User talk:Strand: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:14, 25 August 2018

August 2018 — unresolved

Twitter thread — describing behavior over judging character

So, one of my habits is to switch to _strictly_ descriptive alternatives to terms considered slurs by the bigots they describe. Instead of nazi, nazi sympathizer, that is anyone who has a positive or neutral opinion of nazi ideology. Instead of TERF, just trans-exclsuionary. (tweet)

I do this specifically because a common derail is, "you are making a personal attack," and I want to be utterly clear that I am concerned about the person's behavior, and could give a wit's end to their personal character. (tweet)

Aggressive and Unwelcoming Etiquette

why has Wikipedia normalized the practices of automated territorial disputes? i hate improving the content because i get shat upon for the effort.

August 2018 — requesting civility from others

Pink Triangle burden of proof excludes trans women

Hello, I'm RA0808. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Pink triangle, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RA0808. Please unrevert the change. Trans women were given the pink triangle, and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

* If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.

* If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Pink triangle, you may be blocked from editing. Please provide reliable sources indicating that trans women were given the pink triangle. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, RA0808 what you call 'disruptive editing' I call 'queer erasure.' Anyhow, A friend will jump through your goddam hoop, but maybe there's a more constructive, collaborative approach then telling people who provide facts that they are wrong and should go away .

I have not told you to go away in any form and adopting an immediately hostile tone is not productive for either of us. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability requires citations to reliable sources for claims made and the responsibility for providing citations lies with the editor who adds material (see WP:BURDEN). It's quite likely that trans women were under the catch-all "homosexuals" for the purposes of Nazi oppression, especially since they considered a lot of the pioneering work on sexual orientation and gender identity by Hirschfeld to be "immorality" as they burned all his books and papers. But the likelihood of it is not the point here... the need to provide reliable citations is. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought up tone (so that you could police mine) I want to let you know that auto-reverting posts which add content, especially content which includes marginalized folks in the narrative, sets an aggressive and territorial tone. I was responding in kind. You made no effort to demonstrate I was welcome, which reads to me that I am not welcome.

If you want to welcome folks to projects which need to maintain an excessively high burden of proof, you need to bring down your gate, not raise it. Something like, "Unfortunately, according to the Wikipedia Burden of Proof policy, I must revert your change. However, I would be glad to work with you or even independently to find a source for this content so that it can meet our high standards." When you _just_ say we have high standards, plz meet them it makes folks feel rejected.←

I apologize if my semi-automated initial contact came off as aggressive, like many users who keep an eye on new edits I use a program called Huggle which allows me to conduct certain operations faster. The generated edit summary and message are standardized templates developed by the Wikipedia community to attempt to have a neutral tone and point users to the appropriate policies to help them understand why the edit was reverted. These templates are used to avoid issues of incivility (i.e. editors getting frustrated with one another leading to a discussion that just spirals into personal attacks and doesn't help anyone), though I can see how they also are quite impersonal.

Again, the intent was not to make you feel unwelcome although you have made it clear that was the effect. As I mentioned above, the only reason that your initial edit was reverted is because it made a new claim and did not provide a citation. New content cited to reliable sources is always welcomed because it makes Wikipedia a better initial source of information that can point readers to further in-depth sources. The reason why the verifiability policy has a section on burden of proof is to ensure that we don't have hundreds of editors simply adding statements (which in some article could be inaccurate or even defamatory in the case of articles on individuals) without citations meaning that other editors would have to continuously fact-check contributions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. I will also advise that when apologizing, to maintain a civil tone, avoid ever using the word "if." It is easily read as dismissing the concern of the other. What will you change in how you interact with Wikipedians to prevent others from being negatively impacted as I was? Strand (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Neutral language to describe prisoners interned with a pink triangle fails to meet 'significant mass changes of articles from gay to homosexual' criteria 🙃

Hi. While you are not a frequent editor, Strand, you've had nearly 14 years since you started to learn how Wikipedia works. The appropriate thing to do if you have a disagreement about the contents of an article is to begin a discussion on the Talk page for that article, which neither of you has done. The WP guidelines about terminology say, "Significant mass changes of articles from gay to homosexual, or the reverse, require a supporting specific consensus or are likely to be viewed as disruptive." The same applies to "queer" and "homosexual". So please join me in the discussion that I've started. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me how my changes, which describe the population imprisoned with a pink triangle in gender neutral language, are a 'mass' change. Is this a Wikipedian term of art?

Please refrain from implying my editing, which is not disruptive—and intended to improve the quality of content on Wikipedia—is inappropriate. I know Wikipedia is land of the cis het white man, and I believe an overly strict adherence to "policies" is actively hostile to potential editors. I say "policies" in quotes, because if this structural failing to attract diverse editors were something Wikipedians cared about, it would be less broken.

I wish that Wikipedia could be more welcoming to a more diverse base of editors. But without the policies and principles that you sneer at, it would be more broken, not less. The requirements for verifiable facts cited from reliable sources are what keep it from being overrun by "alternative facts". Without the requirement for civility, the discussions would just be a bunch of trolls pissing at each other. I've seen online communities that didn't have these kinds of rules, and they were the opposite of welcoming to queer and other marginalized people. That's a recipe for giving even more power to the privileged. The bottom line is that if you can cooperate with people you disagree with, you're welcome to participate in Wikipedia. If not... you won't be able to contribute much. Sorry. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

🆗

What about my change was a mass change?

sometime later

» if this structural failing to attract diverse editors were something Wikipedians cared about, it would be less broken.

To clarify, since you missed my point, i mean that if Wikipedians actually cared, the policies of Wikipedia would be designed in such a way as to attract contributions from dilitantes, newcomers, and people who have traditionally been marginalized.

The fact that I didn't agree with your point doesn't mean I didn't understand it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can u explain What about my change was a mass change?

You went thru the article changing multiple instances of "homosexual" to "queer". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

again i do not understand how my improvement was _mass_. it was hand-crafyed by this queer.

So ignore it, like you're doing with every other criticism of your edits and conduct. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

youre the one who comea in with tone and sass. apologies for caring about improving the collective wueer memory.

The work that I've previously done on this article demonstrates that I care about that, and that kind of personal attack is the kind of toxic and abusive behavior that Wikipedia rules are designed to prevent from interfering with the project. I tried to initiate a discussion to develop consensus on the Talk page, which you ignore in favor of edit-warring. Your edits have become openly disruptive by adding attacks on other editors to the article itself. That's completely inappropriate. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that you feel attacked. I don't know why. I don't edit Wikipedia specifically because of its hostile culture, which is effectively banhammering me anyhow, so I decided I may as well correct the record and let you muddy the waters again. You are complicit in queer erasure.

No, I really am not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You literally erased queer citing policy. So…

👋🏼 @JasonAQuest. It is difficult for me to find a charitable reading of your comments. In my opinion they do not meet Wikipedia’s civility standards. Please take a moment to review what you’ve said, and consider amending, clarifying, or striking out your earlier comments. If needed, I will indicate which phrases strike me as uncivil, but please review what you’ve said before requesting any guidance from me regarding your incivility to me.

Hundredth Edit

Yay, I just hit my hundredth edit. Here’s to a hundred more by 2032. Strand (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banning this queer for recording their history

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Pink triangle. DVdm (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banning someone for adding queer to the pink triangle wikiedia page is something only a nazi sympathizer would even consider.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

are-we-the-baddies.gif

Hmmmm… if only there was some canonical example to cite wherein people just following policy ended up in a hurting queers like me in a bad way.

Also, not sure what you mean by personal attack. Nazi sympathizer is a descriptive term. I describe anyone who has a neutral to positive opinion of their socially constructed categories like "homosexual men" as Nazi sympathizers. Being unable to recognize when policy needs to be amended rather than orders followed is something a sympathizer does.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

My changes have been constructive, but editors aren't working with me to integreate them.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only, only one open request is needed at a time. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

No one will tell me what "personal attack" was made. I think they are confused… I have tried only to describe behaviors and opinions expressed by other editors, not to attack them personally.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only, only one open request is needed at a time. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I was removed for political reasons, not disruptive editing. I used the word queer in one of my edits, and though no guidance was provided as to what rule this broke, it pissed off an editor and they abused their power to silence my voice.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please make one unblock request, further comments should not use more {{unblock}} templates. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have been provided some unblock criteria from my previous request.

However, I am uncertain how, if at all, anyone can comply to these criteria.

It was not explained to me what constituted a personal attack.

It is unclear to me which edits are considered damaging or disruptive. I do not know the reasons that my changes were considered disruptive, other than they introduced any change.

I consider all of my contributions to be useful. Please help me understand which ones are considered unhelpful… Right now, it just seems like there are some Wikipedians who do not want me describing any of the prisoners identified with a pink triangle as trans women.

However, continuing to describe them as homosexual men is deeply, deeply offensive. None of the responses have demonstrated any sensitivity towards queer folk/trans women broadly, and based on editor's actions, there appears to be a conservative bias to only describe these prisoners as gay men.

I don't care about your turf war, but it feels trans-exclusionary in a real, deep, and cruel way.

Decline reason:

If you make changes to an article and they are reverted, you start a discussion at the article talk page and seek consensus, and you provide sources for the changes you want. You do not edit war and you do not attack those who revert or warn you and accuse them of being Nazi sympathizers. Is that clear enough? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

No. That is not clear enough. I do not understand your etiquette or culture, and have not been made to feel a guest on Wikipedia. The lack of concern and presumption of malicious intent is insulting to me. I feel like I have been policed for using more inclusive language. However, I will refrain from describing anyone as a nazi sympathizer, as it is clear that other editors take offense at this term of art. I will start discussion on the talk page regarding content which is reverted. I will attempt to build consensus with others.

Decline reason:

Once you do understand, you are welcome to make a new unblock request. Yamla (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And here you have continued with your personal attacks by calling the same people "bigots" - and that has lost you the ability to edit this talk page for the duration of your block. Also, attacking those you have a content dispute with as having "a positive or neutral opinion of nazi ideology" is also grossly offensive. If the next reviewing admin thinks your talk page access should be restored, they are welcome to do so without needing my approval - but if they do not, I strongly suggest you use your time away to give some serious consideration to your approach to civil and collegial interaction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this mess of a talk page since the initial block as well as the latest tweets coming from this user, I'm inclined to change this block to indefinite. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that they can vent as much as they want off-wiki - it happens with people who don't understand the way we do things here and because of that think they're experiencing discrimination. And perhaps it will help them to calm down by the time the block expires. I say leave the block as it is - I think we'll know pretty soon after they come back what the next move should be. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't believe it is generally appropriate to block for behaviour off-site (such as twitter). However, I have no objection to you extending the block indefinitely here. --Yamla (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken. I have no issue with waiting it out to see if their behavior changes once the block expires. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jauerback has apparently backed off his threat to change the block to indefinite based in part on the latest tweets coming from this user. Yet I remain concerned that someone with more than 10½ years' experience as an administrator would deem it proper to consider off-wiki social media posts when adjudging block length. Irrespective of the present case, I ask Jauerback to please direct me to the Wikipedia policies or guidelines that support such a far-reaching appraisal. KalHolmann (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. Most of my "threat" to make it indefinite was what occurred on this page. The only real tweet that I considered was this one which I interpreted as their plain to continue causing the same issues once they were unblocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jauerback. It is difficult for me to find a charitable reading of your comments. In my opinion they do not meet Wikipedia’s civility standards. Please take a moment to review what you’ve said, and consider amending, clarifying, or striking out your earlier comments. If needed, I will indicate which phrases strike me as uncivil, but please review what you’ve said before requesting any guidance from me regarding your incivility to me.

Um... no? There's nothing I've said to you that can even be remotely misconstrued as uncivil, so I'm not striking anything. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Strand: I saw your latest Tweets, and you need to be aware that unblock requests are not accepted from third parties. Your words sound positive, and all you need to do is wait for the short block to expire and then put them into action here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You as an alive, relatively happy, functional human being are committing a rebellious act

How can I tell you. How can I convince you, brother; sister that your life is in danger. That everyday you wake up alive, relatively happy, and a functioning human being, you are committing a rebellious act. You as an alive and functioning queer are a revolutionary. There is nothing on this planet that validates, protects or encourages your existence. It is a miracle you are standing here reading these words. You should by all rights be dead.

www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/queernation.html

 Strand (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn’t I edit my own talk page yesterday?

Yesterday I was banned, first from editing Wikipedia, and then from editing my own talk page. Can someone explain the reasoning behind silencing me from participating from discussions happening in my online space? I believe this decision was a mistake. What mechanisms exist to prevent this mistake from reoccurring? Strand (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's all explained in your block log. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boing!_said_Zebedee can you clarify the reasoning behind silencing me from speaking on my page? I think this was a mistake on your part, and I wanna catch any process errors you might have in how you chose to enforce policies. Strand (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I explained my reason in the material that you just removed from this page, so I'll repeat it:

And here you have continued with your personal attacks by calling the same people "bigots" - and that has lost you the ability to edit this talk page for the duration of your block. Also, attacking those you have a content dispute with as having "a positive or neutral opinion of nazi ideology" is also grossly offensive.

Wikipedia has a policy forbidding personal attacks, which is described at WP:NPA, and in my judgment that constituted a continuation of your personal attacks - and it is within admin discretion to remove talk page access to prevent such attacks. I'll also add that this is not your online space, it is Wikipedia's space, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not work like social media sites. There is information about the use of user pages at WP:User pages, and some information about Wikipedia and free speech at WP:Free speech (I include these links purely as background which you might find useful).

I do not believe that my action in revoking your talk page access for the duration of the block was a mistake, and I will continue to act to prevent breaches of WP:NPA policy as I have been doing for some years now. But if you believe it was a mistake, you are free to ask for a review of my action at WP:AN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What part of disruptive editing and personal attacks do you not understand ? Further explainatons can be found here Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and here Wikipedia:No personal attacks. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil. I will assume you’re not being sarcastic in asking about my incomprehension. I think what you’re getting at is, what processing errors can I identify in yesterday’s interactions? I certainly think my neuro-atypicality is missing WikiCulture’s subtle cues, which is why y’all are boffing on me.

Anyhow, my logic brain isn’t able to resolve an apparent contradiction that my editing of my own talk page is disruptive… What am I misunderstanding here? Is this not my space?

The other thing I can’t figure is what was deemed to be a personal attack. Again, I think this is a processing error on my part, but from the discussion it appears the offensive comment wasn’t on Wikipedia, and therefore would not be subject to policy. Is my speech off of Wikipedia used to determine the merits of my contribution? What am I not getting? Or was I prevented from editing my talk page because of a comment I made on WP? If so, which one? 😖

Warmly, Strand (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi terminology

I believe when describing populations subject to Nazi violence, we should refrain from using the phrasing of their social constructs. Referring to prisoners as homosexual men is deeply insulting to the non-homosexual non-men who had violence done to them with the pink triangle symbol. Strand (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]