Wikipedia editor ‘TheRedPenofDoom’ or TRPoD is notorious on Wikipedia for his acerbic and sometimes abusive conduct and suspicious relationships to Wikipedia Admins. He was under investigation at one point by journalist Sharyl Attkisson, who was at the time linking him as a ‘agenda interest’ to the pharmaceutical industry. I’m not sure what came of that however. I had to deal with him when I requested a new consensus on the Sheldrake article’ and felt harassed by him on my talk page.
Quite recently – RedPenofDoom has been brought up for sanctions on Wikipedia for displaying ‘battleground mentality’ behaviors on Wikipedia, no doubt his role in the Gamergate controversy put a few more Wikipedia eyes on him. Amazing this took so long. Red Pen of Doom is one of three Wikipedia editors who were involved with my harassment editing Wikipedia whom have since been sanctioned. It also adds credence to the proposal that Gamergate helped to expose many of the flaws in Wikipedia. It’s not likely to go anywhere however, as Wikipedia admins continually let him slip by any sanctions.
I think anyone familiar with online consensus building would acknowledge that TRPoD’s activities do cause and fuel battleground behaviors, and he is known to do a little of his own ‘point of view pushing’.
So it was a shock to me to discover this comment made by The Red Pen of Doom that was used by Wikipedia admin Mark Bernstein as evidence that TRPoD engages in battleground behaviors on Wikipedia.
When outside forces specifically target Wikipedia as a battlefield (with militaristic “Operations” non the less), it seems not only absurd but also infantile to ”ad naseum” claim that “Wikipedia is not a battlefield”. And defending BLP is “righting a wrong” that Wikipedian’s are in fact charged to accomplish. – The Red Pen of Doom.
While Mark Bernstein disliked the comment TRPoD made – I found myself in complete agreement with it. As much as I have disagreed with TRPoD’s behaviors on Wikipedia, at least he is acknowledging the obvious – and for any Wikipedia editor or admin to pretend otherwise is horribly delusional and appears just a product of platform groupthink. Wikipedia is the greatest information battleground in the history of the world. It’s a magnet for activism big and small, private or corporate, personal or social.
While many Wikipedians, including admins, claim to defend the Neutral Point of View and resist agenda based forces, that usually just means the agendas of other editors they disagree with and are often blind to their own agenda based decisions. Considering Wikipedia editors whom may have their own inabilities to view their own neurological biases are put in the position of determining the bias of other editors for sanctioning – we have quite a mess to clean up if Wikipedia is going to evolve to true collaborative consensus building.
Pingback to Reddit.com/r/WikiInAction.