User talk:Neotarf: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:14, 15 September 2014 view sourceLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Neotarf/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:21, 26 September 2014 view source Callanecc (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators72,962 edits →Proposed findings of fact on Banning Policy case: new sectionNext edit →
Line 41:		Line 41:
	{{OD}}		{{OD}}
	If you wish to continue making your ridiculous accusations, take it to the appropriate notice board, with diffs. ——] (]) 22:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)		If you wish to continue making your ridiculous accusations, take it to the appropriate notice board, with diffs. ——] (]) 22:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

			== Proposed findings of fact on Banning Policy case ==

			Hi Neotarf, notwithstanding the fact that the workshop case has closed would you please go through the findings of fact you've proposed and ensure that the claims and allegations made there are supported by recent diffs. They will make it much easier for the Committee to decide what action to take than unsupported claims. Thank you, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 04:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:21, 26 September 2014

How to disable Media Viewer:

At the top of your page when you are logged in: Preferences > Appearance > Files.

Subpages:

User:Neotarf/Signpost Arbitration Reports 2013 Index of my arb reports, a regular feature I wrote covering the Arbitration Committee for the Signpost during the 2013 arbitration cycle
User:Neotarf/Arbitration Committee Elections 2013: Neotarf's picks:Slate for 2013 ArbCom elections
User:Neotarf/EditCounterOptIn.js: Enables edit counter
User talk:Neotarf/ArbCom 2013:List of Arbcom cases and requests for 2013
User talk:Neotarf/Arbitration enforcement:Some notes
User talk:Neotarf/Other stuff (including link to discussion about "retired" banner)
User talk:Neotarf/Jimbo civility speech transcript Wikimania civility speech, August 2014

Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.

Respect of my gender

Hello, at one of the WP:ANI pages you commented and used male pronouns to describe me or subsequently used a comment like, 'Pretending to be something they're not'. I would like to note that I am a woman and referring to me by male pronouns by mistake, and fixing it later is perfectly fine, however given the context of the situation, I don't approve of it happening when I've made it clear several times that I am a woman. ArbCom especially has already set a precedent on this in the Manning case, where editors should respect other editor's gender identities, gender, backgrounds, and the like. I would like to be respected so I am going to ask that you edit your comment to use female pronouns. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Diff? —Neotarf (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit of yours. Tutelary (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What male pronoun?—Neotarf (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretending to be something they're not' I also mentioned that bit. You're saying that I was pretending to be a woman. Tutelary (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Diff? —Neotarf (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The first diff I posted. Read where it starts "Claiming to be a woman..." Tutelary (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You were claiming to be a woman, and you are still doing so. —Neotarf (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that I am not a woman, Neotarf? Tutelary (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? There are no diffs. There are no male pronouns. Stop making stuff up, and go do something useful. —Neotarf (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Not when your comment ultimately continues to say and implicate that I am a guy pretending to be a woman. Under ArbCom's manning dispute, other editors are to respect gender, gender identities, and other backgrounds. ArbCom also does good to enforce their rulings by sanctions. Tutelary (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. And the Manning case said nothing about pronouns. Content disputes are not in ArbCom's remit. You may, however, be interested in WP:ASPERSIONS —Neotarf (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do read Equality and respect

5.2) 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. - https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute Tutelary (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to continue making your ridiculous accusations, take it to the appropriate notice board, with diffs. ——Neotarf (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact on Banning Policy case

Hi Neotarf, notwithstanding the fact that the workshop case has closed would you please go through the findings of fact you've proposed and ensure that the claims and allegations made there are supported by recent diffs. They will make it much easier for the Committee to decide what action to take than unsupported claims. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)