8 ms·

After reading some of the comments in the arbitration process discussed on this page (see: “Administrator desysopped after RfA comment, arb case in progress”) I

After reading some of the comments in the arbitration process discussed on this page (see: “Administrator desysopped after RfA comment, arb case in progress”) I would find it hard for anyone to argue, with a straight face, that the most active members of the community do not lean towards a common political ideology. Whether that influences the quality of the articles, particularly new ones, I cannot say; I was banned as an admin and editor years ago and have zero desire to return. (Although I am wondering if I might enjoy working on some of the non-English wikis, having seen that their communities seem far less internally combatative.)

rippercushions 4y ago
FWIW, here's the comment that led to Athaenara getting desysopped, and it amounts to a direct personal attack on an admin candidate for the sole reason that they're trans: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1115345450 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=... I'm pretty sure you'd get banned here on HN for saying that as well.
- atdrummond 4y ago
  I can simultaneously think that’s an abhorrent comment while also pointing out that the vast majority of the arguments (on both sides) regarding her ban were based on her beliefs, not her actions, which is counter to how these processes are supposed to unfold.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    I think her action here is to represent her beliefs by submitting an oppositional vote based purely on her ideology and not the actions of the candidate. It makes sense that the ideology is also debated?
  - GaylordTuring 4y ago
    Why is it an abhorrent comment?
- jbuhbjlnjbn 4y ago
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    There's no such "space" at all. This whole idea that trans women are somehow monopolizing spaces that "rightfully belong" to cis women is just a transphobic, hateful slur; especially so when the attack is so clearly targeted at a single, vulnerable trans person. The block was absolutely warranted; it was an egregious violation of a "no personal attacks" rule that's been there since the beginning.
    - jbuhbjlnjbn 4y ago
      Not going to entertain the plenty of your tangents, just going to say this: you are wrong, obviously these spaces exist and I'm confident this comment refers to such one, because the context makes sense this way (Occam's Razor), so the block was not warranted at all, not even in the slightest.
- naasking 4y ago
  > FWIW, here's the comment that led to Athaenara getting desysopped, and it amounts to a direct personal attack on an admin candidate for the sole reason that they're trans: If females are underrepresented among admins, and the comment is factually correct in saying that the representation of women consists mostly of trans women, isn't the trans status of the candidate directly relevant to whether you actually are improving representation? I'm not sure how pointing this out qualifies as a personal attack (which isn't to say the comment isn't problematic in other ways). Suppose black people are underrepresented among admins, and in trying to increase that representation, they nominate a transracial person who was born white but identifies as black, wouldn't their transracial status be a relevant consideration? Transracialism isn't as widely accepted, despite the fact that both gender and race are "social constructs", and I think this makes it clear that "trans" status can sometimes be relevant in such questions. If they can be considered for a role because of their trans status, then they can also be rejected from a role because of their trans status.
  - shawabawa3 4y ago
    > and the comment is factually correct in saying that the representation of women consists mostly of trans women It's almost impossible that that could be true based on demographics (50% vs around ~0.5% for women vs trans women)
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Not impossible if you're actively selecting for that and discriminating against those born as women.
    - naasking 4y ago
      > It's almost impossible that that could be true based on demographics (50% vs around ~0.5% for women vs trans women) It would be almost impossible if admin membership were drawn completely randomly from the population. It would also be impossible for over 80% of computer science graduates to be male given the same assumption. Computer science is observably dominated by males though, therefore perhaps membership isn't drawn completely randomly from the population in either case. I'm not privy to the demographics of Wikipedia's admin membership so I don't know if the comment in question is factually accurate, my point is only that it doesn't follow from the comment alone that it's prejudicial against trans people or that it constituted a direct personal attack. At least, it's not more prejudicial than accounting for race or gender in a positive context, since some people think any consideration of these factors, positive or negative, is unjustly prejudicial.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
- drc500free 4y ago
  I strongly doubt that HN is a place that would ban you for being transphobic.
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    This comment section has proven you right. HN: We don't tolerate mindless repetitive criticism of programming languages, we do tolerate mindless repetitive criticism of people. (I'm referring to the manual reduction of the rank of an article mocking go)
- fxtentacle 4y ago
  I believe the complaint was that the female representative team had a majority of trans people, so less of a personal attack and more of a general comment about the team.
pseudo0 4y ago
For reference, here's the comment that was deemed sufficient grounds to be desysopped. > # '''Oppose.''' I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care. – [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara| ]] 00:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- rippercushions 4y ago
  The important context here is that this is a direct reply to a trans person's application to become an admin on Wikipedia. In other words, they're not objecting to trans ideology or something, they're specifically telling a Wikipedian that they can't be an admin because they're trans.
  - atdrummond 4y ago
    Except the debate on the ban (which is what I was referring to - the reply itself is pretty much indefensible) became a referendum on ideology rather than a legitimate discussion on a ban due to a harmful action.
  - paganel 4y ago
    - ghostgost 4y ago
      Indeed, she is one of many women who are completely fed up of being talked over on women's issues by men who identify as women. It wasn't really the appropriate forum for her outburst, but I think many of us can empathise with the sentiment she was expressing. The subsequent overreaction to her comment kind of proved her point too.
      - NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
bArray 4y ago
> I would find it hard for anyone to argue, with a straight face, that the most active members of the community do not lean towards a common political ideology. I believe it, but then let's not pretend it is otherwise. Let's not have people fund projects under the false pretence of keep servers online. > Whether that influences the quality of the articles, particularly new ones, I cannot say With zero intention of doing so, over time, people's political ideologies will bleed into the content. The organization itself will become more and more hostile towards opposing views. The neutral topics themselves still have merit, but I suspect not for much longer. We no longer can have an article about master-slave buses without bringing up slavery [1], for example. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Ter...
- gjulianm 4y ago
  I mean, in an article about terminology I would expect to see how is that terminology evolving, and it is undeniable that a lot of entities are moving away from it. Doesn't matter whether you and I agree on the move or not, but it's a reality and it's appropriate to discuss it in that article. Also, Wikipedia has a lot of pride in being factual, avoiding judgements of value, and backing with already established sources. I think that makes it really hard for ideologies to bleed into content.
tablespoon 4y ago
Honestly, it seems like one of the main [1] motivations for anyone participate on Wikipedia is to push some ideology or another. I know they theoretically have rules against it, but those are invariably enforced inconsistently and/or only against the most blatant cases. IMHO, some prime Wikipedia skills are finding bureaucratic cover and being deliberately mute about your motives. [1] though not only, another big one is obsession

rippercushions 4y ago

FWIW, here's the comment that led to Athaenara getting desysopped, and it amounts to a direct personal attack on an admin candidate for the sole reason that they're trans: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1115345450 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=... I'm pretty sure you'd get banned here on HN for saying that as well.

atdrummond 4y ago
I can simultaneously think that’s an abhorrent comment while also pointing out that the vast majority of the arguments (on both sides) regarding her ban were based on her beliefs, not her actions, which is counter to how these processes are supposed to unfold.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  I think her action here is to represent her beliefs by submitting an oppositional vote based purely on her ideology and not the actions of the candidate. It makes sense that the ideology is also debated?
- GaylordTuring 4y ago
  Why is it an abhorrent comment?
jbuhbjlnjbn 4y ago
- zozbot234 4y ago
  There's no such "space" at all. This whole idea that trans women are somehow monopolizing spaces that "rightfully belong" to cis women is just a transphobic, hateful slur; especially so when the attack is so clearly targeted at a single, vulnerable trans person. The block was absolutely warranted; it was an egregious violation of a "no personal attacks" rule that's been there since the beginning.
  - jbuhbjlnjbn 4y ago
    Not going to entertain the plenty of your tangents, just going to say this: you are wrong, obviously these spaces exist and I'm confident this comment refers to such one, because the context makes sense this way (Occam's Razor), so the block was not warranted at all, not even in the slightest.
naasking 4y ago
> FWIW, here's the comment that led to Athaenara getting desysopped, and it amounts to a direct personal attack on an admin candidate for the sole reason that they're trans: If females are underrepresented among admins, and the comment is factually correct in saying that the representation of women consists mostly of trans women, isn't the trans status of the candidate directly relevant to whether you actually are improving representation? I'm not sure how pointing this out qualifies as a personal attack (which isn't to say the comment isn't problematic in other ways). Suppose black people are underrepresented among admins, and in trying to increase that representation, they nominate a transracial person who was born white but identifies as black, wouldn't their transracial status be a relevant consideration? Transracialism isn't as widely accepted, despite the fact that both gender and race are "social constructs", and I think this makes it clear that "trans" status can sometimes be relevant in such questions. If they can be considered for a role because of their trans status, then they can also be rejected from a role because of their trans status.
- shawabawa3 4y ago
  > and the comment is factually correct in saying that the representation of women consists mostly of trans women It's almost impossible that that could be true based on demographics (50% vs around ~0.5% for women vs trans women)
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Not impossible if you're actively selecting for that and discriminating against those born as women.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > It's almost impossible that that could be true based on demographics (50% vs around ~0.5% for women vs trans women) It would be almost impossible if admin membership were drawn completely randomly from the population. It would also be impossible for over 80% of computer science graduates to be male given the same assumption. Computer science is observably dominated by males though, therefore perhaps membership isn't drawn completely randomly from the population in either case. I'm not privy to the demographics of Wikipedia's admin membership so I don't know if the comment in question is factually accurate, my point is only that it doesn't follow from the comment alone that it's prejudicial against trans people or that it constituted a direct personal attack. At least, it's not more prejudicial than accounting for race or gender in a positive context, since some people think any consideration of these factors, positive or negative, is unjustly prejudicial.
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
drc500free 4y ago
I strongly doubt that HN is a place that would ban you for being transphobic.
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  This comment section has proven you right. HN: We don't tolerate mindless repetitive criticism of programming languages, we do tolerate mindless repetitive criticism of people. (I'm referring to the manual reduction of the rank of an article mocking go)
fxtentacle 4y ago
I believe the complaint was that the female representative team had a majority of trans people, so less of a personal attack and more of a general comment about the team.

pseudo0 4y ago

For reference, here's the comment that was deemed sufficient grounds to be desysopped. > # '''Oppose.''' I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care. – [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara| ]] 00:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

rippercushions 4y ago
The important context here is that this is a direct reply to a trans person's application to become an admin on Wikipedia. In other words, they're not objecting to trans ideology or something, they're specifically telling a Wikipedian that they can't be an admin because they're trans.
- atdrummond 4y ago
  Except the debate on the ban (which is what I was referring to - the reply itself is pretty much indefensible) became a referendum on ideology rather than a legitimate discussion on a ban due to a harmful action.
- paganel 4y ago
  - ghostgost 4y ago
    Indeed, she is one of many women who are completely fed up of being talked over on women's issues by men who identify as women. It wasn't really the appropriate forum for her outburst, but I think many of us can empathise with the sentiment she was expressing. The subsequent overreaction to her comment kind of proved her point too.
    - NaturalPhallacy 4y ago

bArray 4y ago

> I would find it hard for anyone to argue, with a straight face, that the most active members of the community do not lean towards a common political ideology. I believe it, but then let's not pretend it is otherwise. Let's not have people fund projects under the false pretence of keep servers online. > Whether that influences the quality of the articles, particularly new ones, I cannot say With zero intention of doing so, over time, people's political ideologies will bleed into the content. The organization itself will become more and more hostile towards opposing views. The neutral topics themselves still have merit, but I suspect not for much longer. We no longer can have an article about master-slave buses without bringing up slavery [1], for example. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Ter...

gjulianm 4y ago
I mean, in an article about terminology I would expect to see how is that terminology evolving, and it is undeniable that a lot of entities are moving away from it. Doesn't matter whether you and I agree on the move or not, but it's a reality and it's appropriate to discuss it in that article. Also, Wikipedia has a lot of pride in being factual, avoiding judgements of value, and backing with already established sources. I think that makes it really hard for ideologies to bleed into content.

tablespoon 4y ago

Honestly, it seems like one of the main [1] motivations for anyone participate on Wikipedia is to push some ideology or another. I know they theoretically have rules against it, but those are invariably enforced inconsistently and/or only against the most blatant cases. IMHO, some prime Wikipedia skills are finding bureaucratic cover and being deliberately mute about your motives. [1] though not only, another big one is obsession