Another day, another Gamergate ArbCom case

[Zironic]

Wonderful idea, but how do you decide when someone has gotten on the soapbox? If anyone makes anything close to an editorial judgment, that will immediately be taken to be "activism". For example, well-meaning people can and do interpret Masem's support of using what has generally been considered in the past to be unreliable sources as a basis for counterpoints in a given article as a kind of "activism". Reasonable people could disagree as to whether that's really is activism, but that's basically my point right there.

Sitush as far as I can tell doesn't read reddit, use twitter or even play videogames. This makes him ideal for this sort of article because he has no previous knowledge or agenda to taint his edits....

So the criteria is that someone shouldn't read reddit, use twitter, or play videogames? Quite apart from that seeming rather arbitrary to me, how are you going to be able to figure out which accounts have those features and which don't? I'm somewhat transparent with my identity and only one of the three disqualifying criteria apply to me. If I hadn't told you that, would you have been able to determine whether I was lying? What if I was completely pseudonymous?

How do you tell when someone is on the soapbox? Well, comments like these are a good sign.

Gamergate has been dreaming for months of the opportunity to take over the Gamergate page, as well as the pages of their many victims, after driving out or overwhelming all who might stand in their way. That was the point of the zombie flood, the point of the Arbcom case, the point of insinuating that every opponent of Gamergate is a pedophile. Overnight, one of the main Gamergate boards started a thread about this very page, with 80 comments so far discussing strategy, the very great importance of securing Sitush as an ally, the likelihood of success, the fallback positions for new smear campaigns in case of failure. A different Gamergate board is exploring the best strategy to secure my topic ban by whatever means necessary. Isn't this fun? Isn't this edifying? A great way to treat your volunteers. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

My observations of Sitush aren't criteria, they're just observations. General purpose criteria would look more like.
A) No signs of activism in the topic area on or off wiki. Yes anonymous editors will dodge the off wiki criteria, however it's still worthwhile to weed out the non-anonymous activists.
B) The editors main contributions lie outside the broader topic area of the contention. In this particular case, editors who mainly edit games/feminism articles most likely have a stake one way or another.
C) The editor does not portray them-self as a martyr. If an editor thinks they're sacrificing themselves on behalf of wikipedia by editing the article, it's likely they care too much.

[Randy from Boise]

Mark Bernstein is a biased prick that should have been banned off GG long ago. Masem is an honest Wikipedian trying to do the right thing.

And yet it somehow doesn't strike you that this is precisely why Bernstein succeeds and Masem does not?

Just as (I assume) it doesn't bother you that if Bernstein fails and Masem succeeds, Wikipedia will probably take the worst PR hit it's had since the Essjay incident?

........Only because Bernstein and his ilk would feed the story to a bleating and vacant-eyed media, which really doesn't have a notion that GG is actually a grassroots conservative political movement, not an organized harassment campaign.

No, truth and honesty winning out over distortion does not bother me.

RfB

[Ihatemyusername]

Mark Bernstein is a biased prick that should have been banned off GG long ago. Masem is an honest Wikipedian trying to do the right thing.

And yet it somehow doesn't strike you that this is precisely why Bernstein succeeds and Masem does not?

Just as (I assume) it doesn't bother you that if Bernstein fails and Masem succeeds, Wikipedia will probably take the worst PR hit it's had since the Essjay incident?

You're heavily exaggerating how sympathetic Masem is towards gamergate. Gamergate would still come across looking pretty crappy in an article written by Masem. It's not like the article would suddenly become a long spiel about how Zoe Quinn is the worst person ever or anything. As it stands a good 20% of the article is written by Masem compared to a paltry 1-2% by Bernstein. Removing either or both would change close to nothing, except for the amount of drama.

[Randy from Boise]

Mark Bernstein is a biased prick that should have been banned off GG long ago. Masem is an honest Wikipedian trying to do the right thing.

And yet it somehow doesn't strike you that this is precisely why Bernstein succeeds and Masem does not?

Just as (I assume) it doesn't bother you that if Bernstein fails and Masem succeeds, Wikipedia will probably take the worst PR hit it's had since the Essjay incident?

You're heavily exaggerating how sympathetic Masem is towards gamergate. Gamergate would still come across looking pretty crappy in an article written by Masem. It's not like the article would suddenly become a long spiel about how Zoe Quinn is the worst person ever or anything. As it stands a good 20% of the article is written by Masem compared to a paltry 1-2% by Bernstein. Removing either or both would change close to nothing, except for the amount of drama.

True enough, there's plenty of crap to be apportioned. I don't hump GamerGate's leg, they aren't "my team" — they're a loose-knit conservative political group. All they have really wanted from WP is to be treated fairly...

RfB

[Zironic]

........Only because Bernstein and his ilk would feed the story to a bleating and vacant-eyed media, which really doesn't have a notion that GG is actually a grassroots conservative political movement, not an organized harassment campaign.

No, truth and honesty winning out over distortion does not bother me.

RfB

Well, GG and similar movements are interesting because they self-describe as grassroots liberal political movements while quite clearly behaving like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary (T-H-L) elements.

[Randy from Boise]

........Only because Bernstein and his ilk would feed the story to a bleating and vacant-eyed media, which really doesn't have a notion that GG is actually a grassroots conservative political movement, not an organized harassment campaign.

No, truth and honesty winning out over distortion does not bother me.

RfB

Well, GG and similar movements are interesting because they self-describe as grassroots liberal political movements while quite clearly behaving like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary (T-H-L) elements.

I think they identify as libertarian, not liberal. Certainly their collective vision of a bogey called "Social Justice Warriors" is clearly and obviously right wing, not left...

RfB

[iii]

General purpose criteria would look more like.
A) No signs of activism in the topic area on or off wiki. Yes anonymous editors will dodge the off wiki criteria, however it's still worthwhile to weed out the non-anonymous activists.
B) The editors main contributions lie outside the broader topic area of the contention. In this particular case, editors who mainly edit games/feminism articles most likely have a stake one way or another.
C) The editor does not portray them-self as a martyr. If an editor thinks they're sacrificing themselves on behalf of wikipedia by editing the article, it's likely they care too much.

As soon as you implement those criteria you will end up with accounts carefully designed to circumvent them. This situation only highlights this problem.

A better solution would be to have an editor who makes editorial decisions. It is impossible to eliminate bias, so at least the bias should be attributable. That's the kind of standard that every other serious reference work uses, and it would make sense now 15 years on for Wikipedia to implement it. Of course, it is important to come to terms with Ward Cunningham's excellent quote, "Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, came to me and asked me if a wiki could work for an encyclopedia. I told him that he would have a wiki, not an encyclopedia. A wiki has to have a purpose. People are not there to be social, but to change something."

[Zironic]

I'm hiding my reply to RfB as it's becoming increasingly tangental.

Well, GG and similar movements are interesting because they self-describe as grassroots liberal political movements while quite clearly behaving like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary (T-H-L) elements.

I think they identify as libertarian, not liberal. Certainly their collective vision of a bogey called "Social Justice Warriors" is clearly and obviously right wing, not left...

RfB

I think this is just a good demonstration why right wing and left wing are not necessarily useful labels. Most of those involved claim to be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-universal healthcare etc while being anti-'SJW's in our darn videogames'. There's also a lot of conservatives like Milo Yiannopoulos involved because the GG crowd make a great audience for their pre-existing anti-SJW screeds. Cognitive dissonance can help explain quite a lot of this but I also think that American political rhetoric has a tendency to vastly oversimplify the political landscape in general due to the 2 party system. Although to be fair to American politics, a lot of Swedish pundits are currently struggling with wrapping their heads around how the left (Social Democrats) lost a gigantic number of voters to the extreme right(Swedish Democrats, a nationalist conservative anti-immigration party).

General purpose criteria would look more like.
A) No signs of activism in the topic area on or off wiki. Yes anonymous editors will dodge the off wiki criteria, however it's still worthwhile to weed out the non-anonymous activists.
B) The editors main contributions lie outside the broader topic area of the contention. In this particular case, editors who mainly edit games/feminism articles most likely have a stake one way or another.
C) The editor does not portray them-self as a martyr. If an editor thinks they're sacrificing themselves on behalf of wikipedia by editing the article, it's likely they care too much.

As soon as you implement those criteria you will end up with accounts carefully designed to circumvent them. This situation only highlights this problem.

A better solution would be to have an editor who makes editorial decisions. It is impossible to eliminate bias, so at least the bias should be attributable. That's the kind of standard that every other serious reference work uses, and it would make sense now 15 years on for Wikipedia to implement it. Of course, it is important to come to terms with Ward Cunningham's excellent quote, "Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, came to me and asked me if a wiki could work for an encyclopedia. I told him that he would have a wiki, not an encyclopedia. A wiki has to have a purpose. People are not there to be social, but to change something."

True, but then you'd have an encyclopaedia, not a wiki!

[MMAR]

Mark Bernstein is a biased prick that should have been banned off GG long ago. Masem is an honest Wikipedian trying to do the right thing.

And yet it somehow doesn't strike you that this is precisely why Bernstein succeeds and Masem does not?

Just as (I assume) it doesn't bother you that if Bernstein fails and Masem succeeds, Wikipedia will probably take the worst PR hit it's had since the Essjay incident?

You're heavily exaggerating how sympathetic Masem is towards gamergate. Gamergate would still come across looking pretty crappy in an article written by Masem. It's not like the article would suddenly become a long spiel about how Zoe Quinn is the worst person ever or anything. As it stands a good 20% of the article is written by Masem compared to a paltry 1-2% by Bernstein. Removing either or both would change close to nothing, except for the amount of drama.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not an article penned exclusively by Masem would accurately reflect the weight of opinions in reliable sources. It seems pretty obvious to me that it would not. It seems pretty obvious to me why. He's attempting to push his own opinion into the article, to adjust for what he sees as media bias. I believe in Wikipedia parlance, that means he's a POV pusher. If the fact that 20% of the article has in fact been written by Masem is true, then he has perhaps been succeeding far more than he would have people believe, hence why he would gladly accept a temporary voluntary ban as a result of badly misjudging the merits of his AE case he brought in an attempt to silence someone who is standing in his way.

[Zironic]

If the fact that 20% of the article has in fact been written by Masem is true, then he has perhaps been succeeding far more than he would have people believe, hence why he would gladly accept a temporary voluntary ban as a result of badly misjudging the merits of his AE case he brought in an attempt to silence someone who is standing in his way.

While I agree that Masem has his own PoV that he wants to push and wouldn't be the ideal editor if a single editor was to be picked (He's simply considered the best of the ones currently active on that page) your characterisation here just isn't accurate. While Mark Bernstein is an ass in various ways that do not technically qualify as personal attacks, he's not actually by himself doing all that much to stop Masem from editing the article. To make anything stick to the article, Masem also has to fight the combined might of Brustopher, Strongjam, Woodroar, Aquillion, Dumuzid etc, getting rid of Mark is unlikely to make things measurably easier and none of the others are at risk of AE so it's not a repeatable procedure.

Also it's really fun to look at http://en.wikichecker.com/article/?a=Ta ... ontroversy, apparently it's been dragged to AE so many times that AE is their most frequently edited page after the GG page itself.

[Midsize Jake]

You're heavily exaggerating how sympathetic Masem is towards gamergate. Gamergate would still come across looking pretty crappy in an article written by Masem. It's not like the article would suddenly become a long spiel about how Zoe Quinn is the worst person ever or anything. As it stands a good 20% of the article is written by Masem compared to a paltry 1-2% by Bernstein. Removing either or both would change close to nothing, except for the amount of drama.

Right, but let me reiterate, I don't have any problem with Mr. Masem's writing skills or his ability to stay within whatever parameters are set for him. Nor do I think a "fairer" article about Gamergate would be all that bad a thing if (or maybe when) the pro-GG sources become sufficient to make it so.

The problem here is that if Wikipedia makes a formal decision before that time to set aside its sourcing rules just for them, that's a serious breach of public trust, and they're going to hear about it from the media in a big way. I seems like it would be a newsworthy event, and though it's hard right now to predict the severity and the extent of the coverage, we've already seen how successful Mr. Bernstein has been with spinning nothing more than a proposed Arbcom decision (to topic-ban some people, not even a content determination) out as though it was proof that the whole place had been taken over by misogynist dittoheads. Imagine how the "librul media" will react when they have something real to report.

I also tried earlier to explain the alleged media bias as simple lack of willingness to report hearsay when (somewhat) provable facts are available, rather than some sort of "SJW" wagon-circling conspiracy. I guess that went over like a lead balloon, but c'est la vie.

Last but not least, you also have the slippery-slope argument where if they make that exception for GG, won't they have to make the same exception for other highly-unpopular groups? On articles where there may not be a handy Masem waiting around for the go-ahead to try and rewrite them to make everyone happy?

[Zironic]

Last but not least, you also have the slippery-slope argument where if they make that exception for GG, won't they have to make the same exception for other highly-unpopular groups? On articles where there may not be a handy Masem waiting around for the go-ahead to try and rewrite them to make everyone happy?

Yes, any sort of policy decision made in this area would have to be broadly applicable for all partisan topics.

[Jimbo Jambo]

The problem here is that if Wikipedia makes a formal decision before that time to set aside its sourcing rules just for them, that's a serious breach of public trust, and they're going to hear about it from the media in a big way.

You attempt to frame this as an exception to sourcing rules. That's neither Masem's argument nor Rhoark's nor Ryk72's. Rather they want to more closely mirror the tone and coverage of respected publications like the NY Times, and reduce sourcing from gossip rags like The Mary Sue and The Verge.

Assuming by some circuitous logic this would bring wikipedia into disrepute, understand that an insignificantly small minority care about wikipedia politics one way or the other; while this may be a significant topic here the general public is uninterested.

[Jimbo Jambo]

Well... I'm not "indicting" Masem for his behavior,

Semantics.
There's no disagreement Masem's argument once is not a violation but you argue that repeated, it becomes a violation.
TDA argues Bernstein's incivility, aspersions, etc. once is not a violation but repeated, becomes a violation. You disagree.
Same argument, same reasoning, yet you reach opposite conclusions - I can't reconcile that.

He's reconciling it because only one of them is actually morally in the right - Wikipedia is not in the business of giving it's own editorial viewpoint on what Gamergate actually is.

This I can reconcile. I appreciate your honesty.

[MMAR]

The problem here is that if Wikipedia makes a formal decision before that time to set aside its sourcing rules just for them, that's a serious breach of public trust, and they're going to hear about it from the media in a big way.

You attempt to frame this as an exception to sourcing rules. That's neither Masem's argument nor Rhoark's nor Ryk72's. Rather they want to more closely mirror the tone and coverage of respected publications like the NY Times, and reduce sourcing from gossip rags like The Mary Sue and The Verge.

It's at this point that examples would help.

[Jimbo Jambo]

One editor, possibly Rhoark, compiled a summary of high-quality sources. I don't have the link on hand. It was posted to the talk page and I believe copied to the editor's user-space.

[Jimbo Jambo]

Found it. Now compare these to wikipedia's opening paragraph (below) and Masem's point seems reasonable:

The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns sexism in video game culture. It is most notable for a harassment campaign that sought to drive several feminists from the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian. The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate. The harassment included doxing, threats of rape, death threats and the threat of a mass shooting at a university speaking event.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Responding to some of the points:

1. Randy, if you want a good political analogy for GamerGate that you could understand, it would be Trotsky vs. Stalin with GamerGate as Trotsky.

2. The problem with Masem is that he actually seems to believe simply providing a comprehensive article based off coverage in reliable sources written according to Wikipedia existing rules would somehow require disregarding some aspect of policy. In fact, sufficient reliable sources exist that provide a more neutral or even sympathetic take on GamerGate than what is currently reflect by the article. Even with the biased sources policy is clear that editors are not obliged and actually discouraged from simply repeating partisan coverage.

3. As for what happens if Mark gets removed, the most active editors on that topic are SPAs and them being exposed to closer scrutiny is likely to put them in jeopardy. For now, Mark serves as a distraction from that point and removing him leaves those editors exposed.

[Jimbo Jambo]

3. As for what happens if Mark gets removed, the most active editors on that topic are SPAs and them being exposed to closer scrutiny is likely to put them in jeopardy.

Agreed. ForbiddenRocky's recent slip up was noticed.

Re: Masem's point, although it's been argued better by others (DHeyward), I was referring to the recognition of two distinct themes: internet harassment and backlash against moral authoritarians (the Stalinists in your analogy.)

It's a shame you're not still involved in that article but better for you personally perhaps Your recent block was unreasonable. I could link to NBSB's numerous "passes" for removal of lesser BLP violations but what purpose would it serve? Every rule on wiki is subject to arbitrary enforcement and interpretation, as it suits the enforcer's purpose.

[Midsize Jake]

1. Randy, if you want a good political analogy for GamerGate that you could understand, it would be Trotsky vs. Stalin with GamerGate as Trotsky.

I think Randy's perfectly capable of understanding something more contemporary like "Todd Akin vs. Elizabeth Warren" or "Ted Cruz vs. Hillary Clinton," despite his occasional lapses in common sense.

2. The problem with Masem is that he actually seems to believe simply providing a comprehensive article based off coverage in reliable sources written according to Wikipedia existing rules would somehow require disregarding some aspect of policy. In fact, sufficient reliable sources exist that provide a more neutral or even sympathetic take on GamerGate than what is currently reflect by the article.

Masem is right, actually. And we already know what sort of sources you consider "reliable," so I'm afraid you're not likely to be taken any more seriously on that claim than usual.

3. As for what happens if Mark gets removed, the most active editors on that topic are SPAs and them being exposed to closer scrutiny is likely to put them in jeopardy. For now, Mark serves as a distraction from that point and removing him leaves those editors exposed.

You really think this is all some sort of chess game, don't you? Not just a free-for-all, but something where rules are meaningful. So which type of chess-piece is Bernstein, then? (Don't answer that, it's not a serious question.)

Anyway, I don't think you'll get very far with this strategy, but I'm sure the further self-marginalization will be very entertaining, so... keep up the good work!

[Jimbo Jambo]

Half sounds like you're trying to convince yourself. Outrage always comes in waves. Satanist daycares, heavy metal turning boys into murderers. With religion's decline you have a lot of free-agent zealots looking for a bandwagon - this postmodern-ish PC stuff is the latest. PR, strategy, necessary tools of the minority. The majority only needs time.

[The Devil's Advocate]

So, here's something. NorthBySouthBaranof (T-C-L) is, like me, topic-banned per the standard topic ban outlined in the ArbCom case. That topic ban is explained as follows:

Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

Baranof has for some time been editing the article on activist Shaun King (T-C-L) per his usual "BLP for the people with whom I agree!" schtick. King has been in a bit of controversy due to being a proclaimed bi-racial leader of BlackLivesMatter despite numerous public records indicating he is white with white parents and has thus been lying about his race. His response was essentially, "I am not lying, the evidence is lying!" and apparently that was good enough for some of the more partisan left-wing media outlets despite family members stating to CNN that he is white and his parents are white.

All these allegations became widely known due to an article by Milo Yiannopoulos in Breitbart. Milo has been very active in covering GamerGate and is very much someone who would be associated with GamerGate. Baranof would theoretically be free to edit the article about Shaun King so long as he avoided anything referencing Milo, but instead it seems Baranof is quite deadset on doing everything he can to minimize, attack, and discredit Milo despite none of the claims he has made being refuted with actual evidence.

Cut to today and Baranof is now screaming his head off over at the talk page because one of the people who told Milo about the story has turned out to be a prolific troll who got arrested for sending bomb-making information to an FBI agent posing as a radical Islamist. As the troll was also involved in some GamerGate shenanigans the thread starts off suggesting material about this connection should be put on Milo's page or the GamerGate page. Despite his topic ban covering any edits about people associated with GamerGate, he is now crying shrilly about two people he definitely knows are connected to GamerGate.

It appears Baranof wants to use this to further lend credence to his attempts at trashing Milo in that article as somehow being completely refuted and discredited because he may have learned about the public record evidence from a troll, even though said evidence has been verified by numerous outlets held with higher esteem than Breitbart and the troll is never cited in the article at all. So far no one seems to be pointing out or acknowledging the topic ban violations. He should definitely know that such commentary on Milo and the troll would be covered given he previously went through a contentious AE case focused on the question of whether a figure with no obvious connection to GamerGate was connected due to a gender-related dispute or controversy concerning something she said in her memoirs.

Seems people are giving Baranof so much leeway that he is looking to see how much he can abuse it for his own partisan purposes.

[Vigilant]

Good lord, what a smug, sanctimonious, punchable-faced asshole.

[Randy from Boise]

Baranof has for some time been editing the article on activist Shaun King (T-C-L) per his usual "BLP for the people with whom I agree!" schtick. King has been in a bit of controversy due to being a proclaimed bi-racial leader of BlackLivesMatter despite numerous public records indicating he is white with white parents and has thus been lying about his race. His response was essentially, "I am not lying, the evidence is lying!" and apparently that was good enough for some of the more partisan left-wing media outlets despite family members stating to CNN that he is white and his parents are white.

(lyrics)
RfB

[Cla68]

Good lord, what a smug, sanctimonious, punchable-faced asshole.

An adult finally stepped between the children and dealt with it. Just like Ryulong, I think NorthbySouth needs to get out of the house a bit more.

[Vigilant]

Good lord, what a smug, sanctimonious, punchable-faced asshole.

An adult finally stepped between the children and dealt with it. Just like Ryulong, I think NorthbySouth needs to get out of the house a bit more.

NorthBySouthDingbat is a sock of FCYTravis, notorious diaper wearing self-shitter.
He needs psychiatric help and to stay the hell away from wikipedia. In that way, he is very much like Ryulong.

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Travis_Mason-Bushman

I have a mutual acquaintance who met him at a race and said he was the creepiest person that he'd ever met.

[Midsize Jake]

All these allegations became widely known due to an article by Milo Yiannopoulos in Breitbart. Milo has been very active in covering GamerGate and is very much someone who would be associated with GamerGate. Baranof would theoretically be free to edit the article about Shaun King so long as he avoided anything referencing Milo, but instead it seems Baranof is quite deadset on doing everything he can...

Blah blah blah, delete racist horseshit.

I would think that forcing a black man to admit he doesn't know who his biological father is by questioning his "racial authenticity," based on the obviously, blatantly flimsy information on his birth records, which is probably there because his Mom is real goddamned tired of being called a "{n-word}-lover" every time she walks into the Wal-Mart to buy smokes and is willing to lie about who his particular semen-donor was just to make it stop, is just about the most virulently racist, despicable, sickening thing someone who farcically calls himself a "journalist" could possibly do. But I guess that's just me.

At least Mr. so-called "Yiannopoulos" is getting paid for doing these kinds of bogus hit-pieces. What's your excuse, Mr. Advocate? Do you get some sort of award or prize for the degree to which you can debase yourself? Is someone paying you to make yourself look like unadulterated racist filth?

[Midsize Jake]

Good lord, what a smug, sanctimonious, punchable-faced asshole.

What other personality type would be willing to go toe-to-toe with people like them on a near-daily basis?

The gamers make the environment as toxic as possible, so of course the "nice people" and the "cool people" are going to disappear after a few weeks - leaving people like this guy to do all their dirty work. Frankly, they're lucky they have him.

[Jimbo Jambo]

She brings his birth certificate to the Walmart?

[The Devil's Advocate]

Baranof hasn't returned to the Shaun King article for nearly five days. I wonder if that is because he saw my post pointing out that he was repeatedly violating his topic ban for weeks or was tipped off about it and decided to scuttle off lest he get in trouble. Amazing the kind of stuff he has been allowed to get away with over there.

[Vigilant]

Let's face it, even if Jay's once-a-year "preserve my admin status" edits include a few mildly controversial ones, we need to compare this to back in the day, when he'd storm onto the really controversial IP articles, get a few other heavyweight editors (ie. SV) to "watch his back", and checkuser the shit out of anyone who disagreed with them. Those days are, thankfully, gone.

Whatever did happen to Crum375? Still (occasionally) here and mostly writing about airlines and cycling, by the looks of it...

Those days are still here.
The people and/or masks have just changed.

6SJ7, Jiujitsuguy (still agitating off-site; Wikipedia's Israel Problem), Humus sapiens, etc...I have no doubt at all they're still around in some form.

I had no idea that State-sponsored Internet sockpuppetry (T-H-L) was actually a notable topic, either.

I was talking about you and your buddies on GamerGate.

[Tarc]

I was talking about you and your buddies on GamerGate.

A bit and , seeing how no one was talking about GG in a thread about Jayjg, the Israeli-Palestine topic area, and socking therein.

[Black Kite]

I was talking about you and your buddies on GamerGate.

A bit and , seeing how no one was talking about GG in a thread about Jayjg, the Israeli-Palestine topic area, and socking therein.

Well, this, and the fact I was talking about heavy-duty misuse of Checkuser to further a POV in a contentious area. If anyone is still doing that to the extent that Jayjg and his cronies were, I'd be interested to know it.

[Vigilant]

I was talking about you and your buddies on GamerGate.

A bit and , seeing how no one was talking about GG in a thread about Jayjg, the Israeli-Palestine topic area, and socking therein.

We strayed into the cabal topic.
Abuse of process, gangbanging anyone who doesn't share our outlook, rules are for the others...

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

For the record, I don't give two shits about gamergate, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, the five horsemen or the Five Guys Burgers and Fries ... except as to how it plays out on wikipedia.

Your little gang have been absolute shits and have spindled, folded and mutilated the rules to get your way on that series of articles.

You guys have gone so far over the line that ARBCOM has had to remove several of you, even though they all support your position and hate the gamergat[e|o]rs coming to en.wp.

Ryulong and Mark Bernstein, in particular, do your cause vastly more harm than good.

[Tarc]

Yet another Wikipedia front opens;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... a_Uprising

[Jim]

Yet another Wikipedia front opens;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... a_Uprising

Remarkable. I mean, that anyone still cares. (or ever cared, really)
I guess you have to give credit for the longevity. To someone. Or not.

[Zoloft]

Split off 'The GamerGate Topic' into its own writhing, living thing.

Will be moving posts germane to that topic from here, to there, and Wikipedia-germane posts from there, to here.

[Poetlister]

Split off 'The GamerGate Topic' into its own writhing, living thing.

A Herculean labour almost in the league of cleaning the stables of Augeas! How do we award a barnstar here?

[Vigilant]

Split off 'The GamerGate Topic' into its own writhing, living thing.

A Herculean labour almost in the league of cleaning the stables of Augeas! How do we award a barnstar here?

I always thought this one was underused.