RexxS, Lamona, and A.T.M. Wilson (and a bonus question about who is Lourdes)

Bonus question ‘who is Lourdes’, scroll to bottom.

RexxS with his mouth open and his arm around Eric Corbett. Boing Said Zebedee is behind his head, in the striped shirt.

When editors quit Wikipedia in the midst of a disagreement, they sometimes return later. Not LaMona. After her ordeal with RexxS, she never came back.

LaMona’s identity is not that hard to find, she is a widely known metadata expert, exactly the kind that Wikimedia should be courting as they venture into WikiData and the library technologies that dovetail with it. Her real name was not known on Wikipedia until RexxS stumbled on her ORCID number,  figured out how to use it to identify her, and made a big issue of it on her SlimVirgin’s talk page. It was eventually oversighted, but not before everyone got a good look at it. And figured out where to go to harass her IRL.

LaMona was working in Articles for Creation, reviewing articles. Why she was wasting her talents on that is anyone’s guess, but that’s what she was doing when she had the misfortune to review an article submission by RexxS that RexxS decided to take a personal interest in.  The article was A.T.M. Wilson.

Now if the article was about a woman who discovered a new chemical element, or how to photograph a black hole, you can bet there would be opposition to the article. But this was a dude, with an article that was little more than a fairly humdrum resume, so maybe RexxS figured that male privilege should have carried the day.  So what RexxS did was to sashay over to her talk page and bellow:

“On 28 June 2016, you rejected this version of A.T.M. Wilson, giving lack of notability as a reason. I am very concerned that you have made such a glaring mistake, considering the number of AfC submissions that you are reviewing.”

Dude, she is the one reviewing YOUR submission, not the other way around.

Then he adds condescendingly,

“It’s a great help to the encyclopedia that you’re doing so much work at AfC, and I don’t want to discourage you, but it would be a shame if you end up rejecting notable subjects when they could become perfectly reasonable articles.”

This has got to be the very definition of mansplaining. She is an internationally known expert, and he is some kind of schoolteacher.

Or maybe she is supposed to know he is a Manchester regular, and the real message is “nice place you got here, be a shame if anything happened to it.”

RexxS (Doug Taylor) in red, Ritchie333 in Black, Thryduulf in brown on the far left

If it could become a perfectly reasonable article, then he ought to show the notability in the article. That’s what articles about women have to do. And preferably put it in the article before submitting it for review, not just claim that it could be done.

But there are so many questions here. Why is the guy using AfC to begin with? No one uses it, unless they are completely out of the loop. Why does he not just write the article, as most people will do unless they have a COI? Maybe he knows this A.T.M. Wilson person, maybe they are related, or … something.

At this point RexxS has several options.  He could actually put the reason for notability in the article, assuming there is one, he could resubmit it to a different reviewer, or he could just go ahead and create the article, like most people do, and take a chance on a deletion discussion. Even with borderline notability, a “no consensus” would mean “keep”. But instead, he claims

“he was notable by multiple criteria, and you should be familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, where he passes criteria 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, at least.”

Nice try, but NOPE.


It becomes even more clear in the discussion that he is just blowing smoke. And that he really doesn’t care if he alienates women.

Why is he so desperate for this particular article?  Or is it really about something else. And is he capable of some kind of premeditated disruption?

Since LaMona has been doing this for a while, there is a pretty good chance she is “familiar with” the criteria, especially since her status in academia is way higher than his, but this is just more condescension.

Next, he files a complaint against her, and proposes to the dramah board that ”

I am now seriously concerned by the damage being done by LaMona to new editors who are producing acceptable articles that are being rejected on such unreasonable grounds. … I believe that administrative action is needed to insist on her adhering to the purpose of AFC; or failing that, to topic ban her from the area of AFC altogether. —RexxS (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion goes on and on, AfC is not compulsory, AfC is supposed to be a service for newbies, RexxS did not take his submission to the AfC help desk first, etc.etc.

Plus, even though LaMona is not the only one declining his drafts, she is the only one being dragged off to drama boards and harassed off-site:

Three other experienced editors declined the draft when it had 24, 31, and 29 references, either for failing to demonstrate notability or for sounding like an advertisement, so LaMona is not alone in being concerned that the topic would more likely than not be deleted at AfD. The fact that after being accepted, it was promptly marked for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising by yet another experienced editor suggests that LaMona’s concerns were reasonable. RexxS is welcome to encourage AfC reviewers to decline fewer drafts. Administrative action is not needed….

So yeah, it’s not about the article, is it. It’s about LaMona.

But he has got a lynch mob stirred up – they are not called “drama boards” for nothing – and somehow, the article still survives today. Accident? Or did he play a cynical game, at the expense of other editors — and Wikipedia — to get “his” articles to stick and boost his edit count.
~~~~

Addendum

Bonus question: Who is Lourdes?  And what does she have to do with Vaginal Steaming? And with the F*ck-off Festival?

First of all, if you thought the repetitive discussions of the “c-word” by the Manchester crowd on Jimbo’s talk page were weird, Lourdes was the one who started the locker-room spectacle Request for comment on the specific term “fuck off” – sanctionable or not!” The discussion is now in Archive 20 of the Civility talk page. And yes, it was burning up my email inbox.

So, here is the rest of her wiki resume, including the vaginal steaming bit.

7 thoughts on “RexxS, Lamona, and A.T.M. Wilson (and a bonus question about who is Lourdes)

  1. Interesting, I wonder why that never came out in all the drama.

    Zeromonk: “I’m the editor of Viewpoint (the magazine for the British Society for the History of Science).” [diff] Wonder what that is. Maybe they were applying political pressure to get the article approved?

    Zeromonk seems to have started editing at a seminar by Andy Mabbet (User:Pigsonthewing) [diff]

    I was also looking for the original comment refactored by RexxS at ANI, and it looks like it’s been oversighted in some other matter. [hx showing deletions] but the original comment is here if anyone cares enough to look for it. [diff] or it shows up again here “I’m now getting rather sick of the lie you’re peddling,…” [link]

    I have every reason to believe that AFC submitters know that AFC is not compulsory. I may be mistaken, and there may be a few editors who do think that AFC is required, but I have no evidence to that effect. Many AFC submitters come in after already having had their first article draft speedy-deleted, and then resubmit it via AFC, and then it is declined rather than deleted. Yes, it is true that they come in because they can’t pass CSD on the first pass. I agree with Worldbruce that there is no need for administrative action, and that the filing here should just be closed as ignored. The original poster didn’t even try to discuss the decline with LaMona. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

    I have just as much reason to believe that most AFC submitters believe that AFC is compulsory, and a glance at LaMona’s talk page will reveal numerous examples of submitters at their wits’ end asking what they can do to have the article accepted. But that’s not the concern that I brought here. I tried to discuss the same concern with LaMona just a few weeks ago and I was ignored. I’m now getting rather sick of the lie you’re peddling, Robert McClenon. If I have a concern that is rebuffed, the next time that concern shows up, I’ll escalate it, as I have done. I don’t need cheap jibes from the peanut gallery when all I’m doing is following Wikipedia dispute resolution policy. –RexxS (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  2. This seems to be the last exchange between RexxS and LaMona: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&oldid=736325929#AFC

    RexxS: “I have not harassed LaMona. My initial post was a polite request to reconsider her rejection of A. T. M. Wilson, who is unarguably notable and stood no chance whatsoever of being deleted at AfD….”

    Also RexxS: “I am very concerned that you have made such a glaring mistake…”

    Still no idea why anyone would consider this guy notable, other than the usual reason, but then again, Wikipedia considers Pokemon characters to be more notable than women scientists who discover new elements or black holes.

    RexxS again: “…it’s worth noting that I didn’t know her gender until I was composing the ANI report and didn’t want to keep using she/he as the pronoun, so I checked her user page to see if she had stated her gender.”

    *cough*

    Of course the ORCID number might also have given it away.

  3. Adding screenshots of the convo with RexxS on SV’s talk page. The whole thing can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&oldid=736325929#AFC

    Here, RexxS says publicly where he found LaMona’s identity, and seems totally aware of the consequences of being able to find it, particularly for women. Yet, he posts it in plain view, along with a recommendation for oversight.

    Just for reference, SlimVirgin’s talk page has 1,004 watchers, https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:SlimVirgin so the chances that no one saw this – especially no one from the just concluded drama board – are slim and none. The edits of all three would be tracked by anyone who was disappointed by SV’s abrupt closure.

    Here is a reminder from SV that oversight requests and the locations of material to be oversighted should be by email and not posted publicly.


    ~~~~

    This is kind of weird, about six hours later SV deletes a bunch of stuff:

    14:49, 15 August 2016 SlimVirgin talk contribs changed visibility of a revision on page User talk:SlimVirgin: content hidden and edit summary hidden (outing)
    14:49, 15 August 2016 SlimVirgin talk contribs changed visibility of 4 revisions on page User talk:SlimVirgin: content hidden (outing)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User_talk:SlimVirgin
    The diffs are:
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=734578085
    Revision as of 08:22, 15 August 2016 RexxS (talk | contribs) (→‎AFC: new section)

    and four other diffs, so the exact diff for the original RexxS edit on 08:22, 15 August 2016 remains hidden, until it reappears here (15:22, 15 August 2016) with the 08:22 time stamp. Just for reference, this is 1:22 AM Pacific time, so the whole exchange was more likely seen in the UK than in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=next&oldid=734612181

    So what kind of “outing” was deleted, and why can’t you see the original RexxS diff.

    There is more: some emails, a couple of posts on LaMona’s blog that would take me a long time to find, even if I wanted to, and a reference on Wikipedia Weekly for T&S that you will never find in a million years, but it was all of five years ago, and there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then.

  4. Adding the information about the deletions on LaMona’s user page.

    The information about the location of LaMona’s ORCID number, and that it contained a link to her identity, was posted by RexxS on SlimVirgin’s talk page at 8:22 15 August 2016.

    SV gave a heads-up that it could be deleted at 15:21 15 August 2016.

    Here is the deletion log: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:LaMona

    * “17:12, 15 August 2016 SlimVirgin talk contribs changed visibility of 31 revisions on page User:LaMona: content hidden (privacy)”

    It was deleted almost 9 hours later, presumably after a suitable private email conversation.

    Just for reference, 17:12 UTC is 10:12 AM in California (Pacific Time) or 1:12 PM in New York (Eastern Time), and August 15 was a Monday (although in August they would have been on daylight time), but you get the idea. There was plenty of time for anyone in the US who was following the drama to snag the identity, and indeed, it was emailed to me, as it was causing quite a stir stateside.

    1. Genderdesk is a troll website. Nobody takes this website seriously.

      The first Google search for Genderdesk is Abd Lomax’s Reddit board.

      Your name is toxic. Everybody can see this is a troll website.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s