This may be the end of the Wikipedia Signpost

[Kumioko]

Well folks it only took about 2 months and Kudpung (T-C-L) has already quit as Editor-and-Chief of the signpost, only a couple weeks after resigning as an admin and once again Wikipedia is faced with the Signpost ceasing to exist.

Per this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =855974794

Based on what I see in the Draft, the next release will be a scathing and harshly critical piece about several different areas of the project and is bound to more than ruffle a few feathers.

[Eric Corbett]

Based on what I see in the Draft, the next release will be a scathing and harshly critical piece about several different areas of the project and is bound to more than ruffle a few feathers.

It couldn't ruffle enough feathers for me, but hopefully it'll ruffle the right feathers.

As for Kudpung, well, he is what he is.

[Kumioko]

Based on what I see in the Draft, the next release will be a scathing and harshly critical piece about several different areas of the project and is bound to more than ruffle a few feathers.

It couldn't ruffle enough feathers for me, but hopefully it'll ruffle the right feathers.

As for Kudpung, well, he is what he is.

Yeah Kudpung has been a dramatist for a long time and is definitely one of those admins that thinks the world revolves around him. That, and the fact that he will find that not being able to do certain things, after being an admin for so long, really sucks, makes me think he'll be asking for the tools again pretty soon. Unless he retires from editing that is.

With regards to the Signpost, it's only one more sign that the project and the community is collapsing. Wikipedia is already showing the signs of being the next AOL or Myspace and only time will tell if they can pull it out if it's current death spiral. I doubt it, because they have the wrong people, going in the wrong direction who are making the wrong decisions about bad ideas based on flawed analysis and assumptions.

[Poetlister]

The inertia is enormous. Wikipedia will continue until it is so short of editors that it can't keep up to date on things that people want current information on.

[Kumioko]

The inertia is enormous. Wikipedia will continue until it is so short of editors that it can't keep up to date on things that people want current information on.

Well since they routinely lock down...errr...."protect" those pages anyway, I would argue that is already happening.

[Dysklyver]

http://thewikicabal.com/2018/08/23/the- ... ing-again/

[Bezdomni]

As you've no doubt read, KP has ordered that his last payload be delivered.

Could you push the buttons please.
source

I'd always thought the masked imperative was punctuated with a question mark (Could you...IMPERATIVE, please?) , but then I'm not an editor, am I? ^^

Button-pushers of the world unite, etc.

[Dysklyver]

As you've no doubt read, KP has ordered that his last payload be delivered.

Could you push the buttons please.
source

I'd always thought the masked imperative was punctuated with a question mark (Could you...IMPERATIVE, please?) , but then I'm not an editor, am I? ^^

Button-pushers of the world unite, etc.

I think not using the question mark gives it a certain "command" tone that it wouldn't otherwise have.

[Dysklyver]

I saw that there are a couple of interesting stories this month.

The one about the Editor of the year struck me as funny. A world where everyone is a Wikipedian? Sure, maybe if they weren't blocking thousands of editors a day and range blocking entire countries. Really his statements are just naïve nonsense.

Agreed. Although there are underlying issues to that entire awards process. It did stick out to me as well, though I have been peeved at the whole Wikimedian of the year thing for a while.

[DexterPointy]

Drama Alert!
Plenty on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-08-30/News and notes
But not stopping there, rather continuing on GorillaWarfare's Talk page.
- Kudpung: You are getting things consistently wrong
- Fram: Personal attack

[Midsize Jake]

- Kudpung: You are getting things consistently wrong
- Fram: Personal attack

Hmm, that's some fairly serious male-chauvinist BS going on there, all righty. I'm not saying Katherine Maher is doing a fantastic job or anything, or that she doesn't spend too much time on airliners, but that article is almost like the old-school 70's-style variety of going-after-women-in-the-hierarchy.

Also, our Alexa ranking has ticked up slightly since Mr. Kudpung started calling Wikipediocracy a "hate site." It had been pretty much on the decline since the 2016 election, but now... I dunno, maybe he could be our secret weapon!

[Kumioko]

And now that Kudpung doesn't have the Admin/Super Mario Pill protection, he could easily find himself blocked or banned very quickly.

[Jim]

Also, our Alexa ranking has ticked up slightly since Mr. Kudpung started calling Wikipediocracy a "hate site." It had been pretty much on the decline since the 2016 election, but now... I dunno, maybe he could be our secret weapon!

Yes, the poor old soul really doesn't seem able to keep his foot very far away from his mouth these days, does he?

Hmm, that's some fairly serious male-chauvinist BS going on there, all righty. I'm not saying Katherine Maher is doing a fantastic job or anything, or that she doesn't spend too much time on airliners, but that article is almost like the old-school 70's-style variety of going-after-women-in-the-hierarchy.

I don't disagree. I mean, I'm no big fan of GW - she's too much of a "political animal" for me - and I do think she's sometimes been guilty of somewhat overplaying the "sexism" card, but Mr K. seems to have absolutely no sensitivity to the way these issues are viewed in the modern world. It's a very good thing that society is addressing these issues, even if that means there will sometimes be a little "over-compensation" - given the hundreds of years the boot was on the other foot, so to speak. I expect it'll all even itself out in a few decades. Still, in Mr K's defence, things were probably very different when he arrived on this planet back in the 13th century...

[Mason]

"Hate site" is the new "fake news", I guess.

[Kumioko]

Also, our Alexa ranking has ticked up slightly since Mr. Kudpung started calling Wikipediocracy a "hate site." It had been pretty much on the decline since the 2016 election, but now... I dunno, maybe he could be our secret weapon!

Yes, the poor old soul really doesn't seem able to keep his foot very far away from his mouth these days, does he?

Hmm, that's some fairly serious male-chauvinist BS going on there, all righty. I'm not saying Katherine Maher is doing a fantastic job or anything, or that she doesn't spend too much time on airliners, but that article is almost like the old-school 70's-style variety of going-after-women-in-the-hierarchy.

I don't disagree. I mean, I'm no big fan of GW - she's too much of a "political animal" for me - and I do think she's sometimes been guilty of somewhat overplaying the "sexism" card, but Mr K. seems to have absolutely no sensitivity to the way these issues are viewed in the modern world. It's a very good thing that society is addressing these issues, even if that means there will sometimes be a little "over-compensation" - given the hundreds of years the boot was on the other foot, so to speak. I expect it'll all even itself out in a few decades. Still, in Mr K's defence, things were probably very different when he arrived on this planet back in the 13th century...

She "sometimes" overplays it? How about every chance she gets!

[Midsize Jake]

She "sometimes" overplays it? How about every chance she gets!

Maybe, but that's the problem with micro-aggressions. Most people don't even notice them, because they're meant to only be noticed by the person to whom they're directed - in fact, the perpetrator might not even know he/she has committed the transgression until it's pointed out. So she might be getting a dozen of these things every day, and we just don't see it, so to us it looks like she's responding to all of them.

I mean, she's a member here so if she wants to she can tell us herself, but I wonder if her more-prominent-than-most position as an admin, Arbcom member, and occasionally-quoted source for news articles makes her feel some pressure to respond to these things more than she might prefer, because that's what leaders do - which is to say that Wikipedia and its general hostility to women has put her in a lose-lose situation from the get-go.

I should probably also point out that there's also a difference between responding to the micro-aggression in the first place vs. feeling like you're unable to back down once that response is out there in a public forum where everyone can see it. It's fair to say she could have "let that one go," but once she didn't, she had to represent, i.e. role-shift into a much stronger/tougher stance so as not to let the side down.

I could even suggest that it's conceivable that perhaps without even meaning to, other women on WP are pressuring her to respond to these things by bringing them to her attention and saying "something should be done about this jerk." And let's also not forget that if she has any objectivity at all, she probably realizes that Mr. Kudpung is a net-negative to WP and therefore anything that increases the chances that he'll go away is worth trying.

[Ca$hBag]

I think it'll end up like Wikipedia Weekly

[Kumioko]

She "sometimes" overplays it? How about every chance she gets!

Maybe, but that's the problem with micro-aggressions. Most people don't even notice them, because they're meant to only be noticed by the person to whom they're directed - in fact, the perpetrator might not even know he/she has committed the transgression until it's pointed out. So she might be getting a dozen of these things every day, and we just don't see it, so to us it looks like she's responding to all of them.

I mean, she's a member here so if she wants to she can tell us herself, but I wonder if her more-prominent-than-most position as an admin, Arbcom member, and occasionally-quoted source for news articles makes her feel some pressure to respond to these things more than she might prefer, because that's what leaders do - which is to say that Wikipedia and its general hostility to women has put her in a lose-lose situation from the get-go.

I should probably also point out that there's also a difference between responding to the micro-aggression in the first place vs. feeling like you're unable to back down once that response is out there in a public forum where everyone can see it. It's fair to say she could have "let that one go," but once she didn't, she had to represent, i.e. role-shift into a much stronger/tougher stance so as not to let the side down.

I could even suggest that it's conceivable that perhaps without even meaning to, other women on WP are pressuring her to respond to these things by bringing them to her attention and saying "something should be done about this jerk." And let's also not forget that if she has any objectivity at all, she probably realizes that Mr. Kudpung is a net-negative to WP and therefore anything that increases the chances that he'll go away is worth trying.

In this it's more like a targetted aggression akin to an inside joke. To most people it would look like the comments from GW are genuine but she's really targeting it at Kudpung in a way thats like picking at a scab. I don't really like Kudpung and I don't perceive it to be a huge loss if he stops editing, but I also don't really think very highly of GW these days. She gives this persona of being this sweet, delicate, innocent little flower with her poor me attitude and all she's been campaigning about this gender crap for so long that she should change her name from GorillaWarfare to GenderWarfare!

People complain about me complaining about the admins but she is doing the exact same thing about these gender issues and blowing them out of proportion, ensuring that it drives people away from the project by increasing the drama and not really doing anything else, not even to actually fix the problems. All she's really doing is whining and complaining and targeting other editors calling them names like misogynist just to get everyone all worked up and then crying fake tears and acting like people hurt her feelings to get their sympathy so she can attack some other poor male editor and get attention. It's really infuriating that no one else, or too few others see what she's really about here.

[Bezdomni]

This Go Fish story should make the Wikicats hungry. All those big bad (former contractor) fisherfolk twerking Wikipedia's SEO.
-- {{um.. Why?}}
-- (sighing) To improve their SEO dominance.
and, to help paying customers manage their reputation against the WikiCats who pee on BLPs and BCPs when the letterbox is full.
(If you squint, you can see Smallbones cueing gasps from a Greek chorus, just as the word "paying" gets said; from somewhere else resigned "cats will be cats" chuckles emerge at the word "pee").

Is this Katherine Maher's fault? meh. Should she do something about it? maybe. I do think they could be more forthcoming about the $400K/year they've been paying Minassian Media... but if they're going to keep mum about the latter, this "go fish" story does seem to be smaller fry.

Oh look! Fish! An exposé, an exposé!

Briefly, regarding WPO, Jbhunley could have just responded to Collect saying "No I don't believe that American politicians should be accused of dual loyalties because of their religious beliefs." End of story. Instead, he used pungent pee-pee words.

And K, I'm never going to let you guard my bananas if you continue suggesting "Gorilla Warfare" wants to be seen as an innocent flower.

[MrErnie]

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _requested[/link] Things are starting to really heat up. Fram blocked GW for re-instating the "Misogyny" personal attack. The block was quickly undone by Fuzheado, and now we are at ANI with everyone weighing in.

[Kumioko]

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _requested[/link] Things are starting to really heat up. Fram blocked GW for re-instating the "Misogyny" personal attack. The block was quickly undone by Fuzheado, and now we are at ANI with everyone weighing in.

[Randy from Boise]

- Kudpung: You are getting things consistently wrong
- Fram: Personal attack

Hmm, that's some fairly serious male-chauvinist BS going on there, all righty. I'm not saying Katherine Maher is doing a fantastic job or anything, or that she doesn't spend too much time on airliners, but that article is almost like the old-school 70's-style variety of going-after-women-in-the-hierarchy.

Also, our Alexa ranking has ticked up slightly since Mr. Kudpung started calling Wikipediocracy a "hate site." It had been pretty much on the decline since the 2016 election, but now... I dunno, maybe he could be our secret weapon!

..........Ever since the administration here misguidedly halted Trump discussion, thereby ending The Golden Age of Vigilant...

I don't think criticism of Katherine Maher is inherently misogynist, by any means. She strikes me as a pretty icky bureaucrat and ultimately the one responsible for allowing the San Fran Ban system to fester. But neither is she the worst head of WMF in its history...

I'm glad GW is not being successfully bullied into backing down on calling bullshit where it probably deserves to be called.

RfB

[The Garbage Scow]

[Kumioko]

Katherine Maher may be the best CEO/ED in the world but if she is she isn't choosing to employ those abilities at her current position. She is so focused on using donation dollars to go out and travel and talk to donors to get more donation dollars to travel, that she is completely failing at managing the organization.

When she was the communications director she didn't respond to emails unless you were talking about donating money and she is even worse now as the ED.

Try an experiment, send her an email from an email address with a random question about something WMF related. Then send an email about making a donation and see which one gets responded to faster. When I did this my first one never received a response, when I sent another email about making a donation I got a response in 11 minutes.

[Randy from Boise]

Katherine Maher may be the best CEO/ED in the world but if she is she isn't choosing to employ those abilities at her current position. She is so focused on using donation dollars to go out and travel and talk to donors to get more donation dollars to travel, that she is completely failing at managing the organization.

When she was the communications director she didn't respond to emails unless you were talking about donating money and she is even worse now as the ED.

Try an experiment, send her an email from an email address with a random question about something WMF related. Then send an email about making a donation and see which one gets responded to faster. When I did this my first one never received a response, when I sent another email about making a donation I got a response in 11 minutes.

........We all have our priorities.

Pretty hilarious experiment.

RfB

[The Adversary]

04:41, 12 August 2018 , Kudpung (T-C-L) implies on his talk page that GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) is a "man hater".
600 people watch his page; none of them warned Kudpung, or threaten to block him for violating WP:NPA (T-H-L).


08:00, 30 August 2018 GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) returns the favour, and implies that Kudpung is a "Woman hater" (=the definition of misogyny)
That page has 52 watchers, one apparently being Fram (T-C-L), who at once goes to GWs talk page and demand that she retract the statement, when she dont: she is blocked. (Oh, and Fram is made aware of Kudpungs earlier attack on GW.)


We get it, we get it.

Calling any woman for a "man hater" is perfectly ok, that is just reality, right? When she doesn't agree with what a guy says, it must obviously be because she hates men.

But for a woman to call a man a "Woman hater":
Block the witch!! Burn her! To the stake!!

[Eric Corbett]

04:41, 12 August 2018 , Kudpung (T-C-L) implies on his talk page that GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) is a "man hater".
600 people watch his page; none of them warned Kudpung, or threaten to block him for violating WP:NPA (T-H-L).


08:00, 30 August 2018 GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) returns the favour, and implies that Kudpung is a "Woman hater" (=the definition of misogyny)
That page has 52 watchers, one apparently being Fram (T-C-L), who at once goes to GWs talk page and demand that she retract the statement, when she dont: she is blocked. (Oh, and Fram is made aware of Kudpungs earlier attack on GW.)


We get it, we get it.

Calling any woman for a "man hater" is perfectly ok, that is just reality, right? When she doesn't agree with what a guy says, it must obviously be because she hates men.

But for a woman to call a man a "Woman hater":
Block the witch!! Burn her! To the stake!!

I really don't see how this kind of hysterical bullshit helps anyone or anything. Responding to name calling by calling names in return isn't exactly the behaviour of a rational adult.

[The Adversary]

Responding to name calling by calling names in return isn't exactly the behaviour of a rational adult.

Here you have:
1 A is calling B names
2 B returns the favour
3 C blocks B...A walks scott free.

Of the three, I think A and C behaved by far the worst.
But only B is punished.

And is it irrational behaviour? Much of my working life I spent as the sole women among men. I learned that to teach men to behave (and yes: some you really have to teach...) one of the more efficient ways were to treat them like they treated me.

Examples:
If they didn't take down those centerfolds from Playboy (T-H-L) from where we were working......then I would threaten to put up centerfolds from Playgirl (T-H-L) (The posters always came down, then!)

When some complained that I didn't look or dress like a James Bond babe (I had a job which required a Uni Science degree)....I complained that they didn't look or dress like James Bond.

Etc, etc, etc.

So I understand 100% where GorillaWarfare is coming from, when she used the same words about Kudpung, as he had used about her.

[Kumioko]

Responding to name calling by calling names in return isn't exactly the behaviour of a rational adult.

Here you have:
1 A is calling B names
2 B returns the favour
3 C blocks B...A walks scott free.

Of the three, I think A and C behaved by far the worst.
But only B is punished.

And is it irrational behaviour? Much of my working life I spent as the sole women among men. I learned that to teach men to behave (and yes: some you really have to teach...) one of the more efficient ways were to treat them like they treated me.

Examples:
If they didn't take down those centerfolds from Playboy (T-H-L) from where we were working......then I would threaten to put up centerfolds from Playgirl (T-H-L) (The posters always came down, then!)

When some complained that I didn't look or dress like a James Bond babe (I had a job which required a Uni Science degree)....I complained that they didn't look or dress like James Bond.

Etc, etc, etc.

So I understand 100% where GorillaWarfare is coming from, when she used the same words about Kudpung, as he had used about her.

Ok so this is probably going to get me scolded of being a misogynist but here goes. A little story:

When I was in High School, the dress code disallowed guys from wearing any shorts and it got to 120 degrees in the summers. Women could wear shorts, dresses, pants, etc. So one day a bunch of the guys wore dresses to school because the dress code did not explicitly state that guys could not wear them...the school changed the rule to mirror the WOMEN's dress code (including kilt with appropriate undergarments). Skip ahead to current day. How many guys you see wearing sandals or flip flops to office work? Answer: Virtually zero! How many women do it? A lot, I see them all the time here in DC.

So yes, there is still a gap between what one gender can do and is considered socially appropriate and another one can't. If people want to completely eliminate the gap, then they need to match everything, not just pick and choose the ones that are convenient to them.

Women should get paid and be treated the same as men, I agree, but being treated equally also should extend to things like the dress code and other topics that they do not WANT to comply with. If they want to be treated equally, then men and women should be held to the exact same standards.

[Eric Corbett]

Responding to name calling by calling names in return isn't exactly the behaviour of a rational adult.

Here you have:
1 A is calling B names
2 B returns the favour
3 C blocks B...A walks scott free.

Of the three, I think A and C behaved by far the worst.
But only B is punished.

And is it irrational behaviour? Much of my working life I spent as the sole women among men. I learned that to teach men to behave (and yes: some you really have to teach...) one of the more efficient ways were to treat them like they treated me.

Examples:
If they didn't take down those centerfolds from Playboy (T-H-L) from where we were working......then I would threaten to put up centerfolds from Playgirl (T-H-L) (The posters always came down, then!)

When some complained that I didn't look or dress like a James Bond babe (I had a job which required a Uni Science degree)....I complained that they didn't look or dress like James Bond.

Etc, etc, etc.

So I understand 100% where GorillaWarfare is coming from, when she used the same words about Kudpung, as he had used about her.

I understand it too, just that I don't think it's a very effective strategy. I like the way you handled your own situation though.

[The Adversary]

Ok so this is probably going to get me scolded of being a misogynist but here goes. A little story:

When I was in High School, the dress code disallowed guys from wearing any shorts and it got to 120 degrees in the summers. Women could wear shorts, dresses, pants, etc. So one day a bunch of the guys wore dresses to school because the dress code did not explicitly state that guys could not wear them...the school changed the rule to mirror the WOMEN's dress code (including kilt with appropriate undergarments). Skip ahead to current day. How many guys you see wearing sandals or flip flops to office work? Answer: Virtually zero! How many women do it? A lot, I see them all the time here in DC.

So yes, there is still a gap between what one gender can do and is considered socially appropriate and another one can't. If people want to completely eliminate the gap, then they need to match everything, not just pick and choose the ones that are convenient to them.

Women should get paid and be treated the same as men, I agree, but being treated equally also should extend to things like the dress code and other topics that they do not WANT to comply with. If they want to be treated equally, then men and women should be held to the exact same standards.

I have always, always applied the same standard. Eg, when I was 16, I went to a rather fancy bording school, which had just opened up for girls (it was earlier an all boys school).
The curriculum, etc were all similar...except that the girls for some strange reason were not required to do to compulsory outdoor early morning swim. (The boys had to do it.)
The first thing I did was to organise a couple of the other girls...and off to morning swim we went.
Morning swing then became compulsory for all the girls too, during my first year there. (No it didn't make me beloved....but I grew up by the sea, nearly drowned as a child....and know very well that women can drown as easily as men...)

I believe dress codes are more formal in the US than here....when I worked, we all wore the geek uniform; blue jeans and t shirts.

But Kumioko, what men don't understand, or get, are the thousand little putdowns. (Or womens way of fighting against them!!)
Just one example: at Uni I was a diving instructor; we had an outdoor test, call it Test2, which involved free dive down to 10 meters (with flippers). Now, new pupils often failed this test.
If it was a guy who failed it, everyone said: "Oh, its a very difficult test."
If it was a girl who failed it, everyone said: "Oh, of course she failed, she is girl, what can you expect!"
This happened not once, or twice...but 100% of the time.

It got me so angry, so I started coaching all the girls on how to pass the test (basically when people failed the test, it was virtually always because they couldn't equalise the pressure in their ears..... so just teaching them to blow open their Eustachian tube (T-H-L) many times a day for a week or three would do the trick).
So most of the girls passed....and many boys failed..... (I know, I know: Im evil!)

What Im trying to say, is that with that putdown Kudpung (T-C-L) did of GorillaWarfare (T-H-L) on 12 August 2018 ...and recall: NONE of his 600(!) "watchers" saw reason to threaten to block him, or retract it....the smartest thing GW could do, was to "give as good as she got".

Except, of course on Wikipedia there are different rules for male wounded pride (=extremely important), and female wounded pride (= dont matter one bit).

I understand it too, just that I don't think it's a very effective strategy.

And can you tell me what would have been an effective strategy?

[Eric Corbett]

Ok so this is probably going to get me scolded of being a misogynist but here goes. A little story:

When I was in High School, the dress code disallowed guys from wearing any shorts and it got to 120 degrees in the summers. Women could wear shorts, dresses, pants, etc. So one day a bunch of the guys wore dresses to school because the dress code did not explicitly state that guys could not wear them...the school changed the rule to mirror the WOMEN's dress code (including kilt with appropriate undergarments). Skip ahead to current day. How many guys you see wearing sandals or flip flops to office work? Answer: Virtually zero! How many women do it? A lot, I see them all the time here in DC.

So yes, there is still a gap between what one gender can do and is considered socially appropriate and another one can't. If people want to completely eliminate the gap, then they need to match everything, not just pick and choose the ones that are convenient to them.

Women should get paid and be treated the same as men, I agree, but being treated equally also should extend to things like the dress code and other topics that they do not WANT to comply with. If they want to be treated equally, then men and women should be held to the exact same standards.

I have always, always applied the same standard. Eg, when I was 16, I went to a rather fancy bording school, which had just opened up for girls (it was earlier an all boys school).
The curriculum, etc were all similar...except that the girls for some strange reason were not required to do to compulsory outdoor early morning swim. (The boys had to do it.)
The first thing I did was to organise a couple of the other girls...and off to morning swim we went.
Morning swing then became compulsory for all the girls too, during my first year there. (No it didn't make me beloved....but I grew up by the sea, nearly drowned as a child....and know very well that women can drown as easily as men...)

I believe dress codes are more formal in the US than here....when I worked, we all wore the geek uniform; blue jeans and t shirts.

But Kumioko, what men don't understand, or get, are the thousand little putdowns. (Or womens way of fighting against them!!)
Just one example: at Uni I was a diving instructor; we had an outdoor test, call it Test2, which involved free dive down to 10 meters (with flippers). Now, new pupils often failed this test.
If it was a guy who failed it, everyone said: "Oh, its a very difficult test."
If it was a girl who failed it, everyone said: "Oh, of course she failed, she is girl, what can you expect!"
This happened not once, or twice...but 100% of the time.

It got me so angry, so I started coaching all the girls on how to pass the test (basically when people failed the test, it was virtually always because they couldn't equalise the pressure in their ears..... so just teaching them to blow open their Eustachian tube (T-H-L) many times a day for a week or three would do the trick).
So most of the girls passed....and many boys failed..... (I know, I know: Im evil!)

What Im trying to say, is that with that putdown Kudpung (T-C-L) did of GorillaWarfare (T-H-L) on 12 August 2018 ...and recall: NONE of his 600(!) "watchers" saw reason to threaten to block him, or retract it....the smartest thing GW could do, was to "give as good as she got".

Except, of course on Wikipedia there are different rules for male wounded pride (=extremely important), and female wounded pride (= dont matter one bit).

I understand it too, just that I don't think it's a very effective strategy.

And can you tell me what would have been an effective strategy?

I used to work for a manager who in a crisis meeting always started things off by saying "Right, our first option is to do nothing. Who's in favour of that?" So ignoring it might work.

I think you're making a mistake in your interpretation of events though. Kudpung may well have 600 watchers, I've got no idea, and I may well be one of those watchers. But as I hardly ever look at Wikipedia these days I've got no way of knowing what nonsense he - or indeed anyone else - has spouted, so it would be rather presumptuous of you to claim that because I said nothing I approved of whatever it was that he said. In point of fact I agree with very little that Kudpung says about anything.

[Kumioko]

In fairness I have Kudpungs (and all the admins) talk page on a couple dozen sock accounts so those are also hitting against that 600 watchers number.

[Beeblebrox]

Like picture of the day, one wonders if a project that can just collapse if one particular person leaves is a project that can and should be kept going.

Hopefully this latest issue is a hiccup as I found the writing to be mostly terrible, disjointed and unengaging.

[Kumioko]

Like picture of the day, one wonders if a project that can just collapse if one particular person leaves is a project that can and should be kept going.

Hopefully this latest issue is a hiccup as I found the writing to be mostly terrible, disjointed and unengaging.

Same could be said of a lot of things really. There are multiple WikiProjects, including United States, that fall into that group you describe. JWB the Web version of AWB is like that too. If Joey stops showing up, it'll die!

[The Adversary]

I used to work for a manager who in a crisis meeting always started things off by saying "Right, our first option is to do nothing. Who's in favour of that?" So ignoring it might work.

I think you're making a mistake in your interpretation of events though. Kudpung may well have 600 watchers, I've got no idea, and I may well be one of those watchers. But as I hardly ever look at Wikipedia these days I've got no way of knowing what nonsense he - or indeed anyone else - has spouted, so it would be rather presumptuous of you to claim that because I said nothing I approved of whatever it was that he said. In point of fact I agree with very little that Kudpung says about anything.

No, no, and no again.
If you ignore inappropriate behaviour, you are in effect teaching people that this inappropriate behaviour is acceptable! Then it will never end.
You have to tell people, loud and clear, that you consider this behaviour inappropriate.

For GorillaWarfare to ignore the implication that she was a "man hater", would mean that in the future anybody could say the same about her.

And I dont know that 600 people saw what Kudpung said....but there were more that 10 times more watchers on his page, than on the page GW "transgressed" on. And also; Fram was explicitly made aware of what Kudpung had said.....he still went ahead and blocked GW.

And if you have no problem with a man calling a woman a "man hater".....but find it totally unacceptable that a woman can call a man a "woman hater"......then you seriously need to recalibrate your value system.

[Ming]

I used to work for a manager who in a crisis meeting always started things off by saying "Right, our first option is to do nothing. Who's in favour of that?" So ignoring it might work.

I think you're making a mistake in your interpretation of events though. Kudpung may well have 600 watchers, I've got no idea, and I may well be one of those watchers. But as I hardly ever look at Wikipedia these days I've got no way of knowing what nonsense he - or indeed anyone else - has spouted, so it would be rather presumptuous of you to claim that because I said nothing I approved of whatever it was that he said. In point of fact I agree with very little that Kudpung says about anything.

No, no, and no again.
If you ignore inappropriate behaviour, you are in effect teaching people that this inappropriate behaviour is acceptable! Then it will never end.

... which is teaching that intolerance is acceptable behavior, which is unacceptable. Humans are too sloppy for this; there has to be some degree of tolerance because people will always accidentally go over someone's limits, even assuming they are entirely reasonable. And that "reasonable" is itself a problem, because to be reasonable, they need to be mutually agreed by reasonable people. It is deliberately obscure as to what happened in this incident, and Ming is going to reserve judgement therefore, but having seen too much overreaction over the years, Ming isn't going to by default hold that every accusation must be assume founded, and still less that each must be acted upon.

[Randy from Boise]

04:41, 12 August 2018 , Kudpung (T-C-L) implies on his talk page that GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) is a "man hater".
600 people watch his page; none of them warned Kudpung, or threaten to block him for violating WP:NPA (T-H-L).


08:00, 30 August 2018 GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) returns the favour, and implies that Kudpung is a "Woman hater" (=the definition of misogyny)
That page has 52 watchers, one apparently being Fram (T-C-L), who at once goes to GWs talk page and demand that she retract the statement, when she dont: she is blocked. (Oh, and Fram is made aware of Kudpungs earlier attack on GW.)


We get it, we get it.

Calling any woman for a "man hater" is perfectly ok, that is just reality, right? When she doesn't agree with what a guy says, it must obviously be because she hates men.

But for a woman to call a man a "Woman hater":
Block the witch!! Burn her! To the stake!!

Total agreement here.

GenderDesk: See, we wuv youuuuuuu!!!!

~~~~

P.S. Ooops! —RfB

[Randy from Boise]

04:41, 12 August 2018 , Kudpung (T-C-L) implies on his talk page that GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) is a "man hater".
600 people watch his page; none of them warned Kudpung, or threaten to block him for violating WP:NPA (T-H-L).


08:00, 30 August 2018 GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) returns the favour, and implies that Kudpung is a "Woman hater" (=the definition of misogyny)
That page has 52 watchers, one apparently being Fram (T-C-L), who at once goes to GWs talk page and demand that she retract the statement, when she dont: she is blocked. (Oh, and Fram is made aware of Kudpungs earlier attack on GW.)


We get it, we get it.

Calling any woman for a "man hater" is perfectly ok, that is just reality, right? When she doesn't agree with what a guy says, it must obviously be because she hates men.

But for a woman to call a man a "Woman hater":
Block the witch!! Burn her! To the stake!!

I really don't see how this kind of hysterical bullshit helps anyone or anything. Responding to name calling by calling names in return isn't exactly the behaviour of a rational adult.

Mr. Corbett, you are turning into a statesman.

Genderdesk: See, we hates youuuuuuu!

RfB

[GorillaWarfare]

Hey all -- it's been surprisingly heartening to read this thread. I appreciate those of you who've been supportive (especially you, The Adversary).

I mean, she's a member here so if she wants to she can tell us herself, but I wonder if her more-prominent-than-most position as an admin, Arbcom member, and occasionally-quoted source for news articles makes her feel some pressure to respond to these things more than she might prefer, because that's what leaders do - which is to say that Wikipedia and its general hostility to women has put her in a lose-lose situation from the get-go.

Perhaps a little, but I'd generally say that I don't feel particularly pressured to respond. I will say that you did bring up some excellent points. I was not exactly expecting to see someone speaking eloquently about micro-agressions on Wikipediocracy, and was pleasantly surprised.

She gives this persona of being this sweet, delicate, innocent little flower with her poor me attitude

I will say this is the first time I've been described as a "sweet, delicate, innocent little flower" (much less intentionally attempting to portray that persona)... Got a good laugh, I will admit. Maybe if I was more aggressive? Although that probably would feed your other criticism of me (in the same comment), where you say I "attack ... poor male editor".

A bit off topic perhaps, but regarding the dress code discussion between The Adversary and Kumioko: I think the inherently flawed nature of dress codes means they are often unfairly applied, and depending on the environment, social norms, and who has written the dress code it can affect various genders differently. To your point, Kumioko, there are certainly workplaces where it's fine for a woman to wear a knee-length dress in hot weather, while men are expected to continue wearing trousers or even full suits with jackets. Many workplaces don't think twice about women wearing makeup or heels but would be taken aback by a man or someone who didn't present as female doing the same. Same goes for your example about women wearing sandals or flip-flops to work... this sounds believable, although my experiences haven't matched yours. I'm working with a low sample size, only having had three office jobs where I had any sort of choice over what I wore—my part time jobs in high school were waitressing (had to wear the branded t-shirt, long pants or knee length shorts, closed-toed shoes, same as the men) or working at a vet's office (scrub top, long pants that I wouldn't miss if I had to throw them away, closed-toed shoes but waterproof if I had any sense). My first two office jobs were "business casual". As far as I recall the dress code was fairly balanced—trousers for both genders, button-downs, polos, nice blouses, or sweaters. Sandals and flip-flops would have been out of place at both (unless perhaps they were the strappy high-heeled sandals some women wear, but I'd pick a pair of men's loafers over those any day.) My current job is at your sort of startup-y software company and shorts, sandals, and flip-flops are commonplace among all genders. Hell, I wear slippers around the office in the wintertime when I don't want to stomp around all day in my snow boots.

But do realize that your experience with unequal dress codes doesn't necessarily mean dress codes tend toward being skewed against men. A few examples: in high school, boys were allowed to wear tank top shirts and girls were not. In workplaces where all genders are allowed to wear pants/skirts shorter than ankle length, typically only women are expected to shave their legs. There are many workplaces in which women not wearing makeup or heels would be seen as unprofessional, or at least dowdy. Moving this away from gender a bit, there are many workplaces where black people suffer if they choose not to keep their hair short or get straightening treatments; dreadlocks, braids, and afros are often considered "unprofessional". This gets even more hairy when it comes to trans and non-binary people, who are often met with confusion or shock if they wear clothes not considered within their gender norms, or particularly in the case of trans women (or more generally people who are not cis women but are presenting femme), if they wear shorter styles that are common among cisgender women.

[Eric Corbett]

And if you have no problem with a man calling a woman a "man hater".....but find it totally unacceptable that a woman can call a man a "woman hater"......then you seriously need to recalibrate your value system.

Wouldn't you agree that it would be best just to stick to what I said, without trying to use your clearly faulty telepathic powers to guess what you believe I really think? Where did I say that I found either acceptable?

[The Adversary]

And if you have no problem with a man calling a woman a "man hater".....but find it totally unacceptable that a woman can call a man a "woman hater"......then you seriously need to recalibrate your value system.

Wouldn't you agree that it would be best just to stick to what I said, without trying to use your clearly faulty telepathic powers to guess what you believe I really think? Where did I say that I found either acceptable?

Nowhere...and where did I say you did?

Alas, the problem is that (AFAIK) Wikipedia does see it this way.....blocking GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) for one of those statements ....and not blocking Kudpung (T-C-L) for the same.

[Randy from Boise]

Hey all -- it's been surprisingly heartening to read this thread. I appreciate those of you who've been supportive (especially you, The Adversary).

Quoting Public Enemy: "Don't believe the hype."

RfB

[Bezdomni]

20 posts by end of day...

source

<model="topicOn">
Looking through "In the Media" I see that the Quartz article (§), starring the latest global bannee, wasn't featured at the shiny post.

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia: A profile of Susan Gerbic, founder and leader of the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW) project, was published by Voices of Monterey Bay.
Women in Red featured again: Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (User:Rosiestep) was interviewed about WikiProject Women in Red on The Daily Dot's "2 girls 1 podcast" show.

Speaking of guerilla warfare, there's a certain Helen desTroy out there who believes Wikipedia embraces the dark side.

Maybe there will be a link to those missing essays in the first post-KudPung Signpost?

[Eric Corbett]

And if you have no problem with a man calling a woman a "man hater".....but find it totally unacceptable that a woman can call a man a "woman hater"......then you seriously need to recalibrate your value system.

Wouldn't you agree that it would be best just to stick to what I said, without trying to use your clearly faulty telepathic powers to guess what you believe I really think? Where did I say that I found either acceptable?

Nowhere...and where did I say you did?

Alas, the problem is that (AFAIK) Wikipedia does see it this way.....blocking GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) for one of those statements ....and not blocking Kudpung (T-C-L) for the same.

I don't see any reason why GorillaWarfare should have been blocked either, especially as Kudpung wasn't, but I've never thought that Wikipedia was fair. And I say that despite GorillaWarfare having on more than one occasion when acting as an arbitrator voted to have me booted off the project. She should just have waited until my patience with Wikipedia ran out.

Let's remember as well that this bias works both ways. I received a lot of stick from some female editors - and some of them very high profile - after I wrote wife selling. But are we to be selective in our coverage of the history of women's rights where it might touch a raw nerve? I've always found it incomprehensible that so much effort was expended in an effort to piss off one of the editors most supportive of women, and girls, on Wikipedia. Culminating of course in me being forbidden even to comment on anything to do with Wikipedia's perceived gender gap.

[Randy from Boise]

I don't see any reason why GorillaWarfare should have been blocked either, especially as Kudpung wasn't, but I've never thought that Wikipedia was fair. And I say that despite GorillaWarfare having on more than one occasion when acting as an arbitrator voted to have me booted off the project. She should just have waited until my patience with Wikipedia ran out.

Let's remember as well that this bias works both ways. I received a lot of stick from some female editors - and some of them very high profile - after I wrote wife selling. But are we to be selective in our coverage of the history of women's rights where it might touch a raw nerve? I've always found it incomprehensible that so much effort was expended in an effort to piss off one of the editors most supportive of women, and girls, on Wikipedia. Culminating of course in me being forbidden even to comment on anything to do with Wikipedia's perceived gender gap.

No, Wikipedia isn't fair. Once one pisses off the wrong people, they will keep chipping and chipping and chipping until at last they get a chance to push the person off the pier.

Quoting the apparently departed Liz (T-C-L) (last edited July 2017)...

Liz's Law of Longevity

"Longevity on Wikipedia is 40% not pissing people off, 20% having friends come to support you when you are in a dispute, 30% having reliable sources on your side and 10% just plain dumb luck." —Liz at AN/I, 01:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


That's on target...

RfB

[DexterPointy]

(Grief, I turned my back on the online world for about a day, and found war zones upon having returned.)

@GorillaWarfare:
The "minor point" edit there (12.Aug.2018, 04:21UTC): Your "referred to by my username when discussed among men"-link is simply linking to Kudpung's revision history: I've be unable to locate the earlier edit-summary/summaries you're probably referring to. Could you please afford me something more specific?

[Poetlister]

Maybe if I was more aggressive?

Remember, if a man behaves in a certain way he's assertive. If a woman behaves in a similar way, she's aggressive.

[GorillaWarfare]

@GorillaWarfare:
The "minor point" edit there (12.Aug.2018, 04:21UTC): Your "referred to by my username when discussed among men"-link is simply linking to Kudpung's revision history: I've be unable to locate the earlier edit-summery/summaries you're probably referring to. Could you please afford me something more specific?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854511592

[GorillaWarfare]

I think I was pretty clear in my "Minor point" post that, though it's a minor point, I prefer to be referred to by my username when I'm listed among other people being referred to by theirs. I give my real name on Wikipedia and am fine if people use it, I just prefer it be used consistently within a conversation.

To be clear, my issue with Kudpung is not that he called me by my real name — when I described it as a "minor point" I meant it. My issue was with the ensuing outburst.