thank you kevin; i appreciate the spirit that the remarks are taken i do not appreciate being outed by an arbitrator linking a private email message to a public talk page. i would say this conduct amply justifies the remarks i have made about arbcom in public elsewhere.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Kevin Gorman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Kumioko has been removed from the list - Leigh did so earlier, and I agree > with her decision. Of the posts Carch had a problem with, I don't see most > of them as an issue. Due to health issues I've been almost completely MIA > for the last long period of time and missed the posts as they occurred, so > I couldn't have taken action as they came even if I had objected to them. > If Carch doesn't want to join the list because of them that's certain his > choice, but I think the inappropriate elements of the posts he linked to > were more or less appropriately handled by other gendergap members. If an > inappropriate for the list line of discussion gets shut down by other list > members, I don't think it's desirable to take harder mod action against it. > > I see absolutely nothing wrong with the email chain pondering about legal > repercussions for people engaged in online harrassment, it's a discussion > that is occurring in a wide variety of venues including plenty of other > mailing lists, the popular press, and governments. It would've been > different if it had been people organizing to try to create legal > consequences for a particular Wikimedian, but as far as I can see it > wasn't. Frankly, I don't see anything in that discussion skimming through > it that couldn't have taken place on-wiki, and I've seen discussions not > dissimilar to it take place on-wiki. I wouldn't like to see a discussion > aiming to create legal consequences for a particular contributor here > generally speaking, because if it was unjustified it would be shitty on our > part, and if it was justified this list is frankly speaking a terrible > mechanism for organizing around it, but I see nothing wrong with talking > about it in abstract. > > I don't see anything wrong with talking about the merits of particular > arbcom candidates even if it results in a chunk of list members voting as a > group. Arbcom's functioning has a pretty significant linkage with the > health of ENWP's community, and whether or not sexism, racism, etc are > accepted. The on-wiki voter guides are not dissimilar, and I would bet > money they have a more significant block vote effect than any discussion > here will. I don't like the suggestion of using editathons to create a > cabal of new voters, but it's not a suggestion that was implemented, didn't > gain significant support here, and bluntly pretty impractical. I would > take issue with people actively using the list to organize a voting bloc of > people who don't regularly edit, but that didn't happen and I doubt there > will be a situation where that will happen. I don't see a point in taking > mod action against someone who makes a suggestion that is made in good > faith but isn't terribly appropriate, especially given that we *need* > innovative ideas if we're likely to make a dent in anything, and it's > unsurprising that some brainstormed ideas won't be viable because they > violate community norms too strongly. FWIW, I wouldn't have a problem with > people organizing editathons specifically about ENWP's governance > structures or the problems in them even if they contained plenty of opinion > as long as they weren't actively trying to create a bloc of voters who just > took instructions about how to vote from other people. > > Talking about doxxing or researching Eric isn't really appropriate, but I > don't see any meaningful previously private information in that thread as > to be worth sanctioning anyone, and Fluffernutter appropriately promptly > pointed out that. I don't agree with Fluff that all discussion of > individual editors is blanket inappropriate, but I can see situations where > it would be, as long as it didn't delve in to undisclosed portions of their > non-Wikimedia lives. On something of an individual note, if someone wrote > a decent analysis of how Eric came to the prominence that he has, or other > extremely prominent editors came to their positions, I would probably find > it pretty interesting and could see it appropriately discussed on the list. > I find ethnographic type studies of Wiki(p|m)edia quite fascinating, and > think that well done case studies of particularly prominent people or > events in Wikipedia's history would be pretty fascinating, too. > > ---- > Kevin Gorman > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:18 PM, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Friday, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:38 PM, marinka marinkavandam.com < >> [email protected]>, wrote: >> >>> On topic, are we going to see some more debate about the Slate piece? >>> Anne/Risker is suggesting there was a basic misunderstanding on the part of >>> the author: that the whole thing had nothing to do with gender gap >>> discrimination but behavior. Would that be your view, Molly? It does strike >>> me as insular. >> >> In my view, the case centered on the behavior of a number of >> contributors, largely (but not solely) at he Gender Gap Task Force. I would >> like to think the rename to “Interactions at the GGTF” would clarify that >> the case was about the interactions and not the task force, but I realize >> the difference is perhaps too subtle. >> >> – Molly (not a pseudonym) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
