User talk:Tarc

Archives

2006-08, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14

fish

Actually, this deserves something more than a trout. I hereby also admonish you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, removed. If there's one thing I hate is that insipid "trouting" thing, I think that's bullet point #4 to add to the page edit notice. So, admonish away, but it may be helpful to say what for specifically. If you're going to claim WP:POINT, you'd have to demonstrate what was actually disrupted. I was a minor player in the grand scheme of All Things Manning. Tarc (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds an awefull lot like "others were behaving much worse" - which is true, but that doesn't mean you didn't waste a whole lot of peoples time. When your behaviour gets to the point you become part of an ArbCom case, and there is a proposed remedy to topic ban you, and you don't think that all that circus amounts to Wikipedia being disrupted, we have very different ideas of disruption. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Potayto, potahto. At the end of the day, I'd rather be sanctioned for something substantive (highlighting the project's dysfunction in dealing with civil yet biased editors) than trivial (the piddly civility warnings that litter my talk page over the years). Tarc (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I name-dropped. I just didn't understand why no one was talking about it. When I realized no one seemed to know, I cautiously backed out of the room, knowing it would be better all around if you were the one to chose to notify or not. I obviously feel personally griefed, but I don't begrudge; you're being interesting. Going out bigger rather than smaller is pretty Manning-esque, at least. __Elaqueate (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You absolutely must be kidding me

If this is some sort of double-bluff trolling then I salute you for your Byzantine madness.

If not, then I've got to know: that bit where we both got warned by Penwhale: part of the act, or were you "angry in character," as it were? I know I was pretty furious with you, for... what are the right words... ah yes, making a carefully-parsed and neutrally-worded argument denying the rights of a transgendered person.

Assuming again that your statement is sincere (an odd assumption regarding a person describing a campaign of deceit,) what is the answer? How is the community to deal with people like your character, who peddle utterly objectionable opinions with a courteous smile? Chris Smowton (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the greater point. A majority of ArbCom is currently voting that his behavior was generally understandable and reasonable and not that much of a disruption. I wonder how they can now sanction him for that, when they wouldn't sanction admitted and calculatedly discriminatory language? This is what they call "a pickle". Which infraction will turn out to be more objectionable? If they admit he used discriminatory speech, they have to admit they gave a clear pass for it. I, of course, thought it stunk) End self-congratulations, __Elaqueate (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. So did your remark earlier indicate you knew it was an act? If so you could've saved me much ire by dropping me a hint! :) Chris Smowton (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"Problematic", "insensitive", "inflammatory and offensive", and "unacceptable" is a far cry from "generally understandable and reasonable". (Proposed decision#Discriminatory speech by Tarc.) -- ToE 01:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Three of the five of those are picked from the minority side, not the majority I was speaking of. The rest speak to an isolated statement treated as a regrettable exception to speech that is otherwise seen as reasonable and non-discriminatory. So I don't see it as a far cry. If the majority had actually said "inflammatory and offensive", and "unacceptable" then I wouldn't see an issue here. But they didn't. __Elaqueate (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the "minority" you speak of is an abstention, not support of that FoF. -- ToE 12:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, opposition was the majority, and abstaining and supporting were minority positions. The commentary was still described as mostly reasonable and not actionable, with more votes expressing agreement with that sentiment. I'm not saying there was no sentiment that the speech was discriminatory. But it was in the clear minority, no quotes. __Elaqueate (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Most everything said in these discussions should be considered delivered under dramatis personæ, I'm afraid. I am genuinely a rather churlish, oftentimes quick-tempered, and honestly somewhat of the proverbial WP:DICK at times...read through the talk page and archives here sometimes, I've had some fun moments over the years. So it wasn't a big deal to tap into some of that while affecting a right-wing-ish argument on the topic. Most of what I said to Gorand though was pretty on-the-mark, as IMO he really did a great disservice to that side of the argument.

I'm not a rah-rah advocate of transgenderism or any of that, for the record. For me it's like same-sex marriage; I am comfortably heterosexual and if others who aren't want to get married, by all means go for it. If Bradley feels more comfortable in life as Chelsea, hey, knock yourself out.

As for what Arbcom can or will do...largely out of my hands. As a wise man once said, "the sun will rise, the sun will set, and I will have lunch". Tarc (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A wise man once said, "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." -- ToE 01:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed re: Josh. One more question: if you page up the way you'll find you + Greg arguing with me -- was Greg your accomplice there or a coincidence? Chris Smowton (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No accomplices, no. There was only one person I told of this beforehand, but that person is not a Wikipedia editor per se, and had nothing to do with this. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Personal bias" at ArbCom? Surely you jest. Have you not read WP:Infallibility? Anyway, Tarc, I'm not sure what you were hoping to accomplish, but whatever works for you.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Dunno if you've seen this yet, but it appears you have successfully convinced NYB you are a bad person Chris Smowton (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

  (FWIW I disagree that the point about caustic vs. civil anti-trans sentiment is obscure; the committee has consistently declined to engage it, however) Chris Smowton (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• See, now they are starting to get into quite a conundrum. I make a statement XYZ, a complaint is filed, and the Arbs look at it and say "XYZ is not equal to discriminatory language". But then I come out and say "but I meant XYZ to be discriminatory", so now they (or at least one so far) has now altered the valuation of my statement based on my professed intent. The thing is, the words didn't change from one situation to the next. XYZ still == XYZ. NYB is now placing more of an emphasis on intent than on his own interpretation of a person's words, which will prove very interesting for future Arbitration cases. Perhaps a flipside will be a future case subject accused of discrimination, who can say "if you were offended by what I say, that's not my problem, since I didn't intend to offend you. Precedent in this case that the speaker's intent counts more than outside interpretation can be used to get that future person off the hook. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You have missed the point of my comments more-or-less altogether. Although I didn't particularly appreciate how you expressed yourself in the Manning debate, in the interests of wide-ranging debate (which I would have thought you favored), I am reluctant to sanction anyone for a good-faith expression of their opinion in a Wikipedia controversy, even if I think their rhetoric is over-the-top or they should have used different words. However, I don't see value to being provocative on purpose simply for the fun of seeing what happens, and/or trolling contributors on another website. Intent does matter, and where the intent is to be a pain or a troll, the community and the arbitrators are free to react accordingly. Or to be more clear, obviously there are cases where intent doesn't matter (because the conduct is obviously outrageous and impermissible no matter what the intent was), there are cases where intent doesn't matter (because the conduct is fine), and then there are intermediate cases where a good-faith editor gets a pass and an admitted bad-faith editor doesn't. You said in your statement that you were trying to find the middle ground of ambiguous words, and I suppose in that you succeeded. You also wasted a substantial amount of the community's and the arbitrators' time, and further escalated what already was a complex and fraught situation.

I don't think you are "a bad person," but I think you behaved very poorly in this instance. The only reason I haven't proposed a remedy against you in the arbitration case is that the case is close to closing and I don't want to delay it with further discussion of your ridiculous behavior. You are instructed never to do anything like this again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever words you need to comfort yourself with are fine with me, bro. Vigilant hit the nail on your head pretty well by pointing out Lèse-majesté the other day. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You write, "It has been fun to pretend to be some sort of paleo-conservative" after writing "If we're addressing him by a masculine name, then we should certainly be addressing him by masculine pronouns. Seriously, it is about time for the political correctness to take a backseat to common sense." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_Manning&oldid=571150148#Revert_back_to_the_stable_good_article_version.3F)

I am trans. Not everyone sees calling Chelsea Manning "Bradley" or "he" as equivalent to calling Obama a "N-----". I recognise that. I really do. There are a tiny minority of feminists, who would think of themselves as on the Left, who would exclude me from women's changing rooms. I am sensitive to these things. Denying Chelsea Manning the name and pronouns I consider appropriate feels the same to me as denying my name and pronouns.

It matters to me. After one ill-advised edit, swiftly reverted, I left Chelsea Manning's page alone and did not !vote. I worried a little about Premises, a truly dreadful law article, with one edit which does not get to the wrongness of it. So. Hello, pit-bull. You made wikipedia exceedingly uncomfortable for me, and now say it was "fun". Fuck you. Abigailgem (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, noes!!!

Now Kirill has to change his vote, since he doesn't want to be Politically Wrong on such an important matter as separating the Righteous from the Wicked...

Your after-the-fact rationalization of your trolling isn't really logically consistent; you should probably spend more time on that. Better yet, just own up that you were trolling for shits and giggles and had a good time, which is probably closer to the truth than your explanation.

xoxo,

Randy from Boise /// Carrite (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

When I want to have a good time, I login to my blood-elf paladin and go raiding in the Siege of Orgrimmar, or curb-stomp n00bs in Strand of the Ancients with my Forsaken rogue. The Wikipedia is not my shits n giggles forum. Tarc (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

He does have entries on various other language versions. I am not interested in starting an article, but there are plenty of sources if anyone else wants to. Kohs was not interesting to me as a critic of Wikipedia – not that it can't use criticism – but as a pioneer of the paid editing industry. I suppose paid editing would have happened without him. Anyway, it seems Kohs really did not want an article after all, and is not exactly a major public figure, so that is done with. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)