It has recently become my opinion that a majority of Wikipedians are not really a well-represented demographic here, given their skin color ("white" as if ghosts, scary and unwelcome) and gender (e.g., where locker room phrases like "mansplaining" cause little concern). It has become my opinion that this publication is becoming more and more a political tool to annoy and harass ("molest") European male Wikipedians, likely also harbouring other minority and extremist political ideologies, under the guise of empowerment and equality and who knows what else.

And at the same time, it seems to have adopted an uncanny similarity to political warfare widely adopted by European males: seeking control of social institutions (Wikipedia) by seeking control of their institutions of violence (ArbCom in this case, their decisions more-or-less being enforceable in SF courts and their associated US police and paramilitary forces), and attacks (propaganda and using the instutitions of violence) on "oppresors" and other enemies as a method of fearmongering meant to aid in the raising of morale and troops, but also meant to push their opponents into more extremist and minority positions.

The Signpost seems dominated with editors consumed by hatred and fear. I primarily edit articles about European government institutions, the traditional political instiutions of European males, knowing full well the violence they are responsible for causing. I consider it so important becuase the Signpost makes it clear that there is a significant political movement to retrain this violence once again, obviously unaware of the historical fate that awaits such attempts. We're not out of the woods yet, so don't go starting a forest fire. Int21h (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is it the Traffic Report that is victimizing European male Wikipedians and promoting extremist political ideology or is it Featured Content? Your assertions might have some weight if you actually provided evidence of your over-the-top claims. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internal divisions of the Signpost are distinctions without a difference. It is the heavy use of gender-, sexual- and ethnicity-oriented content in general that has piqued my interest. Those are common political topics worldwide, but nonetheless are often precursors to gender, sexual and ethnic discrimination, and I think it is increasingly going that way. I focused on the term "mansplaining" because it was the most obvious, but I didn't really consider the assumption underlying most of the dicussion: (a) that a majority European male population is bad, and/or (b) that a majority European male population must be suppressed.

I'm not even sure what would be considered "evidence". I think it would be more efficient to let someone else prove it, especially since I am not very knowledgeable on the topic of "class warfare", but it is on my list of things to do when my primary editing goals are sufficiently met. Int21h (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the entire Signpost editorial board is made up of all white (and one slightly off-white) males of European descent? Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While that is an intriguing facet of psychology, it is well known feature of the topic. E.g., wealthy landowners supporting (even being the main force behind) a political movement for radical land reform and redistribution of wealth does not magically mean that movement does not exist as such. Int21h (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does one conduct a paramilitary overthrow of an internet encyclopedia exactly? Asking for a friend. Gamaliel (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: - I think The Signpost's coverage of Wikipedia's gender issues has been absolutely laudable, but it feels a bit bizarre to me to then turn around and make a man who wrote this and this responsible for Special Reports/Projects. Does your concern about the treatment of women on the project not extend to men who like to call women editors "bitches"? The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, no one "makes" me responsible for special reports—I might deign to do it if I feel like it. it's not a paid job. Second, "bitchy" is far from calling someone "a bitch". And you're proving right here that the epithet (not the noun, which you dishonestly throw around here) was exactly what you deserved. I wouldn't have a clue what gender you were ("wife" proves nothing, and if anything your username is pretty sexist ... someone's wife, are you?), but the other editor I called that at the time I know was male. Where does that leave your twisted logic? Tony (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 has been an indispensible part of the Signpost well before I ever contributed here. All I did was put a title to something he's already been doing for a long time. I'm sorry you had a disagreement with him, and I'm not going to defend or excuse whatever someone thinks he may have done wrong during that disagreement as that has nothing to do with the Signpost or anyone else here, just as the many disagreements I've had with users over the decade that I've been a Wikipedia editor and the many instances where I acted poorly should not reflect upon my colleagues here or this publication. Obviously I am concerned about the treatment of women, and editors of any gender, race, or nationality, on Wikipedia. That doesn't change just because I acted like an asshat here in the past. The fact that I acted in poorly in the past doesn't make me a hypocrite, that doesn't make my concerns invalid, that just makes me a regular, flawed, imperfect human being. I'll take a flawed person who strives to do right by the encyclopedia any day over a person who says we shouldn't be concerned about how we treat others here, and loudly insists that they should be allowed to be terrible to anyone at any time. Gamaliel (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think you're terrific and respect you highly, and none of this was a criticism of you. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of rightfully pointing out that tolerating and supporting a man who thinks calling women "cunts" is probably not great for encouraging the inclusion of women on the project, while happily collaborating with someone who likes to call women "bitches" with a rationale that could be Eric's word for word except for the different slur. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are a vile, detestable person. "For what it's worth", this appears to be pay-back for my calling out of the Australian chapter for its illegal behaviour. I believe s/he communes with them. Tony (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that "illegal behaviour" was choosing a spelling of "notice board" over "noticeboard". As if this doesn't even more clearly demonstrate that Tony1's attitude towards and means of communicating with women editors is no different from Eric Corbett's. One tends to remember the men who unashamedly throw around misogynist slurs at women editors. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, no, I'm referring to several years of wrongdoing by the committee of WMAU—breaking its electoral rules, for example. See Meta for the current issue. Thank you for your concern, which has not been duly noted. Tony (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]