Archives
July 2015 – present August 2014 – August 2015 August 2013 – July 2014 November 2012 – July 2013 April 2012 – October 2012 November 2011 – March 2012 April 2011 – October 2011 December 2010 – March 2011 September 2010 – November 2010 April 2010 – August 2010 November 2009 – March 2010

Molly, could I ask you to remove this line from Project Sunroof? It's uncited, and more important, just wrong (the page was never down since launch), but I work on this, so probably shouldn't. --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will happily stop informing other women that Wikipedia is not a safe place for them once it stops being unsafe. Until then, I will not in good faith encourage other women to participate unless they are fully aware of what can come with it.. What if we had told all the women who flew the 1000s of new Spitfires, Wellingtons, and Hurricanes from the aircraft factories to the air bases; the women who 'manned' the Chain Home stations, the women who decoded at at Bletchley Park, and the women who worked in the munitions factories not to do it because the war is not a safe place? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not forget Lydia Litvyak, who not only faced the danger of air combat, but also endured the boorish behavior of the male pilots with whom she shared her aircraft, who would throw away the flowers with which she used to adorn the cockpit. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, I think you're minimizing the end of the quote: "...unless they are fully aware of what can come with it." The women you mention did what they did after being informed of the risks. They effected change because they were willing to do the work anyway. It's not that we shouldn't encourage women to edit. It's that we shouldn't encourage women to edit without telling them what they're getting in to, so they can make an informed decision. And I wish you'd come up with a different example; using WWII imagery comes with the unspoken implication that explaining the downside of Wikipedia editing is somehow "unpatriotic"; an implication I'm sure you didn't intend, but is certainly there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(more) Indeed, I don't encourage men or women I know to edit WP without telling them that it's anarchic and filled with obnoxious people. Most people I know think I'm nuts to spend time here. They're not wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that the women who served in WWII were aware of the danger. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to be acknowledged as an involved party in this arbcom case. I say this for a few reasons. Firstly, three other users, Beyond My Ken, AlbinoFerret, and Ivanvector, all named me in their preliminary statements as being an involved party, due to several unresolved AN/I cases involving me[1][2]. Secondly, Guerillero accepted this case partly because of "the urging of Floq and Dennis". However, Dennis Brown only listed one AN/I case in his preliminary statement, and it involved me and Hijiri88, not Catflap08. In fact, Dennis Brown has stated that he will not discuss the issues between Hijiri88 and myself any longer, precisely because of the fact that he basically considers it the job of Arbcom now.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing the current rules for who can and cannot be included in the proposed decisions, there might be a few other people involved who aren't yet listed as parties who might be found to perhaps merit having their behavior addressed. It used to be, at least as I remember, the committee could issue rulings on "all those involved" or similar phrasing. I don't know if that is still the case, but if it isn't, there might be cause to add a few others as possible parties as well. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will ping TH1980 to determine how he views his own situation.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I've seen this request. I need to go to class and then look through the evidence, etc. before I get back to you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it looks like you are going to be the sole drafting arb in this case. My apologies in advance for a lot of what you might see here, both in terms of prior history and conduct in the pages themselves. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're stretched pretty thin right now so for now it looks like I'll be going solo. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have unfortunately been deeply connected to this case. Beyond My Ken, AlbinoFerret, Ivanvector, and Blackmane all referred to me as an involved party. I was part of a recent AN/I case which was closed bascially on the grounds that Arbcom should deal with it.TH1980 (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, who are you? It looks like you forgot to log in here. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry John, it has been a bit of a hectic day for me.TH1980 (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CurtisNaito: @TH1980: I have asked the clerks to add both of you, as well as Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs), as involved parties to the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case. I'd do it myself, but the clerks are basically magicians when it comes to ArbCom case formatting, and I'd rather not get in their way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your mamma grizzly bear IRL is concerned

OK, daughter, you've made your point. We have pretty well exhausted the remedies within the organization and online. It is time to take this situation offline and into the real world of adults. I live in DC and will do what I can to advocate for you. It will not be easy or produce immediate results, but it will be a step in the direction we need to go. Djembayz (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "take this situation offline". GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to start some serious conversations here in DC about what is going on with this organization, and the risks to which its volunteers are exposed, especially the women. In other words, advocacy, preferably of the quiet but persistent variety. People of a certain age have seen all this before-- we've seen cults, we've seen dorms go co-ed with no rules, we've seen the civil rights movement, so there isn't anything particularly new going on here, though it is a bit annoying that we have to go through it all over again ... :) It is not the 1970s, and the US is not a totalitarian country, so there is every reason to believe that this situation could be greatly improved. Carry on, maintain course and speed! and best of luck. --Djembayz (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for explaining. I thought you were suggesting pursuing legal action against harassers, which is unfortunately rife with its own many problems. Thanks for the support, and for your work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was fairly surprised with that accounting of things you listed on Jimbo's page that you've went through on Wikipedia. I'm truly sorry that you've experienced this. Without wanting to lessen those things or their impact do you think it has been magnified by your status of being a woman, an administrator and Arb? Were these things happening prior to you gaining your status to this extent? Do you find it's happening more online then off or an even mix? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being an administrator particularly affected things, because I was not very "out" as female when I first became an admin. The gendered harassment didn't really start until the WMF used my photo on the fundraising banners, because then there was a face attached to the name, and it was very clear that I was a woman. I do think becoming an arbitrator also increased the amount of harassment I've gotten, but not to the same degree. I do get the sort of "garden-variety" harassment that is unfortunately common for active Wikipedians, but it pales in comparison to the gendered stuff. I'm not really sure what you're referring to when you asking about online and offline harassment... I do get harassed offline by catcalls and the like, but I am rarely harassed in a face-to-face setting beyond that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly the argument that people are online saying things they never would in person. It's a true scenario for the most part it's just not a world I'm familiar with. I'm trying to understand the gravity of the situation really and understanding the difference in what the idiots online say vs real life stuff. Disheartening stuff to think people go through this on a regular basis. I'm not sure how that problem can be solved through policy making that many who express desire to impose that on others. I've always believed stupidity was an asexual thing. I'm sorry my thoughts are all over the place on this subject because I'm trying to understand the magnitude and I'm having a difficult time processing it and how the solutions offered can really effect the problem. I appreciate you answering my questions and again truly sorry to hear you've experienced those things. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People definitely are more courageous about what they'll say when they're masked by the internet; more so if they're behind proxies. Comments made by street harassers tend to be significantly less personal (for example, they don't tend to know my name, interests, work, etc.) and less severe—there's a lot more "hey baby, smile!" and the like, versus very extreme comments that I tend to get online. That said, that kind of IRL harassment is uniquely scary because you tend to be standing next to the harasser, whereas when I'm reading awful comments on the internet, I at least know (and very much hope) that the person can't and won't come near me IRL. Online harassment tends to come with the threat of destroying your reputation; in-person harassment tends to come with a physical threat. That's not to say that online harassment does not also sometimes physically threaten—that's part of what makes comments that mention my location or workplace so terrifying, particularly when combined with physical and sexual threats. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that lowering the percentage required for female applicants as admin would invite more gendered focused harassment? My thoughts, which apparently isn't matching what the reality is suggesting, is that a qualified candidate is qualified irregardless. What do you actually think would be a feasible solution to this problem? Is it a problem because there isn't more women in power here and what would be different if there were? What subjects do you think that are neglected here by the lack of female editors? Regarding a case that I can discuss such as the GGTF was this a result of male dominated editors? What do you think would have changed if there had been a more balanced panel by gender? These are things I think about when weighing the results in this? I do not honestly think the results could have been much different but apparently there is a whole forest there not just one tree. If you need time to do other things you don't have to respond to this quickly ping when you have time but I've defintely found the exchange to be enlightening on a number of levels. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think lowering the threshold for female administrators would particularly affect the levels of harassment they face. I think there are three major issues that stand in the way of shutting down gendered harassment on-wiki. Unfortunately I can't pretend to have the solutions to them.

1. On-wiki response to harassment: The admin corps and functionaries are quite effective at dealing with the overt stuff: "SHOW YOUR TITS" and similar is typically quickly reverted and revision-deleted. But the smaller things—the microagressions like the implications that women need male administrators to help them with enforcement, that women are too emotional for roles such as arbitration, or even the comments that women are not actually experiencing harassment (when they clearly are)—need to be reigned in. This would ideally be a part of an overhaul of the civility policy. It would also need to be enforced, and by people who are versed in actually noticing when these things are happening. This is where I think a larger group of women on the Arbitration Committee and among the admin corps would be beneficial, and ideally these groups would be trained in recognizing and responding to this kind of thing.
2. Technical limitations: A lot of the harassment I've dealt with has not been one editor coming to my talk page, making a crude comment, being blocked, and then disappearing. More frequently, the user keeps coming back under different proxies and throwaway accounts. If my userpage is semiprotected, they'll comment on an unprotected talk page and use the ping functionality to make sure I see it. Or sometimes they'll make a crude username, and then go through my edits and "thanking" me for them so that I'll get the notifications. This is exhausting, both for the victim of the harassment who has no real way of avoiding or escaping it, and for the administrators, checkusers, and oversighters who have to run damage control.
3. Off-wiki harassment: As it currently stands, we are completely unequipped to deal with off-wiki harassment. The Arbitration Committee has attempted it several times, generally with very fumbling results, but often people who are victims of off-wiki harassment are told it's not within the scope of the Arbitration Committee. They'll also hear that it's not something that can be handled on-wiki, and generally requests for help from the Wikimedia Foundation are met with a "sorry this is happening, we'll keep a record in case we ever figure out who's doing this" and not much else. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your clear, fact- based and comprehensive explanation of the harassment you've received, and your continued service on ArbCom. I hope your story gets attention from a diligent, responsible journalist. I feel confident that it will help inform our efforts to eliminate harassment of women editors in particular, and more broadly, any targeted groups. I am deeply sorry that all of this happened to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Molly, thank you for your comment on Jimbo's talk page. I've seen some of the worst that women have to deal with on Wikipedia, but even I had not appreciated quite the volume (I'm well aware that you'll have had far more than you mentioned there). I'd just like to say, I really appreciate that you stick with Wikipedia and hope that you realise you are making a difference. Worm^TT(talk) 09:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for posting what has occurred to you on Jimbo's page. I can't believe there are still so many dumbshit basement dwellers who don't realize how bad the problem is.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Like others, I wasn't surprised that incidents like that happen, but I was totally blown away by the sheer volume and intensity. I am particularly troubled by the off wiki harassment – while we are struggling with addressing the on wiki harassment the off wiki seems like a tougher problem. 23 October 2015 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, (I think S Philbrick signed the wrong comment - hopefully this is right. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)) sphilbrick stupid ping Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

+1 to all the above. Some of comment on WT:JIMBO saddens me deeply and its unbelievable in this day and age that people expect women to bare their scars before they are taken seriously. I'm sure it was uncomfortable reliving that lot again but daylight is a great disinfectant for trolls and I hope that your bravery will encourage more users to take this issue seriously and shame those who willfully do not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the above views. I know we haven't seen eye to eye on some stuff but I think we are both here to improve the encyclopedia and nobody deserves the sort of abuse you've had to put up with. I don't really have any answer other than use your revdel and block buttons where you can and get the police involved if necessary. On a final note, I would just politely caution you to go easy on Eric, I know he rubs people up the wrong way but he has done a lot of good work; you might be interested to read about the Cottingley Fairies, an article he got through FAC some time back and quite a fascinating story, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Block of Eric Corbett and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]