Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force

TalkMembersMediaGender gap
mailing listWikiWomen's
User GroupRelated
WikiProjects

Harassment consultation

Just want to make sure that everyone is aware of this: meta:Harassment consultation 2015. The Foundation is asking for ideas, and I know several GGTF members have talked about this, so now is the time to tell them. Pinging Djembayz, who has written eloquently about these issues. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've suggested that the Foundation hire a harassment expert. Thanks for your comment there, Stuart. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Videos from NASA

Hi, I don't know if you are aware about these videos from the NASA, but I have uploaded some, and intend to add more. I think it is good material for Commons Media of the Day, and they might be useful for this WikiProject. By the way, if you think some other videos would be useful, please tell me, I am happy to help. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• File:Mamta Patel Nagaraja.ogv was MotD on 13 November 2015.
• File:Dr. Renu Khator - NASA MissionSTEM.webm
• File:Lolo Fatoyinbo - GSFC STEM.webm
• File:Jane Thipphavong - ARC STEM.webm

Hi, I'd like to have some feedback. Are these useful? Should I upload more? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections now open

There's been a lot of interest in the ArbCom election this year and all the candidates. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015 for general questions. Anybody who wants to view my recommendations for voting, please see User:Smallbones/ACE2015. All other voters' guides are also linked to from the top of the page.

I think that anybody who is interested in this project should be interested in voting. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

How can one bring awareness to the problem of harassment on Wikipedia without unintentionally perpetuating it?

Hi all, one of the more sensitive aspects of addressing on-wiki harassment seems to be that it's hard to convince others of the magnitude and pervasiveness of the problem without citing specific examples. But to do so, we potentially find ourselves in the position of repeating some of the most repugnant slurs I personally have ever come across. I'm wondering if there's any consensus here on that issue, and what different takes everyone has on it if there isn't.

Does it perpetuate harassment to cite the extreme examples, because that may make it more difficult for the victims (which may directly or indirectly represent a large group of users) to move on? Or is it for the common good to use such examples as an effective way to raise awareness of the issue? If I found an example particularly illustrative, is there any way I could cite it while being sensitive to the victims' perspective? If, for example, it were an insult directed at a particular user, would it be OK to cite it after consulting them first? Or is it best to just steer clear of specific situations and talk instead in generalizations? What would be the most effective way to do that? Are there telling stats that could be cited instead?

Silence is certainly not the best way to address this issue, but what is the best way to speak up? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 21:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a good question. Thanks for asking it. I don't know the answer. Reference to the harassment without repeating the wording of it is likely the best way to go much of the time. Not specifically naming the victim might also be useful. Not contributing to the "circus discussions" that have happened around the issue might sometimes help (I'm really not sure). OTOH, if the harassment was done very openly on an often-visited page, maybe there's no need to be coy about what everybody already knows. If there was a private, official place to report harassment, that would likely be the best; and then they might be able to produce statistics that won't make victims relive the harassment. I hope more folks join this discussion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The idea about a private place to report harassment makes a lot of sense to me. ArbCom certainly hasn't proven to be effective at bringing a quick end to it, and that's not surprising as it seems to have been designed to resolve disputes, whereas harassment is a very different thing with very different consequences. But it's something of a Catch-22, since we seemingly need to raise awareness to get the community to understand that such a measure is necessary.

BTW, I just looked through all the ideas on meta:Harassment consultation 2015 and didn't see anyone hit on the importance of a private place to report harassment. ;-) It's your idea to put your name next to, but I'd be more than happy to add it myself if you choose not to. Best! -wʃʃʍ- 08:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wllm, thanks for raising this. The best thing is to ask the victim privately if it's okay for you to cite the example. Some people come out fighting and want the harassment to be highlighted. Others can't bear to see it repeated. I've suggested that the Foundation hire an expert on harassment to act as a consultant on some of these issues, including how to spot that it's happening. See Harassment consultation 2015/Ideas/Hire a harassment expert. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm venting here. Probably the wrong place but I had a recent encounter that really upset me. It started at WP:AN [1] [2] and continued (uninvited) at my talk page. I found it a very strange encounter from a (male) admin insisting I find a common word sexist. :-( —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia, I feel you. There's a particular irony when men take it upon themselves to mansplain to women what women should be offended by. Sorry that happened to you. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

In fairness to Drmies, the word hysterical does carry deeply sexist baggage. He wasn't arguing that any particular woman ought to be offended by it, rather that it has a troubled history. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Also true. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes he was SlimVirgin - he was insisting that another person's specific usage of the word "hysterics" (in the original conversation) was sexist. Several people said it was not sexist, including me, and pointed out that men are very capable of hysterics (haven't we all seen proof of that here on Wikipedia?) and he came to my talk page to argue with me why it was sexist. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Howdy, Wllm & everyone else in this discussion. IMHO, the community would probably oppose the idea of a 'private' place to report harassment. FWIW, I choose to view all editors as non-gender :) GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I imagine it's not difficult to be gender-neutral when your gender is the one unaffected by discrimination, and the majority on WP. I admire your idealism, though. Idealism is a dying art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.187.250 (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't agree. When you have a problem at work or school, you don't have to talk to Human Resources, or managers, or teachers, in public, you can absolutely talk to them in private. We already have wide precedent of private contacts with admins and arbitrators to report other kinds of misconduct, for example outing, or evidence which requires outing. I don't see any problem with reporting harassment in private. --GRuban (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that the community would likely oppose it, unless the accused harassers were allowed to defend themselves in such a 'private' place. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Harassment report

The Wikimedia Foundation and others – pinging PEarley (WMF), Rubberpaw and Madcoverboy – have published a useful overview of research into online harassment at Research:Online harassment resource guide. The section called "Bystander Interventions" is of particular relevance. One of our biggest problems is that Wikipedians don't recognize harassment when it's happening, or don't step forward to say something – sometimes because a wikifriend of theirs is doing it, or they don't like the target, or they fear being singled out themselves. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! This brings me to another question that's been on my mind for a while. It seems like one of the most effective and common checks on harassment is social disapproval. And I've been blown away to see harassers supported- egged on, even- across the Wikimedia projects. Some of you are probably aware that I have no problem at all being singled out for stepping forward, but I've also been demonized and marginalized by the community to some degree- in part for taking strong stances on controversial issues and, no doubt, also breaking a more than my share wikitaboos along the way. ;-) I know some of you have gotten some of the same treatment, and, given the much more significant contributions to the project you've made compared to I, that much more unjustly so IMO. Is it helpful or detrimental for me to show support for a victim? Does it matter that I'm a man? I try to be sensitive to the fact that I'm somewhat limited to empathizing vs. sympathizing, not having to face the barriers that woman do here and elsewhere.

How can someone in my position best help? How would I- and others who may not be as plugged in as others here- know about abuse that is currently happening in our community so we can speak out? I'm more than happy to add my voice, but the absolute last thing I want to do is make matters worse for victims. Sorry for all the questions, and thanks for the answers/advice! -wʃʃʍ- 22:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wllm, I'm currently working on an idea that might be helpful in that regard, something that I'm trying to adapt from strategies used elsewhere to combat violence against women. It is basically a social norms approach designed to make people realize that their opposition to harassment and aggression is the norm, not something they need to fear speaking out against. So yes, it's helpful to show support for the victim, and your own gender makes no difference. A kind comment on someone's talk page can make a big difference or a post underneath the harassment supporting the victim or urging others to comment.

The one thing that can be tricky on WP is that those engaged in harassment have at times claimed to be the victim, and it's hard to combat that because bystanders don't want to have to read dozens of pages before making a one-sentence response. But I have several times seen harassers turn the tables on their victims (we saw it during the Lightbreather case) by pointing to the victim's increasingly frantic requests for help as evidence of the victim's instability and "battleground" behaviour. This happens in real-life too, where harassers may end up taking victims to court. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Just continuing some thoughts: a major problem is that almost all Wikipedia's dispute-resolution processes – arbitration evidence pages, workshop pages, AN/I – lend themselves easily to harassment, including inadvertent harassment, because they take place in public, go on for too long, and involve too many people. Each person commenting does not intend to harass or bully the editor at the centre of it, but the overall effect is often precisely that. So while it's important to address the most egregious forms of harassment, we also need wholesale reform in the way we handle disputes, and in the way we treat each other in general. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This is almost just a random article I just read, but it has a kinda sorta relation to the social norms approach Social Media Shaming: Can Outrage Be Effective? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI, just hours ago Martin Shkreli reneged on the pledge that leads that article after all. [3] Outrage, it seems, is only effective until the target decides people have forgotten about it. --GRuban (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

25% Target by ?

Hi all, does anyone know whether the 25% female editors target was set for the start of 2015 or the end? Articles usually say "by 2015". The strategy pages themselves say it will take us "through 2015". Also, does anyone know what the definition of "editors" is for this target? I know we'll come up short regardless of the answers, but it seems to me that we shouldn't let an excellent opportunity to think back on the progress (or lack thereof) addressing the gender gap slip by unnoticed if it's coming up in 1 month. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 20:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

My first reaction is that it doesn't matter for 2 reasons. 1) we're so far short that any mention of it would look like "social media shaming" of ourselves; and 2) do we still not have a reasonable measure of the % of women editors? There has, of course, been a huge effort to bring in new women editors, e.g. all the edit-a-thons and the funding of women-related projects. This needed to be done so that we can find out "what works". But let's not confuse inputs with results. And we need a good yardstick (measurement) first. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm in full agreement that the Gender Gap is something we need to start measuring again.

That said, both Jimmie and Sue have conceded that we're nowhere near that target in the mainstream press- apparently they're confident even without an editor survey to back it up- and I doubt they consider that "shaming". Personally, I would characterize it as "raising awareness", which is necessary to solve problems in any community. My opinion on targets created to address any given issue is that there's no point in setting and widely publicizing them if we don't check and just as widely publicize our progress. At least we should admit that we stopped measuring the Gender Gap, even after asserting we'd have semi-annual editor surveys in the 5-year strategic plan. If we don't hold ourselves accountable, the rest of the world will.

I understand your first argument, and there seems to have been more substantive efforts at closing the GG this year that have made a difference. Unfortunately, we can't tell how big the difference is in the numbers we're supposed to be holding ourselves to. :-( -wʃʃʍ- 22:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Wllm and Smallbones, it would be helpful if the Foundation would ask every editor with over (say) 1,000 edits in the previous 12 months what gender they are. This could be done every year so that we could track the changes. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Large-scale surveys are very political and incredibly hard to do right. I am unlikely to support a survey unless experience statisticians have signed off on the methodology and proposed analysis. The chances of enduring the inevitable bun fight and ending up with no reliable data (or worse: misleading data) are just too high. A 1000 edit limit, for example, biases against those who might use disposable accounts to avoid harassment. I'm actually quite interested in having a discussion about how to design statistical instruments to measure this, but that discussion needs to be mature before we go to the WMF, IMHO. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It certainly seems to be the case that existing data hasn't been collected or reported in a way that the community finds genuinely convincing. (It's also, IIRC, usually the case that men overestimate how much women speak in a large mixed group, reporting "about equal" speaking time when women speak ~30% of the time - I wish I could remember where I saw that now.) So I agree with Stuart; it would be great to see a real, authoritative estimate of the scale of the problem, but it really has to be done right, and be seen to be done right, to have any hope of overpowering people's vague impressions and anecdata. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Stuart, just because the outcome wouldn't be perfect doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful, especially if it were repeated every year. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

(EC)I'm sorry if my comment about shaming was tongue-in-cheek, obviously being up front about our lack of success is better. I'm concerned that we apparently haven't done anything in several(?) years about measurement - maybe I've missed something. I'd guess that the hang-up on measuring is that the WMF wants to do it perfectly. That's the wrong way to do it. Perfectly implies a census - all editors - which is just impossible (except perhaps Sarah's limited number of editors above). But it's not really rocket science. The answer is random sampling. Even with a random sample of just 400 editors, the survey will be accurate ±5%. Right now I'd summarize our knowledge about the gender gap is "it's somewhere between 10-20% female editors, but that was about 5 years ago." A ±5% survey should be possible to finish within a month from *now*. What's stopping us? You could repeat this every 3 months if you really wanted to, or wait and get a bigger sample (say 2,000 editors), and then slice and dice the data to your heart's content. But I have to emphasize that finding a proportion via a sample is the easiest possible thing to do in statistics. Let's do it, now.

EC with the above 3 comments. I'm not trying to shame anybody here, but ask 1000 statistician on the simplest way to find a proportion with sample data ±5%, and 1000 will give you pretty much what I said above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I'm in (entirely unconditional ;-)) agreement with what you say above. I'll add that once we've started measuring it, we could iteratively improve accuracy until we have a consistent way to get the data that would convince the community and professional statisticians that it's sufficiently accurate to base our goals on. I think that some degree of anonymity and, like you mentioned, random selection would probably be necessary. And I think it should happen now, or as close to the end of the year as possible. Maybe the WMF won't be as resistant to the idea as we think. Let's ask them. Where's the best place we can start this discussion? -wʃʃʍ- 01:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

SarahSV, I think you're hitting on something really important: we have to measure how many women are sticking around, and not just registering like the 2013 "microsurveys". But IMO we should measure both. I'd like to know what the attrition rate is for women vs. men, along with a few other interesting demographic dimensions. To be clear, I don't think the purpose of the 2013 was to provide a comparable dataset to earlier surveys; IIUC, it was to measure the effectiveness of new features like VE. For a really thorough breakdown of what editor surveys have been run that are relevant to the GG, Tilman wrote up a great summary here. -wʃʃʍ- 02:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, Wllm, that's the thing. It would be good to know how many women are actually involved with Wikipedia now, contributing to articles, talk pages, policies – i.e. how many women are helping to shape Wikipedia's content and culture – and to what extent that figure rises and falls over time. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, there's this study that claims to correct the 2008 editor survey for non-response bias. -wʃʃʍ- 02:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Smallbones and Wllm, if that's the easiest way to get useful data I'm all for it. Perhaps the person to start with would be Tbayer (WMF). Tilman, if you see this, who is the best person to approach within the Foundation to set up a random sample of editors to ask about gender? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Beat me to the link to Tilman. :-D Let's make sure he sees it, tho. @Tbayer (WMF): what say you? Thanks for any info! -wʃʃʍ- 02:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Lets design a decent survey

Here's a quick sketch of an on-going survey:

• A survey webserver that serves surveys and records answers. It also records certain optional parameters passed in with users when they arrive (campaign id, edit id, project id (wiki, meta, commons, etc), language id (en, de, etc), verification hash, etc)
• A bank of questions. Wording for core demographic questions can be lifted from a standard survey (because how you ask questions influences the answers). Looking for age, ethnicity, location (defaults to geo-location), gender, suggestions for improvement, ... More questions will undoubtedly arise. Once tested, questions can be translated.
• A small wikimedia modification that triggers every 2000th edit to suggest the user complete the survey (passing in edit id, project id, language id, verification hash) These are the 'random editors'
• A batch-mail to a sampling of long-standing editors who have email enabled suggesting the editor complete the survey (passing in campaign id, project id, language id, verification hash) These are the 'long-standing editors'
• Posts to relevant fora enabling the editors / the general public to complete the survey (passing in campaign id, project id, language id, verification hash) These are the 'engaged editors.'

The 'random editors' are the closest to ground-truth and used for the majority of the statistical number crunching. The 'long-standing editors' are valuable for perceptions of change over time and being 'informed opinions' about things. The 'engaged editors' are statistically un-useful (due to the possibility of vote stacking) but may yield useful suggestions for improvement and be useful for engaging the editor population. Responses without a correct verification hash would be grouped with the 'engaged editors'. 'Every 2000th edit' is just a number, it could easily be adjusted up or down as necessary for you desired sample size. The advantage of an on-going survey is that any timed survey will undoubtedly fall on someone's holiday weekend / low editing ebb. Thoughts? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense. I really like the idea of sampling multiple groups of editors at once. I don't know enough about statistics to say whether population overlap would be a big concern. Even then, it's not like the system wouldn't know the editor already responded based on another entry point and couldn't just skip over that 2000th edit trigger for editors that have. We'd have to make sure that the order of the questions are randomized, and, assuming they are, would you think that partial responses would be acceptable? One of the biggest problems is that there is a lot of demographic data that would be extremely useful, and not all of our editors have a lot of time. That's significant, because it has been shown in multiple studies that women have less leisure time than men in developed countries. -wʃʃʍ- 02:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

(a) population overlap is the point, because it enables you to normalise one against the other (b) sampling the same editors multiple times is not a problem because both their gender and their perception of gender issues on wikipedia may change. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if we think about this, we may be able to sample random users in the same manner. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Anti-bullying task force proposal

In case anyone here is interested, SageRad is proposing the creation of an anti-bullying task force. See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Anti-bullying task force. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The basic question, in my view, is whether bullying really is a systemic problem in Wikipedia. My own thought is that bullying is not a systemic problem. I think that bullying is not a systemic problem in the way that the gender gap is, but others may disagree. My own comments about bullying are to be found in the linked articles, but I think that there are at least two issues. The first is the use of the bullying policy, both properly and improperly. Many claims of bullying are by disruptive editors. The second issue is whether some action should be taken, such as creating a task force, to deal with the problem of bullying. So the real question is whether some special action is needed to deal with bullying. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it may be useful to recast the issue in terms of clique behaviour, which I do think is prevalent, as is to be expected in any community. To avoid fragmenting the conversation, I have commented in the village pump thread. isaacl (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Bra up for GAR

The article bra is up for good article reassessment. Scrutiny and suggestions for improvement from GGTF would be quite welcome.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that several people are active there, and there are more comments under #Sexist imagery accounts. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2016

Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2016 are being accepted 5 Dec 2015 - 9 Jan 2016. Please consider applying! To learn more about Wikimania 2016 scholarships, please visit: https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships. To apply for a scholarship, fill out the application form on: https://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply. Recommendations regarding the Wikimania scholarship application... Applying for this scholarship is akin to the GMAT's Analytical Writing Assessment. This is no time to be sloppy or lackadaisical. Be clear and be thorough in each section. This is about differentiating yourself from the X number of other applicants, so do a great job in explaining: 'why you?'. I became a Wikipedian in 2007, but didn't apply for a Wikimania scholarship (and thankfully I received it) until 2015 because I suffered from Impostor Syndrome. I thank AdaCamp and my wiki friends for helping me deal with this demon. Do not let IS silence you. Get over it. You are deserving. Apply! (P.S. As a member of the Wikimania 2016 Scholarship Committee, I will recuse myself from reviewing those scholarship applications where I would have a personal bias.) --Rosiestep (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

HUGE backlog at Good Article nominees - can you review an article?

There's a huge backlog at Good Article nominees and it's pretty awful - this backlog goes back to APRIL. There is only one woman in the list of History category (disclosure: I nominated that one - Stalin's first wife) but there are quite a few women articles in other categories that deserve consideration for GA. They're just sitting there. Any experienced editor can review an article - there's a guideline to follow. Can you take a look and try to help here? Thanks! —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We still need your help. . .

Why isn't the GGTF more active? I'm looking through the ArbCom and ANI cases for historical notes, but there are a couple of questions I'm pretty sure I won't find answers for there:

• Change is hard for this community. The cultural changes necessary to close the gender gap won't be easy. In addition, any effort will face active resistance from some vocal, provocative, and politically powerful editors. But the community needs to learn more about this issue. In particular, since we're something like 80-90% of that community as it stands, men like me need to learn more about it. If this initiative falters, where should we go while we wait for another forum to get enough critical mass? There's an opportunity to lead by example and show that we can learn, too. For example, what I've seen in various ArbCom and ANI cases is a lot of unimaginative, offensive baiting from editors who would say anything to undermine what this group is doing. These tactics aren't new and they're hardly rocket surgery. We can learn from past experiences to come up with solutions to stay focused and motivated.
• Moreover, isn't this exactly what the detractors wanted? For us to give up? Every movement for social change has faced opposition. What all successful movements share is the determination to keep moving the issues forward against this resistance to change- and changing themselves based on what they've learned from each experience.

I need this group, because I need to learn how I can be part of the solution. That could be said about pretty much everyone in our community- men and women. Please help us by staying strong even in those moments when the opposition seems stronger. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 09:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wllm, the GGTF was relatively active last year, but a few users arrived to disrupt the talk page. A couple of GGTF participants reacted strongly to that, then someone opened an ArbCom case that saw those participants (but not the disrupters) banned. It left a bad taste, and it was hard to recover our enthusiasm. I agree that we ought not to give up, but as always it's a question of finding volunteer time. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I was particularly bummed to see Neotarf banned; I've had a lot of interactions with him/her in the past and s/he's always been helpful (kinda strange that I'm not sure whether s/he's a man or a woman, but s/he wouldn't be first Wikipedian to keep her gender to herself is s/he is a woman.) I haven't run across the others before I got active here, but it's clear to me that none of them have done or said anything remotely as offensive as other editors in that case. And only one editor in that case seemed to have a mile-long record of bad behavior, along with a mile-long record of warnings and sanctions that have gone unenforced for the most part. Onwiki injustice is obviously something we need to address. But, if I'm not mistaken, the editors who were slapped with site bans can now request that their bans be lifted, and I'll be reaching out to remind them.

Regardless, this is most likely the exact outcome those disrupters wanted. If we let it phase us, then they have succeeded in their minds. In reality, of course, the entire community has failed. But if we come back and focus on our efforts instead of those who want to derail them- ever reminding ourselves that the best response to provocation is no response- we will snatch that "victory" away from them. Of course, we shouldn't be as shortsighted and superficial as them; there's no "victory" to had in the whatever consequences these editors might eventually face with their childish behavior. The only victory for us will be in progress towards closing the Gender Gap. That said, why are we giving them the self-satisfaction of watching us effectively give up? -wʃʃʍ- 20:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wllm, why Neotarf was added to the case in the first place is a mystery. All s/he did that I'm aware of was defend people here who were under attack. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I've reached out to him/her to encourage him/her to request a review, but I haven't gotten a response so far. :-( I think the community has an opportunity to show how it has learned from the on-wiki and off-wiki events over the past 2 years or so by reviewing all of the sanctions in that case, because IMO every ban was unjust in one way or another. I hope that both of these editors come back and demonstrate to the community that, while there are a few lessons for us to learn about how we handle provocation, we will always come back. So, please, Neotarf and Carolmooredc, come back and let's get your bans reviewed. You could really breathe some life back in to this effort, with or without a topic ban on the project itself. -wʃʃʍ- 03:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As a member of WP:RETENTION, I left a message at Carolmooredc's talkpage. I wasn't able to do so at Neotarf's however, as that user talkpage is still locked. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay, that was kind of you. I was going to ask the protecting admin to unprotect User talk:Neotarf, but I see it was at the user's request. I'd like to see Carol, Neotarf and Lightbreather reinstated. The bans were all part of the same thing, even though they're from separate cases. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe all 3 editors will eventually be reinstated :) GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We need someone who's good at templates to create a "Free the GGTF Three" template. I think someone did create one for Carol, but I can't find it. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's an idea. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We just passed one year on two of those bans, so now is a good time to do it. I would display it on my user page. I don't believe Lightbreather should have to wait a year for her review, so I think it makes sense to group them all together. The real problem is whether they want to come back. :-/ -wʃʃʍ- 04:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Found it. It's User:Milowent/FreeCarol. I'll try to fiddle with it if Milowent doesn't mind. Wllm, it would be a good idea to wait until the new committee is in place. They might be more willing to take all the circumstances into account. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

By all means, take it and do with it whatever you want to raise awareness!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

FREE
THE GGTF THREE

Milowent, thanks! If anyone wants to improve it, please do. It links to the GGTF, Carol, Neotarf and Lightbreather. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from newbie - I just joined the TF and I'm not sure where to start. I posted above asking for help with reviewing GA nominations for women. We really need more biographies of great women brought to GA and Featured Article status! I'm also active at WP:AFD and try my best to rescue articles on women. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Also been wondering, for a few days now, where to start. Heart the Red orientation, but it's sooo much work to start a whole new article. Is there a way to find easier work, f.e relevant articles that just need re-writing, organizing, more references?

While thinking about how to increase cooperation among us Wikipedians in general, through Game theory Cooperative games, i wrote this page (User:LeoRomero/scx/3D2Do), which describes one approach, and provides examples.

I'll be back to create a 3D2Do page for GGTF, and hope that it helps.

Thanks GGTF, and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 03:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Vicki Garvin article

Could an administrator please have a look at the Vicki Garvin article? It's being investigated for a potential copyright issue, but that's been going on for ages, and I think it's clear it does violate copyright. If you agree, please delete the article and the copyright investigation notice and replace it with this article: Talk:Vicki Garvin/Temp. Please let me know by posting here if you do this. Thank you!GrecianEarn (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@GrecianEarn: I've deleted the article, so you can go ahead and install your version. A couple of sources call her a trade unionist, or "radical trade unionist" (Campbell 2007, p. 342), so you might consider opening with the more descriptive "African-American trade unionist," rather than "activist." But that's after just two minutes on Google, so you should do what you think best. Also, the usual format is to place the References section before Further reading. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP has re-created the entire content on the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

That's the new version, which seems fine. I'm not sure I agree that the old version was a copyvio. It does follow one source closely, but I'm not seeing where it copied it. But again, that's after a brief look. If there's a new version, the best thing is to work from the new one. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm putting in the new version, just to be safe on copyright problems.GrecianEarn (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sexist imagery accounts

A socketpuppeteer was recently blocked on multiple accounts for disruptive editing.

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Utbindas

The user had a penchant for adding sexualized imagery of women. Might be a good idea to scrutinize user contributions for inappropriate image additions.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment I nominated the files on Commons for copyright violation. But I couldn't find "sexualized imagery of women". URL? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's an obvious one that I reverterd[4] at pantyhose, and this one[5] was reverted previously at bra.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of sexualized images, List of brassiere designs could use some work. Of the eight styles represented, all but two are plunge. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Peter, I've fixed most of the above. Perhaps we should try to find photographs of bras alone. I'll try to find time to look on Flickr or company websites and ask for releases. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Updating and Adding Women in Tech Articles

Hi all, I'm going through our women in technology articles and updating them so they are current. I'm hoping this also has the side effect of rekindling the interest of editors who have gone inactive but kept these articles on their watchlists. I'll be adding more and doing some categorization soon. Any help would be greatly appreciated. The list I've been working off of is 3 years old, but pretty comprehensive. Not all of these groups meet WP:NOTE, but you might be surprised that some of them don't have articles yet. -wʃʃʍ- 21:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Wllm. There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red you might want to look at. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wllm, I also meant to mention Gobonobo's list at User:Gobonobo/Gender Gap red list. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thanks for the linx! I'm adding a bunch at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red right now. Is there any reason there are two separate lists? They seem to have very similar objectives. -wʃʃʍ- 05:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yikes! There's a whole list of separate efforts here: User:Gobonobo/Gender_Gap_red_list#Related_lists. Seems like we'd have a bigger impact if we merged all of these. -wʃʃʍ- 05:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)