This is what is about to happen at the English Wikipedia ArbCom re disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force: *Five men and two women were involved parties in the case. *One women is about to be site banned. *The other woman is about to be topic banned from the GGTF. *All five men are going to be free to edit.
It is noteworthy, IMO, that only 1 of the 12 arbitrators is a woman (GorillaWarfare, bless her, who is not for giving WP's #1 trouble-maker, Eric Corbet, yet *another* chance). Here is a link to the Proposed decision page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap...
And to the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gende...
Lightbreather
If Carol Moore is banned from Wikipedia and Eric Corbett is not, I will be retiring from Wikipedia, as it will prove that the project is completely dysfunctional.
Kaldari
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
This is what is about to happen at the English Wikipedia ArbCom re disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force: *Five men and two women were involved parties in the case. *One women is about to be site banned. *The other woman is about to be topic banned from the GGTF. *All five men are going to be free to edit.
It is noteworthy, IMO, that only 1 of the 12 arbitrators is a woman (GorillaWarfare, bless her, who is not for giving WP's #1 trouble-maker, Eric Corbet, yet *another* chance). Here is a link to the Proposed decision page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap...
And to the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gende...
Lightbreather
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Here, here. Carol Moore is one of the reasons I EDIT Wikipedia.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
If Carol Moore is banned from Wikipedia and Eric Corbett is not, I will be retiring from Wikipedia, as it will prove that the project is completely dysfunctional.
Kaldari
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
This is what is about to happen at the English Wikipedia ArbCom re disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force: *Five men and two women were involved parties in the case. *One women is about to be site banned. *The other woman is about to be topic banned from the GGTF. *All five men are going to be free to edit.
It is noteworthy, IMO, that only 1 of the 12 arbitrators is a woman (GorillaWarfare, bless her, who is not for giving WP's #1 trouble-maker, Eric Corbet, yet *another* chance). Here is a link to the Proposed decision page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap...
And to the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gende...
Lightbreather
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
ArbCom is weak, and loathe to make any decision that might trigger a backlash. They are incapable of dealing with serious, long-term problems and seem able only to address minor issues that would otherwise resolve on their own. The English Wikipedia is ungoverned and ungovernable, and the norms of behavior are too palsied to make enforcement of policy even slightly consistent. The whole endeavor makes more sense if we simply accept that it exists in a state of anarchy and that this will likely not change.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
This is what is about to happen at the English Wikipedia ArbCom re disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force: *Five men and two women were involved parties in the case. *One women is about to be site banned. *The other woman is about to be topic banned from the GGTF. *All five men are going to be free to edit.
It is noteworthy, IMO, that only 1 of the 12 arbitrators is a woman (GorillaWarfare, bless her, who is not for giving WP's #1 trouble-maker, Eric Corbet, yet *another* chance). Here is a link to the Proposed decision page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap...
And to the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gende...
Lightbreather
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Would anyone be willing to give a TL;DR of what happened here?
It's really two issues - one, there was some disruption and misconduct around the Gender Gap wikiproject that really got overblown a bit and never needed to be an arbitration case to begin with. Granted that some of the participants weren't really contributing in good faith, and that there was a little bit of misunderstanding and overreaction on the part of some who were.
The second issue is that there is a particular person who is an absolutely outstanding article writer, but has a longstanding habit of acting like a jerk on a regular basis. The community and the committee have repeatedly shown themselves to be incapable of finding a solution to that problem, and this is no exception.
Also, wacky question:
could there ever be any legal repercussion - like the "real" legal system, not an internet community - that could be taken to support a person who should not be "banned" from a website? like carol? If you're called lots of nasty names, if men aren't being banned, etc but women are, blahblahblah - that's sexist and discrimination IMHO.
I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers who would look at all of this and go "UH WHAT" ...
I really don't know how things like Arbcom stand up in the court of law. I just think sometimes it's a matter of making a shit storm even shittier by bring in the law - the world needs to see that Wikipedia is more of a mess then they think. Makes it a lot harder to donate to Wikipedia when you see these types of things happening, right?
And frankly, Carol might be outspoken, but this is sexist crap when a man can act all disruptive but be "oh so valuable" and women like Carol (and me and others) are seen as psychos and angry women who bring nothing to the project (she's an amazing writer and has contributed a lot too).
I have a lawyer on standby for every single threat that comes my way now on the internet, and that includes Wikipedia - I'm not rich, but, frankly, I just can't do it alone anymore and the system isn't solving anything. From Twitter to Wikipedia, a day doesnt' go by when myself or a woman I know isn't threatened on the internet. I'm just so sick of it.
I'm also really pissed off in general about the last 24 hours in america. So whatever.
-Sarah
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It's really two issues - one, there was some disruption and misconduct around the Gender Gap wikiproject that really got overblown a bit and never needed to be an arbitration case to begin with. Granted that some of the participants weren't really contributing in good faith, and that there was a little bit of misunderstanding and overreaction on the part of some who were.
The second issue is that there is a particular person who is an absolutely outstanding article writer, but has a longstanding habit of acting like a jerk on a regular basis. The community and the committee have repeatedly shown themselves to be incapable of finding a solution to that problem, and this is no exception.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 11/25/2014 2:48 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
And frankly, Carol might be outspoken, but this is sexist crap when a man can act all disruptive but be "oh so valuable" and women like Carol (and me and others) are seen as psychos and angry women who bring nothing to the project (she's an amazing writer and has contributed a lot too).
....
I'm also really pissed off in general about the last 24 hours in america. So whatever.
-Sarah
First, I do a mea culpa on not being the perfect little lady editor. I edit in controversial areas (which according to some guys in itself proves I'm a drama queen!), disagree with and revert male editors, argue in a strong manner, sometimes get as competitive as some male editors, take issues to noticeboards when there's a stalemate and sometimes editors to ANI when they really get out of line. There is a small percentage of guys who just go crazy over this sort of thing and from time to time I say snotty things to them. Nothing like some of the things that have been said to me!
In the last 3 months I've been under intense harassment and have written a couple stupid things and today I really let ArbCom know just what I think. (Per Sarah's comment about Ferguson; having lived in a 95% black area for almost 20 years, I do take it emotionally).
Anyway my Arbitration Evidence provides a timeline of disruption at GGTF and detailed the battleground attitudes of a nasty little coterie of editors who set out to disrupt GGTF and harass a few individual editors. As I came to learn as Arbitration progressed, over the years they have driven off a number of editors who disagreed with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap...
Since they love to yap about "Carol's biggest crimes (all two)" here they are. Much fewer and far more excusable than much of the stuff they've pulled.
* After two editors harassing me were either Ibanned or chastised, I got fed up with another harasser who I believed might be married to the the King pin editor of this gang and asked her if that was why she was harassing me, in a not very diplomatic manner. What can I say, PTSD.... I immediately apologized when it was denied, but have been hearing about it over and over ever since.
* Last week I got really pissed that even after ArbCom voted to site ban me, King pin's friends KEPT harassing me! I got pissed and wrote: "This is a [[gang bang]] over [[C*nt-gate]] by individuals who I mostly am unfamiliary with" in text and edit summary. The comment was ignored but at least an arbitrator told them to cut it out which they did for a couple days. Then it started up again the last few days. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Reques...
Today I got pissed that two other individuals who had insulted and harassed me repeatedly in the past were doing it there. I wrote my REAL OPINION of what is going on with the whole Arbitration. And cc'd to Jimmy Wales (who has said the same kind of things about this group, basically told them to get lost, but refuses to get the WMF board to do anything about enforcing terms of service.)
/Some people seem to think that ArbCom is so naive they don't know that the Manchester Gangbangers and their cronies/minions are engaged in '''institutionalized harassment''' using ArbCom as one of their harassment tools. They think just explaining that will open their eyes and they'll do the right thing.// //No, the only thing that will clear Wikipedia of this vicious coterie is a national publicity campaign to pressure the WMF into enforcing its Terms of Service, including against culpable ArbCom members. (I see several Sitush/Corbett/ cronies/minions are running for the next Arbitration Committee.) And I'm one of dozens who see it that way, we just haven't decided where to organize our efforts. Just because their tactic worked on silencing 1.2 billion Indians with their Brit imperialist drivel doesn't mean it will work on silencing 3.3 billion women. After all 1/2 the members of the Board are women. / https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Reques...
Which got me blocked for (now) 72 hours. By which time I'll be site banned anyway.
So that's how evil I am!!! Needlesstosay I feel very liberated and wonder why I didn't quit years ago. (Besides fact I'm a stubborn taurus the bull.) Now that I'll finally after 8 years be able to update my website, I'll be creating http://carolmoore.net/wikipedia with all sorts of things I've learned over the years. Plus obviously GGTF stuff and a side by side comparison of the evidence provided against me (mostly me getting pissed after intensive harassment) vs. the obnoxious things that several other editors had done at GGTF, me and/or others over the years. That won't be done til January/February.
Some of are talking about getting something else together off wikipedia, but nothing solid...
CM
So that's the story....
I cannot believe the crap going on on that talk page now! Having watched this case develop over the past few weeks, I finally ventured to share my disgust with the way things ended up, and now I'm being accused of basing my opinion *completely* on gender. Another guy chimed in to say: "Some people aren't happy unless they are 'the victim', as odd as this sounds. The perpetual contrarian underdog. And no, I don't say this to be mean, it is simply a fact in human behavior that some people are like that."
Both of these remarks were made by (male) admins.
This is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gende...
Lightbreather
I'm not going to opine on the decision that's being voted upon by Arbcom; I've been there, and ultimately the decision is based on the quality and nature of the evidence that people bother to present - which often means that the decision that ultimately gets posted, because entire "sides" of the story are not presented by someone as evidence, seems to have very little to do with the original reason for accepting the case. I have, however, entered a plea that they rename the case. The decision they're voting on now has almost nothing at all to do with the Gender Gap Task Force, and isn't really addressing any of problematic behaviours that are evident on the talk pages of the wikiproject. (It's obvious to me that a significant proportion of people posting there, including ones whom I otherwise hold in fairly high regard, just really don't get gender gap issues. There was belittling of suggestions, an insistence that the way things are done now is the "right" way to do them, that there's no such thing as topics of particular interest to women....well, we all know the story.
I've asked Arbcom to rename the case to something that doesn't include the name of the GGTF. It's hard enough to attract editors to participate constructively on the topic now because of all the nonsense noted above. It will just become that much more difficult to attract editors who prefer to work in a non-confrontational environment once this case is closed. Note that the wikiproject will be the subject of discretionary sanctions effective at the close of the case, as well. [1] As if that will make any difference.
Risker/Anne
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap...
On 25 November 2014 at 20:14, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
I cannot believe the crap going on on that talk page now! Having watched this case develop over the past few weeks, I finally ventured to share my disgust with the way things ended up, and now I'm being accused of basing my opinion *completely* on gender. Another guy chimed in to say: "Some people aren't happy unless they are 'the victim', as odd as this sounds. The perpetual contrarian underdog. And no, I don't say this to be mean, it is simply a fact in human behavior that some people are like that."
Both of these remarks were made by (male) admins.
This is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gende...
Lightbreather
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 11/26/2014 12:52 AM, Risker wrote:
I have, however, entered a plea that they rename the case. The decision they're voting on now has almost nothing at all to do with the Gender Gap Task Force, and isn't really addressing any of problematic behaviours that are evident on the talk pages of the wikiproject.
GGTF was targeted for disruption because males (and some alleged females who support them) were afraid that the GGTF's concern with civility would lead to more restrictions on guys' right to talk dirty and be hostile when they felt like it. Over time I realized it also was about their right to harass the heck out of people they don't like to drive them off the project and they've been at it for a few years.) The story is pretty clear if you read the evidence in my timeline.
I already was being harassed by two individuals (who don't like what they assume to be my politics) who then came to GGTF primarily to harass and badmouth me. (Their nasty efforts got me topic banned for a couple angry comments in a case where one of them was topic banned for chronic BLP violations! )
Both also supported the "incivility caucus" and were delighted to make me the number 1 target. The other now topic banned editor - who has avoided revealing his/her sex - obviously got under someone's skin for some flippant (or sometimes too on target?) comments and was the second major target.
The Arbitrators were NOT going to take the case until someone else took one of my harassers to WP:ANI about the wikihounding, a bunch of GGTF people complained about him and he got Ibanned from me. This caused a lot of complaints among the anticivility caucus about GGTF canvassing and meat puppetry and I believe angered and terrified them. It freaked out the other editor who came to harass me and he started threatening to follow me, dig up dirt and then wrote a crappy draft biography of me, trashing me freely on his talk page. I took it to MfD. One of his Admin friends took the mess to ANI, where he started screaming there about bringing in Arbcom. And Arbitrators suddenly started to change their votes. (He has at least two powerful friends on the committee.)
The anticivility caucus claimed it was all about getting rid of that awful CarolMoore (even though almost all their evidence came from my complaint about all the harassment in August and September!) But it really was about terrifying and intimidating GGTF so it couldn't get any more of their harassers interaction banned.
During the Arbitration a few people stepped forward to say they also had been harassed by this crew and quit or knew others who had; a couple more emailed me privately. So I began to see that not just incivility but the right to drive off editors through harassment was what they were fighting for. I call it a "gang bang" because probably two dozen editors came out of no where to say how awful I was - all based on being part of this incivility/harassment clique.
If I had not joined GGTF and tried to deal with the disruptions, I wouldn't have gotten the first harasser off my back - but I wouldn't have had the whole crew attack me.
Despite their efforts, two of the incivility crew did end up getting admonished, so in that way it WAS a successful arbitration. We'll see if the discretionary sanctions are used fairly or to keep true GGTF participants from complaining about future disruption.
Believe me I'm VERY happy to be free on a personal level. Just really ticked off that these guys got away with it. And I'm one of those people who never learned to suffer in silence. Expect the video soon and the analysis in a couple months. Meanwhile, I'll watch with interest to see how things develop.
CM
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not going to opine on the decision that's being voted upon by Arbcom; I've been there, and ultimately the decision is based on the quality and nature of the evidence that people bother to present
Risker, I think your remarks are overall spot-on. I take your point about any decision only being as good as the evidence which informs it, but what I'm seeing happening in this case specifically goes beyond that, IMO.
Just reading through the diffs and links in this case, it's hard for me to see the proposed decisions as being based solely or ultimately on the evidence presented. From my reading, there's a pretty visible undercurrent here of babying an editor with a clear and unambiguous history of toxic behavior. The best outcome ArbCom was able to muster is apparently to give air cover to admins who enforce basic site policy, as opposed to the ludicrous state of affairs where admins who enforce civility policy are reverted by other admins and the individual is openly declared to be "untouchable".
That this same individual is also on record ranting about a "feminist agenda" and "alienation of male editors" while a topic-ban isn't being seriously considered speaks volumes about the impact of the gender gap on the set of shared beliefs and consciousness in our community. If our community was majority-female, would such remarks be regarded as conducive to neutral participation in a topic? If it was gender-balanced, would they be?
I think inclusion is often about treating the same behaviors the same way. If you imagined people switching roles in the case, would the sanctions remain the same? From my understanding of some of the history here, it seems more likely that one particular contributor who is anti-social to the point of toxicity is being protected by an old boys club in the community, and ArbCom's weak enforcement approach is simply an institutional reflection of that bias.
As with any institution implicitly acting in accordance with biases that exist in the larger community it serves and from which it constitutes itself, these biases are expressed more explicitly and openly in informal venues, such as user talk pages. But I see in this case the trappings of an evidence-based approach, not the reality.
Erik
I'm incredibly disappointed by arbcom's current approach to this case, to the point that I haven't responded to this thread yet because I'm so flabbergasted that I have little idea what to say. The case is ending with banning a bunch of women with flimsy excuses (mostly that when harrassed, they eventually pushed back,) and is ending with Eric getting another slap on the wrist for gross and repeated vicious personal attacks on other editors. I have no doubt that this will both worsen our gendergap and is even disappointing to the point that I am reconsidering my own degree of participation on the projects until something is done about these issues.
Erik: I would encourage you to reach out to arbcom directly, whether via direct message or a talk page. WMF isn't always liked by the ENWP community, but closing the gendergap is supposed to be one of WMF's few primary strategic priorities, and this is a decision by the highest regular authority on ENWP that flies in the face of both general editor retention issues and flies in the face of the WMF's goals. I will be making personal appeals to Jimbo (who does have at least the theoretical authority to overturn the decision and Lila (who, I would hope as ED, whose word would carry substantial weight to intervene in this case. It's completely ludicrous. Eric has become an editor retention problem as bad or worse than Betacommand was years ago (at the first edu summit, I met at least three editors - who, mind you, were significant enough contributors that they received scholarships to come out) who all almost quit over Betacommand's behavior - this is worse.
I'm sorry to those emails I haven't replied to yet; I've been fairly sick, and was hospitalized while arbcom nominations were ongoing - otherwise, despite my reluctance to run, I'd be a listed candidate. Wikipedia is a critically important project, and is too important to be sabotaged by bullshit like this. Arbcom need substantial and immediate reform. As list moderator and an ENWP admin, I would encourage everyone here to discuss issues openly and candidly. Although blocks based off of mailing list posts are uncommon, if anyone receives a block in part or whole based on a post to gendergap-l over this, unless it's an arb block, I will personally reverse it.
---- Kevin Gorman
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not going to opine on the decision that's being voted upon by Arbcom; I've been there, and ultimately the decision is based on the quality and
nature
of the evidence that people bother to present
Risker, I think your remarks are overall spot-on. I take your point about any decision only being as good as the evidence which informs it, but what I'm seeing happening in this case specifically goes beyond that, IMO.
Just reading through the diffs and links in this case, it's hard for me to see the proposed decisions as being based solely or ultimately on the evidence presented. From my reading, there's a pretty visible undercurrent here of babying an editor with a clear and unambiguous history of toxic behavior. The best outcome ArbCom was able to muster is apparently to give air cover to admins who enforce basic site policy, as opposed to the ludicrous state of affairs where admins who enforce civility policy are reverted by other admins and the individual is openly declared to be "untouchable".
That this same individual is also on record ranting about a "feminist agenda" and "alienation of male editors" while a topic-ban isn't being seriously considered speaks volumes about the impact of the gender gap on the set of shared beliefs and consciousness in our community. If our community was majority-female, would such remarks be regarded as conducive to neutral participation in a topic? If it was gender-balanced, would they be?
I think inclusion is often about treating the same behaviors the same way. If you imagined people switching roles in the case, would the sanctions remain the same? From my understanding of some of the history here, it seems more likely that one particular contributor who is anti-social to the point of toxicity is being protected by an old boys club in the community, and ArbCom's weak enforcement approach is simply an institutional reflection of that bias.
As with any institution implicitly acting in accordance with biases that exist in the larger community it serves and from which it constitutes itself, these biases are expressed more explicitly and openly in informal venues, such as user talk pages. But I see in this case the trappings of an evidence-based approach, not the reality.
Erik
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 11/26/2014 6:42 AM, Kevin Gorman wrote:
I'm incredibly disappointed by arbcom's current approach to this case, to the point that I haven't responded to this thread yet because I'm so flabbergasted that I have little idea what to say. The case is ending with banning a bunch of women with flimsy excuses (mostly that when harrassed, they eventually pushed back,)
*Mea culpa. The fact that I had one of those head/chest colds that just drags on and on definitely made me over reactive on the one hand. But I'm not using it as an excuse or even apologizing for my getting fed up at the end and using the metaphor of gang rape about the hysterical hostility against me during arbitration by friends of the "perpetrators" or about my calling them the "Manchester Gang bangers", which I did mean more as related to them being thuggish. However, obviously they did organize a metaphorical gang bang against me, so I don't even apologize for that intepretation.
Pedantic note: gang bangs can be consensual, can be all male or male/female, so aren't always male on female rape scenarios.
Not surprisingly there was total outrage among the Arbs about my comments. Yet nary a bit of outrage over the incident that really got the ball rolling: one guy writing as an obvious reply to the woman who started a civility thread "/the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one". (/Another wasn't even chastised for writing to a woman who objected /"//I'm sure that the families of [[Twatt, Orkney]] will be impressed. Especially those whose spelling is poor".)
///So frankly I can't feel too bad about my gang bang and gangbangers analogies as symbols of what is acceptable and allowed to go on at Wikipedia among the powers that be. (Hopefully I'll feel the same if my brains ever de-fog from head cold and PTSD of 3 months of intensive harassment.)
CM
//
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not going to opine on the decision that's being voted upon by Arbcom; I've been there, and ultimately the decision is based on the quality and
nature
of the evidence that people bother to present
Risker, I think your remarks are overall spot-on. I take your point about any decision only being as good as the evidence which informs it, but what I'm seeing happening in this case specifically goes beyond that, IMO.
Just reading through the diffs and links in this case, it's hard for me to see the proposed decisions as being based solely or ultimately on the evidence presented. From my reading, there's a pretty visible undercurrent here of babying an editor with a clear and unambiguous history of toxic behavior. The best outcome ArbCom was able to muster is apparently to give air cover to admins who enforce basic site policy, as opposed to the ludicrous state of affairs where admins who enforce civility policy are reverted by other admins and the individual is openly declared to be "untouchable".
That this same individual is also on record ranting about a "feminist agenda" and "alienation of male editors" while a topic-ban isn't being seriously considered speaks volumes about the impact of the gender gap on the set of shared beliefs and consciousness in our community. If our community was majority-female, would such remarks be regarded as conducive to neutral participation in a topic? If it was gender-balanced, would they be?
I think inclusion is often about treating the same behaviors the same way. If you imagined people switching roles in the case, would the sanctions remain the same? From my understanding of some of the history here, it seems more likely that one particular contributor who is anti-social to the point of toxicity is being protected by an old boys club in the community, and ArbCom's weak enforcement approach is simply an institutional reflection of that bias.
As with any institution implicitly acting in accordance with biases that exist in the larger community it serves and from which it constitutes itself, these biases are expressed more explicitly and openly in informal venues, such as user talk pages. But I see in this case the trappings of an evidence-based approach, not the reality.
Erik
That's a slightly simplistic summary, eliding the fact that Eric C. is also very often non-toxic, and has a long history of collaborating in a very professional and respectful manner with many diverse women editors to bring a large number of articles to good or featured status.
A good number of those women spoke up for him on the Proposed Decision talk page. And even more women took issue with the way the gender gap is often framed here.
Note also that when Eric spoke of alienating male contributors, this was in the specific context of affirmative actions (which even those proposing them warned carried a risk of provoking a backlash). Two arbitrators had the decency to oppose that finding of fact based on the omission of that context.
I do think the arbitrators should revisit Newyorkbrad's idea of a GGTF topic ban for Eric. (Generally, Newyorkbrad's comments in this case were spot-on for me throughout.) I did find some of Eric's contributions to the GGTF pages were excessively argumentative and confrontational, and not helpful. But I am very glad he is not getting banned.
I do regret seeing the ban for Carol pass.
Again, I would encourage people to set up their own Gendergap discussion site and blog off-wiki ... and also to listen to those women who spoke up in the case who feel that the current framing of the Gendergap issue does not represent them.
And since I am posting here, let me remind everyone again that we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey. We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but no data.
What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after the survey ran?
It should be a really easy question to answer: x% female, y% male.
Best, Andreas
But thank you for the good comments below mine, but must reply to your introductory remarks...
On 11/26/2014 9:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
... That's a slightly simplistic summary, eliding the fact that Eric C. is also very often non-toxic, and has a long history of collaborating in a very professional and respectful manner with many diverse women editors to bring a large number of articles to good or featured status.
**He still disrupted the GGTF with his friends in order to stop it having an influencing in increasing civility or harassment enforcement.
A good number of those women spoke up for him on the Proposed Decision talk page. And even more women took issue with the way the gender gap is often framed here.
*Women editors will have different views, but if the main reason they come is to support one or more males who call women cunts, sorry if they don't have much credibility.
By here you mean this email list or GGTF? If you study the GGTF timeline and archives you'll see that some of the most rediculous proposals were made by males and rejected, but thrown up as "typical" of what GGTF wanted; there were three editors there just to harass two women editors; the opponents kept knocking the project and everything said by good faith participants to the point supporters either stopped commenting or got angry and told them to quit it - over and over again.
Note also that when Eric spoke of alienating male contributors, this was in the specific context of affirmative actions (which even those proposing them warned carried a risk of provoking a backlash). Two arbitrators had the decency to oppose that finding of fact based on the omission of that context.
*Yeah, a male came up with a proposal that two males had to OK and revert of an (alleged) female editor. That didn't fly, but we kept hearing about it and had to thrash the arbitrators with diffs til they realized it was a strawman pushed by Corbett and crew. You didn't get the memo?
But the good news is if Corbett does it again, he's in trouble. I have predicted from the start I (and later Neotarf) would be the sacrificial lambs offered up to keep Corbett's supporters from going crazy if even the mildest of sanctions was imposed. (I've heard that ast time Corbett got a strong sanction several high profile admins quit, started petitions, all sorts of shenanigans to disrupt the project.) I still think that is so and told them so....
I'm using the meme "INSTITUTIONALIZED HARASSMENT AT WIKIPEDIA" - feel free to quote me...
CM _____________
I do think the arbitrators should revisit Newyorkbrad's idea of a GGTF topic ban for Eric. (Generally, Newyorkbrad's comments in this case were spot-on for me throughout.) I did find some of Eric's contributions to the GGTF pages were excessively argumentative and confrontational, and not helpful. But I am very glad he is not getting banned.
I do regret seeing the ban for Carol pass.
Again, I would encourage people to set up their own Gendergap discussion site and blog off-wiki ... and also to listen to those women who spoke up in the case who feel that the current framing of the Gendergap issue does not represent them.
And since I am posting here, let me remind everyone again that we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey. We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but no data.
What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after the survey ran?
It should be a really easy question to answer: x% female, y% male.
Best, Andreas
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
But thank you for the good comments below mine, but must reply to your introductory remarks...
On 11/26/2014 9:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
... That's a slightly simplistic summary, eliding the fact that Eric C. is also very often non-toxic, and has a long history of collaborating in a very professional and respectful manner with many diverse women editors to bring a large number of articles to good or featured status.
**He still disrupted the GGTF with his friends in order to stop it having an influencing in increasing civility or harassment enforcement.
That's why I agree with Newyorkbrad that he should be topic-banned from the GGTF pages. But really, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of this, on-wiki is not the right place, as it is with so many of these issues. The signal-to-noise ratio is appalling, and the end result is a waste of time.
A good number of those women spoke up for him on the Proposed Decision talk page. And even more women took issue with the way the gender gap is often framed here.
*Women editors will have different views, but if the main reason they come is to support one or more males who call women cunts,
He didn't. I won't get into that whole long discussion here; all I had to say about this is on the proposed decision talk page, and anyone who is interested can read it up there.
sorry if they don't have much credibility.
By here you mean this email list or GGTF? If you study the GGTF timeline and archives you'll see that some of the most rediculous proposals were made by males and rejected, but thrown up as "typical" of what GGTF wanted; there were three editors there just to harass two women editors; the opponents kept knocking the project and everything said by good faith participants to the point supporters either stopped commenting or got angry and told them to quit it - over and over again.
I meant both here and at the GGTF. If you have a number of very capable women contributors – people who actually have contributed significant amounts of quality content – saying that they can't identify with the way the issue is being framed by the Foundation and those spearheading the gender gap effort, then not listening and entering a dialogue with those people is a missed opportunity.
Note also that when Eric spoke of alienating male contributors, this was in the specific context of affirmative actions (which even those proposing them warned carried a risk of provoking a backlash). Two arbitrators had the decency to oppose that finding of fact based on the omission of that context.
*Yeah, a male came up with a proposal that two males had to OK and revert of an (alleged) female editor. That didn't fly, but we kept hearing about it and had to thrash the arbitrators with diffs til they realized it was a strawman pushed by Corbett and crew. You didn't get the memo?
But the good news is if Corbett does it again, he's in trouble. I have predicted from the start I (and later Neotarf) would be the sacrificial lambs offered up to keep Corbett's supporters from going crazy if even the mildest of sanctions was imposed. (I've heard that ast time Corbett got a strong sanction several high profile admins quit, started petitions, all sorts of shenanigans to disrupt the project.) I still think that is so and told them so....
I am a supporter of both Eric and you, inasmuch as you're both spirited people and I didn't wish to see either of you site-banned.
The whole thing is quite a spectacular breakdown in communication. The term "Arbitration Committee" is really an egregious misnomer. They never actually arbitrate: all they do is punish.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Commiserations.
Best, Andreas
I'm using the meme "INSTITUTIONALIZED HARASSMENT AT WIKIPEDIA" - feel free to quote me...
CM _____________
I do think the arbitrators should revisit Newyorkbrad's idea of a GGTF topic ban for Eric. (Generally, Newyorkbrad's comments in this case were spot-on for me throughout.) I did find some of Eric's contributions to the GGTF pages were excessively argumentative and confrontational, and not helpful. But I am very glad he is not getting banned.
I do regret seeing the ban for Carol pass.
Again, I would encourage people to set up their own Gendergap discussion site and blog off-wiki ... and also to listen to those women who spoke up in the case who feel that the current framing of the Gendergap issue does not represent them.
And since I am posting here, let me remind everyone again that we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey. We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but no data.
What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after the survey ran?
It should be a really easy question to answer: x% female, y% male.
Best, Andreas
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On the plus side, discretionary sanctions...
George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 26, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote: But thank you for the good comments below mine, but must reply to your introductory remarks...
On 11/26/2014 9:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: ... That's a slightly simplistic summary, eliding the fact that Eric C. is also very often non-toxic, and has a long history of collaborating in a very professional and respectful manner with many diverse women editors to bring a large number of articles to good or featured status.
**He still disrupted the GGTF with his friends in order to stop it having an influencing in increasing civility or harassment enforcement.
That's why I agree with Newyorkbrad that he should be topic-banned from the GGTF pages. But really, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of this, on-wiki is not the right place, as it is with so many of these issues. The signal-to-noise ratio is appalling, and the end result is a waste of time.
A good number of those women spoke up for him on the Proposed Decision talk page. And even more women took issue with the way the gender gap is often framed here.
*Women editors will have different views, but if the main reason they come is to support one or more males who call women cunts,
He didn't. I won't get into that whole long discussion here; all I had to say about this is on the proposed decision talk page, and anyone who is interested can read it up there.
sorry if they don't have much credibility.
By here you mean this email list or GGTF? If you study the GGTF timeline and archives you'll see that some of the most rediculous proposals were made by males and rejected, but thrown up as "typical" of what GGTF wanted; there were three editors there just to harass two women editors; the opponents kept knocking the project and everything said by good faith participants to the point supporters either stopped commenting or got angry and told them to quit it - over and over again.
I meant both here and at the GGTF. If you have a number of very capable women contributors – people who actually have contributed significant amounts of quality content – saying that they can't identify with the way the issue is being framed by the Foundation and those spearheading the gender gap effort, then not listening and entering a dialogue with those people is a missed opportunity.
Note also that when Eric spoke of alienating male contributors, this was in the specific context of affirmative actions (which even those proposing them warned carried a risk of provoking a backlash). Two arbitrators had the decency to oppose that finding of fact based on the omission of that context.
*Yeah, a male came up with a proposal that two males had to OK and revert of an (alleged) female editor. That didn't fly, but we kept hearing about it and had to thrash the arbitrators with diffs til they realized it was a strawman pushed by Corbett and crew. You didn't get the memo?
But the good news is if Corbett does it again, he's in trouble. I have predicted from the start I (and later Neotarf) would be the sacrificial lambs offered up to keep Corbett's supporters from going crazy if even the mildest of sanctions was imposed. (I've heard that ast time Corbett got a strong sanction several high profile admins quit, started petitions, all sorts of shenanigans to disrupt the project.) I still think that is so and told them so....
I am a supporter of both Eric and you, inasmuch as you're both spirited people and I didn't wish to see either of you site-banned.
The whole thing is quite a spectacular breakdown in communication. The term "Arbitration Committee" is really an egregious misnomer. They never actually arbitrate: all they do is punish.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Commiserations.
Best, Andreas
I'm using the meme "INSTITUTIONALIZED HARASSMENT AT WIKIPEDIA" - feel free to quote me...
CM _____________
I do think the arbitrators should revisit Newyorkbrad's idea of a GGTF topic ban for Eric. (Generally, Newyorkbrad's comments in this case were spot-on for me throughout.) I did find some of Eric's contributions to the GGTF pages were excessively argumentative and confrontational, and not helpful. But I am very glad he is not getting banned.
I do regret seeing the ban for Carol pass.
Again, I would encourage people to set up their own Gendergap discussion site and blog off-wiki ... and also to listen to those women who spoke up in the case who feel that the current framing of the Gendergap issue does not represent them.
And since I am posting here, let me remind everyone again that we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey. We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but no data.
What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after the survey ran?
It should be a really easy question to answer: x% female, y% male.
Best, Andreas
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
Thank you for this Carol. I was driven off En.wp / suffered a death of a thousand wikilawyering cuts after ridiculously blatant homophobia, outing and off wiki attacks against my personal life. Even the, now hidden from view, Arbcom case against me was allowed to bang on about fisting, clearly intended as abuse. There seem clear parallels, if you are a woman or gay, you are advised to stay in the closet.
Last week Jimmy Wales was asked to say something, anything, in support of a more welcoming culture for LGBT editors. Silence in return. The content may be a marvel, but the 1970s culture is rotten. On 26 Nov 2014 00:59, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/25/2014 2:48 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
And frankly, Carol might be outspoken, but this is sexist crap when a man can act all disruptive but be "oh so valuable" and women like Carol (and me and others) are seen as psychos and angry women who bring nothing to the project (she's an amazing writer and has contributed a lot too).
....
I'm also really pissed off in general about the last 24 hours in america. So whatever.
-Sarah
First, I do a mea culpa on not being the perfect little lady editor. I edit in controversial areas (which according to some guys in itself proves I'm a drama queen!), disagree with and revert male editors, argue in a strong manner, sometimes get as competitive as some male editors, take issues to noticeboards when there's a stalemate and sometimes editors to ANI when they really get out of line. There is a small percentage of guys who just go crazy over this sort of thing and from time to time I say snotty things to them. Nothing like some of the things that have been said to me!
In the last 3 months I've been under intense harassment and have written a couple stupid things and today I really let ArbCom know just what I think. (Per Sarah's comment about Ferguson; having lived in a 95% black area for almost 20 years, I do take it emotionally).
Anyway my Arbitration Evidence provides a timeline of disruption at GGTF and detailed the battleground attitudes of a nasty little coterie of editors who set out to disrupt GGTF and harass a few individual editors. As I came to learn as Arbitration progressed, over the years they have driven off a number of editors who disagreed with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap...
Since they love to yap about "Carol's biggest crimes (all two)" here they are. Much fewer and far more excusable than much of the stuff they've pulled.
- After two editors harassing me were either Ibanned or chastised, I got
fed up with another harasser who I believed might be married to the the King pin editor of this gang and asked her if that was why she was harassing me, in a not very diplomatic manner. What can I say, PTSD.... I immediately apologized when it was denied, but have been hearing about it over and over ever since.
- Last week I got really pissed that even after ArbCom voted to site ban
me, King pin's friends KEPT harassing me! I got pissed and wrote: "This is a [[gang bang]] over [[C*nt-gate]] by individuals who I mostly am unfamiliary with" in text and edit summary. The comment was ignored but at least an arbitrator told them to cut it out which they did for a couple days. Then it started up again the last few days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Reques...
Today I got pissed that two other individuals who had insulted and harassed me repeatedly in the past were doing it there. I wrote my REAL OPINION of what is going on with the whole Arbitration. And cc'd to Jimmy Wales (who has said the same kind of things about this group, basically told them to get lost, but refuses to get the WMF board to do anything about enforcing terms of service.)
*Some people seem to think that ArbCom is so naive they don't know that the Manchester Gangbangers and their cronies/minions are engaged in '''institutionalized harassment''' using ArbCom as one of their harassment tools. They think just explaining that will open their eyes and they'll do the right thing.* *No, the only thing that will clear Wikipedia of this vicious coterie is a national publicity campaign to pressure the WMF into enforcing its Terms of Service, including against culpable ArbCom members. (I see several Sitush/Corbett/ cronies/minions are running for the next Arbitration Committee.) And I'm one of dozens who see it that way, we just haven't decided where to organize our efforts. Just because their tactic worked on silencing 1.2 billion Indians with their Brit imperialist drivel doesn't mean it will work on silencing 3.3 billion women. After all 1/2 the members of the Board are women. *
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Reques...
Which got me blocked for (now) 72 hours. By which time I'll be site banned anyway.
So that's how evil I am!!! Needlesstosay I feel very liberated and wonder why I didn't quit years ago. (Besides fact I'm a stubborn taurus the bull.) Now that I'll finally after 8 years be able to update my website, I'll be creating http://carolmoore.net/wikipedia with all sorts of things I've learned over the years. Plus obviously GGTF stuff and a side by side comparison of the evidence provided against me (mostly me getting pissed after intensive harassment) vs. the obnoxious things that several other editors had done at GGTF, me and/or others over the years. That won't be done til January/February.
Some of are talking about getting something else together off wikipedia, but nothing solid...
CM
So that's the story....
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Yes, here here to Carol and LB. I commend everyone who is still fighting the power and voicing rage (calm or not) on talk pages and representing what so many of us feel. You are putting your wikilove on the line and it is not to go unnoticed or unappreciated.
I'm genuinely too freaked out anymore to even try, especially after this year. So thank you thank you thank you thank you.
-Sarah
(who is basically over witch hunts, rape and death threats towards her and her friends. all this because of being outspoken, and making one regretful mistake in the wikiworld.)
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for this Carol. I was driven off En.wp / suffered a death of a thousand wikilawyering cuts after ridiculously blatant homophobia, outing and off wiki attacks against my personal life. Even the, now hidden from view, Arbcom case against me was allowed to bang on about fisting, clearly intended as abuse. There seem clear parallels, if you are a woman or gay, you are advised to stay in the closet.
Last week Jimmy Wales was asked to say something, anything, in support of a more welcoming culture for LGBT editors. Silence in return. The content may be a marvel, but the 1970s culture is rotten. On 26 Nov 2014 00:59, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/25/2014 2:48 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
And frankly, Carol might be outspoken, but this is sexist crap when a man can act all disruptive but be "oh so valuable" and women like Carol (and me and others) are seen as psychos and angry women who bring nothing to the project (she's an amazing writer and has contributed a lot too).
....
I'm also really pissed off in general about the last 24 hours in america. So whatever.
-Sarah
First, I do a mea culpa on not being the perfect little lady editor. I edit in controversial areas (which according to some guys in itself proves I'm a drama queen!), disagree with and revert male editors, argue in a strong manner, sometimes get as competitive as some male editors, take issues to noticeboards when there's a stalemate and sometimes editors to ANI when they really get out of line. There is a small percentage of guys who just go crazy over this sort of thing and from time to time I say snotty things to them. Nothing like some of the things that have been said to me!
In the last 3 months I've been under intense harassment and have written a couple stupid things and today I really let ArbCom know just what I think. (Per Sarah's comment about Ferguson; having lived in a 95% black area for almost 20 years, I do take it emotionally).
Anyway my Arbitration Evidence provides a timeline of disruption at GGTF and detailed the battleground attitudes of a nasty little coterie of editors who set out to disrupt GGTF and harass a few individual editors. As I came to learn as Arbitration progressed, over the years they have driven off a number of editors who disagreed with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap...
Since they love to yap about "Carol's biggest crimes (all two)" here they are. Much fewer and far more excusable than much of the stuff they've pulled.
- After two editors harassing me were either Ibanned or chastised, I got
fed up with another harasser who I believed might be married to the the King pin editor of this gang and asked her if that was why she was harassing me, in a not very diplomatic manner. What can I say, PTSD.... I immediately apologized when it was denied, but have been hearing about it over and over ever since.
- Last week I got really pissed that even after ArbCom voted to site ban
me, King pin's friends KEPT harassing me! I got pissed and wrote: "This is a [[gang bang]] over [[C*nt-gate]] by individuals who I mostly am unfamiliary with" in text and edit summary. The comment was ignored but at least an arbitrator told them to cut it out which they did for a couple days. Then it started up again the last few days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Reques...
Today I got pissed that two other individuals who had insulted and harassed me repeatedly in the past were doing it there. I wrote my REAL OPINION of what is going on with the whole Arbitration. And cc'd to Jimmy Wales (who has said the same kind of things about this group, basically told them to get lost, but refuses to get the WMF board to do anything about enforcing terms of service.)
*Some people seem to think that ArbCom is so naive they don't know that the Manchester Gangbangers and their cronies/minions are engaged in '''institutionalized harassment''' using ArbCom as one of their harassment tools. They think just explaining that will open their eyes and they'll do the right thing.* *No, the only thing that will clear Wikipedia of this vicious coterie is a national publicity campaign to pressure the WMF into enforcing its Terms of Service, including against culpable ArbCom members. (I see several Sitush/Corbett/ cronies/minions are running for the next Arbitration Committee.) And I'm one of dozens who see it that way, we just haven't decided where to organize our efforts. Just because their tactic worked on silencing 1.2 billion Indians with their Brit imperialist drivel doesn't mean it will work on silencing 3.3 billion women. After all 1/2 the members of the Board are women. *
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Reques...
Which got me blocked for (now) 72 hours. By which time I'll be site banned anyway.
So that's how evil I am!!! Needlesstosay I feel very liberated and wonder why I didn't quit years ago. (Besides fact I'm a stubborn taurus the bull.) Now that I'll finally after 8 years be able to update my website, I'll be creating http://carolmoore.net/wikipedia with all sorts of things I've learned over the years. Plus obviously GGTF stuff and a side by side comparison of the evidence provided against me (mostly me getting pissed after intensive harassment) vs. the obnoxious things that several other editors had done at GGTF, me and/or others over the years. That won't be done til January/February.
Some of are talking about getting something else together off wikipedia, but nothing solid...
CM
So that's the story....
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
On Nov 25, 2014 2:48 PM, "Sarah Stierch" sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
could there ever be any legal repercussion - like the "real" legal
system, not an internet community - that could be taken to support a person who should not be "banned" from a website? like carol? If you're called lots of nasty names, if men aren't being banned, etc but women are, blahblahblah - that's sexist and discrimination IMHO.
There's a few options, sticks and a carrot. But I don't think any of them are appropriate here.
I'm not even sure if solutions to the arbcom mess(es) should come from the foundation at all.
Stick: find a law that would be violated by such a ban. maybe in order to have standing, the banned user would herself have to be party to the suit. (i.e. couldn't be filed by an arbitrary bystander) I doubt such a law exists. Women are a protected class under some laws but I don't see how they would apply here.
WMF is AFAIK a relatively ordinary 501(c)(3). (legally speaking) It was not chartered by an act of a legislature nor is it a part of any government department or agency.
Or find a part of the bylaws, articles of incorporation or a policy of the foundation that this ban would violate.
I don't think this would work.
(Although, taking this a step further, if editors were employees rather than volunteers then I guess there would be substantial remedies available)
Stick version 2: convince the voting membership of the foundation to make some sort of change.
WMF is not a membership organization so that doesn't work.
Carrot: get a major funder of the foundation to reverse course or to ask the foundation to do something. or get the legislature or executive of a government sponsor to make funds conditional on X. (like the way US federal policies dictate state drinking ages though highway maintenance funding (or withholding thereof))
I don't think WMF gets any government funds now and could probably do well enough with just banners to survive without major donors. (at least given current trends; already most revenue is from small individual donations)
I have a lawyer on standby for every single threat that comes my way now
on the internet, and that includes Wikipedia - I'm not rich, but, frankly, I just can't do it alone anymore and the system isn't solving anything.
From Twitter to Wikipedia, a day doesnt' go by when myself or a woman I
know isn't threatened on the internet. I'm just so sick of it.
:(
I'm also really pissed off in general about the last 24 hours in america.
So whatever.
+1 :(
-Jeremy
Thank you Nathan.
"there is a particular person who is an absolutely outstanding article writer, but has a longstanding habit of acting like a jerk on a regular basis. The community and the committee have repeatedly shown themselves to be incapable of finding a solution to that problem, and this is no exception."
Is there a term for this phenomenon? There has to be, somewhere. It happens offline all the time - that super accomplished professional who gets to treat everyone like dirt and get away with it because everyone admires their work. So exacerbated in an online community though because this person can terrorize so many more people with their behavior in so much less time.
(And if there isn't a term, there should at least be a meme...)