The answer to a hypothetical query by TDA
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367632.10;wap2
"Simon Tushingham [Sitush]"

"I was an active user in Wikipedia for the past many many years. I had
more than 30,000 edits to my name. From 2011, most of the sections in
Wikipedia were under the control of organized cabals. I wrote to Jimmy
Wales many times warning against this. But many of the users who
voiced against this were later banned. In the section I was following,
the leader of the Cabal was from Manchester, known by his alibi "Simon
Tushingham". Despite this guy committing all sorts of one-sided edits,
Wales supported him. Tushingham frequently bragged in Wikipedia that
he regularly talked to Wales in his cell phone and were good friends
in real life. I had enough and quit Wikipedia in 2011. I know many
more who did the same.
Wikipedia is similar to a ponzi scheme. They publicized themselves as
a "free" and "unbiased" online encyclopedia. Once they had enough
following, they kicked out the old users and showed their true
colors."

In reply to :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=636276109#GGTF_interactions_arbcom_case_has_now_closed

"So you won't comment on the case, but how about a hypothetical? Let's
say there is a male editor who, after the conclusion of an arbitration
case, begins following a female editor from the same case all over the
site for months. When that editor is reported for this behavior and
there is a proposal to bar the male editor from interacting with the
female editor, another male editor comes to his defense and suggests
if the male editor is barred from interacting with the female editor
that maybe he will start "following her around" instead. After the
proposal is passed the other male editor announces he is going to be
doing work on Wikipedia regarding a link, which just happens to be the
personal website of the female editor. The female editor objects and
questions his intentions. This male editor then begins taunting her
with personal details researched online and plainly expresses his
intentions to write a bio about her here. Despite several other
objections and the female editor's own protests, this male editor
creates a draft that he explains is fully intended to be made into a
live article all about the female editor. It is apparent that certain
details have been cherry-picked from primary sources and articles
about the female editor and presented in a way that is clearly aimed
at being unflattering towards her. Despite numerous editors suggesting
his actions are woefully inappropriate he insists that he is a
perfectly good editor who is being neutral towards this person he
detests. Would you consider it acceptable for the Arbitration
Committee to ban the female editor for commenting about this male
editor's behavior, while giving the male editor essentially nothing
more than a warning after praising his efforts on this site?--The
Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)"

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Gender Gap" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gender-gap+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.