Watch for GamerGate to get hot again

[Vigilant]

Chelsea van Valkenburg aka Zoe Quinn went on twitter and wrote a series of posts about a former boyfriend, Alec Holowka, alleging abuse that happened years prior.

Alec Holowka has since committed suicide.

The Farms are on fire.
I expect en.wp to be soon.

[Midsize Jake]

Alec Holowka has since committed suicide.

Sure enough, he has his own WP article, Alec Holowka (T-H-L), which has existed since November 2008 and is now semi-protected. There were 16 revisions oversighted from Aug. 27, the day of the suicide...

The story has made it to the BBC: Night in the Woods video game creator Alec Holowka dies

[Dysklyver]

General hotbed of Gamergate bollocks RationalWiki is also expecting it to show up, but as yet no significant new Gamergate wars have occurred there.

[Moral Hazard]

Chelsea van Valkenburg (T-H-L) aka Zoe Quinn (T-H-L) went on twitter and wrote a series of posts about a former boyfriend, Alec Holowka (T-H-L), alleging abuse that happened years prior.

Alec Holowka has since committed suicide.

Links added.

During Holodomor (T-H-L), Communists accused the peasants who had starved or who had killed themselves of undermining the good reputation of Socialism and the USSR (Timothy D. Snyder (T-H-L), Bloodlands (T-H-L)).

[Moral Hazard]

Quinn identified as non-cisgender in January 2017.[43]

Hibbard, Lee (January 16, 2019). "What Feminism Looks Like: Gender, Coming Out, and Gamer Culture". NYMG. https://www.nymgamer.com/?p=15795 Retrieved August 5, 2019.

She seems to have been a woman, according to the photographic evidence from her adult modeling on the Wiki of Kiwi Farms (NSFW):
https://lolcow.wiki/wiki/Zoe_Quinn
https://archive.li/lDIMV

Kiwi Farms has a directory (!): NSFW
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/zoe-quinn ... ime.14263/

[Poetlister]

Alec Holowka has since committed suicide.

Sure enough, he has his own WP article, Alec Holowka (T-H-L), which has existed since November 2008 and is now semi-protected. There were 16 revisions oversighted from Aug. 27, the day of the suicide...

The story has made it to the BBC: Night in the Woods video game creator Alec Holowka dies

They weren't oversighted; if they were, they wouldn't show in the history. They were revdelled. All of them were from IP 90.252.201.157 (Vodafone Consumer Broadband, Birmingham). it was blocked for 31 hours, which won't do much good as it's dead easy t get a new IP on that network.

[Ryuichi]

Someone's just gone through Gamergate controversy (T-H-L) and replaced all references to Quinn with "they/them" pronouns. I honestly can't tell if Poe or not.

[mendaliv]

Someone's just gone through Gamergate controversy (T-H-L) and replaced all references to Quinn with "they/them" pronouns. I honestly can't tell if Poe or not.

I hope whoever did that didn't change the verb forms away from the singular.

[Ryuichi]

Someone's just gone through Gamergate controversy (T-H-L) and replaced all references to Quinn with "they/them" pronouns. I honestly can't tell if Poe or not.

I hope whoever did that didn't change the verb forms away from the singular.

There's at least a couple of "she was" > "they were" substitutions.

I now see the "someone" is progressivist SPA & GamerGate partisan PeterTheFourth (T-C-L).

[Randy from Boise]

Someone's just gone through Gamergate controversy (T-H-L) and replaced all references to Quinn with "they/them" pronouns. I honestly can't tell if Poe or not.

I hope whoever did that didn't change the verb forms away from the singular.

There's at least a couple of "she was" > "they were" substitutions.

I now see the "someone" is progressivist SPA & GamerGate partisan PeterTheFourth (T-C-L).

The retards stirreth...

RfB

[Poetlister]

Someone's just gone through Gamergate controversy (T-H-L) and replaced all references to Quinn with "they/them" pronouns. I honestly can't tell if Poe or not.

PeterTheFourth (T-C-L) did this only a few minutes after JDDJS (T-C-L) added a template asking for it to be done. Indeed, it was so quick that I'm tempted to suggest that they might have been in collusion.

[Beeblebrox]

Alec Holowka has since committed suicide.

Sure enough, he has his own WP article, Alec Holowka (T-H-L), which has existed since November 2008 and is now semi-protected. There were 16 revisions oversighted from Aug. 27, the day of the suicide...

The story has made it to the BBC: Night in the Woods video game creator Alec Holowka dies

They weren't oversighted; if they were, they wouldn't show in the history. They were revdelled. All of them were from IP 90.252.201.157 (Vodafone Consumer Broadband, Birmingham). it was blocked for 31 hours, which won't do much good as it's dead easy t get a new IP on that network.

You're living in the past. When RevDel was introduced, old-school oversight (which removed the edits from the page history) was deprecated. That was like 9 years ago. Suppression (attempted and failed rebranding of the process because the name is just nonsensical) works exactly like revdel, it just has the option to also hide the revisions from admins.

[Pudeo]

They weren't oversighted; if they were, they wouldn't show in the history. They were revdelled. All of them were from IP 90.252.201.157 (T-C-L) (Vodafone Consumer Broadband, Birmingham). it was blocked for 31 hours, which won't do much good as it's dead easy t get a new IP on that network.

There were also several other IPs and one user who added defamation which has not been rev-deleted, nor were they blocked:
2605:600061D1:7110:19F0:677:D388 (T-C-L)
26005C2:B80:7DC8:DCA5:C049:5B9D (T-C-L)
2600B05F:C35:F5E1:BB5A:DC7D:39A8 (T-C-L)
71.176.118.14 (T-C-L)
185.31.149.117 (T-C-L)
98.168.148.44 (T-C-L)
Armageddon11 (T-C-L)

Given how many of them were, they were likely defaming the article based on campaign of a sort, which is pretty disgusting given what happened.

PeterTheFourth also fought to keep the primary Twitter link to the sexual assault allegations. There's an active AE thread (permalink) about that, which I started. Admittedly, as he's a self-admitted SPA, any sanctions would be pretty worthless anyway as he would just switch to using another pseudonym.

[Poetlister]

Alec Holowka has since committed suicide.

Sure enough, he has his own WP article, Alec Holowka (T-H-L), which has existed since November 2008 and is now semi-protected. There were 16 revisions oversighted from Aug. 27, the day of the suicide...

The story has made it to the BBC: Night in the Woods video game creator Alec Holowka dies

They weren't oversighted; if they were, they wouldn't show in the history. They were revdelled. All of them were from IP 90.252.201.157 (Vodafone Consumer Broadband, Birmingham). it was blocked for 31 hours, which won't do much good as it's dead easy t get a new IP on that network.

You're living in the past. When RevDel was introduced, old-school oversight (which removed the edits from the page history) was deprecated. That was like 9 years ago. Suppression (attempted and failed rebranding of the process because the name is just nonsensical) works exactly like revdel, it just has the option to also hide the revisions from admins.

Thanks for the information. But am I right that if they were suppressed they weren't oversighted? And isn't it a bit silly to allow everyone, even non-admins, to see that edits were made? Complete hiding seems to be much more sensible.

[Beeblebrox]

Alec Holowka has since committed suicide.

Sure enough, he has his own WP article, Alec Holowka (T-H-L), which has existed since November 2008 and is now semi-protected. There were 16 revisions oversighted from Aug. 27, the day of the suicide...

The story has made it to the BBC: Night in the Woods video game creator Alec Holowka dies

They weren't oversighted; if they were, they wouldn't show in the history. They were revdelled. All of them were from IP 90.252.201.157 (Vodafone Consumer Broadband, Birmingham). it was blocked for 31 hours, which won't do much good as it's dead easy t get a new IP on that network.

You're living in the past. When RevDel was introduced, old-school oversight (which removed the edits from the page history) was deprecated. That was like 9 years ago. Suppression (attempted and failed rebranding of the process because the name is just nonsensical) works exactly like revdel, it just has the option to also hide the revisions from admins.

Thanks for the information. But am I right that if they were suppressed they weren't oversighted? And isn't it a bit silly to allow everyone, even non-admins, to see that edits were made? Complete hiding seems to be much more sensible.

Well, if you're referring to old-school oversight, that simply isn't done anymore. It was a giant pain in the ass. Supression replaced it, but the name stuck and it's still referred to as oversight although it is an entirely different process. You had to delete the entire page then restore it without the revisions in question. Doing that tended to draw attention rather than divert it, whereas suppression is not publicly logged. You can hide any aspect of the revision as needed, the diff, the edit summary, the user name or ip, so on the tightest setting the only thing that can be seen by non-oversighters is that an edit was made. It's a much more flexible and discreet tool.

[10920]

Before his death, the last human edit on Holowka's page dated back to June 2018.

[Anroth]

See here for one person's experience working with him. For what its worth I personally know others who had a similar experience with him, no doubt he was an absolutely awful person at times.

But its not even an uncommon situation. Abused person with mental issues takes advantage of people ripe for exploitation. Its almost textbook in fact.

Sadly what a lot of people wont get is that being a horrible person is not an excuse for trial-by-twitter. Quinn is arguably directly responsible for someones suicide. Its not surprising she went off twitter at light speed after he died.

Still, the self-promoting mercenary that she is will no doubt find a way to monetize his death somehow. Speaking engagements probably. Its going to be hard to beat the 'I was harrassed' drum when you have someones corpse around your neck though.

[Poetlister]

Before his death, the last human edit on Holowka's page dated back to June 2018.

That's scarcely surprising. He wasn't exactly notable enough to draw the crowds. For almost any BLP, one of the things most likely to cause a cascade of edits (other than posting it on the home page) is when the subject passes away. A suicide may well exacerbate that.

[10920]

Before his death, the last human edit on Holowka's page dated back to June 2018.

That's scarcely surprising. He wasn't exactly notable enough to draw the crowds. For almost any BLP, one of the things most likely to cause a cascade of edits (other than posting it on the home page) is when the subject passes away. A suicide may well exacerbate that.

Yeah, he was not very notable. For those (and there are thousands of these BLPs), they rarely get real edits except if they make the news for whatever reason. If people see the name in the news, the article will get a flood of edits. A death is one way, and the more controversial (or drama-filled), the more edits.

This speaks to one of two things (or a combination):

1)Wikipedia has far too many BLPs.
2)Wikipedia does not have enough competent editors to maintain all the articles.

As we know, Wikipedia certainly does not have enough admins, but one could also argue it doesn't have enough editors.

[Poetlister]

This speaks to one of two things (or a combination):

1)Wikipedia has far too many BLPs.
2)Wikipedia does not have enough competent editors to maintain all the articles.

As we know, Wikipedia certainly does not have enough admins, but one could also argue it doesn't have enough editors.

Certainly many BLPs seem to be of (to put it mildly) marginally notable figures. That is inevitable, given the vagueness of the notability criteria and the way that anyone can rapidly acquire an account that can create articles. Really, nobody should create an article unless htey're willing to commit to keeping an eye on it, but of course that's impossible to enforce. Anyway, over the course of time some article creators will die, or get blocked, or have good reasons to stop editing.

[Earthy Astringent]

I wub gamergate. It’s like the armies of assholes were given weapons and told to form a circle. But why no one has taken aim at Quinn is a bit disappointing.

[rhindle]

This speaks to one of two things (or a combination):

1)Wikipedia has far too many BLPs.
2)Wikipedia does not have enough competent editors to maintain all the articles.

As we know, Wikipedia certainly does not have enough admins, but one could also argue it doesn't have enough editors.

Certainly many BLPs seem to be of (to put it mildly) marginally notable figures. That is inevitable, given the vagueness of the notability criteria and the way that anyone can rapidly acquire an account that can create articles. Really, nobody should create an article unless htey're willing to commit to keeping an eye on it, but of course that's impossible to enforce. Anyway, over the course of time some article creators will die, or get blocked, or have good reasons to stop editing.

It is still my contention that many BLP's are "Original Research" mostly "SYNTH" and should be deleted on those grounds(based on their own policies). If there is no published bio, it's OR imo. That could be a good loophole in getting rid of problematic BLP's.

[Earthy Astringent]

Oh, and fuck “indie” everything.

[Jeff Hawke]

Really, nobody should create an article unless htey're willing to commit to keeping an eye on it, but of course that's impossible to enforce.

Or at least, unless there was a mechanism in place for ensuring that it would be maintained. This is a fundamental and fatal design failiure of Wikipedia. Even if they cannot curate their millions of unreferenced articles on random subjects, you might imagine that they would pay some attention to the thousands of potential libel cases waiting for them in the BLP list. But no. It has not worked, does not work and will never work. It can't just be tweaked, or reformed -- it must be destroyed. Hasten The Day!

[Poetlister]

This speaks to one of two things (or a combination):

1)Wikipedia has far too many BLPs.
2)Wikipedia does not have enough competent editors to maintain all the articles.

As we know, Wikipedia certainly does not have enough admins, but one could also argue it doesn't have enough editors.

Certainly many BLPs seem to be of (to put it mildly) marginally notable figures. That is inevitable, given the vagueness of the notability criteria and the way that anyone can rapidly acquire an account that can create articles. Really, nobody should create an article unless htey're willing to commit to keeping an eye on it, but of course that's impossible to enforce. Anyway, over the course of time some article creators will die, or get blocked, or have good reasons to stop editing.

It is still my contention that many BLP's are "Original Research" mostly "SYNTH" and should be deleted on those grounds(based on their own policies). If there is no published bio, it's OR imo. That could be a good loophole in getting rid of problematic BLP's.

I don't think that a rule that every BLP subject must have a full-length published biography is always sensible. There are plenty of living people who are notable by any reasonable standard who would be excluded. A good example would be many Government ministers (or former ones) in the United Kingdom. There is enough information in Who's Who and Dod's Parliamentary Companion about any of them to make a stub, even if no newspaper articles are used. If everything is properly referenced, it would be hard to claim "original research", and if it is not referenced it should be deleted. Of course, there still remains the problem of bias by selective reporting, but that can happen even if there is a published biography.

[Anroth]

Come now Poet, half the ministers in the chamber of fools show up, vote the way they are whipped, claim their expenses, go home. The new dog at no. 10 is more notable.

[Poetlister]

Come now Poet, half the ministers in the chamber of fools show up, vote the way they are whipped, claim their expenses, go home. The new dog at no. 10 is more notable.

You're right that the dog has had plenty of press coverage; it may well be notable enough to merit its own article. But I think that I can claim more first-hand knowledge than you can of how Government works and what ministers do. Ministers are not the same as backbench MPs. Maybe not every backbench MP is notable, but ministers do a great deal of work.

[Eric Corbett]

Really, nobody should create an article unless htey're willing to commit to keeping an eye on it, but of course that's impossible to enforce.

Or at least, unless there was a mechanism in place for ensuring that it would be maintained. This is a fundamental and fatal design failiure of Wikipedia. Even if they cannot curate their millions of unreferenced articles on random subjects, you might imagine that they would pay some attention to the thousands of potential libel cases waiting for them in the BLP list. But no. It has not worked, does not work and will never work. It can't just be tweaked, or reformed -- it must be destroyed. Hasten The Day!

I really couldn't agree more. BLPs should have no place on Wikipedia, and never should have. But the reason they do is because it drives Google traffic; Google traffic wins prizes, and the WMF think they can just hold their hands up and say "Nothing to do with me guv" if anyone complains.

But times are changing.

[Johnny Au]

Never forget various cups of coffee: Cup of coffee (T-H-L)

Cups of coffee are baseball players who played at the Major League level for one game in their entire career.

Apparently, they have Wikipedia articles just for playing at least one game at the Major League level.

The term is also used for ice hockey players who play in the NHL for only one game in their entire career.

[Poetlister]

BLPs should have no place on Wikipedia, and never should have. But the reason they do is because it drives Google traffic; Google traffic wins prizes, and the WMF think they can just hold their hands up and say "Nothing to do with me guv" if anyone complains.

But times are changing.

If (for the sake of argument) Wikipedia is regarded as a work of reference, then it can scarcely omit articles on really notable people, such as heads of government of the most important countries. Yes, BLPs have all sorts of problems under the current system. So do many other articles, such as those on breaking events (which should be banned under the rule that WP is not a newspaper). The fault is with the system, not the principle.

There should be a special category of admins called BLP guardians. All BLPs should be created in such a way that they are only visible to the creator and the guardians until a guardian approves them, and thereafter they should be fully protected. This would require some changes to the software. There would also need to be a sensible system for appointing the guardians, who would have to identify themselves to the WMF.

[Eric Corbett]

BLPs should have no place on Wikipedia, and never should have. But the reason they do is because it drives Google traffic; Google traffic wins prizes, and the WMF think they can just hold their hands up and say "Nothing to do with me guv" if anyone complains.

But times are changing.

If (for the sake of argument) Wikipedia is regarded as a work of reference, then it can scarcely omit articles on really notable people, such as heads of government of the most important countries. Yes, BLPs have all sorts of problems under the current system. So do many other articles, such as those on breaking events (which should be banned under the rule that WP is not a newspaper). The fault is with the system, not the principle.

There should be a special category of admins called BLP guardians. All BLPs should be created in such a way that they are only visible to the creator and the guardians until a guardian approves them, and thereafter they should be fully protected. This would require some changes to the software. There would also need to be a sensible system for appointing the guardians, who would have to identify themselves to the WMF.

If one regards Wikipedia is a serious work of reference, and if there proper editorial standards in place, with proper accountability, then perhaps. But there aren't, and I for one would not trust any WMF appointed guardians.

[Osborne]

There should be a special category of admins called BLP guardians. All BLPs should be created in such a way that they are only visible to the creator and the guardians until a guardian approves them, and thereafter they should be fully protected. This would require some changes to the software. There would also need to be a sensible system for appointing the guardians, who would have to identify themselves to the WMF.

1. Good idea, BLP guardians. There should be separation of power, therefore the guardians should not be admins.
2. This could be generalized with less strict rules to the whole encyclopedia: every article and edit is created as a draft for a preset amount of time (eg. one week for edits, 2 for articles). In that time the established users (eg. extended confirmed) can report it as vandalism, or vote to accept. If accepted by enough (eg. 5-10) editors within less than a week, or not reported for a week, then it goes live. Everypedia has a somewhat similar system.

Drafting and reviewing before publication would relax the time-critical mechanic of constant vandalism-monitoring from a race with vandals / non-favorite POVs to a review procedure built into the workflow. The pacing of editwars would be more like the DMV in Zootopia.

[Vigilant]

So salty...
https://www.markbernstein.org/Sep19/Gamergate.html

MarkyBark got his Spiderman costume out and climber the Reichstag again.

[Eric Corbett]

Can anyone please explain why someone calling himself Mark Bernstein has chosen to involve me in whatever this Gamergate thing is about? Something that I had absolutely nothing to do with?

I am in correspondence with him over the matter, and he freely admits that "I agree that you have no particular connection to Gamergate", so wtf is going on?

[Midsize Jake]

Can anyone please explain why someone calling himself Mark Bernstein has chosen to involve me in whatever this Gamergate thing is about? Something that I had absolutely nothing to do with?

Did you not see my explanation? I thought about moving those posts into this thread, but it was getting late and, well...

[Moral Hazard]

Worth quoting here, but the hyperlinks have been lost.

Osborne wrote:
https://www.markbernstein.org/Sep19/Gamergate.html
"right-wing Wikipedia"? Is that a thing? As I heard WP is leftist majority. And wtf this has to with politics, anyway?

How did you find that - did you just Google "Eric Corbett Wikipedia" or something? I notice that it's currently at the bottom of page 2 of the results, so that would be my guess...

Mr. Bernstein, who is a lurker here, is upset that his friend (in the anti-Gamergate contingent) PeterTheFourth (T-C-L) has been targeted for bannination by the scrupulously well-behaved Finnish right-winger Pudeo (T-C-L), who is also a member here and a regular poster. Normally I would tend to cut Mr. Bernstein a fair amount of slack, but in this case he seems to have decided to invoke the dread name of "Eric Corbett (T-C-L)" to distract his readers from the fact that PeterTheFourth (who is also a member here, as "PeterIV," but has only posted 14 times) was wrong to edit-war on the talk page of the Alec Holowka (T-H-L) article, and later his own talk page, in order to retain a Twitter link to sexual assault accusations against Holowka by Gamergate star-target (and now, apparently, transgender person) Zoe Quinn (T-H-L).

On top of that, he refers to The Devil's Advocate (T-C-L) as a "throwaway" account. As much as I disagree with Mr. Advocate about, well, just about everything imaginable, the idea that his WP account was ever a "throwaway" is simply complete horseshit.

So basically, Mr. Bernstein is taking an "end justifies means" approach to his use of (what he sees as) the enemy's tactics. Gamergaters couldn't care less about Mr. Corbett, just as Mr. Corbett doesn't care about them, and the attempt to get PeterTheFourth banned - while no-doubt opportunistic - is almost certainly not an attempt at "payback" for Mr. Corbett's recent Arbcom ban. If Mr. Bernstein wants to challenge that conclusion, he's welcome to stop lurking and tell us what his rationale is, but until then I think we can assume he's just looking to score political points off of a mostly non-political incident.

These posts probably belong in our "Watch for Gamergate to get hot again" thread, but the blog post by Mr. Bernstein is nevertheless illustrative of the sort of challenges Mr. Corbett will have to face if he's ever to shed his now all-too-public Wikipedia reputation.

[Eric Corbett]

Can anyone please explain why someone calling himself Mark Bernstein has chosen to involve me in whatever this Gamergate thing is about? Something that I had absolutely nothing to do with?

Did you not see my explanation? I thought about moving those posts into this thread, but it was getting late and, well...

Why did Vigilant try to boost this manifestly untrue blog post? And why did you allow him to do that?

I think you'll soon find that Mark Bernstein has changed his tune.

[Vigilant]

Can anyone please explain why someone calling himself Mark Bernstein has chosen to involve me in whatever this Gamergate thing is about? Something that I had absolutely nothing to do with?

Did you not see my explanation? I thought about moving those posts into this thread, but it was getting late and, well...

Why did Vigilant try to boost this manifestly untrue blog post? And why did you allow him to do that?

I think you'll soon find that Mark Bernstein has changed his tune.

What the hell are you on about now?

[Midsize Jake]

Why did Vigilant try to boost this manifestly untrue blog post? And why did you allow him to do that?

Mr. Osborne posted that, not Mr. Vigilant. And I did sort of look askance on it... are you saying I should delete such things on sight? If I did, you might never even be made aware of them.

I think you'll soon find that Mark Bernstein has changed his tune.

Good!

[Moral Hazard]

We can all agree that Mark Bernstein is ideological, dishonest, and (unlike GW) sloppy.

I believe Eric found the Reichstag-fire remark to be objectionable.

[Eric Corbett]

Why did Vigilant try to boost this manifestly untrue blog post? And why did you allow him to do that?

Mr. Osborne posted that, not Mr. Vigilant. And I did sort of look askance on it... are you saying I should delete such things on sight? If I did, you might never even be made aware of them.

I think you'll soon find that Mark Bernstein has changed his tune.

Good!

No, I'm not asking for anything other than a little peace from the constantly abusive Vigilant.

[Eric Corbett]

We can all agree that Mark Bernstein is ideological, dishonest, and (unlike GW) sloppy.

I believe Eric found the Reichstag-fire remark to be objectionable.

Indeed I did.

[Vigilant]

Here's another mention for you to whine to BarkyMark about.

https://www.markbernstein.org/Nov15/WikiStorms.html

Wiki Storms
An ongoing case at Wikipedia’s high court, ArbCom, was triggered by a recent article by Emma Paling at The Atlantic about Wikipedia’s Hostility To Women. That article mentions Eric Corbett, the immensely popular and influential Wikipedian who told another editor that “The easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.”

Civility is a central tenet of Wikipedia and the entire reason ArbCom found it necessary to sanction every editor on Gamergate’s notorious hit list. In the aftermath of the “cunt” affair, the woman to whom Corbett addressed this charming and witty remark was banned from Wikipedia. Corbett was instructed not to discuss the topic. He violated that ban to rebuke The Atlantic, and was blocked for the violation. Another administrator promptly unblocked him, ArbCom stepped in to defrock the administrator, and we were off to the races.

You’d think this would be hilarity enough for any one case. Alas, no.

ArbCom can’t even settle on a name for the case; it’s changed three times so far, and the current name – Arbitration Enforcement 2 -- doesn’t tell us much.
One of only two women on the arbitration committee was originally named as a party to the case, in a cynical ploy to remove a feminist from the deliberations. Ostensibly, she was a party because she had been quoted in The Atlantic!
Though the arbitrator was removed as a party to the case, she still had to recuse herself, so the ploy worked.
ArbCom says it can only act on evidence provided by volunteers, but no one knows precisely what the case is supposed to be about, and so no one knows what evidence is pertinent. Yesterday, ArbCom erased reams of evidence that most observers consider very pertinent to the subject of Arbitration Enforcement, evidence that officials trying to enforce arbitration decisions are subjected to systematic harassment organized by anti-feminist zealots. But apparently that’s not the evidence ArbCom wants.
This strikes me as an irregular way to proceed. The arbitrators apparently know what this oft-renamed case concerns; we don’t. The arbitrators apparently know what evidence they want. We do not, and as ArbCom has said elsewhere that they rely entirely on volunteer-supplied evidence, the consequences may be undesirable. Others have speculated that the arbitrators already know what conclusion they expect to draw in this case; I myself doubt this, because that would be efficient if nothing else, and that seems inconsistent with ArbCom’s inclinations.

The underlying problem here is not an individual but an organized effort to subvert the project in support of right-wing opposition to “political correctness” and dangerous Liberals. The Wikipedia Community is unable to address the damage this organized effort does to the “five pillars” or principles that govern Wikipedia, especially neutrality and civility which the subversives despise.

The Community is also unable to accept the damage to those pillars. The result, plainly, has been that the pillars are much bruised while very great damage has been done to what Wikipedia calls “the Community” but which clearly has fallen into pieces.

Wikipedia is supposedly governed by consensus, but most Wikipedians, including the most influential and powerful officers, appear to have a very feeble notion of consensus. I fancy there are some really useful discussions of “consensus” in 18th and 19th century Quaker writing. Where should I look? John Woolman?

[Vigilant]

So salty...
https://www.markbernstein.org/Sep19/Gamergate.html

MarkyBark got his Spiderman costume out and climber the Reichstag again.

I mentioned Mark being salty about another social justice warrior, PeterTheForth, getting tossed out of the GamerGate.
I didn't mention you, Eric.
I didn't go looking for something that mentions you.

The title of the thread, which you are free not to participate in, is

Watch for GamerGate to get hot again

Mark's blog post is right on topic for this thread.
Your constant, knee jerk whining is tiresome.

Perhaps you could state your objection to Mark's blog post instead of your objection to my linking to it.

[Midsize Jake]

So... Mr. Bernstein has basically been using Eric here as a "stalking horse," essentially, right? Since he's mentioned in various web-based news articles about the WP gender gap going back to 2014, Eric provides the convenient frame of reference that Mr. Bernstein needs in order to paint his opponents as not merely anti-feminists, but abusive anti-feminists. Never mind that Eric isn't really anti-feminist, he just wants to be able to treat everyone equally badly when he wants to (and on his own terms, of course).

It may be that this approach works well with non-Wikipedia people (who, presumably, are the people Mr. Bernstein is interested in), or at least it works better than the approach most of us would use (i.e., providing lots of explanatory detail about how Wikipedia actually "works"). So while his ideology doesn't bother me, this just seems like an easy-way-out, short-cut tactic on his part - one that implies that he doesn't think his intended audience can, or will, figure out the details on why these things are happening.

[Eric Corbett]

So... Mr. Bernstein has basically been using Eric here as a "stalking horse," essentially, right? Since he's mentioned in various web-based news articles about the WP gender gap going back to 2014, Eric provides the convenient frame of reference that Mr. Bernstein needs in order to paint his opponents as not merely anti-feminists, but abusive anti-feminists. Never mind that Eric isn't really anti-feminist, he just wants to be able to treat everyone equally badly when he wants to (and on his own terms, of course).

It may be that this approach works well with non-Wikipedia people (who, presumably, are the people Mr. Bernstein is interested in), or at least it works better than the approach most of us would use (i.e., providing lots of explanatory detail about how Wikipedia actually "works"). So while his ideology doesn't bother me, this just seems like an easy-way-out, short-cut tactic on his part - one that implies that he doesn't think his intended audience can, or will, figure out the details on why these things are happening.

I think that's a reasonable summary.

[Vigilant]

So... Mr. Bernstein has basically been using Eric here as a "stalking horse," essentially, right? Since he's mentioned in various web-based news articles about the WP gender gap going back to 2014, Eric provides the convenient frame of reference that Mr. Bernstein needs in order to paint his opponents as not merely anti-feminists, but abusive anti-feminists. Never mind that Eric isn't really anti-feminist, he just wants to be able to treat everyone equally badly when he wants to (and on his own terms, of course).

It may be that this approach works well with non-Wikipedia people (who, presumably, are the people Mr. Bernstein is interested in), or at least it works better than the approach most of us would use (i.e., providing lots of explanatory detail about how Wikipedia actually "works"). So while his ideology doesn't bother me, this just seems like an easy-way-out, short-cut tactic on his part - one that implies that he doesn't think his intended audience can, or will, figure out the details on why these things are happening.

I think that's a reasonable summary.

So, let's talk about your apology to me...

[Earthy Astringent]

So salty...
https://www.markbernstein.org/Sep19/Gamergate.html

MarkyBark got his Spiderman costume out and climber the Reichstag again.

Not to mention he got most of story about GG on-wiki wrong.

[ArmasRebane]

So salty...
https://www.markbernstein.org/Sep19/Gamergate.html

MarkyBark got his Spiderman costume out and climber the Reichstag again.

Not to mention he got most of story about GG on-wiki wrong.

Even for someone with a vested interest in skewing the facts, it's notable how badly he gets the story, considering he was on Wikipedia and should have a better-than-average understanding of it. Especially since his view ignores the fact that his side "won" Gamergate on Wikipedia: TDA and virtually every "pro"-GG party member who was sanctioned is no longer active or got banned, and the article certainly doesn't reflect Gamergate's characterization of itself.

[Earthy Astringent]

My favorite part was where he called Lighbreather a “leader” of the Gendergap project. Even they considered her a loon.