Talk:List of female users

From RationalWikiWiki

Andrew Morrow should see this! --Fall down

That Andrew Morrow? Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 01:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that Andrew Morrow - don't worry, he didn't really hurt anyone. He and I have something in common - we're both victims of female power on a wiki. Fall down 06:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Lock 2 Reality check 3 Article relocation 4 Just out of curiosity 5 Toast 6 Deletion

[edit] Lock

I'm not sure about the lock on this article. I know that Fd has some rather extreme ideas about women and we wouldn't want to be a shop window for them, but after your edit tea article does describe the situation on RW. There does indeed seem to a bit of affirmative action going on and it would seem to reasonable to comment on it. The fact that we don't like the views of the original author is neither here nor there.--False Flag 19:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see what you mean. From your point of view, without a major precipitating incident, locking the article on any level goes against the spirit of the site (or at least the site we would like to have). Though from my point of view, the lock is set to still allow the vast majority of registered editors (effectively everyone but Fall down) to continue editing it. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 07:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are a bureaucrat; we are equals—I trust your judgment in such matters. If you think the lock(s) is/are uncalled for, then I have no objections to you unlocking them. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 07:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I asked because you had not explicitly stated on this talk page why it was locked, and the edit line comment was brief. I did not want to start wheel war of locking and unlocking so I gave my opinion rather than simply reverting you.--False Flag 17:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reality check

This "article" ignores one inconvenient fact: all men that identify as such and are presently active have sysop powers on RW as well as women. And so do the gender-unspecified. I would suggest RWW delete it as pointless. Ironically, it even is completely devoid of anything that would actually support its claims - documented elsewhere on this site, the essay RA wrote that seemed to prompt the immediate sysoping of two XX-identified users. Human 20:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment I suppose. Also, for example Tokyo Rose is not a sysop - yet. But yes, now, anybody who stays on-site for more than a week gets sysop. So the positive discrimination argument does lack force. On the other hand that sock of Teresita was made sysop for being a chick, so there may be something in it. But then, only one real example. There is also the question of whether people who say they are women are, actually, women. Perhaps Fall down is woman? On the internet, who knows?--False Flag 21:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was never made sysop though I was there more than a week, so that can't be right. Fall down 23:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You launched a determined assault of vandalism on the wiki, using Tor. Why you did so does not matter, what matters is that you did so; you can hardly expect to be anytime soon after such an episode. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 23:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is also the issue of whether the few isolated examples of users being promoted based on gender are part of a concerted effort to do so or based on the whimsy of the bureaucrat in charge. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 23:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To just jump in here FD, FF is not quite correct. we seem to have established an unwritten rule that anybody who makes a positive or even neutral contribution to the site rapidly becomes a sysop. As your first act was to blank the mainpage and you were later found to trying to encourage others to vandalise the site your chances of sysophood were never that good.--Bob M 09:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article relocation

I am currently updating the article to reflect its new title, so please do not edit it for a while. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I am done[1]. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing below, you might want to rename it again, to "List of usernames on RW whose handlers claim they are female" or some such. You are aware that Cracker runs a whole family of believable "women" on CP, right? Human 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just out of curiosity

How many actual people are named here? I know at least 4 are sock puppets. Fat Tuesday 04:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How can we "know" any editor is female? Are we running DNA tests? Human 02:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha!! Hadn't thought of that one! Fat Tuesday 03:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Note the "self-identified" bit. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 03:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you please inform us which of them are the sockpuppets? Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 03:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Fat Tuesday 22:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That is most unhelpful of you. Why bother informing us of their sockpuppetry at all? Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 07:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to annoy & harass. :) Fat Tuesday 07:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toast

Do we know that she is a sock of SusanG? I remember seeing someone speculate about it on RW. Also, do we out socks here? FernoKlump 06:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See here. Phantom Hoover 11:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I used that link as a citation for the article. FernoKlump 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I hope that we are not going to have any RW cat wars here. Anyway, I'm not sure why we have this as it makes no comment about our apparently female editors apart from list them, so it doesn't seem to be doing anything. Perhaps if it analyzed them in some way by position on religion, abortion or whatever. Obviously we'd have to do the same thing for the male editors.

Mmmm. thinking about that ..... Perhaps we could create a RWW survey. Create a list of "What is your position on xxx" questions and ask everyone to fill it out (on the talk page of their article page here? On a big RW article page?) and we'd collate the results here. It would be a complete shambles of course, but there's not a lot going down at the moment and it would raise the profile of RWW, and could be a bit of fun. I know something similar happened with Rem, so we'd need to chose new questions.--False Flag 21:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok right, we do have a category for female users.. so is it necessary to have a list of female users as well? Probably not, I'd say. I like your idea of categorizing through a survey though. Refugee 09:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the survey idea. As for this page, I've deleted it since there were no objections. --  Nx/talk  16:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)