User talk:Lightbreather

Kaffeeklatsch discussions

Kaffeeklatsch request to close

Nice idea, but not at Wikipedia. Things are going reasonably well at the moment, so why erect a target to inflame the situation? Please close it down before the inevitable WP:MFD because those pages cannot be reconciled with standard procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. Lightbreather (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the Kaffeklatsch is a good idea, too. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 01:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Kaffeeklatsch pledge

Hi Lightbreather, I left this comment on the Kaffeeklatsch page, but I haven't signed the pledge yet, so I've moved it here. Sorry about that.

I noticed that the Systers email list asks subscribers to confirm "that you are a woman". Perhaps it's best to leave it there, and people will identify with that statement or not. I wouldn't include the issue of user preferences being set to she, sexual orientation, or whether someone has joined a certain category. I can't see that those matter for this. Just my opinion. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I hope that my "Response" below explains my thinking better. For a group in my user space, the pledge seems reasonable. If the proposed WikiProject Women group gets going, with WMF resources and guidance, maybe a better way to do this will be devised. Lightbreather (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I was concerned with the pledge, especially parts 2 and 3, but had trouble finding the words for it. Here are my thoughts now that I have had some time to gather them.

• Line 1: I am a woman (cisgender or trans-woman, of any sexual orientation) is a big improvement from its previous form, but isn't totally inclusive of intersex persons or female-sexed persons with non-binary gender (agender, intergender, genderfluid, etc.).
• Line 2 requires that participants out themselves as females by being in the Category:Female Wikipedians. Why is this a requirement? Is not participation in the Kaffeeklatsch outing enough?

• I understand that the project wants to encourage women to come out of invisibility and make their presence more, well, visible, but revealing any degree of personal information, including age, sex, gender, location, name, etc, and the method of revealing it, should always remain the choice of the person themselves, and not be requirement to join any group, especially when that group is the only women-only on-wiki space available.

• Line 3 requires that participants set their Internationisation user preference to "She edits wiki pages." Again, why? To alter some number to make female presence more visible in statistics? Again, this should be a suggestion only. I fail to understand why this is relevant to participation in the Kaffeeklatsch. As said, there probably are more women than just me who have left it at "prefer not to say" for reasons other than fear of sexism or harassment. For myself, it's because of my native tongue and culture. --Pitke (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Pitke, see my "Response" below. But I have a question for you: Are your native tongue and culture genderless? If so, cool! Lightbreather (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would sign the pledge, as I am a woman editor who greatly appreciates this effort, but I do not want to identify myself as a woman via preferences or categories. Ongepotchket (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Ongepotchket. Maybe if the WikiProject Women proposal gets off the ground, with WMF resources and guidance, a better way to do this will be devised. Lightbreather (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No and also Hell no. I'm one of the "they" sorts and that won't change. It's a safety issue. Montanabw^(talk) 00:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, do you believe an editor who sets their user preference to "She edits," or who joins the "Female Wikipedians" category, is less safe than other editors? If so, in what way do you mean? For instance, on Wikipedia, or in real life, or what? Lightbreather (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just removed myself from the group. I joined with concerns about the pledge - concerns others share - but your response makes it clear you do not agree. I can not therefore remain. LadyofShalott 17:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As you wish, LadyofShalott, and no hard feelings on my part. While hosting this test group in my space, these requirements feel safer to me. As I said, perhaps if WikiProject Women gets off the ground a better way to do this will be agreed upon. Perhaps someone should start a test group in their space with different requirements? Lightbreather (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Response

Why ask those who would like to join the Kaffeeklatsch to change their user preference to "She edits wiki pages," and add their username to the category "Female Wikipedians"?

The objective is to have a women-only space on Wikipedia as a place first and foremost for women to feel safe - a refuge. I have based the idea on the Anita Borg Institute's Systers list. Although the groups would be similar in their goals - a safe place for women to talk about tech (Systers) and Wikipedia (Kaffeeklatsch) - their framework is different. The Systers group has been active for over 20 years. The Kaffeeklatsch is a test group while the WikiProject Women proposal is under consideration at the IdeaLab.

When a person registers an account on Wikipedia, they have to give a username, which does not have to be their real name, and... that's it. You don't have to give your real name. You don't have to give an email address. You don't have to state your gender. However, as we all know, gender does end up being divulged, intentionally or otherwise. The editing environment is hostile, which feels unsafe to a lot of women, and little is done about it, nor is little likely to be done about it in the near future.

When a person subscribes to the Systers list, they must be approved by a moderator. They give their email address and their name, and they have to 1) tell their involvement in tech (1-2 sentences suffice), 2) say that they are a woman, and 3) say that they have read and agree to the list's rules (a lengthy set). Then the person's request is evaluated by a moderator, and the email address is confirmed. This process goes a long way toward assuring the list members that they're safe. This process has been successful in making and keeping Systers a valued place for women in tech for a long time.

I don't think those who want to join this group should have to share their real names and email addresses. However, I do think that asking them to make a small sacrifice for the peace of mind of other group members is reasonable. If it is more important to a woman Wikipedian to keep her user preference set to something other than "She edits wiki pages," or not to join the category "Female Wikipedians," than it is to be a part of the group, there is still the Teahouse to reach out to for support. But for women who are members of the group, there is some comfort in knowing that other members of the group are "out" as women on all of Wikipedia, and not just for access to the group.

At any rate, as I said, this is only a test group for now, and it is to be hoped that the IdeaLab proposal may get off the ground, and then perhaps there will be better ways of managing membership. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand the model you're trying to emulate but I don't see it working here on Wikipedia for a couple of reasons.

First, the Anita Borg Systers group is completely private: non-members are unable to read the list and message are not publicly archived. A completely private area isn't possible on Wikipedia and so you cannot apply the same membership standards. You're asking people to give up their privacy and to expose themselves for not much in the way of a return. If you want to offer privacy you'll have to take this off-wiki.

Second, you say that women need a safe space but you are excluding some of the women who need it - ones who might not want to specify both their gender and the internationalization. You say above that they can go to the Teahouse but you say elsewhere that the Teahouse isn't well-run because men run it. The overall message is that if women aren't willing to be out and proud as women, they can't join your group. If your goal is to provide a place free from disruption, you'd be better off with some kind of moderation that allows disruptive people to be banned from the page rather than focusing on requiring that prospective members specify both gender and internationalization (which doesn't actually prevent disruption because people can lie - and some women contributors can be at least as disruptive as men contributors).

As an aside, you're basically proposing that a social space be set up on Wikipedia. Some will see as unnecessary because people are supposed to be here to build an encyclopaedia and discussions on wiki are supposed to be focused on ways to improve articles. If you want this proposal to succeed then you'll need to address that aspect. Ca2james (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, to participate in the Systers group one must give their name and their email address. That would be asking too much here in this public group. However, asking a woman to give something here isn't unreasonable when the something they're asked to give is a token compared to what the private Systers group asks. In other words, both Systers and this Kaffeeklatsch ask women to say, "I am a woman," but the Systers group (smartly) asks additionally for two substantive pieces of information, to give some peace of mind to the group. Since it would be too much to ask women here to share their names and email addresses, asking for these other assurances is reasonable.

As for taking the group off-wiki, I am in the middle of collaborating with the Systers-keeper to set up a Wikipedia Systers space, which will be a private space to complement to this Klatsch (and, it is to be hoped, a future WikiProject Women space).

As for the Teahouse, yes, I don't think it feels as safe for women as a women-only space would feel. (I was once told by a Teahouse host that I was being too sensitive. This is a common way to belittle women.)

No, I am not proposing a social space, or at least not a mainly social space. I want it to be more focused on community, policies, and guidelines than on content, but content discussion will not be off limits. The space's goals are:

• Create a space conducive to women's participation on Wikipedia (No trashing allowed);
• Maintain the space for women to seek advice from women peers;
• Maintain the space for women to discuss the challenges they share as women Wikipedians;
• Increase the number of women editors on Wikipedia.

However, it does not have special rights or privileges, and it cannot make rules (that apply outside the group), nor can it impose its preferences on articles, policies, or guidelines.

I'd like to make two final points. 1. Some have scoffed at the idea that Wikipedia can feel unsafe to women - but turned around elsewhere and suggested that it is unsafe to set your preference to "She edits" or to add your username to the Female Wikipedians category. And 2. Some have suggested that to say that one feels unsafe here makes light of the fears of women who are or have been physically unsafe in the real world. However, many women who suffer real-world abuse suffer it hand-in-hand with electronic abuse. And psychological abuse effects how safe one feels in the real world.

So a good question for someone to ask somewhere (please, please not here): Is it unsafe to do these things? Lightbreather (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Voluntary, indefinite IBAN between HIAB and LB

If he's interested, I'm still open to a voluntary, indefinite IBAN between myself and Hell in a Bucket. Lightbreather (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch

User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RetΔrtist (разговор) 00:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ARCA

Don't forget to sign your statements :) GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Christine Warnke

I don't suppose you could give me a helping hand with this article on a (probably) notable DC academic and political advisor. The article looks like it's got enough "meat" on it, but there isn't much in the way of sourcing. I found a University of Maryland "distinguished alumi" award which should hopefully make the article stick, and there are lots of news hits, but most of them are pieces by her rather than about her. Can you assist? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am pinging Sarah (SV) as I think this topic interests her more than me. (I kinda stumbled into the subject and stayed for a while, but it's not a strong area of interest for me.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

ARCA (2)

The top of the ARCA page, in the big scary pink box, says "This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive." If your submission isn't ready yet, I suggest you withdraw it, polish it up in a sandbox (e.g. User:Lightbreather/sandbox), and then resubmit. NE Ent 16:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's done, but thanks for the info. Lightbreather (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:AC/CN

Moved your request to the clerk's board: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Clerk_help.3F NE Ent 01:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't simply revert edits without discussion

I made a well-meaning edit, with a reasonable explanation, on the page Women's rights in 2014. If you disagree wtih my edit, state the reasons why. Alialiac (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done [1] Sorry. I've been rather busy here on WP and IRL. Lightbreather (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks !

I wanted to thank you for adding RS refs to the section we were discussing and also for removing the bit about the Form 4473 that wasn't in the previous refs. I know that editing can be frustrating and wanted you to know that your edits were thoughtful, excellent, and appreciated. Thanks again. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I want you to know that I really do want to work with others to write a balanced article. I also think we can all help DN to become a better editor by being patient with her and explaining things. I am quite certain that part of the reason she is putting so much text on the article talk page is because she was scared early on by how some editors treated her, and now she's being hyper defensive. This is very much how I felt when I first started editing and I was getting it from all sides.

Anyway, again, you're welcome. And thanks for the thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Kudos LB. You've really done some fantastic work to the GSL page, today. It's bold, but it looks 110% better. It's inspiring for newbies like me, to see how it's done. I just hope I have been helpful in the process. Now, the fun part will be making it stick. ;-) Darknipples (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Very helpful, DN. My advice is to quit adding text to the talk page and to start doing more with the article, remembering to select the highest-quality reliable, verifiable sources available and to give everything appropriate WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE. I will try to keep tuned in and help with the technical stuff, like how to format source citations and conform with our style guide. Lightbreather (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

My other piece of advice is to try to keep the elements in chronological order. My experience with gun control articles is that everyone tries to jockey what they want to emphasize higher up into the article, and that's why there is so much bickering, IMO. If everyone agrees to a chronological order it forces some... order onto the article. When the article is in order, chronologically and from a policy and style perspective, then there should be less bickering about the lead, too. Lightbreather (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

deWP debate

Seen this debate? (it refers to this Kurier piece attacking WikiProject Women) I think User:Mautpreller nails it pretty well, cheers, --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this edit. I actually saw that earlier today and meant to go in and change it myself. Beat me to it.  :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Frustrated

I may need a few days. Felsic ticked me off. It's hard enough trying to compromise with people that disagree you on a fundamental level, but when someone that agrees with you undermines your efforts, it's too much. I'll try to keep an eye, but apparently they are a one-person army with a stubbornly narrow view of how WP works, and they can do it all on their own. Best of luck. Darknipples (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I know how it feels. Unfortunately, today I have my DIL and granddaughters visiting, plus I am facing some heat at WP:ARCA for trying to get an WP:IBAN between myself and an editor named Hell in a Bucket (long story).

By all means, take some time off. WP is two steps forward and one step back. Lightbreather (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Kaffeeklatsch kept

Hello Lightbreather. You may have noticed by now, but as a result of the MFD debate on the Kaffeeklatsch page, the page will be kept. Just letting you know. Thanks, Harej (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great news - though I sure would like to hear from WMF re whether or not the page, or the project I proposed at the IdeaLab, violate the non discrimination policy. Siko (WMF) said she would ask, but now the MfD is closed. Lightbreather (talk)

Lightbreather (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Luis Villa rendered his opinion at the bottom of the MFD after someone asked:

“ Without weighing in on the larger question about how to provide safe spaces so that all users are comfortable participating in Wikimedia projects, I want to clear up the misunderstanding related to the WMF non-discrimination policy. In WMF Legal's opinion, the non-discrimination policy does not prohibit users from setting up a women-only discussion in their user space, because the policy was passed by the Foundation board to apply to acts taken by the Foundation and Foundation employees, not individual users. Other policies may, of course, apply. ”

Harej (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL Talk Page

I am going to merge some of the seemingly repetitive talk sections in order to make navigation easier. I must rely on you to help make the correct adjustments. Any advice you have for me in this regard is invited and welcome on my TP. Darknipples (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to be careful, especially when other editors' comments are involved. See WP:TPG. Lightbreather (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Any idea whats up with the giant strike-line at the bottom of the talk page and through all of Mudwater's contributions? It goes through other people's commentary and it's very unnerving.Darknipples (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a mistake, it appears. This edit [2] fixed it. Lightbreather (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

HA! oops, my bad! Thanks LB. Darknipples (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

NRA

What are you trying to do with these edits?[3][4][5]? Why are you removing neutral language and a source? This is exactly the pattern of edits that got us Topic banned.

You might also want to read the Talk page as I have found a source that back up the Civil Rights claim. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that calling the NRA a civil rights group because it calls itself one is NPOV. What do the majority of high-quality RS call it? A gun rights group.

The Brady Campaign and Everytown like to call themselves "gun violence prevention" groups, but the majority of high-quality RS call them gun control groups. I kinda prefer the GVP designation, just like pro-gun people like to use the loftier sounding "civil rights groups" and "right to keep and bear arms groups." I believe as editors we're tasked with avoiding the advocacy groups' preferred terms - unless they've become the common terms used by people and the press. Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You're putting your own "interpretation" on what WP:RS state and violating policy to do it. The organization calls itself a civil rights group and the U.S. government agrees with that description. Your interpretation of Google searches can't change this. As for common terms, YOU have posted more sources that use the description on the Talk page than anyone else and you're trying to convince me that it isn't common? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's not split the discussion. My comments about the NRA's self-declared IRS designations and what Giffords and Kelly have to say about whether or not the NRA is a "civil rights" group are on the NRA talk page. Let's keep it there, where others can chime in if they wish. Lightbreather (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm making the attempt to communicate my concerns with you directly. There aren't multiple Editors making the changes I cited above. Callanecc seemed fairly clear with their warning about the nature of our Topic Ban and to be careful once it had expired. This edit[6] alone seems to be enough to get Callanecc's or the attention of ARE considering that we are still in the midst of the discussion on the Talk page. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

At least two other editors are involved in that discussion - Civil rights organization - so I suggest we keep it there. Lightbreather (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop

Last time I was on this talk page it was to inform you of actions I'd taken in your defence, so don't even think of accusing of me of favouritism, sexism, or anything else. This time I'm here to tell you to stop. Do not poke bears; that's no more civil than the profanity-ridden response you're looking for. And do not canvass other editors to make improper edits after being reverted by an admin for doing so yourself. Especially without informing them that it had already been reverted. As I'm sure you're well aware, editors are given very wide latitude in their own userspace; unless that header were a personal attack, no third party has any business meddling with it. I don't know if you're trying to cause trouble or just blithely wandering through a minefield, no doubt to wonder why there are explosions going off all over the place. Either way, knock it off. Go and write an article or do something else that's useful. If you carry on the way you're going, you will end up blocked. That is the only possible destination of the course you seem to have set yourself. You may have read my philosophy on blocking established editors on Roger's talk page yesterday, in which case you will know that blocking anyone other than common-au-garden trolls and vandals is not something I find desirable, but that's never stopped me from doing what's necessary to prevent disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Harry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

My, apologies HJ Mitchell, that I'd forgotten that you are an admin. There are lots of admins and only a dozen maybe that are etched in my brain as anything more than another editor. And at the end of a long day (yesterday), I even forgot that Cullen328 is not an admin. (I was probably thinking of Callanecc, who has a similar username.)

As for personal attacks, WP:TALKNEW says, ... using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Anyone who looks at my history will see that I avoid putting usernames in talk headers, unless it's required (like at AE).

I am not trying to cause trouble, nor am I blithely wandering. I think admins who want to prevent disruption would do better to sanction offenders rather than the offended, especially when policy backs you up. And I am not talking about EC here. There is a group of editors who thinks I am out to get him. NO. There are policies in place to prevent attacks and harassment and a legion of defusers to act on them. The "poker" in this case wasn't I, it was the editor who put my name in that header (I'd asked him before not to do that). He harasses, and I get a lecture - and a block threat. I leave you and others to conclude what "ism" - if any - Wikipedia suffers from. Lightbreather (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:KAFFEEKLATSCH listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:KAFFEEKLATSCH. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:KAFFEEKLATSCH redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)