Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:59, 9 August 2014

Archives

Index of archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Misplaced Pages editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme: Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC (RSVP), focusing on LGBT history and culture. 11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library. We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Why are you reverting the dynamic IPv6 user?

You've done it twice with the rollback tool, (which is only meant to be used for vandalism), and I'd like an explanation. Suspicion of socking/off wiki canvassing is dealt at WP:SPI or WP:ANI. Additionally, what rule did the IPv6 user break. The block reason is 'absurdity' and does not offer any context or reason behind it. Tutelary (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It was kind of you to think of me Tutelary.

I should let Mr. Matetsky speak for his own actions, but I will just say that I have found, over many years of editing Misplaced Pages via IP, that most administrators feel very comfortable taking harsh action against IP editors. I don't mean that cynically or hyperbolically - there is really a large group of administrators who believe that any process-oriented or mildly-negative comment by an IP is evidence of "suspicious" or "trolling" behavior. I don't know why it came to be that way, but I am used to it. 2601:7:1980:BF6:7440:4B16:768B:EE69 (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my prior action and have repeated it. The impropriety of the edits I reverted is self-evident. I will add that while I didn't rely on IP's likely being a banned editor as the rationale for my reverts or blocks, the gratuituous use of my real name is a strong marker that the IP is one of a small handful of banned editors, none of whom are permitted to make even legitimate edits, much less gratuitously inappropriate ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll drop it, but I do like to ask admins about their actions regarding IPs/brand new accounts especially due to the fact that they may be a legitimate, interested editor which may be bitten by the encounter. Carry on. Tutelary (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, I appreciate your interest in protecting IPs' right to edit and to enjoy equal consideration of their edits. I first edited as an IP myself, all those years ago, and it was the fact that I felt welcomed into a productive, collaborative environment that led me to go ahead and register an account. It was the specific edits of this particular IP, or range of IPs, that immediately struck me as problematic, and not the fact of his or her IP-ness. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, though I would be a bit more precise with your block reasons. 'absurdity' doesn't really say any detail about what happened or why you blocked for it. 'harassment' is better but still needs more context. Tutelary (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You may be right. One gets a bit jaded after dealing with the same handful of trolls for years and years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Why would a person behaving in an upright fashion seek to prohibit "gratuitous" use of his name? Not everyone with non-mainstream theories is a troll. 2601:7:1980:BF6:24B3:4A6B:5D96:B6CE (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Really?

Not sure what happened here, but I hope that was an accident? Risker (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Risker: See the next edit on that page. Sorry. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Signpost Barnstar
		Thanks for writing this book review! Ed  13:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree, after reading: thanks! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughtful review :) Pundit|utter 09:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just read it, great job.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Friendly warning

You have been marked as a target by 4chan. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Geez. The gallium of these people. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've said in IRC: I love how petty 4chan is. It's endearing like a little cousin smearing his poop all over the walls. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You know, I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm not sure that your posting that is going to help the situation.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The thread 404'ed anyways. They just "mentioned" your account but focused almost exclusively on me. *shrugs* ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's good. I just had my userpage painted.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Note to interested talkpage watchers

I have a book review in this week's Signpost. See here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Jacqueline Fernandez

Regarding your comment on Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jacqueline_Fernandez. I understand that it is a waste of time, but should I just stand by and let Hell Bucket remove the sourced information, and then watch others add back the wrong information? How do you deal with editors like him and Red Pen, who think they are serving the community best by strict adherence to the letter of the policy law above all normal reason and consensus? I suspect that these two are even the same editor, but not strongly enough yet to go sock puppet with it. BollyJeff | talk 12:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, both of the editors you mention, User:Hell in a Bucket and User:TheRedPenOfDoom, are well-known, experienced editors and they are definitely not the same person, so you don't need to worry about that.

In general, I would agree with you that if Reliable Source A says "Jane was born on March 1" and Reliable Source B" says "Jane was born in 1970", then we have a basis for writing that "Jane was born on March 1, 1970." That is common sense. The response is that in the area of "celebrity" (actor/actress etc.) birthdays, there is a lot of misinformation floating around, some generated by poorly researched sites and some (I'm not saying in this instance) by the subjects themselves. So it's an area where we want to be careful.

(Another concern, though it hasn't been raised here, is that there are a lot of people who don't want their exact dates of birth publicized out of concern for the possibility of identity theft.)

With regard to this specific dispute, while Twitter isn't a reliable source (to say the least), a date of birth given on Twitter by the person herself is sufficiently reliable if it hasn't been challenged. And I gather there is no real dispute as to the year? If that is the case, my personal opinion is that giving the complete date should be all right. That being said, this could all be mooted by finding a better source (which might perhaps not be in English?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The second source for the date is a video of her saying "I was born on August 11, not June 2". It cannot be any more clear. You saw what red pen said about the year, but the new sources that I provided are reliable newspapers. If you agree, would you please say so on the noticeboard? I would hope that that would be the end, but these editors are known (by me at least) to be stubborn and not follow consensus, so there may still be trouble. At least I will have grounds to restore the date. BollyJeff | talk 13:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Sunday August 17 NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share (RSVP). 2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor). Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided). We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

WP:JSTOR access

Hello, WP:The Misplaced Pages Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Misplaced Pages email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Misplaced Pages talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Misplaced Pages talk:JSTOR/Approved.

query

DId you revisit my responses ] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. I've been spending my wikitime for the past day or so trying to come up with some proposals to workshop in the Media Viewer arbitration case (which I hope to do later today or tonight). I've shared my personal input in the thread and above, but another administrator might be able to move this issue forward sooner than I'll be able to. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Word usage

(Note: Original section title was "cunt, queer, nigger". I'm changing it as several people, including myself, don't want to see this in watchlists any more. It is not to be changed back.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NYB, and my apologies for the above manner of getting your attention. You seem to indicate in your statement at the civility bigotry case request that you think the case is about censorship. It is not. Perhaps it would help to look again at the actual comment diff, with a few items highlighted for reference.

The central assertion is that words do not matter, and that racial and ethnic slurs are completely acceptable. The message is delivered in the most racist, misogynistic, and homophobic language possible, and reinforced by an army of intimidating vulgarities, f-bombs, and personal characterizations. This type of bullying, exclusionary language has no place on Misplaced Pages and there should be no question at all about removing it.

And no further disturbances? HIAB has now posted yet another template on my talk page, after I specifically dis-invited him from my talk page. This time he has added an f-bomb.

I can understand why the Arbcom would want to run away from this case, but it did not run away from the issue in the Manning naming dispute: "Misplaced Pages editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions." If the Arbcom walks away from this with the comments that have already been left there, it will be declaring open season on blacks, women, and gays. Regards,—Neotarf (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"The above manner of getting my attention" was indeed not necessary. I read my talkpage every time I log on and see the new messages bar. You will get the attention of anyone who has my page watchlisted, but not in a positive way.

I certainly do not support declaring open season on blacks, women, gays, or any other group of human beings, nor (if I may speak for my colleagues) does any other arbitrator want that. A disagreement over whether a Misplaced Pages arbitration case is the best way to deal with a specific issue, and one on which feelings were very mixed although the current voting alignment may not be, does not reflect lack of concern for the need to improve civility on Misplaced Pages in general and to avoid postings that might be perceived as bigoted in particular.

I think User:Hell in a Bucket's point, which I understand but do not agree with, is akin to the use-mention distinction: he wasn't calling anyone by those terms, but arguing that too much attention is devoted to specific trigger-words. In other words, he was using those words for analogous reasons to why you just used those words—making a point about the words themselves rather than "using the words." You have inadvertently undercut your otherwise sound argument by demonstrating that on rare occasions, there is a reason for typing them.

Despite such subtleties, it is obvious to me that such words should be avoided on Misplaced Pages except when there is an especial need or reason to use one of them. Their very use can be both demoralizing to many editors as well as distracting to the editing community. By phrasing his posting as he did and insisting that it remain even after being told it offended people, I think that Hell in a Bucket displayed very poor judgment and decorum. The fact that I don't think an arbitration case would help the situation does not change that.

I was not aware that Hell in a Bucket templated you today. In the absence of some explanation, I believe that too constituted poor judgment on his part, and I tell him here and now to stop it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that my use of these terms is the same. HIAB could easily have said something along the lines of "racist, misogynistic, and homophobic language is not a problem, and when it occurs, no objections should be made to it". On the other hand it was quite apparent from the number of editors who were referring to this as a "swearing" problem that they probably had not parsed HIAB's actual words. It is understandable that so many users were reticent about re-posting the thing, but the actual words really need to be spelled out to understand why so many of us had risked removing it.

I'm not necessarily arguing for opening a full case, but so far the attitude of Arbcom I am reading is that nothing serious happened, and that this is just civility again, same old, same old. There is certainly some overlap of issues, but the human rights/hostile work environment issues need to be teased away from it.

Those who think the c-bomb and the n-bomb are okay in England might want to look at the BBC's editorial guidance for "strong language". For those not sure of how to refer to gay, transgender, etc, etc., here's the GLAAD Media Reference Guide.

This is not about hitting your thumb with a hammer or getting worked up in a content dispute; it is about making comments that demean other editors based on racial and cultural background. IIRC, the WMF has done some new policy along those lines fairly recently as well, at least since the last RFC. TParis's suggestion has merit and I see one other user has just endorsed it as well. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting though that you are able to keep the subtitle out of the watchlist. —Neotarf (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Neotarf's passive aggressive and recently uncivil comments ] GFY or Go fuck yourself to another editor actually highlights what incivility and personal attacks actually are and is quite unlike my above comment. Yes my comments used profanity but it asks everyone to use their collective angst to combat vandals, if Neotarf is unable| to understand this or see past the language and drop the WP:STICK (response has been overwhelming nothing will be done) I'm wondering if they should be here at all and maybe they should finally retire if they can't handle the stress. I'd also like to point out the irony of appealing against the use of the words cunt, queer and nigger is somehow ok because they wrote it, seems to me if it was inappropriate in my comment they certainly wouldn't be appropriate here much less a subheading with prominence but apparently that sort of common sense only applies when you don't like something. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, that obnoxious response, to the effect that a fellow editor should consider leaving the project rather than endure your indifference to his feelings, is leading me to reconsider whether the Committee should indeed accept a case to consider your behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(watching) I think there is some misunderstanding, - {{retired}} is on Neotarf's talk page as long as I know him and seems to mean nothing, - I guess that discrepancy is meant, not "leaving the project". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

ps: do you remember my little poetry? Could you help me with something for missing Alan whose language is so much more precise than mine? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that you would ignore the forum shopping, passive aggressive behavior and recently uncivil hypocritical comments here and elsewhere. If an editor leaves a retired template on their page and then goes about complaining when people using certain words then uses them themselves in a prominent position plus making personal attacks to other editors (which I haven't done in this case). Yes I do think if they can't handle the stress in an manner that reflects their argument they shouldn't be here. It shouldn't be ok for them to use it and complain about me, if you want to think that's obnoxious and needs a case that's up to you. I think if you actually research the whole situation starting with EC's "If you don't want to be called a cunt don't act like one" and see where it's morphed, Neotarf came to my page demanding that the comment be removed, I declined because mainly I don't deal well with dickish demands, this was followed by two editors that didn't like the comment removing it and leaving a link saying to see it at ANI, no link nothing. MULTIPLE admin told Neotarf that there wasn't anything to be done and that the comment was within the scope of adding, Neotarf tried to say it was demeaning a group of editors, LB said I was targeting every person that was talking about civility, so it's morphed from Feminism, Incivility, and now Bigotry. I've been called a low life, I've been treated in an altogether way that is totally contrary to the holy message that neotarf, and others are carrying..and yes this comment too ] nothing but stirring up trouble..wonder why not one of them has pointed it out..oh yeah it doesn't fit their desired outcome. Let's look at the difference when one actually engages me in constructive debate ], which surprise surprise is in the same situation..For all their forum shopping, Light Breather has actually maintained civility throughout which is more then I can say about the originator of this thread. I guess it's up to you how much you look at and what but I sure hope you will look at everything. Do I like being called a low life, nope did I have to deal with it at ANI where multiple editors saw and only one said something...yup, did I ignore it for the most part and move on, sure did. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(still watching) no bad word here, sweet word indulgence, my name mentioned but no notification, comment linked above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that your(Hell in a Bucket) input in this whole matter has been rather deplorable. From suggesting that if people don't like discrimination that they ought not identify themselves as one who is discriminated against, to the use of the words in this very title. I am disappointed in Brad for what I see as giving excuses for your use and others who are defending what you are trying to point out by the uses. Any editor can see what you are trying to say, and no matter the wording it's very disappointing. Dave Dial (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

YOu know the funny thing is that is in line with the encyclopedia's harrassment policy, to not confirm or deny accusations about personal information put out on wiki whether true or not. Hell in a Bucket (talk)

Neotarf: I just came here to say that I am sick of seeing these words being tossed around to prove a point. While there are valid uses of these words Misplaced Pages is not a forum in free speech. Using them in a section heading to "get someones attention" is disruption to prove a point and little more.

I understand that there is an objection to the idea that words should be banned. I agree that banning words is stupid but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the excessive use of the words over the course of several days on multiple pages to make the point that there is nothing wrong with them.

I am not here to tell you to stop using them. I am here to say it is making this project annoying and offensive. I am saying if you want to toss around the word nigger then you should have a very good reason for it because it is hurtful to people. I am saying that I don't see what it has to do with writing an encyclopedia.

I have had my say and I am moving onto project business. Chillum 21:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Chillum you are a little confused. I made the original comment, User:Neotarf hasn't tossed the words around to show they are ok they are doing it to forum shop and make it look like anti feminism, incivility and most recently bigotry. They posted it in several sections trying to get people to just see the words. Note how they emphasize and give it way more importance then the original comment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have expressed myself poorly. I meant to say that an abundance of editors have been tossing these terms around to make a point. It was Neotarf that made the section heading that I saw in my watchlist to that made me complain about how I have been seeing this all over for days now.

Using it in a section heading is particularly annoying and offensive because it is duplicated in the edit summaries. The topic is not vaginas, odd people and black people, it is the about civility and the use of words and an upcoming arbcom case.

I don't like seeing it in recent changes for no reason other than getting someones attention. I also don't like these terms being the default edit summary when I comment here. Chillum 22:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolution

Dear Newyorkbrad, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC).