Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:56, 27 November 2014

This administrator has volunteered for an administrator review. You may comment on his or her administrative actions at Misplaced Pages:Administrator review/TParis 2.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Image

Please restore the link and first sentence of my comment removed at . It is part of my comment: It is the first sentence. It is not a polemical statement meant to piss people off. There is no comparison with drunk driving. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It is a major ad campaign against drunk driving and you've tailored it to COI editing.--v/r - TP 04:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tailored a major ad campaign to COI editing? That's impossible—I've never seen this ad campaign. Maybe it is major in some locales, but not in mine. Please return my comment, or let me return my comment, to the state I left it as per WP:TPO. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You've never seen it? It's been a major ad campaign since 1983. Well now you know. I'm sure now that you know, the idea of writing anything that associates COI editing to drunk driving and killing people should be reprehensible to you.--v/r - TP 05:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not seen it. May I return my comment to its original state now? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Why don't you come up with some other clever insult that isn't related to drunk driving and use that instead with your picture?--v/r - TP 05:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest comment regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 06:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

30 year old campaign and still running.

So. Fucking. What.

Please explain to me what prevents Atethnekos from coming up with some other non-drunken-child-killing insult, which violates WP:NPA anyway, to use against COI editors and why this particular insult is needed

Please explain to me how you overlooked the following: "...a thirty-year-old phrasal construction -- imitated, parodied, and reused countless times of the last three decades -- automatically implies that the user meant the thirty-year-distant original reference?" Please also explain how you managed to draw that direct connection to conjure up your imaginary comparison when there is not the slightest context that even hints at such a thing,

And to repeat, since you probably missed this, too: " I don't know about "too young", but there's someone in this conversation in need of growing up -- and it's not User:Atethnekos. If you want to be taken seriously, try to not pretend to be upset at imaginary slights. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me if I don't find your insults persuasive. That phrase has a root and the root isn't thirty years old - it is still used in commercials today. If you want to address my question, then address it. Try a DH3 argument at the very least. Your insults say much more about you than me.--v/r - TP 13:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think the "friends don't let friends" thing has gone through a cultural osmosis. Its a meme used in many contexts now - I grew up with the drunk driving version, but I don't think ive seen in anywhere in years or decades. One of the more common takes on it I see these days is friends don't let friends skip leg day, but there are many many more I agree with you on many things TP, but I think you may have taken a wrong turn on this one. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

revdels at Talk:Zoe Quinn

Could you check the Revdels in early September to see if all the objectionable material has been Revdel'd. It seems to me that only the objectionable editors' revisions were revdel'd, not the intermediate revisions which have the same information. This seems to be GamerGate-related. I came to this because of the editors who had revisions deleted has been making other questionable edits, and I decided to check his entire (short) edit history. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for bringing it to someone's attention.--v/r - TP 01:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place that tangentially involves you

The NA1000 RFA was closed as "successful", with no further comment, by a 'crat that !voted in support of the RFA, including a swipe at you in his vote. I have opened a discussion of the close at WP:BN. Just letting you know. LHM 22:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot log in right now because I am not at home but that crat said in a recent discussion less than a month ago at ANI that he and I have beef. I cannot remember what it was but it seems he's held onto it so if you can find his comment or whatever the beef was then you can show he holds I'll feelings towards me and should not be using his tools in something I am so deeply involved to get back at me for whatever I did to him. @Lithistman:--TP (alt) 00:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

He waited until a 'crat willing to immediately restore the successful close showed up, reverted the close, and then it was restored within an hour or so. While a close at successful is defensible, I still think it should have been submitted to a 'crat discussion. The current closing 'crat dismissed much of the opposition, including your own, not as frivolous, necessarily, but as basically not carrying enough weight to consider not promoting. My main concern, though, is not with the final result, but with how awful Andrevan's behavior has been throughout this process. That he had a history with you just makes it worse. Since he has refused to resign the crat tools, I'm considering what action might next be necessary for a crat that has so abused the trust invested by the community. LHM 03:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• When 'crats are allowed to act the way Andrevan has, with no actual consequences, and discussions about the crat's targeting of you are closed as that one was, I'm not sure what the project is coming to. Quite a sad state of affairs. LHM 03:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm more concerned with the wider implications. We just had an RfA pass where the canidate and nom ignored the opposers, accusations of personal vendettas were made without any evidence, and a user who has absolutely no conflict/dispute resolution skills at all has been given the tools. This is going to come down to a big blow up, an explosion of epic proportions on ANI. I won't blame NA1K, he is who is he. Blame is going to fall solely on those who supported the nom and so callously ignored the obvious truth. Fortunately, I won't be here after I retire.--v/r - TP 05:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

    I've been thinking of going that route as well. The project is drifting further and further away from its wiki-roots. Not sure I want to stay around much longer. LHM 05:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for handling the issue on my talk page. Some old friends from university are visiting, so I've been offline mostly. Any idea who it was? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't, really. I just employed DENY.--v/r - TP 01:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Requests (Gender Gap Task Force)

In reply to your comment at this discussion which was recently closed: I agree that Thebrycepeake could have been more courteous. However, certain aspects of any honest discussion on fixing gender gap will offend (male) editors. It is important to have those discussions anyway. I have only skimmed through GGTF talk page, but a discussion comes to mind where the idea of male privilege was hotly contested. I guess that is why someone (was it SlimVirgin?) had proposed the idea of a "safe space" at GGTF. That probably will never happpen, but the least rest of us can do is to ensure that those who want to fix the gender gap get enough space to air their ideas without fearing repercussions. Correct Knowledge 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You mention that certain aspects will offend male editors. That is a point easily conceded. What isn't easily conceded is methods that are solely intended to offend should be utilized. To say "A recently study shows that male aggression was cited by female editors blah blah blah" will offend. But it would be necessary for an open and honest discussion. The comments by Thebrycepeake were not meant to discuss the gender gap. They were meant to shame people into compliance with his point of view. I'm not going to tolerate shaming as some kind of constructive form of social change. It's not. Those who want to fix the gender gap need to do so by relying on facts and objective measures and not by subjective opinions and shaming methods. The current practice has been to throw out wild accusations and then shame anyone who doesn't nod their head. I will not stand for it. And if you think for once moment that accusations and shaming are an appropriate form of social change, then we have nothing left to discuss. On the other hand, if you believe that change happens when we discuss matters openly, with facts, and with open minds on both isles of an issue - then you and I are allies no matter what actual side of the isle we fall on. And that's what needs to happen - alliances for change need to be built with respect and trust.--v/r - TP 19:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't approve of any strategy which involves shaming people to make them fall in line, not that such a strategy would ever work. In bringing about any kind of social change ends matter as much as the means to me. I do however anticipate that some arguments about the Misplaced Pages system as a whole and the biases in it will be more speculative than factual and others will be harder to prove based on facts. I am okay with such arguments. For instance, "incivility drives women away from Misplaced Pages", "more women administrators would help bridge the gender gap" etc. will be hard to justify based on facts alone, but some of these ideas might be worth experimenting with anyway. And if someone feels there is some form of gender oppression on Misplaced Pages they should be able to say it freely as long as they are willing to explain and justify their position. Correct Knowledge 20:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Aye, I wholly agree. But there is sharing an opinion and there is making an accusation. "I feel that there is oppression of female editors here that could be concious or subconscious and I have some ideas that might help combat my perception" is an opinion. "You all are oppressing women" is an accusation. Have you ever been to any form of relationship counseling? I've been four times. Once as a child, and three times as an adult (only one of those was religious). Every single one included a discussion about sharing feelings and making accusations. I suspect many people do not see a difference, but there is one. Any editor should be able to express their feelings in an honest way. No editor should make accusations against others. It's the different between "I feel that" and "You are doing". Regarding your two examples, there is a bit of subjectivity there but I agree it's important to consider those angles. But there is a scientific way to do it. We can take polls, we can ask questions, we can seek trends, question and challenge assumptions about those trends, modify our questions based on those polls, and ask again. But what we cannot do is rely on hearsay and anecdotal evidence to support those statements.--v/r - TP 20:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I find your clarity refreshing. I think editors at GGTF, on whichever side, would find your explanation of the difference between sharing an opinion and making an accusation very helpful. Maybe you shouldn't be planning to semi-reitre just yet. No one can completely change the combative way in which many of these disputes are handled, but many small victories remain to be won by editors such as yourself. Correct Knowledge 05:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigh I wish it were the case. My opinions are most often reacted to as if I oppose the things I am critical of. As if life is binary and one must be fully committed or fully opposed. I've been called sexist, racist, and transphobic - despite being a Libertarian who supports freedom, equality, and liberty for all - by folks who misunderstand me. It's been taxing for many years and I've convinced myself that my beliefs are a minority.--v/r - TP 05:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And also, I have a hard time living by my own ideologies. Just look at Lightbreather's comments below - she was right about me making unfair arguments.--v/r - TP 05:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A heartfelt request

TP, you have been someone I've admired from very early on, because you always seemed to make fair assessments of situations. However, I see something happening with you that I've not seen before, and I'd like to ask you to consider if what I'm seeing might reflect a problem you could work on. I suppose I am one of the last people you want to hear from right now, but I am reaching out to you because I want to regain the level of respect for you that I had in the not-too-distant past.

I think you are letting the discussions surrounding the gender gap and sexism on Misplaced Pages affect your good judgement. I first noticed this many weeks ago in one or two discussions. I remember the term "mansplaining" being involved, plus one or more of the more outspoken feminist editors. The way I can tell that it is causing you to lose some of your good sense is very simply your language. For example, at me on the GGTF ArbCom page:

1. You've just made an argument completely based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators and without any regard for evidence-based facts.
2. You assume the only mitigating circumstance must be his gender.
3. None of the editors are making wide sweeping generalizations and accusations of sexism here.
4. only goal here is to be offended.
5. You made sweeping generalizations based on gender.
6. The statement you made was completely based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators.
7. opinion you've shared with all of us is exactly as I described it.
8. There isn't a single editor on Misplaced Pages that believes it should be dominated by any demographic.
9. Please either correct your behavior or don't participate.

The first eight examples are untrue. The last example ignores your own, good moral compass, because you have said elsewhere, "A pet peeve of mine is people telling others where they are and are not allowed to give an opinion." To be fair, my "behavior" on that page was giving my opinion, and I did not deserve such a hot-headed lecture.

I have never considered you sexist, but the hyper-sensitivity that you're showing on the subject is puzzling. Please take a breath and realize that most (probably not all) of the people (not only women) on Misplaced Pages who are complaining about sexism are doing it the best way they know how, short of not addressing the subject at all. After years of saying little and doing less, the community has some work to do on the subject. Yes, based on hard evidence, but also on the anecdotal stuff, too. There might be some here who are making this stuff up, or exaggerating it. I'm not, and I don't know anyone else who is, but I concede that is a possibility. However, the gender gap and sexism on Misplaced Pages is real, and something constructive needs to be done about it. The first step is for the community, which is predominately male, to acknowledge that the agonistic editing environment is toxic to many people, but especially to most women. The fact that many men and some women thrive, or at least survive, in this environment doesn't mean it's the others who need to change. For Pete's sake, they're the ones who are excluded.

If this pisses you off, which I know is a risk, I apologize in advance and tell you that I won't be back if you direct more of the same at me that you did at ArbCom. It literally makes me sick. I barely slept at all last. --Lightbreather (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, #9 was unfair. Regarding the other 8, I specifically quoted the words that you said that I am referring to - as you've just done here. You've made some serious accusations against the Arbitrators and editors on that talk page without any regard for any circumstance other than gender. I'm not making an infinitive, I'm speaking directly to the words I quoted on that talk page. The only reference you made in the opening post was to gender as a factor. Now, I'm always open for discussion, but you have to read what I wrote to Correct Knowledge because that abouts sums up my feelings. My feelings aren't because this is about sexism, my feelings are because this is social advocacy and if you read my talk page I have a real problem with social advocacy. Modern day social advocacy is designed to make accusations, shock people, and shame them into compliance (from my perspective).

When I read your opening post, and I have reread it about five or six times now, I just keep seeing that same type of advocacy. You said, "doing it the best way they know how." I suspect that people are both sides of the isle are arguing the way they best know how. Now, while I think it is unfair of me to say to edit my way or get off, as you've pointed out, I also think it's unfair of you to say that editors must take the gender gap at face value without scrutiny and/or that we must accept at face value that the only reason the Arbcom case has gone the way it has gone is because of the gender of the Arbcom members. It lacks serious good faith, for one, and it's divisional.

I don't have the solutions to the gender gap. I'd love to see female editors thrive and all editors getting along. What I'd like to see is an open and honest dialogue between those with ideas to combat it and those who are skeptical of those ideas. With some open dialogue, perhaps something everyone can agree to could be devised. But, I don't think forcing an idea on someone and becoming upset when they ask why is going to solve it. I remember this study (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeK759FF84s). Instead of telling students "Racism is bad" and having the students ask "Why is racism bad?", the teacher engaged them in an exercise in discrimination and instead the students asked "Why do people do this?". Whether you agree with my summary of what is happening at the GGTF or not, I think at the very least you can accept that it has become the perception. Perception is not truth, and it much more powerful.--v/r - TP 02:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You think that I made "accusations" against arbitrators AND editors? And that I made accusations "without ANY regard for ANY circumstance other than gender"? No. The first paragraph and the bulletin items are facts. The rest is my opinion, my observation. You read the whole and assumed that it was an accusation, and what's more, an accusation based only on gender. If you wanted to know if your assumption was true, you had only to ask two simple questions. Are you making an accusation? Is your conclusion based solely on gender? But instead you commanded me to review the case and report back to "us."

The fact is, I had read the Proposed principles, Proposed finding of facts, and Proposed remedies numerous times in the days leading up to my post. After reading and weighing all of that, numerous times, I made my observation. It is my opinion that, whether it was conscious or not, that ultimately gender was the significant contributing factor in deciding to ban Carol, but to give Eric another other chance. Is that an accusation? To charge someone with wrongdoing, I'd want to know that the someone knew they were doing wrong. So no, I don't consider it an accusation. It's an observation. An appeal. Perhaps a wake-up call. Now I'm going to watch some TV with my hubby. I believe you're Yank, like me, so Happy Thanksgiving to you. Lightbreather (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to go through your opening comment on the talk page one by one:

• "I am split between being disgusted and heartbroken by what I see happening here. So much could be said, but it's all been said before. The upshot is this:" - The central point is that you are upset because of the following reasons:
• "Five men and two women went before ArbCom because of disruptions at the WP:GGTF." - The central point is the genders of the parties
• "Only one of the 12 arbitrators was a woman." - The central point is the genders of the arbitrators
• "This case's net result? Five men free to continue editing; one woman topic banned from the GGTF; another woman site banned." - The central point was to compare the remedies based on the genders of the parties.
• "The current state of this case sends a strong signal to the (largely female) community that prefers - or especially expects - to edit in a more civilized environment: Sorry, helping guys like this means a lot more to us than helping someone like you." - The central point is that this sends a message that helping one gender is more important than helping another gender.

So you see, as far as I can tell, your point is about gender. That's where "completely" comes from. Each of your main points is about gender. If you didn't mean it that way, I hope I've helped you see that your intended message wasn't communicated. But, as far as I can read, each of those lines has a gender-focused undertone. Especially the last line which calls for a decision to be made using gender as a determining factor. As far as I understand, this comment advocates a double standard of decorum as long as it benefits the gender gap. I cannot support that and that is what I am opposing. I'm not opposing fixing the gender gap, I'm not opposing female editors, I'm not opposing change to the systematic processes that disadvantage women. I'm opposed to any form of change that isn't founded in respect and trust.--v/r - TP 04:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thebrycepeake might argue that the basic requirement of respect and trust is a diversionary tactic meant to delay change. I disagree. I think, as Correct Knowledge said above, that the means is as important as the destination.--v/r - TP 04:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And no, I'm not pissed off at you. Frustrated in general at the whole Arbcom case - I think Neotarf is getting the shaft where other people are being granted leniency. Everyone is sticking up for Carol and Neotarf is being nearly completely ignored. And I'm pissed off about the gaming and aggressive tactics that both sides have used. While the gender gap side has been more vocal, the other side has been more strategic. I'm not happy either way and this is why I am retiring. I'm tired of seeing opportunities to engage openly being thrown in the trash because skeptics are snide and proponents are passionate.--v/r - TP 02:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree about Neotarf. I think if Sitush is going to be able to continue editing on gender-gap related articles and participate in gender-gap related discussions, that Neotarf should be able to as well. Lightbreather (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)