I actually didn't read the first few posts because of the misspelling ;-)
But when I read in the telegraph article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7883064/MPs-scandals-covered-up-on-Wikipedia.html
*He's used multiple accounts
*Very interested in bondage
*Can be hostile to other users
I began to wonder if he was the editor who was so hostile to me in early
2011 when someone brought me to WP:COIN on a completely different issue.
I got so annoyed at the hounding and nitpicking defacto attacks from
this editor whom I'd never run into before that I went to his
contributions page to see what his POV was. I saw articles all of women
bondage related and then asked on his talk page if abusing women was how
he got his jollies - this got me blocked for the first time. There was
a big WP:ANI brouhaha whose details I won't go into, but he did stop
editing completely at that point. Which makes me wonder if it was a
sock who felt too much attention had been brought to him.
So if it IS the same individual, I certainly would understand the
decision... Power corrupts, even in Wikipedia. So it's good to
"impeach" the powerful from time to time to keep them all on their best
behavior. (I'll have to check WP:ANI and see why my biggest nemesis
Admin hasn't posted in two months, since we last had a policy dispute on
an article, his last series of edits. Maybe I missed something. Some
one else high profile who had a nice long block a few years back that
did somewhat improve his behavior, though he started getting worse again
lately.)
CM:
PS: Just about ready to put my Wikimania 2012 blog report on my blog,
but it might be too POV to "promote or advertise" among wikipedians.
Comments on a number of Wiki issues, and my own naughtiness here and
there, so guess I should just let people chance upon it... :-)
Only one issue that was important enough to bring to a policy talk page
as a question, with one response so far.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:What_is_Wikisource%3F#.22WikisourceLeaks.22
Ah the things women and feminists could leak from the places of power
they need leaking from... sigh...
On 8/1/2012 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
In my opinion, it's very much within the remit of this list to share
anything that creates an environment that is not welcoming to new
contributors. It doesn't need to be proven every time, as far as I'm
concerned, that women are disproportionately affected, for a topic to
be germane to this list.
In this case, I consider it highly relevant information, considering
that someone in a position of trust in our community (chair of the UK
board) was found by English Wikipedia's highest authority:
* (unanimously) to have violated important policies meant to protect
the health of the community (failing to disclose information about his
past accounts that he was required to disclose)
* (by a slim majority) to have made "unacceptable personal attacks"
* (unanimously) to have made "ad hominem attacks to discredit others"
* to have "attempted to deceive the community" on more than one count
* was banned (indefinitely, with opportunity for appeal starting in 1
year) from editing the encyclopedia
I am aware that this person has made a number of high quality
contributions to our site, and is well respected for much of his work,
and do not discount that in any way. But the fact that he would
continue in a position of trust, as chair of the Board of the UK
Wikimedia chapter, in light of these findings, is distressing to me.
It seems to me that he, and the board that is supporting him (I'm
unclear whether it's the UK or WMF board) is choosing to place his
personal status above the interests of the movement, and choosing to
accept the consequences of a story like this, which in my view will
surely tend to discourage people from participating in the Wikimedia
movement.
I don't carry any ill will toward this person, or wish to deny his
efforts to continue to contribute to our projects. But it does
distress me that he would continue to carry a Wikimedia business card,
and represent our movement in a high-profile position of trust, in
light of these findings.
And I'm glad to have information about something like this posted on a
list dedicated to the removal of barriers to participation.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Laura Hale <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Risker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I have to be honest here, I'm not really certain what this
thread has to do with the gender gap. It just feels more like
gossip than anything, particularly as a significant portion of
the reporting either (a) has nothing to do with the purported
subject of the articles and/or (b) is inaccurate.
Risker/Anne
This. No one has provided any solid evidence of a connection
between the limited presence of a few pornographic pictures on
Wikipedia and the gendergap. At best, the gender gap story here
would be: This sort of story discourages women from becoming involved.
--
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com <http://ozziesport.com>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
