I don't know a lot about this case, but taking a cursory look at the diffs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=628547686 ...presumably an "excessive edit" is a derogatrory way of saying "a single large edit". In which case I would probably have said the same as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=628548723
To be feminist or to not be feminist...
I once read about a mother who went into a toy shop with her little girl. She was walking towards the check-out with a toy fire truck and some Lego when she was stopped by a member of staff who pointed out that the store had dolls. The mother said that her daughter didn't like dolls, that she likes trucks. She was about to move off again when the staff member pointed out that the store sold pastel Lego (as opposed to the primary coloured bucket of Lego that she had picked up). I'm sure she didn't think of herself as a feminist until that moment.
I find that most people who join feminist groups / gender gap mailing list etc. never thought of themselves as feminists until they had a "Lego moment".
My Lego moment was reading this article:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fashion-news/the-wag-wannabes-949827 about a 19 year-old who was hoping to become the wife or girlfriend of a footballer (soccer player).
>"The lifestyle is amazing. Nice house, expensive cars. Wherever
footballers go they are recognised and
>have people looking up to them.
They know they can be with anyone - it's a privilege when they pick
you."
Marie
> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:24:12 -0500
> From: carolmooredc@verizon.net
> To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
>
> On 1/25/2015 6:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense
> > against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other
> > policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with
> > positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put
> > their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of
> > a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was,
> > there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply
> > requesting his bit back.
> The problem being that ArbCom is so political that most members see
> editors they dislike/disagree with on issues/content as disruptive even
> if their disruption is minor compared to that of the editors they feel
> more sympatico with. And of course if the "community" (i.e., gangs of
> editors who are allies) decide to target someone it's just easier
> politically to sanction those persons than not. And if they have a lot
> of supporters it is safer NOT to sanction them.
>
> This issue was very clear in GGTF arbitration where a few people were
> targeted by most posters, over and over for the same issues, at least
> til the end when an Arbitrator added a couple more needing sanctions.
> It's less clear in Gamergate because there are more participants being
> targeted by many more participants on many different issues.
>
> CM
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap