Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) |
||
(28 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:{{yo|Bishonen}} thanks for checking up on it! It looks like an editor sandboxed the page and then {{ul|CambridgeBayWeather}} moved it through protection. That seems to have made the protection invalid? Looks to me like it should stay protected. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 11:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
:{{yo|Bishonen}} thanks for checking up on it! It looks like an editor sandboxed the page and then {{ul|CambridgeBayWeather}} moved it through protection. That seems to have made the protection invalid? Looks to me like it should stay protected. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 11:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
::Ah. Complicated. I expect that was it. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 20:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC). |
::Ah. Complicated. I expect that was it. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 20:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC). |
||
== Arbitration case opened == |
|||
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth]]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence]]. '''Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop]]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration]]. For the Arbitration Committee, <span style= "font-weight: bold;">[[User:CodeLyoko|<span style="color:#800000">CodeLyoko</span>]]</span><sup>[[User talk:CodeLyoko|talk]]</sup> 03:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Case evidence == |
|||
Hey, I'm posting this here because I prefer not to post to the Evidence page. I'm not sure where Katie said she posted to RHaworth's Talk page. AFAIK, she did not. Perhaps she meant [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Velanatti&diff=931368511&oldid=931366557 this post] to Velanatti's Talk page.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 16:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Symes2017 again? == |
== Symes2017 again? == |
||
Line 59: | Line 51: | ||
::It's true that policy prohibits a user's request for a CU to prove their "innocence". There's a fine line between that and a user giving permission to disclose their IP, which is permitted by policy. In this particular instance, that fine line is very fine indeed. I ''have'' seen a CheckUser discuss IP edits with a user who permitted the disclosure. Personally, my reaction is a visceral one. It's so ingrained in me not to disclose IP addresses of users, I just can't bring myself to do it. Now that I read your comment above, I think I misunderstood your comment at AN. As I understand it, local policy cannot permit something that global policy prohibits, but local policy can be otherwise inconsistent with global policy. Each such case should of course be carefully examined.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
::It's true that policy prohibits a user's request for a CU to prove their "innocence". There's a fine line between that and a user giving permission to disclose their IP, which is permitted by policy. In this particular instance, that fine line is very fine indeed. I ''have'' seen a CheckUser discuss IP edits with a user who permitted the disclosure. Personally, my reaction is a visceral one. It's so ingrained in me not to disclose IP addresses of users, I just can't bring myself to do it. Now that I read your comment above, I think I misunderstood your comment at AN. As I understand it, local policy cannot permit something that global policy prohibits, but local policy can be otherwise inconsistent with global policy. Each such case should of course be carefully examined.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
== [[Lesbian erasure]] article and editing in the transgender-related areas == |
== [[Lesbian erasure]] article and editing in the transgender or transgender-related areas == |
||
I never did personally thank you for what you stated in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#Flyer22 Reborn accusing people of bias based on trans status + possible_hounding|that ANI thread]] against me. So thank you. Looking at my response [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian_erasure&diff=937276402&oldid=937273427 here] shows the type of drama and ridiculousness I have to deal with at articles such as Lesbian erasure. It shows what I was speaking of in that ANI thread and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&oldid=925441168#WanderingWanda_and_their_interaction_with_me here] at [[User:El_C|El C]]'s talk page when noting issues with one editor in particular to El C, you, [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]], [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]], and [[User:JBW|JBW]]. And while I appreciate the support of editors such as [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]], [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]], [[User:Montanabw|Montanabw]], [[User:FlightTime Phone|FlightTime Phone]], [[User:John B123|John B123]] and others who supported me in that ANI thread (and on Wikipedia at large), editing articles like these really takes a toll. Yes, I could just walk away (just like I did with the [[Feminist views on transgender topics]] and [[TERF]] articles thus far), but that leaves these articles more prone to POV-pushing. I don't just focus on one side when editing articles like these. I look at all sides (unless it's [[WP:Fringe]] material that shouldn't be included) and go about implementing [[WP:Due weight]]. When I do that, and yet I still get one or two people implying or outright calling me transphobic, it's a stressful matter. And I'm wondering what else I can do except walk away or endure it. For me, being called or implied to be transphobic is worse than being accused of having some type of POV on a sexual topic when I'm simply following the rules appropriately. |
I never did personally thank you for what you stated in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#Flyer22 Reborn accusing people of bias based on trans status + possible_hounding|that ANI thread]] against me. So thank you. Looking at my response [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian_erasure&diff=937276402&oldid=937273427 here] shows the type of drama and ridiculousness I have to deal with at articles such as Lesbian erasure. It shows what I was speaking of in that ANI thread and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&oldid=925441168#WanderingWanda_and_their_interaction_with_me here] at [[User:El_C|El C]]'s talk page when noting issues with one editor in particular to El C, you, [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]], [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]], and [[User:JBW|JBW]]. And while I appreciate the support of editors such as [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]], [[User:Girth Summit|Girth Summit]], [[User:Montanabw|Montanabw]], [[User:FlightTime Phone|FlightTime Phone]], [[User:John B123|John B123]] and others who supported me in that ANI thread (and on Wikipedia at large), editing articles like these really takes a toll. Yes, I could just walk away (just like I did with the [[Feminist views on transgender topics]] and [[TERF]] articles thus far), but that leaves these articles more prone to POV-pushing. I don't just focus on one side when editing articles like these. I look at all sides (unless it's [[WP:Fringe]] material that shouldn't be included) and go about implementing [[WP:Due weight]]. When I do that, and yet I still get one or two people implying or outright calling me transphobic, it's a stressful matter. And I'm wondering what else I can do except walk away or endure it. For me, being called or implied to be transphobic is worse than being accused of having some type of POV on a sexual topic when I'm simply following the rules appropriately. |
||
Anyway, El C is helpful, but an article like the Lesbian erasure article could probably also do with your moderator skills. If you'd rather not keep an eye on it, I obviously understand. If you'd rather ignore this post, I also understand. I am venting, even though I'm also seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 01:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
Anyway, El C is helpful, but an article like the Lesbian erasure article could probably also do with your moderator skills. If you'd rather not keep an eye on it, I obviously understand. If you'd rather ignore this post, I also understand. I am venting, even though I'm also seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 01:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
:If you're going to talk about me I'd appreciate a ping, thanks (talk page watcher). [[User:WanderingWanda|WanderingWanda]] ([[User talk:WanderingWanda|talk]]) 03:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Um, no! I deal with your nonsense enough! If I had directly named you and wanted another discussion like the one I had on El C's talk page, that would be different. I clearly framed this section as one where I am venting and "seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas." And you can't even let me vent in peace or seek advice in peace. Your claim that you are one of Ivanvector's talk page watchers to escape me referring to [[WP:HOUND]] is dubious when your comment above [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=WanderingWanda&page=User_talk%3AIvanvector&server=enwiki&max= is your first comment on this talk page]. I could have emailed Ivanvector about this, but I chose to comment on Ivanvector's talk page and ping others to discuss with. Nothing good happens when the two of us interact with each other. You are on a course for ANI. And if you think nothing will happen, you should think again. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 04:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::In my experience, people who often accuse others of dishonesty are often projecting. I have always been scrupulously honest on Wikipedia. [[User:WanderingWanda|WanderingWanda]] ([[User talk:WanderingWanda|talk]]) 05:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::In my experience (on and off Wikipedia), those who go on about their supposed scrupulous honesty are not scrupulously honest. In my experience (on and off Wikipedia), those who continue to try and interact with people who have been clear that they don't want to interact with them (unless necessary) for valid reasons and who continue to try to get a rise out of the people who do not want to interact with them shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. In my experience, those who are only on Wikipedia to push activism shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative environment, but it doesn't tolerate editors forcing themselves, or trying to force themselves, on others. It knows that not all editors are going to get along, which is why [[WP:IBAN]] exists. It doesn't tolerate the repeated sly or direct aspersions you cast my way. But keep testing the waters. You'll learn. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 06:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You've cast far more [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] my way than the reverse. [[User:WanderingWanda|WanderingWanda]] ([[User talk:WanderingWanda|talk]]) 06:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I refer people to the aforementioned discussion on El C's talk page. Regardless of whatever supposed aspersions I've cast your way, you keep going and going after me while I keep trying and trying to avoid you. I never go out of my way to respond to you, and certainly not to make a jab at you. That is why Crossroads recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian_erasure&diff=prev&oldid=937273427 stated], "WanderingWanda, enough with the snipes at Flyer. There appears to be some special grudge there, but I'm feeling left out." [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 06:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Crossroads' joke about "feeling left out" is actually pretty telling about our relationship. :) Crossroads and you are bosom buddies, I have never seen the two of you disagree, about anything, ever, Crossroads backs you up completely whenever you attack me unfairly or accuse me of "activism", you two are always at the same pages together, at the same time, you two openly email back and forth about contentious articles, you two have all the same interests, etc. In fact, for a while I thought he might be another one of those pesky brother accounts (Crossroads even used to have a 1 in his name, just like [[user:Halo Jerk1]].) Ultimately, tho, I lean against that: Crossroads has a pretty different writing style from that most bizarre of brother-sister duos. |
|||
:::::::Anyway, in spite of the fact that you and Crossroads are basically twins, he doesn't perceive much in the way of animosity between us, and he is correct, I don't really care about Crossroads. It takes a lot for someone to get under my skin, but you have pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and yeah, you got under my skin. Which is probably what you wanted to do. Congratulations, I guess. |
|||
:::::::In any case, it is not my intent to "hound" you. I'll call you out if you're up to shit on an article I follow, sure, or are pinging a bunch of people to gang up on me behind my back. And sometimes I'm more snarky than I probably should be. I'll try to dial it back and play nicer. Fine. But I haven't, don't, and won't follow you around. I've never once edited an article or a talk page because I saw it on your contributions list. Not a single goddamn time, in spite of your repeated accusations of hounding, which, to me, seem like attempts to claim [[WP:OWN]]ership over articles. |
|||
:::::::Anyway, hope you're doing well. I don't mean that sarcastically. Sincerely. Take care. I don't want to keep this back and forth up so this will probably be my last reply unless you really goad me. |
|||
:::::::(I guess I should ping [[user:Crossroads]] since I mentioned him, though pinging him to a discussion that Flyer is involved in is rather redundant.) [[User:WanderingWanda|WanderingWanda]] ([[User talk:WanderingWanda|talk]]) 07:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::More of the same nonsense from you, I see. Once again, you have confronted me to air your imaginary grievances and to make false claims...such as never seeing Crossroads and I "disagree, about anything, ever." Yeah, with the way you watch these articles like a hawk, I'm sure you missed me disagreeing with Crossroads on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_erasure&diff=931553675&oldid=931552859 this] matter. And you surely missed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian_erasure&oldid=937304173#Checking_blind_spots this] discussion showing Crossroads disagreeing with the inclusion of material I added. Crossroads and I agree most of the time, but we have also disagreed several times. He can point to more examples, because I'm not going to. He is also interested in topics I'm not interested in. I'm usually in agreement with Doc James as well, but I don't see anyone stating that Doc and I are socks or are "basically twins." Sure, Doc and I don't share as many article interests, but still. You have no proof that Crossroads and I "openly email back and forth about contentious articles." And I'm not going to respond to that assertion further since I'm not on trial, even though you keep trying to put me on trial, despite the way the aforementioned ANI thread against me went. A number of people have accused you of activism, and that includes [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]]. And not unfairly either. I have "pushed and pushed and pushed" you, you say? Yes, I am aware that I have repeatedly pushed you by adhering to this site's rules and rejecting your activism, and that you consider this ownership on my part. |
|||
::::::::You stated, "In any case, it is not [your] intent to 'hound' [me]. [You'll] call [me] out if [I'm] up to shit on an article [you] follow, sure, or are pinging a bunch of people to gang up on [you] behind [your] back." Yes, you hound without knowing you are hounding; no one buys that. Yes, I'm "up to shit" on the articles you watch. Appropriate shit, as made clear by several editors in the aforementioned ANI thread. And as for "pinging a bunch of people to gang up on [you] behind [your] back"? To repeat: "I clearly framed this section as one where I am venting and 'seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas.' And you can't even let me vent in peace or seek advice in peace." You unnecessarily showed up here to cause drama, expecting me and others to believe that you just so happened to be watching Ivanvector's talk page. You once again have unnecessarily pinged my brother, as to try to cause more drama. You don't care one bit about "different writing style[s]." If you did, you would accept the fact that, despite my brother having copied my writing style in the past (as he's copied others, as also noted on his user page), several admins and CUs have noticed that my brother writes differently than I do in a number of ways instead of continuing to state or imply that he's my sock. That you keep bringing up my brother to try and sling mud my way and as though it helps your argument or as though you are conducting a [[WP:SPI]] is just one aspect of your problematic behavior. That is you trying to get under my skin. And then you act surprised when I type up an "essay" about your problematic behavior. |
|||
::::::::If you are hoping for a two-way interaction ban between us, I think it is likelier that you get a one-way interaction ban...and in your direction. |
|||
::::::::You stated that you "never once edited an article or a talk page because [you] saw it on [my] contributions list." I don't believe you. And I never will. |
|||
::::::::As for hoping I'm doing well and me goading you? More nonsense. And do you expect me to just let your accusations go unchallenged? If you truly did not want "this back and forth," you would not have engaged in your usual antics in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian_erasure&oldid=937304173#NPOV_Edit_1/19/20 this] section. And that includes your "anyone with a heart" comment. It boggles my mind that you keep trying to play the victim when you keep going after me the way that you do. Boggles the mind. And whether or not I talk with Ivanvector about this here out in the open or via email, the way I've talked to other admins about your problematic editing and behavior via email, your baiting will be stopped. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 08:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: {{Ping|WanderingWanda}} Your persistent pestering of {{u|Flyer22 Reborn}} has to stop. You have contributed nothing to this talk page section other than expressing your dislike and distrust of {{u|Flyer22 Reborn}}. Your involvemant here was totally unnecessary; nothing would have been lost had you ignored it and got on with some useful editing instead. However, what turns this from just a few critical comments that weren't really necessary into harassment was your totally gratuitously bringing in your perpetual innuendo about Flyer22 Reborn's brother and {{u|Crossroads}}. Flyer22 Reborn knows all about your thoughts in that area, and your repeatedly bringing it up, even when it is irrelevant to what is being discussed, is a deliberate policy of harassment. Flyer22 Reborn is not always diplomatic, and unfortunately at times she hands you enough ammunition to prevent the problems between the two of you being entirely one-sided, but as time goes on it becomes more and more clear that while her behaviour is not always perfect, she never does anything resembling your gratuitously jumping in and attacking her every time you can see an opportunity for doing so. I wonder how many times you have said things similar to ''"I don't want to keep this back and forth up so this will probably be my last reply unless you really goad me"'', as you did above. On this occasion she did not "goad" you: you jumped in when you didn't need to. Having done so you brought up your usual stuff about "those pesky brother accounts" and "that most bizarre of brother-sister duos", despite the fact that they had no relevance at all to anything that had been said. Calling her and her brother "most bizarre" serves no useful or constructive purpose whatever, and amounts to a personal attack. In my opinion '''both''' of you would have been better advised in this discussion to just drop the matter and ignore one another, but that does not mean that the situation is totally symmetrical; Flyer should have refused to take your bait, but she would have had no need to do so unless you had baited her. I do not follow either your or Flyer's editing, so the occasions when I do see what is going on between you are fairly infrequent, but even so I have seen enough, and if I see you harassing or baiting her again I am likely to block you from editing. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) 14:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Less fortunately (for myself and the community) I have been loosely following this personality conflict for some time, and Flyer is indeed correct above when she says "nothing good happens when the two of us [meaning WanderingWanda] interact with each other". I am more inclined to serve you both a no-fault interaction ban under [[WP:ARBGG]] in the interest of allowing other interested editors to edit these topics free of your conflict, one which would permit you to edit the same pages as long as you strictly do not interact with each other, but I tend to dislike broad-topic interaction bans and JBW has given me more to think about. I'm also very busy today, so {{ul|WanderingWanda}}, this is your opportunity to disengage. I would anticipate it being very unlikely you will get another. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I feel myself periodically drawn into these things, by what I watchlist and whose disputes/dramas I run across and what examining them further leads to. I neither disagree all the time with WanderingWanda (even WW says so! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&type=revision&diff=925165448&oldid=925162274&diffmode=source]) nor agree all the time with Flyer22_Reborn. I've had lengthy discussions with both in e-mail. I don't feel I need to take back [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=next&oldid=925165448&diffmode=source what I said in detail in Nov. 2019] about this conflict. I do have to add, though, that a few editors' frequent accusations of "transphobi[a|c]" simply because someone doesn't agree with some particular highly activistic socio-political positions being advocated on Wikipedia (but are instead seeking neutrality in our coverage and our [[WP:P&G]] material regardless how they personally feel about such matters in their off-site lives) is continuing to be problematic. In a sense, it's become {{em|more}} problematic because we know this isn't the first time it's been pointed out that it needs to stop. I don't think this is a WanderingWanda and Flyer22_Reborn matter in particular. Rather, there's a "gender-issues and language-reform warrior" camp active on the site, and it's sometimes difficult for people who agree with some or all of its message to avoid getting drawn also into its verbally abusive and character-assassinating tactics. The larger behavior set needs scrutiny.</p><!-- |
|||
--><p>{{em|This subject area is under [[WP:AC/DS]] for a reason}}, and those discretionary sanctions need to be applied judiciously but reasonably until the topic area becomes tolerable again for everyday editors who are here to write balanced coverage of subjects (from the broad topics down to specific bios like [[Genesis P-Orridge]], etc.). I've long opposed the use of indefs and lengthy topic-bans when it comes to such unhelpful behavior in contentious topics, when short-term T-bans (e.g. a month, then escalating to 3 months, then a 6 or a year if really necessary) tend to be effective without costing the project all of an editor's more constructive participation. And that goes for both sides; if one were to, say, cast aspersions about someone's motives because they have a transgender family member, that would be actionable no less than calling someone transphobic because their view of neutral interpretation of the sources differs from one's own.</p><!-- |
|||
-->I'm not going to get into a pile of diffy specifics right now. That's what AE and ANI and RFARB and ARCA are for, and I don't feel that someone in particular needs to be banned/blocked at this point (well, not among this pair). Frankly, there are two flat-out drama mongers who need noticeboard examination more urgently, for entirely unrelated reasons (one is a "style warrior" pushing an obsessive pro-government/bureaucratese PoV, and another is engaging in extreme nationalism, IDHT, and OR about animal breeds, both of them being attacky about it all the time). I'm just making the general point, since a bunch of admins have been pinged to this thread.</p><!-- |
|||
--><p>While a two-way I-ban of WanderingWanda and Flyer22_Reborn might "conveniently" and situationally reduce a small amount of sporadic drama, it will not address the underlying problem, that this is a highly contentious area with a near poisonous level of strife, and much of that is outright programmatic (from one particular side of it). A two-editor I-ban would verge on scapegoating, and at most would be putting a Band-Aid on a sucking chest wound. So would leaping on one editor or the other for a comment if it's not part of continuing pattern of verbal abuse. At worst, it might actually encourage [[WP:GAMING]] by others (less [[WP:HERE]] that WW) in that socio-political viewpoint space: entrap opponents in circular, overly-personalized debates until I-banned (but with low risk of oneself being sanctioned beyond that, out of admin fear of being called {{var|foo}}-phobic for going any further); then go right back to working with the rest of one's [[WP:FACTION]] to PoV-skew all our topics on lefty subjects with near-impunity, having locked out most criticism). I've been saying for years now that the real threat to WP in the long term isn't vandals, it's "slow-editwar" and "civil PoV-pushing" tactics by email-coordinated camps who are here to enforce an external viewpoint in our content. Much of it even means well. While we may have in front of us two editors in a superficially silly personality conflict, it's rooted in something more serious and it's not about personality but about [[WP:ENC]]. I'm well aware that various editors claim there's some kind of far-right putsch to malign the transgendered, to undermine coverage of GLBT+ topics and feminism, and otherwise push right-wing extremism. But there's no evidence this is actually true, and when random Trumperinos pop in and push such agendas they're shut down fast. We do, however, clearly have ongoing mass-scale activism from the far-left, which is mostly unchecked except by neutral/centrist editors with thick skins, and even they get hounded away pretty quickly by censorious "progressive" and "liberal" indoctrinators who aren't really either of those adjectives. The ability of that camp to inspire otherwise awesome editors to slip across some important lines for politicized reasons sometimes is, well, kind of disconcerting. PS: I say all this as a classic-liberal, anti-fascist, sexual-egalitarian, LGBT-positive, sex-positive, center-left, agnostic anti-authoritarian (and former professional civil-liberties activist), who takes few solidly right-wing views on anything but gun control <small>(I grew up mostly in the US Southwest, where shooting ranges and hunting are something you do even as a kid)</small>. I'm the furthest thing from a transphobe or a right-wingnut. If even I'm seriously concerned about what the far left are getting away with on WP these days, then we do have a genuine problem.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 17:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</p> |
|||
:: Just for posterity: in spite of the opinion SMcCandlish expressed above, there is in fact a good deal of evidence that "gender critical" individuals gathered in Reddit (r/gendercritical) and on Twitter have worked in coordination to align trans-related articles to their "external viewpoint", a kind of brigading that progressive/mainstream editors on LGBTQ topics have not engaged in, to my knowledge. I also think it relevant to note that SMcCandlish's views on "gender issues and language reform" have been found, through site-wide discussion on WP, not to reflect site-wide policy-based consensus here. While I respect ideosynctatic individuality as much as anyone, I do find it important to remember who is speaking at all times. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Since Newimpartial has showed up here, I would like to point out to the admins by far the most disturbing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALesbian_erasure&type=revision&diff=937190088&oldid=937174435 comment] from that talk page, which was made by Newimpartial: {{tq|I will be happy when the last self-avowed "homosexual" is dead and buried and only we queers, fags, dykes and non-binary people remain.}} [[User:Crossroads|'''''-Crossroads-''''']] ([[User talk:Crossroads|talk]]) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ec}} One clan of trolls trying to affect our content and failing badly at it because we shut that shit down fast is nothing like an ongoing and {{em|tacitly accepted}} overwhelming dominance of Wikipedia coverage on certain topics by a particular circumscribed set of viewpoints, due to WP's strongly left-leaning demographic agreeing with the content of "the message". (Cf. what I said below in response to Crossroads.) It has to do with {{em|actual effects}}. No one has ever suggested there are no transphobes nor that they never try to PoV-push here. We just don't let them do it. So why do we let the {{abbr|TG/NB|transgender and nonbinary}} and general LGBT crowd do it? Continue to take that route is going to bite our ass right off.<p>As for that last bit, Newimpartial is blatantly fabricating. What really happened is that a humor essay I wrote primarily about self-aggrandizing, religious, religious, and commercial language manipulation was misinterpreted as "transphobic" by some editors who assume that anything at all ever critical of pronoun usage must necessarily be an attack on TG people, which is of course nonsense. At MfD, there was a consensus to ''keep'' my userspace essay, but to ''blank'' the version that ran in ''The Signpost'' as (in that [[House organ|house-organ]] context) controversial and likely to offend, not because of the intent of it but because it was poorly written enough that the intent wasn't clear. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC); rev'd. 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|WanderingWanda}}, you clearly have not looked hard enough to find where I have disagreed with Flyer. Standing out in my mind was one lengthy discussion (lengthy because the issue was complex and there were other participants, not because of Flyer's comments) about comparing animal and human sexual behavior, and an IP and two accounts that added likely-COI content about it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_sexuality/Archive_2#Removed_POV_subsection_on_%22evolution_of_neurobiological_factors%22] I've had disgruntled people follow me on that matter before, so none of that. I can think of others which I am not listing. As far as being at the same pages, yes, we have overlapping interests, so what? Editing at the same time - not that much. The "openly" thing is unsupported nonsense, and I have edited several topic areas that Flyer has not, and vice versa. The old "1" in my name was because "Crossroads" was not available when I got an account - I usurped it later. And I never interacted with nor ever heard of Flyer until a year after I got the account. As for often agreeing, well, you'll find that, for example, [[WP:FTN|editors who focus on fringe theories]] agree on a lot too. In all these cases, it is about representing the relevant scientific consensus and not putting undue weight on personally liked theories. And yes, WanderingWanda does have an activist mentality, as seen most obviously at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fingering_(sexual_act)/Archive_1#MOS:GNL_does_not_apply this discussion], but [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_male_sexuality#Let's_talk_opening_picture here's another] for good measure. |
|||
:I hope that any admins participating will look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&oldid=925441168#WanderingWanda_and_their_interaction_with_me the discussion at El C's talk page]. |
|||
:WanderingWanda, you also stated above to Flyer, "I'll call you out if you're up to shit on an article I follow..." What "shit" has Flyer been up to? What does this mean? |
|||
:When I stated I was "feeling left out", I was only half-joking. WanderingWanda does seem to have a special animosity towards Flyer, which is puzzling to me, since many others (like myself) have also opposed the very same proposals. But this stuff [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lesbian_erasure#NPOV_Edit_1/19/20 at the Lesbian erasure talk page] is just unacceptable. The comment "Flyer, who likes to go on wearying five-hundred-billion-word-long off-topic rants" added nothing to the discussion and is a blatant [[WP:PA|personal attack]]. And the sermonizing about "What extremist anti-trans groups have to say about trans women is offensive to anyone with a heart." was in response to Flyer's "I toned down the language others would find offensive", obviously trying to imply Flyer 'lacked a heart' for not saying it directly was offensive (but as was noted, we're not supposed to edit on the basis of personal feelings, so why should she say it that way?). And WanderingWanda showing up here was an obvious [[WP:HOUND]]ing. As another example of their weird focus on Flyer, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=927553921#Statement_by_Flyer22_Reborn here] in the 23:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC) comment, you can see that WanderingWanda was cutting out parts of Flyer's comments, for which they were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WanderingWanda/Archive_1#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment admonished] by an ArbCom clerk. |
|||
:I very much agree with {{u|JBW}}'s comment, especially the apt description of "gratuitously jumping in and attacking her every time you can see an opportunity for doing so". I don't think a mutual I-ban would be good, because there is not a symmetry here. I've observed that Flyer has a long history here with a reputation of neutrally representing relevant POVs ''in the article content'', which crucially includes actually writing content. WanderingWanda seems to have too much focus on changing terminology and images so as to [[WP:RGW|right great wrongs]]. |
|||
:I humbly suggest the following. I think Flyer should be advised not to take the bait when feeling provoked; I myself advise that if nothing else. I think WanderingWanda should be warned about personal attacks and harassment. As far as a one-way I-ban or a short term block, maybe; that's up to the admins and their experience in these sorts of things. [[User:Crossroads|'''''-Crossroads-''''']] ([[User talk:Crossroads|talk]]) 17:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC) <small>updated [[User:Crossroads|'''''-Crossroads-''''']] ([[User talk:Crossroads|talk]]) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::Another striking difference to me is that (so far as I've observed) Flyer22_Reborn, like me, takes issues with viewpoints being pushed not on the basis of what the views are, but simply because they are viewpoints being pushed, while the TG/NB (and LGBT+ and leftism more broadly) activism cluster are very much taking an issue with the content of the viewpoints they disagree with while doing nothing about, or even directly advocating, views they agree with coming to dominate the content (as well as the [[WP:P&G]] material that pertains to the topic). So, this is another thing that's not parallel, though I don't think it's WW in particular, but rather a large and nebulous segment of editors, many of them fairly recent, who manage to peer-pressure editors who really know better to partake in it. I don't mean this to sound like some kind of conspiracy theory; it's just typical human politics and group dynamics at work. We have policies in place to restrain that, but they don't work if admins don't apply them. We really have to take an anthropological, culturally relative view about such matters. The difference between objecting to PoV because {{em|of}} its PoV versus because is {{em|is}} PoV is central to this entire topical range of dispute on Wikipedia. Until that is wrestled with, interpersonal conflicts like this will continue to arise. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:56, 24 January 2020
Hey. It looks like you creation protected Paxful indefinitely in 2017.[1] Nevertheless it has been created several times since then, see [2]. So, I creation protected it again, after a request at RFPP... but I don't understand it. The "l" (lowercase L) is a real L everywhere — not a 1 — as far as I can see. Anyway, merry Christmas! Bishonen | talk 22:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: thanks for checking up on it! It looks like an editor sandboxed the page and then CambridgeBayWeather moved it through protection. That seems to have made the protection invalid? Looks to me like it should stay protected. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Symes2017 again?
As admitted here, the user in question seems to have an addiction problem and I'm afraid new accounts may be created. Izuru Kamukura could be another one. It edited the Democratic socialism page and the pattern seems similar. Removing brackets or editing spelling in quotes when they should be copied exactly as they are; change -ise to -ize even when there's the use British English template and the whole page is written in British English spelling (labour, -ise, etc.); add (pictured above) in image's caption and edit it in an unnecessary way so as to add a dot at the end, etc. It's just one edit for now, but as having seen all of the edits at Social democracy, I've been accostumated to them, it seems to be the same pattern and so it looks suspictious to me. Let me know if this was helpful and if it matches.--Davide King (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, I'm 90% sure it's still Symes2017 et all. Another thing is the same mistake. Compare
an left-wing anti-Leninist and anti-Stalinist big tent
(Social democracy) anda authoritarian Marxist–Leninist state
(Democratic socialism). I hope something can be done about it to verify whether it's the same user because it already reverted and made most of the same mistakes again, notwithstanding the edit summary.--Davide King (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)- @Davide King: apologies for my delayed response. I've been very busy lately and haven't had much time for Wikipedia. I think the situation is resolved for now. If the user returns you should add a new report to the SPI right away, request checkuser, and another admin will be able to review. Feel free to ping me, though, but I might not be able to respond quickly. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Hey, no worries. I apology for mentioning/pinging you too much and I hope that didn't bother/annoy you or caused any issue, but I thought it was important and necessary to check that as soon as possible because to me it clearly looked like the same user and even got the page protected due to edit warring. I was just about to send you a message asking you what I should do if it happens because the user clearly has a problem with that. I will still try to talk to the user and I hope it won't happen again. No, thanks to you so much for your work and advices.--Davide King (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Oh yes, I forgot about asking if you were able to find out the first account since you {{[didn't] believe at all that Adrian Fey is this user's first account}}; or was it later already confirmed to be SmalforaGiant?--Davide King (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Davide King: apologies for my delayed response. I've been very busy lately and haven't had much time for Wikipedia. I think the situation is resolved for now. If the user returns you should add a new report to the SPI right away, request checkuser, and another admin will be able to review. Feel free to ping me, though, but I might not be able to respond quickly. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 21:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
CU policy (Ear-phone)
This has gotten way out of hand. My original comments were private and not really intended to be copied wholesale to AN. I've tried hard, without violating policy, to steer people away from the CU "results", but editors are stubborn.
But that's not why I'm here. It's about your first comment. What "orientation" do you mean? Did you get something special when you were first appointed? And what part of the global policy overrides the sentence in local policy? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- A bunch of us newbies last year had a call with Rob and Amanda and I don't remember who else where they showed us around the tools and answered questions, and I remember it coming up that global policy allowed revealing an IP address with the user's consent but the local policy overrode that. But you're right, I don't see it written that way in the local policy now. Now that I'm thinking more about it, that might have had to do with running a check when the user requests, as in, "user request" is not a valid reason to check according to local policy. I haven't had a good read of the policy today and it could have changed since 16 months ago. I think it's best practice to not reveal anything, anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's true that policy prohibits a user's request for a CU to prove their "innocence". There's a fine line between that and a user giving permission to disclose their IP, which is permitted by policy. In this particular instance, that fine line is very fine indeed. I have seen a CheckUser discuss IP edits with a user who permitted the disclosure. Personally, my reaction is a visceral one. It's so ingrained in me not to disclose IP addresses of users, I just can't bring myself to do it. Now that I read your comment above, I think I misunderstood your comment at AN. As I understand it, local policy cannot permit something that global policy prohibits, but local policy can be otherwise inconsistent with global policy. Each such case should of course be carefully examined.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I never did personally thank you for what you stated in that ANI thread against me. So thank you. Looking at my response here shows the type of drama and ridiculousness I have to deal with at articles such as Lesbian erasure. It shows what I was speaking of in that ANI thread and here at El C's talk page when noting issues with one editor in particular to El C, you, Johnuniq, Cullen328, and JBW. And while I appreciate the support of editors such as Betty Logan, Girth Summit, Montanabw, FlightTime Phone, John B123 and others who supported me in that ANI thread (and on Wikipedia at large), editing articles like these really takes a toll. Yes, I could just walk away (just like I did with the Feminist views on transgender topics and TERF articles thus far), but that leaves these articles more prone to POV-pushing. I don't just focus on one side when editing articles like these. I look at all sides (unless it's WP:Fringe material that shouldn't be included) and go about implementing WP:Due weight. When I do that, and yet I still get one or two people implying or outright calling me transphobic, it's a stressful matter. And I'm wondering what else I can do except walk away or endure it. For me, being called or implied to be transphobic is worse than being accused of having some type of POV on a sexual topic when I'm simply following the rules appropriately.
Anyway, El C is helpful, but an article like the Lesbian erasure article could probably also do with your moderator skills. If you'd rather not keep an eye on it, I obviously understand. If you'd rather ignore this post, I also understand. I am venting, even though I'm also seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- If you're going to talk about me I'd appreciate a ping, thanks (talk page watcher). WanderingWanda (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Um, no! I deal with your nonsense enough! If I had directly named you and wanted another discussion like the one I had on El C's talk page, that would be different. I clearly framed this section as one where I am venting and "seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas." And you can't even let me vent in peace or seek advice in peace. Your claim that you are one of Ivanvector's talk page watchers to escape me referring to WP:HOUND is dubious when your comment above is your first comment on this talk page. I could have emailed Ivanvector about this, but I chose to comment on Ivanvector's talk page and ping others to discuss with. Nothing good happens when the two of us interact with each other. You are on a course for ANI. And if you think nothing will happen, you should think again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- In my experience, people who often accuse others of dishonesty are often projecting. I have always been scrupulously honest on Wikipedia. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- In my experience (on and off Wikipedia), those who go on about their supposed scrupulous honesty are not scrupulously honest. In my experience (on and off Wikipedia), those who continue to try and interact with people who have been clear that they don't want to interact with them (unless necessary) for valid reasons and who continue to try to get a rise out of the people who do not want to interact with them shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. In my experience, those who are only on Wikipedia to push activism shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative environment, but it doesn't tolerate editors forcing themselves, or trying to force themselves, on others. It knows that not all editors are going to get along, which is why WP:IBAN exists. It doesn't tolerate the repeated sly or direct aspersions you cast my way. But keep testing the waters. You'll learn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- You've cast far more WP:ASPERSIONS my way than the reverse. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I refer people to the aforementioned discussion on El C's talk page. Regardless of whatever supposed aspersions I've cast your way, you keep going and going after me while I keep trying and trying to avoid you. I never go out of my way to respond to you, and certainly not to make a jab at you. That is why Crossroads recently stated, "WanderingWanda, enough with the snipes at Flyer. There appears to be some special grudge there, but I'm feeling left out." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Crossroads' joke about "feeling left out" is actually pretty telling about our relationship. :) Crossroads and you are bosom buddies, I have never seen the two of you disagree, about anything, ever, Crossroads backs you up completely whenever you attack me unfairly or accuse me of "activism", you two are always at the same pages together, at the same time, you two openly email back and forth about contentious articles, you two have all the same interests, etc. In fact, for a while I thought he might be another one of those pesky brother accounts (Crossroads even used to have a 1 in his name, just like user:Halo Jerk1.) Ultimately, tho, I lean against that: Crossroads has a pretty different writing style from that most bizarre of brother-sister duos.
- Anyway, in spite of the fact that you and Crossroads are basically twins, he doesn't perceive much in the way of animosity between us, and he is correct, I don't really care about Crossroads. It takes a lot for someone to get under my skin, but you have pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and yeah, you got under my skin. Which is probably what you wanted to do. Congratulations, I guess.
- In any case, it is not my intent to "hound" you. I'll call you out if you're up to shit on an article I follow, sure, or are pinging a bunch of people to gang up on me behind my back. And sometimes I'm more snarky than I probably should be. I'll try to dial it back and play nicer. Fine. But I haven't, don't, and won't follow you around. I've never once edited an article or a talk page because I saw it on your contributions list. Not a single goddamn time, in spite of your repeated accusations of hounding, which, to me, seem like attempts to claim WP:OWNership over articles.
- Anyway, hope you're doing well. I don't mean that sarcastically. Sincerely. Take care. I don't want to keep this back and forth up so this will probably be my last reply unless you really goad me.
- (I guess I should ping user:Crossroads since I mentioned him, though pinging him to a discussion that Flyer is involved in is rather redundant.) WanderingWanda (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- More of the same nonsense from you, I see. Once again, you have confronted me to air your imaginary grievances and to make false claims...such as never seeing Crossroads and I "disagree, about anything, ever." Yeah, with the way you watch these articles like a hawk, I'm sure you missed me disagreeing with Crossroads on this matter. And you surely missed this discussion showing Crossroads disagreeing with the inclusion of material I added. Crossroads and I agree most of the time, but we have also disagreed several times. He can point to more examples, because I'm not going to. He is also interested in topics I'm not interested in. I'm usually in agreement with Doc James as well, but I don't see anyone stating that Doc and I are socks or are "basically twins." Sure, Doc and I don't share as many article interests, but still. You have no proof that Crossroads and I "openly email back and forth about contentious articles." And I'm not going to respond to that assertion further since I'm not on trial, even though you keep trying to put me on trial, despite the way the aforementioned ANI thread against me went. A number of people have accused you of activism, and that includes Johnuniq. And not unfairly either. I have "pushed and pushed and pushed" you, you say? Yes, I am aware that I have repeatedly pushed you by adhering to this site's rules and rejecting your activism, and that you consider this ownership on my part.
- I refer people to the aforementioned discussion on El C's talk page. Regardless of whatever supposed aspersions I've cast your way, you keep going and going after me while I keep trying and trying to avoid you. I never go out of my way to respond to you, and certainly not to make a jab at you. That is why Crossroads recently stated, "WanderingWanda, enough with the snipes at Flyer. There appears to be some special grudge there, but I'm feeling left out." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- You've cast far more WP:ASPERSIONS my way than the reverse. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- In my experience (on and off Wikipedia), those who go on about their supposed scrupulous honesty are not scrupulously honest. In my experience (on and off Wikipedia), those who continue to try and interact with people who have been clear that they don't want to interact with them (unless necessary) for valid reasons and who continue to try to get a rise out of the people who do not want to interact with them shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. In my experience, those who are only on Wikipedia to push activism shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative environment, but it doesn't tolerate editors forcing themselves, or trying to force themselves, on others. It knows that not all editors are going to get along, which is why WP:IBAN exists. It doesn't tolerate the repeated sly or direct aspersions you cast my way. But keep testing the waters. You'll learn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- In my experience, people who often accuse others of dishonesty are often projecting. I have always been scrupulously honest on Wikipedia. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Um, no! I deal with your nonsense enough! If I had directly named you and wanted another discussion like the one I had on El C's talk page, that would be different. I clearly framed this section as one where I am venting and "seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas." And you can't even let me vent in peace or seek advice in peace. Your claim that you are one of Ivanvector's talk page watchers to escape me referring to WP:HOUND is dubious when your comment above is your first comment on this talk page. I could have emailed Ivanvector about this, but I chose to comment on Ivanvector's talk page and ping others to discuss with. Nothing good happens when the two of us interact with each other. You are on a course for ANI. And if you think nothing will happen, you should think again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- You stated, "In any case, it is not [your] intent to 'hound' [me]. [You'll] call [me] out if [I'm] up to shit on an article [you] follow, sure, or are pinging a bunch of people to gang up on [you] behind [your] back." Yes, you hound without knowing you are hounding; no one buys that. Yes, I'm "up to shit" on the articles you watch. Appropriate shit, as made clear by several editors in the aforementioned ANI thread. And as for "pinging a bunch of people to gang up on [you] behind [your] back"? To repeat: "I clearly framed this section as one where I am venting and 'seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas.' And you can't even let me vent in peace or seek advice in peace." You unnecessarily showed up here to cause drama, expecting me and others to believe that you just so happened to be watching Ivanvector's talk page. You once again have unnecessarily pinged my brother, as to try to cause more drama. You don't care one bit about "different writing style[s]." If you did, you would accept the fact that, despite my brother having copied my writing style in the past (as he's copied others, as also noted on his user page), several admins and CUs have noticed that my brother writes differently than I do in a number of ways instead of continuing to state or imply that he's my sock. That you keep bringing up my brother to try and sling mud my way and as though it helps your argument or as though you are conducting a WP:SPI is just one aspect of your problematic behavior. That is you trying to get under my skin. And then you act surprised when I type up an "essay" about your problematic behavior.
- If you are hoping for a two-way interaction ban between us, I think it is likelier that you get a one-way interaction ban...and in your direction.
- You stated that you "never once edited an article or a talk page because [you] saw it on [my] contributions list." I don't believe you. And I never will.
- As for hoping I'm doing well and me goading you? More nonsense. And do you expect me to just let your accusations go unchallenged? If you truly did not want "this back and forth," you would not have engaged in your usual antics in this section. And that includes your "anyone with a heart" comment. It boggles my mind that you keep trying to play the victim when you keep going after me the way that you do. Boggles the mind. And whether or not I talk with Ivanvector about this here out in the open or via email, the way I've talked to other admins about your problematic editing and behavior via email, your baiting will be stopped. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- @WanderingWanda: Your persistent pestering of Flyer22 Reborn has to stop. You have contributed nothing to this talk page section other than expressing your dislike and distrust of Flyer22 Reborn. Your involvemant here was totally unnecessary; nothing would have been lost had you ignored it and got on with some useful editing instead. However, what turns this from just a few critical comments that weren't really necessary into harassment was your totally gratuitously bringing in your perpetual innuendo about Flyer22 Reborn's brother and Crossroads. Flyer22 Reborn knows all about your thoughts in that area, and your repeatedly bringing it up, even when it is irrelevant to what is being discussed, is a deliberate policy of harassment. Flyer22 Reborn is not always diplomatic, and unfortunately at times she hands you enough ammunition to prevent the problems between the two of you being entirely one-sided, but as time goes on it becomes more and more clear that while her behaviour is not always perfect, she never does anything resembling your gratuitously jumping in and attacking her every time you can see an opportunity for doing so. I wonder how many times you have said things similar to "I don't want to keep this back and forth up so this will probably be my last reply unless you really goad me", as you did above. On this occasion she did not "goad" you: you jumped in when you didn't need to. Having done so you brought up your usual stuff about "those pesky brother accounts" and "that most bizarre of brother-sister duos", despite the fact that they had no relevance at all to anything that had been said. Calling her and her brother "most bizarre" serves no useful or constructive purpose whatever, and amounts to a personal attack. In my opinion both of you would have been better advised in this discussion to just drop the matter and ignore one another, but that does not mean that the situation is totally symmetrical; Flyer should have refused to take your bait, but she would have had no need to do so unless you had baited her. I do not follow either your or Flyer's editing, so the occasions when I do see what is going on between you are fairly infrequent, but even so I have seen enough, and if I see you harassing or baiting her again I am likely to block you from editing. JBW (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Less fortunately (for myself and the community) I have been loosely following this personality conflict for some time, and Flyer is indeed correct above when she says "nothing good happens when the two of us [meaning WanderingWanda] interact with each other". I am more inclined to serve you both a no-fault interaction ban under WP:ARBGG in the interest of allowing other interested editors to edit these topics free of your conflict, one which would permit you to edit the same pages as long as you strictly do not interact with each other, but I tend to dislike broad-topic interaction bans and JBW has given me more to think about. I'm also very busy today, so WanderingWanda, this is your opportunity to disengage. I would anticipate it being very unlikely you will get another. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I feel myself periodically drawn into these things, by what I watchlist and whose disputes/dramas I run across and what examining them further leads to. I neither disagree all the time with WanderingWanda (even WW says so! [3]) nor agree all the time with Flyer22_Reborn. I've had lengthy discussions with both in e-mail. I don't feel I need to take back what I said in detail in Nov. 2019 about this conflict. I do have to add, though, that a few editors' frequent accusations of "transphobi[a|c]" simply because someone doesn't agree with some particular highly activistic socio-political positions being advocated on Wikipedia (but are instead seeking neutrality in our coverage and our WP:P&G material regardless how they personally feel about such matters in their off-site lives) is continuing to be problematic. In a sense, it's become more problematic because we know this isn't the first time it's been pointed out that it needs to stop. I don't think this is a WanderingWanda and Flyer22_Reborn matter in particular. Rather, there's a "gender-issues and language-reform warrior" camp active on the site, and it's sometimes difficult for people who agree with some or all of its message to avoid getting drawn also into its verbally abusive and character-assassinating tactics. The larger behavior set needs scrutiny.
This subject area is under WP:AC/DS for a reason, and those discretionary sanctions need to be applied judiciously but reasonably until the topic area becomes tolerable again for everyday editors who are here to write balanced coverage of subjects (from the broad topics down to specific bios like Genesis P-Orridge, etc.). I've long opposed the use of indefs and lengthy topic-bans when it comes to such unhelpful behavior in contentious topics, when short-term T-bans (e.g. a month, then escalating to 3 months, then a 6 or a year if really necessary) tend to be effective without costing the project all of an editor's more constructive participation. And that goes for both sides; if one were to, say, cast aspersions about someone's motives because they have a transgender family member, that would be actionable no less than calling someone transphobic because their view of neutral interpretation of the sources differs from one's own.
I'm not going to get into a pile of diffy specifics right now. That's what AE and ANI and RFARB and ARCA are for, and I don't feel that someone in particular needs to be banned/blocked at this point (well, not among this pair). Frankly, there are two flat-out drama mongers who need noticeboard examination more urgently, for entirely unrelated reasons (one is a "style warrior" pushing an obsessive pro-government/bureaucratese PoV, and another is engaging in extreme nationalism, IDHT, and OR about animal breeds, both of them being attacky about it all the time). I'm just making the general point, since a bunch of admins have been pinged to this thread.While a two-way I-ban of WanderingWanda and Flyer22_Reborn might "conveniently" and situationally reduce a small amount of sporadic drama, it will not address the underlying problem, that this is a highly contentious area with a near poisonous level of strife, and much of that is outright programmatic (from one particular side of it). A two-editor I-ban would verge on scapegoating, and at most would be putting a Band-Aid on a sucking chest wound. So would leaping on one editor or the other for a comment if it's not part of continuing pattern of verbal abuse. At worst, it might actually encourage WP:GAMING by others (less WP:HERE that WW) in that socio-political viewpoint space: entrap opponents in circular, overly-personalized debates until I-banned (but with low risk of oneself being sanctioned beyond that, out of admin fear of being called foo-phobic for going any further); then go right back to working with the rest of one's WP:FACTION to PoV-skew all our topics on lefty subjects with near-impunity, having locked out most criticism). I've been saying for years now that the real threat to WP in the long term isn't vandals, it's "slow-editwar" and "civil PoV-pushing" tactics by email-coordinated camps who are here to enforce an external viewpoint in our content. Much of it even means well. While we may have in front of us two editors in a superficially silly personality conflict, it's rooted in something more serious and it's not about personality but about WP:ENC. I'm well aware that various editors claim there's some kind of far-right putsch to malign the transgendered, to undermine coverage of GLBT+ topics and feminism, and otherwise push right-wing extremism. But there's no evidence this is actually true, and when random Trumperinos pop in and push such agendas they're shut down fast. We do, however, clearly have ongoing mass-scale activism from the far-left, which is mostly unchecked except by neutral/centrist editors with thick skins, and even they get hounded away pretty quickly by censorious "progressive" and "liberal" indoctrinators who aren't really either of those adjectives. The ability of that camp to inspire otherwise awesome editors to slip across some important lines for politicized reasons sometimes is, well, kind of disconcerting. PS: I say all this as a classic-liberal, anti-fascist, sexual-egalitarian, LGBT-positive, sex-positive, center-left, agnostic anti-authoritarian (and former professional civil-liberties activist), who takes few solidly right-wing views on anything but gun control (I grew up mostly in the US Southwest, where shooting ranges and hunting are something you do even as a kid). I'm the furthest thing from a transphobe or a right-wingnut. If even I'm seriously concerned about what the far left are getting away with on WP these days, then we do have a genuine problem.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)- Just for posterity: in spite of the opinion SMcCandlish expressed above, there is in fact a good deal of evidence that "gender critical" individuals gathered in Reddit (r/gendercritical) and on Twitter have worked in coordination to align trans-related articles to their "external viewpoint", a kind of brigading that progressive/mainstream editors on LGBTQ topics have not engaged in, to my knowledge. I also think it relevant to note that SMcCandlish's views on "gender issues and language reform" have been found, through site-wide discussion on WP, not to reflect site-wide policy-based consensus here. While I respect ideosynctatic individuality as much as anyone, I do find it important to remember who is speaking at all times. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Since Newimpartial has showed up here, I would like to point out to the admins by far the most disturbing comment from that talk page, which was made by Newimpartial:
I will be happy when the last self-avowed "homosexual" is dead and buried and only we queers, fags, dykes and non-binary people remain.
-Crossroads- (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) - (edit conflict) One clan of trolls trying to affect our content and failing badly at it because we shut that shit down fast is nothing like an ongoing and tacitly accepted overwhelming dominance of Wikipedia coverage on certain topics by a particular circumscribed set of viewpoints, due to WP's strongly left-leaning demographic agreeing with the content of "the message". (Cf. what I said below in response to Crossroads.) It has to do with actual effects. No one has ever suggested there are no transphobes nor that they never try to PoV-push here. We just don't let them do it. So why do we let the TG/NB and general LGBT crowd do it? Continue to take that route is going to bite our ass right off.
As for that last bit, Newimpartial is blatantly fabricating. What really happened is that a humor essay I wrote primarily about self-aggrandizing, religious, religious, and commercial language manipulation was misinterpreted as "transphobic" by some editors who assume that anything at all ever critical of pronoun usage must necessarily be an attack on TG people, which is of course nonsense. At MfD, there was a consensus to keep my userspace essay, but to blank the version that ran in The Signpost as (in that house-organ context) controversial and likely to offend, not because of the intent of it but because it was poorly written enough that the intent wasn't clear. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC); rev'd. 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Since Newimpartial has showed up here, I would like to point out to the admins by far the most disturbing comment from that talk page, which was made by Newimpartial:
- Just for posterity: in spite of the opinion SMcCandlish expressed above, there is in fact a good deal of evidence that "gender critical" individuals gathered in Reddit (r/gendercritical) and on Twitter have worked in coordination to align trans-related articles to their "external viewpoint", a kind of brigading that progressive/mainstream editors on LGBTQ topics have not engaged in, to my knowledge. I also think it relevant to note that SMcCandlish's views on "gender issues and language reform" have been found, through site-wide discussion on WP, not to reflect site-wide policy-based consensus here. While I respect ideosynctatic individuality as much as anyone, I do find it important to remember who is speaking at all times. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- WanderingWanda, you clearly have not looked hard enough to find where I have disagreed with Flyer. Standing out in my mind was one lengthy discussion (lengthy because the issue was complex and there were other participants, not because of Flyer's comments) about comparing animal and human sexual behavior, and an IP and two accounts that added likely-COI content about it. [4] I've had disgruntled people follow me on that matter before, so none of that. I can think of others which I am not listing. As far as being at the same pages, yes, we have overlapping interests, so what? Editing at the same time - not that much. The "openly" thing is unsupported nonsense, and I have edited several topic areas that Flyer has not, and vice versa. The old "1" in my name was because "Crossroads" was not available when I got an account - I usurped it later. And I never interacted with nor ever heard of Flyer until a year after I got the account. As for often agreeing, well, you'll find that, for example, editors who focus on fringe theories agree on a lot too. In all these cases, it is about representing the relevant scientific consensus and not putting undue weight on personally liked theories. And yes, WanderingWanda does have an activist mentality, as seen most obviously at this discussion, but here's another for good measure.
- I hope that any admins participating will look at the discussion at El C's talk page.
- WanderingWanda, you also stated above to Flyer, "I'll call you out if you're up to shit on an article I follow..." What "shit" has Flyer been up to? What does this mean?
- When I stated I was "feeling left out", I was only half-joking. WanderingWanda does seem to have a special animosity towards Flyer, which is puzzling to me, since many others (like myself) have also opposed the very same proposals. But this stuff at the Lesbian erasure talk page is just unacceptable. The comment "Flyer, who likes to go on wearying five-hundred-billion-word-long off-topic rants" added nothing to the discussion and is a blatant personal attack. And the sermonizing about "What extremist anti-trans groups have to say about trans women is offensive to anyone with a heart." was in response to Flyer's "I toned down the language others would find offensive", obviously trying to imply Flyer 'lacked a heart' for not saying it directly was offensive (but as was noted, we're not supposed to edit on the basis of personal feelings, so why should she say it that way?). And WanderingWanda showing up here was an obvious WP:HOUNDing. As another example of their weird focus on Flyer, here in the 23:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC) comment, you can see that WanderingWanda was cutting out parts of Flyer's comments, for which they were admonished by an ArbCom clerk.
- I very much agree with JBW's comment, especially the apt description of "gratuitously jumping in and attacking her every time you can see an opportunity for doing so". I don't think a mutual I-ban would be good, because there is not a symmetry here. I've observed that Flyer has a long history here with a reputation of neutrally representing relevant POVs in the article content, which crucially includes actually writing content. WanderingWanda seems to have too much focus on changing terminology and images so as to right great wrongs.
- I humbly suggest the following. I think Flyer should be advised not to take the bait when feeling provoked; I myself advise that if nothing else. I think WanderingWanda should be warned about personal attacks and harassment. As far as a one-way I-ban or a short term block, maybe; that's up to the admins and their experience in these sorts of things. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Another striking difference to me is that (so far as I've observed) Flyer22_Reborn, like me, takes issues with viewpoints being pushed not on the basis of what the views are, but simply because they are viewpoints being pushed, while the TG/NB (and LGBT+ and leftism more broadly) activism cluster are very much taking an issue with the content of the viewpoints they disagree with while doing nothing about, or even directly advocating, views they agree with coming to dominate the content (as well as the WP:P&G material that pertains to the topic). So, this is another thing that's not parallel, though I don't think it's WW in particular, but rather a large and nebulous segment of editors, many of them fairly recent, who manage to peer-pressure editors who really know better to partake in it. I don't mean this to sound like some kind of conspiracy theory; it's just typical human politics and group dynamics at work. We have policies in place to restrain that, but they don't work if admins don't apply them. We really have to take an anthropological, culturally relative view about such matters. The difference between objecting to PoV because of its PoV versus because is is PoV is central to this entire topical range of dispute on Wikipedia. Until that is wrestled with, interpersonal conflicts like this will continue to arise. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)