The more I hear about this, the more I think this is something that WMF needs to address at an institutional level (Board etc.) to resolve these process issues and loopholes. Has this ever been taken "up the chain"?
-Leigh On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> You know, I sat on Arbcom for five years, and there were several occasions >> when I practically begged those complaining about the behaviour of certain >> individuals to initiate a case....but nobody wanted to do that... > > > Well, you know I did actually take one of the worst misogynists on en.wiki > to ArbCom,[1] and it was such a horrible experience that I decided to never > do it again. After giving up a month of my life to the case and enduring > constant harassment during the process, all of the evidence that I > painstakingly assembled, presented, and defended was completely ignored by > ArbCom, and instead he was banned for a year for making a legal threat. He > is now free to return on the condition that he simply agrees not to make any > more legal threats. You were actually on that ArbCom panel, Risker, so I > don't really understand your argument that taking incivil editors to ArbCom > is a good idea. To me it is worse than a waste of effort, it is actually > counterproductive and an invitation to be relentlessly harassed. > > 1. > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair_Haines_2&oldid=360884518 > > Ryan Kaldari > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > -- Leigh Honeywell http://hypatia.ca @hypatiadotca _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
