On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > > That wasn't the nature of the evidence. It was detailed, complex, included on-wiki edits from that account, and an old and active account on the porn site, not one recently set up. If evidence of a similar nature had been presented against Lightbreather, I have no doubt that she would have been banned as a result of it. There is a perception that the benefit of the doubt is routinely extended to men, and that women engaging in the same behaviour are viewed differently. This is true in the real world, where 50 percent are women (e.g., men are viewed as authoritative, where women are viewed as aggressive), so it would be surprising if it were not true in a mostly male environment. We have to do something. Suggestion: women coming before the committee could require that certain committee members not participate. We could extend that to any harassment case. Or we could set up a jury system, instead of one fixed committee, with limited challenges permitted. Sarah
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
