Carol- I do not think they are the same people. In fact,I am 95% sure. Just FYI.
Sarah Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2012, at 8:50 PM, Carol Moore DC <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> >> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Risker <[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 > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
