User talk:Nøkkenbuer/2015

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Nøkkenbuer. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please follow the friendly spaces guidelines

Hey there. I've reverted your comment on the civility enforcement proposal as part of the inspire campaign due to its violation of our friendly space expectations and guidelines. While I appreciate that you are trying to make a rational and reasoned argument, the way in which you have made that argument does not adhere to our expectations of user behaviour. Describing those who disagree with you, or who have the temerity to find any word offensive, as "thin-skinned and weak-minded", is completely unacceptable even were it not for these policies. Please adhere to the guidelines linked above; read them, inform your actions by them. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if those statements were rude. That wasn't my intention, though I can see how they could be interpreted as such, and I feel like an idiot for it. What I meant by saying all that was that I don't think we should be trying to make Wikipedia an environment that tries to be clean and friendly for users who can't stomach the mere sight of a bad word at the expense of the free expression of Wikipedians. Making things more civil would naturally cut down on the amount of vulgar language, but attacking vulgar language itself is, in my opinion, not approaching the issue in a constructive, beneficial manner.

I described people who can't even handle vulgar language as thin-skinned and weak-minded because I meant them by their actual meanings. I wasn't intending to insult anyone, nor was it directed at the idea proposer. It was my way of criticizing the proposal because I felt that the idea was aimed at censoring Wikipedia and the language used therein to accommodate for people who refuse to contribute to discussions simply because vulgarity is being used. I find that to be a rather immature reason to refuse to participate in improving Wikipedia.

Again, sorry about that. I was trying to contribute to the discussion, but I came off as crass. If you don't mind me asking, what in particular did I do wrong? Was my use of the words "weak-minded" and "thin-skinned" to describe a certain type of person the sole reason for my post's removal? If so, could I simply reword my message and repost it? Or does my post violate the policies on a deeper level which would require an entire reworking of the content, in which case it'd be best for me to simply leave it be? Any help would be appreciated.

–Nøkkenbuer (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The former, as explained. And re your defence - given that one of the definitions you link above makes "weak-minded" a synonym for mentally deficient, I'd suggest you stop trying to explain your actions in a way that tries to justify them. Ironholds (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

So, if I simply reworded my message, you'd consider it appropriate to repost? If I were to repost, I'd probably rework the entire message, anyway, since I noticed that I wasn't really making my point clearly. The reason why I was explaining my actions, by the way, is so that you better understand my perspective. You're correct that using a term like "weak-minded" was inappropriate, since it could easily be misinterpreted as an insult. In the future, I'll be sure to be more selective in what I say. –Nøkkenbuer (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No, please don't say "it could easily be misinterpreted" - do not make it the responsibility of the other person to know what's in your head. It's not like anyone had to read into it to reach that conclusion: the literal and common meaning of the term is 'mentally deficient'. It is your responsibility to be clear in what you say, not the responsibility of others to become mind-readers. And on that note I've now had to revert you again for failing to grok that the expletive you've been using (hint: it starts with a C) is not only "highly offensive language" but, to a vast chunk of the world's population, completely unacceptable to use. If you can't understand why any of your behaviour here is problematic, I would encourage you to oppose the campaign from a distance. Whether you like it or not, it is going ahead, and in the absence of the ability to engage in a way that respects the space's guidelines you're better off not engaging at all. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I say it's "easily misinterpreted" because it is likely that my intended meaning is misinterpreted as meaning something else because there is a more common usage of it (which I overlooked). I do not expect people to "know what's inside my head", and it would be absurd to expect that. My choice of words was incorrect and for that reason I apologized, since my words were easily misinterpreted—and they were easily misinterpreted because I used an uncommon and rare definition which I should not have expected others to understand. I'm admitting my fault, not trying to justify my behavior. I'm not sure why you're being so defensive.

As for your second reversion, there is no reason for you to have done so. Simply refusing to censor the word is not a valid reason to remove my entire post, and I challenge you to find a single official statement or rule that states that I must censor my words, in particular that I am required to censor any expletives which are used. In fact, WP:PROFA, WP:CENSOR, and WP:CIV all support my side (assuming they all apply to user discussions and talk pages), since my usage of "cunt" was not inappropriate, since it was not directed at anyone, was necessary to state in order to convey my message, and was used in an encyclopedic manner. Anyway, what would the alternative be? "C*nt"? "C**t"? How would that meaningfully change anything? Anyone actually reading the post and the context in which it was posted could easily discern the actual word, so its censorship would accomplish nothing except complicate. I respect your right to remove content you believe violates policy, and appreciate your watchfulness over this project and community, but if you cannot prove that what you removed actually does violate policy, I have no reason to preserve your removal. Unless you can show me where anything I said in your most recent removal actually violates a single policy, then I'll respectfully undo your change and restore my comment, seeing as that appears to be your only objection to my post. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ironholds: I've given this some thought and I feel that I have been too aggressive. It's obvious that we have some differing views about this, and these differences appear to be leading to this conflict. Rather than simply reverting the edit, which I said I would do, I want to discuss this with you first, hopefully to the point that we come to some consensus. There's no point, nor would it be beneficial, for us to stand our ground and risk an escalation or edit war. Having said that, what problems do you have with my response, which you think I should correct? Is it my use of the word "cunt"? Is it more than that? Perhaps one of us could convince the other that their decision is best, or at least come to a compromise with which we could both be satisfied. I'd rather not leave this issue up in the air indefinitely, however, so unless we start discussing this by March 30, I'll revert the edit like I intended. I don't want to do this without first giving you the chance to discuss this with me in a way wherein neither of us are hostile (real or perceived), though, so hopefully we can come to some sort of agreement before then. Thanks and sorry for any trouble I may have caused you. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
yes, it is your use of that term, and no, I don't for a second buy the idea that "oh, WP:NOTCENSORED!". This is not enwiki, this is Meta; specifically, it is a subsection of Meta where there are guidelines, which have been repeatedly explained to you, around factoring in the cultural sensibilities and backgrounds of other participants and avoiding disruption. To make the context of that term particularly clear, it is deeply offensive and disruptive, even when not directed at someone, in a lot of spaces, although it is in the process of being reclaimed. If you can understand that it is a deeply offensive term to a lot of people and avoid using it in the future, feel free to contribute further to the discussion. If, on the other hand, you are reading this and thinking either (a) "Well, I don't find it offensive, so that's fine" - in other words, thinking that it is the job of everyone else in the group to adhere to your cultural expectations even if they're offended - or (b) "well, that's silly to be offended by when it's not directed at anyone" - in other words, thinking that people are wrong to be offended and so their offence can be discounted - I would suggest your energies would be better spent doing almost literally anything else. Ironholds (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What is your problem with my use of the word "cunt" in the context within which it was used? I understand that this is not Wikipedia, but I would like to think that the same rules apply, if only due to a lack of clarity or specification in any rules on Meta with respect to censorship and usage of vulgarities. Also, seeing as Wikipedia's principle of "Assuming good faith" is cited within the guidelines you posted, it doesn't really make sense why Wikipedia's principles shouldn't apply on Meta. You have only cited the guidelines, but you have not adequately explained how they apply to this most recent incident. Moreover, I have reviewed these guidelines and find that my post in question complies with every single one. Where does it not? Where, exactly, does it state that I am not allowed to use vulgar terms so long as it complies with the conventions of being used in an encyclopedic, neutral manner? I don't see how it's disruptive, especially seeing as you appear to be the only individual who had a problem with it. Also, with all due respect to those who are offended, I don't think being offended is a meaningful or valid reason to censor anything. So what if the person is offended? So long as I was respectful and used my words in a respectful way, any offense taken is irrelevant since it was not given or even intended. Certainly, I respect their right to be offended and I can sympathize with them being offended, but that doesn't mean I need to change my behavior to accommodate for their feelings.

Having said that, if your only reason for demanding the censorship "cunt" is because it's "offensive and disruptive", then I don't think I need to oblige by that ruling, since mere offensiveness is not a valid reason and disruptiveness is only meaningful and valid if it could be proven and shown to detract from the discussion being had. (I should also point out that the guidelines' policy prohibits "sustained disruption of discussion", which is obviously not the case since you didn't even allow the discussion to continue.) You claim that I am imposing my own cultural or ethical views upon others (which I am not), yet it appears that you are attempting to restrict me via your own. I'm arguing for my freedom to express myself so long as it follows the rules and guidelines, which I believe it has. Meanwhile, you appear to be arguing for my censorship because of others' feelings (or your own) and and unfounded accusation of disruptiveness despite the rules and guidelines. If anything, you appear to be failing to consider questions 1, 4, and 6 of the very guidelines you claim I have violated.

I'm sorry if you, or anyone else, is offended by my use of the word "cunt". Since I'm obviously using it neutrally and encyclopedically, and I'm pretty certain that words cannot be inherently bad or offensive, I remain unconvinced that I've done anything wrong. If you still think I have, then I encourage you to prove it by showing me where, in particular, I have violated any official Meta rules or guidelines.

I'm not sure if it would apply in these circumstances, but we could always request a third opinion on this matter, or seek some sort of resolution via an external, third party. I'd rather it not resort to that, but if no compromise can be made, it may be necessary. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

....yes, I am arguing for restrictions based on the feelings of others. I'm sorry that respect for the feelings of others is not something you feel has a place on Wikimedia sites. Do what you want, but understand that if you post commentary using that terminology again, I will revert it again, and your claim that only doing it once doesn't constitute disruption because rules-lawyering will fall by the wayside. Ironholds (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem very erudite with Wikiquette, Ironholds. I specifically and explicitly stated above: "Also, with all due respect to those who are offended, I don't think being offended is a meaningful or valid reason to censor anything. So what if the person is offended? So long as I was respectful and used my words in a respectful way, any offense taken is irrelevant since it was not given or even intended. Certainly, I respect their right to be offended and I can sympathize with them being offended, but that doesn't mean I need to change my behavior to accommodate for their feelings." I respect people's right to be offended, I respect their right to their own feelings, and I even sympathize with their feelings, but that does not mean I have to bow down and compromise my principles for someone's feelings. Perhaps it's completely normal behavior for you, but I prefer to rely on logic and reason to found my behaviors and make my decisions, not on the whims and fleeting emotions of others or whether I may make another user's eyebrow twitch at my commentary. You have you to substantiate a single accusation, and I question whether your removal of my post has anything to do with the word I used, and not to just cover up the fact that I called you out on your nonsense.

Having said that, I will be reinstating my response to you and hope that you have the sense to respond like a mature adult, or refrain from responding at all, rather than bullying a new user based on your own arbitrary and abusive misapplication of the rules and guidelines. I don't appreciate your attempts at enforcing your ideological views on me via censorship, nor do I appreciate your aggressive and disdainful behavior throughout this entire confrontation. If you wish to revert my edit again, I expect you to have specific reasons why supported by specific citations of which rules and guidelines I am violating in particular. You seem to be trying to incite an edit war, Ironholds, and I'd suggest you quit this bullying immediately before this escalates. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your discussion of my IDEA!

I appreciate your detailed responses to my recent Project Idea and the time you spent with the idea. I'm glad that others see the project as potentially impactful work for our growing online community.Cshanesimpson (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to be of service! I was concerned that my response was too wordy and critical, but it appears that you had already thought this out far more than was presented at first. I am relieved to see that I was mistaken on numerous accounts, and that the exposition of your Idea at first was only a brief summary of a greater plan. I wish I could be of more service to your Idea, though at this time it appears that you're already in far better hands than I could have provided. Good luck and thanks for your spectacular Idea! –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Friendly Space guidelines

I reverted your edit. You are being absolutely inappropriate, and if you cannot follow the friendly space policy you are not welcome on that page. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll request from you what I've requested from another who held a similar issue: please explain to me which specific rules and guidelines I've violated, and how I have violated them in particular. Simply citing the friendly spaces policy is meaningless because it doesn't adequately explain what misbehavior occurred. Like I stated with the previous dispute on this very issue, I have reviewed the friendly spaces policies of which you speak, and I don't believe I have transgressed a single one. If you wish, you can explain how I have done so, and what is wrong with my response. Unless you're specific, however, I'll find it difficult to hold any credence in vague accusations. Having said that, I would like to reinstate my post, but I'll await your input before doing so, in case any revision needs to be made or in case I actually did violate any rules. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines prohibit sustained disruption, and mandate an understanding of the cultural context other users are operating in. You have:

1. Repeatedly inserted language which a vast number of humans from particular cultures find offensive;
2. Been reverted by multiple people, explaining that this language is problematic;
3. Announced your intention to continue inserting this language;
4. Explained that you refuse to consider offence you give to other people a valid reason to moderate your behaviour.

This is not understanding the cultural context of others, and it is most definitely now disruptive, since multiple users have asked you to desist and your response has been...well, to keep doing it, and announce you'll keep doing it however many people revert you unless they explain to your satisfaction while your behaviour is problematic - that is, explain to someone who explicitly refuses to consider offending others a valid reason to stop doing something, why their behaviour being offensive is a problem.

This is now a null game. You have been reverted by multiple people for doing precisely the same thing; if you genuinely do not want to moderate your approach, I would suggest ceasing your approach altogether. You cannot productively participate in a safe space if you explicitly refuse to factor in the offence and cultural standards of others when deciding what to say. That's what the Inspire campaign is, and that's what you're doing. Ironholds (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What is your basis for asserting that the language I used is offensive to "a vast number of humans from particular cultures"? I would appreciate a citation on that. Secondly, context is what defines the connotations of a word, especially with respect to vulgarities (whose obscenity is defined by their context more than their inherent meaning). Like I've already asserted before, I used the term "cunt" in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Therefore, your criticisms of the word's offensiveness should not apply because any offense is due to a misunderstanding and misidentification of how the term was used, not necessarily the term's usage itself. Unless you're asserting that some words are inherently offensive, and thus are offensive under all circumstances and within all contexts, I don't see how your accusations hold. If that is what you're asserting, then that is a matter of philosophy of language. Wikipedia has already taken a stance in this regard, stating that:

However, offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

My usage of the word "cunt" here satisfies this criteria because it was treated in an encyclopedic manner, with no additional connotations or implied meanings; and its omission would have made my response less clear and accurate, since the context in which my use of the term "cunt" was addressing its usage in the instances you cited. In other words, my specification of "cunt" was essential to my response, and its inclusion was for the sole purpose of specifying and clarifying what it was I was addressing. If I omitted my referential use of "cunt", it would have fundamentally undermined the meaning of my response. No offense was implied, and no offense was intended. Seeing as even Wikipedia understands that offensive content or material can be used in a neutral and encyclopedic manner (presumably because said content is not inherently offensive, especially when used in the context of referencing offensive material as compared to actually applying it in a statement), I don't see why you have any right to censor my entire post, or even my use of the word "cunt" simply because it can be used offensively in other contexts. From the very same Wikipedia article:

Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

As you can clearly see, mere offensiveness is not a valid justification for the removal or omission of any content, no matter how offensive, so long as the content is essential to that which was being conveyed and it is treated in an encyclopedic manner (and it follows the other various policies regarding user content and conduct). My usage of the word "cunt" is completely justified on all accounts. In fact, it is you who are violating policy at this point. And before you claim that Wikipedia's policies and principles do not apply to Meta, I'd like to point out that even in the Friendly Space guidelines, a fundamental Wikipedia principle is cited. I think it's safe to assume that where Meta's policies are silent, Wikipedia's policies intervene. Meta has no official code of conduct or policies for what content is permitted at this time, excepting the Friendly Space guidelines, so unless you're going to argue that Wikipedia's policies and principles do not apply, I don't see why there should be any objection to my citing Wikipedia's offensive material policies in this context. If you are going to argue that Wikipedia's policies and principles do not apply, feel free to cite where this is stated. I have searched extensively for whether Wikipedia's rules, guidelines, and policies apply to Meta to no avail. Since there appears to be silence in this respect, and since there is a concerning amount of silence (and total absence) with respect to Meta's rules, guidelines, and policies, I would like to think Wikipedia's could suffice to complement where Meta's are missing.

As an aside, I recognize that Wikipedia policy also specifies "no equally suitable alternative is available" as criteria for whether to include offensive material. You could easily argue that my self-censorship of the term by replacing it with "c*nt" or "c**t" could have been an adequate alternative. I ideologically oppose this sort of self-censorship since I consider it meaningless and ineffectual—we all know what I mean, unless you don't know the term in question, at which point it would be important for me to spell it out. But I would be willing to compromise and self-censor if needed. You did not even once offer that as a potential solution, however, despite how I even alluded to this form of censorship above. You chose instead to continue your complete censorship of my entire post based on your misinterpretation of my use of a single word, and completely forsook any and all potential compromises. Had you simply told me to self-censor, I'd hesitantly oblige despite my own ideological views on this, since it would be a fair enough compromise for us to have in order to avoid further conflict. I'm still willing to compromise in this respect, but at this point I suspect compromise may no longer be an option.

My edit has been reverted by two people, you and Keilana, the latter of whom I suspect may have intervened at your behest since there is no evidence of her participation in the talk page in question beforehand. Maybe I'm just crazy, but it seems awfully strange that just after I called you out on misapplying the policy regarding "sustained disruption", the subsequent event is a complete stranger (and a high-ranking stranger at that, not just some random user) intervening to censor me while arguing along the same lines as you did. After she reverted my edit the second time and informed me of this above, you decided to respond to my reply to her, citing her edit reversion as indication of "sustained disruption". If it weren't for the fact that this other user is a sysop and prominent individual in her own respect, I would have suspected you of bringing in a sockpuppet. If I am mistaken and this is merely a coincidence, then I apologize for the false suspicions. No offense or accusations were intended, only a declaration of my observations.

I have indeed announced that I will continue to use this language, and this is precisely because my usage of said language is fully within my rights as a user, and completely adheres to the rules, guidelines, and policies throughout all of the Wikimedia Foundation, not just Meta and not just Wikipedia. If I am in error, then I fully expect a veteran user such as yourself to fully explain my errors, and cite where exactly I have erred and which policies apply in particular. I wouldn't expect a user with awards in civility to be so aggressive, hostile, and accusatory, but this appears to be the case. And no, I'm not attacking your character. I am astounded by your abject behavior, however, and I question whether you are not just pushing your own ideology at this point, rather than upholding the standards and policies of the WMF. Then again, I could simply be misinterpreting your passion as aggression, though your quibbling over correcting my thinking on peripheral clauses certainly gave me the impression that you were here for more than just informing me of a purported policy violation.

I have given no offense to others, for it was not intended and in no way even present in the context within which I used the "language" in question. I refuse to consider offense, by itself, as a valid reason for moderating my behavior because there is not a single policy requiring me to do so. In fact, the bolded sentence in the second quote above actually states just the opposite, and supports my rationale. Of course, this doesn't mean I don't respect others or sympathize with their feelings; I've stated that I do and have above. Rather, it's that I have done no wrong and therefore should not be required to change my behavior to accommodate for the perceived (and erroneous) offenses others interpreted in my words. This is how Wikipedia works, this is how most legal jurisdictions work, and this is how I work. Offense taken is not a valid reason for a change in behavior when this is the only transgression which occurred—especially when no offense was meant or given. If you disagree with this on ideological grounds, then I respect your right to hold that opinion. But unless you can prove that my view and application of said view violates any rules, guidelines, or policies on Meta (or Wikipedia or even WMF), there is nothing requiring me to change or moderate my behavior here. At that point, I suppose we'll just agree to disagree, but our disagreement doesn't justify your reversion of my edit. (The same applies to anyone else who objects on ideological grounds.) If you can, then I will oblige by the rules even though they may not align with my views.

So my request for you to actually justify your accusations in a rational and adequate manner is now a personal issue? I see how offensiveness can be a problem, but offensiveness of content or material is not what governs whether said content or material is included on Wikipedia (and I assume the same applies on Meta). If that were the case, then you might as well delete the entire Wikipedia article on "cunt" and most other articles relating to vulgarities or sexual conduct. What governs whether offensive content or material is included is how it is used, the manner in which it is used, the tone of its usage, and the necessity of its usage. Is it used as an insult and invective? Or is it a neutral explanation of the content or material? Am I directing my usage of said content or material at another, or am I treating it in an encyclopedic manner? Is my inclusion of said content or material necessary and essential to convey my point or the information being presented, or is it dispensable? This is what governs my behavior and what content or material I include in my statements, edits, and responses on Wikipedia and every site on the WMF. I would like to think the same applies to you, but apparently mere offensiveness is justified criteria for censorship in your opinion—at which point I'd question why you are even a Wikipedian, since you ideologically and fundamentally conflict with a core principle of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. If I have misinterpreted you here (or in any way), then please do correct me.

I most definitely have considered the offensiveness of what I post, and the cultural contexts of others. Whenever I type "cunt", I consider whether I am using it in the appropriate manner as sanctioned by the applicable rules, guidelines, and policies. Thus far, it has been to my knowledge. Hence why I am arguing about my usage of the term "cunt", but not about my usage of "weak-minded" from before, which (might I add) I conceded because I agreed that I violated the rules and was inappropriate for including that in my post. Unlike that previous instance, wherein I did not object because I considered your reversion to be justified, this instance is wholly unjustified and you haven't even a leg to stand on outside your own ideological views. The policies are against you, the rules are with me, and the Meta guidelines are so vague as to be ineffective without concerted discussion and interpretation or appeals to complementary Wikipedia guidelines. My questions in response to yours, then, are: have you considered whether your decision to remove my response is actually justified within the applicable rules, guidelines, and policies? Did you review them before your reversion? Or did you simply spot "cunt" and automatically decided that I was in error, without even considering the context in which it was used?

On that note, I don't see a single valid reason to maintain the reversion by either you or Keilana. Speaking of her, I'd like to ask you, @Keilana: what your thoughts are about all this, since my original response was directed at you, and not Ironholds? You are obviously a veteran user of Wikipedia, and you appear to be well-acquainted with Meta as well. Could you please explain to me where I am in error, either in my thinking or in the post in question (or both)? Do you agree or disagree with Ironholds' statements? Do you have anything to append to his sentiments if you agree, or anything you'd change if you disagree? Since this recent reversion was done by you, I'd consider you as the individual I should address when discussing whether to keep your reversion or reinstate my response. Naturally, I'll refrain from undoing your reversion until you have presented your case, and decide to do so only if I consider there to be a lack of reason not to. Any further input from you would be appreciated.

Oh and one final remark: I understand that both of you want to ensure that Meta remains a friendly place for everyone. I greatly respect and sympathize with that, and value both of your efforts to combat incivility and misconduct on Meta. I believe that this is not one of those instances, however, and you two are spending time combating a nonissue when there may be others which are far more egregious. I understand that I am new to Meta and Wikipedia in general, though, so I could be completely incorrect in my thinking or interpretation of the rules, guidelines, and policies here and elsewhere. Any and all help ensuring that I understand what is and is not permitted, and why it is or is not permitted, is much appreciated. But I don't think what is being provided at this time is helpful; if anything, it makes me feel like I am required to tiptoe and walk on eggshells whenever voicing my opinion out of fear of my content being misinterpreted as offensive, and thus sanctioned and censored as a result. If enforcing Friendly space guidelines requires the aggressive admonishing of violators for even the most minor (and mistaken) of offenses, then I'm not sure I want to be a part of this site. I don't believe that was the intention of the Friendly space guidelines, but that is definitely what I'm experiencing.

Sorry for the lengthy reply. I tried to be as concise as I could without compromising on a full addressing of Ironholds', but even then my response has been verbose. I hope my paragraphing aids in the reading of my response, however, since I made sure that one can easily determine the message of each paragraph by its opening sentence. Thanks for reading and hopefully, a resolution can be found soon. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For my part, I tend not to respond to someone whose argument contains "I'm not wrong, you just want to censor me for being right!" and "if other people agree I'm wrong, clearly they're your meatpuppets". Let me know when you regain the ability to assume good faith, as I have done my best to do; in the meantime, let me reiterate that if you use that language again, I will revert it, and others will probably revert it as well, since I'm hardly alone in considering this inappropriate behaviour, and it will probably not end well. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You completely missed my main point and you failed to address any of them. My main point is that you don't have any justification for censoring me, and I don't see where I went wrong. If you can prove that I am wrong and I have violated any rules, then I have no issue with changing my behavior. You have yet to do so, however, so I haven't. I'm not saying that Keilana is your "meatpuppet" either, and I'd consider it highly disrespectful to even imply that. I'm saying that it's very suspicious that this series of events occurred, and it makes me wonder whether this is more than just a coincidence. You are strawmanning my argument, however, and completely ignoring everything I've said. I do assume your actions were originally in good faith, but I question whether you are now arguing because you wish to enforce the guidelines (which I've explained repeated times that I did not violate, and which you have yet to specify how I have violated them), or because we ideologically disagree on a number of points.

Like I've said, I will continue to use this "language" so long as I follow the rules and guidelines, which I believe I have in every single respect. You can revert my edits if you want, but I'll simply undo the reversions until you can show that what I did actually violated any guidelines, or until you simply let it go. This has nothing to do with any personal vendetta or any desire to "win" this debate, but rather because no resolution was made and there is a lack of justification for keeping my response out of the talk page. I'd rather not engage in an edit war, however, and I'd much rather compromise to a resolution, since I'm certainly not going to compromise on either mine or Wikipedia's principles. Like I said, I'm willing to self-censor "cunt" if it is such an important and exigent issue to do so that you are ignoring all the other valid points I made in the post. I think it's absurd that I'd need to, but I will if it means an end to this petty quarrel, and so that you may be able to finally address the wall of text surrounding this singular profanity. On that note, until you're willing to consider that perhaps you're misinterpreting my usage of the word "cunt" and consider the context in which it was used, however, I find it difficult to take your argument as anything more than aggressive quibbling over a single word founded on a fundamental misreading of what I said.

Anyway, at this point I'm more interested in Keilana's input on all this, since she is most recent reverter of my post. Thus, I consider her to be the primary interlocutor when determining whether to maintain the reversion or reinstate my response. Unless she has appointed you as her proxy for this matter, in which case I'll simply undo her revert, I'll await her response on this matter. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nøkkenbuer. First, I appreciate your edits and suggestions, particularly w/r/t this proposal. Second, I'm not a fan of censorship in general, but I recognize we are working toward a larger goal and need to respect others' boundaries, especially when we're using computer mediated communication and don't have a "rich" context for our interactions. I don't understand why you're choosing to use inflammatory language, but maybe I've missed something. You've so much to contribute and so many good suggestions to make. I hope you can find a way to respect other members of the community (even if you disagree with them) and continue to contribute in ways that aren't viewed as disruptive. If you'd like to chat more about it, let me know. --Mssemantics (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, Mssemantics, though I feel I should clarify something. I think the problem here, in my opinion, is not my use of inflammatory language, since I didn't really use it to be rude or inflammatory. You see, I used "cunt" in this post strictly in reference to the posts Ironholds cited. The full post in question was:

I suppose it's reasonable to find it strange. After all, I wouldn't doubt that at least some of these accounts are alts or trolls. Some would undoubtedly resort to such methods in order to push whichever agenda they wish to promote. As for the evidence you provided, I appreciate it, but I have some issues with it. In the first link, I don't see what the violation was. The second instance was rude, but I don't know the context and from the looks of it, it appears to have been a longstanding feud which culminated in an insult. It may be wrong and should be condemned on Wikipedia, but not particularly out of the ordinary when it comes to online behavior. The third and fourth instances are simply the use of the vulgarity "cunt", which wasn't even directed at a female. It was inappropriate, but does that really qualify as "misogyny or highly offensive language"? I don't think so. The final instance appears to be ignorance of MOS:IDENTITY coupled with some colorful, albeit inappropriate, statements. Overall, I can see how all of these cases are ones where the content should be removed for being rude or inappropriate, but I wouldn't consider these to be evidence of any sort of systematic misogyny or hate speech. The only one which even comes close is the fifth and final example, yet even then it's just insensitive to trans people. In any case, those users' behavior may be offensive, but that is terms for removing it or admonishing the user for their misbehavior. I don't see how this is proof that "gender-gap admin training" is needed, though. –Nøkkenbuer (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The bolded sentences above are what caused all this, I believe. Those statements are referring to the use of the word "cunt" in the third and fourth instances Ironholds cited as evidence of so-called "sailor discourse" on Wikipedia, which he later cited in the discussion in which I participated as evidence of "massive cases of misogyny or highly offensive language". As you can see, my usage of the term "cunt" here was solely to specify the purported offense in the third and fourth instances Ironholds cited. It was used in a neutral and encyclopedic manner in order to clarify what it was I was addressing. I did not intend, nor did I mean, nor is it even implied to be offensive or inflammatory in any way. It was solely used to specify and clarify, nothing more. Ironholds then proceeded to remove my entire post based off this single specification which so happened to also be a vulgarity, and this entire conflict resulted from it. After I undid his edit reversion removing my post and reinstated it, Keilana then reverted my reinstatement and argued along the same exact lines as Ironholds. I then requested from Keilana what I requested from Ironholds (and which was not supplied in either case), namely that she would explain which specific guidelines I violated in particular. This was not provided, so I found no reason to oblige to the removal of my post based solely on a vague accusation of a Friendly space guidelines violation.

In my opinion, this entire conflict is the result of Ironholds (and, by extension, Keilana) misunderstanding the context in which I used the word "cunt". It was not directed at anyone, nor was it used to describe or apply to anyone or anything. It was not used in conjunction with an insult or in relation to a personal attack. It was solely, simply, and merely used to specify the vulgarity in question for those reading so that they need not wade through the entire discussion to find what I meant, and in order to be clear in what it was I was addressing (the other users' wrongful use of the word "cunt"). Ironholds and Keilana took this as offensive and censored me as a result. I cannot fathom how a mere referential use of "cunt" without a single connotation could be offensive, but I won't question their feelings, since it appears that it is genuine. What I do object to, however, is their removal of my entire post based off my inclusion of this single word, despite how my inclusion follows all the rules, guidelines, and policies found throughout the Wikimedia Foundation (and not just Meta). I knew what I was doing when I included the vulgarity, and I made sure to educate myself on the rules, guidelines, and policies in order to determine if I was making the right decision. I determined that I was, so I did. And I have been attacked for it.

I am willing to censor myself if necessary and required by the rules, guidelines, and policies of Meta (or Wikipedia or the WMF), but I have yet to see a single statement thereof requiring this. In fact, I've found just the opposite, which I've cited in the lengthy discussion above. If you can explain to me where I am in error, I would greatly appreciate it because at this point, I just don't see what justification there is for removing my post outside of offensiveness (which, as far as I understand, is not a valid justification for removal by itself) born from a misreading of my post. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nokkenbuer here in the sense that I don't believe his comment is so bad that it is worth removing wholesale. If Keilana and Ironholds disagree with Nokkenbuer's assessment of the offensiveness of the original comment (as I do), I think it would be appropriate for them to express that disagreement rather than removing his commentary. I would recommend that everyone read this post on the use-mention distinction and consider how those issues apply here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, and for the link you provided, which really helped me understand what it was I was struggling to convey: I mentioned "cunt", but did not use it for my own communicative purposes. I am fine with you, Ironholds, Keilana, or anyone else disagreeing with me. I'm totally okay with that and I encourage any and all criticism of my posts, which can then hopefully lead to a better understanding for all parties involved. I have no problem being corrected, but it frustrates me when a mere mention of a word can lead to the censorship of my entire post. If my post is reinstated (and I really hope it is), I invite you to respond with whatever criticism you have of my post. If your arguments are cogent, I don't mind changing my views. I have before, shifting from a stance of hesitant opposition to one of wholehearted endorsement, simply by discussing with me (and tolerating my intolerable verbosity). Perhaps I'll even support the gender-gap admin training Idea if there is enough discussion. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer, the fact that you are still even wasting more time to argue how right (or should I say righteous?) you are, makes me wonder if you're not doing this for spite. Your comment was deleted for using foul language in a safe space, whatever the context is. Deal with it. This is a friendly space. Period. You can always rewrite your ideas using other words - but my feeling is that you're trying to prove a point, that's besides the scope of grant proposal. (BTW, so you don't waste MY time with countless arguments, this is my very first and last post here. Alleycat80 (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That seems very hostile and unfriendly of you, Alleycat80. I'm arguing this because I believe I have been wronged and would like to make my case by discussing this in a civil manner. You seem like you didn't read a single word I said, and you're just presuming I'm wrong simply for using "cunt". If you refuse to respect my opinion and censor me based on yours, I have no reason to oblige by your bigoted demands. I'm sorry your offended, but your offense won't stop me from my behavior. I recommend you read up on the guidelines yourself because I haven't violated a single one. Have a good day. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Nøkkenbuer: If you need a clear statement of this being inappropriate, then you can take this as such. The Terms of Use makes it very clear that civility and respect for your fellow contributors it not just an option but mandatory. It is very clear that your edit has caused significant disruption already and is against the norms and expectations on those pages. If you wish to continue to edit on these pages you are going to have to censor yourself here (god knows I have to frequently) and I have complete confidence that you can get your point across without using the word. In the end your intent in using those words speak to your initial good faith but does not speak to your continued use after the concern is (repeatedly) brought to your attention. At this point you are rapidly making people concerned that your faith (either initially or now) was bad.

I have read everything you have posted here (and your other edits) and I understand that you believe you are under no obligation to restrain yourself. I am not interested in rehashing that discussion with you or attempting to lawyer down specific policy quotes and throw accusations and counter accusations around. Using the word you did wasn't necessary or acceptable, you are welcome to continue contributing to the IdeaLab pages however if you wish to do so you must restrain yourself. If you can not, that's fine, but this isn't the best place for you.

I also want to encourage you to think about being a bit more succinct in your writing. While there is certainly a time for length (everyone who knows me knows I have a tendency to be lengthy myself) they are few and far between on wiki. This is especially true for argumentative discussions like this one where when you have a statement with 12 paragraphs you have lost your audience. It is impossible to go that length without both repeating yourself (to your detriment instead of rubbing your point in) and riling up both yourself and your audience. I have seen far more complaints (either directly or indirectly) about your behavior on this talk page then even the edit that started it all. When your response to criticism is like this it appears as if you are attempting to shout down the opposition and win by default. In the end it, unfortunately, doesn't matter if that was your intention or not.

I hope to continue to see you editing here Nøkkenbuer, however I hope that those discussions can be oriented at content (whether it is discussion about a specific proposal here or editing an article on Wikipedia) and not side conversations like this one. Jalexander--WMF 23:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Like Calliopejen1 stated above, the entire issue here appears to be a misunderstanding between use and mention. The users here are misreading my mention of "cunt" as a use of "cunt" for my own communicative purposes, when this is not the case. I believe I have been respectful and civil throughout this discussion and I don't see how I have violated any of the Friendly space guidelines, excepting perhaps the issue of "sustained disruption". But who is to blame for this sustained disruption? Me for my mere mention of the word, or them for failing to properly understand the context of its mention and why it was mentioned? Am I required to censor myself simply because people fail to understand the distinction between use and mention?

If I must, I will censor myself, but I feel that my side isn't being adequately considered. A crowd can be vociferous in its dissent, but if its dissent is fundamentally wrong, what distinguishes this from a witchhunt wherein an angry crowd of misinformed individuals demand for the silencing of another based on their own ignorance of what has occurred? Where, then, lies the sustained disruption? In the innocent victim, or the crowd of detractors demanding for his silence? I believe my usage of the word was necessary. If you do not, then so be it, but if so then I should be permitted to reinstate my comment with the word omitted.

At this point, I'll decline to comment further. It appears that the majority rules, even if the majority is wrong. Any further rehashing of this will lead us nowhere, and I'll just have to accept this injustice as a blemish on my experiences of the WMF. I'm not trying to sound like the victim here, but this is the inevitable result when even someone as high up as you takes the side of the dissenters.

But fine. I give up. The edit will remain reverted and I will remain silenced, the entire post due to the mention of a single word. I find it disappointing that nobody, however, not even you, took up my offer to resolve this issue by means of "c*nt" or "c**t", or for me to omit the word altogether. Even when resolution by means of compromise was presented, what's more important is silencing me for mentioning a word. I find that this whole ordeal reflects more on the others, and not myself. But what do I know? I'm stupid enough to mention "cunt" in a neutral and encyclopedic manner.

Have a good day and thanks for you time, especially with your tips about brevity. Consider this dispute terminated, even if it was never resolved. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nøkkenbuer: I have no issue if you want to replace it without the word and I think that would be acceptable to most, if not all, of the people in the conversation. Something like "The third and fourth instances are simply the use of a vulgarity which wasn't even directed at a female." or something? I'm not 100% sure it makes sense given the stress that already revolves around that edit but that's a very different question and if you believe it's important to say then I'd encourage it. Calliopejen1's comment (and your response) were posted at the same time as mine and so were not included in my reading :). Jalexander--WMF 00:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jalexander-WMF: Well, so long as Keilana and Ironholds agrees with my omission of the word while retaining the rest of the statements, since they seem to be the main objectors to my post, I will edit my post accordingly. By the way, I apologize if I sound(ed) bitter; I just feel very frustrated with this entire ordeal, especially since I realize now that I should have simply offered a compromise or resolution from the outset rather than continue to defend my point. Even if I'm right, it's obvious that the others did not agree and almost certainly would not budge on their ruling. I was hoping they would see my side and revoke their decisions, but in retrospect that was a futile wish because the others felt very strongly about their views and I was unable to adequately articulate my point without a daunting wall of text (an exhausting habit of mine). As an aside, I hadn't considered how long it probably took for you to read through all this (which I appreciate, and must have been a hassle) let alone type your response, so I shouldn't have assumed that you would have already read the most recent developments on this page. Sorry about that. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've spoken with both of them and they said they would agree to that. I know that these discussions can be frustrating and while I think one of the best ways to help calm things down is to post shorter (and less frequent) responses this is not always easy especially when those you are talking with may not be doing the same. I also have a huge habit of writing walls of text (just look at my user page compared to most staff, I couldn't edit it and be happy and I've had years to try and widdle down portions of it) so I know the pain. I appreciate the response and hopefully the next time we chat it's a happier discussion :). Jalexander--WMF 00:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your mediating, Jalexander, especially since you're probably far too busy to be settling minor quarrels like this. I admit that I have a tendency to lose sight of the goal and focus on the details to the point of pedantry and quibbling, which inevitably leads to my lengthy posts tearing apart every single point and making myself look to be a, well, an expletive of your choosing. If a similar incident like this occurs in the future (I hope it doesn't), I'll be sure to take what I've learned here and apply it there. I've redacted the post in question and reinstated the revised edition. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

I would like to thank you for your organized, logical and principled opposition to certain elements of this project and to the idea that this project/campaign is even needed in the first place. I hope you continue to fight the good fight in the future against discrimination and censorship. --Cmckain (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! I try to make sure every post is constructive and beneficial to the discussion. If I ever lapse in this regard, or if you find an error in any of my posts, I strongly encourage you to call me out on it so that I could either correct it, or discuss it with you. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please fill out our Inspire campaign survey

Thank you for participating in the Wikimedia Inspire campaign during March 2015!

Please take our short survey and share your experience during the campaign.

Many thanks,

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk), on behalf of the IdeaLab team.

23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This message was delivered automatically to Inspire campaign participants. To unsubscribe from any future IdeaLab reminders, remove your name from this list