I would be happy to do anything I can to help, if my recent Arbcom
adventures would not make that too awkward. I have never identified my
gender on any Wikimedia platform, but I believe I enjoy a high level of
trust with the women here, as well as the men.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Christi
st want to make it clear that don't consider myself to be a feminist,
whatever that is. I was not a member of GGTF and have never edited in the
topic of gender. I saw the disruptions on the page, and tried to give some
support and validation to the only admin I saw trying to deal with the
situati
I think in both your case and Devil's Advocate (even though you take
opposite positions) there may have been annoyance that you both very
vocally took the "wrong" position on GGTF on the arbitration talk pages
so this may be at least partial payback...
On 1/25/2015 8:12 PM, Tarc . wrote:
Suppose I should say a brief something since some of the posts here talk
about me. I have been caustic and acerbic at the Wikipedia over the years,
though in fits and starts I am trying to take it down a few notches. So, yea,
I'm quite aware that I'm not the best poster-child for any so
On 1/25/2015 6:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense
against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other
policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with
positions I'd support along with many others, but t
I'm sure it's hard to remain calm and thoughtful when 8chan is running 24/7
discussion threads to:
1. Strategize on how to subvert the consensus process to take over the
article
2. Target Wikipedia editors for doxxing and harassment so that they will
stop defending the article
The assault was lite
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Sarah wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Sarah Stierch
> wrote:
>
>>
>> After reviewing the Arbcom case, I don't even know who got the idea that
>> any of the contributing editors are feminist, per se. No one even mentions
>> the word, except once, when d
I'm fine with Carol as well. It would certainly send a message.
Christine
User:Figureskatingfan
On Jan 25, 2015 3:06 PM, "Nathan" wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Carol Moore dc
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/25/2015 2:09 PM, Chris Keating wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'd be happy to help, assuming anoth
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Carol Moore dc
wrote:
> On 1/25/2015 2:09 PM, Chris Keating wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd be happy to help, assuming another man doesn't imbalance things
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> I definitely think we need another woman. I'd step up, but as a "banned
> from wikipedia" feminist
On 1/25/2015 1:03 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
After reviewing the Arbcom case, I don't even know who got the idea
that any of the contributing editors are feminist, per se. No one even
mentions the word, except once, when describing a subject that was
"slandered" in the gamer gate article(s).
I
On 1/25/2015 2:09 PM, Chris Keating wrote:
I'd be happy to help, assuming another man doesn't imbalance things
Chris
I definitely think we need another woman. I'd step up, but as a "banned
from wikipedia" feminist already, I won't embarrass anyone by doing so.
CM
Sydney, have a look at the findings of fact for TaraInDC, and check the
diffs provided:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision#TaraInDC
I don't think those diffs demonstrate that she was somehow less
"reasonable", only that she was frustrated
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Sarah Stierch
wrote:
>
> After reviewing the Arbcom case, I don't even know who got the idea that
> any of the contributing editors are feminist, per se. No one even mentions
> the word, except once, when describing a subject that was "slandered" in
> the gamer g
I'd be happy to help, assuming another man doesn't imbalance things
Chris
On 23 Jan 2015 21:34, "LB" wrote:
> I might be interested. What all's involved?
>
> Lightbreather
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Leigh Honeywell wrote:
>
>> Hey Kevin, don't worry about getting Emily added - I'll ha
I largely agree with Sarah.
After several years taking a break from using the Checkuser tool, in early
January I decided to actively join the the team again. So, I read all the
active ArbCom cases to familarize myself with the current controversies on
Wikipedia. During my reading of the GamerGate
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Sarah Stierch
wrote:
> Note: most of the "in trouble" editor's aren't that productive at
> contributing feminist content to Wikipedia. I have interacted with only
> four of them - Black Kite, Future Perfect at Sunrise, TarainDC and Bilby -
> only one is a female i
Some of you may already be aware of this, but there is a "did you ask any
women" question that has blown up all out-of-proportion at WP Editor
Retention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#How_many_women_have_been_involved_in_these_discussions.3F
Lightbreath
well said, Sarah! Thanks for reading through all that stuff - I tried and
failed
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Sarah Stierch
wrote:
> I am now on digest mode with this mailing list. The traffic is often too
> much for me and the voice of this list is frustrating for me
> sometimes..so... reme
I am now on digest mode with this mailing list. The traffic is often too
much for me and the voice of this list is frustrating for me
sometimes..so... remember that please :)
---
I have been asked to share my thoughts by many people this morning on the
internet, here they are:
I have been editing
Press coverage is widening:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy
http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-because-of-1681463331
http://pando.com/2015/01/23/wikipedia-tacitly
I just wanted to bring up a point wrt "but cannot ban the Guardian for "bad
journalism"" below, there are already efforts underway on the Gamergate talk
page by a single-purpose account to do just that. The argument is that since
this Guardian article is so "wrong" (and it really isn't, just in
21 matches
Mail list logo