User talk:Neotarf

How to disable Media Viewer:

• At the top of your page when you are logged in: Preferences > Appearance > Files.

Subpages:

• User:Neotarf/Signpost Arbitration Reports 2013 Index of my arb reports, a regular feature I wrote covering the Arbitration Committee for the Signpost during the 2013 arbitration cycle
• User:Neotarf/Arbitration Committee Elections 2013: Neotarf's picks:Slate for 2013 ArbCom elections
• User:Neotarf/EditCounterOptIn.js: Enables edit counter
• User talk:Neotarf/ArbCom 2013:List of Arbcom cases and requests for 2013
• User talk:Neotarf/Arbitration enforcement:Some notes
• User talk:Neotarf/Other stuff (including link to discussion about "retired" banner)
• User talk:Neotarf/Jimbo civility speech transcript Wikimania civility speech, August 2014

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Your edit

Do you really need to put "Comparisons with mental disorders are not going to be very constructive here." ? Yes passive aggressiveness is a mental disorder but you do not have to elaborate on it and throw it into the spotlight. This I not helping an already tense talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not "throw" it in the spotlight, it was already in the spotlight. It is not uncivil to point out that someone else is being uncivil. And it is really quite an unacceptable thing to say. I know the men's rights group on Reddit talks like that all the time, but that's no excuse for it on Wikipedia. —Neotarf (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It was not in the spotlight though, it is just like someone else calling someone the N word and then going to describe it, it just adds salt into the wounds. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "not in the spotlight"? It is watchlisted by 77 people, and has been viewed 1743 times in the last 30 days. And you want to leave that up unchallenged? —Neotarf (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Curious where you see discussion of mental disorders (or where the personal attack is for that matter) on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Request_for_Arbitration_on_this_Task_force. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Im not the one who brought it up, the personal attack was blowing up the comment of what another editor had put down and throwing it into the spotlight. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So it's okay to make a personal attack, but not okay to object to a personal attack? Do you have a link to the policy for that? —Neotarf (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 has now introduced the "passive aggressive/mental disorder" meme on the arbitration page. So much for keeping things out of spotlights.—Neotarf (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request

Hi Neotarf, I've added you as a party to a case request currently before the Committee by request of an arbitrator. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's very odd, Callanecc. Can you tell me who requested to add me to the case, and why? —Neotarf (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I've asked the arb to comment on the clerks list. Don't think they're active at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I really don't want to have to spend time looking for one of those "ping me if you think of some reason I should be here" statements I can copy-paste. —Neotarf (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It was I who asked Callanecc to add you as a party; the reason is quite simple: I believe your recent conduct bears review as well, alongside that of the other parties. It doesn't mean I think you have done anything sanctionable, because to determine that I'd of course need a case first, but, yes, in my opinion, if we end opening a case – which does not look likely at the moment – you should be a party too. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Salvio What do you mean "bears review"? Why am I being singled out? And no, it looks like the group is not eager to see the Arbcom involved. But I do appreciated your transparency. —Neotarf (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

By "bears review" I meant that I thought your recent behaviour should be examined by ArbCom, along with that of the other parties. So, no, you are not being singled out. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)