It is very tempting to say that. Unfortunately, as functionaries are even more likely to be trolled than just about anyone else on Wikipedia, and almost all of them have been impersonated on multiple places (some of them even on porn sites - seriously), it takes more to persuade them.
I speak only for myself when I say that I have had to have three different LinkedIn accounts using my name taken down, two Facebook accounts, a Twitter account, and I've received numerous emails asking me to "confirm" my registration on various sites that I've never been to and never want to be on. I've actually had it mildly compared to some of the other functionaries. One arbitrator found himself subscribed to hundreds of porn mailing lists, for example. So yeah, we have been on the other side of that abyss. Impersonation is awful, and I do not for a moment think that what happened to Lightbreather was okay. Not for a moment. But it's gonna take more than "this picture is the same one on Person X's personal website" to do it for me - because any experienced Wikimedian knows that "stolen" images from personal websites are constantly showing up where they don't belong...like Commons and Wikipedia. Joe Jobs can sometimes have more than one target. Risker/Anne On 22 October 2015 at 12:37, Sarah (SV) <[email protected]> wrote: > WSC, the evidence as to who posted the porn images was, I would say, > conclusive. We nevertheless ended up with a situation in which a man who > had been engaged in harassment (much of which was onwiki and had been going > on for about a year) was let off the hook, and the harassed woman was > banned. > > There was a similar situation in the GGTF case > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF>, > so the Lightbreather case was not an unfortunate one-off. For example, the > man who was blocked for harassment during the Lightbreather case > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather> > should have been blocked for it during the GGTF case, but wasn't. He only > ended up being blocked during the Lightbreather case because he admitted > that he had done it. Otherwise he might still be editing. > > Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many > other examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist. > (See this selection of stories > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Media_and_research>.) > Rather than arguing about which details various journalists got wrong, we > should focus on what they got right and how we can fix it. > > Sarah > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, WereSpielChequers < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Francesca, >> >> It seems a shame that an Arbcom case in which one person was blocked for >> offwiki harassment and another would have been if the evidence had been >> conclusive has been reported as if they'd decided instead to spare the >> harasser for privacy reasons. >> >> As Thryduulf put it "there is no doubt that had we been able to >> conclusively connect the perpetrator to a Wikipedia account that action >> would have been taken (almost certainly a site ban). >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather>" >> >> >> You could point her to >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather >> >> A story warning mysogynists that Arbcom will and has acted against those >> it catches would have made it easier to attract women to wikipedia and >> deter misogynists. >> >> WSC >> >> On 22 October 2015 at 12:04, Francesca Tripodi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I was directly interviewed for this article but my contributions were >>> scrapped. I have Emma's email and I would be happy to reach out to her >>> if you'd like to list a set of uniform "corrections"? No guarantee >>> she'd be able to change them but it's a start if you'd like? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity or errors. >>> >>> > On Oct 21, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Kevin Gorman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > Some journos take corrections easily, and some don't. I've had people >>> > directly misquote me at major outlets where I had the call on record >>> > (with their consent, since CA is a 2 party consent state for recording >>> > calls,) and refuse to make corrections, and had other people accept my >>> > corrections at face value and put them in to place. I may not have >>> > time to do so today, but would encourage anyone interested (probably >>> > better if it's only a person or two and not a horde in this case) to >>> > contact the author of the Atlantic piece about the issues. Probably >>> > those directly interviewed by the journalist would be the best >>> > candidates to put in for a correction. >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > Kevin Gorman >>> > >>> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> Good that this story has been told, at last. Overdue. >>> >> >>> >> (Minor quibbles: Eric is not an admin, and the New York Times piece >>> was not >>> >> written by a NYT reporter. Corrections possible?) >>> >> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Kevin Gorman <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for sending this out Carol, you beat me by about two minutes. >>> >>> I would hugely encourage everyone to read this, and a lot of it also >>> >>> relates to why it's important that people vote in arbcom election, >>> and >>> >>> we don't have arbitrators elected with 273 support votes and fewer >>> >>> than 600 total votes... >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Kevin Gorman >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Carol Moore dc >>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Goes into lots of details... >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> 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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
