Double standard.  Where are all the usual voices protesting about "civility police"?  Where are all the arbitrators opining that they cannot set objective standards for language?

Beeblebrox used to have an article about "fuck off" in his user space.  It didn't get him banned. In fact, he went on to become an administrator and arbitrator.

In the absence of objective standards, subjective standards are emerging, based on gender.  Using the f-word, or even criticizing male users, is becoming a male privilege on en.wp.  Anyone else who uses the word is "hostile" and exhibiting "battleground behavior". I must also say I am very disappointed in GorillaWarfare's role here.

Maybe, just maybe, instead of just dismissing anything that is said by a woman editor, the arbitration committee should investigate it. I am looking in particular at this one If it is true, there are a huge number of users recruited on external sites, who are not there to build an encyclopedia, that will have huge implications for the survival of women editors on Wikipedia. The arbitration committee is looking at WP:SPA, they should look at WP:MEAT. And they should pay attention to who the ringleaders are, not just the throwaway accounts. 

But, as has been pointed out on the current RFC, that would change the WP:OUTING policy to prohibit all mention of outside accounts, including Reddit Men's Rights and Reddit Gamergate, "trying to address the issues without being able to talk openly about the evidence is difficult".

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Marie Earley <> wrote:
I don't know a lot about this case, but taking a cursory look at the diffs...

...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:

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: 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."


> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:24:12 -0500
> From:
> To:
> 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
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:

Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: