’s time that we gave our young men permission to be complex, sensitive and happy human beings who transmit positivity and respect to others'.” [1]
They have a program "for young men from 11-19", which if you think about it, is pretty much the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and functionaries. [2]
This is all the more interesting right now because of the recent Newmark Foundation grant to combat harassment, which it seems is to be used for developing more forceful blocking tools for admins and functionaries "with the participation and support of the volunteers who will be using the tools". If anyone has not seen the Susan J Fowler / Uber piece on harassment that has started going viral in the last 24 hours, it is here. "...they didn't do anything because the manager who threatened me was a 'high performer.'" [3] Sound familiar? This happened in a company with HR oversight; Wikimedia admins and functionaries have no oversight at all.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2017/feb/ 20/teaching-boys-about-healthy-relationships-they-need-it-from-birth [2] http://acalltomenuk.org.uk/ [3] https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on- one-very-strange-year-at-uber
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I had meant to revisit this discussion after my thinking on the subject had come together a little better, unfortunately that isn't happening, so I will just express my concerns.
Perhaps this is only anecdotal, but it has been my observation that a good many admins are students and either stop editing or cut back their participation drastically in their junior year. So if they start at age 12, which I think has happened a lot, they are basically editing for about ten years. I find it hard to believe there are that many older admins, the photos from events certainly don't bear this out.
The link from enwiki is interesting, I do recognize names of a few professionals but even more who fit the 'advanced student' pattern. The pattern on Meta seems similar. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&usernam...
So the problem I am trying to solve is basically the "endless September" one that Sue pointed out in her 2011 editor retention talk to WMUK. I know this information is dated, but the concept still might be a useful starting point. I have not spent a lot of time on Meta, but a while back I was quite startled to have an individual on Meta demand I engage with him in a discussion about vulgar words for reproductive organs https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ajraddatz&diff=15... , and even more startled to find out this was a functionary. Not only that, it is someone who appears to be deeply opposed to the concept of safe space https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Inspire/Met... and whose name appears on a key committee for Wikimania, which as I understand it, will be under a safe space policy. So my original question was how can we get newcomers up to speed on the social norms, but considering the number of past privacy violations by functionaries, both on WP and on WP criticism sites, now the question seems to be who has access to PII, especially for in-person events. I know of no policy for this. Perhaps it is time to restrict all access to PII to WMF staff and contractors.
On 2/20/17, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
*Re "** young men from 11-19", which if you think about it, is pretty much the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and functionaries."* That's an old joke, but nowadays a joke that looks a tad out of touch. Yes a significant proportion of people were that age when they became admins in 2004-2008. But if there is one thing we know about the people who became admins ten years ago, it is that they are ten years older today. I couldn't guarantee that none of our current admins were that young now, but I'd be surprised if more than one or two were. Only twenty of our current admins created their accounts in the last six years https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop&creationSort=1&desc=1&limit=2000. RFA has been difficult for teenagers to pass for several years now, If any have got through in the last six years they have been unusually mature in behaviour. As for Functionaries, Functionaries other than crats have to prove they are 18 or over when they become Functionaries. So it is theoretically possible that any new functionaries who first became so in the last two years could be 18 or 19, but it isn't exactly likely.
The template bombers who tag lots of articles for admins to delete probably do include some people in that age group, but admins? If 1% of the 1200 admins on English Wikipedia were still under 21 I would be stunned. Far more admins are over 60 than could possibly be 11-19.
On 20 February 2017 at 18:53, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
"A Call to Men UK has 55 coaches working in schools, youth justice departments and youth centres across Worcestershire. The organisation has one principal aim, explains development manager Michael Conroy: to spark a 'cultural shift in the way boys relate to girls', and through this to prevent violence against women and girls.... 'As a culture it’s time that we gave our young men permission to be complex, sensitive and happy human beings who transmit positivity and respect to others'.” [1]
They have a program "for young men from 11-19", which if you think about it, is pretty much the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and functionaries. [2]
This is all the more interesting right now because of the recent Newmark Foundation grant to combat harassment, which it seems is to be used for developing more forceful blocking tools for admins and functionaries "with the participation and support of the volunteers who will be using the tools". If anyone has not seen the Susan J Fowler / Uber piece on harassment that has started going viral in the last 24 hours, it is here. "...they didn't do anything because the manager who threatened me was a 'high performer.'" [3] Sound familiar? This happened in a company with HR oversight; Wikimedia admins and functionaries have no oversight at all.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2017/feb/ 20/teaching-boys-about-healthy-relationships-they-need-it-from-birth [2] http://acalltomenuk.org.uk/ [3] https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on- one-very-strange-year-at-uber
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Speaking of dox and in-person events, a few months ago one of the WP:BADSITES known for dox had a thread about attending a WMF harassment workshop. So anyone who is not comfortable with a paper trail, and would prefer face-to-face conversations with allies, could actually find themselves face to face with their harassers instead.
On 4/12/17, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
I had meant to revisit this discussion after my thinking on the subject had come together a little better, unfortunately that isn't happening, so I will just express my concerns.
Perhaps this is only anecdotal, but it has been my observation that a good many admins are students and either stop editing or cut back their participation drastically in their junior year. So if they start at age 12, which I think has happened a lot, they are basically editing for about ten years. I find it hard to believe there are that many older admins, the photos from events certainly don't bear this out.
The link from enwiki is interesting, I do recognize names of a few professionals but even more who fit the 'advanced student' pattern. The pattern on Meta seems similar. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&usernam...
So the problem I am trying to solve is basically the "endless September" one that Sue pointed out in her 2011 editor retention talk to WMUK. I know this information is dated, but the concept still might be a useful starting point. I have not spent a lot of time on Meta, but a while back I was quite startled to have an individual on Meta demand I engage with him in a discussion about vulgar words for reproductive organs https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ajraddatz&diff=15... , and even more startled to find out this was a functionary. Not only that, it is someone who appears to be deeply opposed to the concept of safe space https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Inspire/Met... and whose name appears on a key committee for Wikimania, which as I understand it, will be under a safe space policy. So my original question was how can we get newcomers up to speed on the social norms, but considering the number of past privacy violations by functionaries, both on WP and on WP criticism sites, now the question seems to be who has access to PII, especially for in-person events. I know of no policy for this. Perhaps it is time to restrict all access to PII to WMF staff and contractors.
On 2/20/17, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
*Re "** young men from 11-19", which if you think about it, is pretty much the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and functionaries."* That's an old joke, but nowadays a joke that looks a tad out of touch. Yes a significant proportion of people were that age when they became admins in 2004-2008. But if there is one thing we know about the people who became admins ten years ago, it is that they are ten years older today. I couldn't guarantee that none of our current admins were that young now, but I'd be surprised if more than one or two were. Only twenty of our current admins created their accounts in the last six years https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop&creationSort=1&desc=1&limit=2000. RFA has been difficult for teenagers to pass for several years now, If any have got through in the last six years they have been unusually mature in behaviour. As for Functionaries, Functionaries other than crats have to prove they are 18 or over when they become Functionaries. So it is theoretically possible that any new functionaries who first became so in the last two years could be 18 or 19, but it isn't exactly likely.
The template bombers who tag lots of articles for admins to delete probably do include some people in that age group, but admins? If 1% of the 1200 admins on English Wikipedia were still under 21 I would be stunned. Far more admins are over 60 than could possibly be 11-19.
On 20 February 2017 at 18:53, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
"A Call to Men UK has 55 coaches working in schools, youth justice departments and youth centres across Worcestershire. The organisation has one principal aim, explains development manager Michael Conroy: to spark a 'cultural shift in the way boys relate to girls', and through this to prevent violence against women and girls.... 'As a culture it’s time that we gave our young men permission to be complex, sensitive and happy human beings who transmit positivity and respect to others'.” [1]
They have a program "for young men from 11-19", which if you think about it, is pretty much the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and functionaries. [2]
This is all the more interesting right now because of the recent Newmark Foundation grant to combat harassment, which it seems is to be used for developing more forceful blocking tools for admins and functionaries "with the participation and support of the volunteers who will be using the tools". If anyone has not seen the Susan J Fowler / Uber piece on harassment that has started going viral in the last 24 hours, it is here. "...they didn't do anything because the manager who threatened me was a 'high performer.'" [3] Sound familiar? This happened in a company with HR oversight; Wikimedia admins and functionaries have no oversight at all.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2017/feb/ 20/teaching-boys-about-healthy-relationships-they-need-it-from-birth [2] http://acalltomenuk.org.uk/ [3] https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on- one-very-strange-year-at-uber
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
yes, that functionary and his behavior on meta has chilled the participation of some librarian editors they are highly skeptical of wiki harrassment efforts as long as he is in a position to see personal identifying information. they do not trust check user to be done responsibly as well
this is impacting our efforts to engage a GLAM institution.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of dox and in-person events, a few months ago one of the WP:BADSITES known for dox had a thread about attending a WMF harassment workshop. So anyone who is not comfortable with a paper trail, and would prefer face-to-face conversations with allies, could actually find themselves face to face with their harassers instead.
On 4/12/17, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
I had meant to revisit this discussion after my thinking on the subject had come together a little better, unfortunately that isn't happening, so I will just express my concerns.
Perhaps this is only anecdotal, but it has been my observation that a good many admins are students and either stop editing or cut back their participation drastically in their junior year. So if they start at age 12, which I think has happened a lot, they are basically editing for about ten years. I find it hard to believe there are that many older admins, the photos from events certainly don't bear this out.
The link from enwiki is interesting, I do recognize names of a few professionals but even more who fit the 'advanced student' pattern. The pattern on Meta seems similar. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%
3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop&creationSort=1&desc=1&limit=2000
So the problem I am trying to solve is basically the "endless September" one that Sue pointed out in her 2011 editor retention talk to WMUK. I know this information is dated, but the concept still might be a useful starting point. I have not spent a lot of time on Meta, but a while back I was quite startled to have an individual on Meta demand I engage with him in a discussion about vulgar words for reproductive organs https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
Ajraddatz&diff=15715606&oldid=15715064
, and even more startled to find out this was a functionary. Not only that, it is someone who appears to be deeply opposed to the concept of safe space https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:
IdeaLab/Inspire/Meta&oldid=15729581
and whose name appears on a key committee for Wikimania, which as I understand it, will be under a safe space policy. So my original question was how can we get newcomers up to speed on the social norms, but considering the number of past privacy violations by functionaries, both on WP and on WP criticism sites, now the question seems to be who has access to PII, especially for in-person events. I know of no policy for this. Perhaps it is time to restrict all access to PII to WMF staff and contractors.
On 2/20/17, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
*Re "** young men from 11-19", which if you think about it, is pretty much the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and functionaries."* That's an old joke, but nowadays a joke that looks a tad out of touch. Yes a significant proportion of people were that age when they became admins in
2004-2008.
But if there is one thing we know about the people who became admins ten years ago, it is that they are ten years older today. I couldn't guarantee that none of our current admins were that young now, but I'd be
surprised
if more than one or two were. Only twenty of our current admins created their accounts in the last six years <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%
3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop&creationSort=1&desc=1&limit=2000>.
RFA has been difficult for teenagers to pass for several years now, If any have got through in the last six years they have been unusually mature
in
behaviour. As for Functionaries, Functionaries other than crats have to prove they are 18 or over when they become Functionaries. So it is theoretically possible that any new functionaries who first became so in the last two years could be 18 or 19, but it isn't exactly likely.
The template bombers who tag lots of articles for admins to delete probably do include some people in that age group, but admins? If 1% of the 1200 admins on English Wikipedia were still under 21 I would be stunned. Far more admins are over 60 than could possibly be 11-19.
On 20 February 2017 at 18:53, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
"A Call to Men UK has 55 coaches working in schools, youth justice departments and youth centres across Worcestershire. The organisation has one principal aim, explains development manager Michael Conroy: to
spark
a 'cultural shift in the way boys relate to girls', and through this to prevent violence against women and girls.... 'As a culture it’s time that we gave our young men permission to be complex, sensitive and
happy
human beings who transmit positivity and respect to others'.” [1]
They have a program "for young men from 11-19", which if you think
about
it, is pretty much the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and functionaries. [2]
This is all the more interesting right now because of the recent
Newmark
Foundation grant to combat harassment, which it seems is to be used for developing more forceful blocking tools for admins and functionaries "with the participation and support of the volunteers who will be using the tools". If anyone has not seen the Susan J Fowler / Uber piece on harassment that has started going viral in the last 24 hours, it is here. "...they didn't do anything because the manager who threatened me was a 'high performer.'" [3] Sound familiar? This happened in a company with HR oversight; Wikimedia admins and functionaries have no oversight at all.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2017/feb/ 20/teaching-boys-about-healthy-relationships-they-need-it-from-birth [2] http://acalltomenuk.org.uk/ [3] https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on- one-very-strange-year-at-uber
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
I'm unfamiliar with this situation, but if there's a functionary whose off-wiki behavior calls into question of the appropriateness of his/her continuing to have access to PII, please do forward that information to SuSa, the Ombudsman Committee, and/or (as applicable) the local arbitration committee that would have the ability to investigate the situation.
Pine
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 8:29 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
yes, that functionary and his behavior on meta has chilled the participation of some librarian editors they are highly skeptical of wiki harrassment efforts as long as he is in a position to see personal identifying information. they do not trust check user to be done responsibly as well
this is impacting our efforts to engage a GLAM institution.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of dox and in-person events, a few months ago one of the WP:BADSITES known for dox had a thread about attending a WMF harassment workshop. So anyone who is not comfortable with a paper trail, and would prefer face-to-face conversations with allies, could actually find themselves face to face with their harassers instead.
nope - this was an incident at wikiconUSA 2015 apparently nothing done which has impacted the credibility of arbcom and susa (i was not witness, but i find the complainants credible)
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with this situation, but if there's a functionary whose off-wiki behavior calls into question of the appropriateness of his/her continuing to have access to PII, please do forward that information to SuSa, the Ombudsman Committee, and/or (as applicable) the local arbitration committee that would have the ability to investigate the situation.
Pine
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 8:29 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
yes, that functionary and his behavior on meta has chilled the participation of some librarian editors they are highly skeptical of wiki harrassment efforts as long as he is in a position to see personal identifying information. they do not trust check user to be done responsibly as well
this is impacting our efforts to engage a GLAM institution.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of dox and in-person events, a few months ago one of the WP:BADSITES known for dox had a thread about attending a WMF harassment workshop. So anyone who is not comfortable with a paper trail, and would prefer face-to-face conversations with allies, could actually find themselves face to face with their harassers instead.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
At a minimum I would expect SuSa and/or Arbcom to conduct some meaningful investigation if there was an allegation of a functionary's trustworthiness. Perhaps (and I'm only speculating here) Arbcom and SuSa were unable to find enough hard evidence to support the allegation which is why nothing was done. I would suggest taking this matter up with Susa and Arbcom directly; perhaps they will be able to explain what they did (if anything) and what their findings were (if any). I'd understand if an investigation was done but they couldn't find enough evidence to support a revocation of functionary permissions; what would concern me more is if the matter was brought to their attention and they didn't investigate it at all.
Pine
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:19 AM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
nope - this was an incident at wikiconUSA 2015 apparently nothing done which has impacted the credibility of arbcom and susa (i was not witness, but i find the complainants credible)
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with this situation, but if there's a functionary whose off-wiki behavior calls into question of the appropriateness of his/her continuing to have access to PII, please do forward that information to SuSa, the Ombudsman Committee, and/or (as applicable) the local arbitration committee that would have the ability to investigate the situation.
Pine
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 8:29 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
yes, that functionary and his behavior on meta has chilled the participation of some librarian editors they are highly skeptical of wiki harrassment efforts as long as he is in a position to see personal identifying information. they do not trust check user to be done responsibly as well
this is impacting our efforts to engage a GLAM institution.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of dox and in-person events, a few months ago one of the WP:BADSITES known for dox had a thread about attending a WMF harassment workshop. So anyone who is not comfortable with a paper trail, and would prefer face-to-face conversations with allies, could actually find themselves face to face with their harassers instead.
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
sorry i'm not interested in interacting with arbcom or susa i can only report that people went down those paths and are dissatisfied with the response it is impacting any further edits from them it is impacting interactions with a certain library and their employees. it is important for the community and WMF to understand the negative reputation is widespread, and will impact future editing.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
At a minimum I would expect SuSa and/or Arbcom to conduct some meaningful investigation if there was an allegation of a functionary's trustworthiness. Perhaps (and I'm only speculating here) Arbcom and SuSa were unable to find enough hard evidence to support the allegation which is why nothing was done. I would suggest taking this matter up with Susa and Arbcom directly; perhaps they will be able to explain what they did (if anything) and what their findings were (if any). I'd understand if an investigation was done but they couldn't find enough evidence to support a revocation of functionary permissions; what would concern me more is if the matter was brought to their attention and they didn't investigate it at all.
Pine
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:19 AM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
nope - this was an incident at wikiconUSA 2015 apparently nothing done which has impacted the credibility of arbcom and susa (i was not witness, but i find the complainants credible)
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with this situation, but if there's a functionary whose off-wiki behavior calls into question of the appropriateness of his/her continuing to have access to PII, please do forward that information to SuSa, the Ombudsman Committee, and/or (as applicable) the local arbitration committee that would have the ability to investigate the situation.
Pine
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 8:29 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
yes, that functionary and his behavior on meta has chilled the participation of some librarian editors they are highly skeptical of wiki harrassment efforts as long as he is in a position to see personal identifying information. they do not trust check user to be done responsibly as well
this is impacting our efforts to engage a GLAM institution.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of dox and in-person events, a few months ago one of the WP:BADSITES known for dox had a thread about attending a WMF harassment workshop. So anyone who is not comfortable with a paper trail, and would prefer face-to-face conversations with allies, could actually find themselves face to face with their harassers instead.
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