User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014/Aug

Really?
Not sure what happened here, but I hope that was an accident? Risker (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Risker: See the next edit on that page. Sorry. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Friendly warning
You have been marked as a target by 4chan. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Geez. The gallium of these people. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've said in IRC: I love how petty 4chan is. It's endearing like a little cousin smearing his poop all over the walls. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm not sure that your posting that is going to help the situation.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The thread 404'ed anyways. They just "mentioned" your account but focused almost exclusively on me. *shrugs* ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good. I just had my userpage painted.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Note to interested talkpage watchers
I have a book review in this week's Signpost. See here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Jacqueline Fernandez
Regarding your comment on Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I understand that it is a waste of time, but should I just stand by and let Hell Bucket remove the sourced information, and then watch others add back the wrong information? How do you deal with editors like him and Red Pen, who think they are serving the community best by strict adherence to the letter of the policy law above all normal reason and consensus? I suspect that these two are even the same editor, but not strongly enough yet to go sock puppet with it. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  12:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, both of the editors you mention, User:Hell in a Bucket and User:TheRedPenOfDoom, are well-known, experienced editors and they are definitely not the same person, so you don't need to worry about that.
 * In general, I would agree with you that if Reliable Source A says "Jane was born on March 1" and Reliable Source B" says "Jane was born in 1970", then we have a basis for writing that "Jane was born on March 1, 1970." That is common sense. The response is that in the area of "celebrity" (actor/actress etc.) birthdays, there is a lot of misinformation floating around, some generated by poorly researched sites and some (I'm not saying in this instance) by the subjects themselves. So it's an area where we want to be careful.
 * (Another concern, though it hasn't been raised here, is that there are a lot of people who don't want their exact dates of birth publicized out of concern for the possibility of identity theft.)
 * With regard to this specific dispute, while Twitter isn't a reliable source (to say the least), a date of birth given on Twitter by the person herself is sufficiently reliable if it hasn't been challenged. And I gather there is no real dispute as to the year? If that is the case, my personal opinion is that giving the complete date should be all right. That being said, this could all be mooted by finding a better source (which might perhaps not be in English?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The second source for the date is a video of her saying "I was born on August 11, not June 2". It cannot be any more clear. You saw what red pen said about the year, but the new sources that I provided are reliable newspapers. If you agree, would you please say so on the noticeboard?  I would hope that that would be the end, but these editors are known (by me at least) to be stubborn and not follow consensus, so there may still be trouble. At least I will have grounds to restore the date.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Thanks!

 * Agree, after reading: thanks! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your thoughtful review :) Pundit | utter  09:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just read it, great job.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

query
DId you revisit my responses [] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I've been spending my wikitime for the past day or so trying to come up with some proposals to workshop in the Media Viewer arbitration case (which I hope to do later today or tonight). I've shared my personal input in the thread and above, but another administrator might be able to move this issue forward sooner than I'll be able to. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Word usage

 * (Note: Original section title was "cunt, queer, nigger". I'm changing it as several people, including myself, don't want to see this in watchlists any more. It is not to be changed back.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NYB, and my apologies for the above manner of getting your attention. You seem to indicate in your statement at the civility bigotry case request that you think the case is about censorship. It is not. Perhaps it would help to look again at the actual comment diff, with a few items highlighted for reference. The central assertion is that words do not matter, and that racial and ethnic slurs are completely acceptable. The message is delivered in the most racist, misogynistic, and homophobic language possible, and reinforced by an army of intimidating vulgarities, f-bombs, and personal characterizations. This type of bullying, exclusionary language has no place on Wikipedia and there should be no question at all about removing it.

And no further disturbances? HIAB has now posted yet another template on my talk page, after I specifically dis-invited him from my talk page. This time he has added an f-bomb.

I can understand why the Arbcom would want to run away from this case, but it did not run away from the issue in the Manning naming dispute: "Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions." If the Arbcom walks away from this with the comments that have already been left there, it will be declaring open season on blacks, women, and gays. Regards,—Neotarf (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "The above manner of getting my attention" was indeed not necessary. I read my talkpage every time I log on and see the new messages bar. You will get the attention of anyone who has my page watchlisted, but not in a positive way.
 * I certainly do not support declaring open season on blacks, women, gays, or any other group of human beings, nor (if I may speak for my colleagues) does any other arbitrator want that. A disagreement over whether a Wikipedia arbitration case is the best way to deal with a specific issue, and one on which feelings were very mixed although the current voting alignment may not be, does not reflect lack of concern for the need to improve civility on Wikipedia in general and to avoid postings that might be perceived as bigoted in particular.
 * I think User:Hell in a Bucket's point, which I understand but do not agree with, is akin to the use-mention distinction: he wasn't calling anyone by those terms, but arguing that too much attention is devoted to specific trigger-words. In other words, he was using those words for analogous reasons to why you just used those words&mdash;making a point about the words themselves rather than "using the words." You have inadvertently undercut your otherwise sound argument by demonstrating that on rare occasions, there is a reason for typing them.
 * Despite such subtleties, it is obvious to me that such words should be avoided on Wikipedia except when there is an especial need or reason to use one of them. Their very use can be both demoralizing to many editors as well as distracting to the editing community. By phrasing his posting as he did and insisting that it remain even after being told it offended people, I think that Hell in a Bucket displayed very poor judgment and decorum. The fact that I don't think an arbitration case would help the situation does not change that.
 * I was not aware that Hell in a Bucket templated you today. In the absence of some explanation, I believe that too constituted poor judgment on his part, and I tell him here and now to stop it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that my use of these terms is the same. HIAB could easily have said something along the lines of "racist, misogynistic, and homophobic language is not a problem, and when it occurs, no objections should be made to it".  On the other hand it was quite apparent from the number of editors who were referring to this as a "swearing" problem that they probably had not parsed HIAB's actual words. It is understandable that so many users were reticent about re-posting the thing, but the actual words really need to be spelled out to understand why so many of us had risked removing it.
 * I'm not necessarily arguing for opening a full case, but so far the attitude of Arbcom I am reading is that nothing serious happened, and that this is just civility again, same old, same old. There is certainly some overlap of issues, but the human rights/hostile work environment issues need to be teased away from it.
 * Those who think the c-bomb and the n-bomb are okay in England might want to look at the BBC's editorial guidance for "strong language". For those not sure of how to refer to gay, transgender, etc, etc., here's the GLAAD Media Reference Guide.
 * This is not about hitting your thumb with a hammer or getting worked up in a content dispute; it is about making comments that demean other editors based on racial and cultural background. IIRC, the WMF has done some new policy along those lines fairly recently as well, at least since the last RFC.  TParis's suggestion has merit and I see one other user has just endorsed it as well.  Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's interesting though that you are able to keep the subtitle out of the watchlist. —Neotarf (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Neotarf's passive aggressive and recently uncivil comments [] GFY or Go fuck yourself to another editor actually highlights what incivility and personal attacks actually are and is quite unlike my above comment. Yes my comments used profanity but it asks everyone to use their collective angst to combat vandals, if Neotarf is unable| to understand this or see past the language and drop the WP:STICK (response has been overwhelming nothing will be done) I'm wondering if they should be here at all and maybe they should finally retire if they can't handle the stress. I'd also like to point out the irony of appealing against the use of the words cunt, queer and nigger is somehow ok because they wrote it, seems to me if it was inappropriate in my comment they certainly wouldn't be appropriate here much less a subheading with prominence but apparently that sort of common sense only applies when you don't like something. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hell in a Bucket, that obnoxious response, to the effect that a fellow editor should consider leaving the project rather than endure your indifference to his feelings, is leading me to reconsider whether the Committee should indeed accept a case to consider your behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (watching) I think there is some misunderstanding, - retired is on Neotarf's talk page as long as I know him and seems to mean nothing, - I guess that discrepancy is meant, not "leaving the project". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ps: do you remember my little poetry? Could you help me with something for missing whose language is so much more precise than mine? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you would ignore the forum shopping, passive aggressive behavior and recently uncivil hypocritical comments here and elsewhere. If an editor leaves a retired template on their page and then goes about complaining when people using certain words then uses them themselves in a prominent position plus making personal attacks to other editors (which I haven't done in this case). Yes I do think if they can't handle the stress in an manner that reflects their argument they shouldn't be here. It shouldn't be ok for them to use it and complain about me, if you want to think that's obnoxious and needs a case that's up to you. I think if you actually research the whole situation starting with EC's "If you don't want to be called a cunt don't act like one" and see where it's morphed, Neotarf came to my page demanding that the comment be removed, I declined because mainly I don't deal well with dickish demands, this was followed by two editors that didn't like the comment removing it and leaving a link saying to see it at ANI, no link nothing. MULTIPLE admin told Neotarf that there wasn't anything to be done and that the comment was within the scope of adding, Neotarf tried to say it was demeaning a group of editors, LB said I was targeting every person that was talking about civility, so it's morphed from Feminism, Incivility, and now Bigotry. I've been called a low life, I've been treated in an altogether way that is totally contrary to the holy message that neotarf, and others are carrying..and yes this comment too [] nothing but stirring up trouble..wonder why not one of them has pointed it out..oh yeah it doesn't fit their desired outcome. Let's look at the difference when one actually engages me in constructive debate [], which surprise surprise is in the same situation..For all their forum shopping, Light Breather has actually maintained civility throughout which is more then I can say about the originator of this thread. I guess it's up to you how much you look at and what but I sure hope you will look at everything. Do I like being called a low life, nope did I have to deal with it at ANI where multiple editors saw and only one said something...yup, did I ignore it for the most part and move on, sure did. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (still watching), sweet word indulgence, my name mentioned but no notification, comment linked above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to say that your(Hell in a Bucket) input in this whole matter has been rather deplorable. From suggesting that if people don't like discrimination that they ought not identify themselves as one who is discriminated against, to the use of the words in this very title. I am disappointed in Brad for what I see as giving excuses for your use and others who are defending what you are trying to point out by the uses. Any editor can see what you are trying to say, and no matter the wording it's very disappointing. Dave Dial (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

YOu know the funny thing is that is in line with the encyclopedia's harrassment policy, to not confirm or deny accusations about personal information put out on wiki whether true or not. Hell in a Bucket (talk)


 * I just came here to say that I am sick of seeing these words being tossed around to prove a point. While there are valid uses of these words Wikipedia is not a forum in free speech. Using them in a section heading to "get someones attention" is disruption to prove a point and little more.

I understand that there is an objection to the idea that words should be banned. I agree that banning words is stupid but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the excessive use of the words over the course of several days on multiple pages to make the point that there is nothing wrong with them.

I am not here to tell you to stop using them. I am here to say it is making this project annoying and offensive. I am saying if you want to toss around the word nigger then you should have a very good reason for it because it is hurtful to people. I am saying that I don't see what it has to do with writing an encyclopedia.

I have had my say and I am moving onto project business. Chillum 21:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Chillum you are a little confused. I made the original comment, User:Neotarf hasn't tossed the words around to show they are ok they are doing it to forum shop and make it look like anti feminism, incivility and most recently bigotry. They posted it in several sections trying to get people to just see the words. Note how they emphasize and give it way more importance then the original comment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have expressed myself poorly. I meant to say that an abundance of editors have been tossing these terms around to make a point. It was Neotarf that made the section heading that I saw in my watchlist to that made me complain about how I have been seeing this all over for days now.

Using it in a section heading is particularly annoying and offensive because it is duplicated in the edit summaries. The topic is not vaginas, odd people and black people, it is the about civility and the use of words and an upcoming arbcom case.

I don't like seeing it in recent changes for no reason other than getting someones attention. I also don't like these terms being the default edit summary when I comment here. Chillum 22:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, it's about time. Thank you Chillum for your outrage and thank you NYB for finally recognizing that these words have no place at Wikipedia and taking them down. And for making it stick. But let me remind you that this was only a copy-paste, and that the original is still on Jimbo's talk page, where User:Hell-in-a-bucket put them, and has edit-warred to keep them up.


 * And while I apologized in advance for using the words, acknowledging their inappropriateness even as I recognized there was no alternative to using them, Hell-in-a-bucket, who initially posted them on Jimmy's talk page, has made no apology, no acknowledgment of inappropriateness, and appears to be completely clueless to the fact that these words are indeed homophobic, misogynistic, racist,...and disruptive. His main argument for using them seems to be that User:Baseball Bugs called him a "lowlife". Let me give Hell-in-a-Bucket a clue: Baseball Bugs is not a good role model for learning how to edit collaboratively. He ought to find someone else to emulate.


 * And what's this "Hell in a bucket" stuff anyhow. That's a troll name if I ever heard one. How about a less disruptive one.


 * Hell-in-a-bucket needs to stop harassing other users. So far, he has templated my talk page, and that of another user, and has been asked to stay off both talk pages. In spite of that he posted yet another template on my talk page, and failed to respond to the message I placed on his talk page. He continues to refer to me as passive agressive, a medical psychiatric disorder, even after I pointed out the inappropriateness of this type of speech. He has accused me of personal attacks on another user, based on an edit summary from my talk page history.  Why on earth is he going through the edit summaries in my talk page history?  Is he stalking me?  And then he used this as an excuse to go around pasting yet more gratuitous f-bombs both on my user page and at ANI.  Any linguist should be able to tell you that profanity originates in a different part of the brain from other speech--a more primitive area, and probably not the area of the brain that is most useful in writing an encyclopedia.  This puerile peppering of pages with profanity is not exactly enhancing Hell-in-a-bucket's reputation.  It makes him look arrogant, bullying, and bigoted.


 * Hell-in-a-bucket needs to remove the disruptive words he put on Jimmy Wales' talk page, get a user name that encourages him to be a better person, and stop posting bullying comments about racial and ethnic groups. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue of his username has been resolved months ago, exactly zero people had a problem with it. Ad hominem comments do little to support your position. His name has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Chillum 07:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I will not remove the comment, I will not be changing my username. I've stated that you are passive aggressive because that is the actions that you have displayed and yes I will continue to use the word fuck among others, I'm an adult and I will not bow to manipulation to try and put words in my mouth or meanings when it's plain there is none. If that leads to a full blown arb case then that's up to the Arbitrators. what you don't know is a good indicator that your thoughts are negative by default []. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh and btw where did I ever say you have passive aggressive disorder? I have stated your actions are passive aggressive (specifically your notification or lack thereof of an ANI notice on my page and instead just posting it on Jimbo's page to stir up more trouble.) Let me be very clear, I'm accusing Neotarf of manipulating my comment to attempting to make it appear homophobic, racist or misogynistic. It apparently is ok for Neotarf to post it here, at ani and the ARB request case and there is no problem in their mind. I've accused Neotarf of passive aggressive behaviors and recently uncivil behaviors with their GFY reversion on a warning(by another editor no less), GFY stands for Go Fuck Yourself. If you want to tell me what you really meant and how that was appropriate for that context I'd be really interested. I've accused Neotarf of being unable to understand the difference in my comment and actual usage of slurs against other groups, the odd thing is that absolutely none of their actions have ever actually assumed good faith about any of it and never has, instead it's been demands. Assuming my username is inappropriate when a person can easily search it on wikipedia and see where it is from is another example of poor judgement. I really have nothing more to say on this I'm going to stand by and watch the fireworks at this point. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hell in a Bucket, didn't you know that good faith is in short supply? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It certainly is. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hell in a Bucket, you were the first to ever address me on Wikipedia, thank you! (kept on my talk). Just today, we remembered the "despaired and mistreated", you are welcome to join the club, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, Neotarf, passive-aggressive personality disorder is "a medical psychiatric disorder"; passive aggressive behavior isn't, and it's rife on Wikipedia. To call it out is not tantamount to calling a person mentally ill, for crying out loud. Please compare the article passive aggressive, that you linked to yourself. As for recommending that HIB get a user name that encourages him to be a better person, those sweet words — "encourage", "better" — are a passive-aggressive way of calling somebody a bad person if ever I saw one. It's really not for you to tell somebody they need to strive to re-mold themselves into something "better". Neotarf, I think you have become too invested in this. Please consider taking a chill pill in Bishzilla's pocket, where you're always welcome. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Thank you for the wording for a reply to "" (continued mentioning "morale"), -- just a bit late, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ..? I thought that was a pretty friendly comment — not passive aggressive. Are you aware that the English word morale is a false friend for German speakers? If you took offense at it, you shouldn't. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Sorry, I was not clear enough, I didn't even think of the "passive-aggressive" part. I only remembered that I didn't like that someone else told me what my better self was, and that it was "former", and this in the one and only discussion I know of declaring me a warrior. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Erst fressen, dann kommt die Morale", nicht wahr? --John (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral." - my first Mahagonny was quite recently, not yet in my memories, impressive, - everything permitted but death sentence for having no money, "Oh moon of Alabama", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Availability note
It appears I'll have limited online time and access until Wednesday due to a trip. I'll give attention to all pending matters at that time. Apologies for any inconvenience. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Can this be removed?
, another editor started this discussion on the Gender bias in Wikipedia talk page: COI. I replied, but really, it's not about the article, it's about me. Can it be removed? Lightbreather (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Both that and or your user page is the appropriate place to have that conversation. It is regarding perceived problems with the article and edits by you. I'm not sure it's on base though just because you comment in favor of something off wiki doesn't raise to the point of disqualifying you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The whole thing seems to me against WP:TALK#USE, WP:TPYES, and WP:TPNO. Lightbreather (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It actually is the right forum because it's based on the actions. I have put my opinion there but I think it's safe to say you can go about your business. We all have opinions and they don't stop us from working, it's when those opinions are disruptive that it''s a problem but I don't see where the issue was. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, I just quoted relevant policy against bringing up COI on aticle talk pages at Talk:Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia. All those editors know better by now and are just being disruptive. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)  18:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to hear back from Nyb on this, but I've gone ahead and just moved the discussion to my talk page. May that be the end of it. Lightbreather (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As noted just above, I was away for a few days. I hope that this has resolved in my absence. In my real-life world of litigation, there are an awful lot of disputes about forum selection, or in other words, "litigation about where to litigate." The equivalent here would be bickering about where to bicker. Let's try not to. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

preliminary RfC at WP:AN
Not being one to sit idly by, I have posed a preliminary query at WP:AN concerning what I take to be your suggestion for covering certain political articles for specific periods. Collect (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure of the best way to notify arbcom on this
But I made a request for a summary motion at Arbitration/Requests/Case. I'll also notify Roger Davies of this. I just want to make sure arbcom sees it. Please let me know on my talk page if there is a better place to let the arbcom know. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned your post and suggestion on the mailing list. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

essay
Re [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=622949672&oldid=622927535] -- at least one. NE Ent 02:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just sayin'. —Neotarf (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea Storytime with Brad! We get to learn more about WikiPhilosophy! Hasteur (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To improve my Bradspeak, no doubt, pointed me this way. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this like the man who was astonished to learn he'd been speaking prose all his life? I've been Bradspeaking without even knowing! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)