Signpost - Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

[Vigilant]

Wikipedia Signpost - Editorial: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

More likely, it will go out not with a bang but with a whimper, slowly and incrementally, perhaps as the funding shrinks or Google drops the search engine prominence of what it perceives to be a misogynistic cesspool. Historians will look back on this as the turning point, and as old men (as we are, after all, mostly men) we will wonder whatever happened to that fun project where we used to spend so much of our time.

The comments are to die for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... /Editorial

All of the usual suspects picking at each other's scabs.

Eric Corbett is not a threat to Wikipedia. This isn't about Eric Corbett, it's about the entire encyclopedia's failure to deal with these issues. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

+1. Eric is a prominent symptom, not the overarching issue; the overarching issue is how Wikipedia is structured in favour of a status quo that makes aggressive and gendered discourse and attitudes acceptable and excusable, and away from a system that would allow us to deal with these problems. Ironholds (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, everybody knows that the place for aggressive and gendered discourse and attitudes is IRC, right? Carrite (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[Moral Hazard]

Wikipedia Signpost - Editorial: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
The comments are to die for.

Editorial

Eric is a prominent symptom, not the overarching issue; the overarching issue is how Wikipedia is structured in favour of a status quo that makes aggressive and gendered discourse and attitudes acceptable and excusable, and away from a system that would allow us to deal with these problems.
Ironholds (T-C-L) 18:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, everybody knows that the place for aggressive and gendered discourse and attitudes is IRC, right?
Carrite (T-C-L) 18:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A few Brits using "cunt" makes Wikipedia erupt with self-righteous indignation, led by Ironholds/Oliver Keyes, who used Wikipedia's IRC to fantasize about
-executing Jennifer Aniston, Sharon Osbourne, etc., with a firing squad,
-brag about having punched schoolmates,
-describe killing a woman by puncturing her throat,
-smacking around a female Wikipedia administrator, leaving her bruised,
-punching a Wikipedia editor,
-lighting me on fire, etc.

Then WMF Director Sue Gardner (T-C-L) defended Ironholds, but not before describing putting one of her female employees up against the wall, the way Keyes liked it.

What did the other leader of the hysterics about "cunt", Administrator and Arbitrator GorillaWarfare (T-C-L)/Molly White (T-H-L), say about Keyes?

[Vigilant]

Classic!!Wikipedia Signpost 2015-10-21 What a blatantly sexist essay

What a blatantly sexist essay

"Mansplaining"? Have we completely forgot that derogatory terms aimed at a particular group of people, in this case males, is classic discrimination? I'm not sure when sexism, in this case some feature beholden to men for whatever reason, became the standard on Signpost... Signpost admins need to realize that if such discriminatory and bigoted views are OK to air with such prominence, the genie is out of the bottle, and unfortunately, as we all can probably guess, it's not going to be men that bear the brunt of it in the end. I really don't give a shit about excuses, this sexist crap needs to stop. Int21h (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It might be wiser, before mansplaining to us about the term “mansplaining”, to learn how to spell “discriminatory.“ You should also know that the author of this essay is the editor of The Signpost and a very prominent admin. Yours is an excellent illustration of one of the common Wikipedian pathologies discussed in the article. Speaking of admins, however, the phrase above about women bearing the bring of “it” -- whatever “it” is -- might constitute a threat. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the spelling, thanks. But quit making idle threats; if you think I've violated a policy, take it to an admin. If you think someone deserves to be intimidated for their opinions, or that I would be, think again. Int21h (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think someone deserves to be sanctioned for saying that "the genie is out of the bottle and, unfortunately, it’s not going to be men that bear the brunt of it in the end." I have brought this to the attention of those who care about WP:CIVILITY. Your response above is perhaps not overflowing with loving-kindness or respect, or contrition for that matter. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, but we all know it is an empty complaint meant to harass, and I will take no small pleasure in chastizing anyone reckless enough to perpetuate the harassment, using civility or spelling or otherwise as a basis. Int21h (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything that involves Mark Bernstein that doesn't revolve around him being a sanctimonious douche?

[Parabola]

To be quite honest, as someone who's relatively new to this, all the meaningless point scoring against Ironholds seems like just that.

Unlike someone like Carrite who's trying to claim the moral high ground, Ironholds seems to have actually matured and grown up. Everything I've read from the guy since I started paying attention to this shit indicates that he's actually gone through some changes and come out wiser. Trying to go "neener neener remember years ago", ESPECIALLY when you're the kind of dude who won't even admit women have a problem on wikipedia, seems pretty ludicrous.


Just two cents from someone who doesn't have a weird grudge from years ago!!!

[Vigilant]

To be quite honest, as someone who's relatively new to this, all the meaningless point scoring against Ironholds seems like just that.

Unlike someone like Carrite who's trying to claim the moral high ground, Ironholds seems to have actually matured and grown up. Everything I've read from the guy since I started paying attention to this shit indicates that he's actually gone through some changes and come out wiser.

Oliver Keyes has been an asshole around wikipedia for years.
Sanctimonious, self righteous, arrogant, mean, nasty and a giant douche canoe of a bully.

He should never rear his pointy head in anything that involves civility... ever.
That he wasn't summarily dismissed after the Kiefer Wolfowitz ARBCOM debacle is more than enough reason to keep reminding everyone, the WMF in particular, that they have a recidivist shitheel in their midst.

Trying to go "neener neener remember years ago", ESPECIALLY when you're the kind of dude who won't even admit women have a problem on wikipedia, seems pretty ludicrous.

I couldn't care less that women on wikipedia have a hard time.
They obviously do and Oliver Keyes was a key (ha!) member(ha!) of making IRC worse.

Moreover, the entire structure of en.wp is currently so rotten that worrying about improving women's access and treatment there is like hurrying to clean a particular bathroom on the port side of the Titanic AFTER the iceberg was struck.
There's just no point.

Just two cents from someone who doesn't have a weird grudge from years ago!!!

If you trawl back through the archives here, you'll see me relent on previous targets.
There are a few (Fae, Iornholds, Kaldari, Wales, Durova, Risker, some others) whose behavior had risen to high water marks of foul that only time will remove that person from the barrel.

[Hex]

Classic!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... xist_essay

Yeah! Was just about to post that here myself. Which reminds me, are any of our female posters game for trying this over there?

[Parabola]

Oliver Keyes has been an asshole around wikipedia for years.
Sanctimonious, self righteous, arrogant, mean, nasty and a giant douche canoe of a bully.

This is exactly my point. I've seen plenty of Ironholds since I started paying attention and I've seen none of that! And yeah, trust me I've seen the IRC shit, I do my due diligence, so I know the history here. And as far as I can tell, he's actually come out the other side. That's more than can be said for a lot of the other notorious shitbirds you see get chronicled around here.

I'm only raising a stink about this because it's bothered me for awhile. Of all of the rogue's galley WO likes to deservedly harp on, he's always just stuck out to me. Shrug! Just pointing out an relative outsider perspective.

[Vigilant]

Oliver Keyes has been an asshole around wikipedia for years.
Sanctimonious, self righteous, arrogant, mean, nasty and a giant douche canoe of a bully.

This is exactly my point. I've seen plenty of Ironholds since I started paying attention and I've seen none of that! And yeah, trust me I've seen the IRC shit, I do my due diligence, so I know the history here. And as far as I can tell, he's actually come out the other side. That's more than can be said for a lot of the other notorious shitbirds you see get chronicled around here.

I'm only raising a stink about this because it's bothered me for awhile. Of all of the rogue's galley WO likes to deservedly harp on, he's always just stuck out to me. Shrug! Just pointing out an relative outsider perspective.

It's a fair point.

I'll think about it.

In the meantime, have you read this thread?
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2572&p=51647

In particular, this post
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2572&p=51647#p51697

[Zoloft]

The key quotes from the editorial:

Here's a hard truth for you: If you don't clean up this mess, the adults are going to come and take your toys away from you. The money could dry up: donations could drop, grants could disappear, academic research involving Wikipedia could vanish.

But if you do care, you will only have to do one thing: get out of the way. Stop interrupting every conversation about these issues by attempting to minimize them with your mansplaining. Stop disrupting every attempt to enforce the few rules that we do have and harassing the people attempting to enforce them. Stop objecting to every attempt to build new policies and structures to grapple with these problems. If you are in a position of community trust, such as an administrator, functionary, or arbitrator, resign.

[Vigilant]

If you are in a position of community trust, such as an administrator, functionary, or arbitrator, resign.

Why not ask them to fly to the moon?

[Moral Hazard]

The key quotes from the editorial:

Here's a hard truth for you: If you don't clean up this mess, the adults are going to come and take your toys away from you. The money could dry up: donations could drop, grants could disappear, academic research involving Wikipedia could vanish.

But if you do care, you will only have to do one thing: get out of the way. Stop interrupting every conversation about these issues by attempting to minimize them with your mansplaining. Stop disrupting every attempt to enforce the few rules that we do have and harassing the people attempting to enforce them. Stop objecting to every attempt to build new policies and structures to grapple with these problems. If you are in a position of community trust, such as an administrator, functionary, or arbitrator, resign.

Gamliel's feminist unison is monophonic, trying to silence questions or disagreements, and is inappropriate for either a wiki or an encyclopedia.
These are the "feminists" who snuggle up to Ironholds's repeated gleeful, nasty, brutish, and long fantasies and stories about beating and killing women, made over years; yet these tolerant feminists are unable to hear a British man snarl "cunt" when referring to stupid people twice a year while making 100 valuable edits daily.
Their choice of priorities invites questions---even from feminists deluded that Wikipedia is more important than access to family planning clinics, safe houses, pay equity, etc.

The adults who have dissented already---Montanabw, Yngvesdottir, etc.---don't pretend that anybody who questions them is a bad person or killing Wikipedia. They offer polyphony, and occasional harmony, but at least they are not boring children, reporting that they never heard such talk at grandpa's farm!

[Moral Hazard]

Overcompensation?

anecdotal
evidence

male feminists (MidSize Jake the obvious exception) are actually more misogynistic than regular men. That's why they're feminists, to overcompensate for their internally acknowledged misogyny.

most of the Wikipedian male feminists truly are trying to overcompensate for negative feelings towards women in some manner.

You think they're closeted RedPill types who, like virulent anti-gay closeted homosexuals, act out to try to prevent people from discovering their misogyny?

they were trying to make up for wife/girlfriend-beating, drug-addiction, or something along the same lines. When people have a certain predilection for the dark side, they seem to overcompensate for it by going far along the opposite side of the bell curve. This is anecdotal, of course, but I've known several women in my life who said they would never date male feminists because, in their experience, they're all trying to cover up for something dark in their personality about their attitude towards women. And, that dark side inevitably comes out when intimacy occurs or shortly before.

i.e. reaction formation (T-H-L)

Eric is a prominent symptom, not the overarching issue; the overarching issue is how Wikipedia is structured in favour of a status quo that makes aggressive and gendered discourse and attitudes acceptable and excusable, and away from a system that would allow us to deal with these problems.
Ironholds (T-C-L)18:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, everybody knows that the place for aggressive and gendered discourse and attitudes is IRC, right?
Carrite (T-C-L) 18:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

See, here's the thing. You could've replied arguing that Eric is not part of the wider problem, or that the wider problem doesn't exist. You could've argued that the wider problem does exist and Eric is a part of it but it isn't fixable. Or that it is fixable but that it's not our responsibility to fix. But instead, the best you can do is "but you were an asshole years ago!"
When that's your go-to, you've either not actually got a strong opinion here and just wanted to snark - in which case, see "part of a wider problem" above - or you have lots of opinions but simply don't care enough to write out anything better. In which case your comment is clearly not intended to be productive, and you should probably find something better to do with your time. Or, you know: participate in discourse about the nature of online environments in a way intended to be useful. That would be good too.
Ironholds (T-C-L) / Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) / Oliver Keyes (T-H-L) 01:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Do you think that maybe he's compensating for something?", asked Shreck.

[Moral Hazard]

It's time for Ironholds (T-C-L)/ Oliver Keyes (T-H-L) / Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) to be profiled by a journalist about his journey from misogynist to feminist icon.

[AnimuAvatar]

I have a grand idea, which I proposed in an unspecified thing on one of those project grant things on meta.wikimedia, and I feel that it bears repeating here. Why not, instead of trying to solve this problem of gender, remove it completely? Prohibit all users from disclosing their gender in any way, shape, or form. That way, wiki-slapfights won't have to even touch the slime of identity politics at all! And why stop there? Prohibit users from disclosing sexuality, religion, race, etc.
I'm tired of all the identity politics. Instead of beating the dead horse longer, let's just throw it away, or make delicious meatballs out of it for Ikea!
If humans can't learn to accept that, yes, we are all different, then they don't deserve it.

[Flying Jazz]

I just read the clearly written views of Opabinia regalis (T-C-L), agree with them, rapidly lose interest in the long-winded nonsense that most other editors type, and then the whole thing seems dull when compared to drone warfare and similar real world goings-on.

I'm reminded of the old Pretenders lyrics:

Now the reason we're here
As man and woman
Is to love each other
Take care of each other

Oh yeah...womansplain it to us, Chrissie Hynde...

[iii]

It's time for Ironholds (T-C-L)/ Oliver Keyes (T-H-L) / Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) to be profiled by a journalist about his journey from misogynist to feminist icon.

Well, good on him for that. Can we allow people to change? Or is that too much to ask?

(This question is asked only partly rhetorically, and I acknowledge that it is forming the nucleus of an aside.)

[Jim]

It's time for Ironholds (T-C-L)/ Oliver Keyes (T-H-L) / Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) to be profiled by a journalist about his journey from misogynist to feminist icon.

Well, good on him for that. Can we allow people to change? Or is that too much to ask?

Joking apart, I'd say Oliver has actually made a fairly big effort to change.
The extent he wanted to and the extent he just had to is a separate issue.
Over compensation strongly springs to mind here also, with the Gender Gap stuff. Gee, we're harsh taskmasters.

[iii]

Gee, we're harsh taskmasters.

"We" sure are, and while I think there is a place for that, at some point, some people grow up. Sometimes it takes a long time. Sometimes it never happens.

One of the big problems with Wikipedia and Wikipedia criticism is the tendency to act as though it is 2004 or 2008 or 2010 or 2013 when it isn't anymore. It is good to learn from history, but living in the past is not the balm that cures all ills.

[Randy from Boise]

Joking apart, I'd say Oliver has actually made a fairly big effort to change.

Funny how an effort to keep those paychecks rolling in will do that...

Good for him if Ironholds is less of a nasty chatterbox on IRC than he was a couple years ago, but that doesn't make him less of a hypocrite to be preaching on the topic...

RfB

[Ihatemyusername]

So does this damage or help Gamaliel's chances of becoming an Arbcommie?

[Jim]

Good for him if Ironholds is less of a nasty chatterbox on IRC than he was a couple years ago, but that doesn't make him less of a hypocrite to be preaching on the topic...

Just on a point of order, Tim, there was this guy, at the time, telling us we were assholes for criticising him at all because he gave some folks some flags. Just sayin'

[Moral Hazard]

deleted

[Randy from Boise]

Good for him if Ironholds is less of a nasty chatterbox on IRC than he was a couple years ago, but that doesn't make him less of a hypocrite to be preaching on the topic...

Just on a point of order, Tim, there was this guy, at the time, telling us we were assholes for criticising him at all because he gave some folks some flags. Just sayin'

Now I didn't go calling you assholes, did I?

Difference being, in one case he was a stationary civilian target and in the other he is out front helping lead the charge.

RfB

[Flying Jazz]

It's time for Ironholds (T-C-L)/ Oliver Keyes (T-H-L) / Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) to be profiled by a journalist about his journey from misogynist to feminist icon.

Well, good on him for that. Can we allow people to change? Or is that too much to ask?

Joking apart, I'd say Oliver has actually made a fairly big effort to change.
The extent he wanted to and the extent he just had to is a separate issue.
Over compensation strongly springs to mind here also, with the Gender Gap stuff. Gee, we're harsh taskmasters.

I haven't been following the gender gap stuff closely enough to make a specific comment about it, but, in a general sense, overcompensation at Wikipedia can be a problem that is amusing to watch.

How should someone respond to an editor who declares one year, "I am right, everyone must know, learn from me, and do what I do!" and then writes a few years later, "I was wrong, I changed, now I am right, everyone must know, learn from me, and do what I do!"?

Giggling and going to do something fun in the real world are healthful, but a good response at Wikipedia is to type some combination of:
a) nothing
b) something diplomatic
c) a policy-based response
d) a direct response focused on building an encyclopedia-making community
e) sweet and delicious irony

Balancing those approaches at Wikipedia in the long term is beyond the patience of most people who know what encyclopedia-makers would do. But Opabinia regalis does manage it somehow.

[milowent]

I have a grand idea, which I proposed in an unspecified thing on one of those project grant things on meta.wikimedia, and I feel that it bears repeating here. Why not, instead of trying to solve this problem of gender, remove it completely? Prohibit all users from disclosing their gender in any way, shape, or form. That way, wiki-slapfights won't have to even touch the slime of identity politics at all! And why stop there? Prohibit users from disclosing sexuality, religion, race, etc.
I'm tired of all the identity politics. Instead of beating the dead horse longer, let's just throw it away, or make delicious meatballs out of it for Ikea!
If humans can't learn to accept that, yes, we are all different, then they don't deserve it.

i don't think this is at all feasible. with apologies, to me its in the Poe's law realm where i do not know if it is a joke or not.

also, when an editor discloses information about themselves, i do take it into account. if an editor does not disclose information about themselves, I consider that too, as a potential unstated influence on their proposals. its one thing that wikipedia does not force people to disclose potentially relevant information about themselves, its quite another to forbid it.

[Jimbo Jambo]

So does this damage or help Gamaliel's chances of becoming an Arbcommie?

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

He's wasn't nearly as vocal before the Wikiconference. Maybe he talked to some folks who convinced him he could win with the support of the GGTF contingent (and whatever additional accounts they can marshal.)

Good call.

[Randy from Boise]

So does this damage or help Gamaliel's chances of becoming an Arbcommie?

He'd fit right in with the current crew, for sure.

Take that as a strong warning against such a vote.

RfB

[iii]

I have a grand idea, which I proposed in an unspecified thing on one of those project grant things on meta.wikimedia, and I feel that it bears repeating here. Why not, instead of trying to solve this problem of gender, remove it completely? Prohibit all users from disclosing their gender in any way, shape, or form.

Terrible idea. Gender is a part of almost everyone's identity (I'm sure there are a few out there who want to be completely disassociated from gender, but most people including myself are not that way). Forbidding all people from expressing their gender solves no problems in the same way that simply ignoring a problem does not make it go away.

[greybeard]

Why not, instead of trying to solve this problem of gender, remove it completely? Prohibit all users from disclosing their gender in any way, shape, or form.

This may be thread-hijacking, but one of the pervasive problems of Wikipedia as a community (versus the problem of WP as an encyclopedia) is the lack of adequate protections for minority and under-represented community members. This is not the same as Wikipedia's over-representation of minority/fringe/partisan perspectives in content.

Wikipedia's community has for a very long time been described as a post-apocalyptic warlord society, where the powerful and well-connected rule, surrounded by sycophants. The warlords enter temporary alliances with one another, but are never truly allies -- they rejoice, secretly or otherwise, at the downfall of their competitor warlords.

A functional community would embrace certain things that include the freedom of assembly and of identification. If one says that members cannot identify their gender, do we equally claim that they cannot identify as gay, as Israeli or Palestinian, as African-heritage, Indigenous, or as cat-fanciers?

As it is, Wikipedia (as discussed elsewhere) does tacitly encourage minority and under-represented editing groups to pretend to be the majority group -- white, male, (mostly) young, moderately educated but not specialist, and just a bit autistic. Thus, when women (or black men, or whatever) edit or argue in a way that exposes their differences with that majority ethos, alarm bells go off, and they are beset by the antibodies of the Wiki and singled out for identification and exclusion. Better to let them self-identify (as they wish) and then protect that.

This leaves you with the problem of biased and partisan editing by minorities, but that is a larger (or equally large) problem with the fundamental structure of Wikipedia masquerading as a encyclopedia.

But in short, the Wikipedia Community (sic) needs a Bill of Rights.

[AnimuAvatar]

Why not, instead of trying to solve this problem of gender, remove it completely? Prohibit all users from disclosing their gender in any way, shape, or form.

This may be thread-hijacking, but one of the pervasive problems of Wikipedia as a community (versus the problem of WP as an encyclopedia) is the lack of adequate protections for minority and under-represented community members. This is not the same as Wikipedia's over-representation of minority/fringe/partisan perspectives in content.

Wikipedia's community has for a very long time been described as a post-apocalyptic warlord society, where the powerful and well-connected rule, surrounded by sycophants. The warlords enter temporary alliances with one another, but are never truly allies -- they rejoice, secretly or otherwise, at the downfall of their competitor warlords.

A functional community would embrace certain things that include the freedom of assembly and of identification. If one says that members cannot identify their gender, do we equally claim that they cannot identify as gay, as Israeli or Palestinian, as African-heritage, Indigenous, or as cat-fanciers?

As it is, Wikipedia (as discussed elsewhere) does tacitly encourage minority and under-represented editing groups to pretend to be the majority group -- white, male, (mostly) young, moderately educated but not specialist, and just a bit autistic. Thus, when women (or black men, or whatever) edit or argue in a way that exposes their differences with that majority ethos, alarm bells go off, and they are beset by the antibodies of the Wiki and singled out for identification and exclusion. Better to let them self-identify (as they wish) and then protect that.

This leaves you with the problem of biased and partisan editing by minorities, but that is a larger (or equally large) problem with the fundamental structure of Wikipedia masquerading as a encyclopedia.

But in short, the Wikipedia Community (sic) needs a Bill of Rights.

Maybe it's the topic area I mostly edit, but I don't get any shit for my identity. I mean, to be fair I don't have a trillion userboxen plastered on my userpage telling my life story, but I'm sure I've mentioned more than once on enwiki that I'm not a white cishet male. (I mean I guess I'm male but eh, whacha gonna do?) A year or so ago, in a different community, I never shut up about my identity and was an obnoxious little shit about it. This lead to people quite understandably not liking me. I initially thought that it was because they were intolerant of my identity. I later realized it wasn't my identity they hated, but rather my behaviour.

I won't deny there is a sexism problem, but the way people are trying to fix it won't work.

[greybeard]

I won't deny there is a sexism problem, but the way people are trying to fix it won't work.

That is as may be, and we all know people who use their identity as a club against others, but I think we can agree that the lot of many minorities in many communities is oppression. "The tyranny of the majority" and all that.

Woman editors are complaining about the wiki equivalent of "driving while black". To say that one has driven routinely and not been harassed does not call into question that others have, or that it's a problem. I'm with you that it is unlikely that Wikipedia will find a way to definitively fix the problem.

I'm equally chagrined to observe that on this very forum (as on Wikipedia) there are many who will say (to change my metaphor): "Yes, there's an 800-lb gorilla in the room, but so-and-so claimed it was an 800-lb orangutan, and that's just wrong."

[Oblia]

But in short, the Wikipedia Community (sic) needs a Bill of Rights.

[Starke Hathaway]

I can only hope this article and Gamaliel's macho posturing in the comments thereof represent the end of his transparent pretense of being an "uninvolved administrator" with respect to gender-based controversies like Gamergate.

[Anthonyhcole]

I can only hope this article and Gamaliel's macho posturing in the comments thereof represent the end of his transparent pretense of being an "uninvolved administrator" with respect to gender-based controversies like Gamergate.

Sorry. Does having an opinion on gender issues disqualify you from acting as an admin in gender areas of Wikipedia? If so, doesn't that disqualify everyone (except those who have yet to make their opinions known)? No. I think you're being a bit ridiculous there. In theory, it would be nice to have only folks who have no opinion administering the topic but, really, what kind of person would that be? Or is it only people whose opinions you disagree with who should stay away?

[Starke Hathaway]

I can only hope this article and Gamaliel's macho posturing in the comments thereof represent the end of his transparent pretense of being an "uninvolved administrator" with respect to gender-based controversies like Gamergate.

Sorry. Does having an opinion on gender issues disqualify you from acting as an admin in gender areas of Wikipedia? If so, doesn't that disqualify everyone (except those who have yet to make their opinions known)? No. I think you're being a bit ridiculous there. In theory, it would be nice to have only folks who have no opinion administering the topic but, really, what kind of person would that be? Or is it only people whose opinions you disagree with who should stay away?

There's having an opinion, and then there's feeling moved to write an editorial about your opinion and slinging around words like "mansplaining" when people disagree with you in the comments. The former doesn't bother me vis a vis involvement. The latter does. Would you want a Giano or an Eric Corbett acting as an "uninvolved" administrator in gender areas? I suspect not.

[Parabola]

I can only hope this article and Gamaliel's macho posturing in the comments thereof represent the end of his transparent pretense of being an "uninvolved administrator" with respect to gender-based controversies like Gamergate.

Sorry. Does having an opinion on gender issues disqualify you from acting as an admin in gender areas of Wikipedia? If so, doesn't that disqualify everyone (except those who have yet to make their opinions known)? No. I think you're being a bit ridiculous there. In theory, it would be nice to have only folks who have no opinion administering the topic but, really, what kind of person would that be? Or is it only people whose opinions you disagree with who should stay away?

There's having an opinion, and then there's feeling moved to write an editorial about your opinion and slinging around words like "mansplaining" when people disagree with you in the comments. The former doesn't bother me vis a vis involvement. The latter does. Would you want a Giano or an Eric Corbett acting as an "uninvolved" administrator in gender areas? I suspect not.

This is not a thing with two equal but valid "sides". It's not a video game.

[Starke Hathaway]

This is not a thing with two equal but valid "sides". It's not a video game.

No one (other than you just now) is talking about sides, and I'm not sure what you think video games have to do with anything. I'm talking about one person who has made a high-profile pubic statement of full-throated support for a particular ideological position while simultaneously maintaining that they are sufficiently "uninvolved" to be an objective referee of conflicts on wikipedia that concern that ideology. That dog won't hunt, monsignor.

[Anthonyhcole]

This is not a thing with two equal but valid "sides". It's not a video game.

No one (other than you just now) is talking about sides, and I'm not sure what you think video games have to do with anything. I'm talking about one person who has made a high-profile pubic statement of full-throated support for a particular ideological position while simultaneously maintaining that they are sufficiently "uninvolved" to be an objective referee of conflicts on wikipedia that concern that ideology. That dog won't hunt, monsignor.

Gamaliel's ideological position, how would you characterise that?

[Jim]

Good for him if Ironholds is less of a nasty chatterbox on IRC than he was a couple years ago, but that doesn't make him less of a hypocrite to be preaching on the topic...

Just on a point of order, Tim, there was this guy, at the time, telling us we were assholes for criticising him at all because he gave some folks some flags. Just sayin'

Now I didn't go calling you assholes, did I?

Difference being, in one case he was a stationary civilian target and in the other he is out front helping lead the charge.

No. You didn't call us assholes. My apologies.

He wasn't a "stationary civilian target" though, was he? He was an admin, and WMF customer liaison giving the worst customer service I've ever seen to folks trying to cope with having the disaster that was VE poured all over them. He dealt with their concerns badly, arrogantly and petulantly. That's aside from the IRC stuff and petty, vindictive vandalism.

Now I think he's improved a bit, and yes that was because he had to. The gendergap tub-thumping, most lately here at this article, is overcompensation, and some self awareness would have told him people would see that.

[Moral Hazard]

He was an admin, and WMF customer liaison giving the worst customer service I've ever seen to folks trying to cope with having the disaster that was VE poured all over them. He dealt with their concerns badly, arrogantly and petulantly.

The customer service offered by Eric Cartman's start-up, The Washington Redskins, only offered generic "Go fuck yourself!" greetings to customers, not taking the time to craft individualized condescension and insults like Oliver Keyes (T-H-L) / Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L)/ Ironholds (T-C-L).

Washington Redskins---Go fuck yourself!
Sure, we would be happy to take your money. Just go to our Kickstarter page.
Okay. Nice, idiot. Fuck you! Bye bye.

“'Fuck you!'.
Those words mean a great deal to us. They help us express just how we as a company see things differently. There are a lot of start-ups on Kickstarter, but after today, I think you’ll agree that the Washington Redskins is the most exciting. As you know, the Redskins have been at the forefront of Kickstarter as a company that is always finding new and exciting ways to tell people to go fuck themselves, and now our company is thrilled to show you all the latest innovations we’ve come up with.”

That's some FINE customer service right there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... 22false.22

"Bad faith" and "false"

Regarding your reversion here. I'm acting in good faith for the encyclopedia, maybe not for individual careers at the WMF, but definitely for other editors here. Your accusation of bad faith borders on a personal attack, if I didn't want to assume you just make the (pre-)judgement in total ignorance.

As for "false," show me where it's false. Flow is replacing Talk pages, and Flow will only use Visual Editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not. More accurately, you were assuming bad faith. So, in order; statements about the VE being "crammed up the ass" of editors are not assuming the good faith of the other participant here. Assuming, as you do here, that I object for sake of "individual careers" ditto. We don't have a single staffer who couldn't be earning far more at any other company - a company where they're not required to spend all day with users sending them aggrieved messages. If we only cared about our "individual careers" we'd be elsewhere. We're here because we're also acting in good faith for the encyclopedia. Yes, we disagree, undoubtedly - but tell me truly that you've never had a user disagree with you who was acting in what they believed to be the interests of the wiki?
In order, the incorrect bits:

When you imply, in your edit summary, that we are simply going to force flow or the VE on the community without an opportunity to discuss it or amend it, you are incorrect. We are having that discussion now - on this talkpage. We are also having it on the Flow portal on enwiki, the Flow portal on metawiki, and the Flow portal on mediawiki.org - and that's before development has even started. We're having a very, very preliminary discussion.
The rest of your statement is incorrect for the reasons I've already outlined in the discussions about the VE/Flow interaction; that what Flow looks like now may be totally different from how it looks like when it's built, which in turn may be very different from how it looks when it's deployed. This is a very preliminary discussion of a very preliminary featureset - look at Page Curation. The initial design of that was based around the idea that there would be, say, a dozen categories you could pass or fail an article on. Pick as many as you want; if you have some left over, the article will go back into the queue to be checked for the remaining items, and users will be able to filter by item type. If you've used Special:NewPagesFeed, you'll know that's not how it works in practise.
To reiterate; preliminary discussion. Preliminary featureset. A discussion we are having about this featureset precisely so people can surface major issues with it, and so they can be discussed. I have no doubt that the need for wikimarkup is going to be brought into the conversation, and by that I mean "I'm in the office in 3 days, and I'll bring it up in person". I don't need an extra 300 editors battering down the gates to know it's a problem. The fact that it is a problem has been surfaced, and will be taken into account. There's not much more to do here.

Anyway. I've been having conversations with people for...15-16 hours now. I'm going to go to bed, and I'll re-engage in the morning. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

[Moral Hazard]

That boy doesn't have any more sense than God gave a door knob. He just keeps trying to get to his feet, sticking out his jaw at Carrite (T-C-L), and huffin' & puffing' wind:

If the lesson you took from the Bible was "anyone who screws up horribly is inherently beyond even trying to be a better person, and they can shut the hell up" you may have been reading a different book from me.
Regardless, you've still got nothing to say about the actual issue except that you don't like the people participating on it - nothing to say about their opinions, just them.

So, see my comment above re: if you're not trying to participate productively, find something else to do with your time.
Ironholds (T-C-L) 14:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your lips are moving, but all I can hear is the sound of a cash register going cha-ching...
Wow 500 edits since April... You really are in a position of moral authority to lecture us.
Carrite (T-C-L) 09:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

[Konveyor Belt]

I thought Blade of the Northern Light's comment was interesting so I'll reprint it here:

Every time I start to feel like coming out of my isolation on Wikipedia, I see things like this. As an American, in real life I have to hear the vacuous cant of "privileged white male", which to me is a clear signal that my experiences somehow... are not diverse? are not worth hearing? lower my standing in some way? I've grown somewhat used to people using the word "diversity" to mean "you're part of a monolithic group and therefore can't possibly add anything" and, while it certainly isn't always used in that sense, it happens whether or not anyone who's not a white male wants to accept that. Every once in a while I'd like not to have to mention that I'm on the autism spectrum to get people to even consider that I just might have a perspective to offer or something useful for them. On Wikipedia, this manifests itself when I try to beat some sense into India topics and inevitably face relentless accusations of colonialism or being some sort of white supremacist gandoo chodha boy (look it up yourself if you really want to know...).

I bring all this up because I walk both worlds in a way and that, as far as I can see, no one who declares themselves on one side of the issue is listening very well to those they perceive to be on other side. A lot of editors feel as if the people trying to get more women to edit are trying to do so at the expense of both them and Wikipedia's content, and people trying to recruit women feel as if those disagreeing with them are actively attempting to push women away. In either case I, an existing editor who is a known quantity here on Wikipedia, end up as essentially a pariah. Since I'm more or less the same in real life it doesn't mean I'll leave, all I want is for everyone here to think about what they're sounding like to people outside of this dispute. Were I unfamiliar with Wikipedia I'd conclude that one group wants me gone because I'm a white man, ergo my writing inherently has less value and makes me part of a vast hive mind trying to force every other demographic out (and relating some of the harassment I've dealt with makes me a misogynist), and that another wants me gone because I haven't joined the fight in the name of content creation. Even though I know that's not what anybody wants, it's the way it comes off. Simply listening a bit better to the other side, responding to them knowing that you essentially have the same goals, and leaving the anger and invective out of it would do everyone in this fight a world of good. Instead of fighting with each other, how about fighting together to add to Wikipedia? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The rhetoric from both sides is driving off both women and non-women by making both groups feel unwelcome.

I think that we should avoid creating "groups" or classes of people, even when done in the name of diversity, and especially in demonizing a majority group. A cisgendered heterosexual Caucasian man should not be a bad term, but yet I have seen people using it like a slur of the type they so vigorously protest.

[JCM]

I thought Blade of the Northern Light's comment was interesting so I'll reprint it here:

Every time I start to feel like coming out of my isolation on Wikipedia, I see things like this. As an American, in real life I have to hear the vacuous cant of "privileged white male", which to me is a clear signal that my experiences somehow... are not diverse? are not worth hearing? lower my standing in some way? I've grown somewhat used to people using the word "diversity" to mean "you're part of a monolithic group and therefore can't possibly add anything" and, while it certainly isn't always used in that sense, it happens whether or not anyone who's not a white male wants to accept that. Every once in a while I'd like not to have to mention that I'm on the autism spectrum to get people to even consider that I just might have a perspective to offer or something useful for them. On Wikipedia, this manifests itself when I try to beat some sense into India topics and inevitably face relentless accusations of colonialism or being some sort of white supremacist gandoo chodha boy (look it up yourself if you really want to know...).

I bring all this up because I walk both worlds in a way and that, as far as I can see, no one who declares themselves on one side of the issue is listening very well to those they perceive to be on other side. A lot of editors feel as if the people trying to get more women to edit are trying to do so at the expense of both them and Wikipedia's content, and people trying to recruit women feel as if those disagreeing with them are actively attempting to push women away. In either case I, an existing editor who is a known quantity here on Wikipedia, end up as essentially a pariah. Since I'm more or less the same in real life it doesn't mean I'll leave, all I want is for everyone here to think about what they're sounding like to people outside of this dispute. Were I unfamiliar with Wikipedia I'd conclude that one group wants me gone because I'm a white man, ergo my writing inherently has less value and makes me part of a vast hive mind trying to force every other demographic out (and relating some of the harassment I've dealt with makes me a misogynist), and that another wants me gone because I haven't joined the fight in the name of content creation. Even though I know that's not what anybody wants, it's the way it comes off. Simply listening a bit better to the other side, responding to them knowing that you essentially have the same goals, and leaving the anger and invective out of it would do everyone in this fight a world of good. Instead of fighting with each other, how about fighting together to add to Wikipedia? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The rhetoric from both sides is driving off both women and non-women by making both groups feel unwelcome.

I think that we should avoid creating "groups" or classes of people, even when done in the name of diversity, and especially in demonizing a majority group. A cisgendered heterosexual Caucasian man should not be a bad term, but yet I have seen people using it like a slur of the type they so vigorously protest.

OK, as another cisgendered heterosexual Caucasian male, I would agree with that, probably not much to anyone's surprise, of course, considering we are a cabal out to dominate the world.

It is hard to see some of what GorillaWarfare has said has been directed at her and not cringe a little on behalf of the rest of the male population of my type, assuming of course that many of those comments were posted by males of my type as opposed to others perhaps engaged in some form of obfuscation.

And the latter point is, to me anyway, unfortunately, one of hte bigger ones. We all more or less assume that any trolling comment describing females in broadly sexual ways, or for that matter males in similar ways, are from the gender preference group they would seem to be from. I honestly don't know if that is really good thinking, because, although I have never done this, I'm fairly sure I could create a grossly obnoxious comment from what seems to be a female perspective to, perhaps, make myself an apparently unlikely sockmaster.How many of the grossly disgusting comments many people say might not be of the same type? Probably not many, but I wouldn't want to swear to that.

[Jim]

We all more or less assume that any trolling comment describing females in broadly sexual ways, or for that matter males in similar ways, are from the gender preference group they would seem to be from.

What's a "gender preference group"? I'm feeling so out of my depth, here. Does the whole latter part of what I quoted just mean "the gender they identify as"? If so, I understand, but gee, JCM, your prose is impenetrable, sometimes...

[JCM]

We all more or less assume that any trolling comment describing females in broadly sexual ways, or for that matter males in similar ways, are from the gender preference group they would seem to be from.

What's a "gender preference group"? I'm feeling so out of my depth, here. Does the whole latter part of what I quoted just mean "the gender they identify as"? If so, I understand, but gee, JCM, your prose is impenetrable, sometimes...

Trying to be p.c. can make it such, agreed. And when I write on the fly, "impenetrable" is, unfortunately, one of the nicer things that can be said about the results.

[Oblia]

LilaTretikov (WMF) (T-C-L) speaks to the issue in response to Gamaliel (T-C-L)'s editorial and all the comments.

Edits: Fixed links.

[Moral Hazard]

We all more or less assume that any trolling comment describing females in broadly sexual ways, or for that matter males in similar ways, are from the gender preference group they would seem to be from.

What's a "gender preference group"? I'm feeling so out of my depth, here. Does the whole latter part of what I quoted just mean "the gender they identify as"? If so, I understand, but gee, JCM, your prose is impenetrable, sometimes...

Mr. Garrison: Cisgender. It's the politically correct name for people who aren't transgender. If you identify with the sex you were born with, then you're cis.
Mr. Mackey: But then cisgender-ed is just normal
Mr. Garrison: [faces Mackey and Victoria] Saying "normal" is extremely offensive to people who aren't in that group. [gets emphatic] Trust me, you don't want this hot potato! Just let him use the girls room!
Principal Victoria: But this isn't a hurting confused child we're talking about. It's Eric Cartman.
Mr. Garrison: Nobody else is gonna know that. You better just give him what he wants.
Principal Victoria: Sooo Eric Cartman just has us in some kind of bathroom checkmate?
Mr. Garrison: Actually, [turns around and looks outside again] it's more like a royal flush.

[Oblia]

Kiefer, do you work for Comedy Central?

[Randy from Boise]

Kiefer, do you work for Comedy Central?

You and yours would do well to watch South Park religiously...

RfB

[Oblia]

Kiefer, do you work for Comedy Central?

You and yours would do well to watch South Park religiously...

Watch it every week. Some people get its obvious humor, but some miss the subtler commentary. For instance, the "reality" parody that Kiefer has set as his avatar. You and yours should think about.