Forum:RationalWiki Facebook group meltdown

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The RationalWiki Facebook "Blunt Knives" Coup[edit]

For those of you that aren't aware, some MRA's on the FB group were adminned, and went on some grade-school level bullshit, kicking out several folks and admins (David Gerard, being one of the casualties), all because they got called out on some bullshit. What. The. Fuck.... User:TokenSkepticMagician Talk, comments and 'UR a faq lols' 8:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That is BASELESS SLANDER of respected RationalWikians like Ace and Goonie. The active group is here - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
What makes me an MRA? Acei9 23:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
You are not in any way an MRA. Hijacking the old group was a bit of a dick move, though. Which is why everyone is leaving and coming to the new group. WE ARE LIBRE RATIONAL WIKI. You are APACHE OPEN OFFICE and OPEN SSL IN ONE. - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
You would look dashing in a fedora though, Ace. --Kels (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Basically, hijacking the group and banning a pile of people 'cos you're butthurt about a Facebook argument? Ace, you literally just became Conservapedia. Hope you're proud! - David Gerard (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Meh. I'll never own or wear a fedora, Kels. I'm not proud - it had become a horrible place. You presided over a place where disagreement = MRA! LIBERTARIAN! Here's a meme, now fuck off." All the pride is with you. Acei9 00:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
But you could liberate that once-proud piece of headgear! Take it back from the (literally) unwashed masses! --Kels (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ace, how can you justify launching a backhanded coup like this? Are you that petty? Lager (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ace went full Schlafly. You NEVER go full Schlafly - David Gerard (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
This is like the time he removed all the moderators' rights except his own-- (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The sad thing is this isn't even the first time he's done something like this. TyJFBAA 00:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You can smell the butthurt from over here. 'I DIDN'T GET MUH WAY SO I'M GUNNA BAAAAAAN!!!' It's cool, though. With the new page, my jimmies are unrustled. TokenSkepticMagician Talk, comments and 'UR a fag lols' 9:05 17 June 2014 (UTC)
So butthurt. Acei9 00:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Is that a self-deprecating joke, or are you unironically accusing someone else of being butthurt? It's really hard to tell. --Kels (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is this sad excuse for a human still around? Lager (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As an example of what too much Conservapedia can do to a human. He starts thinking its ways are a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes but unlike Andy (actually this was more of a TK move) I have deadmined myself and left the group. My fun is over. But the residual warmth will resonate through the ages. Acei9 00:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
If you are not going to keep your powers as a dictator, then why the fuck did you do it in the first place, cockmunch? At least have the balls to own your shit. --Castaigne (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no problem. Everything is fine. We love everyone! Even Ace. The group is at this URL. It's all good!` - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you all really think Ace acted alone? I'd wager he did not. (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
WE HAVE PLENTY OF LOVE HERE, I ASSURE YOU. FOR EVERYONE. - David Gerard (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

These idiots literally called themselves the Blunt Knives. Fuck me, that's ridiculous. YOU STARED INTO THE ABYSS TOO LONG. YOU WENT FULL SCHLAFLY. NEVER GO FULL SCHLAFLY. They achieved blowing their own bums off - David Gerard (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I expected nothing more than what happened. I was just happy to watch it unfold. Acei9 01:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

So, given his general dipshittery, can we get Ace banned from the Wiki? Lager (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Under what grounds would I be banned from the wiki? Just as an aside not one of the group were MRA's by any stripe and I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to provide some sort of evidence of such. Acei9 01:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Nah, the wiki tolerated Marcus Cicero - David Gerard (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Given we had a long close battle on banning whats his face for advocating pedophillia as an ok thing, i don't see ace being banned, especially for something on the FB group.--Miekal 01:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
That goes double given that the FB group isn't an official arm of the RMF. I'm happy with no sanction on the wiki, outside a bit of well-earned criticism. --Kels (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm disappointed in him. Not for the first time.--ADtalkModerator

For those wondering what the fuck: [1]. NO, IT TURNS OUT IF YOU TELL AN AFFECTED PERSON THAT THEIR PROBLEMS AREN'T PROBLEMS, YOU'RE JUST A BIT OF A FUCKWIT. - David Gerard (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

David, why do you keep shouting? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

So, Ace, you destroyed a social group. Thanks for contributing to civilization. History will always remember you as a hero. Lager (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well that's good - I leave a legacy for my daughter. Acei9 01:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You guys give Ace waaaaay more credit for this than he's due. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Marcus Cicero was an inspired provocateur and Tisane did not advocate paedophilia so much as make some unedifying but interesting philosophical points. Sorry to hear that the FB group has splintered but can't say I care too much - I hope no one invested too much work into it.Tielec01 (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
'twas shit anyway. It's like 4chan with way more painfully forced memes. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg They were trying to combine themselves to form some sort of molestation Voltron 03:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
An almost comically shortsighted assessment. Also: "'twas," really?--ADtalkModerator 03:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
'tis the "y'all" of yesteryear. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 03:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)



Cut off genders with a blunt knife? that sounds so painful. but, you know, to each his own.One tin soldier (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
10/10 would recommend this plan--Miekal 01:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You know, it's quite possible to have a decent and rational discussion about this topic without going off the handle. Sure, what Ace did is shitty, but I also have to say I'm disappointed in the reaction some people have had to anything approaching discussion of the missionality of certain social issues. - Grant (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
but I also have to say I'm disappointed in the reaction some people have had to anything approaching discussion the missionality of certain social issues This. Acei9 02:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
So far as I'm concerned, gender wasn't even the topic until y'all made it the issue to justify being called out on some of you abuses of power. I have no problem, at all, with discussions of feminism or refutations of MRAs. That's fine. What is not fine is using gender equality as the means to rule without accountability, which is exactly what you all did both on the Facebook page in question, and again when you brought the discussion here. In my opinion (and the opinions of some of my lady friends whom I've told about what was going on), you did a disservice to the cause of gender equality by injecting where it wasn't the topic and using to silence people and make them look bad. It was a move worthy of Karl Rove. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Facebook-induced HCM‎[edit]

Can any non-involved, non-partisan party sum up what the fuck is going on on Facebook? Like, can someone say this specific person did this specific thing in as neutral a way as possible, without assigning roles and motivations to any action? It's a clusterfuck, to be sure, but now we have a schism, and it seems people have to choose sides if they want to be involved with RW on Facebook, which is exactly the sort of puerile bullshit I've always tried to avoid. Who can take a crack without taking potshots or making ad hominems. DickTurpis (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

according to this and what i've gathered some admins attempted a purge of the facebook group. Afaict,that post is accurate, and apparently ace was involved and did some of it, thats probably the best youll get from anybody who wasnt part of it for now.--Miekal 02:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I got that, but let's put the fucking cards on the table and name names here. Let people defend their positions. I see a lot of "MRA" accusations thrown around, and I've been on this site for many years, and while I certainly don't agree with some of the old guard on everything, I don't think any of them are MRAs. It's starting to look like the commie accusations of the '50s. Can we get some, I don't know, rational discussion going on this BS? Or have lines been drawn in the cement so it's too late? DickTurpis (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Dick on this. All I see in the discussion above is a bunch of adults acting like children, regardless of who's right and who's wrong. I'm not inclined to go check the Facebook group myself because I have a funny feeling I'm just going to see much of the same there. I would like to see a neutral summary of what happened, who was responsible, and why it happened. Is that really too much to ask for? - Grant (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I am in no way an MRA but have been accused of that, I have also just been accused of personally stalking and harassing Rationwiki members by KnightofTL;DR who deleted the thread when I asked her to support of withdraw the accusation. I might be a right asshole but I never personally stalked anyone off-wiki or IRL so that is a mystery to me. I basically got sick of the BS that RWFB became so caused carnage. My only goal was to cause carnage. Not because I didn't want to discuss particular issues nor because I didn't like being told what to do by female admins but basically because the admins become pretty shitty. Ah well, just trying to go about my day. Acei9 02:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Where's RWW when we need it? DickTurpis (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Well thanks for explaining what happened, Ace. So far that comment was more informative than everything else posted about this so far. - Grant (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Except not entirely accurate. I also contributed because to the chaos, after having voiced my concerns in David Gerard's secret Admin Lounge group about the way the page was being run, multiple times, mind you, I was met with nothing more than dismissal and accusations of sexism that, given the charity I contribute hundreds of dollars and hours to every year, I found disgusting. After having given up, I started a separate group (the now-infamous RW Blunt Knives) to discuss a course of action. Not because I'm some sexist piece of shit, but because I hated that the people who were running the Facebook RW were turning it into a glorified 4-chan and, worse, the administrators themselves were taking zero responsibility for their actions (some of which were totally unjustified) and meeting those concerns with ad hominem attacks and nothing more. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. - Grant (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
the people who were running the Facebook RW were turning it into a glorified 4-chan Hammer, meet nail. You know what, not even 4chan level, since 4chan is at least funny. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Maaaayyyybeeee you'll think of me when you are all alone 02:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, here's an issue. In order to keep everything above board, it's nice to know who everyone's talking about. Thing is, names on RW and FB are usually not the same, as FB names are generally their real ones. I don't like to out people, but there are open secrets. I know who Ace is IRL, and now I think I know who Knight of TL;DR is, though I didn't until now. Should I assume we use FB names on FB and RW names on RW, and never the twain shall meet? DickTurpis (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I have never outed anybody although knight is coming up with all these fanciful stories about me harrasing people and them having to hide their identities from me which is...weird. It seems I am not allowed to ask her to substantiate said claims either. Acei9 02:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't use real names here. Never the twain shall meet is a good policy. Tielec01 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed; doing otherwise seems more than a bit dickish. I wouldn't be pleased if someone dug into my identity and exposed it on the wiki. - Grant (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
DOX DOX DOX Grant's real name is Grant, and he's a physicist!!! This is top secret information!!!1 DOX DOX DOX |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Maaaayyyybeeee you'll think of me when you are all alone 03:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Well damn. :( - Grant (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You guys suck at coups, just sayin' Lager (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Given I wasn't intending to install myself as the 'head' or even be an admin then it isn't to surprising, no? Acei9 04:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Lager, did you have anything constructive to add to this discussion? Last I checked, there's a perfectly good discussion for people making inane comments further up the page. - Grant (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Except that's not really what went down. Basically, some admins that were sick of being called out on their misogynistic crap formed Blunt Knifes, and rejoined only to ban anyone. The thing is, they didn't want ANY discussions on gender inequality on the page; even Sophie admits this. TokenSkepticMagician Talk, comments and 'UR a fag lols' 15:43 June 17 2014 (UTC)
Sophie is either wrong or lying in claiming such. No, I, myself, started Blunt Knives to form a coup of sorts and demolish the nonsense that had taken over FBRW. Gender issues never had anything to do with it until the morons whom I would later form a coup against started using "you're a sexist" as the excuse for everything. Disgusted, I decided to burn the place down. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear on this, aren't you one of the regular people who moan and groan about 'missionality' whenever a gender issue comes up? And that all gender issues should be removed from the Wiki for non-missionality? --Castaigne (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
To my knowledge, I've never complained about "missionality" when a gender issue came up, though I do complain about missionality when something/anything comes up that isn't mission-worthy. I do think that we should fork off a gender wiki somewhere, but that is because there is a lot there that doesn't exactly fit into RationalWiki's mission and, moreover, don't think that if such a thing were to happen it would necessitate us eliminating our articles on gender issues because "they are covered elsewhere." No, but I think they should have a gender-issues centered home precisely because they are an issue large enough to occupy their own place. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Listen to yourself Magic-Man - some admins that were sick of being called out on their misogynistic crap I have never been called out on any misogynistic crap and have never given any indication of misogyny in my 7 year of being part of RW. 7 years buddy, 7 years. I have been here 7 years and you think now, all of a sudden based on not one single thing, you think I flip because I have been called out on misogynistic crap? Get your fucking head read. Acei9 07:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
(EC) But you don't have to take my word for it. Ace and Sophie can confirm for you that I was the driving force behind the coup and that I have never said anything about RW's discussion of gender issues being a problem. And if they tell you otherwise, I defy them to provide you with proof. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You and Goonie claimed Olivia was baiting people into being sexists. Leaving aside how the fuck someone could possibly do that, nothing like that actually happened, and you denied the guy was even being one. Then when she posted the actual insane gibbering messages the fuckwit had been sending her, you still denied it was actually a problem. Then you reacted not by saying "wow, that guy was a problem, you called that early", you decided the victim of the abuse was the problem and got together with others to try to get her kicked off the group - David Gerard (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
(EC) You seem focused on this one incident, even though if you were to look around, I had been complaining about the RW Facebook page for months, and this incident had little to do with what went down today. I will even conceed that Olivia was right on that one. But then to turn every conversation I get into around and go, "well, you're a man, so you are sexist," what the fuck is that shit? I volunteer at a charity for domestic abuse victims, what the fuck have you done for your cause? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You and Goonie claimed Olivia was baiting people into being sexists. - No Olivia was just straight up being a fucking dick to people who hadn't done anything at all. I never mentioned sexism, my query was regarding why she baited and banned him.
So the insane gibbering messages the fuckwit had been sending her. - was that before or after she had abused the guy and threatened a ban? Acei9 07:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
And for fucks sake Gerard, listen to yourself and to Magic-Man and KnightTlDr et al. Do you really think the issue here, as being propagated, is that a bunch of MRA's got sick of talking about gender issues and staged a coup? Really - is that what is really happening here? Do you really think that was the motive? Or that the fact that is being bandied about is symptomatic of why such a drastic course of action was acted on in the first place. A bunch of MRA's? Really? Acei9 07:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think this happened because this has been the go-to course of action for a number of people, mostly old-timers, on the wiki for a long time. Like the RW Rewind Button group that was floated in 2012 which suggested doing almost exactly the same thing with the wiki, and the several times we've seen similar language used out in the open. The only difference is, this time somebody went ahead and did it, illustrating what a dumb idea it was. Reason doesn't even matter at this point, beyond "I was frustrated by something and did something childish in response." --Kels (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The facebook page has annoyed me for a very long time, because like all popular or semi popular pages - mob rule is de jour. If any one starts to pick on someone, the whole room joins in, especially if they can name their target as a particular hated group. (it was fundamentalist, a few months ago, till the mra-like trolls pushed in more frequently). But "reason doesn't even matter at this point" - of course it does, if you want to isolate the semi-functional wiki from the dysfunctional facebook page. Or, it comes here and becomes part of this world. Luckily, i think the main players have said their frustrations lie in / at / with facebook, and not "women's issues" in a more general sense. But those reasons do matter. If anyone can get over the levels of anger, frustration, and child like responses to it all. or.. you know.. not. One tin soldier (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

For folks that apparently despise the Facebook page, you sure do seem to care about it. Lager (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Cared about it. What I did today was nothing more than my deciding I no longer give a fuck, and my lighting it on fire. Nothing more, nothing less. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain Lager is incapable of adding anything of substance to any discussion he participates in. I would take anything he says with a sizable grain of salt. - Grant (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The insurgents tried to return to older times, to better times, just like they remembered. The big problem is that the actual people went "ahahaha fuck that" and got up and left them with the shell of a group. It turns out a FB group is made of people. And that internet fundamentalism doesn't work, but they just had to go and prove it - David Gerard (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Just when you think FB couldn't get more petty and boring. Since this is a 'saloon bar' I guess the right thing to do is to take it outside, maybe back to FB? Tielec01 (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I love how David Gerard avoids actually addressing my points and, instead, fills everything in with ad hominem attacks and gibberish and nothing more. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I was just going to say the same thing. I think he actually does this there is some sort of "MRA Conspiracy" happening here despite it is not born of any fact. And Tielec - we already have a back alley. Acei9 08:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
No, "MRA" is completely wrong, I said that very early on but will say it again. It's just this month's HCM. At least the actual HCM happened offsite this time - David Gerard (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Dude, you literally named yourselves after some TK fuckery on Conservapedia. You literally tried to dissolve the people in the hope of forming a new one. There's really not much of substance to address. But you can lean back in "you're aaallll fuckwits I toooold you so." Here, have an "I'M RIGHT!" token to cuddle - David Gerard (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
And this is the EXACT same kind of nonsense response I would run into any time I brought up a concern about the direction the Facebook page was headed (i.e: a glorified 4-chan). Nobody addressing my concerns, nope. Just dismissal and gibberish. Thanks, David, for underscoring my point. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, the fuck is this shit? Can you explain exactly why you feel your concerns deserved to be addressed? I mean, are you just entitled to such on your say so? This is RationalWiki, it's run by a bunch of fucking anarchists as a mobocracy, and the FB group was no difference - there's no "concerns to be addressed", there's no fucking parliamentary procedure, and there's no reason anyone has to give you the damn time of day. Your entitlement disgusts me. --Castaigne (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you even understand what you're talking about with Gish Gallop??? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Consider, Castaigne, what the wider aims of RW (and the RMF) are and/or should be. While RW is a mobocracy, the RMF is not. Last I checked, the Facebook group uses RW's branding, which means it's inevitably going to be associated with the RMF (note who owns the copyrights on the RW name and logo). Is this the kind of environment that best serves the interests of a charitable organization attempting to spread its mission of disputing pseudoscience and fighting authoritarianism into other forms of media? Do you think claiming "we're a mobocracy of anarchists so that justifies being dicks" is really a great way to spread awareness about our mission? - Grant (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
At least Knight, by comparison, saw what I did and asked me if my concerns about the group justified the actions. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Ironically, the fact that the dispute is being brought down to the level of "the MRAs didn't like it" just goes to indicate how broken the system was on the FB page, when you had a group of admins who would actively make any dissent to their POV a sexist attack on themselves and use it to justify excluding that person from the group. Even a discussion on religion was brought down to the level of "how dare a make atheist ask a Christian feminist to explain how she equates being a feminist with the anti-female message of her supposed religion." So, by all means, join the new group, but just make sure to toe the party line, for fear of being labelled an MRA. People who throw around labels like "sexist" and "MRA" mere;y to back up their POV are a disgrace to the cause they purport to support. But to stick you head up your arse and say it was because of the MRAs is both idiotic and disingenuous. Yeah, and using the name of a well-known RW meme - how awful! How about addressing the actual issues? PsyGremlinHable! 08:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I do concur (and am pointing out repeatedly) that if all this gendery-wendery shite is actually skeptical material, the articles have to show it. e.g. building something from the superlatively useful reference dump on Talk:Social justice. The articles need to look like old-skool skeptical material, to convince the convinceable undecided old and stuck in their ways. This is the hard bit, but it's also necessary - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

So, still ignoring the "using sexism as an excuse" then? Then again, given the biggest culprit said "oh, don't post that here" when the issue was raised in the FB admin group, why am I not surprised? Get it through your head, it had NOTHING to do with gender issues, and all about certain admins abusing their positions. PsyGremlinHable! 09:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Lets not forget Knight coming up some of the most absurd accusations - including talking about me "personally harassing and stalking" other users without a shred of evidence, telling me other users are scared of me and having to hide behind their handles lest I discover who they really are. Followed by burning the thread when I challenge her on providing some evidence to support these wild baseless claims before telling everyone else how duplicitous I am. I mean really Gerard? Burning the fucker down at least brought these issues out - all the while Magic-man and your other acolytes spend their day telling everyone how a bunch of MRA's (lead by me who was apparently kicked out of the admin group for making misogynistic comments which you know is untrue) took over the Facebook page because we were banned for misogyny. Get a grip you weird fucker - that has nothing to do with gender issues and everything to do with admins being shits. Acei9 10:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
But why, exactly, should we take your word over Knight's? What exactly have you done to be considered more trustworthy than Knight? Why should I believe you over her? --Castaigne (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't at any point called you an MRA, and have said that's wrong and silly several times. But have a RIGHT token anyway to cuddle - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yet that is apparently the general message being bandied around on the FB threads by admins and as far as I can see you have done nothing to contradict that. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, logic intercedes. Exactly what do you expect David Gerard to do in a mobocracy to contradict the FB admins? Aren't the FB admins allowed their own opinion, however wrong you think it might be? --Castaigne (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Because that might risk him being branded an MRA - that being the default position taken by the shitty admins - "if you disagree with me, I get to brand you a sexist." The fact that they even went down that route, only highlights this fact. PsyGremlinHable! 11:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I've consistently said otherwise. But you guys, you go on being your right selves and revelling in it.
I still don't understand what the fuck you thought you'd achieve, apart from making a lot of people think you're childish dickheads, unless throwing a shitfit tantrum was the actual desired end result. Did you really expect people couldn't just decamp somewhere else without you or something? Truly, this was an exercise fully deserving to be named after something TK thought of. Well done! - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
If nothing else, it's shown that being a troll is clearly more important than trying to run a group properly. Ironic really, given that you were the one who adminned the biggest troll of the lot, somebody who wasn't even that active on the group, and certainly not on the wiki. Not to mention how the FB Admin Lounge went from quiet to "OMG! Look, he's being sexist" almost overnight. So yeah, I can understand why you have to resort to bluster. A bigger person might admit their mistake, instead of doubling down. You want to use Conservapedia analogies - well, congrats, you've just become one. The FB group is now run like Conservapedia, where you'll be trolled and run out of town on the flimsiest of excuses. Because egos. Hell, somebody even got blocked for daring to ask what an MRA is. Way to run a group. PsyGremlinHable! 12:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize somewhat for my general orneriness in the wake of the coup. I just got done with finals, and the whole development pissed me off. Lager (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. While it's been some time since I had to take finals, I know what it's like, so I can sympathize. - Grant (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

My two cents[edit]

I think the concept that the "coup" was useless and accomplished nothing is both silly and wrong. If anything, it certainly openly exposed a lot of bad blood that was circulating in private circles for a while. Was the "coup" the right thing to do? Probably not, and Ace and RNS certainly went about things in a very undiplomatic fashion, we'll say. However, in my eyes, it exposed a side of several people that I would rather not have seen.

First, there is most certainly a group of people who have been tossing out labels that absolutely shouldn't be tossed out in this situation. No, Ace is not an MRA just because he disagrees with the way the Facebook group is run. David, I acknowledge that you're no longer one of the people making those claims, but several people still are, which is a problem. When we start reflexively labelling people with shitty names like "MRA" and "sexist" just because they do something we don't like, we're no better than the groups RW exists to debunk.

Second, it seems that no productive discussion of gender issues and/or their place on this wiki can happen without a small group of people derailing it. I mean hell, this Facebook explosion wasn't even about gender issues, and yet it managed to be twisted into that anyways. Why can we not have a civil discussion about these sorts of things? This is one area in which even people who should know better don't act appropriately. David, you're normally a voice for reason around here, but the couple times this discussion has come up around the wiki you've been the first to start piling on accusations, name-calling, and tossing out childish all-caps strawman statements about having "no gender issues in my skepticism." Is it really a surprise that this kind of behaviour isn't appropriate in anything approaching a civilized discussion? You may argue that Ace and friends aren't civil, but how about those of us who are?

Finally, there's no doubt that the way the FB group was run was a mess. You can say all you want about the internet being a mess, but as a professional in multiple fields, I checked out the RW Facebook page and decided I didn't want potential clients or colleagues seeing that I associated myself with that group. If you're going to run a Facebook group like that, then close it to the public and make it invitation only. Otherwise, at least ensure that the admins and group members show a modicum of civility. If you want to say that doesn't happen on RW, then you know what? Maybe that's a problem we need to fix too.

I'm sure I'm either going to be bitched at or ignored for typing all of this, but I figured that as someone who didn't partake in either side of this escapade, I would make my thoughts known. - Grant (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

GRANT IS AN MRA SYMPATHIZER!!! BURN THE WITCH! BURN THE WITCH! |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Good job guys. You were so busy karate fighting that you let Jesus escape. 17:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm basically in agreement with Grant. So is it too late to fix the FB group or is it going to be a schism, or is the old group getting shut down and replaced with a new one? I'm not sure I want to join a group if the people in charge call everyone who disagrees with them an MRA or whatever. If I can get some assurances that that's not the way it's going to work I'll reconsider. DickTurpis (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The claim is made-up; they're repeating it in the hope it will be believed. The old group is a shell, the new group is active. I suggest you come by and have a look. If you hate it, fine - David Gerard (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you type that blatant lie with a straight face? PsyGremlinHable! 18:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't tell if that statement is meant in response to something specific or the idea that the MRA label is dropped on everyone. However, even a cursory look at the old Facebook page reinforces the points I mentioned above. - Grant (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
File:FaceBook RW MRA.jpg
No MRA accusations here, alright!!!
What are you talking about, Grant? Nobody has EVER thrown around MRA accusations! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. I think perhaps there's some misconception that I came up with these ideas recently. However, I checked out the RW Facebook group last fall and decided I wouldn't want to be associated with it. If the new group is supposedly cleaner and well-moderated, then that's a great thing, but it doesn't justify brushing off what happened in the previous group. - Grant (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Some people have indeed scorned everyone who disagrees as a Men's Rights Activist. But that's not the whole story or even a partially fair representation of most people's attitude. I can tell that even you know this, because you're indulging in sarcastic overstatement.--ADtalkModerator 18:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The fact remains that the biggest instigators of the MRA excuse were admins, who used it as a pretext to abuse their position and drive people away from the group. And now another admin says that never happened. Yeah, way to boost confidence in how the new group will be run. PsyGremlinHable! 18:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Then deal with the admins at facebook. They are (save a handful) not really even represented here. I find it perplexing that this wiki feels such a tie to the facebook group, even admitting it shares our name, since it's largely got little to do with the wiki here, is way more meme driving/mob driven/chatty/troll filled (and that's saying something, to be MORE than this place) than the wiki is. And has no real accountability as such. Like most of the facebook groups (if you've been a member of any of them) they are...I don't even know how to describe them, a place to bitch and whine about whatever particular group in teh world is pissing you off that day - without having to own anything you say or do about it. Here, since most people posting are or have been editors, there is a sense of ownership, and that changes how people act. at least from my perspective. One tin soldier (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a fine thought in principle, but RW should be interested in expanding its reach. The thing about a FB group using RW's name is that whether or not it's actually representative of the editorship, it will be taken that way by people who aren't already familiar with how things work. Any body, group, or institution carrying RW's name should be representative of RW's aims, goals, and mission. This is the first problem. The second problem is that there's some overlap between the FB group and RW, and this has led to issues when attempting to bring up discussions about this wiki's coverage of gender issues. - Grant (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I will add that you're right, FB is well known for being a bitchy scum-fest. However, FB groups have actual admins, and unlike on RW, these admins actually have the power (and responsibility) to moderate and control disruptive discussion. The fact that at least some of the admins are/were editors here on RW, including one member of the Board of Trustees, suggests that a cog has fallen out of the works somewhere along the line. - Grant (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
(EC) Probably not, but when vitriol is allowed to fester, it creates a real problem. The point you made in the section below supports that idea fairly well. Some of the discussions and threads on that FB group were downright nasty, and these were allowed to proceed. When the gender issues discussion briefly visited RW a few times, the same kind of vitriol surfaced. This is a real problem worthy of discussion, and avoiding that is a problem. Can both sides of this please stop throwing strawmen up? Maybe that would be helpful. - Grant (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of my position, and a comment about my poor approach to this[edit]

David brought up a good point that I neglected to consider when I wrote the above, in that I'm approaching this with the mentality that the FB group is a separate entity that needs to be "dealt with" in some fashion. I apologize unreservedly for that, and that's certainly not my intention. I believe very strongly in the aims of the RMF (and spreading the RMF's reach through various media). What I'm looking (and hoping) for is an open dialogue (open to the entire RW community, including the Facebook group) on the rifts and issues this experience has exposed, and how best to go about generating growth from that. I also realize that I sound like a "gather round in a circle and sing inspirational songs" crazy man, but I really do believe that this is both possible and useful. - Grant (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Growing Pains[edit]

Reading Slate Star Codex the other day, something struck me as particularly applicable to RW - both the wiki and the FB. I recommend reading the whole post, but here's the conclusion, roughly:

[S]omeone who is a jerk to men will, by and large, also be a jerk to women. Someone who is a jerk to men’s rights activists will, by and large, also be a jerk to feminists. They may not do so immediately, if it doesn’t serve their self-interest to do so. But in private, or as soon as the chance comes up, jerkitude will out. If you defend them as long as they’re only being jerks to outsiders, then a few months later, when – shock! horror! – you realize they’re being jerks to insiders, you end up having to retreat and mumble something about how you were “kinda wary about him” all along.

But more importantly if you elevate jerkishness into a principle, if you try to undermine the rules that keep niceness, community, and civilization going, the defenses against social cancer – then your movement will fracture, it will be hugely embarrassing, the atmosphere will become toxic, unpopular people will be thrown to the mob, everyone but the thickest-skinned will bow out, the people you need to convince will view you with a mixture of terror and loathing, and you’ll spend so much time dealing with internal conflicts that you’ll never get [things done].

For a long time, we were small enough that single individuals could - whenever they chose - change things up. A group of people came together around a rough dislike of fundamentalist thinking in all of its aspects, embracing not only a passion for the "truth" as they saw it, but also a rough-and-ready willingness to get in on the fight. And in the process of commiserating and laughing and associating, a community was born. They were raucous and generally liberal and filled with joy and contempt and anger and sarcasm and passion. It got pretty awesome as it grew, and I watched RW closely during these earliest days (longtime folks here may remember when I was Tom Moore on Conservapedia, engaged in endless debate). And RW was so small that when Human decided to make a big change or when Nx messed around with the interface or someone just decided to delete a whole batch of articles on their own whim, that it was okay. There were very few rules, because so much of the group was rebellious and vociferous and clung to the reverse of CP's authoritarian mode - "let the mob sort it out," was the cry.

It was anarchy restricted by social norms (shunning, peer pressure, etc.), and it worked surprisingly well. In addition to solving most problems in a timely and efficient manner, it solved them in a way that satisfied a majority of people. Unlike real anarchy, the ultimate punishment was not very "ultimate" - vigilantism led to banning, not death. Along the way, we picked up a distinctive flavor as a community. Much of it was pretty typical for Internet atheism/liberal/science-type groups - predominantly Caucasian, educated, and so on. But while we were mostly male, we had an unusually high percentage of female users, relatively speaking. And that is pretty great, too. A lot of this may have been due to Toast's prominence for so long (Toast, we still miss you).

Unfortunately, as Yvain points out in that post, a community that generally agrees that it's okay for people to unilaterally mess things up or change them, whenever they feel it's necessary, is unlikely to be able to build much. It's not that we're iconoclasts, which is fine - it's that so many of us are used to cutting the Gordian knot whenever we think it's necessary. But Alexander was a king and general and emperor, and you can't build a kingdom out of kings.

Some people got impatient that their ideas were being ignored, and so they decided to just smash everything. It was probably briefly satisfying. There is an attraction there, probably experienced by many of us longtime netizens - it is the pleasure of imposing your will. You won't be reasonable (however I may define that)? Fine, then I'll ban you and everyone. I just need to trick you for a little bit, which is a lot easier than changing your mind. Then BAM fuck you and hahah watch everyone scurry!

But it's just not going to work forever. I have long had hopes that the mobocracy-as-code-word-for-anarchy/vigilantism would morph into mobocracy-as-code-word-for-democracy. And I still think that will happen. It's already on its way, in fact - look how quickly people started the new FB group, and without much anger (just general contempt). I'll admit that I've been less active lately (I just bought a house and started a serious career). But I still follow everything, and I can see that our attitude has shifted over the years.

These are growing pains. Folks imposing their will on others and smashing things up (not seizing power, oh no that would be wrong), only to realize that that doesn't fly anymore. Treat it with due contempt, roll your eyes at the attempts at flippancy, and get back to building.

It's hard to untangle knots. How to deal with gender politics, where there are good arguments on both sides (if you don't think so, you need to read more), is a knotty problem. How to change how a group is managed is another. Thick, lumpy, unpleasant masses of contorted interests that take a lot of labor (or the little labors of hundreds, as in a wiki). But it's not okay to just give up and cut every knot, because reason is too hard.

So, yeah.

It may be that I'm wrong, and it's very certain that the whole kerfuffle is silly. But I think things are changing, and that this is the ultimate cause (proximate concerns about modding behavior seem very very important, but then your personal problem always seems like the big exception; c.f. intentional fallacy). Things will keep getting better. Despair not.--ADtalkModerator 18:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think your memory is rather selective, especially here: "RW was so small that when Human decided to make a big change or when Nx messed around with the interface or someone just decided to delete a whole batch of articles on their own whim, that it was okay". There was a huge fallout over the Saloon Bar Putsch of 2011, with grudges & discontent lingering a long time afterwards, and there have been various other overblown HCMs over the years, as well as long interpersonal conflicts between various prominent users, going right back to the early days of the site. As a totally disinterested party to this Facebook thing, what I'm seeing here doesn't look much different. The key players and lines of conflict may have changed, but it's mostly just another RationalWiki dick-swinging contest that will be mostly forgotten in a few months' time, give or take the odd new or rekindled grievance, until the next big flare-up. The conflicts over how the community should be managed & where the limits of the mission lie are also perennial. A lot of energy has been wasted in the past, and no doubt will be again, in trying to resolve these issues with very little progress. Such is the nature of a mobocracy. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
But your marshaled evidence just supports my point. Human tried to change things single-handedly, as he had been used to doing, and things had changed enough and matured that everyone got really pissed off and he dropped even further off the radar. And think how long it's been since interpersonal conflicts really consumed the wiki. Think about how mild HCMs have gotten, as we have institutionalized things and become more mature.
I am 100% positive that my recollection of RW's past is half-fabricated by my own beliefs and the narrative I have constructed - that's the nature of bias and memory. It wasn't a smooth line of progression, it's been stuttering starts and stops and interminable squabbles about people like MC or Brx. And I'm a pretty optimistic fellow who is immensely fond of RW, so my affection will further color my perspective and incline me to believe certain ways. But it's hard to look back at five years ago or even longer and not see a community that has matured, I think, and become less tolerant of that dick-swinging. Let 'em swing - we keep getting better :) --ADtalkModerator 02:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I see people on this page accusing each other of being Schlafly & TK. Not convinced the community has matured all that much. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I think there's a real reason to try to push things forward in terms of actual change this time though, especially since it involves an off-site group. If RW ever plans to expand beyond what it is now, something needs to change to make that happen. - Grant (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Very Serious People imitation achieved, well done. Realistically: The group (the new one) is marked "not official", fwiw. (I was going to mark the old one, and Ace banned me literally at that moment. Well done!) Actively recruiting actual content editors to the wiki as hard as possible. Thinking in missional terms. For the gender shit to be any good, the articles have to be good, and - and this is important - the people in question are actually working toward that.
Your "neutrality" comes across as false balance, but I would say that. The basic problem with the FB group is the same as the wiki: it isn't run by anyone. The other problem is that you appear to be working up to a proposal to make it conform or kill it, aaaand ... that's literally what was just tried: the Party tried to dissolve the People so that a new People could be formed, and the People told them to fuck off and self-organised a new group with several hundred members in literally an hour. So maybe you might have to ... convince people. Do you think you could convince people, instead of othering them? - David Gerard (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I've made no attempt to be neutral, and I've made it clear that I agree with various things brought up by both sides, as I say above in the previous section. The fact that you jump to tossing offensive accusations at me is more than a bit disconcerting. Thank you for jumping to an offensive conclusion about me without bothering to engage me on the opinions and thoughts I've expressed.
I will add that the new group being marked as "unofficial" doesn't mean much realistically, as I'm sure you also know. You also seem to be painting me with the brush that I would rather not see gender issues expressed on the wiki, which is in stark contrast to my actual views and poorly represents my views on the matter, which is that an open discussion about these sorts of things is a good idea.
I have no interest in working up to a proposal to make the FB group conform to RW. In fact, I think the FB group has a lot of potential to avoid a lot of the issues that make RW occasionally dysfunctional (including, among other things, the mobocracy approach to civility). Once again, however, you seem to be suggesting that my interest in open discourse is somehow a bad thing. As for "othering" people, I wonder how you could possibly come to that conclusion. This is a discussion about Facebook. If you want to hear my broad views about things I think are broken with RW, then fine, and that will probably involve laying into people like Ace and Nutty as well. Do I think the coup was a good idea or the right way to get this all done? Hell no. But it happened, and it offers us an opportunity to open up discourse on this. If your only response to my thoughts is to make baseless accusations about me, then I honestly don't know what you expect me to do. Is there some method of starting a conversation that wouldn't give you cause to label me in some way? - Grant (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

From the lightning rod...[edit]

First off Gerard, I didn't ban you - I actually didn't ban many people at all in fact. But I took the responsibility and said from the beginning I would take responsibility - and your comment about othering? Are you really that wound up in yourself you can see the extreme hypocrisy of that comment? This whole issue was kick-started by the admin group othering people as MRA's who dared question them or their narrative in such a blanket fashion that one senior admin actually suggested to me that their argument might have more weight with me if it came from a man because disagreement (which is an offensive thing to lay on someone in its own rtight). But lets look at this with a wider lens - I left the admin group because I felt the admin behaviour was unnecessarily rude, condescending and dishonest. When I questioned this I was abused, accused of being a sexist myself and eventually worn down to the point I gave and left. It was then I approached 2 other people who had left for the same reasons and we stared a discussion. This was helped on by several other long-term and well respected RW users (I'll let them identify themselves). Gerard is being extremely disingenuous, this wasn't a single issue but a long-term cause of ruction which had been developing for months. The decision to rumble the page had no clear goal, no serious idea about actually staging a real coup and I made it pretty clear that I would probably step away once if was done and I nearly even pulled out of the whole thing.
But what has been a achieved it an exposure of the systemic issues that caused this in the first place - the immediate reaction was Disgruntled MRA's did it! and The were banned for making misogynistic comments and now want to take over so no more gender discussion take place. None of that is true but given the fact that was the first loudly proclaimed, and often viciously stated, reason for it just goes to show what a real problem it had become. The fact a community would immediately decide it was the fault of Mens Rights Activist's shows what a dysfunctional attitude prevails despite the facvt there was no evidence this was the case anyway. Do see what happened here? The Facebook group had become so polluted with this idea that the epithet MRA was just thrown around willy-nilly to any disagreement. And still it goes on, TokenSkeptic continues to spout the nonsense that I was banned because I made misogynistic comments and all the "Well I never said that" from you Gerard doesn't change that that fact. It is also very telling that several people key to this and who continue to spout this incorrect narrative and were partly the reason for this haven't shown up here to back themselves despite being active users. Knightof TL;DR has told many a whopper about me over the last 24 hours, none of which are true in any sense, and she continues to do so and refuses to supply any evidence of these wild claims.
Don't come hear talking about othering David. It was that very othering of you and your admins which caused this whole fucking shitstorm in the first place. Acei9 21:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that people's reactions immediately afterwards can be held to prove anything, except perhaps that they are capable of jumping to reasonable conclusions (i.e. they had been in a long conflict with MRA folks in the space, so when they're booted and the space is smashed, it's not farfetched that those same people of conflict (or their allies) did it; a wrong conclusion but hardly strange). If I get into long, vicious arguments with a neighbor and my house gets egged, I might assume they did it - I could well be wrong and such an assumption may not be reasonable, but I'm not dumb to make that assumption, and it's not proof I'm prejudiced against that neighbor.
Also, don't forget that you just fucked up something that they cared about and worked on, so they're also going to be predisposed to seeing you and describing you in the worst light possible.--ADtalkModerator 01:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow, MRA's did it is a reasonable conclusion? Why would that be a reasonable conclusion? I'm sure if your house were egged you wouldn't think they did it because they were an MRA. Analogy fail. Try again, dad. Acei9 02:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Read it again then - you might get it eventually. Tielec01 (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I believe that AD meant "reasonable" in the sense that it's understandable why those conclusions were reached, even if it wasn't necessarily correct. - Grant (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
No, you should read what Ace has written all over this page. --Someon (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The MRA thing isn't just "people's reactions immediately afterwards": it's a POV that's still being perpetuated. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That Would Be Telling[edit]

I start asking the hard questions and Reckless Noise Sympathy issues a day's block. Rather telling, that. Well, I'm convinced. I personally have witnessed Ace being misogynistic on the FB group. My real name is Andrew Stallings. (Feel free to come at me, Ace. I invite stalkers. It's part of not fearing humanity.) This whole Blunt Knives bullshit? Cowardice of the highest order. --Castaigne (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Asking the hard questions? No, there are people here trying to see this work to push things forward and accomplish something useful. You're doing nothing but pushing more vitriol into the conversation. Think about what the aims of RW's parent organization are and how best to approach those. If you have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion, there are ways to do so without being a twat about it. - Grant (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The aims of RationalWiki are fully contained in the 4 points in the "About RationalWiki" on the front page. There is no best way to approach those. And are you seriously attempting to use a tone argument on me? Christ, that's lame. --Castaigne (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Shut up, we don't need you if all your going to do is pick more fights than there already are.--Miekal 20:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The aims of the RMF are more broad and are listed elsewhere. In case you haven't noticed, the RMF owns RW as well. If RW is interested in expanding beyond what it is now, considering these broader goals is important. No, I'm not trying to use a tone argument on you. Instead, I'm trying to tell you that I find your contributions to this discussion to be unhelpful, and I'm explaining why I think that. Take from it what you wish. - Grant (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
See above. You're tone trolling and othering; this is unlikely to convince the people you're talking about (not to) that you're arguing in good faith, and you might be successful if you actually get them onside - David Gerard (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Last I checked, I posted a nice long message above about what I thought the issues were in the interests of sparking a discussion about this. I have no idea how you expect me to get a group of people on-side when I say "here are where I think the issues are", and the response is "you're tone trolling; bugger off." Am I interested in having a conversation with someone who's determined to act like an ass? Not really, no, and if Castaigne would like to respond to the points I made in the previous section, he's welcome to do so. I'm not going to respond if he's going to be disrespectful towards me, however, because I don't engage with people who can't or won't treat me with respect. - Grant (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Who says that RW is interested in expanding beyond what it is now? And what authority has put forth these "broader goals" in stone tablets? I say that RW has no need to be more than what it is. And I plan to keep it that way. Also, why should I give a damn about whether you think my contributions are helpful or not? That's pretty fucking presumptuous. I don't give a shit about your contributions, helpful or unhelpful, and I don't expect you to care about mine.
Also, you have done nothing to earn respectful commentary for me, or even to earn my respect at all. Much like the "My Seed Is Liquid Fucking Gold" MRA, my respect is given to the few who have earned it. What makes you worthy of respect? The fact that you have an ego? I sure as shit don't require you to respect me - and remember, respect is obedience. --Castaigne (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That's nice. Thankfully, I don't much care about your respect or your contributions either, so I will be content to go on my way without interacting with you again. What right do I have to say I think your contributions are unhelpful? Simple. I have a right to express my opinion the same way you do. You're welcome to disagree with me, and you clearly do. Good for you.
As for expanding RW, there are editors who are interested in such, myself included. Those of us who are will continue to move forward with that, and the mobocracy will decide on its merits.
Respect is not obedience, since respect does not require that you yield any of your rights or opinions in any way. If you think my definition of "respect" is that I demand you not argue with me or something of the like, you're mistaken. That said, you've made it clear you're not willing to participate in respectful discussion with me, so I won't engage you on this subject any longer. - Grant (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
. I personally have witnessed Ace being misogynistic on the FB group... Bullshit, please substantiate this Acei9 21:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I quote from my response to you on my Talk Page: Oh my dear Ace, my substantiations and evidence will be forthcoming. It may take time, because I am very busy at work right now, but you are very, very, VERY much on my mind. Hopefully my weekend of the 4th will be free enough to deal with you. And I will be proved correct. --Castaigne (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
And this (Feel free to come at me, Ace. I invite stalkers. It's part of not fearing humanity.) I have never stalked anyone but this the type of shit I have been talking about above - which came from KnightTLDR - the bullshit about people which is flowing freely among the FB group. I invite Castaigne to substantiate the claim I have been misogynistic or have stalked anyone. Acei9 21:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Err... RMF "owning" RW is a fairly overly strong statement. RMF provides server access and software for users to create content that is released under CC-by-SA 3.0. Carry on. Sterile (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been more correct for me to say that the RMF owns the copyright to the name and logo, owns the domain name, and provides the server space. The content on the wiki is not owned by the RMF, as you say. - Grant (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
That said, the RMF website also states that the RMF "owns the website," and if that was meaning to specify the domain name and server space, you may wish to clarify that. - Grant (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
On the subject of the RMF, I think the board as a whole should have a good, hard look at why one of the board members has been repeatedly caught in a lie, saying that comments aren't being made about people being called MRAs, or that claims aren't being made that Ace is stalking people. Well, on this page alone, those claims have been shown to be true - let alone the trolls now appearing to add these lies to things like our MRA article. One has to ask why a member of the RMF feels the need to lie so blatantly? PsyGremlinHable! 08:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
As a former member of the RMF, I think the reason is because the Foundation prefers to insulate itself from the drama that goes on on its websites. I am not an official representative of the Foundation, but from when I was on the Board, they tended to think it was bad form to interject into community drama. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Take a step back and a long deep breath[edit]

Hey guys. Really. Is it really that important? Look at all the energy expended over a silly piece of HCM. I guess we were about due one, it's been a while and the coop is all but mothballed but, does it really matter. OMG! Someone is wrong on the internet. Oh dear.

Or chill for a day and then say fuck it. Who cares. Even if so and so did say such and such I'm big enough to rise above it.

Unless, of course, you're not. Placeholder (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, I think. While some tempers should probably cool down in this discussion, I think some good discourse could (and should) come of it. - Grant (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You're both right! And this is one of those cases where such a statement is not meaningless conciliation, but actually correct. Placeholder is right that this is ultimately a discussion on a website prone to Intense Discussions about the way we moderate a special section of the Facebook website, which is (in the grand scheme of things) much less important than a single hour of the suffering of a little girl slowly starving to death in northern Sudan because she's ridden with parasites. C.f. The Life You Can Save. So no matter whether or not other people agree with you, you can completely triumph in every way, moral and intellectual and spiritual (if that last one's your gig) by donating $100 to the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative. Everything about this discussion is instantly trivial in perspective.
But also, we do like to chat and we do make the world a bit better here, by having a fun community (and also a Facebook page) where we help overturn some nonsense and stay abreast of the world's weirdness, and we can always engage in those practices a bit better by having some better sense.
So we're all winners! --ADtalkModerator 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry. I'm taking a step back and have finally decided that my retirement from the Facebook RW page actually means just that. The shit that went down, well, was more like a retirement party on my way out rather than a coup to topple a regime. As such, I've decided to refocus my efforts on improving this here Wiki, shying away from caring about the banter of the hopeless/useless Facebook group(s), and caring less and less about this particular page. Let the memesters have Facebook, I will make this site shine like pearl. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am confused and need to ask a question[edit]

I thought the official story was that a group of MRAs became admins of the RationalWiki Facebook group, de-adminned the ones who actually cared about gender issues, and took over the page for some time until the original administrator of the page kicked them out. Is this not the correct narrative, as Sophie (the page's admin) seems to have said? Also (on an unrelated note), how do I create a list on this format, since I am onlt familiar with Microsoft Word? I hate MRAs (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope - that is the lie that the people on the FB group continue to spread. MRAs and gender issues never entered into the debate. The sole purpose of the exercise was to remove a group of admins, who were (and still are) trashing the site, by throwing memes around liek the place is 4chan, and using terms like "MRA" and "sexist" as snarl words against people with whom they had a disagreement - thereby, ironically, shitting on the feminist movement they claim to support. It was never about gender issues, outside of their own heads, they're now using it as an excuse to condone their own actions.
Ironically, David Gerard has said that it's a lie to say that the official story is that it's about MRAs, and yet here you are. So, I wonder who exactly is lying? PsyGremlinHable! 10:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Official RWFB story.jpg
Nobody said anything implying we were MRAs. NOBODY!!!!
Nobody ever accused us of being MRAs. Nobody!!! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You should probably read what you have a picture of, there.--ADtalkModerator 12:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
What a glorious fucking mess. I'm going to assume everyone is an asshole, and deserves to be banned. --Revolverman (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It's also important to note that Ace's accon arXiv.usations against Olivia are lies and bullshit, but he's stating them over and over as if this will make them true Weird that my accusations seem to be supported by the behaviour encountered by others. But hey, there is nothing bullshit about those who claim that I was banned for misogynist comments and attempted to take over the RW page in order to squash gender discussions. Yeah that shit is solid truth. Do actually believe yourself David? Or does writing it make is true. Acei9 08:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention I have said nothing untrue about Olivia and no-one from the group, apart from you, has risen to defend themselves despite having active accounts here - rather they are spending their time propagating (or at least giving implicit support to) the idea that this was the work of disgruntled MRA's. Weird. Can Olivia not back herself? How about Kinght? She was more than happy to accuse of many a crime before burning a thread and pretending it never happened but she won't come here where she can't just make an accusation and burn the evidence to defend her claims. I'm here in an open forum to defend and explain myself, where I can't hide and can only take responsibility. Where's everyone else, bud? Seems weird that me, a liar, is here but those who are honest haven't shown up. Acei9 08:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Weirder still you are still propagating this myth that it was some MRA's wanting to curtail gender discussion on the RW page. Ahh David, your dishonesty is so palatable I can taste it. Pretty shitty for a board member. Acei9 09:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Ace ... I've seen the discussion. - David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
"rather they are spending their time propagating (or at least giving implicit support to) the idea that this was the work of disgruntled MRA's." I have not done that. And there is nothing more to talk about. ·Femilisk³ 12:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Interesting how Ace takes something a regular non mod user said in the confusion and attributes it to Femilisk, almost like hes willfully trying to manipulate the situation. --Laurelai (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Laurelai: "group consensus cant always be trusted when the group is full of sexists." Yeah, funny that. But nobody ever said that it was because MRAs were behind it. No, not at all. Good to see the Femilisk here to perpetuate the lie. PsyGremlinHable! 12:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Assume that all Ace's claim of uninvolvement, lack of action, and not trying to get others to start fights for him is a deliberate lie. I have the messages - David Gerard (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Psygremlin, you know what's more funny how this whole thread was at 2am onwards for me. I was asleep. I dare you to find a post of mine that backs up how I'm the one spreading lies. I'm not talking about what others said, people are claiming I did something, I am here to say I didn't, feel free to browse FB to your heart's content: ·Femilisk³ 12:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec) At the moment you are the last person to be accusing people of lying. And where has Ace ever said he was uninvolved? If you're that sure of your position, publish the messages. Go on. Or is this just more lies from you. In fact, publish the messages to back up your claim, or stand down from the Board, because why should we have somebody so prepared to lie representing us on the Board? PsyGremlinHable! 12:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Dude. I have the screen shots here. You're in them, so you have access to the same material - David Gerard (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
PsyGremlin calling someone a sexist is not the same as calling them an MRA so please stop manipulating. Sexism is a real issue on the wiki and the facebook group and the rest of the world. Being a sexist doesn't make you literally hitler, in fact most people are sexist, it just means one has some areas of improvement. So if a woman calls you a sexist you might take the chance to do some self examination and work on that. Since women have more experience on the receiving end of sexism than men. Kinda makes us subject matter experts and dismissing experts because of ones feelings isn't very logical. :) --Laurelai (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Not to mention that the charge being levied against me is that I called them sexists and MRAs publicly. I didn't do any such thing. ·Femilisk³ 12:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Given how many posts, including Knight's slander of Ace have mysteriously vanished, I would say it's hard to prove. However, nothing has been done to counter that expectation, as can been seen from posts here, and as I already know what you post in the admin group, you don't get to play innocent here. The fact remains that you were the single biggest cause of the attempted coup, do to your behaviour, and being the first to call "SEXIST!" (unless, ironically it was one of your cronies making sexist comments, then it was "oh, please don't post that here.") it's strange how the immediate call was MRAs! If it sounds like a troll, and looks like a troll, then it must be a troll. PsyGremlinHable! 12:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
"sexist is not the same as calling them an MRA" - no, of course not. People are just fine with being called sexist. PsyGremlinHable! 12:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
So you admit you have no proof. Im calling hitchens razor. I dismiss your claims because you produce no evidence. Good day sir. --Laurelai (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Given that you've ignored the evidence on this page, and from your own quote posted here, it's clear you are doing nothing to correct the perception over on FB, why don't you fuck off back you your cabal of liars and go back to trolling the FB group? Because you really aren't helping. PsyGremlinHable! 12:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
"The fact remains that you were the single biggest cause of the attempted coup, do to your behaviour, and being the first to call "SEXIST!"" Of course why didn't I think of blaming the gender people for what a group of unrelated people did to vandalise the group! ·Femilisk³ 12:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's to content contributions! - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Do we really want content from a cabal of liars? /sarcasm ·Femilisk³ 12:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Got to put the trans in her place, cant have her thinking her words are equal to a mans /sarcasm--Laurelai (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
And BOOM! It's magically all about gender again. Thank you for proving our point, ladies. PsyGremlinHable! 14:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You keep behaving like this so it has to be. For example, if you didn't say things like "Thank you for proving our point, ladies." I'd not have to say "don't call me a lady"... ·Femilisk³ 14:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Lol, Ace hates me because I once told him to step off certain pages he's not an expert about and to stop acting like a fool as a cowardly defense tactic to avoid criticism and consequences for his actions, he hates it when people jeopardize the memetic sex god ego worship he got from 2008-2011. I had a fight with him on Gabe's page where I asked gabe what was going on and I mentioned Ace as being part of the coup, and he then went on to blatantly deny that Gabe promoted his actions or that people were angry at him-- both things that were exceedingly true on the facebook and here. I should have screencapped it. He probably went off on this fit making up shit I said and being a lying prick because I didn't stand for his bullshit and deleted the useless thread on gabe's page once he made it allll about him and the meany mean things I said and his sad baby feeling and not what the fuck was up with Gabe's (and others) decision to basically try and go full schafly on a social group because they didn't understand that women see sexism that effects them where dudes may not. He became an obstructionist ego monster and demanded proof that people were criticizing him (which he had on the facebook and on the wiki) and accused me of lying about things he was probably dealing with in another window because I didn't want to compromise the identities of people speaking against him because he has a track record of harassing people who threaten his fame. You know, like me every other time I show my face. And Olivia, whom he seems to have a perverse vendetta against. And countless others over the years. Don't trust a single thing Ace says. He'd make black white if someone implied he was anything less than honest, good, or blameless. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRwalls of text while-u-wait 13:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I wish that, what I find out, got you to nuke that post hadn't happened. I was actually hoping to a civil conversation about what went down, which is what your post to me entailed you were up for and what I, myself, had been up for. But by the time I got back to it, it was gone. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Seriously Knight, seriously now. I have asked you multipletimes to back up you accusations and each and every time you have failed to do so.
Ace hates me because I once told him to step off certain pages he's not an expert about and to stop acting like a fool as a cowardly defense tactic to avoid criticism and consequences for his actions, he hates it when people jeopardize the memetic sex god ego worship he got from 2008-2011. Thoroughly incorrect - you didn't just tell me to "step off'. You were down-right rude for no apparent reason.
I had a fight with him on Gabe's page... He probably went off on this fit making up shit I said and being a lying prick because I didn't stand for his bullshit and deleted the useless thread on gabe's page once he made it allll about him You fucking accused me personally harassing and stalking people and causing people to have to hide their identities for fear I would "find out about them" before I had even entered the conversation. I didn't "make it all about me" you lying shill - you fucking accused me of shit that never happened so I asked you, several times, to substantiate it. Did you? No - you went fucking retarded, accused me of several other weird crimes and burnt the fucking thread.
...accused me of lying about things he was probably dealing with in another window because I didn't want to compromise the identities of people speaking against him because he has a track record of harassing people who threaten his fame. And there is this accusation again - substantiate this or shut the fuck up. You can't burn this thread.
And Olivia, whom he seems to have a perverse vendetta against. The only time I have had any interaction with Olivia was the one thread in the admin lounge which caused me to leave the admin group. That is it. I have never had any other interaction with her. I know who she is here and have never posted on her page nor responded to any comment of hers. Haven't messaged her on facebook (apart from when she sent a friend request which I denied because I had no idea who she was. More shit from you. Knight - put up or fuck oof you weird mental liar. Acei9 09:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't trust a single thing Ace says. He'd make black white if someone implied he was anything less than honest, good, or blameless What really? You fucking said I was actively and personally stalking people and making sexist comments with out a single shred of evidence and you call me a liar? My word.... Acei9 21:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I also add that I have been here 7 years and have active friendships with many of the long-time RW users. They know I am not the liar you proclaim I am so, yeah. Why don't you tell everyone how I stalk people again. That was a good one. Acei9 21:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Given the lies you posted and then deleted about Ace stalking people, your comments above can be taken with a healthy amount of salt. Or disregaraded altogether. PsyGremlinHable! 14:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Given you have no evidence (while I do for my side of the story) your comments can be taken with an unhealthy, pulse-elevating, amount of salt. ·Femilisk³ 14:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Story taken with the whole salt mine then? --Laurelai (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Salt Lake City ·Femilisk³ 15:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm only salty from bathing in the tears of people who decided to stage, and then support those who staged, a McShitfit±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRyeah, well you fight like a cow! 15:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── While some psychologists could say that having everyone vent and throw a shit-fit might be cathartic and useful, I'm going to point out that we're all natural allies here, and the rift opening up because of this issue is currently being wilfully and enthusiastically pried open by folks from both sides. At this point, it almost seems like folks are lashing out for the sake of lashing out. Specifically, the following:

(I'll preface this by saying that I apologize if I use incorrect pronouns; I don't know any of you, so I'm mostly going off assumptions. Please feel free to correct me if I err.)

Ace, for one thing, I've pored over the Facebook group, and I really see no evidence that Femilisk was involved in the whole labelling issue. You may believe she's an ineffective admin for other reasons, but in all of this drama, she only showed up to briefly point out that she wasn't involved, and that's that. If you want to argue that she should have stepped in to stop things, that's fine, but in continuing to lay blame at her feet, you're only serving to paint her with a broader brush than you should be using. In the same vein, it seems that David has stepped back from saying this is an issue about MRAs. Again, you may have other problems with David or his handling of the situation, and it's obvious that some folks are still painting this as a gender issues problem, but David doesn't seem to be one of them right now. There is no "official" story because the FB group isn't even an official arm of the RMF or RW. If David's backing down from that story, why not let him?

To those painting this as an MRA issue: it certainly doesn't seem to be. There may be individuals who have reasons to dislike Ace or the others involved, but to level an accusation about them being MRAs requires some evidence that they are such. No, I'm not pinning this on anyone specific in the conversation, but a cursory glance at the Facebook group suggests (at the very least) that this is not an uncommon viewpoint among folks who have been following this issue. - Grant (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't contribute much here, so I can appreciate that my voice probably doesn't carry a lot of weight. I lurk a lot, though, and have been lurking fairly regularly for around a year longer than my account is old. I don't think the Facebook group is much different than what this place would be like if all the conversations happened in real time (though I admit to harboring a strong dislike of image memes). There are a couple of reasons I don't contribute much. For one, I am very lazy. Incredibly so. But aside from that, there are plenty of times when it seems like this place is full of assholes. I mean, if I go looking through talk pages it doesn't take very long to find some RWian being an asshole towards some other RWian. Maybe it is all old stuff that doesn't happen anymore and is still visible on talk pages that don't get a lot of edits. I tend to like to assume that everyone is engaging in some casual joshing around, but I can't actually tell, and I only make that assumption because I like the content here. I'm not saying I'm better than that either--I try to own my assholism. I am saying, though, that it discourages me from contributing. Maybe this is just an issue that I, personally, have because I'm not a part of the community, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that if there is any one big way in which Rationalwiki fails to live up to its name (yes, yes, enjoy your drinks), it is in an often surprising lack of civility amongst the membership. Dowdicus (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, I would perhaps add that the Facebook group also appears worse not only because it happens in real time, but also because comments on Facebook are much more visible. One has to at least know to wander to the right controversial talk pages (or patrol recent changes) to see this kind of behaviour on the wiki. On the other hand, the format of Facebook's groups means that any such comments are only a click away. I don't think the Facebook group is "worse" than RW so much as it is different. I think RW could benefit from more civility overall as well, but I'm not sure whether that view is in the minority here. I personally was scared of contributing (and so only lurked for my first year here) for very similar reasons. - Grant (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, the cut and thrust of intellectual argument here is stimulating. People prosecute their cases aggressively - in a manner that is not possible outside of the anonymity provided by a website. Like most of us I spend far too much time in real life being diplomatic and I find it liberating not to have to bite my tongue here when someone says something stupid. I also find it refreshing that I will get called out for anything stupid that I say, in no uncertain terms. When people's unexamined prejudices, assumptions or beliefs aren't discarded we sometimes get big blow ups that consume the wiki (HCM) but these are generally satisfactorily solved in the coop by the mob (I say generally because I disagree with a few prominent decisions). This is a vanishingly rare occurence these days - which is in my opinion not a good thing. Conflict shows that we haven't yet descended into group-think. The FB group had the snark but didn't have the dispute resolution process and you can clearly see the result. I have looked at the FB group maybe twice, it's not the wiki, and it certainly shouldn't be an impetus to try and enforce some sort of civility principles here. Tielec01 (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting viewpoint, and one I hadn't thought of before. I can't say I entirely agree, since I feel that in many cases that aggression can be turned inward a bit too often. While it is indeed nice that people get called out for their stupidity, I'm not sure I feel it's so useful when new editors making relatively simple mistakes end up harangued by other editors. I've also met a few new editors who held positions that weren't really in line with RW, and managed to convince them to change their position. The "shoot first and ask questions later" can drive off editors/readers like that; the individuals who hold to an incorrect view out of ignorance or legitimate lack of understanding. That said, this is somewhat moot, as there's no way any attempt to enforce civility principles would ever work here. That's the double-edged sword of RW's lack of bureaucracy.
I do agree that the Facebook group presents a problem when weighed against these same standards. Unlike RW, where members are routinely sysop'd after a few weeks of editing, Facebook administrator positions are rare and effectively omnipotent (at least as far as group management is concerned). Similarly, no dispute resolution process exists, as you mention, making handling issues on the Facebook group impossible without involving the administrators. Of course, it's also worth noting that unlike on RW, members of the Facebook group are also required to adhere to Facebook's Terms of Service. It's a different ballgame altogether.
I think the obvious take-away is that we can't treat the RW Facebook group the same way we treat RW. That certainly seems to be the crux of the issue in this latest explosion, in that a group of RW editors disgruntled with the administrators decided to take matters into their own hands. - Grant (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think...[edit]

...that you should all just have a nice cup of tea. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've had like five so far. :3 ·Femilisk³ 17:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I do enjoy the occasional tea, but I'm primarily a coffee man myself. - Grant (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I would figure a brew between buds would be the best way to work it out. or wine, if that's your thing.One tin soldier (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Either/or for me. - Grant (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I just got a case of various wines in the mail if anybody chooses to partake. Just pick your poison. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
How 'bout some Mongolian style Airag? GØØBY PLS Impurity is the secretDolan.png 09:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Creating a new space for discussions on MRA/Gender-issues[edit]

I think that we need to create a space where people can discuss these issues. I am thinking along the lines of "What's going on in the Manosphere" as part of the WIGO project. This would be part and parcel of the mission of explorations of authoritarianism. Sexism is a part of that and there is a large section of the media, internet and society, which often objectify of women, treat women as their sexual property, and espouse a desire to return society to a time where men were the dominant gender. This is an issue of authoritarianism because it marginalizes and oppresses women when women have to fear about perceptions about the way they act, the way the dress, and they are able to live their lives over the fear that they could be sexually harassed and assaulted, not to mention the other ways women face discrimination in society. We need a space to call out the places in society that feed this. I don't necessarily think the Facebook page is the best place for this because it can easily be hijacked by people with their own agendas. But if the Facebook page isn't the best place for that then we need a space for this kind of discussion. Nchriste (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

We got enough WIGOs already - use clogs for this. Conversation about gender issues can happen on the talk page of the relevant article. Not sure that this is necessary. Tielec01 (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Relegating to its own special place is only going to be viewed as it not being good enough to play at the big tables. --Miekal 01:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Then we need to defend the spaces where people can share this material if we're not going to create a separate space for this. We need to stand up to those who attempt to derail attempts to bring these issue into the conversation. On the Facebook, we can't allow admins that are going to strangle the conversation on gender issues. I'm glad that Olivia and others took a stand on this issue. I would note though that WIGO:Citizendium has had only 8 postings in the past 6 months, one of which was to mock the lack of postings. I've posted almost as many times on sex/gender issues in WIGO:Clogs and WIGO:World. WIGO:CP has also had very few postings. February and March only had one posting each. Nchriste (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Defend against what, exactly? While there editors who question the extent to which gender issues are germane to the mission and thus to mainspace content, I don't see where WIGO/WIGO talk pages or the Saloon Bar are having content removed because it addresses gender issues; there have been threads about gender and all related topics in those spaces since the first time I saw the place. Uunless you're talking about BoNs/drive-by editors/trolls who out of the blue post threads about how hard-done men are, in which case, fuck them, because they are horrible people and totally irrelevant. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
What Father Vivian said. If you're specifically referring to the Facebook group, on the other hand, I don't think the issue with this "coup" was an attempt to shut down gender issues so much as it was an attempt to protest the way administrators were administrating the group. - Grant (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
When anything political is involved, what will be perceived as 'authoritarian' depends on your point of view. This notion of "derailment", for instance: welcome to the Internet, where it's a fact of life that threads drift, and anything you say might be challenged. Sensitivity bullying is as authoritarian as any other kind, as are all forms of moral aggression. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I really doubt anyone will attempt to muzzle discussions of gender equality anywhere on the wiki - if people aren't interested in the conversation, or the conversation drifts to new topics then so be it. Start a new thread if you feel the need. Tielec01 (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)