Kevin Gorman: "It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks.
I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing."
It bears repeating that what is a "severe gendered slur" in America is approximately 83.6% less potent as a generalized term of abuse in the UK and Australia.[1] I'm not going to defend Eric using the word "cunt," however, he's well aware that he's in the metaphorical room with Americans and if he directs that word towards anyone again there will be repercussions beyond the usual wheel-warring and melodramatic debate...
That's not the point I wish to make. Mr. Corbett's (virtually inevitable) future civility blocks will indeed be non-appealable because they are of specified length as part of an Arbcom ruling. Any reversal would probably mean the loss of tools — either those of the bad-blocker or the reverser, based on interpretation of the specific situation at Arbitration Enforcement, where the matter would inevitably go.
Frankly, this approach would have solved the "Malleus problem" a long time ago. Incivility should be a block of specified and reasonable duration (viz., the one imposed on Carol Moore for her "gang bangers" rant). There are offenses at Wikipedia far worse than blowing one's top and being a jerk. Like systemic copyright violation. Like faking sources. Like mass subtle vandalism. Like repeated insertion of libelous text into BLPs. Like dramatic disruption of the project to score political points.
Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.
Tim Davenport Corvallis, OR
==Footnotes==
[1] Yeah, I made that number up, but it's about right.
On 11/27/2014 11:22 AM, Tim Davenport wrote:
Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.
If you read the evidence and the GGTF page you'd see Eric Corbett was being disruptive (while not always uncivil) because he did not want the group to have any effective voice against incivility. Many women consider personal attacks AND harassment to be a major issues driving women off the site, once they sign up and start to edit.
Thus Corbett's actions are highly relevant, as are those of a whole list of his friends and supporters and fellow travelers, on GGTF, at other gender gap related discussions, and at the Arbitration.
Of course, we all can disagree on whether "gang bang" and "gang bangers" are good /metaphors/ to describe their behavior at Arbitration. I still think it is, though if I wasn't totally fed up with Wikipedia, I probably would not use it. :-) For now, it's the best metaphor I've got to describe what I now see as Wikipedia's institutionalized harassment.
I must admit, I'm really fascinated by the fact that Eric Corbett is being called "Mr. Corbett" and Carol Moore is being called "Carol Moore' in some of these conversations.
And anyone who has spent time on this mailing list and reads interviews, articles, surveys, blahblah with women who edit Wikipedia (not just us "uppity types"), knows damn well that CIVILITY is one of the reasons we have a gender gap.
So this is in fact, about the gender gap.
-Sarah
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/27/2014 11:22 AM, Tim Davenport wrote:
Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.
If you read the evidence and the GGTF page you'd see Eric Corbett was being disruptive (while not always uncivil) because he did not want the group to have any effective voice against incivility. Many women consider personal attacks AND harassment to be a major issues driving women off the site, once they sign up and start to edit.
Thus Corbett's actions are highly relevant, as are those of a whole list of his friends and supporters and fellow travelers, on GGTF, at other gender gap related discussions, and at the Arbitration.
Of course, we all can disagree on whether "gang bang" and "gang bangers" are good *metaphors* to describe their behavior at Arbitration. I still think it is, though if I wasn't totally fed up with Wikipedia, I probably would not use it. :-) For now, it's the best metaphor I've got to describe what I now see as Wikipedia's institutionalized harassment.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Carol: My guess is that pretty much everyone commenting here has and continues to, read the GGTF case. I also agree that Eric can be harsh and his use of certain words offends people. Likewise others in this case also didn't act very well.
Personally I think the term he used or the references you used are only offensive if people let them be and a lot of folks seem to be acting like children about using "naughty" words and language. Personally, I agree with your metaphor and it suits the situation quite well because I think parties on both sides of this debate are getting screwed and I don't think the Arbcom result is going to do anything but make sure no one wants to touch any gender/gender gap related articles.
Its also noteworthy that disruption of talk pages is a common tactic used on WP by both sides of arguments, that's not an Eric specific thing but I do agree that needs to be addressed as an institutional problem on the project in general including the Arbcom. Turning pages into a battle grounds to justify blocks are something I have become familiar with lately.
Sarah: My guess is that calling one Mr. and one Carol is because they do not know if its Miss, Ms. or Mrs and Mr. is what it is. I doubt its deliberately being disrespectful to her.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I must admit, I'm really fascinated by the fact that Eric Corbett is being called "Mr. Corbett" and Carol Moore is being called "Carol Moore' in some of these conversations.
And anyone who has spent time on this mailing list and reads interviews, articles, surveys, blahblah with women who edit Wikipedia (not just us "uppity types"), knows damn well that CIVILITY is one of the reasons we have a gender gap.
So this is in fact, about the gender gap.
-Sarah
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/27/2014 11:22 AM, Tim Davenport wrote:
Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.
If you read the evidence and the GGTF page you'd see Eric Corbett was being disruptive (while not always uncivil) because he did not want the group to have any effective voice against incivility. Many women consider personal attacks AND harassment to be a major issues driving women off the site, once they sign up and start to edit.
Thus Corbett's actions are highly relevant, as are those of a whole list of his friends and supporters and fellow travelers, on GGTF, at other gender gap related discussions, and at the Arbitration.
Of course, we all can disagree on whether "gang bang" and "gang bangers" are good *metaphors* to describe their behavior at Arbitration. I still think it is, though if I wasn't totally fed up with Wikipedia, I probably would not use it. :-) For now, it's the best metaphor I've got to describe what I now see as Wikipedia's institutionalized harassment.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Sarah Stierch
Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
www.sarahstierch.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 11/27/2014 12:36 PM, Reguyla wrote:
Carol: My guess is that pretty much everyone commenting here has and continues to, read the GGTF case. I also agree that Eric can be harsh and his use of certain words offends people. Likewise others in this case also didn't act very well.
Personally I think the term he used or the references you used are only offensive if people let them be and a lot of folks seem to be acting like children about using "naughty" words and language. Personally, I agree with your metaphor and it suits the situation quite well because I think parties on both sides of this debate are getting screwed and I don't think the Arbcom result is going to do anything but make sure no one wants to touch any gender/gender gap related articles.
The issue is NOT words, as I put it at GGTF talk page right now:
/Every set back is just an opportunity for advancement./ Current events only have clarified and dramatized that harassment of those considered powerless (including women) is institutionalized within a small but powerful coterie of editors and administrators and now within ArbCom. (Harass those you want to get rid of til they leave or they over-react, then get them in trouble.) (NOTE HERE: My use of those terms was only because I was harassed so much at Arbitration those words seemed like the most accurate way to describe what was going on!! Also note that I got banned from posting at Arbitration talk page because of the use of words to describe the complicity of ArbCom and the harassers. Truth hurts?)
Obviously WMF is going to have to take some incisive interventions. Listing and discussing various alternatives and lobbying for them is the solution. (Plus fun with videos.) Gender gap mailing list will at least have announcements about various steps taken by various individuals, some of which will be post-able here without getting anyone in trouble. (And if trolls have a fit and become disruptive, there's discretionary sanctions.) Meanwhile as a reminder of previously mentioned outside efforts: Genderdesk @ wordpress.com; twitter.com/SaidOnWP; and Wikipediocracy which needs to take a firmer stand; there do seem to be several sexist commentators there. I'm still undecided if want to deal with the drama there or not, and if with my real name or an anonymous handle for fun (and see how long before they figure out it's me). Anyway, as I always say, /onward and upward!/
/That's my story and I'm sticking to it - except as I elaborate further with more insights "-) /
/CM /
Tim: They actually are appealable at AE, they just can't be as undone as quickly as most Eric blocks. Consensus needed to unblock rather than consensus needed for a block to stay. I suspect most of the initial blocks will stick since they aren't too long, but the remedy does call for set longer blocks with additional offenses, and then just escalating blocks - those will almost certainly result in an appeal. Eric isn't Wikipedia's gendergap, but he's certainly both a symptom of and contributor to it. It is unusual to discuss cases like this at length on this list, but when it directly explicitly pertains to the gendergap, has the arbcom of ENWP prohibiting some editors from *mentioning* that there is even a gendergap anywhere on Wikipedia, and where a lot of the language involved is incredibly sexist, we are certainly discussing problems related to the gendergap of the English Wikipedia, which is a discussion that is certainly within the scope of the list.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Tim Davenport shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin Gorman: "It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable
blocks. I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing."
It bears repeating that what is a "severe gendered slur" in America is approximately 83.6% less potent as a generalized term of abuse in the UK and Australia.[1] I'm not going to defend Eric using the word "cunt," however, he's well aware that he's in the metaphorical room with Americans and if he directs that word towards anyone again there will be repercussions beyond the usual wheel-warring and melodramatic debate...
That's not the point I wish to make. Mr. Corbett's (virtually inevitable) future civility blocks will indeed be non-appealable because they are of specified length as part of an Arbcom ruling. Any reversal would probably mean the loss of tools — either those of the bad-blocker or the reverser, based on interpretation of the specific situation at Arbitration Enforcement, where the matter would inevitably go.
Frankly, this approach would have solved the "Malleus problem" a long time ago. Incivility should be a block of specified and reasonable duration (viz., the one imposed on Carol Moore for her "gang bangers" rant). There are offenses at Wikipedia far worse than blowing one's top and being a jerk. Like systemic copyright violation. Like faking sources. Like mass subtle vandalism. Like repeated insertion of libelous text into BLPs. Like dramatic disruption of the project to score political points.
Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.
Tim Davenport Corvallis, OR
==Footnotes==
[1] Yeah, I made that number up, but it's about right.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
the case is instructive because we have a test of the thesis of whether wikipedia is merely a bitey place, or whether it is a corrupt place, where men get sternly warned and women get a lifetime ban.
i go to many meetups with expert editors who have all been bitten, and who will only edit at meetups. don't imagine that they won't draw an unflattering conclusion about wikiculture from arbcoms actions in this case.
the thesis is that the toxic culture is the direct cause of the gender gap, and until the culture changes the gap will remain. this case is an attempt to change the culture that is being squashed.
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Tim: They actually are appealable at AE, they just can't be as undone as quickly as most Eric blocks. Consensus needed to unblock rather than consensus needed for a block to stay. I suspect most of the initial blocks will stick since they aren't too long, but the remedy does call for set longer blocks with additional offenses, and then just escalating blocks - those will almost certainly result in an appeal. Eric isn't Wikipedia's gendergap, but he's certainly both a symptom of and contributor to it. It is unusual to discuss cases like this at length on this list, but when it directly explicitly pertains to the gendergap, has the arbcom of ENWP prohibiting some editors from *mentioning* that there is even a gendergap anywhere on Wikipedia, and where a lot of the language involved is incredibly sexist, we are certainly discussing problems related to the gendergap of the English Wikipedia, which is a discussion that is certainly within the scope of the list.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Tim Davenport shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin Gorman: "It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable
blocks. I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing."
It bears repeating that what is a "severe gendered slur" in America is approximately 83.6% less potent as a generalized term of abuse in the UK and Australia.[1] I'm not going to defend Eric using the word "cunt," however, he's well aware that he's in the metaphorical room with Americans and if he directs that word towards anyone again there will be repercussions beyond the usual wheel-warring and melodramatic debate...
That's not the point I wish to make. Mr. Corbett's (virtually inevitable) future civility blocks will indeed be non-appealable because they are of specified length as part of an Arbcom ruling. Any reversal would probably mean the loss of tools — either those of the bad-blocker or the reverser, based on interpretation of the specific situation at Arbitration Enforcement, where the matter would inevitably go.
Frankly, this approach would have solved the "Malleus problem" a long time ago. Incivility should be a block of specified and reasonable duration (viz., the one imposed on Carol Moore for her "gang bangers" rant). There are offenses at Wikipedia far worse than blowing one's top and being a jerk. Like systemic copyright violation. Like faking sources. Like mass subtle vandalism. Like repeated insertion of libelous text into BLPs. Like dramatic disruption of the project to score political points.
Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP.
Tim Davenport Corvallis, OR
==Footnotes==
[1] Yeah, I made that number up, but it's about right.
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