| Revision as of 20:24, 27 July 2014 view sourceLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits →Your complaint about Eric: enough already← Previous edit |
Revision as of 20:25, 27 July 2014 view source Lightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits archivingNext edit → |
| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives}} |
|
{{Archives}} |
|
|
|
|
== Arbitration enforcement sanction == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Ivmbox |
|
|
|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg |
|
|
|imagesize=50px |
|
|
|1=The following sanction now applies to you: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Talkquote|1=] from ] for six months from the date and time of my signature below.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
You have been sanctioned per ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an ] under the authority of the ]'s decision at ] and, if applicable, the procedure described at ]. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the ] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be ] for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. |
|
|
|
|
|
You may appeal this sanction using the process described ]. I recommend that you use the ] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
}} |
|
|
:Given you have already filed it, you're granted an exemption to edit the ] section only in order to properly file this enforcement request as well as replies and comments in that section only. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you. ] (]) 13:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==GSL== |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I've been off taking care of my real world issues, but I need guidance. I noticed the sanctions mentioned above, and it is concerning, although, I'm unaware of the whole story. Regardless, I need to ask for help. Where do you think the article needs to go from here? I've found multiple citations regarding the connection between GSL and FOPA. I have some ideas on starting a FOPA section, but I'm debating on whether or not to just use the "legislation" section for these citations. I don't know who else to talk to, as it would "seem" that the only other editors on this page do not seem interested in adding to this page, in terms of efficacy, or to the discussion (talk page). So far, they have only chimed in to criticize attempts to add citations, or to eliminate sections, rather than improving GSL. Whatever the case, please stay in touch, because you are one of the few people here that seems to put WP:POV aside in the effort to improve GSL. ] (]) 06:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, sorry, DN, but I cannot help you. {{u|StarryGrandma}} was my mentor, and she is The Best. You might ask if she will mentor you, or if she will recommend a mentor. Good luck! ] (]) 00:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Suggestion == |
|
|
|
|
|
You made me smile a lot by your suggestion for the presentation of arb decisions. Imgine they had to find diffs for sanctions in the infoboxes case ;) --] (]) 08:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== about the discussion at COI == |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is some feedback. Please feel free to delete this if you don't like it. I meant what I wrote at ]. I reviewed a bunch of your history and interactions. Plenty of kind folks have you tried to help you see you what you have been doing wrong; you have not heard them (]). Blocks and topic bans are meant to be educational wake-up calls - to help you see that you made a bunch of choices that amounted to a pattern of bad behavior. Those choices are what brought the ] on you when you brought the Arbcom case. For what it is worth, I suggest that you stop thinking about what others have done wrong for a bit, and figure out your own editing behavior. If you go to ''any'' drama board (and especially Arbcom!) and your nose is not clean, you are in danger of boomerang. And if you go to yet another one ''now'', fresh under a topic ban, the boomerang can get worse - a topic ban can become a site ban. So please. Stay off the drama boards. Figure out what you did wrong, and figure out how to change. When you have, maybe acknowledge that on your Talk page -- show that the block did its job, and that you now "get it". And establish a new pattern of behavior. When you do that, you probably won't need the drama boards anymore. Anyway, good luck. ] (]) 22:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I hear you; please hear me. I'm not out to punish anyone, or to prove something from the past. I just want to nip two things in the bud: future personal attacks and harassment. There's that old saying, which I'm paraphrasing here: The trick to making a lie believed is to keep repeating it. I think admin {{u|TParis}} gets that when it comes to the tolerance here on WP for repeated personal attacks (allegations of advocacy or COI) w/out evidence. (I am ''not'' saying that TP thinks I haven't brought some grief on myself, but I think he does get this one thing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Personal attacks and harassment are ''policies'', and should be easy enough to shut down. If others do not provide evidence that someone is an advocate, paid or otherwise, despite repeated requests, and if they are not banned or blocked for ''repeating'' the accusations, and if Misplaced Pages is not enforcing the PA and harassment policies, then two options (not all, just two) are 1. See if one can get certified or verified or whatever the process is called as ''not'' a paid advocate. 2. See if one can get the PA and harassment policies, which ''must'' be core to the civility pillar, to be given the same weight as NPOV policy. (Considering that WP is at least 85% men, and the boldness that often accompanies anonymity, this place seems to me like ''Lord of the Flies'' a lot of the time.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Finally, I wish people would not call the notice boards "drama" boards. It makes them, and the editors who take them seriously, sound petty. However, FWIW, I do appreciate your taking time to reply. ] (]) 23:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::you are welcome. ] (]) 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::oh! and what i did wrong, according to the clerk who closed the case, was ''edit war''. i agree, and i will abide by my tban. ] (]) 23:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: that is not accurate. you really don't get it. i hope you eventually do. ] (]) 23:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::@Lightbreather - I do get that one bit, but I think Jytdog gets it too after watching my own stuggles. Lightbreather, you have to keep in mind though, and I've talked to you about this before, the way you approach some folks is a bit IDHT. Personal attacks by others aside, you really should make more of an effort to understand your opponents before replying to them. Sue isn't a terrible person, she's actually quite smart. You two could have a lot to share - both being female editors in a male dominated project. Perhaps some kind of a restart could be in order? Perhaps you two could find a non-political article to work on together.--v/r - ]] 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::TP, you are a good guy. Perhaps I will reach out to her in that way. But that doesn't change the point I'm trying to make here: Personal attacks and harassment need to be nipped in the bud. I've been reading a lot today about the old "Wikiquette" board (that term is hard to take seriously) and ], and what they were meant to do (especially the latter), IMO, is in need of rebirth. I am not a terrible person, and I am actually quite smart. I cannot tell you how many times I've thought of giving up, but I like to edit, and WP needs good editors, and good female editors, and civility (from the average woman's POV) on this project is abysmal. So I hang in there, hope I will be forgiven my sins, and appreciated for my strengths. ] (]) 01:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Centering == |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe you can center the text by just wrapping it between html <nowiki>"<center>" and "</center>"</nowiki>. |
|
|
] (]) 01:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Thank you very much == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
I take it as a great compliment that you would copy some of the userboxes from my page and put them on your userpage. As I wrote at ], this will not immunize you from accusations of paid editing, in fact it will invite them if you don't live up to your commitment. But it is a good step in making the commitment. The hard part comes now in living up to the commitment. I'll just give one piece of advice on this - think before you edit! I have every confidence that you will be able to live up to the commitment. |
|
|
|
|
|
I also want to thank you for putting up the "Defy Censorship" photo. But I also want to warn you that it is a very powerful and controversial message that it sends. This is a replica of the ] statue that was the centerpiece of the Tianamen Square protest for democracy and freedom of speech in China and the massacre of the protesters that followed. There are no good numbers on how many people were killed defending the statue or the ideas behind it, but it is certainly in the thousands. The replica was created by sculptor Thomas Marsh based on all the photos and film that was taken at the time. Copies of the replica are in museums and at universities throughout the world, and are used by the US government as an award for achievement in protecting human rights. The statue shown here was approved by congress and is displayed in Washington, DC near Union Station. I believe Marsh's "original" is in San Francisco about 10 blocks from the WMF headquarters. |
|
|
|
|
|
The statue is controversial on Misplaced Pages, and especially on Commons, because several people have gone to great lengths to try delete it, and have deleted many similar photos. One argument was that the original artists in China can't be contacted and thus cannot give up their copyright permission! (This sophistry was easily disposed of) Another argument was that the replica was an original work of art and we'd need to get the permission of Marsh to display it here. When Marsh's OTRS permission was obtained, one of the same editors argued that the OTRS form was not filled out correctly! I've had to fight hard to get this photo onto Commons and Misplaced Pages, and i think it is the best single thing I've done on Misplaced Pages. So you can see why I'm especially proud to see it on your user page. Of course I would understand if, now that you know the story behind it, you didn't want to have such a powerful and controversial symbol there. I feel that it also represents a commitment. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 17:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Now I am that much happier to share the image. I am a journalist and believe in the free exchange of ideas. ] (]) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== PAIN == |
|
|
|
|
|
I read the exchange at ] and since you are pausing to absorb the almost overwhelming material, let me see if I can push it over the edge :) I'm mentioning this only because it is in progress. |
|
|
|
|
|
See ] for background, and imagine what we would do if we had a reinstitution of ] and this incident were brought to the board. |
|
|
|
|
|
I can see two strong arguments: |
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't a personal attack to point out that someone is introducing a falsehood. After all, we have a template, indicating the accidents with over 50 fatalities should be in italics, and an editor removed the italics from an accident involving over 50 fatalities. The template was true before the edit, false afterward, so any reasonable person should agree that the editor introduced a falsehood. A sanction is needed. |
|
|
|
|
|
A counterargument: |
|
|
|
|
|
The editor was not just accused of introducing a falsehood, but lying. The accusation of lying means that the editor had to know they were deliberately introducing false material. In fact, a discussion about the removal of the italics was in progress, with sentiment leading toward the removal, so the removal of italics was in furtherance of an improvement to the encyclopedia, endorsed by a consensus. |
|
|
|
|
|
While it is tempting to play Potter Stewart (I know it when I see it) I suggest that reasonable people can differ on whether the edits constituted a personal attack. I think they were, but I can appreciate that others might not, and therefore might find the edits complaining about personal attacks as a personal attack themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
So what should we do? One downside of a sanction board is that it is so much more public. People often do not want to climb down form positions, and that goes in spades when done so in public. I am hoping, perhaps naively, that my involvement in this incident, without the glare of ANI, will reach a solution. It may not, but I strongly doubt that dumping it into a sanction board where editors are itching to use sanctions tools would be a better choice.--]] 17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks, Sphilbrick. First, let me say that I appreciate that you are an admin and I am not, and so you have experienced Misplaced Pages from at least one angle that I have not. I have read your post and the link you gave a couple of times now. Without claiming to understand this specific problem as well as you, I will reply first to the evidence that W. gave: |
|
|
:* 13:25, 20 July 2014 , edit summary "don't deliberately introduce falsehoods into Misplaced Pages; some of those had more then 50 dead, and thus according to the template as you edited it, they should be in italics" |
|
|
::''Editing policy'' says, "Try to use an appropriate ]." The ''Edit summary'' information page says: |
|
|
:::''Avoid inappropriate summaries.'' Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as ], and cause tension or bad feelings, making collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an ]. |
|
|
::So ''Edit summary'' links to the ''Civility'' and ''No personal attacks'' policies. It also warns against ]. Therefore, the "don't" clause in P's edit summary is without a doubt (IMO) a personal attack. If that had been left off, and if the "as you edited it" had been left out of the balance, it would have been a perfectly civil summary. He could have simply added "See talk page" if he wanted to discuss it further. However, this one PA is no reason to ban or block someone, so I would look at the next diff. |
|
|
:* 13:26, 20 July 2014 , new section, "Don't add lies to this page." |
|
|
::The "you" is implied in this new section heading. It is contrary to the ] guideline and to the NPA policy re: ] and ]. Calling someone a liar is a serious accusation, and the statement that went into this new section provides no evidence of lying. This is a second PA. |
|
|
:* 13:35, 20 July 2014 |
|
|
::Another inappropriate, avoidyou, revtalk edit summary: a third PA. |
|
|
:* 13:36, 20 July 2014 isn't nice, but it's not an obvious PA either. It suggests that the ''article'' is misrepresenting facts, rather than saying, "''You'' are a liar." As for P's comment, "I don't care what any WikiProject says," it's confrontational, but if the issue he's objecting to is misrepresenting information to the reader, then the ''Consensus'' policy applies. Consensus is ''not'' a vote. (In this case, 2-to-1.) Consensus says: ''Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.'' That puts W. on notice, despite a little consensus that was reached separately, to address P's legitimate concern. |
|
|
:* 11:56, 24 July 2014 and 12:02, 24 July 2014 confirm what the other diffs show: that, at least in this dispute, P. has made repeated personal attacks, and W. has (without my seeing other evidence) not addressed P's legitimate concern. |
|
|
:So if I were the "decider" in this case: If P. had never been formally warned about PA in the past, I would warn her/him. If P. had been warned before, or banned or blocked before, I would ban/block her/him, for incrementally longer periods, similar to 3RR. Also, if there was no evidence that W. had tried to address P's legitimate concern, I would warn him/her, too, about consensus (not being a vote). |
|
|
:Or in other words... ] (]) 21:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:In other words, re: the argument "It isn't a personal attack to point out that someone is introducing a falsehood" is oversimplified. Did W's edit change the meaning of the template data? Yes. Did the edit originate with W? No. (It originated with M.) Regardless of ''who'' it originated with, did ''W.'' know the edit changed the meaning of the template data? It's unclear, but nonetheless, P. accused W. - in an edit summary - of deliberately changing it. That is a personal attack. P. should've just written "please see talk page" and taken his concern there. If he had done that, you might not have the dispute before you now, and there ''wouldn't'' be summaries floating around in the edit-summasphere casting doubt on W's trustworthiness. ] (]) 22:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank-you for the in-depth review you provided. (As an aside, I posted here, hoping not to stir up too much at AN, but I see that has blown up, so will visit there next.) My hope is that the dispute is over, but if it isn't I may point both parties to this discussion. I would like to make one minor point - when I opened with two arguments, I wasn't necessarily writing two statements that could not be criticized - I see you criticized the first, and I agree with your observation. My point was that while it seems like a statement either is or is not a pa, and reasonable people should all reach the same conclusion, I thought this was an example where one statement might produces two very different opinions. While neither of the two arguments is "perfect" both seem to be the type of thing we might expect from reasonable people. It illustrates the challenge of a civility board; it isn't as easy to draw the line as it seems like it should be, or to put it perhaps more accurately, many people will have no difficulty drawing the line, but they will draw it in different places.--]] 15:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Gender gap invitation == |
|
|
|
|
|
{| class="messagebox" style="width: 90%px; border-color: #5982B6" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|align="left" width="100%"| |
|
|
<div align="center"> |
|
|
We invite you to join ''']'''. There you can coordinate with users who are trying to identify gender bias on Misplaced Pages (including gender bias in articles, in editor interactions, policies and implementation of policies) and take steps to counter it. If you would like to get involved, just visit the ]. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members of the task force. Happy editing, ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi! Nice to meet another <s>trouble maker</s> truth teller :-) I noticed the Gender gap user box on your page which had alot of html, as opposed to being a template. Is there a template? In any case thinking of making the same one in colors currently used on the Task Force for those who might want to use that template instead of the member one. Also it then can be stuck into the appropriate spot on the user box listing page. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 16:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Your complaint about Eric == |
|
|
|
|
|
I saw your complaint about ]. I understand you are upset and frustrated, but I sincerely believe this has just been a huge communication breakdown due to a difference in cultures and ideas. It's not the first time I have seen groups with different backgrounds clash on the internet, and it won't be the last. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to quote the specific phrase he used, but I'll try and explain what I interpreted when I read it. In my view, he is simply saying that if you exhibit ] or a ] in your edits (and I don't see any evidence ''at all'' that he is specifically accusing ''you'' of doing this, merely speaking in broad terms), you increase the chance that you will provoke somebody into providing a blunt response. When we look at cases of civility, what's often overlooked is the reason ''why'' someone was civil in the first place, and sometimes there is an element of provocation. Those are the hardest cases to solve. |
|
|
|
|
|
This might be interesting reading - ] (in fact all of Antandrus' essays are worth reading), and - an essay on how it's difficult to spot changing moral standards when you're in the middle of them. ] ] ] 09:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ritchie333, what stands out about "Misplaced Pages's biggest unsolved problem" is that the author says that there is a problem, and calling it unsolved means he/she understands that it is solveable (even if it might be difficult to solve). That part I agree with. The idea that some editors get away with being shits because they're "charismatic"? That's one possibility. |
|
|
:The long blog post? I scanned it. I am a trained writer and I know that words change meaning over time and can have different meanings to different groups of people. That doesn't excuse continuing to use a word offensive to another after that person tells you it's offensive and asks you not to use it. |
|
|
:If people are talking and no-one is offended by the others' choice of words, fine. But if someone speaks up and says that they find certain words offensive, especially if they ask the others to not use it, that's acceptable. And if the others continue to use that word, that's unacceptable. |
|
|
:I am talking here about conversation. If someone wants to make a statement or express an idea, say perhaps on a street corner, or in an essay, then telling them "You can't say that" is censorship. But in conversation, in civil discourse, if someone says "That word is offensive; please don't use it," that is a not censorship. That's why WP has a censorship policy for its product - the encyclopedia - and a civility policy for its contributors' conduct. ] (]) 16:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm not going to lie, men can do utterly horrible things to women. See what happened to ], who seems to have done nothing more than publicly express her point of view.. But equally, stereotypical women will rant about each other, accusing them of being unfaithful or having no morals, or that they have no style, like ]. But they're just stereotypes - the worst of the bunch. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Lightbreather, I don't know what else to say - it's an unsolved problem. If you raise an ANI thread about somebody saying unpleasant language, people who are ''not'' offended tend to pile in and turn on the original poster. Then an argument develops, and suddenly nobody's working on the encyclopedia anymore. A further problem is saying "'x' is offensive, please don't use it" - it can work, but on an free environment like Misplaced Pages, it tends to attract people who will get offended with just the notion of ''that''. |
|
|
|
|
|
::The best solution I have is to do other things outside of Misplaced Pages. Most people in the outside world don't know, much less care, who had a hand in what article, and I've got family and friends who allow me not to get distracted too much by the drama boards and just concentrate on articles. ] ] ] 17:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::] (])</small>''' 18:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Right, he did not call anyone specific a "c...". Therefore no personal attack exists. LB, you had a lot of people on your side - including me - until your latest ANI filing. Nobody can action what's not actionable. The philosophical debate about what words are civil or not does not belong there, and has already been beat out a thousand times. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::So at the point that I took my complaint to the default forum for reporting a personal attack, I lost your support and apparently the support of some other editors, too. Noted. Also noted? That your opinion of my action is just that: an opinion; and that others have different opinions. I will not stop going to ANI or any other appropriate forum when I think it's warranted, with or without your support. If some here think it's censorship to ask others not to use offensive language in discussions, then they ought to agree that it's censorship to tell someone they can't express their concerns to a forum that is meant to hear complaints. ] (]) 16:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: No, you lost my support when you continued to call it a personal attack when it most certainly was not <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I hear you, but I disagree. Your opinion about whether or not it was a PA is no more valid than mine. ] (]) 19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Clearly it is - I apparently actually ''understand'' ] :-) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Here's what was said: "'' easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.''" |
|
|
::::::Here's what ] "... ''some types of comments are never acceptable:''" bullet 1 of 6 says: |
|
|
:::::::''Racial, SEXIST, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, SEXUAL, OR OTHER EPITHETS (such as against people with disabilities) DIRECT AGAINST ANOTHER CONTRIBUTOR, OR AGAINST A GROUP OF CONTRIBUTORS.'' |
|
|
::::::And that's enough on my page for now. I'm archiving this. ] (]) 20:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Lightbreather - I got very frustrated in the two threads in which I participated on this topic by the fact that you would not acknowledge my good faith advice to you that the word that so upset you is used differently in cultures other than your own. I felt it was actually very rude of you to ignore me. It ended up making you look like a bad mannered complainer, rather than the victim you wanted to be seen as. Why did you do that? ] (]) 12:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Hmmm, I remember a while back I was ticked at some guys who were hassling me on Misplaced Pages and I wrote something very general regarding ] and civility on WP and followed it by a link to a wikicommons photo of a couple dead guys whose penises had been stuck in their mouths. (I confess, the most obnoxious thing I ever did on wikipedia, not that anyone really should even have noticed.) Did people just ignore it since it was part of a general comment on my user page which I took down after 48 odd hours? Or did a couple guys who were on my case troll my page and go ranting all over town that I was attacking them personally and should be banned forever, or something to that effect. |
|
|
:::See, this is what I mean by the double standard. Editors assumed to be guys saying the "C" word repeatedly in a widely read thread is "OK"; females complaining about it is a problem. But a female sticking an offensive link next to a widely used Misplaced Pages phrase that someone has to ''deeply troll'' your user page to find allegedly is a personal attack and a banning offense. |
|
|
:::You certain don't see women ranting about dicks/pricks/tricks/bastards/MuthaFukas/fudgepackers and other pejoratives which ''also'' are used as friendly banter in some cultures because it's just tacky. Not to mention we'd get into ''so much more trouble''. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 17:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::In two separate discussions yesterday related to this dustup, DB linked to a commons page that's just a scroll through graphic photos of female genitalia. This was, he said, supposed to show that "the text of that word is not so offensive." This wasn't on his talk page. It was at ANI and the AN talk page. My complaints went without comment. It doesn't matter whether these guys truly don't "get" why this is offensive, or just pretend not to get it. Intentions are hard to prove, behaviors - specific acts - leave evidence. If a behavior is repeated after its unacceptability is pointed out, it's a breach. No lengthy lectures about censorship or the subjectivity of social mores is needed. I try hard not to fall into that trap. They want to debate why this or that is civil or nor civil and say that civility can't be enforced. It's an absurd position, and a distraction. What they're really saying is I want to behave here (where collaboration is supposed to be key, and there ''are'' policies about civility) the same way I would among my best friends around the campfire or (as in Ritchie's comment above) at a "catty" luncheon. Bullshit. You can scratch your nuts and call Tiffany in accounting a cunt or Dave in HR a cocksucker at the campfire, and you can sip your tea and call whomever you despise whatever you want among your lady friends (acknowledging at least two stereotypical social cliques), but in the workplace - which is what behind the scenes at WP is - nope. Here, if someone says "That's over the line," then choosing to continue that behavior is uncivil. You don't have to be Dear-fucking-Abby to get that. |
|
|
::::The paragraph above is an example of cursing in an appropriate forum, because it sounds like we agree on something. But I tell you, right now, if you said, "LB, I prefer that you not curse," I would say, "OK. Sorry," and I'd stop. But if I wrote an article about the word "cunt," using high-quality sources about the word's origins and meanings, and presented it in an NPOV way for a general encyclopedia audience. And if you said to me, "Remove that article," I'd say "Sorry, no can do." However, if you expressed legitimate concerns about some specific source or wording, I'd work with you to try to reach an agreement on that. |
|
|
::::Anyway, after the dust settles, I will try to bring this subject up again (a PA and Harassment board, not the word "cunt") and try to keep it on the ''subject'', and not let a bunch of anti-civility vigilantes (someone actually referred to himself and his fellows that way yesterday) hijack the conversation. As I said before, I think they redirect the conversation immediately into naughty words to keep any serious conversation from taking place. Either that, or they truly are clueless. ] (]) 18:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
