Wikipediocracy

Today LadyofShalott, administratrice extraordinaire, turns 25 yet again. She likes champagne and chocolate, and giftcards for the iTunes store. She graciously accepts compliments about the beauty of her mind and her body. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the admin issue that you seek assistance with? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I know this is intended to be joking and all, but perhaps we could avoid making jokes about other users' bodies and how people should praise them (or not praise them)? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Unless I'm missing something here, this comes off...rather improper. Ironholds (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, tough crowd! And did Ironholds really just lecture Drmies about impropriety? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Bushwa, Drmies and LoS are very good friends, and this is obviously a well-intended and humorous note with not a hint of impropriety about it. You folks need to re-discover your sense of humor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hence "unless I'm missing something here"; if I am, great . Floquenbeam, if you have an issue with my conduct I invite you, as I have invited others, to discuss it with me and offer me a chance to participate in the conversation. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Even if LoS were to be personally fine with having her body discussed on AN, it still wouldn't be an appropriate conversation to have on a website that's struggling to not objectify, offend, and drive off female editors who might be reading. Like I said, I get that Drmies is making a friendly joke and doesn't intend harm, but the outside world reading this is going to get the impression that Wikipedia admins are cool with discussing female contributors' bodies for their own amusement, because lol-isn't-it-fun-to-talk-about-women's-bodies-publicly-even-when-their-femininity-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-website. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not hat the discussion then, rather than drawing more attention to it? Obviously not everyone appreciates this humourous post. Fine. Why not close it, insted of turning it into something bigger? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I think it's important to make the point that, at least from my perspective, this is Not Okay. I would like people who read this section to see that not everyone thought it was awesome, funny, and appropriate for this noticeboard, because obviously a notable portion of male editors think it's harmless to say things like this and it alarms me that readers would be left with the impression that everyone here does. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey folks. Obviously this is a really complex issue and it's hard for us as a community to wade into it. We want, very much, to retain a sense of fun and lightheartedness and there can be a beauty to compliments that we don't want to miss, and at the same time, we also want to retain an atmosphere of being able to question - because these "cases" are in some sense the places to have the hard conversations because it's here that the stakes are low (ish). We can have a sense of good faith that Drmies means well, and we can have some faith that the compliment will be received in the spirit it's intended without damaging reputation, so we can look at it and ask the hard questions about "Huh. How would a new editor see this? Are there patterns that we may be blind to that may create?" I will say that the same compliment from two different people has a very different flavor to it, so that's part of what's so sticky, and intention is so hard to read on text, so it's worth asking if we err on the side of safety in how we publicly frame things...but we have an environment of non-censorship that is crucial to who we are. I think it's important for A fluffernutter is a sandwich! to be able to raise the questions, and also for the compliment to be honored as it was both meant and perceived. I don't have resolution on this (there clearly isn't one). BTW, Happy birthday, LadyofShalott!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyoung (talk • contribs) 18:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fluffernutter on this one. The sexism comes in because you are appearing to belittle women who do not "graciously accept compliments" about their bodies, and to insinuate that LadyofShalott is an administratrice extraordinaire at least in part because of this gracious acceptance. It implies that any female administrator who does not appreciate commentary about their physical appearance (something that should have absolutely no relationship to Wikipedia) is somehow less extraordinary. And perhaps just as importantly, nobody can really conceive of you posting something about a male administrator's birthday, age or his preferred gifts on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Even at the best of times, it's a rather bizarre post. Risker (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

DanMurphy wrote:Good lord. "Drmies" comment was clearly well-intentioned, not creepy, and should have been either ignored or greeted by a chorus of "happy birthdays."

Instead you've got the squawking of a group of people who apparently learned their social skills in a petri dish. Oliver Keyes' opinions on "appropriate" behavior are just sauce for the goose.

Per your request at AN, I'm notifying you (in case the notification system doesn't) that I've commented on you at user talk:Fluffernutter. If you honestly shared Fluffernutter's concern about attracting and retaining more female editors who might be offended by what Drmies said, wouldn't your first step be to resign your adminship and WMF position? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

DanMurphy wrote:Good lord. "Drmies" comment was clearly well-intentioned, not creepy, and should have been either ignored or greeted by a chorus of "happy birthdays."

Instead you've got the squawking of a group of people who apparently learned their social skills in a petri dish. Oliver Keyes' opinions on "appropriate" behavior are just sauce for the goose.

Jim wrote:

DanMurphy wrote:Good lord. "Drmies" comment was clearly well-intentioned, not creepy, and should have been either ignored or greeted by a chorus of "happy birthdays."

Instead you've got the squawking of a group of people who apparently learned their social skills in a petri dish. Oliver Keyes' opinions on "appropriate" behavior are just sauce for the goose.

It might not seem that huge to some people, but to see an admin and a WMF employee reacting in such a pathetically ignorant way to a couple of excellent content contributors having a bit of fun on someone's birthday, for God's sake, actually might be a more important reason for me to give up on the place entirely than some of the "bigger" issues.

They don't pay me, so if it isn't fun, guess what...

I'll be fascinated to see how much kickback there is against Ironholds and his lady - I see there's a bit...

Wer900 wrote:

Jim wrote:It might not seem that huge to some people, but to see an admin and a WMF employee reacting in such a pathetically ignorant way to a couple of excellent content contributors having a bit of fun on someone's birthday, for God's sake, actually might be a more important reason for me to give up on the place entirely than some of the "bigger" issues.

They don't pay me, so if it isn't fun, guess what...

I'll be fascinated to see how much kickback there is against Ironholds and his lady - I see there's a bit...

Ironholds is in no position to talk about inappropriate comments.

Note

Per your request at AN, I'm notifying you (in case the notification system doesn't) that I've commented on you at user talk:Fluffernutter. If you honestly shared Fluffernutter's concern about attracting and retaining more female editors who might be offended by what Drmies said, wouldn't your first step be to resign your adminship and WMF position? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw, Floquenbeam, and have commented. Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care too much about puerile behavior. I'm not the boss of anyone here, can't control it even if I wanted to, and it's easy to avoid 90% of it by not frequenting IRC channels. But it gets in my craw when someone who does engage in lots of it decides to lecture someone else doing something at least two orders of magnitude less offensive. It is prima facie evidence that you care more about the ability to tell others what to do than you care about making WP welcoming to editors. This was, I believe, a major theme in the opposes in RFA's #1-4, it isn't my imagination. I don't need background in why you felt justified in making some of the comments you've made on IRC; taken in isolation, they're unimportant (and anyone would understand momentary frustration with Keifer). But they aren't isolated; taken together, they're a pattern of behavior incompatible with someone who wants to maintain and expand female editing, or any type of editing, really. They're a pattern of behavior incompatible with representing Wikipedia as a community liason and an admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on justifying the comments, or taking them in isolation: that would imply I thought they were acceptable. I was planning to explain the, as you put it, pattern, and why it is (or more accurately, was) there. In any case, I've made the offer; you're welcome to take it up, or not to. But I would like to think that, were our positions somehow reversed, I would be willing to at least listen to you. Either you're right, and my actions are being accurately represented and are completely indefensible, or you're wrong, and you're writing off a long-term contributor without being willing to listen to both sides. In either case, an informed decision can be reached with 5 minutes of your time. I hope you might find it in you to at least listen, even if you do so skeptically or while firmly believing nothing I say could make a difference to your opinion. Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well it's not like I'm going to hat the discussion here; if you have something to say, I'll at least read what you write. But yes, it will be with a skeptical attitude. By the way, I"m not "writing off" a contributor; I don't think you should be banished, or banned, I think you should no longer represent WP as an admin and a WMF liason. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Do you have any objection to me emailing you? The Streisand Effect is live and well. Ironholds (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about it, but if there's a legitimate reason to do so, no I don't object. Probably won't get a response today, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm genuinely grateful. That's fine; I'm on a plane for most of tomorrow, so we can probably pick the conversation up anew on Friday, if my email leaves you with a reason to do so. If it doesn't, don't sweat it. Ironholds (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Body and mind
No one is changing anybody's mind here, let's call it a day. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fluffernutter, I also gladly accept compliments about the beauty of my mind and my body. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure they're both utterly delightful and I congratulate you on your efforts in pursuit of them I'm sorry that mess came down on your shoulders; I'm perfectly aware you meant no harm to either LoS or the project, but just sort of put your foot in an institutional-level issue that you didn't see coming. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I would normally respect your (Fluffernutter) right to say something, even if I thought it a misinterpretation, except for 3 issues:

Your characterization of Drmies' edit as "making jokes about other users' bodies and how people should praise them (or not praise them)" is deeply unfair (my empahsis added, to highlight the part I felt was particularly unfair, though I object to the entire characterization). Such comments run a great risk of appearing so silly or over the top that they are likely to make others tune you out, and actually harden their position.
Mr "Punch a hole in their windpipe, light them on fire" Ironholds (username linked so he's notified I'm talking about him here) is the last person on the planet in a position to lecture anyone about appropriate ways to address or talk about others; he needs to address his own serious shortcomings first. The fact that he is still on the WMF payroll and an admin here is an order of magnitude much more damaging to any desire to retaining and attract new female editors than Drmies' comment.
And then I remembered something else, googled it, and confirmed it: you're an IRC friend of Ironholds, and evidently participate in sex/body image/joking behavior yourself, which is much more raw than Drmies' (see, for example, meta:IRC/Quotes/archives/2011). So publicly calling out someone else over this is hypocritical. OK for you, just not for others? And please, please don't say "but that was IRC". Stereotypes and hateful talk and behavior get propagated and passed on to new, relatively young editors on IRC too (I saw quite a few such young editors in the IRC logs on Meta). If you actually care about the bigger issue, change your own behavior first.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, as I've already told you, if you'd like to talk about my behaviour I'm happy to do so, and put that quote (and others) in context. If you're just interested in judging me based on what has been communicated to you, that's your prerogative, but it's not going to be helpful or productive. In the meantime, the fact that I happen to agree with Fluff is not something that has any impact on the validity of her comments. Ironholds (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Er, right, ok Floq. I'm not sure what you mean by your first point - that I was insinuating that Drmies was insulting LoS's attractiveness, and thus misrepresenting him? If so, you've misread. My point was that whether we're praising or insulting a female admin's attractiveness, neither of those would be appropriate for a noticeboard - it is in pretty much no case appropriate to go into the attractiveness of a female editor's body on AN. As for your second point, I'm not really sure why your opinion that Ironholds should be fired has any bearing on my pointing out inappropriate behavior by someone else. And as for your third...well, you're obviously not familiar with Jabberwocky if you think that quoting a poem - a nineteenth century children's nonsense poem - is akin to plunking down on a public noticeboard and talking about how hot I think a fellow editor's body is.

I'm frankly aghast at the level of vitriol that's being directed against me this afternoon for daring to speak up in response to something I found sexually objectifying and inappropriate. I doubt anything I say is going to convince you and some others that I'm not a horrible, horrible censorship nazi who's out to get your right to speak freely about women's bodies wherever and whenever you please, and I'm just disappointed that so many people seem to think the problem here was my daring to contradict Drmies's right to comment on LoS's body, rather than Drmies making a well-intentioned joke that was nonetheless problematic. I doubt it's going to be worthwhile to continue this conversation given your position. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As I just said above, I'm not upset that you somehow tried to "censor" Drmies; I never used that word, that's not what I said, it's not what I meant. I object to your description of his entire comment as "making jokes about other users' bodies", and your claim that he is saying people "should" praise, or not praise, them.
Ironholds' participation in that thread is related to your position because (a) you're friends with someone who has done much worse, and I have yet to see any criticism of that; and (b) I suspect the AN thread was brought up on IRC, and that's why he showed up to agree with you so fast.
If you're going to summarize your comments in that IRC log as "quoting a poem", then you're being dishonest, either with yourself, or with me. You obviously know there are several young impressionable editors on that channel, and you were modelling behavior for them that is anathema to what you claim to care about.
Like I said, if someone who was not being hypocritical had brought this up in a reasonable way, I'd have had no objection.
And yes, I suppose refusing to respond is, of course, your prerogative. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I offer this for a fourth time: if you want to discuss my actions in more detail, I am happy to do so. Until then, it seems unfair to say "based on my understanding of the situation, which I actively refuse to accept additional data into, X and Y and Z are true". Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
(I would note that I saw the thread because I was browsing AN, not because of anything on IRC. A lot more editors also showed up; to my knowledge there is no Birthday Wishes Cabal, although it'd be a nice project). Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Vigilant wrote: Way to miss the point you two twits.

dogbiscuit wrote:

Vigilant wrote: Way to miss the point you two twits.

But as you know, they are not missing the point, they know damn well that they've been caught bang to rights playing power games on Wikipedia, and rather than back down they are scrambling madly to try and pretend they are on a moral high ground.

Ironholds makes me vomit with his brazen hypocrisy, he really is a little shit.

Drmies (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC) at WP:AN wrote:Today LadyofShalott, administratrice extraordinaire, turns 25 yet again. She likes champagne and chocolate, and giftcards for the iTunes store. She graciously accepts compliments about the beauty of her mind and her body.

Triptych wrote:On the actual characteristics of the statement, it has a tittering and flirtatious and "tee hee" tone to it. He says "administratrice" ala dominatrix. He muses about the beauty of her 25-year-old body (it'd be interesting here to know Drmies' age, I'd suspect well over, he says he's got three kids at his user page, if he's this "Badmachine" pictured at the bottom, to me that looks late 40s.) Calls for champagne and chocolates, what else in Drmies' imagination should such a sparkling and sweetly-framed miss enjoy in her lace-appointed boudoir on her birthday?

Has Ladyofshalotte spoken on the question. I guess I'd accord some weight to that, but whatever she says, I still think it's a sexually-toned comment that really has no place where he put it. Even if their relationship means it might be okay in some more private venue, whatever that might be (please, not Wikipedia IRC). I agree with Risker and Fluffernutter and whomever else that criticized it.

dogbiscuit wrote:But you've missed the point of how he crafted the comment - note the "25 again" which is basically saying she could be anything up to 60. It was just a very stylised quote.

dogbiscuit wrote:the rest is straying into the world of political correctness

Hex wrote:

dogbiscuit wrote:the rest is straying into the world of political correctness

Actually, it's called discouraging the creation of a sexualized environment.

Fluffernutter was absolutely on the mark. That was a breathtakingly dim post by Drmies.

Hex wrote:

dogbiscuit wrote:the rest is straying into the world of political correctness

Actually, it's called discouraging the creation of a sexualized environment.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Fluffernutter (T-C-L) and Ironholds (T-C-L) tried to school Drmies (T-C-L) on the sexual/textual politics of objectifying the female body on Wikipedia (at WP:AN (T-H-L)):

Today LadyofShalott (T-C-L), ''administratrice extraordinaire'', turns 25 yet again. She likes champagne and chocolate, and giftcards for the iTunes store. She graciously accepts compliments about the beauty of her mind and her bodyDrmies (T-C-L) 17:35, 17 July 2013

What is the admin issue that you seek assistance with? A Quest For Knowledge (T-C-L) 17:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I know this is intended to be joking and all, but perhaps we could avoid making jokes about other users' bodies and how people should praise them (or not praise them) Fluffernutter (T-C-L) 17:45, 17 July 2013 Quite. Unless I'm missing something here, this comes off...rather improper. Ironholds (T-C-L) 17:47, 17 July 2013

Jesus, tough crowd!
And did Ironholds really just lecture Drmies about impropriety? Floquenbeam (T-C-L) 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Bushwa, Drmies and LoS are very good friends, and this is obviously a well-intended and humorous note with not a hint of impropriety about it. You folks need to re-discover your sense of humor. Beyond My Ken (T-C-L) 17:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hence "unless I'm missing something here"; if I am, great . Floquenbeam, if you have an issue with my conduct I invite you, as I have invited others, to discuss it with me and offer me a chance to participate in the conversation. Ironholds (T-C-L) 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if LoS were to be personally fine with having her body discussed on AN, it still wouldn't be an appropriate conversation to have on a website that's struggling to not objectify, offend, and drive off female editors who might be reading. Like I said, I get that Drmies is making a friendly joke and doesn't intend harm, but the outside world reading this is going to get the impression that Wikipedia admins are cool with discussing female contributors' bodies for their own amusement, because lol-isn't-it-fun-to-talk-about-women's-bodies-publicly-even-when-their-femininity-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-website. Fluffernutter (T-C-L) 18:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not hat the discussion then, rather than drawing more attention to it? Obviously not everyone appreciates this humourous post. Fine. Why not close it, insted of turning it into something bigger? Sluzzelin (T-C-L) 18:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I think it's important to make the point that, at least from my perspective, this is Not Okay. I would like people who read this section to see that not everyone thought it was awesome, funny, and appropriate for this noticeboard, because obviously a notable portion of male editors think it's harmless to say things like this and it alarms me that readers would be left with the impression that ''everyone'' here does. Fluffernutter (T-C-L) 18:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Floquenbeam (T-C-L) followed-up with a discussion on Fluffernutter's talk-page:

Dear Fluffernutter (T-C-L),
I also gladly accept compliments about the beauty of my mind and my body.
Drmies (T-C-L) (talk) 10:29 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)

I'm sure they're both utterly delightful and I congratulate you on your efforts in pursuit of them I'm sorry that mess came down on your shoulders; I'm perfectly aware you meant no harm to either LoS or the project, but just sort of put your foot in an institutional-level issue that you didn't see coming.
fluffernutter (T-C-L) 10:45 pm, Yesterday


I would normally respect your (Fluffernutter) right to say something, even if I thought it a misinterpretation, except for 3 issues:

• Your characterization of Drmies' edit as "making jokes about other users' bodies and how people should praise them (or not praise them)" is deeply unfair (my empahsis added, to highlight the part I felt was particularly unfair, though I object to the entire characterization). Such comments run a great risk of appearing so silly or over the top that they are likely to make others tune you out, and actually harden their position.
  
  Mr "Punch a hole in their windpipe, light them on fire" Ironholds is the last person on the planet in a position to lecture anyone about appropriate ways to address or talk about others; he needs to address his own serious shortcomings first. The fact that he is still on the WMF payroll and an admin here is an order of magnitude much more damaging to any desire to retaining and attract new female editors than Drmies' comment.
  
  And then I remembered something else, googled it, and confirmed it:
  • you're an IRC friend of Ironholds, and evidently participate in sex/body image/joking behavior yourself, which is much more raw than Drmies' (see, for example, meta:IRC/Quotes/archives/2011).
  So publicly calling out someone else over this is hypocritical. OK for you, just not for others?
  And please, please don't say "but that was IRC". Stereotypes and hateful talk and behavior get propagated and passed on to new, relatively young editors on IRC too (I saw quite a few such young editors in the IRC logs on Meta). If you actually care about the bigger issue, change your own behavior first.

--Floquenbeam (T-C-L) (talk) 1:08 am, Today (UTC+2)


Floquenbeam,
as I've already told you, if you'd like to talk about my behaviour I'm happy to do so, and put that quote (and others) in context. If you're just interested in judging me based on what has been communicated to you, that's your prerogative, but it's not going to be helpful or productive. In the meantime, the fact that I happen to agree with Fluff is not something that has any impact on the validity of her comments. Ironholds (T-C-L) (talk) 1:12 am, Today (UTC+2)


Er, right, ok Floq.
I'm not sure what you mean by your first point - that I was insinuating that Drmies was insulting LoS's attractiveness, and thus misrepresenting him? If so, you've misread. My point was that whether we're praising or insulting a female admin's attractiveness, neither of those would be appropriate for a noticeboard - it is in pretty much no case appropriate to go into the attractiveness of a female editor's body on AN. As for your second point, I'm not really sure why your opinion that Ironholds should be fired has any bearing on my pointing out inappropriate behavior by someone else. And as for your third...well, you're obviously not familiar with Jabberwocky if you think that quoting a poem - a nineteenth century children's nonsense poem - is akin to plunking down on a public noticeboard and talking about how hot I think a fellow editor's body is.

I'm frankly aghast at the level of vitriol that's being directed against me this afternoon for daring to speak up in response to something I found sexually objectifying and inappropriate. I doubt anything I say is going to convince you and some others that I'm not a horrible, horrible censorship nazi who's out to get your right to speak freely about women's bodies wherever and whenever you please, and I'm just disappointed that so many people seem to think the problem here was my daring to contradict Drmies's right to comment on LoS's body, rather than Drmies making a well-intentioned joke that was nonetheless problematic. I doubt it's going to be worthwhile to continue this conversation given your position.
A fluffernutter (T-C-L) is a sandwich! (talk) 1:27 am, Today (UTC+2)


As I just said above, I'm not upset that you somehow tried to "censor" Drmies; I never used that word, that's not what I said, it's not what I meant. I object to your description of his entire comment as "making jokes about other users' bodies", and your claim that he is saying people "should" praise, or not praise, them.
Ironholds' participation in that thread is related to your position because

• (a) you're friends with someone who has done much worse, and I have yet to see any criticism of that; and
  (b) I suspect the AN thread was brought up on IRC, and that's why he showed up to agree with you so fast.

If you're going to summarize your comments in that IRC log as "quoting a poem", then you're being dishonest, either with yourself, or with me. You obviously know there are several young impressionable editors on that channel, and you were modelling behavior for them that is anathema to what you claim to care about.
Like I said, if someone who was not being hypocritical had brought this up in a reasonable way, I'd have had no objection.
And yes, I suppose refusing to respond is, of course, your prerogative. --Floquenbeam (T-C-L) (talk) 1:47 am, Today (UTC+2)

I offer this for a fourth time: if you want to discuss my actions in more detail, I am happy to do so. Until then, it seems unfair to say "based on my understanding of the situation, which I actively refuse to accept additional data into, X and Y and Z are true". Ironholds (T-C-L) (talk) 1:53 am, Today (UTC+2)
(I would note that I saw the thread because I was browsing AN, not because of anything on IRC. A lot more editors also showed up; to my knowledge there is no Birthday Wishes Cabal, although it'd be a nice project). Ironholds (T-C-L) (talk) 1:54 am, Today (UTC+2)

Floquenbeam took Ironholds up on his offer, to discuss matters on Ironholds's talk-page:

.... If you honestly shared Fluffernutter's concern about attracting and retaining more female editors who might be offended by what Drmies said, wouldn't your first step be to resign your adminship and WMF position?
Floquenbeam (T-C-L) 23:12, 17 July 2013

...

I don't care too much about puerile behavior. I'm not the boss of anyone here, can't control it even if I wanted to, and it's easy to avoid 90% of it by not frequenting IRC channels.
But it gets in my craw when someone who does engage in lots of it decides to lecture someone else doing something at least two orders of magnitude less offensive.

It is prima facie evidence that you care more about the ability to tell others what to do than you care about making WP welcoming to editors. This was, I believe, a major theme in the opposes in RFA's #1-4, it isn't my imagination.
I don't need background in why you felt justified in making some of the comments you've made on IRC; taken in isolation, they're unimportant (and anyone would understand momentary frustration with Kiefer).
But they aren't isolated; taken together, they're a pattern of behavior incompatible with someone who wants to maintain and expand female editing, or any type of editing, really. They're a pattern of behavior incompatible with ''representing'' Wikipedia as a community liason and an admin.
Floquenbeam (T-C-L) 01:50, 18 July 2013


I wasn't planning on justifying the comments, or taking them in isolation: that would imply I thought they were acceptable. I was planning to explain the, as you put it, pattern, and why it is (or more accurately, was) there.
In any case, I've made the offer; you're welcome to take it up, or not to. But I would like to think that, were our positions somehow reversed, I would be willing to at least listen to you.

Either you're right, and my actions are being accurately represented and are completely indefensible, or you're wrong, and you're writing off a long-term contributor without being willing to listen to both sides. In either case, an informed decision can be reached with 5 minutes of your time.
I hope you might find it in you to at least listen, even if you do so skeptically or while firmly believing nothing I say could make a difference to your opinion.
Ironholds (T-C-L) 02:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


Well it's not like I'm going to hat the discussion here; if you have something to say, I'll at least read what you write. But yes, it will be with a skeptical attitude.
By the way, I"m not "writing off" a ''contributor''; I don't think you should be banished, or banned, I think you should no longer represent WP as an admin and a WMF liason.
Floquenbeam (T-C-L) 02:17, 18 July 2013


Okay. Do you have any objection to me emailing you? The Streisand Effect is live and well.
Ironholds (T-C-L) 02:22, 18 July 2013

I'm not thrilled about it, but if there's a legitimate reason to do so, no I don't object. Probably won't get a response today, though.
Floquenbeam (T-C-L) 02:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Malleus wrote: What's "breathtakingly dim" is you and your kind, who seem to labour under the delusion that you're running some kind of correctional institution.

Zoloft wrote:Context and environment is everything. I might have some banter and even some off-the-line comments between friends, but not during the company teleconference, with 100+ people watching.

HRIP7 wrote:Just in case anyone needs the info, LadyofShalott has made 1,200 edits to Drmies' talk page. He has made 400 to hers. They're friends.

When I saw the post, I actually thought it was quite sweet that someone wanted to break the monotony of the usual backstabbing at the administrators' noticeboard with a post about something nice. A bit like bringing a bunch of flowers into an abattoir (with predictable results).

I guess that shows how perceptions can differ. (For what it's worth, my wife felt the same way.)

LadyofShalott wrote:Sorry for editing through the hat, but as the person for whom the birthday wishes were intended, I will take the liberty. Drmies is indeed a good friend of mine, and I appreciate the good wishes. I also understand the concerns that others have raised. I don't want to stir the drama, so I'll end by saying thank you for the good wishes and return you to your regularly scheduled topic-hatting. LadyofShalott 13:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

DanMurphy wrote:... a group of people who apparently learned their social skills in a petri dish.