Wikipediocracy stalks Zoe Quinn with bomb threat predictions and dildos

Wikipediocrazy’s longest thread is gamergate, hidden away in their member-only forum, so it is probably no surprise that they are now stalking Zoe Quinn openly.  Quinn has been announced as the keynote speaker for the 2016 diversity conference.

diversity website zoe screenshot

The conference is at the National Archives, so there should be plenty of security.

Zoe archives screenshot

map with arrowsPhiladelphia-based Greg Kohs leads the charge, suggesting a way that “harassers and stalkers” could gain access to the building, and says he has business “further south” that day.  Washington DC is south of Philadelphia.

“Vigilant”, a regular on the website, steps forward as sartorial consultant, recommending Kohs wear a black outfit with mask for the stalking and harassing.

outfit for crashing conference screenshot

Vigilant goes on to predict the conference will be disrupted by bomb threats.

bomb threats screenshot

Nice place you got there, U.S. Archives, wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.

But if you don’t have a valid criticism against a woman, the only thing left is to bring out the sexual innuendo.  Right on cue, Earthly Astringent recommends engraving a “fleshlight” with Quinn’s name.

crude remarks about zoe screenshot

TMIA fleshlight, for those who even want to know, is a sort of male dildo.  It comes in a variety of shapes, including anal, and costs about $80.  The color choices are Caucasian, Caucasian, or Caucasian.

Yup, those Wikipediocracy guys are real classy bunch all right.

Advertisements

49 thoughts on “Wikipediocracy stalks Zoe Quinn with bomb threat predictions and dildos

  1. Yes, those Wikipediocracy guys are some swell fellas. After they banned me a couple of weeks ago I wrote about it on my blog – that their gender gap is even worse than Wikipedia’s. They started a discussion about it that included a suggestion that if they wanted more page views they could tap “plenty of ‘poor taste’ themes” like “Why I shagged Jimbo” or “Confessions of a Jimbo-holic”.

    A question was also asked, “is [the Wikipediocracy gender gap] a problem?” The answer (by the same swell fella who posted the question), “That I doubt.”

    Then there was a call for more “Bat Boy”. In other words, the issue equated to melodrama for these guys.

    It’s no wonder that less than 5 percent of its active participants are women and that the its men have no serious interest in shining their “light of scrutiny” on anything to do with sexism.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160610181526/http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=7796

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Nice of you to think of me as a “swell fella,” LB. Since you brought the matter up, here’s my line of reasoning. Wikipedia is a massively utilized online encyclopedia. Its content surfaces in a myriad of other places, including the information boxes that Google churns out. Its content matters — a lot. One can reasonably argue that there are systemic biases in terms of content in which we need to be conscious due to the site’s content writing demographic — which is first world, predominantly white, and predominantly male. Is the “gender gap” the alpha and the omega of the problem? Would a 50-50 gender balance tomorrow eradicate such content problems? No. But it is a reasonable concern.

      Wikipediocracy is NOT a public encyclopedia. It is a message board dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia — criticism that covers a wide range of structural, financial, content, and policy matters. I find it difficult to believe that gender balance is of but the most remote of tangential importance here. The site has parameters for behavior of its participants and you, LB, seem to have gone over the line with the mods in persisting to attempt to connect a WPO pseudonym with a WP pseudonym (presumably of one of your Wikipedia enemies, of whom you seem to have no shortage). So you got tossed for that.

      That you ascribed everything bad that came your way from the moderating team at WPO to “sexism” and the nefarious behavior of boylike men is all too predictable for any who have observed your dog-and-pony show.

      Like

      1. Wikipediocrazy has “parameters for behavior”? That’s a good one. When did they ever stop trying to dox people? Tim, your first comment here was a pathetic attempt to dox me, and yet you excoriate Lightbreather for trying to connect one fake name with another? What hypocrisy.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Forget doxxing, if you run your negative fantasies about my purported beliefs up to the internet using my real name, I’m gonna use yours. Fair is fair, Carol. Everybody knows who you are from the transparently obvious writing style and agenda, but you hide here… Your decision. It does demonstrate your real life level of courage, which is small.

          As for doxxing at WPO, ask your friend LB about when it is deemed important and is done and when it is squelched. She knows the difference, she is not stupid, no matter how deliberately obtuse she may seem…

          Like

            1. That’s true, but you have a choice which of three names you want to seed the internet with with the absolutely ludicrous attack characterization of me as a “long-time misogynist and creep.” You chose to not attack my WPO comments with my WPO handle or my WP editing with my WP handle but to go after me under my real name. The result is akin to what the word terrorist Scalhotrod did to Lightbreather — Google has been poisoned with your ravings to anyone searching my name. How do I know this? My girlfriend googled me and it was a quick takeaway from her search (which she found hilarious in its wrongness, for what it’s worth).

              Still, in essence, your false attacks on me in publicly-accessible, Google indexed space are no different in function (and perhaps in intent) than what the word terrorist Scalhotrod did to LB, save perhaps a few obscene pictures. Whatever, I’m 54 years old, I’m not out on the job market losing a job application because of you, but the next person you similarly libel might not be…

              [Doxing attempt removed. -GD]

              Like

            2. It’s a bit late for you to get all bashful and try to be anonymous, you yourself have pasted your identity on wikimedia as well. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections/2015/Candidates#Tim_Davenport_.28Carrite.29 As for accusing me of a crime, that’s just silly, if I have misrepresented your views, or if you have changed them, say so and I will print your retraction. Otherwise you continue to associate yourself with a blog that prides itself on doxing people, and you continue to try to dox me in your posts, so it’s pretty obvious you don’t take those concerns seriously yourself. And you have openly bragged about disrupting a women’s group for editing Wikipedia. If that’s what your gf likes, then it sounds like a match made in heaven and I am happy to have been of assistance.

              friendly spacers comment screenshot

              Diff.

              .RfB - lack of women not a problem screenshot

              Link.

              Like

      1. @UE. Because Meta sucks and grant grabbers tend to be slimeball bureaucrats. It has virtually zero to do with building an encyclopedia, only about feathering personal nests, advancing personal hobby horses, and filling the social club with a warm feeling of self-righteousness.

        Like

        1. That’s a pretty big leap to claiming he is not posting in good faith. I doubt if most people would get the point, if indeed he is trying to make some complex criticism of meta. A number of people over there are taking him seriously, ordinary users. If the grant proposal is not being made in good faith, it is just a slap in the face to the ordinary users who are listening to him and trying to work with him on it. The sad thing is, there are valid criticisms to make of the WMF. If those critical of the WMF are just there to show contempt for the ordinary users, people will be even less willing to take the criticism seriously.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. It’s not a big leap to assume politicized intent in any grant request that Greg Kohs makes to Meta under his own name. You will notice that they “bent the rules” and allowed an “Oppose” section on the main grant page in his case, unlike the “Oppose” section of Jake Ocaasi’s Very Official and Party Line “Code of Conduct” proposal, which was moved out of sight and out of mind to the talk page.

          Funny how that works. Cabal v. Anti-Cabal…

          Like

          1. (blatant doxxing attempt removed)

            Looks to me like Kohs has got his page set up exactly the way he wants it, and no one has interfered. He even seems to be gloating that he has allowed opposes on the proposal page. Do you think that WMF has even noticed? They’re probably all busy packing for Esino Lario.

            You’re pretty quick to throw your comrade under the bus.

            Like

        3. Apparently this time the would be “grant grabber” is in it for the lulz, not to mention further “nest feathering.” Then there’s his “personal hobby horse.” Help me understand how these become good things when your buddy does them, carrite.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. So many errors in this blog post. I was going to respond to each of them, but what would be the point? The author would just make up two new errors for each one duly corrected.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The point would be demonstrating any errors. Zoloft and Somey already highlighted why your site had to hide the thread analyzed above. Wikipediocracy members responded reliably by calling Gender Desk a “twit” and a “dingbat” while bringing up tenga egg sex toys, a named porn actress, and free fleshlight samples for Gender Desk. You have so much to be proud of!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. They also had to hide a thread with their reactions to my blog posts and tweets about their extreme gender gap and sexism. Anybody have an archived copy of that? (Unless they’re doxxing me, which I know some WO members want to do – despite my never intentionally, consciously tying my RL identity to my WP identity.)

        Like

          1. Anyone who cares to know your RL identity can find it in less than a minute. You’re not special or particularly interesting.

            Like

        1. Reality check. Wikipediocracy discussed bizarre sex paraphernalia to intimidate a woman after banning her while knowing she was harassed with online porn before Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee blocked her without punishing her *known* harasser. Wikipediocracy allows public discussion of doxxing this woman because she wasn’t a good enough victim. Thank goddess the strong men of Wikipediocracy are Wikipedia’s moral guardians!

          Like

  3. Naming a female porn star who has a line of mocha colored fleshlights–High five, bro!
    Not banning members with an agenda in case one makes a cogent point sometime–Attaboy!
    Accusing Gender Desk of “vacuous rantings” and “obsession”–Stand by your man!
    Moving the thread out of public view–Way to go fellas!

    How could anyone accuse such upstanding men of being tone deaf to women?!
    https://archive.is/hQnnf

    Liked by 1 person

  4. There’s nothing Wikipedocracy can say–the screenshots speak for themselves.
    As far as the Tenga Egg comments, maybe they have finally found their area of expertise. Apparently you can use this Tenga Egg thingy as a Spiderman mask.

    Like

      1. I used to think it was a pack of right wingers since they were for a time making common cause with Fox News to get negative publicity about WP into the mainstream press. Imagine my surprise to learn that I wasn’t the only lefty there — by a long shot. Bear in mind there are four or five gamergatery conservatives floating about, but the big majority are left, not right.

        Darn, don’t let facts get in the way of your sloganeering though…

        Like

            1. I don’t know you, and I don’t care to know you. You are, however, a silly clown and a sexist prick. That you’d bother to deny this fact is amusing but unsurprising.

              Like

    1. LB Sock, two of those four have “real names” identified on WPO like mine. Why are you using four pseudonyms here? Why the special treatment in my case?

      Like

      1. (checking sock drawer) Nope, those are all unique commenters. You guessed wrong.

        Looks like these false accusations are meant to distract from the question of why being a “grant grabber” is a good thing only if your buddy is doing it for the lulz….and where the other Wikipediocracy admins stand on the treatment Quinn is getting on their website.

        Like

        1. Will Randy from Boise/Carrite get banned from Wikipediocracy for trying to tie my username to some other username? … Nah. Wikipedia doesn’t sanction him for what they know he does off-wiki and Wikipediocracy won’t sanction him for what they know he does off-forum. In this respect, like many others, both sites are identical. Men behaving badly is acceptable.

          Liked by 2 people

      2. @carrite Reality check. You’re paranoid and overwrought. I used @carrite because you are posting as *carrite*. Should I out two Wikipediocracy leaders to make your life fair somehow? Why would I? What have they done to you?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s