I suspect most people are up-voting this story because of the link-bait title. The author's blog posts don't really give much in the way of a substantial expla

I suspect most people are up-voting this story because of the link-bait title. The author's blog posts don't really give much in the way of a substantial explanation of what's going on here. The impression I get is similar to other comments here: he comes off as raving and kind of irrational? He's mad about something on Wikipedia and he says he's been blocked, but then doesn't say why? If you're interested in actually figuring out what's going on, it's worthwhile to read the actual page, which goes into a lot of detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests... As far as I can tell, none of the journalists who wrote stories about this read that page, and none of them talked to any of the members of the Wikipedia ArbCom committee. Seriously. Check out Wikipedia ArbCom member Molly White's twitter over here: https://twitter.com/molly0x57 https://twitter.com/molly0x57 and https://twitter.com/molly0x57/status/558687811298000896 https://twitter.com/molly0x57/status/558687811298000896 She's pretty angry about the press' interpretation of the events here, wherein many of the articles basically flat-out said that "feminists have been carte-blanche blocked from Wikipedia!" The press loves to feed off controversy on Wikipedia, and also loves to not do their homework. That said, Wikipedia does have an editor gender gap, but I'm not sure there's a lot that can be said based on these blog posts here.