The Wikipedia Post — Conclusion: War Never Changes
In the heat of the GamerGate controversy in 2014, a feminist Wikipedia editor named Laura Hale would publish a research paper regarding the supposed effect of Wikipedia’s supposedly toxic environment being harmful to women. Repeatedly invoking the boogeyman of GamerGate by name and implication, Hale’s paper focused heavily on one of Wikipedia’s own major feminism-related controversies surrounding the so-called “unblockable” editor Eric Corbett. At the conclusion of her paper, Hale calls for various actions to be taken to “fix” Wikipedia’s community such as pressure from outside social justice and feminist groups. She also suggests “interventions” from employees of the Wikimedia Foundation that owns Wikipedia. The paper was apparently well-received by some members of the Trust and Safety team (then called Support and Safety) as one of them included it in the team’s list of citations on the issue of harassment. An editor of some controversy, Hale had repeatedly dealt with complaints about her shoddy editing from an administrator going by the username Fram, even being sanctioned because of his reports. June of this year, Fram would find himself banned one year by the Wikimedia Foundation over claims of harassment. The Foundation would not disclose who reported him or what he did, but a previous warning told him to stay away from just one other editor: Laura Hale.
Fram’s ban sparked a massive revolt among Wikipedia’s community with mass-resignations and some of the most prominent veterans of the sites leaping in to defy the Foundation by overturning their actions to challenge the ban. Many of the parties involved in the GamerGate dispute on Wikipedia would show up here as well, such as Black Kite who firmly stood behind Fram. Also involved was Future Perfect at Sunrise who, in his usual bluster, threatened to block a former member of the Arbitration Committee who dared state Fram was banned for harassment unless the former ArbCom member provided evidence, a quip about the secrecy of the Foundation’s ban. Not all opposed as Robert “Gamaliel” Fernandez, eager to settle the score from 2016, fed “anonymous” allegations of sexual harassment to the current editor-in-chief of the Signpost. Fernandez’s allegations distorted into an obscenely false narrative an incident where Fram linked to a reddit discussion at GamerGate-affiliated Wikipedia criticism subreddit WikiInAction criticizing Fernandez’s protection of Mark Bernstein. Noted due to Fernandez’s deletion of the link when another user posted it, Fram stated it showed Fernandez using his administrative authority to hide criticism of his conduct. A single comment in the thread, since deleted, jokingly described the relationship between Fernandez and Bernstein as a sexual one with some detail. Wikimedia DC, where Fernandez is a member of the board and Communications Chair, issued a communication from the board endorsing the Foundation’s actions. One Slate author who as of publication follows and is followed by Fernandez on Twitter cited both the Signpost and Wikimedia DC statements in a piece backing the Foundation.
Conflict over the ban as it spiraled pushed Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales into getting the Foundation to back down from taking action against those overturning it. Following a meeting of the Board of Trustees, the Foundation was officially made to surrender to the demands of the community and refer a review of the action to the Arbitration Committee. The controversy had deepened early on as Hale’s apparent role with the ban raised further concerns about the potential for the Foundation being used by a shoddy editor to silence a critic. Evidence was then uncovered of Hale having been in a romantic relationship with the Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees, Maria Sefidari. Responding to the concerns, Sefidari denied any involvement in the ban and castigated the community for inquiring into such matters. Going further, Sefidari invoked the notion of sexism on the Internet adding the reaction “has strong textbook reminiscences of . . . Gamergate.” Editors, many of them steeped in the establishment narrative of GamerGate, objected to her attempting to shut down their legitimate concerns about conflicts of interest with accusations of misogynistic harassment and the revolt intensified as a consequence. Who could have ever predicted that outcome?
Previous: Part 12: End of the Battle?
Return to Table of Contents
