User talk:PaulHammond/archive4

Welcome!

Hello, PaulHammond/archive4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:50, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Paul. A lot of users here list the amount of times their userpage have been vandalized. It's considered an honor to have a lot of vandalism, because that usually means that you've done some vandal-hunting in the past. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 18:50, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

hi

hi , are you still around here? all the best - --Cyprus2k1 13:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi too

hi too, are you still around here? all the best RoddyYoung 219.89.174.103 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian names

Could you review the newly-minted "Persian names"? Appreciate any contributions you see need to be made. I think, if we're going to add diacritical marks, we should keep them to the current academic standards. Mille grazie, MARussellPESE 03:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian names

Could you review the newly-minted "Persian names"? If we're going to add diacritical marks, I think we should keep them to the current academic standards. Mille grazie, MARussellPESE 03:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks …

… for covering my back here. You seem to spend more time out in the usenet world so you've probably tripped across him there. (I think I've casually seen your handle out there.)

He got beat down hard here on WP for his conduct. I figured he'd blow his stack elsewhere. Will check it out for a yuck. Cheers, MARussellPESE (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did check it out. Shit! Dude! Why do you bother? Nima clearly needs to have is internet priveleges revoked at the Queensland Home for the Dangerous to Themselves and Society and put right back on his meds; but it can't be good for you to even engage.

He's the only person I've ever directed to WP:DBAD; but I'd like to direct you to the nearest pub. If you were a Yank, I'd suggest the nearest firing range (*chuckle*), but y'all are more civilized. In either case if I were there I'd accompany you (and Viv) and buy the ammunition.

Take care of yourself. Cheers, MARussellPESE (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I must have got him in the kisser. He created that thread shortly after a checkuser I requested turned up a slew of quickly banned sockpuppets of his. Once we seem to get him pitched off of the playground here, he of to the usnets to blow his stack. Cheers, MARussellPESE (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Homosexuality and transgender

An article that you have been involved in editing, Homosexuality and transgender, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and transgender. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hfarmer (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul - it's Dusty. I don't know if this is the way to do it ... but thanks for your help on the other thing. Dx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty Substances (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XYZ (band)

Done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 12:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PaulHammond. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An AGF warning

Hi, Paul. I am going to AGF that this message to GorillaWarfare was not intended to come off as flirtatious. That is, however, how it came off to me, and apparently to the users who've replied there, and to a few other admins I asked for second (etc.) opinions. In the future, please be more careful in your word choice. I would in particular discourage you from commenting on other editors' appearances, or saying things like "I like you" or "I like your X". Remember that in text-based discussions one can't convey the tone and body language that might clarify the intention of such comments in face-to-face interactions.

Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your doubling down on Tamzin's talk page makes me thing that your continued participation on Wikipedia is not in the best interest of the project. If you would like to contest this block, please use {{unblock}}. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

PaulHammond (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my responses to Tamzin were meant to investigate her warning, and then to accept that I understood why she had warned me, I was not intending to double down, nor was I intending to harass GorillaWarfare

Accept reason:

Unblocking based on the discussion below. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely want @Guerillero:'s input, and probably @Tamzin:'s too, but I'm inclined to accept this, with the following caveats:

Paul, your first post on GW's talk page definitely came off as creepy to me, whether or not that was your intent. And I'm probably less alert to stuff like this than the majority of people around here.
GW has already been subjected to a lot of creepiness, harassment, and concern trolling, so there is a very short trigger here.
I don't read your comment on Tamzin's talk page as doubling down, and probably wouldn't have blocked myself, but I do agree it didn't seem to recognize the problem with your first post.
Out of an abundance of caution - regardless of what you actually intended to convey - this would be simpler for me to accept if you agree to not post to her/about her anymore.

I'll wait to hear from you, Guerillero, and Tamzin. I'm an old, white, cis, straight male, so it's possible I'm subconsciously underestimating the creepiness here because I've never had to deal with it myself, and don't want to unblock in a vacuum. In particular, if you do not want to agree about posting to/about GW, then more conversation will need to take place. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll acknowledge my own bias here, in that—and this is not at all to invite such commentary—I've been on the receiving end of unwelcome compliments about my appearance from another Wikimedian off-wiki,^[1] and decided it wasn't worth my while to do anything other than brush it off. I suppose that's not dissimilar to GW's reaction here, but there's the complication of this being on-wiki. Usually comments like these occur off-wiki, and thus fall under ArbCom jurisdiction, and thus the recipient has the opportunity to speak privately about their feelings on the matter. There is a social cost to speaking out about such things on-wiki, though, and so we can only really approach this from the idealized perspective of "People should not say things like this."

I see Guerillero's problem with Paul's response to my warning. Despite professing to understand, he continued to treat GW like a romantic quarry, if an abandoned one: Guess I was being a touch flirtatious, though given the fact that she identifies queer on her userpage, plus she's a bit young for me. If we're looking at this as akin to workplace harassment, saying "I'm not going to try to romance you" can be as uncomfortable a statement as actually pursuing someone, as it still casts the person as something to be pursued. (It's also sometimes used as a pickup strategy, which happens to be part of GW's main area of editing.)

So, I'm not sure it was meant as doubling down, but it's not a good response, and I'd like to hear more from Paul about whether he understands why it's not a good response, and how he would intend to avoid similar issues arising in the future. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My problem was with what seemed like a complete lack of understanding even after Tamzin's explanation. I, personally, found the dive into GW's age and sexuality to be a double down on objectifying her. Both attributes are neither here nor there in the context of the conversation and were brought up by Paul. It does not matter of GW was 18 or 80, what matters is that she is an equal contributor to this project and should be able to do that without leering comments. If Paul's response satisfies you that he understand the problem and it won't happen again, Floquenbeam, I will not stand in the way of an unblock. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ If you're a friend who's said "You like nice in that selfie" or such, no, I don't mean you; it was very blatant, from someone I didn't know well.

Here is my opinion on this.
I am substantially in agreement with everything Floquenbeam has said. The original message to GorillaWarfare was, of course, completely unacceptable, and Tamzin's warning was, in my opinion, perfectly justifiable. Unfortunately PaulHammond's response to Tamzin really showed a serious lack of understanding of how unacceptable the original message was. Nevertheless, I think describing that response as "doubling down" is a misreading of its tone. (I notice that both Tamzin and Floquenbeam have also expressed doubts about the description "doubling down".) I think Guerillero went too far in imposing an immediate indefinite block. JBW (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment, Paul. I see your remarks as misjudged, not as malicious or as intentional harassment. However, they were misjudged, unfortunately. JBW (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read through the whole discussion on here - just got a signal from my email that Tamzin had posted here. I will just attempt to clarify my intent here if I may. My first message to GW was an overenthusiastic and I see in retrospect, clumsy effort to do the kind of thing that is more normally done on wikipedia by sending people barnstars of appreciation. I certainly feel now that I shouldn't have commented on her physical appearance in the photograph on the User Page. My messages to Tamsin were an effort to explore why she had sent me a warning. To me, my second message on Tamsin's talkpage was me accepting that, yep, I probably deserved that warning. I was also trying to clarify that I would be horrified to have come across as harassing someone who writes articles about topics that are likely to attract targeted harassment from people who post in those kind of environments. As far as I was concerned, I was trying to express to Tamsin that, yes, I appreciated that I deserved the warning, and that I was going to move on from this and consider that episode closed.

As to GorillaWarfare herself, I checked on her user contributions at the time of Tamzin's warning and it seemed like she hadn't done any editing since my post (one minor edit I think), so I thought either she hasn't seen my first offending message, or she hasn't seen fit to reply to it, for whatever reason. I did then, and certainly now, have no intention of talking any further to GorillaWarfare if she did not initiate any further contact.

Okay - I wanted to say something about "assume good faith" here, but I can't word it without it feeling like "poor me" rubbish. So I should leave it there and wait and see what you all decide. --PaulHammond (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think point 4 of Floquenbeam's post expresses what I couldn't phrase. Given the articles GW edits, I can appreciate the need for a hair-trigger on potential harassment for people who might well become targets. And i guess, I can't be too sore about falling into that, but I feel disappointed that a post where I said I would hate for GW to think I was harassing her has been interpreted as doubling down, when I was trying to express the opposite of that. I had pretty much already decided not to write to GW or attempt to contact her in future. --PaulHammond (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I usually don't edit much on weekends. This is good enough for me, and sounds like JBW already supports an unblock, and Guerillero says he won't stand in the way if I unblock. @Tamzin:, any remaining concerns you want addressed first? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Sorry for the delayed response here. I see you've already unblocked, and no objection there. All I planned to say was: This is the kind of situation that either will recur or it won't, and in light of that an unblock is reasonable. Hopefully this lands on the "won't recur" side. Happy editing, Paul. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] If you're a friend who's said "You like nice in that selfie" or such, no, I don't mean you; it was very blatant, from someone I didn't know well.

[1]