The Wikipedia Critics' Forum
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/
Formerly called Malleus Fatuorum, Eric Corbett again used "cunt" in the northern English sense, not applied to anybody in particular, and a few people went bananas. Calm and wiser persons pacified the aggrieved person. As usual, Eric was defended by women contributors who actually write serious articles.SB_Johnny wrote:Almost certainly completely unrelated to the blog post, but if anyone harbors a doubt about whether the gender wars are a live issue among WP's "content contributors", here's proof.
What do you suppose this is supposed to mean, then?Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Formerly called Malleus Fatuorum, Eric Corbett again used "cunt" in the northern English sense, not applied to anybody in particular, and a few people went bananas. Calm and wiser persons pacified the aggrieved person. As usual, Eric was defended by women contributors who actually write serious articles.SB_Johnny wrote:Almost certainly completely unrelated to the blog post, but if anyone harbors a doubt about whether the gender wars are a live issue among WP's "content contributors", here's proof.
This has nothing to do with academic feminists or "gender wars".
Are you somehow able to distinguish between which feminists are "academic" and which are "prissy militant"?The discussion seems to be more about you and your prissy militant feminist friends.
Not sure where you got that impression from. This is turning into Cuntgate. And Eric has been blocked for 72 hours ... not for saying the c-word in female company, but for an edit summary.Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Calm and wiser persons pacified the aggrieved person.
And there is something or other about child porn in there as well ...Thank you for the kind word, Bish. I feel better already. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The aggrieved editor seemed to accept that others had consensus she was over-reacting and misunderstanding/mischaracterizing Eric's (ill chosen) remark at 3 discussions at AN and ANI and some administrators' talk pages. Snottywong / Scottywong again tried to provoke Eric, with his usual failure.HRIP7 wrote:Not sure where you got that impression from. This is turning into Cuntgate. And Eric has been blocked for 72 hours ... not for saying the c-word in female company, but for an edit summary.Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Calm and wiser persons pacified the aggrieved person.
To me a clue would be that academic feminists are involved in article improvement and in writing more articles on women. Those who run to drama and complaint boards and spam user talk pages to forum shop are the prissy militants.iii wrote: Are you somehow able to distinguish between which feminists are "academic" and which are "prissy militant"?
It seems that you missed the false dichotomy in that comparison. You also missed that the pejorative adjective employed is needlessly and, I would say, inflammatorily sexist . Additionally, the pejorative noun employed is not equivalent to a person who is being judged solely on the basis of writing certain strings of words on a page on the internet.snowskarlet wrote:To me a clue would be that academic feminists are involved in article improvement and in writing more article on women. Those who run to drama and complaint boards and spam user talk pages to forum shop are the prissy militants.....iii wrote: Are you somehow able to distinguish between which feminists are "academic" and which are "prissy militant"?
Hence, a futile exercise in semantics in both cases; yours and mine.iii wrote:It seems that you missed the false dichotomy in that comparison. You also missed that the pejorative adjective employed is needlessly and, I would say, inflammatorily sexist . Additionally, the pejorative noun employed is not equivalent to a person who is being judged solely on the basis of writing certain strings of words on a page on the internet.snowskarlet wrote:To me a clue would be that academic feminists are involved in article improvement and in writing more article on women. Those who run to drama and complaint boards and spam user talk pages to forum shop are the prissy militants.....iii wrote: Are you somehow able to distinguish between which feminists are "academic" and which are "prissy militant"?
Sitush is a middle-aged white guy from Manchester.HRIP7 wrote:Not sure where you got that impression from. This is turning into Cuntgate. And Eric has been blocked for 72 hours ... not for saying the c-word in female company, but for an edit summary.Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Calm and wiser persons pacified the aggrieved person.
And now Bishonen (T-C-L) has called an Indian editor a ciunt. (She did it at his request, I hasten to add!)And there is something or other about child porn in there as well ...Thank you for the kind word, Bish. I feel better already. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Just a day in the life of the wonderful project designed to make the sum of human knowledge freely available to all.
Any mind cogitating cliches---particularly the pomo pseudoacademic decadence displayed in worrying about "science wars", "gender wars", "math wars", etc.---was a terrible thing to have wasted.snowskarlet wrote:Hence, a futile exercise in semantics in both cases; yours and mine.iii wrote:It seems that you missed the false dichotomy in that comparison. You also missed that the pejorative adjective employed is needlessly and, I would say, inflammatorily sexist . Additionally, the pejorative noun employed is not equivalent to a person who is being judged solely on the basis of writing certain strings of words on a page on the internet.snowskarlet wrote:To me a clue would be that academic feminists are involved in article improvement and in writing more article on women. Those who run to drama and complaint boards and spam user talk pages to forum shop are the prissy militants.....iii wrote: Are you somehow able to distinguish between which feminists are "academic" and which are "prissy militant"?
Under which identity did you endorse him?Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:BWilkins and I have often disagreed, and he likely has blocked me (or at least supported blocks) in the past.
Yet, here again, BWilkins / DangerousPanda displayed admirable backbone, humility (in presenting the ANI consensus rather than his ego), and calmness.
Perhaps those who objected to my endorsement of him (for similar qualities and actions) in the last Arbcom Election may reconsider whether they have underestimated him?
Good point, and In fact it's commonplace all over the British Isles. "Hen" is a Scots term of endearment. Ditto "duckie" among Cockneys. And many Brits take a gander at the daily tabloid photos of bare-breasted birds, some of whom appear in films which always turn out to be turkeys.Kumioko wrote:Its not like Eric isn't well known to use fowl language
I have repeatedly growled and swore about him, but he has been brave and unflinching here.Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:BWilkins and I have often disagreed, and he likely has blocked me (or at least supported blocks) in the past.
Yet, here again, BWilkins / DangerousPanda displayed admirable backbone, humility (in presenting the ANI consensus rather than his ego), and calmness.
Perhaps those who objected to my endorsement of him (for similar qualities and actions) in the last Arbcom Election may reconsider whether they have underestimated him?
"Hen" is also the Swedish androgynous pronoun that some feminists wish to replace "he" ("han") and "she" ("hon").Writegeist wrote:Good point, and In fact it's commonplace all over the British Isles. "Hen" is a Scots term of endearment. Ditto "duckie" among Cockneys. And many Brits take a gander at the daily tabloid photos of bare-breasted birds, some of whom appear in films which always turn out to be turkeys.Kumioko wrote:Its not like Eric isn't well known to use fowl language
Farsi is gender-neutral (though probably not because of Persian feminist activism), and also does without definite and indefinite pronouns.Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:"Hen" is also the Swedish androgynous pronoun that some feminists wish to replace "he" ("han") and "she" ("hon").Writegeist wrote:Good point, and In fact it's commonplace all over the British Isles. "Hen" is a Scots term of endearment. Ditto "duckie" among Cockneys. And many Brits take a gander at the daily tabloid photos of bare-breasted birds, some of whom appear in films which always turn out to be turkeys.Kumioko wrote:Its not like Eric isn't well known to use fowl language
Surely, Vigilant, your heart was pumping as much peanut butter as mine was after BHG's sycophancy towards "the founder" Jimmy Wales and outgoing WMF CEO Sue Gardner ("up against the wall, the way Ironholds likes it").Vigilant wrote:BrownHairedGirl (T-C-L) sure is a self-righteous victim.
The former Executive Director Sue Gardener (sic) repeatedly acknowledged the seriousness of the incivility problem, even noting that when she met people with the expertise to significantly enhance Wikipedia's coverage of neglected areas, she was reluctant to recommend that they expose themselves to such a hostile editing environment. That is an appalling indictment of the foundation's governance, particular when editor retention is problem acknowledged by all involved. -- BrownHairedGirl 12:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)
Why does Wikipedia tolerate people who address other editors like that? Even when they post like that to the talk page of Wikipedia's founder -- BrownHairedGirl 10:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The secret about Eric is that he throws verbal haymakers but has a glass chin. He is easy to bait and prone to go berserk when baited.Kumioko wrote:I also agree that at some point Eric/Malleus will be banned. I don't condone his conduct and have often disagreed with his "statements" and language but I don't think he is the worst one on the project. Yes he uses some foul language and absrasive tone but in almost every case, when looked into, you will see that someone baited him into it, often times an admin who would then block him. So although I cannot completely be on Eric's side here, I also do not think he is the only one who is culpible either. I rather hope that someone does an Arbcom case and that the arbs in a rare attempt to do the right thing for once due some due diligence and get rid of some of the abusive admins who actively harass, bait and stalk eric's edits. I rather doubt it, because lets face it the arbcom is neither thorough, fair or even competent, but it is my hope anyway.
Agreed. I am not sayin gthat Eric shouldn't be blocked for his swearing but I can't see a ban for an editor with that much content development to their credit. Especially when he is being baited by some others including admins. I definately think he needs to get some thicker skin and yes the same can be said of me and a lot of others.Randy from Boise wrote:The secret about Eric is that he throws verbal haymakers but has a glass chin. He is easy to bait and prone to go berserk when baited.Kumioko wrote:I also agree that at some point Eric/Malleus will be banned. I don't condone his conduct and have often disagreed with his "statements" and language but I don't think he is the worst one on the project. Yes he uses some foul language and absrasive tone but in almost every case, when looked into, you will see that someone baited him into it, often times an admin who would then block him. So although I cannot completely be on Eric's side here, I also do not think he is the only one who is culpible either. I rather hope that someone does an Arbcom case and that the arbs in a rare attempt to do the right thing for once due some due diligence and get rid of some of the abusive admins who actively harass, bait and stalk eric's edits. I rather doubt it, because lets face it the arbcom is neither thorough, fair or even competent, but it is my hope anyway.
He also does excellent work at Wikipedia, it is always worth mentioning.
How much value does one place on having a nice, polite Friendly Space™ Teaparty and how much value does one place on having the best Encyclopedia-and-Compendium-of-General-Information possible?
THAT is the big question...
RfB
The tendency to threaten to quit if he doesn't get his own way is an EC characteristic I don't much care for. It seems a fairly widespread practice. There's even one pompous ass who does the announcing in Latin, which makes him look even more of a hilarious fuckwit. Three things I do like about the way EC operates: he doesn't suffer fools gladly, he calls them on their bullshit, and he doesn't mince his words.Kumioko wrote:Agreed. I am not sayin gthat Eric shouldn't be blocked for his swearing but I can't see a ban for an editor with that much content development to their credit. Especially when he is being baited by some others including admins. I definately think he needs to get some thicker skin and yes the same can be said of me and a lot of others.Randy from Boise wrote:The secret about Eric is that he throws verbal haymakers but has a glass chin. He is easy to bait and prone to go berserk when baited.Kumioko wrote:I also agree that at some point Eric/Malleus will be banned. I don't condone his conduct and have often disagreed with his "statements" and language but I don't think he is the worst one on the project. Yes he uses some foul language and absrasive tone but in almost every case, when looked into, you will see that someone baited him into it, often times an admin who would then block him. So although I cannot completely be on Eric's side here, I also do not think he is the only one who is culpible either. I rather hope that someone does an Arbcom case and that the arbs in a rare attempt to do the right thing for once due some due diligence and get rid of some of the abusive admins who actively harass, bait and stalk eric's edits. I rather doubt it, because lets face it the arbcom is neither thorough, fair or even competent, but it is my hope anyway.
He also does excellent work at Wikipedia, it is always worth mentioning.
How much value does one place on having a nice, polite Friendly Space™ Teaparty and how much value does one place on having the best Encyclopedia-and-Compendium-of-General-Information possible?
THAT is the big question...
RfB
He's a dick...all the fucking time.Kumioko wrote:Agreed. I am not sayin gthat Eric shouldn't be blocked for his swearing but I can't see a ban for an editor with that much content development to their credit. Especially when he is being baited by some others including admins. I definately think he needs to get some thicker skin and yes the same can be said of me and a lot of others.Randy from Boise wrote:The secret about Eric is that he throws verbal haymakers but has a glass chin. He is easy to bait and prone to go berserk when baited.Kumioko wrote:I also agree that at some point Eric/Malleus will be banned. I don't condone his conduct and have often disagreed with his "statements" and language but I don't think he is the worst one on the project. Yes he uses some foul language and absrasive tone but in almost every case, when looked into, you will see that someone baited him into it, often times an admin who would then block him. So although I cannot completely be on Eric's side here, I also do not think he is the only one who is culpible either. I rather hope that someone does an Arbcom case and that the arbs in a rare attempt to do the right thing for once due some due diligence and get rid of some of the abusive admins who actively harass, bait and stalk eric's edits. I rather doubt it, because lets face it the arbcom is neither thorough, fair or even competent, but it is my hope anyway.
He also does excellent work at Wikipedia, it is always worth mentioning.
How much value does one place on having a nice, polite Friendly Space™ Teaparty and how much value does one place on having the best Encyclopedia-and-Compendium-of-General-Information possible?
THAT is the big question...
RfB
He's an asshole.Writegeist wrote:The tendency to threaten to quit if he doesn't get his own way is an EC characteristic I don't much care for. It seems a fairly widespread practice. There's even one pompous ass who does the announcing in Latin, which makes him look even more of a hilarious fuckwit. Three things I do like about the way EC operates: he doesn't suffer fools gladly, he calls them on their bullshit, and he doesn't mince his words.
Good question.Vigilant wrote: How long would he have teeth if he said this to people in person?
About as long as you?Vigilant wrote:a giant douche [...] an obvious dickhole [...] a dick [...] an asshole
Or me?Writegeist wrote:...pompous ass...hilarious fuckwit
I personally find it quite ironic that you and he share a lot of the same characteristics. In fact I haven't completely decided if your not Eric yourself.Vigilant wrote:He's an asshole.Writegeist wrote:The tendency to threaten to quit if he doesn't get his own way is an EC characteristic I don't much care for. It seems a fairly widespread practice. There's even one pompous ass who does the announcing in Latin, which makes him look even more of a hilarious fuckwit. Three things I do like about the way EC operates: he doesn't suffer fools gladly, he calls them on their bullshit, and he doesn't mince his words.
That's the word you're searching for.
In a collaborative work, he's a huge net negative.
An encyclopedia-builder who calls people cunts or questions people's intelligence face to face is at risk of having his teeth knocked out, whereas there's no risk to a non-encyclopedia builder who calls people douches, dickholes, dicks, and assholes?Vigilant wrote:I feel confident that your false equivalency is plain for all to see. I am not trying to build an encyclopedia.Writegeist wrote:Good question.Vigilant wrote: How long would he have teeth if he said this to people in person?About as long as you?Vigilant wrote:a giant douche [...] an obvious dickhole [...] a dick [...] an assholeOr me?Writegeist wrote:...pompous ass...hilarious fuckwit
Further, I am more than confident that my fingers are not writing checks my body can't cash.
where we find this gem of truth:HRIP7 wrote:I say, Jimbo was taken to ANI. Discussion on his talk page.
When this sort of thing kicks off, as it regularly does, don't you just think 'who the hell would want to get involved with us'? Anyone looking in on WP from the outside must think this place is just bonkers. DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen his pictures.Writegeist wrote:An encyclopedia-builder who calls people cunts or questions people's intelligence face to face is at risk of having his teeth knocked out, whereas there's no risk to a non-encyclopedia builder who calls people douches, dickholes, dicks, and assholes?Vigilant wrote:I feel confident that your false equivalency is plain for all to see. I am not trying to build an encyclopedia.Writegeist wrote:Good question.Vigilant wrote: How long would he have teeth if he said this to people in person?About as long as you?Vigilant wrote:a giant douche [...] an obvious dickhole [...] a dick [...] an assholeOr me?Writegeist wrote:...pompous ass...hilarious fuckwit
Further, I am more than confident that my fingers are not writing checks my body can't cash.
Absent any evidence either way I must take your word for your ability to protect your teeth. I'd give EC the same benefit of the same doubt. Do you have evidence he can't defend himself?
That is missed a lot. And pointing it out qualifies you as a militant feminist, if not more.iii wrote:.... You also missed that the pejorative adjective employed is needlessly and, I would say, inflammatorily sexist. ....
Bingo.Randy from Boise wrote:The infuriating thing about Eric is that he completely knows that the word cunt has an inflammatory and ultra-sexist amplified meaning in American English, yet he gleefully charges forward lobbing his verbal petrol bombs...
Well, someday soon one of those will blow up in his face and that will be the end of Eric on Wikipedia.
Just. Knock. It. The. Fuck. Off.
How much clearer can it be? There's a difference between "refusing to suffer fools gladly" and being an inflammatory asshole about it.
RfB
In American English, "cunt" is an obscene and very highly derogatory word for women, with thick overtones of misogyny. It is the sort of slur that a wife beater would use before throwing a punch, and has an impact roughly on a par of calling a black person "nigger." It is a word rarely uttered, even by pottymouths.enwikibadscience wrote:But it often is more than "just using an offensive word to insult someone." That is my point. It is an offensive word also used to demean women as a whole. "Shithead" and "douchebag" aren't used prejudicially against people of a certain gender, race, religion or other often minority status. If you just say "cunt" and I have to guess something about the person you are name-calling, I will start with female. It's not a coin toss probability.Midsize Jake wrote:Of course it's offensive, but the concept of "hate speech" has (for the most part) usually referred to something different - i.e., something more than just using an offensive word to insult someone. The rule I always went with was, if you can substitute another naughty word like "asshole" or "dickface" and not change the meaning of the sentence that included the insult, then that's all it is. Whereas, Mr. Wolfowitz was making a fairly bald-faced attempt to characterize someone's actions as Nazi-like, which implies a good deal more than simply saying the person was a "shithead" or "giant douche" or something.enwikibadscience wrote:Roll out the bold print, indeed, to prove I'm a femiBitch, please, for thinking "cunt" is offensive.
I'm not saying we can't have that discussion, though. This might even be an appropriate thread to do it in... personally I've always avoided use of the c-word in everything I post and in my daily life as well, but that's just me - the argument that British people take a more cavalier approach to that word isn't completely off-base. Most forum managers tend to resist use of badwords filters and "disemvoweling" because members feel like they're being treated like children, and of course we've also seen how the badwords-filter feature can be abused in petty and malicious ways. Still, elevating "the c-word" to the level of "the n-word" in terms of how the mods react to various posts isn't necessarily a bad idea.
It is completely unnecessary to throw "cunt" around, and, while I bet many in here also are equally not targeted by "nigger" there is a sensitivity to that word that is missing with "cunt."
Are you trying to flatter me?enwikibadscience wrote:That is missed a lot. And pointing it out qualifies you as a militant feminist, if not more.iii wrote:.... You also missed that the pejorative adjective employed is needlessly and, I would say, inflammatorily sexist. ....
Okay then - I completely agree with this. (It doesn't cover the cultural-difference argument, but who cares what the British think, after all.) What do we do rules-wise, though? If someone uses that word gratuitously when another, most gender-neutral naughty word would readily suffice, do we warn-then-suspend? Public or private warnings? If the warning doesn't work, maybe start with 24 hours, then 48, then a week, then indefinite? I assume you're not demanding zero-tolerance, but... would you prefer zero-tolerance?enwikibadscience wrote:But it often is more than "just using an offensive word to insult someone." That is my point. It is an offensive word also used to demean women as a whole. "Shithead" and "douchebag" aren't used prejudicially against people of a certain gender, race, religion or other often minority status. If you just say "cunt" and I have to guess something about the person you are name-calling, I will start with female. It's not a coin toss probability.
The first week of our forum, I was testing out a word-censor (which substituted 'neighbor' for the n-word and 'cutie' for the c-word if I recall correctly) and people were outraged at this attack on the citadel of their freedoms.Midsize Jake wrote:Okay then - I completely agree with this. (It doesn't cover the cultural-difference argument, but who cares what the British think, after all.) What do we do rules-wise, though? If someone uses that word gratuitously when another, most gender-neutral naughty word would readily suffice, do we warn-then-suspend? Public or private warnings? If the warning doesn't work, maybe start with 24 hours, then 48, then a week, then indefinite? I assume you're not demanding zero-tolerance, but... would you prefer zero-tolerance?enwikibadscience wrote:But it often is more than "just using an offensive word to insult someone." That is my point. It is an offensive word also used to demean women as a whole. "Shithead" and "douchebag" aren't used prejudicially against people of a certain gender, race, religion or other often minority status. If you just say "cunt" and I have to guess something about the person you are name-calling, I will start with female. It's not a coin toss probability.
Hmm... and rightly so I'd say, given that badwords filters don't discriminate between quoted material and oblique references to word-usage, which is sort of what we're doing now. I'm afraid it pretty much has to be a "cultural" prohibition if we're going to do it, in which case it's just a matter of determining the level of support for it - especially among our female participants - and beyond that, how to respond to violations.Zoloft wrote:The first week of our forum, I was testing out a word-censor (which substituted 'neighbor' for the n-word and 'cutie' for the c-word if I recall correctly) and people were outraged at this attack on the citadel of their freedoms.
Yes, but everyone keeps saying Eric is being provoked to troll. No. He's trolling because he wants to, like all trolls.Vigilant wrote:....
It's trolling in the original and purest sense of the word.
....
You could be right. This is much of the problem with calls for civility on en.Wikipedia, you are asking a bunch of uncouth oafs to be better than they are capable of.Randy from Boise wrote: ....
If he did it consciously to get PC minds aflutter, it would have been a troll — but a poorly conceived one. But, per usual, this is just a case of obnoxious thoughtlessness, which seems to be a particular specialty of Eric's...
....
RfB
For stating the obvious? Always.iii wrote:Are you trying to flatter me?enwikibadscience wrote:That is missed a lot. And pointing it out qualifies you as a militant feminist, if not more.iii wrote:.... You also missed that the pejorative adjective employed is needlessly and, I would say, inflammatorily sexist. ....