I placed an ANI about the Voice for Men article and the subsequent comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_multiple_policy_infringements The result being:
> "We cannot take action for off-Wiki discussions like this. However, an "announcement" on WP:AN about something like this would have been a wise idead instead of ANI (but we all know now) - that we we can keep an eye on things. Attacking Wikipedia would be a detriment to their cause - so is potentially libelous statements about the Foundation's employees - dumb, dumb, dumb thing to do. However, by posting about it here, they know that we know. Be vigilant :-) "

I suppose what it does mean is that if insults are hurled about female editors off-wiki we can post announcements in WP:AN which begin,
> "Based on this ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_multiple_policy_infringements I to inform the community about..."

I also had some nice posts sent to me on my talk page.

P.S. I clicked on the link for WP:AN and found this little gem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Topic_ban_proposal_for_Gibson_Flying_V Depressing but at least it's not all one-way traffic.

Marie

Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:46:19 -0400
From: carolmooredc@verizon.net
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L

Re: the below, yes, i was blocked in a situation I thought was biased compared to other blocks I've seen. (I didn't mention that originally it was a six month block but the community of mostly guys thought that was grossly unfair and it was reduced to two weeks.)

However, in general wikipedia is not half as bad as the Men's rights site you mentioned. And in Wikipedia there are "Community Sanctions" on too much conflict in men's rights areas. In fact we just had some problems with an individual with that bias and he was reminded of the sanctions and was stopped.

In general women tend to avoid a lot of issues in the larger world because we don't like conflict. And that's understandable given that when guys do it with each other its considered a team sport. But when women jump in the middle, even if they know the rules (which we don't always), they usually are going to be given a harder time, expected to work harder and do better to get half the respect. That's the nature of the reality we are trying to change throughout the world and wikipedia is just one part of that larger world.

We don't have to accept all the rules but we can't change them unless we have some engagement. Even if the engagement is "these rules are male-created and reflect male values/attitudes/etc. and we want and equal say in creating the rules."

To understand Wikipedia dispute resolution you really have to study this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

Except in the worst cases of abuse, you don't need to go to ANI. When the problem is guys ignoring you or reverting you too much or whatever it is they are doing cause they think they can get away with it (including if that reason is that you are female), there are a variety of options. I've used them all at different times, with more or less success depending on circumstances.

CM

On 7/1/2014 10:03 PM, Marie Earley wrote:

Gosh, I did make a pig's ear out of it didn't I. I didn't realize the list had two Sarahs on it.

Third time lucky....

In a discussion about off-Wiki mentions of editors, I was making a comparison between Carol Moore's suspension which she mentioned here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html in answer to SlimVirgin (aka Sarah), in which Carol said:

> "questioning behavior too aggressively off wikipedia evidently remains a no no. I was once blocked for a week for asking an editor whether his overwhelming history of editing in articles about bondage of females was related to his obvious and annoying harassment of me on a noticeboard, after which I mentioned the issue on the Wikia Feminism page which I thought was a part of Wikipedia (duh). The latter evidently was the bigger "no no"."

...and some of the stuff in an article on A Voice for Men's website.

The third paragraph of this message http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004409.html therefore should have read (correction in capital letters):
> I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/ which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if CAROL was suspended for her off-site comments then how is this permissible?

And LtPowers point that Wikipedia may simply not know is correct. Perhaps, editors just have to run the gauntlet / try and recruit more women / be a bit more pro-active about looking for and reporting off-wiki activities which break the rules and not just leave it to moderators. With that in mind I have reported the article to WP:ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_multiple_policy_infringements

Marie

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:31:42 -0700
From: slimvirgin@gmail.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jeremy Baron <jeremy@tuxmachine.com> wrote:

On Jun 30, 2014 11:14 PM, "Sarah" <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeremy, which quote is this? I recall someone on this list saying that someone called Sarah was suspended (unclear what's meant) for an off-wiki comment. (Or something like that; I can't find the original.) I can't think of how that might apply to me, and Sarah Stierch has said it doesn't apply to her.

See this message from earlier on this thread:

On Jun 29, 2014 8:30 PM Eastern, "Marie Earley" <eiryel@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My apologies it was Carol Moore responding to Sarah Stierch earlier on, I mentioned it from memory, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html

If you follow Marie's link and then dig up the original message quoted at the link from "Sarah" you'll find it was SlimVirgin not Sarah Stierch (Marie apparently misattributed).

I haven't read all the mails, just did a bit of digging

.

Okay, thanks, Jeremy. I don't follow what it's about, but the original comment wasn't made by me or about me, and the comment that seemed to be about Sarah Stierch was a misunderstanding.

_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap