[Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

"I emailed the WMF in relation to my enwiki arbcom case"

You're getting ignored because the WMF doesn't want to get involved in
community processes. Sorry to be blunt, but you should try emailing ArbCom
before making this type of posting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications

On 09 Jul 2017 1:47 AM, "Neotarf" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to the
GGTF case.

It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this
arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked
at the diffs has found nothing. Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy". Even
Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing.
After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that
half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to
collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to
use the program to discover IP addresses as well. The other half of the
diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence
phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one
of the admins--not even my edits. I don't want to say a lot about this on
a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is
a false conviction.

I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I have
waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on 11/17/16.
I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect to hear
something in mid-January. Since then, I have made three followup queries,
asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been unable to get
any response at all. At this point, there is no reason to believe the
non-response is not deliberate.

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
***@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Neotarf

2017-07-09 06:47:02 UTC

The arbitration committee has never responded to any of my emails, although
some individual arbitrators were willing to communicate with me while I was
writing the arbitration report for the Signpost. Would you like
screenshots of the bounce notifications? In addition, four arbitrators
posted personally identifying information about me and did not respond to
my requests to remove it.

Post by JJ Marr
"I emailed the WMF in relation to my enwiki arbcom case"
You're getting ignored because the WMF doesn't want to get involved in
community processes. Sorry to be blunt, but you should try emailing ArbCom
before making this type of posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_
Committee/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications
Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to the
GGTF case.
It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this
arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked
at the diffs has found nothing. Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy". Even
Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing.
After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that
half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to
collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to
use the program to discover IP addresses as well. The other half of the
diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence
phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one
of the admins--not even my edits. I don't want to say a lot about this on
a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is
a false conviction.
I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I have
waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on 11/17/16.
I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect to hear
something in mid-January. Since then, I have made three followup queries,
asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been unable to get
any response at all. At this point, there is no reason to believe the
non-response is not deliberate.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Pine W

2017-07-09 17:03:01 UTC

If Arbcom members actually posted information which could be considered
"outing" in violation of WMF policies, please take that information to the
Ombudsmen Commission. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission

Pine

Post by Neotarf
The arbitration committee has never responded to any of my emails,
although some individual arbitrators were willing to communicate with me
while I was writing the arbitration report for the Signpost. Would you
like screenshots of the bounce notifications? In addition, four
arbitrators posted personally identifying information about me and did not
respond to my requests to remove it.

Post by JJ Marr
"I emailed the WMF in relation to my enwiki arbcom case"
You're getting ignored because the WMF doesn't want to get involved in
community processes. Sorry to be blunt, but you should try emailing ArbCom
before making this type of posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committe
e/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications
Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to
the GGTF case.
It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this
arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked
at the diffs has found nothing. Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy". Even
Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing.
After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that
half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to
collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to
use the program to discover IP addresses as well. The other half of the
diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence
phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one
of the admins--not even my edits. I don't want to say a lot about this on
a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is
a false conviction.
I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I have
waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on 11/17/16.
I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect to hear
something in mid-January. Since then, I have made three followup queries,
asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been unable to get
any response at all. At this point, there is no reason to believe the
non-response is not deliberate.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Neotarf

2017-07-10 01:00:16 UTC

Pine, yes without a doubt a violation of WP:Privacy policy, WP:OUTING, and
WP:WHEEL for starters, since dox was removed by one admin and reinstated by
another, at the direction of yet another arbitrator whose edit history will
show nothing. At this point I don't remember any more all the people I
took it to, they determined that the privacy policy had been violated but
declined to take any action. The point I think is not about any particular
individuals, because there were just so many; but that PII does not belong
in the hands of untrained volunteers, but rather with professionals who
have signed a meaningful NDA.

Post by Pine W
If Arbcom members actually posted information which could be considered
"outing" in violation of WMF policies, please take that information to the
Ombudsmen Commission. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission
Pine

Post by JJ Marr
"I emailed the WMF in relation to my enwiki arbcom case"
You're getting ignored because the WMF doesn't want to get involved in
community processes. Sorry to be blunt, but you should try emailing ArbCom
before making this type of posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committe
e/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications
Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to
the GGTF case.
It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this
arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked
at the diffs has found nothing. Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy". Even
Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing.
After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that
half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to
collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to
use the program to discover IP addresses as well. The other half of the
diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence
phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one
of the admins--not even my edits. I don't want to say a lot about this on
a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is
a false conviction.
I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I
have waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on
11/17/16. I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect
to hear something in mid-January. Since then, I have made three followup
queries, asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been
unable to get any response at all. At this point, there is no reason to
believe the non-response is not deliberate.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Neotarf

2017-07-10 16:36:41 UTC

All right, I have found my correspondence with the ombudsman commission and
this is how I understand their position.

According to WP:DOX "Posting another editor's personal information is
harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own
information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." So the standard
here is "voluntarily posted".

But it appears that "voluntarily posted" is not the standard used by the
ombudsman commission. According to the ombudsman commission, anyone can
publish non-public information about someone as long as it is "based on
simple guesses". The burden of proof is on the person being doxed to prove
there was a chain of transmission. So I can say "Foo is gay", "Foo is
Jewish" or "Foo's real name is John Smith", or "Foo lives in Hill Valley",
and as long as I say it was just a lucky guess, this is not a problem, Foo
just has to live with the information being public. Likewise if Boo finds
out that Foo is gay and suddenly Boo's best friend Fee, as well as Fie,
Foe, and Fum, who all belong to a private WMF mailing list, all start
posting to Wikipedia that Foo is gay, or Jewish, or their real name or
whatever, this is not a problem to the WMF because Foo is not able to prove
where the information came from.

Likewise with IP addresses. If you edit logged out, revealing your IP
address, or if there is a bug in the program that logs you out and then
allows you to make an edit without notifying you that you are editing
logged out, as the beta version of HHVM (Hip Hop Virtual Machine) used to
do, this edit is considered to be "information that is publicly available
on the projects", even if the edit is immediately suppressed. Someone can
then write a program to stalk a particular person, and collect these
suppressed edits, then post the Wikipedia user's geographical location to
eternal websites, and the ombudsman commission does not consider this to be
problem.

The instructions for dealing with a dox, according to English Wikipedia
WP:DOX, are "If you see an editor post personal information about another
person, *do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information,*" where
with the ombudsman commission you are required to provide proof that the
personally identifying information is accurate and find the website or
email the information came from before they will consider suppressing it.

So apparently the WMF privacy policy standards are quite lax, at least in
practice, compared to the standards of the English Wikipedia. However the
arbitrators of the English Wikipedia are not willing to enforce, or even
abide by the WP:PRIVACY policy (which is a policy, not a guideline). And
once the arbitration committee gets rid of someone, they are not concerned
with whether they are doxed, either on wiki or off, and any user's
expectation of privacy can be de facto revoked, retroactively, simply by
banning them.

Post by JJ Marr
"I emailed the WMF in relation to my enwiki arbcom case"
You're getting ignored because the WMF doesn't want to get involved in
community processes. Sorry to be blunt, but you should try emailing ArbCom
before making this type of posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committe
e/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications
Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to
the GGTF case.
It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this
arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked
at the diffs has found nothing. Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy". Even
Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing.
After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that
half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to
collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to
use the program to discover IP addresses as well. The other half of the
diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence
phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one
of the admins--not even my edits. I don't want to say a lot about this on
a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is
a false conviction.
I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I
have waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on
11/17/16. I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect
to hear something in mid-January. Since then, I have made three followup
queries, asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been
unable to get any response at all. At this point, there is no reason to
believe the non-response is not deliberate.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Pine W

2017-07-10 21:56:57 UTC

Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm already
backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here. If you
have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with their
interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF Legal,
although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve themselves.

For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly
more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly
or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current
setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Pine

Neotarf

2017-07-10 22:49:14 UTC

The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII is
safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back the
idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
should just be removed. That's just basic safety. Maybe they are not
allowed to go against arbitrators I also don't understand why arbitrators
would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.

Post by Pine W
Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm already
backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here. If you
have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with their
interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF Legal,
although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve themselves.
For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly
more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly
or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current
setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Pine
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Pine W

2017-07-11 00:03:09 UTC

Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on what
you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the PII
situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could come
into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
interpretation of its privacy policy.

Pine

Post by Neotarf
The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII is
safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back the
idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
should just be removed. That's just basic safety. Maybe they are not
allowed to go against arbitrators I also don't understand why arbitrators
would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.

Post by Pine W
Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
themselves.
For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly
more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly
or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current
setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Pine
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Neotarf

2017-07-15 21:59:58 UTC

Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded. I appreciate them taking
time to review these concerns.

your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF

Legal.

Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time
ago

a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost

certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
intervention

If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it. If this can happen to
me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.

The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
to. But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
community, and that the community process is failing? The arbitration
committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
the arbcom and the community process can not?

Post by Pine W
Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on
what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the
PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could
come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
interpretation of its privacy policy.
Pine

Post by Neotarf
The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
should just be removed. That's just basic safety. Maybe they are not
allowed to go against arbitrators I also don't understand why arbitrators
would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.

Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
themselves.
For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly
more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly
or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current
setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Pine
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

JJ Marr

2017-07-15 23:24:42 UTC

How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again?

On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded. I appreciate them taking
time to review these concerns.

your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF

Legal.

Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time
ago

a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost

Post by Neotarf
The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
should just be removed. That's just basic safety. Maybe they are not
allowed to go against arbitrators I also don't understand why arbitrators
would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.

Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
themselves.
For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly
more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly
or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current
setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Pine
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
***@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Nathan

2017-07-16 00:20:05 UTC

I believe because the ArbCom case regards the 'Gender Gap Task Force'

Post by JJ Marr
How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again?
Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded. I appreciate them taking
time to review these concerns.

your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF

Legal.
Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time
ago

a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost

certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
intervention
If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it. If this can happen to
me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.
The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
to. But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
community, and that the community process is failing? The arbitration
committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
the arbcom and the community process can not?

Post by Neotarf
The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
should just be removed. That's just basic safety. Maybe they are not
allowed to go against arbitrators I also don't understand why arbitrators
would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.

Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
themselves.
For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have
significantly more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be
issuing monthly or quarterly reports about its activities, but
realistically the current setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable
future.
Pine
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

JJ Marr

2017-07-16 02:10:15 UTC

This seems more about Neotarf's personal ban more than anything else.
Looking at the arbcom findings of fact (which I won't quote here), it
doesn't look like the ban was related to the gender gap on Wikipedia as
much as behaviour displayed towards other editors.

Maybe it would be better for the mailing list if we stopped talking about
this? Just a suggestion.

On 15 Jul 2017 8:20 PM, "Nathan" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

I believe because the ArbCom case regards the 'Gender Gap Task Force'

Post by JJ Marr
How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again?
Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded. I appreciate them taking
time to review these concerns.

your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF

Legal.
Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time
ago

a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost

certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
intervention
If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it. If this can happen to
me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.
The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
to. But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
community, and that the community process is failing? The arbitration
committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
the arbcom and the community process can not?

Post by Neotarf
The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
should just be removed. That's just basic safety. Maybe they are not
allowed to go against arbitrators I also don't understand why arbitrators
would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.

Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
themselves.
For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have
significantly more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be
issuing monthly or quarterly reports about its activities, but
realistically the current setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable
future.
Pine
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Pine W

2017-07-16 04:21:53 UTC

Hi JJ, I can't speak for anyone else, but I was responding specifically to
the statement "four arbitrators posted personally identifying information
about me and did not respond to my requests to remove it.", which would be
a concern to me both in regards to the specific case and also the broader
implications for privacy.

Neotarf, if WMF Legal has reviewed the PII concerns, including escalating
them to C-level, and has chosen not to get involved, I'm afraid that you're
probably out of luck unless a change of policy happens on ENWP or with the
relevant WMF policies. You could lobby for a change, and you might get it,
although that is a long road to travel. My mental bandwidth is too
constrained to continue personal involvement in this discussion at this
time, but I don't want to discourage you from requesting a change in policy
if you think that would be good. You may wish to conserve your energy by
first dealing with your ban appeal; I have not reviewed the evidence in
your case and I will refrain from speculating on the merits of the appeal.
After that appeal is resolved, if there is a favorable outcome, you may
find it easier to propose one or more changes to policies. Good luck.

Pine

Johanna-Hypatia Cybeleia

2017-07-17 03:02:17 UTC

JJ Marr, I hate to be the one who walks into a conversation late and asks
"What are you talking about?" âespecially since you're going to stop
talking about it now, but... I searched all through the archives of this
list in my mail, but so far am none the wiser...

Post by JJ Marr
Maybe it would be better for the mailing list if we stopped talking about
this? Just a suggestion.

--
__________________________________
I have been woman
for a long time
beware my smile

--Audre Lorde

Neotarf

2017-08-07 03:08:09 UTC

I doubt very much whether anyone who has been paying attention to this
thread still thinks it's about me. The problems with arbcom have been very
public since at least the 2015 Wikiconference USA. [1] But JJ Marr does
have a point. The Arbcom does label this a "finding of fact", although the
WMF is probably more likely to regard it as a 'poorly written personal
opinion' of the arbitrators who signed their names to it, at least from a
legal standpoint. But the arbitration committee does not have any standard
for "fact", as WP does with BLP. The arbitration committee, with a few
exceptions, is mostly very young and inexperienced with life and work, and
has no training at all with arbitration or dispute resolution. The only
tool they are given as part of their remit to resolve disputes is to
publicly humiliate and embarrass volunteers who have given their time to
the project.

The result is that anyone who has ever objected to harassment on Wikipedia
has been driven off, either by arbitration or by doxing.

One of the problems is this non-consensual sodomy thing that's making the
rounds. This kind of talk is very normalized in some areas of Wikipedia,
for instance in the back rooms of the Signpost when I was there it was a
standing joke. It's one thing though if consenting adult men are using
Wikipedia to hook up with each other, but the problem is that older men are
telling younger men that this is the way to impress women, and the younger
men believe them, they just don't know.

Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who are
quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that professional
women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers would
ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', but
they are being required to post their real identities on their talk pages,
along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement. They
are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them
from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from even
revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will join
Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia gets
to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make that
second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.

If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms
with this.

[1]
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Danielle_Citron_speaks_at_WikiConference_USA_2015

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Johanna-Hypatia Cybeleia <

Post by Johanna-Hypatia Cybeleia
JJ Marr, I hate to be the one who walks into a conversation late and asks
"What are you talking about?" âespecially since you're going to stop
talking about it now, but... I searched all through the archives of this
list in my mail, but so far am none the wiser...

Post by JJ Marr
Maybe it would be better for the mailing list if we stopped talking about
this? Just a suggestion.

--
__________________________________
I have been woman
for a long time
beware my smile
--Audre Lorde
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Robert Fernandez

2017-08-07 04:37:22 UTC

When you say professionals, in what specific capacity are they being
recruited? Who is requiring them to sign an NDA? The Foundation? Their
employers? I've worked with a number of Wikipedians in Residence and
professionals at US cultural institutions, and I know some of them well
enough to feel confident that I'd know of such a thing if they were forced
to sign something like this. (Many people working with the private data of
editors are required by the Foundation to sign a confidentiality agreement,
but that agreement only extends to that data. I've signed it myself. I
believe a copy of this agreement is publicly available somewhere. Meta?)

If this NDA requirement is true it deserves to be publicly exposed in the
interests of transparency. If it's not true, it's a distraction from the
real problems that exist in this community and enables those opposed to
eliminating those problems to point to false claims in an attempt to
dismiss attention towards those problems.

If anyone has one of these NDAs, please send it to me privately,
anonymously if you wish, and I will take the appropriate steps to expose
them.

I have heard that professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia,
women whose employers would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a
'hostile work place', but they are being required to post their real
identities on their talk pages, along with the names of their employers.
and a COI form statement. They are also required to sign a non-disclosure
agreement that prevents them from revealing any harassment they experience
in Wikipedia, or from even revealing they have been required to sign an
NDA.

Risker

2017-08-07 07:16:42 UTC

......
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who are
quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that professional
women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers would
ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', but
they are being required to post their real identities on their talk pages,
along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement. They
are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them
from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from even
revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will join
Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia gets
to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make that
second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms
with this.

Neotarf

2017-08-07 12:21:56 UTC

I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
Angel List said no.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-disparagement-agreements.html
Also the internal Google gender manifesto that was just leaked "Until about
a week ago, you would have heard very little from me publicly about this,
because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job would have been to deal with it
internally, and confidentiality rules would have prevented me from saying
much in public.But as it happens, (although this wasnât the way I was
planning on announcing it) I actually recently left Google..."

......
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who
are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that
professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers
would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place',
but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk
pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement.
They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents
them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from
even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will
join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia
gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make
that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms
with this.

This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist
that you show some proof of this. Links to discussions or requirements,
please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without
serious evidence.
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Risker

2017-08-07 14:14:11 UTC

So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip,
that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia.
You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely
separate from Wikipedia,

It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment both
societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in
various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that
quantification. Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any
evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to
fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd. Simply put,
it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public
have come to term "fake news". Please retract your statement.

Risker/Anne

Post by Neotarf
I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/technology/silicon-
valley-sexual-harassment-non-disparagement-agreements.html Also the
internal Google gender manifesto that was just leaked "Until about a week
ago, you would have heard very little from me publicly about this, because
(as a fairly senior Googler) my job would have been to deal with it
internally, and confidentiality rules would have prevented me from saying
much in public.But as it happens, (although this wasnât the way I was
planning on announcing it) I actually recently left Google..."
1e3773ed1788

......
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who
are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that
professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers
would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place',
but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk
pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement.
They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents
them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from
even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will
join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia
gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make
that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms
with this.

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Neotarf

2017-08-07 18:11:22 UTC

So we have two former arbitrators on this list, one of whom has offered to
assist in evaluating this thing privately, and who has himself signed such
a non-disparagement agreement, and another who wants to suppress all
discussion of it. We don't know if she has signed such an agreement.

Publications like the New York Times and Washington Post do print and
evaluate information without naming sources, and it is true they are
sometimes called "fake news" on Twitter, but does not make the information
"factless", or prevent Wikipedia from consider them to be RS.

Post by Risker
So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip,
that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia.
You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely
separate from Wikipedia,
It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment both
societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in
various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that
quantification. Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any
evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to
fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd. Simply put,
it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public
have come to term "fake news". Please retract your statement.
Risker/Anne

Post by Neotarf
I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0
7/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-dispara
gement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that
was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little
from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job
would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would
have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although
this wasnât the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently
manifesto-1e3773ed1788

......
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who
are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that
professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers
would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place',
but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk
pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement.
They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents
them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from
even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will
join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia
gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make
that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to
terms with this.

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Risker

2017-08-07 18:42:35 UTC

You're mistaken, Neotarf. There is no non-disparagement agreement, and
arbitrators have never been required to sign one or even offered the
opportunity to sign one, nor have functionaries or anyone else. There is a*
confidentiality* agreement that refers to private and confidential
information, which volunteers who have access to such information are
required to sign.[1] These are two very different things. I am not
suggesting that discussion be suppressed - I am insisting that you "show us
the money" - give us some evidence that what you are saying is true. If you
can't do that....then you're just gossiping, and that's not what this list
is about.

You are trying to persuade this list that articles in respected journals
about policies of companies that have nothing to do with Wikipedia or
Wikimedia are somehow or other related to some rumour you have heard that
women are being forced to sign non-whatever agreements in order to edit
Wikipedia - a rumour which you have bluntly refused to back up.

At this stage, your allegation that anyone is required to post their real
name, identify their COI, and sign non-disparagement agreements in order to
edit wikipedia is...well, factless, until you can show us some facts.

Risker/Anne

[1] List of people who have current and valid confidentiality agreements:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy/Noticeboard

Post by Neotarf
So we have two former arbitrators on this list, one of whom has offered to
assist in evaluating this thing privately, and who has himself signed such
a non-disparagement agreement, and another who wants to suppress all
discussion of it. We don't know if she has signed such an agreement.
Publications like the New York Times and Washington Post do print and
evaluate information without naming sources, and it is true they are
sometimes called "fake news" on Twitter, but does not make the information
"factless", or prevent Wikipedia from consider them to be RS.

Post by Risker
So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip,
that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia.
You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely
separate from Wikipedia,
It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment
both societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in
various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that
quantification. Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any
evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to
fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd. Simply put,
it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public
have come to term "fake news". Please retract your statement.
Risker/Anne

Post by Neotarf
I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0
7/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-dispara
gement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that
was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little
from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job
would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would
have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although
this wasnât the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently
ger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

......
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who
are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that
professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers
would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place',
but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk
pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement.
They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents
them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from
even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will
join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia
gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make
that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to
terms with this.

This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist
that you show some proof of this. Links to discussions or requirements,
please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without
serious evidence.
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Robert Fernandez

2017-08-07 18:59:06 UTC

No, that's exactly the opposite of what was said. I did not say I signed a
non-disparagement agreement. I said I signed the standard WMF
confidentiality agreement.

You can read it here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_
agreement_for_nonpublic_information/ Everyone signs it for even mundane
things. I first signed it when I processed free database accounts for The
Wikipedia Library and had access to names and email addresses of editors.

You can see there's nothing in it about non-disparagement. I feel quite
free to disparage any person or institution that I choose.

Given that you are unable to distinguish between a routine confidentiality
agreement and a non-disparagement agreement, or between normal criticism
and the suppression of discussion, I'm pretty confident that these alleged
NPAs have never existed.

The idea that Risker "wants to suppress all discussion" of these alleged
NPAs is nonsense. She merely pointed out, quite correctly, that spreading
baseless allegations is quite damaging to the very causes you profess to
care about. Please consider that before you continue to double down on a
baseless allegation. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to level at
the Foundation and this community for ineptness and inaction in these areas
without making things up.

Post by Risker
So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip,
that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia.
You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely
separate from Wikipedia,
It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment
both societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in
various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that
quantification. Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any
evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to
fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd. Simply put,
it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public
have come to term "fake news". Please retract your statement.
Risker/Anne

Post by Neotarf
I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0
7/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-dispara
gement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that
was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little
from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job
would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would
have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although
this wasnât the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently
ger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

......
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who
are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that
professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers
would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place',
but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk
pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement.
They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents
them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from
even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will
join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia
gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make
that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to
terms with this.

This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist
that you show some proof of this. Links to discussions or requirements,
please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without
serious evidence.
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Neotarf

2017-08-07 19:40:39 UTC

There is some association with a private GLAM mailing list. I could not
find out more, and I cannot give more details without risk of exposing
someone's identity. No idea if it is a NDA, NCA or NPA or something else,
even a misunderstanding, you know how people can be, but why would
something be secret if it does not exist? If you know people in these
institutions maybe you can count for yourself how many of them are
anonymous and how many list their employers on their talk page, and if
there is some uniformity, how that might have come to be. I am unable to
go further with this issue, but as they say, first do no harm, my loyalty
will be to protecting the careers and reputations of real people, I do
believe this should be the best interest of the WMF as well. It is sad that
when there can be no public discussions of these issues without reprisals,
only the private channels remain.

Post by Robert Fernandez
No, that's exactly the opposite of what was said. I did not say I signed
a non-disparagement agreement. I said I signed the standard WMF
confidentiality agreement.
You can read it here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information/ Everyone signs it
for even mundane things. I first signed it when I processed free database
accounts for The Wikipedia Library and had access to names and email
addresses of editors.
You can see there's nothing in it about non-disparagement. I feel quite
free to disparage any person or institution that I choose.
Given that you are unable to distinguish between a routine confidentiality
agreement and a non-disparagement agreement, or between normal criticism
and the suppression of discussion, I'm pretty confident that these alleged
NPAs have never existed.
The idea that Risker "wants to suppress all discussion" of these alleged
NPAs is nonsense. She merely pointed out, quite correctly, that spreading
baseless allegations is quite damaging to the very causes you profess to
care about. Please consider that before you continue to double down on a
baseless allegation. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to level at
the Foundation and this community for ineptness and inaction in these areas
without making things up.

Post by Neotarf
So we have two former arbitrators on this list, one of whom has offered
to assist in evaluating this thing privately, and who has himself signed
such a non-disparagement agreement, and another who wants to suppress all
discussion of it. We don't know if she has signed such an agreement.
Publications like the New York Times and Washington Post do print and
evaluate information without naming sources, and it is true they are
sometimes called "fake news" on Twitter, but does not make the information
"factless", or prevent Wikipedia from consider them to be RS.

Post by Risker
So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip,
that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia.
You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely
separate from Wikipedia,
It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment
both societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in
various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that
quantification. Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any
evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to
fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd. Simply put,
it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public
have come to term "fake news". Please retract your statement.
Risker/Anne

Post by Neotarf
I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0
7/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-dispara
gement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that
was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little
from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job
would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would
have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although
this wasnât the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently
ger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788