This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neotarf (talk | contribs) at 19:05, 21 November 2014 (→Arbcom talk comment: answering SPECIFICO). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:05, 21 November 2014 by Neotarf (talk | contribs) (→Arbcom talk comment: answering SPECIFICO)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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
Arbcom talk comment
Hello Neotarf.
I'm puzzled by your recent comment at Arbcom talk. As far as I know, you never addressed me or mentioned me until you posted a proposal at ANI first week of September concerning page bans for me, Eric and Pork]. None of the assembled GGTF participants, in fact nobody at all (other than you) endorsed your proposal. Your narrative in today's comment gives a very different impression. As you may recall, in my case, I voluntarily withdrew from posting at GGTF in September because my efforts were not welcome there. At any rate, I just would like to suggest you check your narrative against whatever diffs you need to check to ensure that it's accurate. As you know, I've previously posted on the Decision Talk page about the importance of Principle 4 and I feel that everyone should be especially careful about fact checking and documentation in this case. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I addressed you on your talk page. , and (in response to ), and an admin addressed you on your talk page as well. "I set the page up hoping it could become a place where women especially – and perhaps in particular new women editors – could feel relaxed, and might want to exchange ideas about working together or helping each other, or how to encourage other women. So anything that keeps the atmosphere friendly and warm would be very helpful." . Carol agreed to either a one-way or two-way interaction ban, but you were the one who would not agree to any voluntary interaction ban, which is when the community enacted your one-way interaction ban with Carol. —Neotarf (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously? The narratives have no relation to the truth, much less the diffs. Makes one wonder about Tarf's additions to articles. Probably misrepresenting sources as well.Two kinds of porkBacon 16:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Who is misrepresenting sources in articles, Two kinds of pork, are you talking about me or User:Tarc? What do you mean by that, and what is your evidence for such an accusation? —Neotarf (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Neotarf: None of your writing above squares with the narrative you presented at Arbcom. The time sequence is all wrong, just for starters. The diffs do not support any of your claims. As to the ANI, you should recall that I responded to your initiative there and would have continued to work in good faith toward a resolution of the matter had it not been summarily closed immediately upon my initial participation in the thread. You also know that due to the IBAN, I cannot comment further on those matters. At the Arbcom pages, you have repeatedly misrepresented the substance of my participation at GGTF, which I voluntarily discontinued. I feel disappointed to think that anyone who carefully read the body of my work there -- not just out of context fractions thereof -- could be so mistaken about what I said and my approach to remedying the gender gap and its effects on the Encyclopedia. It's unfortunate, per Principle 4 of the arbitration, that you misrepresented me there. Finally, anyone who were to examine my history (I'm not suggesting you do so) would discover that I've done plenty to support editors who happen to be women and even to step in where I thought there was gender-based bullying. I do not differentiate that work from my other work to improve WP, nor do I discuss it as if it were anything especially noteworthy. SPECIFICO talk 05:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- The ban discussion is here. It is true you offered to stay off the GGTF page, but there were concerns about other topic areas as well. I was not in a position to say anything about those, as I had only seen what happened at GGTF. Also note my remarks under Diff 3, that "at the time I posted the comment, there were 28 posts by SPECIFICO". If you are concerned about making further comments, you can email me. But also note I did not vote in that ANI. I was trying to listen to all sides and find a common area of agreement. —Neotarf (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- You've changed the subject. The entire narrative you posted at the Arbcom thread was undocumented and incorrect. Nobody expects you to discuss matters of which you have no knowledge or involvement, but the community does require you to be truthful and to document your claims. You're not going to sustain any productive relationships with your fellow editors here if you continue to disparage them and to misrepresent their views and actions. We needn't discuss this further. SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- The diff is this one, and is clearly indicated on the case pages. Anyone can go to this diff, and see for themselves what I saw and what an admin saw that caused concern. They can count for themselves your 28 posts. And now, since you have presented no diffs of your accusations against me, and I have received nothing by email, it seem *you* are the one who is misrepresenting *my* views and actions. —Neotarf (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- You've changed the subject. The entire narrative you posted at the Arbcom thread was undocumented and incorrect. Nobody expects you to discuss matters of which you have no knowledge or involvement, but the community does require you to be truthful and to document your claims. You're not going to sustain any productive relationships with your fellow editors here if you continue to disparage them and to misrepresent their views and actions. We needn't discuss this further. SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- The ban discussion is here. It is true you offered to stay off the GGTF page, but there were concerns about other topic areas as well. I was not in a position to say anything about those, as I had only seen what happened at GGTF. Also note my remarks under Diff 3, that "at the time I posted the comment, there were 28 posts by SPECIFICO". If you are concerned about making further comments, you can email me. But also note I did not vote in that ANI. I was trying to listen to all sides and find a common area of agreement. —Neotarf (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Neotarf: None of your writing above squares with the narrative you presented at Arbcom. The time sequence is all wrong, just for starters. The diffs do not support any of your claims. As to the ANI, you should recall that I responded to your initiative there and would have continued to work in good faith toward a resolution of the matter had it not been summarily closed immediately upon my initial participation in the thread. You also know that due to the IBAN, I cannot comment further on those matters. At the Arbcom pages, you have repeatedly misrepresented the substance of my participation at GGTF, which I voluntarily discontinued. I feel disappointed to think that anyone who carefully read the body of my work there -- not just out of context fractions thereof -- could be so mistaken about what I said and my approach to remedying the gender gap and its effects on the Encyclopedia. It's unfortunate, per Principle 4 of the arbitration, that you misrepresented me there. Finally, anyone who were to examine my history (I'm not suggesting you do so) would discover that I've done plenty to support editors who happen to be women and even to step in where I thought there was gender-based bullying. I do not differentiate that work from my other work to improve WP, nor do I discuss it as if it were anything especially noteworthy. SPECIFICO talk 05:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)