Bonus question ‘who is Lourdes’, scroll to bottom.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lourdes 9 February 2017, self-nom after 14 months editing experience; Final (20/26/4); ended 03:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC) – Withdrawn by candidate
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lourdes 2 , 26 February 2018 (UTC), nominated by Ritchie333, Co-nomination by SoWhy; Final: (207/3/1) – Closed as successful
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Lourdes/Statement
- Previous name Xender Lourdes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Xender_Lourdes&redirect=no
- Signs her talk page messages ‘warmly’, ‘love’, ‘ta’, and ‘tata’, but mostly ‘love’. I don’t know about anyone else but “warmly” for me is a red flag and only slightly less objectionable than “moist”
- Dysklyver found her band [archived], Russian Red
- Here she dances in a bikini, with a knife, while singing to a plate of spaghetti that erupts and becomes enlarged; she is definitely not one of those women who has a Female Penis, because I’m pretty sure you would be able to see it in this outfit.
- Her alternate account is the lolicon Wìkìpe-tan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:W%C3%ACk%C3%ACpe-ta
- RfA for alt sockpuppet account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xaosflux/Requests_for_adminship/Wikipe-tan Final (34/22/7); Closed as successful 1 April 2017 (UTC) I am invoking IAR and marking this as successful as the votes are irrelevant. I have final say. 😀Cyber (cyberpower678) (Note that RexxS’ RfA was also April 1)
- Her sock’s RfA discussion focused on Vaginal Steaming:“What is your opinion on yoni steaming – Do you think enough editors were credited for its DYK nomination, or could a few more have been added? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)”It was also revealed that Drmies had extensively edited the Vaginal Steaming article without leaving edit summaries.“Oh come on. Not even User:Amortias, who wants all sources to mention “v steaming”. Or User:Drmies, who thinks not leaving edit summaries won’t reveal that he edited the article; and then excitedly proceeds to add an unsourced statement to the article “Recently, it has been regarded as an alternative health practice for women in the Western world.” Oh come on Drmies 😀 How do you know that?! So Ritchie, I guess chucking out all these editors leaves only you for the Dyk nomination.
- In the sock RfA, she refers to Beyond My Ken as “dear”.
- She refers to Cassianto as “love”, after blocking him. That’s cold. But wait, when did Cassianto become “Renamed user b9ba6bd682d1ee91a83a175ba10c82ad“?
- According to Spanish Wikipedia, she was born in Madrid in 1985, and is now 35 years old.
- She is in a long term relationship with a California real estate agent, and they are now married. No word on whether she still lives in California or how she might have been affected by Trump’s immigration policies.