User talk:TaylanUB

Welcome

Welcome!

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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)

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.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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.

Template:Z33 EvergreenFir (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

comments at Talk:Transphobia

Hi TaylanUB:

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)

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.

Again, thanks for the welcome! TaylanUB (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Can you please provide a {{Diff}} of where citations of The Guardian et al. were replaced with opinion pieces? That should be fixed. Mathglot (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

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!

Woodsy lesfem (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding quotations with named references

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.
• The last way I know of is to use the |q= param of the {{rp}} template. See the documentation for details. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

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? 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)

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)

Figured out a modification of the {{efn}} method which I think is cool as far as linking the quotes back to the source; check out Mexican Legion of Honor, and let me know what you think. Mathglot (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Notes

References

Some baklava for you!

Great to see another wiki writer questioning the bias SheWhoSees (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice

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)

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)

Sources

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)

FYI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Trans_man#Biological_vs_Social_View_of_Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userwoman (talk • contribs) 01:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you about this, but can you add some comments to the RfC that I have created? Trans Man RfC Userwoman (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Feminist Current

The article Feminist Current has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability, the vast majority of the small amount of mentions of the website are from non notable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ShimonChai (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

See Meghan Murphy which I've now created. She covers most of the first page of results when her name is googled and the first picture to appear is hers. Taylan (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Meghan Murphy before Canadian Senate.jpg

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)

June 2018

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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

I have already pointed to the source, and examined the way the sourcing is inserted in the article, on its talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Meghan Murphy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meghan Murphy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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)

Maintenance templates

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)

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)

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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Feminist Current logo.png

⚠

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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The Article "Trans woman"

Hi!

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.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I have the feeling of Déjà vu. Userwoman (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Notification of discretionary sanctions on articles related to gender or GamerGate

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.)

Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 19:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33

Your recent edit at "Trans man"

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 an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• 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

-- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 21:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding possible gaming of the system and abuse of process. The thread is Possible_Gaming_of_the_System_and_Abuse_of_Process. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 07:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

And nothing came out of it. Quelle surprise. Taylan (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Credibility issues and activism

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)

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-8d682abcec54 Taylan (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

To be more precise, Taylan appears to be pro-biological female rather than pro-woman; this particular political stance apparently makes it difficult to distinguish between the two verbally. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I got the gist of what Taylan was saying I think. I meant it is better to be pro-woman than a woman hater or the ilk. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

100% agreed, as far as that goes. Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

Tara Wolf edit summary

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your conviction that transwomen are "male persons" is FRINGE in the 21st century in the context of OECD countries.

Also, what is your evidence that she doesn't have a GRC? Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

Do not dox people. I have redacted her name per WP:DOX. --ChiveFungi (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Your transphobia is not welcome here..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I could potentially see an edit warring block, but a WP:Nothere one doesn't make sense. They have been quite active at contributing to articles and talk page discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

Even just a cursory glance at their userpage makes it clear that they're PoV pushing against "the transgender agenda" in contravention of WP:TRANS?. The ban seems entirely justified imho. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

TaylanUB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

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.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• 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)

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)

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.)

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Taylan (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

  Agreed. This discussion should be happening at ANI, with Taylan involved. Vermont (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

wumbolo ^^^ 20:09, 3 October 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)

  Why is it "bigoted" to refer to a male person with male pronouns? Taylan (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

• It seems clear from Taylan's continued vocal bigotry even in the midst of appealing a ban [15] 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)

  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)