Hello, TaylanUB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary Sanctions Notification for Paraphilia and Transgender Issues
Since you have been editing in trans-related articles and opined about the topic ([1], [2]), I thought it might be best to inform you of existing discretionary sanctions surrounding the topic.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This is a continuation of a discussion started at Talk:Transphobia, and is in reply to your last comment of 18:59, 22 February 2017.
You've wandered into an area on Wikipedia that, just as in life, can be fairly contentious. So much so, in fact, that it is one of several topic areas that are under special rules, and I see above that an editor has already advised you of this fact.
You're still fairly new here and I didn't want you to be caught unawares. There are some things to watch out for, here. In one short post about your interests, you have already mentioned trans* issues, separatist lesbianism, and Naziism; and with respect to the exchanges you have had on other forums you have described experiencing "constant and extreme vitriol", having your opinions regarded "on equal grounds with neo-Nazism", and as a result that you are "really exhausted and permanently walking on eggshells". This could be seen by some as a red flag, although the "walking on eggshells" part could be good, if that translates into exercising caution before jumping in.
In any of these special topic areas, you may find that even making statements that seem perfectly innocent to you, such as "make things more neutral" or "they [articles about this topic] are mostly written by people on one side of the debate" or "some of my edits may offend people" may set people's teeth on edge, and you may not get the welcoming response that is due you, especially to someone relatively new.
You might consider working on other areas of interest at the outset, and staying away from areas of conflict in Wikipedia until you get your sea legs in how things work around here. Also, if you do accidentally bump into one of the many policies or guidelines and get some friendly advice about it on your Talk page, please just leave it there and reply however you see fit rather than deleting it; they're trying to help you stay within the guidelines. Once you get more experience with less controversial articles, you'll be better able to tackle the tougher ones.
If you really want to edit on trans* topics, then please consider raising the issue first on the Talk page of the article concerned, rather than editing the article directly, and wait for feedback before continuing. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the friendly welcome. To slightly clarify where I stand: I don't intend to touch any parts of Wikipedia about (neo-)Nazism. My stance on (neo-)Nazism could be said to be that of an average young, politically left-leaning German citizen: I'm no expert on the topic and just pack it in the "generally horrendous ideologies" bag, without further interest in the topic. I mentioned that I'm one of the people who think "alt-right" to be a euphemism for neo-Nazism, which I suppose may be offensive to some people who identify with the alt-right, but either way it's not a topic I see myself touching on Wikipedia in the foreseeable future, and my interactions tend to be with people who we at least agree with on that point.
Regarding radical feminist and trans* topics, as you say, even if I formulate something rather neutrally, it can immediately raise an alarm in the minds of people who hold views extremely opposed to mine. As I want to be civil on Wikipedia, but lack the mental energy and diplomatic skills required to sugar-coat my statements in enough layers of apologetic tone so as to become completely palatable, I try to hold some emotional distance and strike a healthy balance between frankness and politeness. :-) All I expect in return is not to be treated with contempt and derision.
Oh and regarding the editor whose warnings I deleted, that was an instance of really experiencing derisive treatment (bullying, in fact), though stemming from an unrelated political issue. One of our first interactions was having my reasoning called "utter garbage" by them. After providing elaborate reasoning for my edits, they seemed more interested in trying to block my editing through use of a variety of Wikipedia rules rather than providing counter-arguments to my reasoning. (They accused me at least of: conflict of interest, personal attacks, and failing to assume good faith, two of which they have ironically done themselves.) I asked another editor for help with that situation, so hopefully it will be dealt with some way.
You're welcome. Couldn't quite discern whether you are a German citizen, or just holding opinions like one, but either way, if you speak German (or other languages) you might consider using the {{Babel}} template on your user page. For an example, see my user page, or if you want to see a really amazing one, check out this one. Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Collaborative editing, and dealing with opposition
Hi again, TaylanUB. I see that some of your edits are generating some reverts and some Talk page opposition. I hope this is not discouraging you, as I haven't seen you around, lately. It takes a while to get the hang of things around here, and just like in real life, sometimes you'll run into some opposition, which may or may not be justified. If you're interested in talking about any of this, feel free to ping me here; just reply with the text {{ping|Mathglot}} somewhere in your comment. We welcome your contributions, so I hope you'll stick around. 02:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It was 3 edits over a 25 hour span (and I didn't even know about the rule), but go on, let the admins see how much your bias blinds you. *sigh* TaylanUB (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people
Hi Taylan, I think you can develop into a really good and valuable editor, and I don't want to see that path derailed by something like this, but there may be some real risk of that so I wanted to offer some words which I hope will be helpful.
Regarding the image from Imgur that you discussed at Talk:Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people that purports to be a screenshot of a conversation among trans activists about how to manipulate Wikipedia, and your reply there. I just wanted to add these words, which I hope will be useful and of some comfort.
Please don't let this depress you, and please don't become a zombie as you said there. If you want to get angry, get angry at unknown persons of unknown motivation, who may be trying to manipulate you, me, and others interested in the topic by posting unverifiable images that anyone could create in 30 minutes with the proper graphics tool. This could just as easily be a false flag operation created by radical feminists to whoop their supporters into a frenzy of super-vigilance tending towards paranoia and over-compensating with biased editing, as it could be a "real" conversation—whatever that means in this case—but the point is, we just don't know, and it shouldn't influence the way we edit the article, either in one sense, or the other. Does that make sense?
Much of your post dealt with what might or might not be happening off-wiki, and what their opinions and motivations might be. Try not to get sucked into that. The purpose of an article talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, so try to stick to that as much as possible. You can discuss the behavior of editors that you believe may not be adhering to Wikipedia policies on their User talk page, and if that doesn't work, raise a topic at ANI.
With regard to the article in question and other related articles, a calm attitude, an assumption of good faith on the part of other editors who may hold different opinions than you, and adherence to normal Wikipedia standards of verifiability and citation of reliable sources is the best strategy here, and is completely sufficient to keep this article on the right track; what happens off-wiki needn't concern us. Don't give such trolls the satisfaction of rebroadcasting their "conversation" and trumpeting their strategy to inflame even more people than it reached on whatever image board you found it.
If anyone lets themself be manipulated into departing from normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then they will be the loser, and so will the article and Wikipedia generally. I urge you to take a deep breath, assume someone out there is trying to manipulate your emotions, and then go back to discussing at the article talk page per normal discussion standards. If you feel this has affected your ability to edit this article objectively and with a neutral point of view, then I urge you to step back for a bit. This is not some kind of high-stakes war that will be lost if User:TaylanUB is not on the battlements every day at the crack of dawn. Let somebody else deal with it for a while. Sometimes the simple act of disengaging for a bit and working on something else, or even avoiding Wikipedia altogether can be the best strategy.
If you are feeling overwhelmed on how to engage in article content disputes in a calm and effective manner, please check out the Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution. There are some ideas there on what to do and what not to do, and links to other project pages that may be of help. And you can always contact me on my talk page anytime, or ask an admin for help by posting a question here on your Talk page, and adding {{HelpMe}} to your comment. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mathglot, I'm not impressed at all by your suggestion that this might be a "false flag" operation, that somebody is trying to manipulate "my emotions" (rather than Wikipedia articles), or that this topic would somehow make me unable to remain neutral, when the attitude of the people in the screenshots is perfectly congruent with how anti-feminist trans activists have behaved over the years both outside of Wikipedia, and within Wikipedia wherein I've been called a "hateful bigot" and my contributions repeatedly deleted by appealing to wrong applications or interpretations of Wikipedian rules, for nothing else than adding factual and extremely well-covered content regarding a physical assault against a feminist by transgender activists. If you really mean to be helpful, I would expect you to acknowledge the massive bias that is happening in transgender-related Wikipedia articles and try to do something about that. You should prioritize that over being friendly to me if you want to improve Wikipedia, because I alone am not going to be able to counter a mob of biased editors who are keeping trans-related articles under control. For instance, where were you when citations of The Guardian, The Times, and New Statesman were removed and replaced with opinion pieces from "The Queerness" and "PlanetTransgender" to claim that the assault was not really an assault? I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful from a technical point of view, but I'm afraid that so far I don't see you helping to improve Wikipedia's content on these topics much. TaylanUB (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taylan, I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess I was unclear in my point about the image: I'm not making any claim about its provenance one way or another, only that we have no idea what the source of it was, it could be from anybody for any reason, we just don't know. The point is, that it doesn't matter, and it should have exactly zero effect on how we go about improving the article, as it only serves to stir up emotions and encourage people to hunker down and take a battleground mentality onto the article talk pages, instead of calmly discussing how to improve the article and the encyclopedia.
In an atmosphere like that, tempers can flare. Nevertheless, no one has the right to call you or anyone a "hateful bigot", and you don't have to put up with that. This is clearly a personal attack and you can and should call them out for that kind of behavior on their user talk page, citing the fundamental principle of civility. The policy page has a section on how to engage a user who has been uncivil, or to report them for possible sanctions if they won't stop.
At the same time, talking about "a mob of biased editors" simply is not helpful; if that term appeared on an article talk page it would be like throwing a grenade into an area that is already tense (that's one reason it is under discretionary sanctions). Editors may be biased (some would say all editors are), but there is no foul until bias has made its way into an article in the form of content that contravenes one of the policies, such as the core principle of maintaining a neutral point of view.
I know you're aware of that, and have been trying to counter non-neutral content, as you mentioned with respect to someone removing the Guardian and other reliable sources in favor of what may be blogs or other sources of questionable reliability. In that case, you should feel free to revert a bold change like that with a neutrally worded edit summary citing WP:BRD, and inviting them to discuss their desired change on the Talk page. In general, when you have a content dispute with other editors, the goal is to seek consensus on the article talk page, and you can check out WP:Dispute resolution for some methods for how to go about that. Besides being the right way to go about it per the guidelines, it's also more effective way to counter bias than making free-floating comments about it, which may simply inflame others and not lead to improvements in the article. (As to "where was I" when all this was going on: everyone here is a volunteer; I volunteer in numerous topic areas on Wikipedia, including French history, words, World War II, Catalonia, translation, Cuba, Deafness, biographies, Hungary, medieval history, and others. And I even have a life outside Wikipedia, mirabile dictu. There's no obligation to edit, and never any reason to reproach someone for not making an improvement that you think is warranted.)
I hope you consider contributing to the encyclopedia for a while in another topic area of interest to you. You'll gain good experience, which will be useful to you later in improving articles relating to this subject area with less Sturm und Drang than you've been experiencing here. If you decide to stick it out in this topic area, try to remain informed about guidelines and policies regarding editing controversial topics, the etiquette regarding interaction with other editors with respect to dispute resolution, and especially how all of these are affected by editing articles in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on articles relating to radical feminism and transphobia. I saw those screenshots as well and it got me back on Wikipedia.The obvious bias on those and other articles is a real issue. What you're doing is great and I appreciate your edits!
You asked somewhere how to use different quotations with named reference. First, to back up a minute: different quotations often occur on different pages of the same book, so probably you first want to know how to do that, i.e., specify a named reference again with a different page number. There are several solutions, and they work whether or not you are using the (recommended) {{cite}} series of templates. The simplest is to use the {{rp}} template. E.g., {{rp|27–29}} (or, {{rp|page=27–29}}, same thing). A more efficient way is with {{sfn}}, but that's only advisable if the article is already using short footnotes, or if you're the first to add one, as guidelines frown on mixing different styles of referencing.
Back to your question: once you've got the issue of referencing different pages with named refs down, how do you indicate a different quotation? I've struggled with this before, and there's no ideal solution.
You can embed the quotation in a separate ref right after the named reference, so either:
<ref name="Lincoln-1863" /><ref>"Four score and seven years ago..." —A. Lincoln, Gettysburg, Nov. 9, 1863</ref> I'd throw in a little suffix identifier if you do it this way, because you never know with other editors coming in after you, whether the two references might get separated, and if the quotation ends up by itself, somehow, you want someone to be able to rescue it and restore the context, and the suffix helps with that.
Or, name the quotation reference as well: <ref name="Lincoln-1863" /><ref name="Lincoln-1863-quote-Gettysburg">Four score...</ref>. In this method, the <ref> tag carries around the id as metadata, but you don't see it in the footnote itself, whereas in the previous method, you do.)
You can also embed the quotation in an explantory footnote, using {{efn}}: <ref name="Lincoln-1863" />{{Efn|"Four score and seven years ago..." —A. Lincoln, Gettysburg, Nov. 9, 1863}}. When using notes, you need to add a ==Notes== section at the bottom to contain them, just like ==References==, and use the {{Notelist}} template (analogous to {{Reflist}} ) to visualize them.[a]
Hi Mathglot, thanks for the detailed explanation! I wonder whether it would be acceptable to misuse the {{rp}} syntax for non-book citations, like this?[1]: quote I'm unsure though; it clutters the text with the superscripted word "quote" and needs to be hovered over to display (also making it impractical to use a shorter word than "quote" as hovering might get difficult for users with a small font and/or who are clumsy with the mouse). In any case there doesn't seem to be a very clean way to do it. Oh well. Taylan (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably guilty of "misusing" different templates and things already, but it's not advisable to do that. You can always just use a home-brew[hyphen?] solution for some things, though I wouldn't do that for a quotation, which seems to deserve better treatment that a tool-tip pop-up. Also, tool-tips have a maximum length, and a long quote might get truncated. Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Taylan. I just came across your user page and thought I would offer some advice. You are allowed to gather evidence about editors here as long as you use it in a timely manner (see WP:POLEMIC). I see they have been up for nearly a month now and that could reasonably not be seen as timely. I would suggest removing them if you are not going to act upon them sometime very soon. No one can control what you do offline so you could store them there if you still want to keep them. Unless the user page is deleted (which may happen if one of the editors mentioned nominates it) the information will be present in the history. AIRcorn(talk)21:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, I've removed the content for now and also saved it offline. I haven't felt the need to turn it into an official complaint after all, especially since I think some amount of balance has begun to form. Taylan (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid using sources containing inflammatory language like the one you used today. It is not me "losing my shit", but rather requesting the use of sources with a modicum of professionally. The article from the Standard was much better. EvergreenFir(talk)21:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks for the notification. You're right that few sources mention Feminist Current directly, but I think Wikipedia needs an overall better representation of contemporary (radical) feminism, where this page would be one of many within the "web" of such articles. Pages related to gender/trans issues already mention FC (and cite it) in the parts where they represent the radical feminist viewpoint, for instance. Pages about prostitution and related legislation should probably do the same. (I haven't checked yet how well they represent the feminist anti-prostitution position, especially in the contemporary.) Ditto for pornography. Further, I'm planning to add a page about Meghan E. Murphy (founder of FC) who has gotten somewhat prominent in recent years. Julie Bindel and Rachel R. Moran are somewhat connected with her as well, and Rachel Moran definitely needs a page as well, since she's been a leading force in prostitution related legislative changes in Ireland in recent years and had significant media exposure related to that. Taylan (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pages about gender/trans issues shouldn't be citing it. Per the Wikipedia ruling about blogs as citations. Also, are you talking about this Meghan Murphy (notice that the vast majority of those articles which are already low in number aren't about her specifically)? I personally have no interest in coverage of topics, and am just interested in if it is notable or not / well cited. There is a major problem of large sections of Wikipedia pages relating to gender/feminism having sections written from a POV perspective, as well as original research without citations, and part of this is due to the degrading quality of what does and doesn't qualify as notable, as well as what does and doesn't qualify as fringe. ShimonChai (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Trans woman. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Rivertorch, the reason for the edit warring is that other editors insist on reverting to a POV wording which is not supported by citations. Are you a moderator of Wikipedia? If so, I would like to hear the opinion of a moderator who has never touched transgender-related articles. If not, I will simply ignore your warning / ask you to bring a higher authority into play if you insist that I'm the one at fault. Taylan (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. The wording in question is in fact supported by citations in the body of the article, per WP policy.
2. "Being right" is not a justification for edit warring, per WP policy.
3. Holding a FRINGE POV does not provide a requirement that the article represent your POV equally, per FALSEBALANCE. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial is correct. Edit warring is prohibited regardless of who is right or wrong. Repeatedly changing to your preferred wording without first attaining clear consensus is permissible only to revert vandalism, copyright violations, or wording that flagrantly violates the policy dealing with biographical information on living persons. That you weren't aware of this isn't surprising, since you've made few edits and are still new to Wikipedia. What I find concerning is your stated willingness to continue a pattern of violating policies that experienced users have taken the trouble to advise you about.
Wikipedia does not have moderators. It grants various permissions to users, based on verified need and other factors. Users with a greatly expanded set of permissions are called adminstrators. If you'd like to seek an outside opinion from one of them, of course you're welcome to. However, insisting on an opinion from one "who has never touched transgender-related articles" is unlikely to go over well. Administrators have no special authority to resolve content disputes, and the fact that someone has edited on a given topic doesn't disqualify them from giving an impartial opinion or mean they cannot be considered disinterested when it comes to a particular article. RivertorchFIREWATER05:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further note (having checked the page history of Trans woman and seen what transpired while I was offline): You have continued to edit war after being warned, which means you having deliberately violated a policy of which you've been made aware. If I were to report you now, you would be blocked. Since your last edit was to place a maintenance template (which was a totally legitimate action), rather than revert, I will hold off on making that report. But no more reversions, please. Regardless of what you consider NPOV, you must not edit against consensus. If you cannot accept that, you're what we call not here and should find someplace else on the Internet more in line with your requirements. RivertorchFIREWATER05:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rivertorch: Fine, if those are the absolute rules, I'll have to play by them, but it's fairly clear here that rules are being misused to keep hold over an article and prevent fixing the POV wording. (Specifically, a group of biased and like-minded editors reaching a biased consensus among themselves. I'm not claiming this is intentional though.) You say that someone having edited transgender-related articles doesn't disqualify them from having an impartial position, and literally speaking that's of course true, but the pattern I've observed ever since the first time I began editing such articles is that editors behave in biased ways that range from subtle to completely absurd. I've had people flame at me, try to report me for rules I didn't violate, use blatant misinterpretations of Wikipedia rules to revert my edits, keep insisting that reliable sources I provided are not reliable, etc., and most of the time the editors eventually "gave up" because the rules, reliable sources, etc. were ultimately on my side. (Obviously this doesn't apply to all my contributions; many times I realize that I went ahead of myself, and in those cases I'm completely fine with my edits being reverted and don't tend to make a fuss over it.) All in all, this behavioral pattern I keep observing diminishes my trust in the rules, or more accurately, how much I'm able to take it seriously when people claim that I'm in breach of rules in the first place. I'll do my best to abide by the actual rules, but I won't let people use questionable interpretations or applications of rules to essentially bully me out of the effort to make transgender-related articles neutral and fair to all notable viewpoints. I hope you understand. By the way, if you're interested, the history of my user-page contains my past records of biased behavior on part of some editors. Last time it ended up not being necessary to turn those into a "formal complaint" (or whatever), but if I keep facing such issues again and again I'll have to get back to documenting them and bringing them to the attention of administrators. I hope it won't have to reach that point and instead we'll be able to settle on neutral wording in various articles without such mutual pettiness. (Note: This is not a threat to you or any other individual. As I've noted before, the biased behavior belongs to a whole group of editors who all together create this problem probably without even fully realizing.) Taylan (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Please cite the exact passages from the sources which make it clear that trans women are literally women, and are not just referred to as such as a matter of politeness. (Preferrably in the talk page of trans woman and not here though.) Taylan (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meghan Murphy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that it's the first time you have added a maintenance template to an article, as you did at Trans woman. If you add a tag like {{NPOV}}, it's customary to add a |reason= parameter. You could easily have missed this, since it isn't documented on the doc page, but you can add that parameter with every maintenance template, regardless whether it's documented or not. (In case it's not obvious, it's where you record why you placed the template.) In addition, please use the |talk= param to provide a link to where the talk page discussion is now going on. Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mathglot, I indeed looked for the reason attribute in the documentation and left it out as I couldn't find it. I've added the talk page section attribute too now. Taylan (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Meghan Murphy before Canadian Senate.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Meghan Murphy before Canadian Senate.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Feminist Current logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I have noticed that you are passionate about the topics discussed in Trans woman. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. I have also noticed that you have expressed an interest in providing a neutral point of view. That is encouraging!
Here's the thing. I've noticed that things often do not go well for people -- I am definitely including myself here -- who begin their run as a Wikipedia editor with certain tendencies -- tendencies like editing a small group of articles with related topics; focusing on making the articles "right" to the (near) exclusion of any other kind of edit; and making protracted arguments on Talk pages.
In my experience things end in two ways for people like us:
Somebody calls ArbCom on us, and we have to decide whether we want to face sanctions or close our accounts to spare ourselves from the embarrassment. I saw that happen once to someone who fought hard to make major changes to an article without regard for reliability or Wikipedia's guidelines. And it was a little sad because he was obviously passionate about the topics he was interested in, and passionate editors often make the best editors.
We become more interested in making Wikipedia better -- not just by making the articles we care about "right" but also by making articles we do not care as much about right, making the articles we care about conform to Wikipedia guidelines (even when they seem to fall woefully short of letting us tell people what's "right"), or by making the article we care about more readable. I think I started to get Wikipedia sometime after people stopped high-fiving me on my Talk page for fighting the Man and around the time I got a mere "thank you" for doing something about a stray left parenthesis for an article in which the stakes did not seem high for me.
(I suppose it's obvious that I think things have ended the latter way for me, but I'm still learning.)
At this point I suppose I could tell you I could give you some hyperlinked abbreviations, but I imagine you have seen the most important ones already. All I will say regarding them is that I recommend that you give them all a read and remember to ask yourself, "Is this what I am doing?" On a related note, I have found that when I admit I am wrong to someone, they usually respond by toning down the rage (although on at least one occasion I had to do it twice), and when someone admits they are wrong to me, it makes it easier to assume good faith.
And if you want some instant gratification, here is a little something I have learned: When I look at the words listed at Words to Watch and make appropriate deletions from an article that I believe fails NPOV, and even when I delete something like a dozen words, my edits go unchallenged. A caveat: I have tried this on some pretty contentious articles but never one with discretionary sanctions, so if you want to try this, starting small might be best.
I hope we give each other the opportunity to collaborate.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. (You are being notified after you edited the articles Trans man and Trans woman.)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Trans man. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please review WP:IDHT
I find it strange but not surprising that you've raised the issue of anti-male sexism. Do you mean the perception that might be ok today to be biased against men or white men? Men are generally far on the favorable end of sex expectations, being presumed more capable at most jobs and being judged far more on actions than appearance. Compare this to the hurdles that minorities and women face and it does seem a strange thing to belabor. Labeling oneself a men's rights activist (or what have you) is not a good way to build credibility on Wikipedia and, right or wrong, credibility lends toward whether people will agree with your arguments. In this discussion at Talk:Trans woman you have pretty much marked yourself as someone with what will be distasteful opinions to much of the audience. Bringing your own flavor of opposition to traditional sex roles is probably not helpful here. Just some advice. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DIYeditor, you seem to have completely misunderstood me. I'm a proponent of classical/radical feminism, which is like the polar opposite of MRAism. Radical feminism has always acknowledged the damage sexist roles cause on men, despite the fact that the system as whole is built in such a way that men end up in power over women. That is not really a contradiction. This can be seen e.g. in the works of Andrea Dworkin, or bell hooks. If you're interested, here's a very interesting, contemporary article, written by a young man similar to me in personality, and the bell hooks quote it gives is very relevant: https://medium.com/@socjuswiz/masculinity-anime-and-gender-dysphoria-8d682abcec54Taylan (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I mistook you. I'm not very familiar with these areas of politics to be honest. You do seem politicized at any rate which is counter to doing good work on Wikipedia. It's an annoyance as a Wikipedia reader. But truth be told I am glad to hear you are pro-woman. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, a woman is a female human. What you're saying makes as much sense as saying that one "doesn't support black people, only people with the genes for dark skin pigmentation." We all understand that you have a different opinion on this, but it would be great if you didn't come over to my talk page just to further wave your ideology in my face. Taylan (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that this [3] edit summary strikes me as particularly unwise. While WP:GENDERID may not, strictly speaking, apply to edit summaries, there is not really any understandable reason I can think of to misgender a person in a Trans issues article particularly when the source (The Daily Mail) does not do so. Maintaining CIVIL edit summaries is one of the cornerstones of effective communication on WP, as I think we can all agree. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't conscious of it, but to be honest neither do I care. I'll be civil to other editors, but not to a male person who was convicted of physically assaulting a woman for having the "wrong" opinions. Taylan (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While you are not required to be all that civil on your own Talk page - or even factual - I feel bound to point out that we are not, in fact, referring to the actions of a "male person". Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tara REDACTED (born REDACTED) is a transwoman, i.e. a male person. If you're pulling that "transwomen are female" thing on me, sorry, I'm not interested. If you're talking about legal sex under UK law, it seems he doesn't have a GRC so he would be legally male too. Taylan (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your conviction that transwomen are "male persons" is FRINGE in the 21st century in the context of OECD countries.
That's a ludicrous statement. Do you have any source for it? The 2016 PEW poll that was linked a few times in our past discussions clearly indicated that half or so of the US population thinks only birth sex determines whether someone is a woman or a man, so that's one source that counters your claim. As for the GRC, do you have evidence that he has one? Anyway, this is a silly discussion, please tell me if I'm breaking any Wikipedia rules by calling Tara "he"; if not I choose to continue doing it not because I want to piss people off but because it's the correct language in my view. Taylan (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't realize that his born name wasn't officially public. It's all over the web when you google for the case, so I didn't think it would be malicious to mention it, but after closer inspection it only appears on blogs etc. and not any news outlets, so I understand that it's probably not OK to mention it? The full version of "Tara" seems to be on newspapers, so I'm not sure if that needed to be redacted, but anyhow. Taylan (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: Active editors and disruptive editors are not mutually exclusive. Just scroll up through this talk page and look at their contributions: they're clearly only here to push a transphobic agenda. GorillaWarfare(talk)06:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching this talk page for a while so am aware of their position on transgendered issues. Transphobia (according to our article at least) has a pretty broad umbrella and probably covers many editors on here. Their are plenty of editors that could easily be labeled as only being here to push a transgendered agenda too. That is the nature of these articles, well all controversial articles here. They are far from perfect, but to block the main editor providing an opposing viewpoint without any warning does not really help keep these articles neutral. AIRcorn(talk)07:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: That makes about as much sense as saying we should embrace edits saying that women aren't people. It's not neutrality to allow someone to misgender and deadname a person, it's bigotry. And since you've watched this talk page for a while you'll know they've been sufficiently warned about their edits. GorillaWarfare(talk)07:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenBlacker:, I have never violated nor challenged WP:TRANS?. Neither did I ever use the term "the transgender agenda." I have pointed out that editors who could vaguely be considered "pro-transgender" often show group-level bias and significant discomfort with legitimate edits that are in conflict with their ideology, which leads them to attempt to block such edits by (intentionally or unintentionally/unconsciously) misapplying Wikipedia rules. You've just proven this very point by wrongly accusing me of contravening WP:TRANS?, presumably because you see me as "transphobic." Taylan (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I presume Taylan's specific claims about the letter of TRANS? and the phrase "the transgender agenda" to be true, their characterization of "group-level bias" vs. "legitimate edits" is highly misleading. Please observe the main recipient of Taylan's attention, Feminist views on transgender topics, which through systematic attention and attrition has been twisted into a highly misleading COATRACK, particularly with respect to what RS and major feminist organizations have to say on the issue.
I would also draw attention to this exchange [4], [5] that I had with Taylan during the morass of the Trans woman RfC. If there is a better cause for a topic ban from Trans-related issues than Taylan's editing history, I have trouble imagining what that would be. The effect of the current block for Doxxing - and litigation of doxxing cases is well beyond my paygrade - is likely to be exactly the same as said topic ban. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, I think this is bordering on an outright smear/lie to be honest, although I can see that you believe it yourself: "Please observe the main recipient of Taylan's attention, Feminist views on transgender topics, which through systematic attention and attrition has been twisted into a highly misleading COATRACK, particularly with respect to what RS and major feminist organizations have to say on the issue." I think, ironically, this is a perfect representation of the bias that editors like you show on Wikipedia. After all, all of my edits to that page and similar ones have gone through the extreme scrutiny of several editors (sometimes including you), and are supported by RS such as major news outlets (The Guardian, New Statesman, etc.) or highly notable feminist journalists/publications where the views of feminists are the topic (Sarah Ditum, Victoria Smith, Meghan Murphy/Feminist Current, etc.). If you claim that there are strongly contradicting RS (the "major feminist organizations" that you've omitted to name), you could have surely just added them to the page long ago, since you've been active in it.
As for the exchanges you've linked, thank you for doing so; I'm sure others will find it illuminating that you've been antagonistic towards me for a long time now. (Also see above, where Newimpartial appeared on my talk page several times only to continue their arguments with me on here.)
By the way, I have not been blocked for "doxxing". I've referred to the born name of Tara Wolf, which is everywhere on the Internet if you Google for it, not realizing that it's apparently been spread through forums, blogs, and private websites, which might mean that it's not meant to be circulated. I'm not sure if that counts as "doxxing", though I would understand if it technically does as per whatever rule (in which case please direct me to it), but from what I can tell it bears no relation to this block either way. Taylan (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taylan, your "smear/lie" comment is quite unCIVIL; are you sure that's the way you want to play this? As to the COATRACK character of Feminist views on transgender topics in its current form, I would invite any editor simply to read the article as well as its edit history; I would also draw attention to these [6][7] attempts to restore UNDUE, self-published opinions to the article in reversion of what I consider a very evenhanded edit. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, if I'm being targeted with something which I perceive to be a lie/smear, then I will point it out as such. (Though as I said, I can see that you might be believing what you've claimed, so I'm not saying it was an intentional smear.) The intention in doing so is obviously not to be uncivil, but rather to point out something which I consider to be uncivil towards me. The hostility of other editors towards me has reached even the point of outright verbal abuse in the past (thankfully resulting in a swift ban), and you've repeatedly been antagonizing me in the past even on my talk page, so I don't think you can blame me for strongly disapproving of your misleading characterization of my edits here.
The material which you claim to be UNDUE is material published by three prominent radical feminists / supporters (Nikki Craft, John Stoltenberg, Derrick Jensen), offering two opposing view-points, and serves to provide a broader narrative to the reader (see my elaboration on the issue here: [8]).
Your whole complaint rests on the assumption that the current state of the article in question gives undue prominence to radical feminist criticisms of transgender activism. Firstly, the burden of proof lies upon you here; please provide us with the reliable sources that evidence your claim. Secondly, even if your claim were to be true, the solution would be to simply improve the article by adding said sources and relevant material to the article, not to block a user who spent over a year trying to make the article more neutral by making sure that the oppositional positions are well-represented. Taylan (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taylan, I am not saying that it is necessary to block you in order to improve the article. I am pointing out that when you add self-published interventions by random feminists (which you are defending even in your last exit and which you were beginning to EW to protect prior to your block) you invariably do so in support of your particular POV, often at the expense of balance and quality. For example, look at your treatment of Stoltenberg in Feminist views on transgender topics as a COATRACK for his critics. This BATTLEGROUND behaviour - including your repeated refusal to AGF of your critics - has made the article in question demonstrably worse and has contributed to substantial time sinks, such as Talk: Trans woman#Lead section: summary usw. Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, again, those "random feminists" are prominent feminists/allies (Nikki Craft and Derrick Jensen, co-founder of DGR with prominent radfem Lierre Keith) who give the reader a broader narrative regarding Andrea Dworkin's stance towards transgender topics. It is entirely relevant to the topic at hand, which is literally "feminist views on transgender topics." You say that the article has become "demonstrably worse," but can you actually demonstrate us why it got worse? And you say it was a time-sink to challenge the NPOV issues in the lead section of Trans woman, yet the polls indicate that a slight majority of editors prefer the wording I proposed for that page, plus the talk section demonstrates that my proposed wording is better supported by RS. Taylan (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More BATTLEGROUND and IDONTHEARTHAT. Also, please *try* to distinguish reliable sources and DUE commentary from random-sources-that-happen-to-agree-with-your-POV. As to "demonstrably worse", let the admins read the article and judge for themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the circumstances of this block, I don't thunk an indefinite NOTHERE block is warranted. It would fare better and more reflect community consensus were it to be brought to ANI, where other options can be explored. I am also of the opinion that this user is here to edit constructively, although after looking over their edits I think a TBAN from the subject is a possibility, or other sanctions. Vermont (talk) 7:06 am, Today (UTC−4)
After further reading of their comments in discussions, I don’t think this situation warrants anything other than a warning and perhaps 1RR sanctions in this topic. Their comments, although unpopular, bring up legitimate concerns and, at least to Taylan, would benefit the Encyclopedia (they are here with the intent to contribute). In this area of Wikipedia articles, there is a bias, and dissenting viewpoints should be considered and discussed, not indefinitely blocked. Although it is POV pushing, it does not seem to be with the intent to deceive or otherwise detract from the value of the encyclopedia. Thus, I oppose this NOTHERE block, and recommend an ANI notification be posted. Vermont (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Could you please elaborate on the precise reasoning behind the block? I'm asking so I can hopefully write up a suitable appeal for WP:AN or WP:ANI. For instance, what makes you assume that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, i.e. that I'm not trying to improve the encyclopedic quality of the articles I'm working on, such as by assuring their neutrality/balance and fair representation of opposing viewpoints? What behavior of mine do you view as disruptive editing? And how do you define "transphobia" in this situation? Thanks. Taylan (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TaylanUB, you don't get to appeal to AN/ANI. See WP:GAB. A community discussion will take place only if at least one admin believes you should be unblocked. wumbolo^^^09:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, an admin can refer an unblock request to AN whether or not they support unblock. And there's nothing stopping a blocked user asking for their unblock request to be referred to AN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay in responding—I was battling an illness and went inactive for a bit there. I know that's frustrating when you're trying to appeal a block. I blocked because your edits have consistently been trying to mold Wikipedia articles into a transphobic, TERF viewpoint. MOS:GENDERID and WP:BLP don't support your consistent use of incorrect pronouns for trans subjects, and using Wikipedia to dehumanize people is not acceptable. I see your appeal has already been moved to AN, so I'll follow it there. GorillaWarfare(talk)14:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and be well, I'm trying to relax/slow down a bit anyway as this otherwise gives me literal pains in the neck due to muscle tension... For now I'll write up some follow-up questions for the AN entry. Taylan (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3RR wasn't broken. End of story. I'm extremely concerned by the transphobia on Wikipedia, but I'm not seeing any here. Although I only briefly skimmed over this talk page. This was probably a discretionary sanction so I'm wasting my time writing this comment. wumbolo^^^16:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for GorillaWarfare, but as far as I can tell the block was in response to the doxx at 20:08, October 2. It certainly wasn't an EW violation, which Taylan is quite careful to avoid. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare has made the reason for the block relatively clear, which seems to be unrelated to WP:DOX: "disruptive editing [doesn't actually apply as far as I can tell] ... your transphobia is not welcome here [ideologically charged; unclear what rule was broken] ... It's not neutrality to allow someone to misgender and deadname a person, it's bigotry. [ideologically charged; unclear what rule was broken]"
Let's recap what this alleged "bigotry" is: I see transwomen as broadly a subset of men, who like to see themselves as women, based on stereotypes of femininity. Some barely change anything about themselves and only state to be actually women; some wear so-called "women's clothing," get a feminine-deemed haircut, and/or put on makeup that's deemed feminine; most do hormone therapy; and some get genital surgery and possibly other medical procedures. Now, every man is entitled to his subjective beliefs (e.g. "I'm actually a woman"), and be protected against discrimination based on those beliefs; every man is entitled to wear whatever he wants to wear (so long as it doesn't include symbols of hate speech), and be protected against discrimination based on that self-expression; every man has the choice to modify his own body however he likes, and be protected against discrimination based on that choice; and finally, every man who suffers from gender dysphoria is entitled to appropriate medical care, which in my opinion should be provided by a solid publicly-funded health care system.
What a man is not entitled to, is to dictate other people's beliefs. (Neither is a woman of course.) To say that solely by believing transwomen to be a subset of men, I'm committing an act of bigotry, is like saying that I'm committing an act of bigotry by believing that there is no god, by believing that homeopathy has no medical efficacy, by believing that the correct name of "the Linux operating system" is in fact GNU, or by believing that there is no such thing as "reverse racism" or "sexism against men." It has no plausible effect on anyone's well-being, except for the people who seriously cannot stand being confronted with someone with a belief different to theirs. (Fun-fact: that's the literal, dictionary definition of "bigotry": intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.)
Not knowing the details of the alleged doxing (which could be a reason to block) I support giving TaylanUB an opportunity to argue his case at ANI. I also think I support a TBAN from gender related articles but we could see where that discussion goes. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying this to be dramatic but: a topic ban from transgender-related topics would have the same effect as a permanent block, as it would remove all of my faith in Wikipedia's neutrality principle, and I would never contribute to a website which in my view supports a serious form of misogyny. Having said that, I support whatever decision will make this process go faster, because some pro-trans-activism editors had just begun to make changes to Feminist views on transgender topics before GorillaWarfare decided to block me, so I'll potentially have a lot to catch up on when I get unblocked. Taylan (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There being other POV editors doesn't excuse POV editing. At ANI you could explore this concern about other editors. Personally, I think editing controversial articles which one has a deep and partisan interest in should be considered a form of COI, but that would probably be impossible to enforce. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask any administrators reviewing the block to consider this edit [9] and this one [10] - while Taylan may not intend to violate WP policy, they are clearly violating the spirit of both WP:TRANS? and WP:GENDERID with their dogged, SPA insistence that "Trans women are men" and that NPOV requires that WP give equal weight to this fringe POV as to the definitions used by national statistical agencies. I would also note Taylan's pronouncement that they will have a lot to catch up on in face of quite modest changes to the article they apparently OWN. Newimpartial (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the edits you linked? Tara Wolf was convicted of assault by beating ([11][12]), and your statement that "[the] conviction that transwomen are "male persons" is FRINGE in the 21st century in the context of OECD countries" is indeed quite ludicrous. Even the website you linked agrees, by stating that 1. "A person's current gender may differ from the sex a person was assigned at birth (male or female)" and 2. "Sex refers to sex assigned at birth." I.e. a transwoman is of the male sex. (Thank you, Statistics of Canada.)
As for my remark that I'll potentially have a lot to catch up on: you've just perfectly illustrated my point, by showing us that you disregard reliably sourced material, and use a twisted interpretation of other reliable sources to support positions relating to your personal political/philosophical convictions. This is exactly the sort of stuff I'm trying to keep a hold on in transgender-related articles. Before I started working on these articles, such massively biased content was all over them, and editors massively resisted my challenges to bring neutrality as well. Just look at the edit history of the page in question.
You talking about my "dogged, SPA insistence" or using phrasing like "the article they apparently OWN" is clearly a breach of WP:AGF, but who even cares anymore... I don't anyway; I've gotten used to it. Taylan (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By now, Taylan, I expect you to know that the problem with this edit is the misgendering in the edit summary. Perhaps the policy issue would be easier for you to understand if WP were to simply declare that people are to be referred to by their chosen gender rather than their assigned sex, except where there is a specific context requiring the latter. This is the principle underlying TRANS? and GENDERID and also the basis for WP's norms of pronoun use among editors - if you were to reframe your conversations with this in mind perhaps you would not feel the constant need to use what you deem to be "correct language" and the rest of the world sees as misgendering, practices that are at the !east impolite and which can easily be read as transphobic.
Taylan, WP doesn't care about "publicly sourced material" - we care about reliable sources. The fact that you have not yet internalized this distinction, after all this time working on your single issue, suggests that the NOTHERE charge may not be far off the mark after all.
And if you have an explanation for "catching up" on other's edits to your favorite article that does not imply OWNership, I would be happy to AGF and listen to it attentively. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, WP:GENDERID refers to the body of an article. You are once again trying to misapply a Wikipedia rule to claim that I've broken a rule. Also, drop the condescending tone immediately. (Re. "easier for you to understand") My patience towards your repeated hostility is reaching its limits. Your claim that "the rest of the world" agrees with you is, once again, ludicrous. Where you just pulled "publicly sourced material" out of is completely beyond me, since I've provided reliable sources ([13][14]). I have already explained to you why I might need to catch up on the articles in question: it's the bias that you have once again demonstrated just now, by disregarding reliable sources and bending the meanings of Wikipedia rules. Now I would ask you to please refrain from interacting with me any further unless you have something new and important to say. Otherwise I will begin perceiving it as harassment. Thanks. Taylan (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taylan, while I will happily stay away from your Talk page after this on all non-administrative matters, you do not get to dictate the terms of a one-way IBAN. That would be for ANI to decide, and your request does not, I think, diminish any reader's impression of your OWNership sensibilities with respect to the articles you edit.
I certainly did not say that you had broken the letter of GENDERID; I was trying to articulate its underlying spirit (address and refer to people by gender, not assigned sex) in a way you might find easier to accept and apply to your interactions at WP. But by all means, DONTHEARME.
I made an error when I introduced the term "publicly sourced", when your term had been "published"; I apologize. What I was getting at was your apparent inability to distinguish between self-published sources and reliable ones, a confusion which apparently persists to this day.
Finally, "perceiving as harassment" my replies to comments you have made directly to me in an UNBLOCK discussion is, at the least, uncharitable, and seems to me to be decidedly odd. But that again would be for ANI to decide. Newimpartial (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One last time: material published by prominent feminists is RS in the context of presenting feminist views as their views. Please stop your repetitive misinterpretation of Wikipedia rules to paint me in a negative light. Thanks. Taylan (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP uses reliable sources to determine what views are DUE to be represented; the existence of self-published sources does not, in itself, make it relevant to include them. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For everyone talking about GENDERID etc. Let me cite GorillaWarfare herself (source):
In the Gamergate case, the ArbCom did authorize discretionary sanctions for "any gender-related dispute or controversy", if that's what you're asking. The case itself didn't involve much related to MOS:GENDERID specifically. I wasn't an arbitrator during the MoS case and I haven't read through the whole proceeding that closely, but none of the remedies specifically mention MOS:GENDERID. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I wonder which is it: being disruptive or being bigoted? I understand blocking someone for repeatedly referring to someone in a confusing manner, but IMHO we need more community consensus for banning people who misgender because they're bigoted. This has been discussed neither at ANI nor at ArbCom, and this filibustering is hurting everyone. wumbolo^^^21:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In many circumstances if someone or a group of people doesn't want to be called something - "man", "retarded", "black", "Lapplander", whatever, it is the right thing to do to honor their wishes. But I find that this is block is overreaching and it should be determined at ANI if what you are doing is disruptive. You should have a chance to explain yourself and have the behavior evaluated by the community. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does this also apply when the term I use for others is a term I also use for myself? Can it be considered bigotry to say that I believe a person belongs in the same category of human being as myself? Taylan (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe they are worse than you? Do you believe they are less capable of being their preferred gender than other people of that gender? Do you believe they are less capable of being the same gender as their biological sex than other people of that gender? wumbolo^^^19:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo:, if I take the questions literally, I find them too vague to answer (how can a person be "better" than another person--sounds wrong on principle; what does it mean to "be capable of being the female/male gender", as anyone can adopt stereotypes of either gender, etc.) but to stop being pedantic: no, they are just people like you and me, some with unusual belief systems, some with unusual choice in clothing, some with unusual desires of body modification, some suffering from gender dysphoria, etc. (they're far from homogeneous, especially under the newer "trans umbrella"). None of these things make a person "bad", since being unusual is not automatically "bad". (I suppose I'm very unusual myself.) Of course I do believe that their belief system is one rooted partly in sexist stereotypes, and I'm appalled at some of the actions of extremist trans activists (severe verbal abuse of women, defense/celebration of physical assault against women, etc.), but trans people are not the issue. (Sorry for being long-winded again; I found this to be a very important question.) Taylan (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't dictate what situations it applies to. Generally if someone doesn't like their label, and it is not for something bad they have done, we should try to honor that. On Wikipedia I think it extends to gender label preference, but we should clarify that rather than let one or two admins decide it. I don't think the thought police should arrest you in the real world for your beliefs or how your label people, but if you are doing it in public or to specific people it may be very rude. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) TaylanUB, I strongly hope that you don't do that in public. Regardless of what happens here on Wikipedia, it is an extremely rude and condescending thing to do in public. Surely, if you were talking to a random person you would use the preferred name instead of explaining your opinion, and you refer to your trans friend/colleague (this applies to Wikipedia) by their preferred pronoun and/or their name, not their non-preferred pronoun. wumbolo^^^20:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I haven't ever "misgendered" any Wikipedia editor. I tend to use gender-neutral pronouns by habit. What spurred the misgendering debate was me referring to Tara Wolf with male pronouns in an edit summary. It comes naturally to me to call Wolf by male pronouns because the behavior they have shown (physically assaulting a woman for political disagreement) is a very male-pattern behavior in my intuition, plus I've seen several pictures of them, and all in all cannot "read" them as anything but male. I also feel that being forced to call them by female pronouns within my user-space would be incredibly offensive, in light of their misogynist and anti-feminist assault. I could do with gender-neutral pronouns, but if other editors are allowed to refer to them with female pronouns in their user space, that still creates a big asymmetry in treatment of editors. (Note that I'm only talking about user-space, not article bodies. I don't feel the "energy" to dispute MOS:GENDERID, not now anyway.) Such an asymmetry surely doesn't exist in other topics; for instance, a Christian editor could speak of the existence of God as fact in their user-space while an atheist editor could do the exact opposite, and neither would be punished for it, would they?
To quench your curiosity towards my public behavior: I'm a rather sensitive person and treat others sensitively. I wouldn't dare say something strongly gender-critical in proximity of a transgender person who seems sensitive, just like I wouldn't dare say something strongly anti-theist in proximity of a religious person who seems sensitive. Taylan (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taylan, you aren't "gender-critical" - that would imply making a nuanced and sophisticated reading of the ways in which gender is produced. What you are, actually, is a gender-hostile, assigned sex fundamentalist, and the fact that you don't hand the "energy" to dispute GENDERID leaves you in the same position as a young earth creationist that doesn't have the "energy" to dispute our science policies. It's a good thing "energy" is a scarce resource IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taylan, as far as Tara appearing to be male to you, there are some number of biologically female people who have masculine facial features, would that justify calling them men in a public context? Is the right to be called a woman limited to the most feminine people? You can say what you like to your drinking buddy I guess, but intentionally doing it in article space or an edit summary is plain disruptive. Wikipedia is not the place for this. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A female person with masculine facial features is still a female person. Is using sex-based pronouns for a person convicted for assault against a feminist woman (a single time within an edit summary) considered "disruptive", but repeatedly preventing constructive edits to the wiki, accusing an editor of breaking rules when they haven't, or showing constant hostility towards an editor for differing ideologies not considered disruptive? Taylan (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well let me put it this way, what if you failed to have one of the key qualities in someone else's concept of "man" - would it be ok to call you something else? You keep saying it is right to call Tara a man because she assaulted someone - does that make a woman who assaults someone partially a man? Or a man who doesn't assault anyone less of a man? And as I have said before, if you want to bring up the behavior of other editors the place to do it is ANI. Defending yourself in that way here is not going to do much. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if someone were to use a definition of "man" that excludes me, they could say I'm not a man. I don't see anything offensive in that per se, and I don't get to dictate other people's language. What might offend me, for instance, is someone speaking of "proper" men and "lesser" men, insisting that men ought to perform certain stupid rituals of masculinity to "ascend" to status of "proper" man. (That's patriarchy 101.) But if you define "man" as "person between 1,70 and 1,73 cm with green-dyed hair and eleven toes" then by all means, I'm not a man! I did not, by the way, say that Tara Wolf was male because they assaulted someone. I said I find it offensive to be forced to call them by female pronouns, given they are a male person who assaulted a feminist over a political disagreement -- something which to me marks someone as a male supremacist. Despite this I of course obey WP:GENDERID, since it's a rule. But I'd rather have that rule not apply to user space. Taylan (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taylan, if you identify as "scum", that doesn't entitle you to refer to anyone else as "scum" that happens to fit your personal definition of "scum". The fact that you fit in the same identity in which you are placing others has literally no bearing on the appropriateness of labelling them as "scum". Or men, or fairies, or what have you. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your fellow editors are trans women so by proclaiming that trans women are men, you are violating WP:CIVIL. And thereby proving that your block is necessary to minimize disruption. --ChiveFungi (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that transwomen are literally women and transmen are literally men is one that is deeply offensive to me and quite literally several hundreds of feminists I have constant correspondence with through social media, as well as feminist women I know in real life such as my mother (liked to visit Michfest when she was in the US, is appalled that they bullied it until it shut down) and my aunt (member of Terre des Femmes, active anti-prostitution feminist). I'm making this a little personal so people realize that I'm not part of some niche radfem corner of the Internet... Whole feminist organizations/groupings like Woman's Place UK, Fair Play For Women, and the Pussy Church of Modern Witchcraft have been established in recent years/months purely to challenge the notion of gender self-identification on the grounds that it's a deeply sexist ideology. The major feminist journalistic website Feminist Current frequently publishes articles about the topic. Feminist scholars and authors have elaborated on the topic in many past writings dating back to the 80s. Last year a woman has been physically assaulted by a transgender activist for her gender-abolitionist ideology... I would say that I'm being perfectly civil in not going to other editors' talk pages and antagonizing them for saying that transwomen are women, since they are absolutely entitled to their opinion, and to use the language they desire in their personal writing. I do consider it WP:UNCIVIL of other editors to enter my talk page and antagonize me because they have a deep ideological disagreement with me. If Wikipedia establishes a rule saying that editors may not use e.g. male pronouns for transwomen in their user space, then Wikipedia would effectively be putting in place a rule that robs a large subset of feminists from their free speech within the platform, forcing them to use language that is directly opposed to their feminism. I think that would be an anti-feminist disaster, and we all know that Wikipedia is already not great in gender equity among editors. Many of the feminists I know already don't wish to touch Wikipedia editorship with a ten foot pole because of the behavior of trans-activist editors towards gender-abolitionist feminists on here. I'd think I'm a rare breed in being so thick-skinned (probably related to gendered upbringing!), and now people are trying to remove me from the website; make of that what you will. Taylan (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Three observations:
1. I, for one, am not trying to remove Taylan from WP. But all editors here must be prepared to abide by CIVIL; per the code of conduct WP does not "tolerate discrimination on the basis of ... gender". It seems to me that Taylan has just advertised an attention not to abide by this policy, and unless that changes, should be seen as NOTHERE IMO.
2. If "gender abolitionism" means the denial that gender exists so that there is only (assigned) sex, this is by definition a FRINGE position in the context of 50 years of feminist scholarship and (overlapping but not conterminous) social science. While WP must of course document such views when RS show they are relevant, the principles WP articulates in TRANS?, GENDERID and in its internal norms for pronoun use are diametrically opposed to "gender abolotionist" values in this sense. Therefore anyone holding these values must set them aside for purposes of practical work on WP, just as flat earthers, antisemites, misogynists, and scientific racists must do. Those unable to maintain CIVIL discourse in this sense are simply not welcome to participate in the relevant discussions and edits.
3. The personal factors that Taylan cites above provide excellent reasons, in conjunction with their behaviour, for at least a topic ban from gender-related articles, since it seems clear that they are unable to establish the emotional distance necessary to participate constructively in these topics. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're plain wrong. Discrimination is unequal treatment. TaylanUB is calling both cis men and trans women "men". That's the opposite of discrimination. If we apply definition of discrimination to cis men and cis women, we end up blocking everyone who refers to men as "he" and women as "she", because "he" and "she" are different words hence unequal treatment, therefore discrimination. wumbolo^^^20:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, Wumbolo. Cis men and Trans men are both equally "men" as a gender, per the source I cited earlier and also per WP policy, while Cis women and Trans women are women. Per CIVIL and its corollaries, we use the pronouns people prefer, which respect their gender identities. Addressing some people with gender-appropriate pronouns and others with inappropriate pronouns based on a subjective sense of "correctness" is neither civil nor tolerated here. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still not convinced. He's calling some men appropriately, and some women appropriately. No discrimination there. He's calling some men inappropriately, and some women inappropriately. I don't see any difference in treating men and treating women ergo no discrimination based on gender. wumbolo^^^22:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, as in the sources I just cited, "gender" subsumes "gender expression". If you're discriminating based on gender expression, ipso facto you're discriminating by gender. Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taylun you are not doing yourself any favours with your approach to this unblock request. An Admin will have to come along and read all this and it would be better to keep it as simple as possible. You should not be engaging with the editors you are in dispute with in your unblock request and the excessive bolding does not look good. I know it is probably stressful, but you are in a precarious position at the moment. If you want to edit here you will have to abide by community norms, which means referring to individuals by their preferred gender. I personally don't see any issue with doing this and in the general scheme of things this should be a minor concession to make. You also have to work better with editors who you have fundamental disagreements with and not be so tendentious with your approach. At the end of the day editing here is quite simple, you bring sources to the table and then use them to improve the article. The talk page is generally for discussing how much of that source should be incorporated (which can be none) and other ways to improve the article. Although not easy, articles like Feminist views on transgender topics are particularity simple as it is just a case of presenting the different viewpoints. There is no need to try and prove which one is right, which seems to be where most of the discussion on the talk page heads. This is an emotional topic for many people and it is important that everyone does there best to stay focused on the content. I don't think you are NOTHERE, and although I probably disagree with many of your positions you do provide a point of difference and are knowledgeable in those positions. Saying that there are other issues with your replies here and overall editing style that could very well justify a block so that must change and it needs to be addressed in any unblock request. AIRcorn(talk)23:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to de-escalate, but I think you're missing a lot of context. Ever since I started working on these topics, I had unquestionably reliable sources I offered being flat-out denied as not-RS (major news outlets like The Guardian, New Statesman, etc., and when the topic was the views of radical feminists, the writings of e.g. Sarah Ditum and Meghan Murphy or Feminist Current articles), additions I made being removed as UNDUE even though they had major news coverage (e.g. in aforementioned outlets), even had people swap out the reliable sources I offered with dubious, highly ideologically charged websites like The Queerness or PlanetTransgender. At times it took months of bickering around until there was finally consensus on something that was 99% the same as my original addition, because it was after all clearly supported by RS... You can see my documentation of such behavior in my user page. When I've been blunt to others in response to this treatment of me (I wouldn't have managed it otherwise), I've been called uncivil and in violation of AGF countless times, though people were being uncivil to me and assuming nefarious purposes at every turn. In a particularly horrible case, someone wrote flat-out verbal abuse on my talk page (documented in my user page). And in the last weeks/months, Newimpartial has been less than pleasant, constantly bombarding me (and Userwoman) with unsourced claims (sometimes as ludicrous as "it's a FRINGE position that transwomen are male"), ignoring provided reliable sources, claiming that unquestionably reliable sources are not RS, claiming to have reliable sources but not providing them, constantly accusing me of breaking rules or ignoring (non-existent) reliable sources, and so on and so forth. It's probably difficult to understand for a third party, but from my position, it feels like I'm under constant siege by trans-activist editors and need three layers of spiritual dissociation to continue my efforts on Wikipedia. And despite all of this I have never slurred someone, ignored RS I had been served, insisted to use non-RS after being pointed out it's non-RS, or anything of the sort. I want the articles I work on to present a neutral, impartial representation of facts, because I'm convinced that neutral, impartial facts are in line with my personal convictions anyway. And I'm generally at least as civil to others as they are to me. (Prove me wrong.) Taylan (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taylan, if this [15] was your idea of a reliable source as to whether Tara should be identified as male or female, then you clearly don't understand the CONTEXT in which reliability decisions are made on WP. And if this and this represent your idea of "not slurring" anyone (in response to this and this), then I would suggest you might want to recalibrate a bit.
As to never ignoring a source, in this edit you replied to my RS citation of a definition of gender as if the discussion had concerned instead assigned sex; whatever that was intended to do, I regard it as a good deal more problematic than simply ignoring a RS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear from Taylan's continued vocal bigotry even in the midst of appealing a ban [16] that they have no interest in editing trans-related topics in an impartial manner, nor even being WP:CIVIL to their fellow editors (some of whom are trans). Taylan has been very rude indeed to us, at all available opportunities. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are evidently perceiving a feminist political position as bigotry, because of your deep anti-feminism. I vehemently deny this accusation of "bigotry", on which I've elaborated in depth above. Taylan (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EvergreenFir, do I need to remind everyone that you were one of the first people here to repeatedly prevent my edits representing feminist viewpoints, because they didn't suit your world-view? It's fairly well-documented in my user page, you know. Taylan (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taylan, you do recognize that there are "feminist viewpoints" on both sides of these disputes, yes? Actually, if you don't, that might help me explain (but not excuse) some of your disruptive edits. But white knight or not, please don't NOTRUESCOTSMAN feminism. Actual feminism is a much larger tent. Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notice:Aircorn raised a very important point above, which is that every wall of text I enter here will cause further headache to the admin(s) who will have the pleasure (sorry) to look over this case. I feel that my past behavior (and that of other editors), and what I've written here up so far, is actually all that needs to be seen/said; anything further will probably be mostly repetition and steer more and more towards "frustrated rant." As such, I'll take a short break from Wikipedia and only peek in once in a while to see if there's an important question targeted at me, or some progress in the unblocking appeal. Thanks a lot in advance to the admin(s) who will overlook this (regardless of the outcome), and sincere apologies for my tendency to be quite long-winded during disputes. Taylan (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not going to comment on the appropriateness of the block. But as for being anti-trans, what is trans or anti-trans is debated within the transgender community as well. Some, like Blaire White, only believe in two genders and do not view genderqueer (non-binary) people as transgender. Blaire White has some opinions that align with TaylanUB's, and GorillaWarfare watches and edits the Blaire White article. So she is aware of transgender people like Blaire White. There has also been substantial debate at Talk:Transgender and Talk:Transsexual (check the archives) among transgender people and non-transgender people about what is or is not transgender, such as whether or not cross-dressers fit the definition. Some transgender people actually do believe in Blanchard's typology. I've talked to a number of trans women who have stated that they are sexually aroused by the idea of being women and therefore believe in Blanchard's typology. Some of them are not sure that they should be classified as trans women. I'm familiar with diverse opinions from transgender people, ranging from those like Julia Serano's to Caitlyn Jenner's, to Blaire White's. I'm also familiar with a range of feminist views on transgender issues. To reiterate: They aren't all the same. It's just that some are more in line with what the transgender community or feminist community generally thinks and some groups in the transgender or feminist community are louder than others. I have seen WP:Advocacy from trans and non-trans editors on transgender issues. In the case of trans editors or editors considering trans issues, the advocacy has, for example, taken place at our anatomy/biology articles, where some editors have insisted on using the word "people" (or similar) when a topic is overwhelmingly about males/men or females/women. We can see that here, here, and here (for just a few examples). As seen here, fellow medical editors like WhatamIdoing have witnessed these types of suggestions as well. Obviously, except for the instances where sex/gender does not need to be mentioned, we are going to mention sex/gender with regard to anatomy. To state that "people" have a penis is not as accurate as stating that men have a penis or that it is an organ that males/men typically have. Not everyone has a penis. And, yes, we know that trans women and non-binary people exist. But the overwhelming majority of reliable sources classify the penis as belonging to males or as a male sex organ. At the Phimosis article, we have currently managed to forgo mentioning "males," "men" and "boys" unless needed, but we can't do all or most of our articles like that. We should be following what the literature states with WP:Due weight. No editor should be letting advocacy get in the way of their editing here. And, for the record, WP:TRANS? is an essay (not a policy or guideline).
That is all that I will state on this matter, except that I do think that you, TaylanUB, need to stop arguing here on your talk page with those you've been in dispute with. Too long; didn't read (also see WP:Too long; didn't read) is real, and administrators are likely to view you as combative and as having been disruptive. This is even more the case because GorillaWarfare is such a respected administrator. You can ask someone like Aircorn, Wumbolo, Vermont or DIYeditor to post a review of your block at WP:AN or WP:ANI, and to note what you would like to be relayed there. You could ask to be unblocked just to make your case there at WP:AN or WP:ANI; you will not be allowed to edit articles while unblocked if your request to reply there directly is granted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this helpful comment. I thought the block was frivolous and would probably be undone by another admin soon, but if GorillaWarfare is a highly respected admin then maybe my assumption was wrong. I will ask for clarification on the exact reasoning behind the ban so I can make a better appeal at AN/ANI. Taylan (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Reborn: you're moving the goalposts. TaylanUB is a TERF, and Blaire White hates TERFs. You won't find any transgender TERF, because they don't exist. And they don't exist because TERFs are intrinsically anti-trans. You're right that trans people have diverse opinions, but they all believe that they are not the gender they were born. wumbolo^^^17:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, please don't use "TERF" to refer to people, as it's a term used to dehumanize.
I know many "transgender" people (some explicitly prefer "transsexual") who trans activists call "TERF". The most prominent might be Miranda Yardley, who even took part in government hearings regarding gender self-identification (press me to search for a link if you're doubting me). Others include Debbie Hayton (see also their Twitter), Kristina Harrison (also on Twitter), Fionne Orlander, TranimeGirl, and a few others I occasionally see on Twitter. Your notion of "TERF" seems to be based on the typical myths and misrepresentations that roam around the web. I think it's quite literally a witch hunt, though thankfully with less violence. Taylan (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wumbolo, as someone quite familiar with Blaire White's views, many views that many transgender people strongly oppose, views that are usually not considered typical views of transgender people, I'm certain that I'm not moving the goalposts at all. Anyone is free to visit Blaire White's YouTube channel or read up on her views and see what I mean. As for the term TERF, there are a number of transgender people who disagree with and do not use that term. One can be limited in their knowledge of views that transgender people have, or they can be aware of the diverse opinions; I'm the latter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, by "but they all believe that they are not the gender they were born," how is one born a gender? I take it that you are using the term gender broadly, rather than employing the sex and gender distinction. People are assigned a gender, the socially-constructed "boy" or "girl." Transgender people commonly state that they weren't born as the gender they were assigned. Of course, there's also the "not born as the sex they were assigned" debate with regard to the belief in male and female brains in addition to male and female bodies. We know that gender can also refer to gender identity, which a lot of sources state is biological in part, although what is a boy or what is a girl is still socially constructed. I also take it that you are using the term transgender strictly, since, when used broadly, there are many transgender people who don't believe they were born in the wrong body. Like I stated, Blaire White uses the term strictly. Even when the term is used strictly, there are some who state that they did not suffer from, or have, gender dysphoria, which leads to many people questioning if those people can be accurately categorized as transgender (especially in the case of never having had gender dysphoria). Some trans women who state that they are sexually aroused by the idea of being women state that they never felt like they were born in the wrong body. On a different note, there are also cases like the LGBT rights in Iran cases where people are pressured to undergo a sex reassignment surgery and identify as women if they want to express their sexual orientation. Anyway, I'm largely not interested in gender politics on Wikipedia, unless I feel I need to be, which is why I've stayed out of this drama at Talk:Trans woman. I'll leave you all to that drama. I don't have time for all that debating. I've debated enough matters on Wikipedia for years and years, and I have more than enough contentious matters to worry about on this site. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I fail to see how the Sex and gender distinction article is not clear about distinguishing between anatomical sex and social or psychological matters. And you didn't know transgender could refer to people who don't have gender dysphoria? Is the noted broadness of the term in our very own Transgender article not enlightening enough for you? Is the American Psychiatric Association not enlightening enough? Anyway, I'm sure you have a search engine to study these matters on your own. I'm not going to get into much more here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the article Transgender and APA either do not make it clear, or do not support your statements. While I'm willing to look into it when I have more time, I thought that you would have at least some source available to support your facts. wumbolo^^^12:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that all genderqueer (non-binary) people and cross-dressers, who (going by numerous reliable sources) fall under the umbrella term transgender, have gender dysphoria? And/or you can't be bothered to see that this is not case? Gotcha. And you think that the American Psychiatric Association, which also talks about genderqueer people in the source I provided above, stating "not all transgender people suffer from gender dysphoria and that distinction is important to keep in mind. Gender dysphoria and/or coming out as transgender can occur at any age" is not the American Psychiatric Association stating that some transgender people don't have gender dysphoria? This is because the source says "suffer from" and "and/or" instead of "not all transgender people have gender dysphoria"? And you'd rather not look for material on this yourself at this point in time; you want me to point to sources, like this 2016 "Surgical Management of the Transgender Patient" one, from Elsevier Health Sciences, which states, "Not all transgender persons have gender dysphoria. For those who do, medical and surgical therapy can play a pivotal role in relieving their psychological discomfort."? Or maybe a medical source that could be stated to be for laypeople, in part anyway, such as this 2018 Medscape source, which states, "Not all transgender people experience dysphoria."? Or maybe an LGBT health program source, like this 2018 National LGBT Health Education Center source, which states, "Many, but not all transgender people experience gender dysphoria"? Or maybe a guide one like this 2017 one, from Jessica Kingsley Publishers, which states, "Some trans people don't have any dysphoria, some have a little, some have it occasionally and some have a lot"? Or maybe a media source, like this 2017 Slate magazine source, which states, "Not all transgender people experience gender dysphoria because not everyone feels pressured or conflicted over expressing their gender identity, and transitioning medically and/or socially usually relieves or significantly reduces gender dysphoria for those who do."? Or this 2018 Bustle one, which states, " 'incongruence' is generally referred to by the transgender community as gender dysphoria, which can manifest as a severe discomfort with one's body and how it's perceived and gendered by other people. Not all transgender people experience gender dysphoria."? Yeah, okay, I got it. And something like the "Mental healthcare" section of the Transgender article noting that gender dysphoria is not necessarily permanent and is often resolved through therapy or transitioning is something else you probably want a source for other than what Slate states? Got it. The aforementioned Elsevier Health Sciences source takes care of that. Take note that those transgender people who had gender dysphoria are still transgender. Also take note that I'm not speaking of the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. I'm speaking of how far the term transgender can extend. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've met non-binary people who think all non-binary people are transgendered (as they are not the gender they were born with) especially genderfluid people or Androgynous non-binaries. I've also met non-binary people who don't consider themselves transgendered, especially agendered people. I've met some people with actual gender dysphoria (usually some combination of feeling like they are trans but having a very deeply rooted religious opposition to that). But most non-binary people I've met don't seem to have gender dysphoria. So it all depends. -Obsidi (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any specific receipts/examples regarding the claim that I'm trying to make Wikipedia articles unbalanced? For instance, how big of a role do my edits regarding the incident at Speaker's Corner relate to this, if any? (Or is your claim meant very broadly, such that citing individual edits or even topics would not be useful?) As for my alleged "consistent use of incorrect pronouns for trans subjects," can you please confirm that this has actually happened more than a single time, which was within an edit summary? As far as I remember, the only time I used wrong pronouns as per MOS:GENDERID for a trans person was in an edit summary in which I referred to Tara Wolf with male pronouns. Can you clarify to what degree MOS:GENDERID or the whole Manual of Style applies to edit summaries? (My assumption up so far was that the MOS applies only to article bodies.) Regarding "dehumanizing people," could you show any examples in which you've perceived me as doing this?
(end first comment)
(start second comment)
For anyone who considers a topic ban: please reconsider. There is fairly good evidence that there is a repeated pattern of bias in transgender related articles, in favor of the positions of transgender activists. For instance, I recently restored some documentation on my user page of repeated, persistent attempts to remove from the page Feminist views on transgender topics a very well-cited case, with significant media representation, of a transgender activist having assaulted a feminist in a public gathering. Further, shortly before my block some editors started edit warring with me with the claim that what happened was not an assault, even though reliable sources confirm that the case was one of assault and that the assailant was eventually convicted for "assault by beating". (References: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]) Currently the page Feminist views on transgender topics once again calls the incident an "altercation" rather than an "assault". My behavior which others have called "disruptive" or "tendentious" has often been based on this repeated pattern of bias that I was in fact struggling against. This struggle is made especially difficult as multiple editors are involved in supporting the positions of transgender activists.
A second case study: the page trans woman starts by defining a transwoman as "a woman who was assigned male at birth." I've proposed to change this to "a person who was assigned male at birth but who identifies as a woman." The proposed wording is neutral, avoids contradicting the first sentence of the article woman as well as common English dictionaries, and is better supported by reliable sources as you can see on the talk page. In the RfC poll you can see on the talk page, it won the majority of votes with a small margin. Despite this, my past attempts at changing the article to use that wording have been strictly opposed and my behavior called disruptive. The ordeal ended in the massive RfC debate you see.
I would conclude that my behavior is perceived as disruptive because I insist on neutrality, balance, and objectivity, in areas that make some editors uncomfortable due to our deep differences in ideology. I expressly do not want Wikipedia to have an unbalanced presentation of the subject matter, even in favor of the ideologies I support, because that would undermine the credibility of Wikipedia's "take" on the matter. There are enough platforms out there for a one-sided representation, and I use them when I feel the need; the point of Wikipedia as I understand it is that people can get a hopefully completely impartial representation of the subject matter and make up their own minds.
I'd also like to add the following point-by-point response to EvergreenFir. This might be somewhat long-winded again, but I think it's important, especially since the AN entry is fresh and those reading it might not know any of the surrounding context.
(start comment)
Finding it "offensive" to use feminine pronouns for a trans woman.
Indeed, I personally find gender identity ideology offensive, because it reduces "woman" and "man" to sexist stereotypes in my view. I have personally been severely hurt by the collateral damage sex stereotypes cause men, so this is personal to me too. I am, I believe, entitled to this opinion. I believe I did not try to bring undue representation of this opinion into Wikipedia articles.
Claiming masculine pronouns are appropriate for transgender women who have "a very male-pattern behavior" or is otherwise not a problem.
I think this is a misrepresentation of what I've said. I said that I personally find it very difficult to use female pronouns for Tara Wolf, since they as a male-bodied person have committed something I see as supporting male supremacy (or "patriarchy"): the use of physical assault against a politically dissenting female-bodied person. I did not comment on the appropriateness of using male pronouns for transwomen in general, especially not within Wikipedia articles. For instance I don't think I ever breached MOS:GENDERID, unless it applies to edit summaries, which if it does I was not aware of at the time and did once.
Accusing bad faith of other editors.
I have been called a POV-pusher, disruptive, tendentious, a bigot, a transphobe, and worse, for insisting on bringing well-sourced material into Wikipedia with due representation. (The most extreme case is documented in my user page. Thank you EvergreenFir for having dealt with the abusive person back then.) I honestly have to admit that it has become very difficult for me to genuinely assume good faith in all instances, especially when I'm being egged on.
Beating a dead horse about trans men/woman are not actually men/women.
Abusing an equine carcass claiming that opinion polls and dictionaries should dictate Wikipedia guidelines and policy, namely that because Pew found most people don't view trans women as "women", neither should we.
As stated above and explained in the links you provided, I indeed find gender identity ideology offensive, and I believe I'm entitled to this opinion. Leaving my opinion aside, the statement that transwomen are women is not one supported by reliable sources, as was revealed in the discussion on the talk page of trans woman. Rather, it represents a dispute and a political position as evidenced by the Pew poll you mention. (Here: [25]) Are you implying that Wikipedia should take a side on this dispute? Note that I'm not disputing MOS:GENDERID, which is about pronoun use.
BLP violations
I sincerely don't understand how what you linked falls under BLP violations, especially since it was an expression of personal opinion on a talk page. Regarding whether it was wrong to use male pronouns for Tara Wolf in an edit summary, I've already asked for clarification.
Opining on the dangers of trans women to cis women
I feel that this is a particularly unfair and pernicious misrepresentation of what I've said. I have never said, neither on Wikipedia nor anywhere else on the Internet nor in real life, that I see transgender people or transwomen as a particular danger to anyone. What I do occasionally point out is that women have no reason to believe, without evidence, that a specific subset of male-bodied people should be intrinsically more trustworthy than the general population of male-bodied people, especially when the only unifying aspect of said subset is a verbal declaration that they make about themselves. (That is, the expression "I'm a woman/transwoman". In the discussion you link I've provided some citations to back the claim that this declaration is the sole requirement for being considered a transwoman nowadays.) And please remember that I'm a male-bodied person myself, lest somebody start thinking that I'm discriminating against male-bodied people in general.
By the way, I'd like to point out that as mentioned here, there are several transgender/transsexual individuals (some prefer "transsexual") who are on the "same side" in this debate as me. For anyone who continues to think that I'm standing for some sort of hateful ideology, I can only plead to you to look into organizations such as Woman's Place UK or Fair Play for Women. I'm especially a fan of Kathleen Stock for her eloquent speaking.
I normally try to avoid kicking someone when they’re down, so sorry for that, but your userpage was in violation of WP:POLEMIC, which reads in part:”Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.” I have therefore severely trimmed it. If and when you are unblocked feel free to recreate it without making a list of the perceived flaws of others. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it's understandable. I had actually removed it a while ago, but then restored it a month or two ago as things started to get bad again. But then I didn't have time to update/use it, so your decision is understandable. Taylan (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I've been active for more than a year on Wikipedia, excruciatingly trying to make some articles more neutral.
My edits were disputed/reverted countless times for illegitimate reasons, usually ending up in the article after long discussions. I've been called names and harassed, yet didn't give back any of that treatment in return. I've documented some of this biased/hostile behavior I've faced in my user page, and it's not nearly all of it: User:TaylanUB
Your block, especially without prior warning, makes absolutely no sense to me, and seems purely ideological.
My edits on Wikipedia represent a "transphobic agenda" as much as the edits of other editors represent a "misogynist agenda." Just because you personally take a side on this dispute does not mean you can abuse your administrative powers to force one perspective on Wikipedia or block editors who try hard to bring balance.
Please remove the ban. Thanks.
Decline reason:
You made this unblock request at 11:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC) in an earlier section on this talk page. Since that time, there has been a lot of activity on this page, so I am moving the request to a new section to preserve chronology. (Unblock requests are usually handled more quickly than this.)[reply]
The consensus of that discussion, as determined in Beeblebrox's close, is that the block should remain in place. Your unblock request is therefore declined. AGK ■19:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You had said that a topic ban from transgender-related topics would have the same effect as a permanent block[26]. And so, Beeblebrox considered a topic ban instead of the block to be a moot point. I would suggest, if you wish to continue editing at WP, that you reconsider this and ask for a topic ban instead of the block. I would suggest reading WP:Advocacy, WP:Civil POV pushing. There are other editors who can edit gender related topics neutrally while you take a break for a little while. Then go edit other topics and show people you are not focused only on this POV but wish to help build a better encyclopedia generally, and then people may trust you more to edit without POV pushing in this topic area. Just a suggestion from a person who advocated against your block. -Obsidi (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I don't wish to contribute to a website that promotes misogyny. Until Wikipedia sorts this problem out, I have no motivation to contribute. Taylan (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think GorillaWarfare - who blocked you - "promotes misogyny" then I would suggest that you haven't been observing your environment very carefully. Newimpartial (talk)
Of course she does. It doesn't have to be intentional. Since I was blocked, the paragraph about Tara Wolf's very well-documented physical assault was rephrased to paint it as an "altercation" and later even a mere "allegation". Further, the paragraph about the Degenderettes exhibition that glorified violence against women was removed entirely. To obscure, hide, minimize, or justify male violence against women is misogyny 101. I know you're no fan of facts since they offend you, but hey, you can always stop dropping by on my talk page. Taylan (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Taylan, still spreading the TERF ideology even after being banned. I sincerely hope you realize that you've been fed lies by the hate groups you follow (such as Woman's Place UK and Fair Play for Women) and in so doing become a better, less hateful person. Goodbye! --ChiveFungi (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taylan, the fact that you would impugn one of the most visible feminists on Wikipedia with the label of "misogyny" is beyond ironic, regardless of your personal gender. And the fact that you are unable to recognize a point of view opposed to your own - say, the perspective that sees transmisogyny as a form of misogyny and misgendering of transwomwn as not only offensive but anti-feminist - and treat the human beings holding that position with basic forms of respect and civility, rather than immediately casting mud and labels at them - shows that you are unready to participate in the big tent that is feminism on Wikipedia. And if you wanted a say in the editing of the articles you mention, you should have played nice with others IMO. It is no longer any of your business. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No amount of past feminist credentials are a justification for defending violence against women, Newimpartial. Defending violence against women is always misogyny. It's incredibly ironic that you would accuse me of all people of being unable to recognize an opposing point of view, but if you can't already see why that is ironic then there's no point in me trying to point it out to you I suppose. Let's just say, it was me who was blocked for having the "wrong" feminist opinions. Oh and a tip: respect and civility doesn't include allowing others to force their ideology down one's throat; that's just letting other people be uncivil to you. If you expect others to take up your personal ideologies as a form of civility towards you, you won't have a very pleasant experience in society at large. Meanwhile, have fun looking for a single case in which I ever slurred another editor or even just responded with abrasive sarcasm, despite it constantly being done to me. (Actually, you might just be able to find one or two cases from the past 20 months. Wanna dig?)
Anyhow, a shitstorm seems to be now brewing over this whole catastrophe among several hundreds of feminists I know off-wiki, since trans activists went as far as trying to obscure and justify actual violence against a woman in their edits of Feminist views on transgender topics, so let's see where else this goes. Taylan (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Taylan, I don't see how anything has gone down your throat, on-wiki or off, but perhaps I wasn't looking carefully. I live in a country (Canada) where gender expression is a constitutionally-protected human right, so the only "personal ideology" I can see is your assigned sex fundamentalism, which is not protected speech where I live.
Which gets back to my point that you were not blocked for your opinions, you were blocked for how you expressed them: for misgendering people in edit summaries and then defending your right to do so (instead of apologizing), for edit warring (always below 3RR, but still edit-warring) and then when called on it insisting that the consensus was wrong and you were right, for constantly ignoring and misrepresenting sources while resorting to (non-acceptable) dictionaries and polls to support your personal POV. You were banned for disruptive behaviour, Taylan, not for "thought crime". As to your "never slurring other editors", this edit from earlier this month is only one recent example.
As far as "justifying violence against women" is concerned, I think your famous slippery slope indictment of trans women as potential sex criminals goes much further to "justify violence" than any recent edit to your OWN articles has done, and most of us do in fact regard trans women as women and violence against trans women as violence against women; your antihumanist argument that violence against Trans people is somehow acceptable because you see them as "male persons", and your willingness to engage in perpetual microaggressions with this in mind, makes me very happy that the number of people sharing your FRINGE perspective so nearly approaches zero; not even those inclined to share your resistance to gender expression seem actually able to stomach your fundamental antihumanism. Newimpartial (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The accusation of "sex fundamentalism" is obvious psychological projection given the gender essentialism of trans activists, the "disruptive behavior" is trying to keep articles neutral (one day I'm blocked, the next day a well-sourced physical assault becomes an allegation, go figure), the edit log you linked shows no slur, and your claim that by not considering males who identify themselves as trans as automatically more trustworthy than other males, I'm somehow "justifying violence against trans people," is just, well, further proof that your ideological rambling has made you completely irrational. Go on, keep rambling. I probably won't respond any more though. Taylan (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Assigned sex fundamentalism". Even after blocking, the misquoting and misstating seems compulsive on your part. And gender essentialism by no means follows - and isn't even typical of - contemporary transfeminism; you are the one who assigns "trustworthiness" based on some sad caricature of gendered essences. And the assault, of course, was on a COATRACK that had nothing really to do with the article in which it was mentioned. But by all means, keep insulting people even after being blocked. Lest anyone forget why you were... Newimpartial (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey folks, I don't really think there's a point to continuing this conversation. TaylanUB is blocked and the appeal was declined, so this page should be left alone unless he chooses to appeal again. GorillaWarfare(talk)20:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I believe I've been blocked over what was mostly personal ideological differences and content disputes. I think the overwhelming voice of administrators who adhere to a certain political perspective is also what led to my block being upheld when I appealed the first time. If possible, I'd like administrators who have no relationship to the "transgender activist vs. feminist" debate, and as such hold no strong personal opinions on it, to look over this unblock request. Preferably even administrators who have no interest in any sort of "gender debate" whatsoever. If that's not possible, this appeal is probably moot.
Please feel free to take your time with this appeal, as it's a difficult situation.
The reasons I believe that my block was based on ideological differences, and personal hostility towards me based on these differences, include:
No clear explanation was given as to what rules I may have broken. When I asked for clarification, the blocking admin, GorillaWarfare, said that "The block was based on your overall pattern of conduct," and that "Even the most brief look through your contributions show you've been here to push your various opinions on feminism (TERF, anti-pornography) etc. since day one." I've been editing Wikipedia with the intention of establishing a neutral point of view on topics relating to radical feminist positions such as anti-pornography, anti-prostitution, and criticism of certain aspects of the transgender movement, based on reliable sources and trying to be attentive towards due balance, taking part in discussions on talk pages when a dispute arises. If I've failed at this intention, I'd like to be explained where/when/how, so I can improve myself. Note that before the block, I had been reported at WP:ANI twice and came clear both times. (Here [27] and here [28].) The block came without any kind of actual warning, only about 1.5 years of repeated hostility from other editors, at one point escalating to severe verbal abuse towards me: [29]
The block reason given by the admin was limited to the words: "Your transphobia is not welcome here.." and further discussion of my block (including at the ANI [30]) included liberal use of the term TERF. This term is widely regarded as a mischaracterization and a slur by most people it's aimed at, which should have been known to those who used it against me. The Wikipedia article/section I just linked for "TERF" used to have better coverage of why it's considered a mischaracterization and a slur; it's been heavily edited after my block. You might want to look into a revision from a month ago. Also, although not WP:RS, this website documents the dehumanizing ways the term is frequently used: [31]
The accusation of transphobia seems to be based on my personal beliefs (which I expressed on talk pages) that transwomen are not literally real women, that using male pronouns (he/him/his) for transwomen in personal writing (i.e. not in breach of MOS:GENDERID) can be acceptable, and that the claim that transwomen as a group are statistically less likely to commit sexual and violent crimes than other male-born people is one that is in need of evidence, rather than something that can be assumed a priori. It's unclear to me how these opinions can be considered "a type of prejudice and discrimination similar to racism and sexism", to quote Wikipedia. I believe that the "transphobia" accusation is based only on the personal political beliefs of the blocking admin and other editors who took part in the related discussion, rather than an objective display of prejudice and/or discrimination on my part.
I don't know if off-Wiki events are relevant but, the blocking admin has, after my block, been involved in a Twitter dispute in which they continued to call people "TERF", which some lesbian activists have called misogynist and homophobic. (Later clarification: This sentence was meant to demonstrate that the blocking admin takes a strong personal position on the political debate in question, which I believe affected their decision to block me, since my position that I expressed on talk pages is the opposite.) Further discussion of my block and edits made by some editors have been discussed most visibly in this Twitter thread which however clearly takes an ideological side of its own; I'm linking it 1) to clarify that this is a contentious topic among feminists, lesbian activists, transgender activists, etc., with strong feelings involved, and 2) because it would be tiresome to pick out the bits of the analysis in that thread that are unbiased. You might also want to look at the history of the page Feminist views on transgender topics from the last month, if you have the time to analyze it.
I'll go into detail on one glaring issue also mentioned in the Twitter thread above: the physical assault by trans activist Tara Wolf against Maria MacLachlan was reported widely in the media (Guardian, New Statesman, The Times, Feminist Current, etc.) and represents quite an important event in the whole debate. (References: [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]) Yet editors seem to constantly downplay it. It used to be covered in detail with several reliable sources, and now it's reduced to two short sentences mentioning a "scuffle" and that later some pro-trans activist was convicted of assault. It's also been moved out of the "TERF" section, even though the assailant had posted "I want to f**k up some terfs" on Facebook before the assault, which used to be mentioned on Wikipedia and covered by reliable sources. Some other relevant incidents and paragraphes relating to feminist viewpoints critical of transgender activism and actions of hostility by trans activists also seem to have been completely removed since my block, despite that they were covered by reliable sources; please see the recent history of Feminist views on transgender topics or the previously linked Twitter thread.
Despite the fact that the media already reported widely on Tara Wolf, including high-res pictures of Wolf's face etc., and that Wolf's full/real name can be found easily after a minute of Googling, I suddenly had to face accusations of doxxing and of "targeting" Wolf in some way, after I once wrote out Wolf's full original name in a talk page, where someone challenged the fact that Wolf's sex is male. Some seem to have taken this as further justification for a block, though the blocking admin didn't comment on it.
In the ANI discussion linked above, an editor gleefully "misgenders" me on purpose, even though these editors say they view misgendering as an act of hostility. Nobody objects to this in the discussion. Although I don't actually consider it an offense to be called "she" (since I don't look down on women), the behavior showcases that the editors/admins in question feel comfortable with openly showing hostility towards me.
I could write more, but then I have a bad habit of being long-winded. To admins uninvolved in "gender debates" who hopefully decide to look at this: please notify me when you have questions etc. I will not respond to discussion of this appeal by admins/editors who show involvement in the "feminist vs. transgender activist" debate, since that always explodes into a massive debate. (If there's some rule saying I have to interact with all admins, please tell.)
If you do find clear breach of rules on my behalf, please explain to me and I will make sure to improve my behavior so as to make a block unnecessary. I want to make sure that WP:NPOV is upheld, and there don't seem to be many editors motivated to do that in transgender-related articles, since the environment is often so hostile.
If others absolutely want to comment on this appeal, please do so in a dedicated new section (where I won't respond though); I'd like this section to remain limited to interaction with admins looking over the appeal, and I'd like it to be as objective as possible.
The banning policy makes clear that users who remain indefinitely blocked after community consideration are considered banned, which means no admin should lift this without taking it to a noticeboard. Given that this just came from a noticeboard, and I don't see anything here that would be likely to change that, I am not willing to copy this to AN as it would further tax the community's time. If you want to appeal, I would encourage you to wait at least six months before making another appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
OK, sorry for not looking into the rules in detail, but I do think the AN decision might change if admins/editors who aren't ideologically involved in the debate were to look over it. Consider the following example: during the massive discussion of changing the intro of the Trans woman article, there was initially unanimous opposition to my proposal. After a kind editor or two who were more experienced than me created an RfC and got a lot more editors from different parts of Wikipedia involved, the votes ended up being slightly in favor of (a little over 50%) the wording I had proposed. (I'm not talking about WP:CANVAS behavior of course, but rather some sort of formal notification aimed at whole groups on Wikipedia. I don't know how it's done and forgot how it's called.)
Now, in that case the intro remained, since there was no consensus to change it. In this case however I'm requesting, if possible, for only admins who are ideologically neutral to look into the situation, since the admins/editors who have previously been involved clearly have very strong ideological convictions and openly show hostility towards me. Taylan (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: Actually, quoting the banning policy you linked:
If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to impose a topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction (which may include a time-limited or indefinite block) via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.
I don't think such a consensus was ever reached on the ANI, since the discussion there was among editors who were in a dispute with me or who have shown involvement in the underlying political debate. Feeling stupid for not noticing this clause before, as it basically seems to be saying that this should be discussed among uninvolved editors, just like I've asked. Taylan (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: But there was no "due consideration" since the discussion happened among editors who were already involved in disputes with me, no? That's how I interpret the first point in the list. Taylan (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox, an uninvolved administrator, closed the appeal at a community noticeboard as upholding the block. This was due consideration. That people who were familiar with you also commented doesn’t matter: that’s the norm, to be honest. After an unblock appeal has been declined after the community as a whole has had a chance to comment, which happened in your case, no administrator who wasn’t looking for an ArbCom case would unblock you without further discussion at a noticeboard because the fundamental policy on Wikipedia is consensus, and an administrator would be using their tools to act against it. This is why the banning policy reads this way.Your only avenue to an unblock is at WP:AN at this point, and that requires a reviewing admin who is willing to copy an appeal there within a month of the last community review. That is exceptionally unlikely to occur. As I said above, I would encourage you to wait 6 months before appealing again, and I’ll also add that if you continue appealing and WikiLawyering without adding anything new, your talk page access is likely to be revoked by a reviewing administrator (other than me) in order to conserve community resources. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it's okay for you to show your opinion in edit summaries, but it's not okay for GW to show her opinion on Twitter? Very 100% logic. wumbolo^^^22:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taylan, it's perhaps too late to say this since you've already posted above (or perhaps not, if you choose to toss everything above and start over before the admins respond) but I was just reading Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and if you sincerely want to be unblocked, then you should read it, too, and attempt to incorporate the recommendations. At the top of the page, above the ToC, they summarize two areas: 1) convincing admins of one of three things (bullets), and 2) stating your reasons for requesting an unblock. As for #1, the first and last bullets are not gonna fly, which leaves you with the middle one: that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead. Implied in this bullet is the fact that blocks are preventive, not punitive. Regardless what you did prior, whether against guidelines or not, if you get it, and you convincingly demonstrate that you get it, and won't continue along that path, then you might get unblocked.
Unfortunately, your long description in your unblock request doesn't deal with that, and instead goes into all the details of the content dispute, and why you might be right, and some other people might be wrong. If you'll permit me, this is the wrong approach to take here. It might be the right approach, perhaps, for a talk page (or maybe even AN/I) but that's not where we're at.
This is an unblock request, and at this point, if I'm reading the guidelines correctly, who is, or was right is irrelevant at this point, and everything having to do with the content dispute(s) is(are) irrelevant at this point. If you want my honest opinion, I'd completely gut everything you wrote above, and start over from scratch: drop everything having to do with the content disputes, and delete all the diffs. Just show the admins that you understand what they are objecting to—for this, you don't have to agree with their PoV, just convincingly show that you understand their PoV, as upside-down as it might seem to you at this point. That is step one, imho. Then, tell them that given that understanding, you will be able to avoid that situation, by doing a), b), and c). Resist the temptation to talk about content; this isn't about that, anymore. Part of the problem, is that each failed unblock request makes the next one a tiny bit harder, or at least, further away from being accepted.
Imho, and take this fwiw, if you leave the text as you have it now above, you will be rejected pretty quickly, and the next unblock request will be even harder. Don't let that happen. It hasn't worked for you so far, maybe try it my way this time. Throw it all out, start over, show you "get it" and show you understand what you need to change not to fall afoul of their concerns. And good luck! Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read in the very last sentence under Notes in the blue box, it is not too late; it specifically says you can change your request. This means, if you want to try another approach, you can still throw it all out and start over. If you decide you want to try that, then I would blank your request and save the page before an admin responds to the current version. After blanking the request, then you can take your time to reformulate your new request, according to the GAB guideline, and hopefully you'll have a better shot, because really, the current requeste is pretty hopeless, imho. Mathglot (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should also probably refrain from attempting to pass off what is obviously your own Twitter account as someone else's. Especially when you've been using said Twitter account to engage in off-wiki-WP:CANVASing. See WP:DONTLIE. Nblundtalk16:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: I was brigaded by tens if not hundreds of your pals for two days on Twitter after blocking you, called stupid, homophobic (I'm queer...), a liar, delusional, simple... They questioned personal aspects of me—despite being told that I am a queer cis woman, many told me I was straight, some decided I was a trans woman, some decided I was a cis man, and several tried to get details about my relationship and sex life. But I'm the one in the wrong here? The argument died down on October 16, but checking Twitter now I've seen that some anti-trans accounts have just started "liking" some of the tweets directed at me. In fact, the @SocJusWiz account you linked to in your appeal liked and retweeted several, including a tweet directed at me saying "Thank you for confirming that you think lesbians should be sexually available to trans ladies and their penises. @Wikipedia this person is homophobic and shouldn’t be editing your pages." According to my Twitter notifications, they did this 20 hours ago, and if my math is correct you posted this appeal 20 hours ago. Weird coincidence...
Wow, some wild claims here. Will just clear up a few things for the record, since the appeal has been rejected and the admin doing so took part in this discussion: first of all, I don't know the accounts "Jetsslier" or "Seambytes" (and can't see what they wrote, since it's apparently been removed from the logs), and I have not and would not ever instruct someone on or off-wiki to get involved here in a biased way, since I'm not exactly motivated to break rules or behave in an unfair way, which would be counter-productive anyway. (For the record: I asked SlimVirgin via email whether she's neutral on the topic and, if so, whether she'd like to look into it.) I also assume those accounts wrote something abusive, given it's been wiped, and doing that or encouraging someone to do it while appealing for an unblock would be extremely stupid, obviously. It's probably a result of SocJusWiz's Twitter thread, which gained a lot of attention from feminist and lesbian activists, some of whom are extremely furious against trans activists and their allies for (what they perceive as) encouraging harassment of lesbians and violence against women.
As for SocJusWiz, of course we're connected (how could we possibly not be when there are about 10 men on the planet who strongly support radical feminism?), but he strictly keeps behind a pseudonym for the same reason that I've stopped using my real name on most platforms: receiving threats from trans activists. As such I don't want to provide any further information on him. (I'd have switched my identity on Wikipedia too by the way, if it weren't against the rules.)
As for my "buddies", first of all they are not. They are people I'm loosely politically allied with (speaking of the vague bubble of radfems, some of whom have apparently been unpleasent to GorillaWarfare on Twitter), and I'm not any more responsible for their behavior, than GorillaWarfare or anyone else here in support of the transgender movement is responsible for the behavior of the trans activists who threaten people (with things ranging from getting one sacked from one's job all the way to threats of physical and sexual violence; women slurred with "TERF" get these quite frequently), or who call lesbians "vagina fetishists" for being exclusively same-sex attracted. How would you feel if I condescendingly called those kinds of trans activists your "buddies"? Or for that matter, the sock account that verbally harassed me on my talk page a while ago. (I did mention it as evidence for how much hate I'm receiving within this whole debate, but you won't see me blame it on the behavior of others. That being said, maybe TonyBallioni could run CheckUser on that account: Insidethewalls.)
On a final short note, GorillaWarfare, I added the clarification in my appeal after seeing Wumbolo's comment at the top of this section and noticed that my writing could be misinterpreted to mean that I'm blaming you for expressing personal political convictions on Twitter, when my argument is rather that your block of me was probably rooted in your personal political convictions that you've made relatively clear. Taylan (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum on the topic of receiving harassment from each other's political bubble: SocJusWiz tweeted this tweet 15 hours ago. Someone going by Petar Yordanov, who curiously both retweets transgender activists and tweets links to infamous MRA central A Voice For Men (known among other things for "Bash a Violent B**ch Month"), accuses SocJusWiz of "molesting a young Turkish girl named [redacted]". SocJusWiz doesn't understand the accusation, but I do. The molestation is a fabrication, but the name he mentions, which is a rare one, is that of my then-classmate and one-sided crush from highschool, almost ten years ago. As far as I remember, there are very few people I ever mentioned that name to (I was/am a recluse), and it's certainly been more than 5 years that I've talked about that topic with anyone at all. Conclusion? Someone has an unhealthy obsession with me and has been dilligently harvesting private information about my past, which they're now trying to hurt/scare me with. (Tough luck, I'm behind 7 layers of emotional detachment!) And this person probably reads this talk page, and thus recently got the idea that I might be behind the Twitter account @socjuswiz. But I'm not going to claim that this Petar Yordanov is the "buddy" of anyone here, because that would be unfounded and offensive.
It would do all of us a favor if we understood both how hate-filled this political debate is, and that this hatred is not the fault of people who express their "wrong views" in a blunt and unapologetic way. (That would be me, from your perspective.) The hatred comes, I would suggest, from people who simply cannot stand it when others present a view contrary to theirs in a blunt and unapologetic way, and react with aggression to this inability to cope. Taylan (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of fascistic bullies in the Congress. There are tons of people who are bullies like those you describe here, and an insane number of people are complicit. The reason why is virtue signalling. It's really everywhere: religious people virtue signalling their opposition to sex work, liberals who defend every person that is denied sex by someone EVIL, the GOP being proud of their achievements in pushing sex work underground (midterms are in little more than a week), and many, many more that I'm not going to list here. The Wikimedia Foundation should resist these laws because they hurt our safe harbors and immunities (most honest editors agree on that). This is wholly unacceptable, and more people should have talk page access and email revoked, the ArbCom should be happy to process controversial unblock requests. wumbolo^^^18:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sex work is the typical target of such people. I'm talking about laws that restrict sex work (all displayed prominently and proudly on GOP's website better.gop). wumbolo^^^19:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whoever SocialJusticeWizard is (eyeroll), they certainly seem to (1) have a long history of anti transgender speech on social media, (2) has been airing grievances about Taylan's block on reddit, Medium, and twitter, and (3) running their very own FeministWiki... some posts by this user on Twitter are so vile, I'd expect a BLP block for posting links. EvergreenFir(talk)05:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Wiz hasn't published anything on Medium for months, and doesn't seem to have done so now; the last activity is from April, under "Responses." The reddit link only shows a handful of links back to the Twitter thread... Anyway, see what I wrote above. As for the the "vile" Tweets, I just spent about 5 minutes scrolling through "Tweets" and also "Tweets & Replies" and can't spot them. Sorry for not obsessively monitoring their Twitter before linking to the thread that handily summarizes the extreme bias editors are showing on Wikipedia. Oh and thanks for reminding me of the FeministWiki, I've gotten an account but haven't started using it yet. Taylan (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: I just forwarded you an email from Meghan Murphy about possible BLP violations, since apparently she couldn't contact you. Pinging you here too since it seemed important. Thanks for your work on the article. :-) Taylan (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taylan, sorry to be slow to respond. I'll take a look at Meghan Murphy when I have more time. I've glanced at it, and I can see that it's not a straightforward issue, so I'll need time to do/re-do the reading. SarahSV(talk)02:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.59.134 (talk • contribs) 16:33, December 2, 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Trans man. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
