User talk:Jeraphine Gryphon/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Why I moved that page

@Jeraphine Gryphon, I moved the List of LGBT-related films directed by women page because I was unable to change it back to its original name. I wouldn't have done it otherwise. Historyday01 (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware. We're still not supposed to do that but instead ask for an admin to help. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 01:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Historyday01: Also it's a bit rude to call someone's message to you "unnecessary". It was clearly necessary for me to notify you. Editors need to communicate with each other. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 01:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Your notice was unnecessary, as I had already made the change. --Historyday01 (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Historyday01: It's for future reference. So you know not to do it again. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 01:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, whatever. I already had enough people comment on my talk page about it, so I don't need you to pile on. By having an admin do the change, you are showing yourself as a complete narc (the other editors agreed it was fine if I did the changes myself, which was fine), something which I do not appreciate. Also, I do not appreciate your changes to the pages about history of LGBTQ animation. They are yet another example of your outright hostility. --Historyday01 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Historyday01: It was... technically... necessary... that an admin... should fix that issue... because regular editors technically can not. Do you understand now? Also I haven't made any edits to that page. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 02:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever. I'd be glad to never hear from you again. Historyday01 (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Hear this instead: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 02:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A slight mistake

I may have accidentally made a mistake making sure Iborra had the right amount of games played for Villarreal. As I say it only needs about 1 bit of coding to fix and I am sorry and I will never mess with such delicate coding again. I just thought I’d admit it was me RYSTER DCD (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@RYSTER DCD: It's okay. In this edit here you deleted the "}}" from the end, those squiggles mark the end of the infobox. Removing them breaks the whole template. I put them back with this edit. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 03:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ideas to address derogatory comments?

I appreciate your comment, "I still thought we had some standards around here," in User_talk:Drmies#Are_you_allowed_to_say_that? on 24 June.

I raised a different set of derogatory comments, aimed at a novice user, in Wikipedia:Teahouse#Ideas_to_address_derogatory_comments? and got one response, to let the derogatory comments be. I'd expected that; it's hard to see any standards around here. The world sees wikipedia as derogatory.

• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Harassment_Survey_2015_-_Results_Report.pdf
• https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/
• https://time.com/4180414/wikipedia-15th-anniversary/ "the core community of Wikipedians are too hostile to newcomers"

Do you have advice on a better approach, or what kinds of derogatory comments would be seen as worth removing? Numbersinstitute (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Numbersinstitute: I hate to say that we should treat editors differently according to their tenure on here, since editors are supposed to be treated equally, but -- yeah. I'm more bold with warning and redacting newer editors, since it's safer to assume that they're not familiar with WP policies. But we can't assume that admins and other established editors have never heard of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA before. So there must be something else going on there and they need a different approach. My approach is that if I'm gonna poke a hornets' nest then I'll poke it just once and then run. (That's how I interpret 'dropping the stick'. The Teahouse response advised you to 'drop the stick' as if you were flogging a dead horse of a finished debate. Civility is never a dead horse around here, I would hope.) They do need to be reminded that others do notice and disapprove of uncivil language, but staying to argue about it is probably not a good idea, they'll just get more defensive.

So I'd do what you just did and just get back to addressing how to improve the article, and hopefully show a good example of proper conduct. That's why I'm disappointed to see admins say something like "fuck off" even to obvious vandals -- they should be examples of proper conduct. It's not only the vandal who sees what the admin says, it's everyone else too. I'm "clutching my pearls" here but I really do think standards and manners are necessary. We're all human of course but I think avoiding profanities at least is such an easy way to edit yourself before posting.

Anyway. This place is what it is. I wouldn't redact comments of established editors, since presumably they're familiar with policy and were sure anyway that whatever they said was okay, so being redacted will provoke them or make them defensive/angry. Also, experienced editors are a lot more likely to go back and use strike-through on their own comments if they later change their mind. It's kind to leave them the opportunity. New users pretty much never do that so you have to "help" them. In the future I'd recommend using the (Redacted) template if you're going to cut something out of someone else's comment, otherwise you run the risk of tampering with someone else's speech (making it look like they posted something that they didn't post, like a bunch of asterisks. I wouldn't like that.) Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments is a useful section to read, as is that whole page, and Wikipedia:Civility#Removal_of_uncivil_comments. (From what I'm reading from those sections, it looks like it would've been better if you had not made this redaction.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 23:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, which I take to heart. Is there any benefit in suggesting revision of WP:PERSONALATTACKS? After saying "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor" it could add "but any editor may also reinstate the comments or strengthen them, and official WP:ANI advice says 'Don't. Just... don't.' appeal to WP:ANI."

Another question: Is there any hope of resolving the inconsistencies in WP:TPO: It says it's "appropriate" to remove personal attacks, but not uncivil attacks, when uncivil is defined to include personal attacks., "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks... This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil".

I liked the MJL's description of ANI:

• If you were designing a system built specifically to protect harassers from accountability, I'd imagine it'd look similar to Wikipedia. We have a system where you (ie. victims) have to independently-- without help-- loudly and boldly proclaim the misdeeds done against them in a highly visible setting with rock-solid evidence to back up every single accusation you make while also being prepared to publicly defend yourself from any counter-accusations which could be made against you by any number of individuals during this process and having to justify why your accusations outweigh the perceived benefit of your harasser's contributions but still being calm and civil about the whole thing regardless what is said about you, your intentions, and your own ability to contribute to the very same project. Go through this process enough times, and you yourself risk being labelled "the problem" for inciting so much "drama".

Thank you. Numbersinstitute (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a bit much. There are no victims or harassers in that 1619 talk page, and I don't want to start opining on whatever incident(s) they're discussing in that ArbCom RfC right now, I don't know what they're talking about. The comment seems to imply that rock-solid evidence shouldn't be required for accusations. On Wikipedia of all places it's so easy to just provide diffs (links to edits).

You can always suggest improvements to policies and guidelines on their talk pages, especially if there seem to be contradictions/inconsistencies -- or just point it out and see what others think. Personally I can see the difference between personal attacks and 'mere' incivility -- if someone goes "You're a *******" then that can clearly be redacted, but incivility in general is typically harder to extract from the rest of the comment or context, like if they're saying "your comment/edit is BS because..." It's better to not start surgically removing incivil words in cases like these, because then you're tampering with someone's speech. If there's a pattern of uncivil behavior then call it out in your own comment.

Wikipedia:ANI advice is just an "essay" like the big banner on it says. "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and may reflect varying levels of vetting and community consensus. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." People may feel compelled to take all sorts of petty grievances to ANI, so apparently it became necessary to compile that list. I'd say that page has good advice. Obviously "Don't post at ANI" isn't official doctrine, otherwise the board would be empty.

Being an argument-filled environment is just inherent to Wikipedia, there's always something to argue about and lots of controversial things, and as human beings most of us don't handle it very well. Direct insults should be easy to avoid but it's harder to not allow low-key condescension to creep into our speech. I understand why even established editors struggle with that, me included. That's why you're hearing it echoed in different guidelines and comments that it's better to just "let it go" instead of dwelling on every perceived slight.

I'm not saying we just have to accept all the negative vibes if we feel bad here. My solution was to take a three-year vacation. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 00:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again. That's helpful context. I've been editing awhile, but I'm new to thinking about personal attacks. Fortunately I haven't been targeted much. Numbersinstitute (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)