User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from gun control for six months from the date and time of my signature below.

You have been sanctioned per this AE request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked 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 here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Given you have already filed it, you're granted an exemption to edit the WP:AE#Sue Rangell section only in order to properly file this enforcement request as well as replies and comments in that section only. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 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. Darknipples (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, DN, but I cannot help you. 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! Lightbreather (talk) 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 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 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 WT:COI. 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 (WP:IDHT). 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 WP:Boomerang 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. Jytdog (talk) 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 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 Wikipedia 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. Lightbreather (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

you are welcome. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

oh! and what i did wrong, according to the clerk who closed the case, was edit war.[1] i agree, and i will abide by my tban. Lightbreather (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

that is not accurate. you really don't get it. i hope you eventually do. Jytdog (talk) 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 - TP 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 WP:PAIN, 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. Lightbreather (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Centering

I believe you can center the text by just wrapping it between html "<center>" and "</center>". Anastrophe (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Defy Censorship

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 WT:COI, 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 Goddess of Democracy 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, and i think it is the best single thing I've done on Wikipedia. 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. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 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. Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

PAIN

I read the exchange at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Where_and_how_to_request_a_Civility_board 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 User_talk:Sphilbrick#User_Prosfilaes for background, and imagine what we would do if we had a reinstitution of WP:PAIN 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.--S Philbrick(Talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 [2], edit summary "don't deliberately introduce falsehoods into Wikipedia; 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 edit summary." 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 uncivil, 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 attack or an insult.

So Edit summary links to the Civility and No personal attacks policies. It also warns against "revtalk". 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 [3], new section, "Don't add lies to this page."

The "you" is implied in this new section heading. It is contrary to the WP:TALKNEW guideline and to the NPA policy re: WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:WIAPA. 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 [4]

Another inappropriate, avoidyou, revtalk edit summary: a third PA.

• 13:36, 20 July 2014 [5] 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 Wikipedia'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 [6] and 12:02, 24 July 2014 [7] 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... Lightbreather (talk) 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.[8]) 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. Lightbreather (talk) 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.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Gender gap invitation

We invite you to join Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with users who are trying to identify gender bias on Wikipedia (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 Gender Gap task force. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members of the task force. Happy editing, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Nice to meet another trouble maker 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. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Your complaint about Eric

I saw your complaint about Eric Corbett. 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 tendentious editing or a passive-aggressive behaviour 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 - Wikipedia's biggest unsolved problem (in fact all of Antandrus' essays are worth reading), and What you can't say - an essay on how it's difficult to spot changing moral standards when you're in the middle of them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, what stands out about "Wikipedia'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. Lightbreather (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie, men can do utterly horrible things to women. See what happened to Anita Sarkeesian, 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 ladies who lunch. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: FYI, wikipedia is just one more bus women don't want to be shoved to the back of or shoved off of. Taking a break always good advice. But if people want to keep editing and having substantive problems recognized by the whole world as problems, we must support their efforts to deal with those problems. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 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. the panda ₯’ 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. Lightbreather (talk) 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 the panda ₯’ 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. Lightbreather (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly it is - I apparently actually understand WP:NPA :-) the panda ₯’ 20:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's what was said: "[The] easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one."

Here's what WP:WIAPA "... 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) DIRECTED AGAINST ANOTHER CONTRIBUTOR, OR AGAINST A GROUP OF CONTRIBUTORS.

And that's enough on my page for now. I'm archiving this. Lightbreather (talk) 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? HiLo48 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I remember a while back I was ticked at some guys who were hassling me on Wikipedia and I wrote something very general regarding WP:Dontbeadick 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 Wikipedia 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. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 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. Lightbreather (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Poor manners

You ignored me when I posted some constructive advice in the two active threads on the C word. You ignored me when I posted here asking why you had ignored me. You will never gain respect that way. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There were at least 10 other men talking at me at the point in your conversation when you made your first comment and asked your first question - neither of which was particularly civil or reasonable.[9] I ignored you because you weren't treating me like a colleague. If you have a question, ask away right here. If it's civil and reasonable, I'll answer it. If you want to give me your advice, have at it, though I don't promise to reply - especially if it's more of the same. I've been lectured at a bit lately, and I'm tired. Lightbreather (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments after that:[10][11][12] (Other replies, too, but to other editors.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll just ask one question again. Can you accept that my culture is very different from yours, and that no single culture should dominate here on Wikipedia? I don't ask you to behave in the way people in my culture behave. Must you ask that I behave like people in your culture? HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not only can I accept that, it's one of the central points behind the discussion that I originally started. The English language Wikipedia is dominated by men. White men. Does that mean their culture should be the "norm" that other Wikipedians are forced to accept?

Thirty years ago, when I was a young woman, I met a white Australian man. He referred to Aboriginal Australians as "Abos." I have since learned that is considered a slur by many if not most Aborigines. But what if I didn't know that? What if on a WP talk page I were to use that word to refer to a contributor or group of contributors? Actually, for the point I'm trying to make, it wouldn't matter if I knew that it was an offensive word when I first used it. But if you or another editor were to tell me that word is offensive, especially if you were to say, "I am an Aboriginal Australian, and that word is offensive to me" - in a civil conversation I would apologize. If I'd used it on a forum like this, I might even redact it, especially if you asked me to. And if I continued to use it, that would be a choice on my part to be inconsiderate: a personal attack. Do you understand my point now? Lightbreather (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You're missing part of the argument. I cannot think of a positive use for the word "abos". (Please let me know if I'm wrong.) But the C word that so inflamed you and others IS used as part of a positive, affectionate greeting by some Australians males, always addressed to other Australian males. Nothing to do with women. No offence involved. You cannot ask that such usage be never mentioned on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're missing something. When EC wrote "If you don't want to be called a c*nt, don't act like one," he probably didn't mean something positive and affectionate. But regardless, when I told him it was offensive and asked him to remove it, he didn't. And when I then removed it per RPA, he restored it. That was a personal attack. I will respond no further to this discussion as it's now going in a circle. Lightbreather (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not a personal attack. At no point was it addressed directly to you, accusing you of being something. It has to be addressed specifically to you to be a personal attack. Maybe the problem is with the word "you" in "If you don't want to be called..." It can be used as part of a personal comment, or it can be more general, addressing all readers of the post. I don't think it was directed at you alone and personally. Do you? Even if it was, he wasn't accusing you of being a c.... He began his sentence with "If..." Yes, he included a word you don't like. You could argue that he was deliberately causing offence, but that's not a personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read carefully the first paragraph and the first bullet of WP:WIAPA and please leave me alone now. Lightbreather (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Thalians

Would you be so good as to help improve this article a bit? There isn't actually an interaction ban that I could see anywhere, and even if there were, I would argue it should be lifted for this one article. You are a dedicated editor. He is a dedicated editor. You would both be surprised how far you could get working together to improve one article. Please. Give it an old college try. --GRuban (talk)

No thank you. Not at this time. Lightbreather (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Policy, guideline, and essay creation

Please check out WP:PROPOSAL. I think a lot of what you have been writing about over the last several weeks could form the basis of either an existing policy, guideline or essay, or a new one. In other words, it sounds like you have an idea of how civility should be enforced, but your time would be better spent putting it in the form of a proposal to modify existing rules or proposing new ones. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are interested in pursuing this, I've created User:Lightbreather/Proposal for your own use. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That is kind of where I was headed when I asked my simple, stupid question. I want to put a lot of thought into it... already have, in fact. But every time I get virtually reamed for speaking up, and having the ovaries to stick with my point/questions, a little part of me dies. What the hell? Why try? That kind of defeatist thinking. I want to improve the encyclopedia - including the working environment that produces it - but some have labeled me a trouble maker and they're building a little posse to chase me out of town. I don't want to go. Lightbreather (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the advantage of putting your energy into this user subpage is that when it's ready, you can solicit community input. Of course, you could just publish it as an essay, but if you want to take it further, you can propose a new policy or guideline or a modification of an existing one. Don't worry so much about what others think or what they are doing; just focus and concentrate on your ideas. If you do that, you'll find a groundswell of support and cooperation. Wikipedia has a lot of problems, but personally, I attribute it less to gender bias and more to youthful immaturity. Of course, being young and inexperienced isn't a hazard in and of itself; that kind of innocence is often a positive because it allows both new and old ideas to be presented in a new light. Older people, while full of experience and wisdom, often get entrenched in habit and can be resistant to change. The ideal situation is to combine the risk taking and idealism of youth with the hindsight of seasoned veterans, but in practice it's often one or the other rather than both. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And if you needed evidence of the problem being focused around youthful immaturity, here it is. Until you directly address this problem, you won't be able to make any progress. You're dealing with children who think Wikipedia is a video game. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea anymore who you think you are or who you think you are fooling but you have crossed the same line as you accuse Eric and I am sick of it! Is this some kind of game to you to see who can offend others the most?! Apology accepted. it was not your fault that I took offense to that.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And I meant what I said. I rarely insult others on purpose. I am human, so I do insult from time to time without meaning to. Lightbreather (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologize here, and I already apologized there. Please see the comments that went with my apology,[13] if you want to understand what I said. Lightbreather (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I don't think continuing to discuss this on various talk pages is very helpful. Have you considered gathering your thoughts, organizing them, and adding them to the proposal talk page for centralized discussion? Viriditas (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, Viriditas, I rarely mean for them to go on at multiple pages at once. For instance, I didn't start discussing that topic here. Mark brought it up. The discussion on the AN talk page that I started? It got diverted into other areas. I did start an ANI - two actually - but that's where we're supposed to take civility complaints when they aren't satisfactorily addressed on a talk page or lower DR venue. See what I mean? There have been a few discussions in the last few days that I thought were over, only to find out later that they were still going. Lightbreather (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Unfortunately, those places are not a good fit for your concerns. If you make your concerns explicit, in a structured and organized way per WP:PROPOSAL, and then invite the community to review it in a centralized location (such as the subpage I created in your userspace), then you can sit back and let the community give you feedback and work on your proposal. Basically, you want to create a roadmap for your proposal to succeed, and a way for the community to contribute to its success. Anything else is a waste of your time. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. When I first asked my simple question on the AN talk page, about the existence of some kind of civility board, it was with the intention of finding out if there was any thing like it in the past. Then, to consider how we might (re) implement such a thing. It wasn't my fault that the discussion was hijacked, and I'll be glad when the dust settles and we can all get back to editing. Lightbreather (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I was around when the civility board was in use, and it really was a distraction. I think it is best if we give people the tools to be civil, rather than giving them another place to bitch about it. If that means teaching people how to be civil and why it is important, then I would support such an endeavor. But at the end of the day, it's all about self-control, self-determination, and self-government. We really don't need another layer of bureaucracy monitoring people for civility. What we do need, however, is for people to talk to each other about their conflicts and work things out for themselves, provided they have the ability to do so with support. It really comes down to listening and trust; sometimes one party either can't listen or refuses to listen to what the other party is saying because they don't trust them for whatever reason. So what I'm saying is, some of us need to teach civility, and some of us need to learn it. If you can address those two issues, I think you'll have the problem under control. Here's an idea: what about getting together with the people over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution and creating a Civility working group? There's also their manual, Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution/Proposals/Dispute resolution manual, which has never made it beyond the draft stage, and strangely enough, doesn't have anything to say about civility. But look at the bottom of the draft. There's an empty section called "Strategies for resolving disputes". Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do understand you. I do, but I just don't think you are trying to understand Eric. I don't think he should have restored that post after you deleted it, but he does that kind of thing a lot. I think there is enough offense in what you perceived to acknowledge it was offensive to you, but I have tried to help and I am not sure what to do anymore but stay out of this from this point on. You seem like a really good person and I am an asshole, but...I am an asshole that has put up with as much or more than you have on this encyclopedia in this regard and I think that part has escaped you. This isn't a matter of who has been insulted more, but I see you getting the support that I never got. And that you can't see the support is what makes me sad...for Wikipedia and you. Just....try to see what others are saying. I beg you.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

First, I know I also got distracted from trying to do a low profile organizing effort on the Gender Gap Task Force that was prematurely announced and discussed in a preliminary/brainstorming fashion while not really ready for prime time. So stuff happens.

Note there also have been proposals on Gender Gap email list on civility, which I haven't had a chance to thoroughly digest yet. I don't know if Lightbreather made them or has similar ones, or ones that could be tweaked from suggestions there. So it definitely would be helpful for her to write it up offline or on the created proposal page and then advertise it to the Task Force page and/or the Gender Gap email list if she is on it. Then the feedback should be more constructive. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Evidently

you're unable to grasp the irony of having a quote labeling people as having "small minds" at the beginning of a policy that forbids personal attacks. Business as usual on Wikipedia then.  — Scott • talk 19:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Scott, it's not an attack on microcephalics, it's a call for rising above the metaphorical "smallness" of petty gossip about people and enlarging the capacity of our attention to focus on big ideas that have a greater impact on our lives as people. I think you are reading it too narrowly and too literally. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I just think it is pretty much unimportant that any editor grasp the "irony" on any issue. This isn't an Alanis Morissette song, we're an encyclopedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I happened to notice elsewhere the diff in question is this on the WP:NPA page: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.|Eleanor Roosevelt I'd say if quotes were appropriate, this would be an appropriate quote. So opening a discussion of appropriateness of quotes in general on policy pages would be the proper thing to do, not nitpick someone on their talk page giving the inference they were doing something really nasty. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

For Jytd et al.

Re: this archived conversation: [14]. Be my guest (for now). Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, as a follow-up to that conversation, I did exactly as admin TParis suggested and reached out to the other editor.[15] She deleted the request, citing a self-imposed interaction ban...[16] Though she did comment about me on Jimbo's page,[17] and today she reverted one of my edits.[18] Lightbreather (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that is a great idea, working together on an article with an editor that you have had differences with. It is a shame that she turned you down. But then, just recently you turned down a very similar offer. Want to reconsider working together with Scalhotrod on The Thalians? --GRuban (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes people just rub each other the wrong way, even online, for reasons we can't even imagine (abstruse ideological differences? astrological conflicts? past life conflicts? voodoo?). Better to just avoid each other, at least until both parties forget exactly what the confict was about. (That has worked for me!) That's what I try to do myself unless they are really messing with me or BLPs of interest to me... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GRuban:, I would like you to read this.[19] Then, quit pushing me to work with a man who stalked me. If he watched what I did in RL and talked about it with others, if he joined the same RL group that I had joined - less than 48 hours after I joined it - would you suggest that I go with him somewhere to "work" together? I may or may not return to the Gender Gap project, but I am NOT doing it at this time, nor am I going to work with that man at this time. In the last two-and-one-half months he's caused me lots of grief - even while I was on vacation. I have also had one on-wiki and one off-wiki message from an anonymous person or persons. I am not suggesting that it was he, but I am feeling vulnerable right now, not like giving another misbehaving guy another chance. Lightbreather (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To clarify my comment above, "rubbing the wrong way" is not excuse for hounding, especially on web pages. (And remember you can ban people from your web page, which I do if they give grief. And if they don't stop, you can take them to ANI where they should get a warning. And some day they may start taking those warnings more seriously ;-(

I hope the project will come up with some good solutions and hopefully after your break you can at least use it, even if you don't choose to contribute. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Gender Gap departure

Here is the problem. You came into the Gender Gap project. Scalhotrod then came into the Gender Gap project. You promptly to his presence. The only reason that you provided had to do with porn, which is an issue on which both men and women disagree. It appears that you have issues with him that you didn't identify, of which we are not aware. I don't know much about him, and so I am expected to assume good faith. If there is some specific issue with him, we didn't know what it is. For instance, if he is stalking or hounding you, you should provide evidence somehow. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, @Robert McClenon:. The only reason I provided was NOT to do with porn. Before that I said, "I do NOT think this man is here for the reasons he says he is. And it's not because he's a man... it's because he's the man who just posted this stuff on another editor's talk page:[20]." He was also topic-banned for edit warring with me. (I was banned too; we edit warred with each other.) He was, IMO, stalking me,[21] and he joined the Gender Gap project [22] less than 48 hours after I did.[23] (I joined by invitation; he did not.) Those things, and others, added together, were the source of my anxiety. Lightbreather (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I had same problem with long term hounder who has followed me to many articles and projects and who I have complained about repeatedly to insufficient avail; he even got blocked for posting someone's off-wiki death wish on me and my family. However, disrupting a whole project to carry out a personal grudge goes too far.

Some admins are watching and they will be dealt with if they try anything funny, if not as quickly as we like. Meanwhile I think we do need a) rules (that can include no disruption or wikihounding) and b) getting off topic material archived quickly (which I'm going to do in am). The are some other tasks that need to be done and I'm putting together a big list of women to invite. Hopefully your experience which you probably did NOT expect (and mine which I fully expected) will convince other women that we do need to keep a firm hand on the goings on on the wikiproject. So as I've said else where, take a break and have patience. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Objective of Non-Cabal

By the way, I have my own theory about what a few male editors want, and are almost succeeding at. It isn't, as CarolMooreDC says, to get rid of the women and establish a boys' club as such. It is to get rid of the editors who want a civil environment. They assume, correctly, that those include women, but what they really want is not to be rid of the women, but to set up a clubhouse in which crude talk is the usual rule. That is why I found the snarky comment about editors who don't swear being problematical to be deeply troubling. It isn't gender. It is culture. They are trying to drag the behind-the-scenes pages of Wikipedia down to a low level so that they can have the sort of crude electronic fun that they did in the 1990's on Usenet before Usenet partially faded away. That is their real objective. It isn't gender. It is culture. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds about right.--v/r - TP 02:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That's definitely part of it. But it's not just that women expect more civility that ticks some of these guys off. It's also that some men are freaked out by women speaking back to them, changing their edits, God (the Father) forbid taking them to noticeboards, and generally outsmarting them. They have the women in their own lives under control and they want us under control too. And often they want to control other men as well by challenging them to man up/join the club or else be dismissed as a pussy girl. Happily there are guys on Wikipedia who do stand up to them and that's something we all should encourage. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. Most of these males are very young and don't have any women in their own lives under control. In fact, they probably have very little experience with actual women in general, which is the problem. You're assuming most people are like you, Carol, and have the kind of life experience you've had, but that's not true. In 2009, the average age of Wikipedia editors was somewhere around 27, which is two years younger than the average age of marriage for men in the US. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There's one woman in all these young mens' lives that you didn't mention, Viriditas. Mother. Lightbreather (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of a number of older guys I've been having trouble with over the years. But you are right about the young guys. There actually is a male surplus in this country, especially since around 1970, because more males are born than females but, unlike the old days when they also used to die through disease and accident more often, they now survive. (It's much worse in China and India when there's so much selective abortion of women and lots of refs on that.) Add to that surplus the fact that older males tend to marry younger females, it means there are a lot less women to go around and they can be more picky. And women-deprived guys can be quite frustrated and aggressive and even form gangs. (The Black Bloc really hated that analysis when I passed it around their circles.) Male surplus is an article I'd like to do someday. A nice complement to Surplus women. Guess this might be a good time. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I'd never heard of Wiki-Otters before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't even know I was an otter until another editor brought it to my attention. Thanks for the berries. Lightbreather (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)