User talk:Sue Gardner: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 708: Line 708:


:Transphobia - Intense dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people. The problem with the words trans-phobia and homo-phobia is that they use the wording phobia in them which means "fear" The wording of phobia is used a-lot and in medical terms as well. My opinion is that I hope over time the trans-community will adopt a better word that can be better understood by people because transphobia is yes a confusing word to many. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 13:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
:Transphobia - Intense dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people. The problem with the words trans-phobia and homo-phobia is that they use the wording phobia in them which means "fear" The wording of phobia is used a-lot and in medical terms as well. My opinion is that I hope over time the trans-community will adopt a better word that can be better understood by people because transphobia is yes a confusing word to many. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 13:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

::Because of course the burden lies upon the oppressed minority to adopt terms ''to describe hate-speech'' that are more acceptable to the powerful majority among whom the practitioners of that hate-speech find sanctuary. In my opinion, the privileged can get the hell over their etymological discomfort much more easily than trans people can 'get over' being placed at a disadvantage in almost every environment through a mixture of ignorance and hate on the part of others. [[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]] ([[User talk:AlexTiefling|talk]]) 13:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

==== AlexTiefling ====

Yes, I have considered taking a WikiBreak, or even leaving for good, over this issue. I think that the way in which some editors - especially but not only Baseball Bugs - have been allowed to get away with explicitly transphobic remarks and a deeply damaging battleground attitude has permanently harmed my already low esteem for civility on the site. Bugs gets away with a hell of a lot on Reference Desks and ITNC as well; along with a few others, he seems to belong to a mysterious class of 'tolerated trolls' whom I would much rather see banished. For him to dominate the discussion of Manning's gender identity so completely with his usual jerkishness was extremely discouraging. Similarly, we have seen remarks from a wide range of users claiming special knowledge of everything from 'legal name' laws in the USA to the contents of Manning's underwear. This is simply not a responsible way for an encyclopedia to determine policy or write content. I am making a fuller statement to the ArbCom shortly on this basis; I do not yet know whether I will remain as an editor here in the longer term. [[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]] ([[User talk:AlexTiefling|talk]]) 13:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


== ygm ==
== ygm ==

Revision as of 13:58, 19 September 2013

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Welcome!

Looks like you've never been welcomed! :-(

Welcome!

Hello, Sue Gardner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cbrown1023 talk 15:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Your Kind Attention

Please read this: Commons:User_talk:Russavia#Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_persons. JKadavoor Jee 05:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR: Wikipedia's IRC channels

Please see a current request for arbitration, which discusses the relation between

  • WMF and Wikipedia (and its ArbCom) and
  • Wikipedia's IRC channels.

I have added you as a party to the arbitration case.

Concerns include the use of IRC for

  1. canvassing administrators,
  2. sexual banter with children,
  3. chatting about lighting myself on fire with oil and a lighter (by a WMF employee), etc.

Another concern is the failure of WMF and Wikipedia to match the child-protection standards of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, for example, by requiring two adults witness every child-adult interaction. The Scouts would not tolerate Wikipedia's editor

  1. telling a boy how to work around his parents' removal of his contact list from his email, and following up with emails and IM messages for months, including one following the boy's having "learned his lesson".
  2. telling a boy that the editor will be visiting his town the next week.

IRC is a liability to children and Wikipedia and certainly to the WMF.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, please be aware that the Arbcom has removed you, Sue, as a party to the case. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The STOPhaus Movement Claims that WP Community is Purposefully Maintaining Libel

You may or may not be aware that there has been an ongoing feud between an anti-spam organization known as The Spamhaus Project and an anti-censorship collective known as The STOPhaus Movement. This has spilled over into Wikipedia community due to a largely biased and one-sided section on a page that seems to be gvery one-sided altogether. The Spamhaus Project has a page on Wikipedia and on that page there is a discussion concerning STOPhaus and their involvement in the "Largest DDoS Attack in History" as NYT so sensationally called it.

The NYT journalist, Nicole Perlroth and John Markoff were fed the content by Cloudflare, a DDoS mitigation company working alongside The Spamhaus Project. The Wikipedia article reflects on allegations against The STOPhaus Movement and even goes as far as to use a quote calling us "spam and malware hosters", "criminals" and various other libelous claims. We, if there is a "we" are a group of people, users, ISPs, and various anonymous supporters that believe that Spamhaus are over-aggressive in their means to the point it is, or should be, illegal. The debate is whether or not they are, in fact, criminal in their actions.

I am reaching out on the behalf of The STOPhaus Movement to suggest that your editors allow the inclusion of the allegations against Spamhaus, made by STOPhaus or the removal of any reference to STOPhaus from The Spamhaus Page. Maintaining what we are calling libel without moral or reasonable grounds to do so appears to be malicious propaganda and is being received as such. Congratulations on your new life, but you should understand first hand, how a NYT inaccuracy becomes a PR nightmare and Wikimedia Foundation Inc. should not promote the libelous abuse of any group of people.

Especially since the largest STOPhaus support comes from your hometown and a recently formed Political Party in Pinellas County support TSM. Seems you should be a proponent for the whole truth and nothing but the truth, bring a Floridian. Maybe London has already gotten to you though, who knows?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.120.156.50 (talk • contribs)

For info, Philippe has already replied to this on his talk page, where it was also posted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, thank you, Demiurge - I was just coming here to say that. You beat me to it ;-) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July 2013 news report

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
  • Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now!
  • Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor.

>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Question

No more trolling on my talk page, please.

Dear Sue Gardner,

I consider becoming a Wikipedian, but I have a question.

A few days ago I happened to read this

[10:10am] <sgardner>: Thehelpfulone: we could ask Kat, right now :-)

[10:10am] <Thehelpfulone>: indeed, mindspillage what do you do?

[10:10am] <sgardner>: (Pinning her up against the wall, as Ironholds likes :-) [10:10am] <mindspillage>: ...

[10:10am] <Ironholds>: ...

[10:10am] <sgardner>: LOL :-)

[10:10am] <Ironholds>: NOT what I meant

[10:10am] <StevenW>: She spills her mind, obviously. ;)

[10:11am] <Ironholds>: sgardner: you know the WMF covering psychiatric insurance?

[10:11am] <Ironholds>: does it just cover YOURS, or are you going to pay for the trauma I've just suffered? :p

[10:11am] <sgardner>: Most definitely :-)

[10:11am] <mindspillage>: Mostly, we send a lot of email. So part of it is the basic oversight role: reviewing the budget, the annual plan, evaluating the executive director ::eyes sgardner::. and the general functioning of the org...


So I wonder, if the WMF covering psychiatric insurance only for employees or for volunteers too?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.173.62 (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that this IRC exchange is being quoted, lately, in the context of an Arb Com case. I'm not that familiar with the case (nor do I feel I need to be), so I'll limit myself to a general comment about the exchange. This was an informal jokey exchange on IRC among people who know each other well: Ironholds, Kat and I have all known each other for years, and we are friendly. That's the context. A slightly broader point: IMO IRC is a medium that lends itself to, and is often used for, casual kibitzing -- it is essentially a social medium that provides a way for people to collapse physical distance and hang out together as though they were in the same room. In the same way that I don't think it would be useful to, years later, play back sections of a phone call or office water-cooler conversation, I also don't think it's useful to quote back sections of IRC dialogue. It's an ephemeral medium. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean that, when you 'do' hang out together in the same room Ironholds is pinning you and Kat up against the wall? Thanks.

@Sue Gardner:

  • Will you point to any IRC logs where you stated that ongoing misogynist behavior was inappropriate? Where any WMF staffperson stated that ongoing misogynist behavior was inappropriate?
  • Who hired Oliver Keyes, despite his years of misogynistic, violent, and defamatory rhetoric?
  • Doesn't your acquiescence to misogyny and indeed playful parroting of misogyny contribute to a hostile work environment for women at WMF? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would like to consider the point that different levels of seriousness / discretion are suitable for different types of social settings. For example, you don't behave the same way at a business meeting that you would behave at a party, the behavior at party would not be the same as at a pub and the behavior at a pub would be different from the behavior at a camping in the forest.... Similarly, the behavioral requirements on the net are also different at different places. The behavioral requirements at arbcom > ANI > article talk > user talk. You also have to consider whether the setting is friendly or disputatious. In dispute situations, even referring to me as "Oranges" may become contentious, but may not be so otherwise. Butting into other people's conversation, taking things out of context and blowing those out of context things out of proportion by detecting and becoming aghast at x$-ism (even when none of the participants in the conversation seem to have any problems with each other) seems somewhat bumptious to me. Surely you can find something better to do? Alternatively, perhaps you can find worse things to get aghast about? I could help you find both. Just ask. And, is it kosher for a Wikipedian to try to affect another Wikipedian's employment by contacting their employer?OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sue is responsible for her own behavior in Wikipedia's IRC. I have not contacted the board, which has the authority to hire and fire her. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about Ironhold's employment. I think Sue has the authority to fire him.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but this section discusses Sue's behavior. An earlier section alerts Sue to Ironholds's behavior, and it is the earlier section where your comments might be relevant. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have discussed Ironhold's behavior here too, with Sue. That my comment may be relevant elsewhere does not magically mean that it is irrelevant here. And my comment was not about Ironhold's employment alone.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just quickly I am going to say here: I am not planning to publicly discuss the behaviour of individual staff members, and it's unlikely I will be commenting in this thread again. If people continue discussing it, here or elsewhere, I'd ask you to be careful with your language. Please be generous or at a minimum neutral in terms of how you characterize the behaviour of others. "Misogyny," for example, is a very strong word and a serious accusation: it shouldn't be lightly made. Thanks. Sue Gardner (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sue Gardner:
"Misogyny" is the correct word to describe the advocacy of shooting named women and punching a hole in the windpipe of a woman to prolong her suffocation. It's also used by a leading newspaper:
  • Murphy, Dan (2013). "In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny: Recent events in Britain draw more attention to endemic hostility towards women online". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 1 August 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
How do you describe the proposal to buy sex dolls in the likeness of Jimbo Wales and (by Ironholds) Peter Damien and to use the latter as a punching bag? (24 November 2011, employed as "Wikimedia Foundation community liaison")
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sue, in his article, Dan posed a simple challenge to you: as the leader of the WMF, who has expressed an interest in bolstering women on Wikipedia, why is it you seek to defend boorish behaviour rather than try and set the tone? Everyone is allowed to slip up, just surprised you didn't put your hand up and say "Not one of my finest moments, let's do better." About time WMF put up or shut up about IRC. Close it down or set some rules, set an example. Nobody else is going to do it for you. 94.169.24.206 (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sue, this is the kind of thing Jimbo does on his talk page when an uncomfortable topic is discussed. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not fair to Jimbo, who allowed his talk page to be used to resolve another IRC discussion of sexual violence targeting a Wikipedia volunteer. Guess which WMF employee suggested punching a life-sized sex-doll of the volunteer? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was very concerned to read in the Christian Science Monitor the flippant tone and substance of the response by Sue Gardner to shocking and disturbing expressions of misogyny and sexualized-violence by WMF employee and Wikipedia editor Oliver Keyes (aka Ironholds), whose apparent years-long pattern of misogynistic, violent, and defamatory rhetoric I learned about thanks to the efforts of Kiefer Wolfowitz.
I was especially disillusioned when Gardner wrote, "I also don't think it's useful to quote back sections of IRC dialogue. It's an ephemeral medium." She actually seems to be saying that she didn't think it was convenient to have abusive and inappropriate IRC dialogue quoted back to her and reported on by the MSM or anyone else, and that she wished it were an ephemeral medium - when in reality it isn't. Her trying to hide this discussion on her talk page only serves to amplify the disillusion.
Why would I give my daughter permission - let alone encourage her - to become involved in editing Wikipedia or engaging in any way over any project for any reason with the WMF, when there is apparently official tolerance of the online abuse and degradation of women on Wikipedia and its related mediums (like quasi-official IRC)...by Wikimedia Foundation employees?! This is a question all responsible parents should ask, b/c unless I am mistaken, Gardner has not denounced Oliver Keyes' statements as inappropriate, nor has she advocated for an end to officially-tolerated online abuse of women by WMF staff, volunteers and/or supporters? If she has, I would appreciate being directed to that official statement and wonder why it has not been reported on by the media? (I do not believe a non-transparent user-driven "arbitration" can substitute for an official response from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner.) Azx2 22:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few have accused Ironholds of being a misogynist, but not a single women. Female editors have in fact said he's the very opposite, check for example this page and search for the word "progressive" to see several such statements. Having spoke to Sue at a London meetup, she's as caring a person as one could hope to meet. And you only have to check her contributions , including from today, to see she writes with sensitivity and compassion about all kinds of progressive causes. Its understandable that folk are passionate about this topic, but that makes it all the more important to do a little research before publicly asking such ultra hostile loaded questions against a woman who edits in her real name and is probably too busy to defend herself against this sort of thing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It does amuse me that, while we have newcomers with, shall we say, interesting imagery on their user and talk pages (are both of those your daughters, Azx2?), making wild accusations like this, what we actually see on IRC on a day to day basis is that the most active of the people in charge of IRC are all female. Do they make the right decisions, do they make the wrong decisions, well I have no comment for now, but I wonder if this Azx2 person has ever spoken to those women about their decisions, before making these attacks here.
Oh, and the Christian Science Monitor made the mistake of allowing that ridiculous piece to be published under their byline, by an individual who has already declared that he wants money or "editorial control" otherwise he would rather gouge his eye out with a fork than contribute to Wikipedia.
Do you feel the same way, Azx2? What are you here for? Money? Editorial control? Something else? We would be interested to know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal and Moral Rights?

In a discussion with Jimmy Wales on the moral rights of the photographers and the personal rights of the subjects, he said "I think that the commons community has gone down a very sad and disappointing path with respect to ethical matters. My views on this are not new, and are well known. Our project is a grand humanitarian effort. That it has been hijacked by people who do not share our values is something that needs to be fixed."

We further requested him to bring this matter to the attention of WMF and make a resolution or something to force Commons make enough policies to protect our rights as a photographer and our commitments to our subjects. He replied: "I am just one board member on this issue. I will continue to call this to the attention of the board and staff, but I need help from the community to illustrate that this is a problem that concerns many of us."

So we would like to bring that discussion to the attention of every member on board. JKadavoor Jee 11:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me this. Sue Gardner (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And please note a somewhat related discussion at Commons too: Concern about the bureaucrat role of Russavia JKadavoor Jee 17:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to let you know that your strong opinion along with others ([1], [2], [3]) influenced the Commons community to initiate a discussion to develop a policy for courtesy deletions. We expect guidance, opinions, and participation in the development of similar policies and guidelines in future too. Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 02:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good outcome, Jkadavoor: I'm glad about it. Thank you for telling me. Sue Gardner (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Proposed deletion of Mike Lofgren

The article Mike Lofgren has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

basically notable for one small event, no articles about him specifically, only the event.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. You can ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor newsletter for 06 August 2013

Quick tip: Need to wikilink a word in VisualEditor? Select the word and type Control+k or ⌘ Command+k to enter VisualEditor's link tool without taking your hands off the keyboard. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Keyboard shortcuts for more time-saving keyboard shortcuts.

It's been almost two weeks since the last newsletter, and a lot of improvements have been made during that time. The main things that people have noticed are significant improvements to speed for typing into long pages (Template:Bug), scrolling (Template:Bug) and deleting (Template:Bug) on large pages. There have also been improvements to references, with the latest being support for list-defined references, which are <ref>s defined inside a <references> block (Template:Bug). Users of Opera 12 and higher have had their web browser removed from the browser black-list, mostly as a result of work by a volunteer developer (Template:Bug). Opera has not been fully white-listed yet, so these users will get an additional warning and request to report problems.

Significant changes were made to the user interface to de-emphasize VisualEditor. This has cut the use of VisualEditor by approximately one-third. You can read about these at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Updates/August 1, 2013, but they include:

  • Re-ordering links to the editors to put "Edit source" first and VisualEditor second
  • Renaming the link for VisualEditor to "Editbeta"
  • Disabling the animation for section editing.
  • Changing all labels for the classic wikitext editor to say "Edit source", regardless of namespace.

There have also been many smaller fixes, including these:

  • Horizontal alignment of images working correctly on more pages (Template:Bug)
  • Categories with ':'s in their names (like Category:Wikipedia:Privacy) now work correctly (Template:Bug)
  • Magic JavaScript gadgets and tools like sortable tables will now work once the page is saved (Template:Bug)
  • Keyboard shortcut for "clear annotations" - now Control+\ or ⌘ Command+\ (Template:Bug)
  • Fixed corruption bugs that led to duplicate categories (Template:Bug) and improper collapsing when multiple new references were added in a row (Template:Bug).
  • Improvements to display elements: The save dialog in Monobook is restored to normal size (Template:Bug), pop-up notices on save now look the same in VisualEditor as in wikitext editor (Template:Bug), and the popup about using wikitext has a link to the definition of wikitext that now opens in a new window (Template:Bug)

Most of the Wikimedia Foundation staff is traveling this week and next, so no updates are expected until at least August 15th. If you're going to be in Hong Kong for Wikimania 2013, say hello to James Forrester, Philippe Beaudette, and the other members of the VisualEditor team.

As always, if you have questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 23:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General thoughts on building something collaboratively

General recommendations on how to contribute – SJ + 03:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

We have completed our July backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the August blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Build a better mousetrap

"Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." Wikipedia's basic design discourages female participation. So, in order to increase female participation in WP, you would have to go back to the beginning and fundamentally alter how WP works. Not likely. Cla68 (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox country

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor newsletter for 21 August 2013

Did you know? Parsoid is a tool that translates between the raw wikitext that Wikipedia articles are stored in, and the HTML/RDFa that VisualEditor uses on your screen. If you see chess pawn (♙) or snowman (☃) icons in an article, it usually means that Parsoid has encountered something confusing in the wikitext markup. Please report these problems to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Both VisualEditor and MediaWiki were upgraded recently. For VisualEditor, this is the long-awaited post-Wikimania update with many bug fixes and enhancements. Work also continues on speed at opening and during use, as well as on the bugs reported here and at other Wikipedias. The full report is at Mediawiki.

References are displaying properly, even when nested (Template:Bug) or in image captions (Template:Bug. Reference lists are now always fully populated with references (bug 50094). Firefox users can insert an existing reference in the first paragraph (Template:Bug). Opera users no longer see corruption of categories when a reference was added (bug 50385).

Stray spaces are being stripped from the start of paragraphs to end one of the common <nowiki> problems (Template:Bug). We also fixed a round-tripping bug that caused desirable whitespace in templates (used to make templates more legible, e.g., by putting each parameter in an infobox on a separate line) to get corrupted (bug 51150).

Wikilink handling was improved. Users are not allowed to create internal links to invalid titles (titles that are actually impossible due to limits on acceptable character combinations in titles, not redlinks) (Template:Bug). You can extend wikilinks, but it won't do so over a wordbreak (like a space) (bugs 49931 and 51463).

A handful of fixes to the user interface were made. The toolbar doesn't float over personal tools after opening a dialog or the inspector (Template:Bug). Toolbars were also re-written to be collapsible/expandable, with room for more icons. Buttons in dialogs can now be activated using the Tab ↹ and ⇧ Shift+Tab ↹ key commands (bug 50047). This saves time for editors, because you don't need to take your hands off the keyboard to click a button. We fixed a handful of bugs that affected only certain articles or certain browsers, including toolbar buttons in Firefox (bug 51986) and dialog panels that didn't always scroll correctly (bug 51739). Bugs with undo/redo getting confused have been fixed (Template:Bug).

Images, in addition to getting references displaying correctly, also saw improvements with a set-empty |link= parameter no longer corrupted (51963). We corrected thumbnail images' display so that they look don't wrong in some contexts (bug 51995). Inserted images no longer explicitly set their alignment, but instead inherit the default position in compliance with the Manual of Style (bug 51851).

More edit notices, warnings, and metadata like information about Pending Changes on an article now appear as appropriate (bug 49699). When new articles are created, users are now shown the <newarticletext> message (bug 51459). VisualEditor now handles templates that set "meta" items (like a category) and nothing else better (bug 51322). If the database is locked when a user tries to save with VisualEditor, they now get a message telling them as such and an opportunity to try again, rather than a silent failure (bug 51636).

When you save the page, having the default preference set to "mark all my edits as minor by default" no longer overrides the setting in the save dialog (bug 51515). If you open VisualEditor from a section edit link, the section's title will be pre-filled in in the edit summary box when you go to save it (bug 50872). The size of the save dialog box in the Monobook skin has been fixed (bug 50058). Also, wikipage content handlers like sortable tables are re-run automatically after saving (Template:Bug).

A very early version of the mathematics equation editor is now available for testing on mw:Mediawiki. If you would like to help improve the user interface for math editor, please test out the extension at mw:Mediawiki:Sandbox and leave your comments directly at the discussion page for the Math Node User Interface at Mediawiki. You should be able to use your regular username and password should to login to Mediawiki.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 17:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Sou Boyy awards Sue with a Special Barnstar for her Outstanding Contribution to Wikipedia and the Global Community Worldwide. My very best, Sou Boyy (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on Chelsea Manning's talk page. As a transsexual wikipedian, it really means a lot to see that you recognize and respect how trans people choose to be identified. I've been appalled at the response by some major media sources recently - they will report that she wants be be called by her new name with feminine pronouns, then go on and finish the article with the wrong name and pronouns. The media is bringing trans issues to the attention of a lot of people who have never thought about it before, and by ignoring her wishes they are teaching their readers that it is okay for them to misgender trans people in general. It is wonderful to see that Wikipedia changed the article so quickly and that you personally support the change. I hope that Wikipedia and the media sources covering this properly will help make people think twice about how they understand trans people, and will help make the world a better place for all of us. Thanks again! Jessica Ryan (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

Hi Sue

This is just a courtesy note to say that I referred to you in a discussion at WP:ANI about the possible sanction of an editor for their comments in the debates on the naming of the article on Chelsea Manning.

The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_closure; the diffs of my 2 relevant edits are [4] and [5]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE Blitz wrap-up and September 2013 drive invitation

Guild of Copy Editors August Blitz wrap-up

Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 26 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the September drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest and Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the September drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

You inspire people!

Hello Sue,

I just sttoped by because I wanted to say thank you. You are an magnificent WikiWoman and real woman. It's great what you're doing.
I've always wanted to be a journalist and after reading your profile I am 100% sure that that's exactly what I want to do with my life, becoming a Journalist. Thanks for being such an inspiration. Miss Bono [zootalk] 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting child editors

Sue, have you read the latest blog post on Wikipediocracy? The adult WP editor who privately contacted the 11-year old has posted here on your talk page. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

September 2013

Information icon Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Someone not using his real name, it was an edit conflict. I don't know if you fixed it or I did but regardless, it was unintentional, and it's okay now :-) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender identity disorder

Hey, Sue. Just to let you know, you should be a bit more careful while editing regarding GID and autogynephilia; it's a recurring issue involving COIs and POVs that most recently surfaced here and here, among others. I'd also express concern when treating autogynephilia uncritically, especially given that WPATH doesn't seem to give it any currency. Sceptre (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Want to help WLM? The last images needed in SF

I remember you contributed last year! The first 3 in the list are probably best done via archive search, so are not really WLM, but the last one has your name written all over it!

Any help appreciated.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map all coordinates using OpenStreetMap

Download coordinates as:

[1] Name on the Register[2] Image Date listed[3] Location Neighborhood Description
52 Frederick Griffings's (ship) Upload image February 1, 1982
(#82002248) 		Address Restricted
37°48′11″N 122°24′08″W / 37.803°N 122.4021°W / 37.803; -122.4021 (Frederick Griffings's (ship)) 		Fisherman's Wharf


84 KING PHILIP (ship) and REPORTER (schooner) Shipwreck Site Upload image May 8, 1986
(#86001014) 		Address Restricted
San Francisco King Philip and Reporter shipwreck sites.


93 The Lydia Upload image July 16, 1981
(#81000173) 		Address Restricted
San Francisco Whaling bark


169 U.S. Appraisers Stores and Immigration Station Upload image August 13, 2013
(#13000590) 		630 Sansome St.
37°47′47″N 122°24′06″W / 37.796278°N 122.401764°W / 37.796278; -122.401764 (U.S. Appraisers Stores and Immigration Station) 		Financial District

The dignity of a BLP subject

Hello. I've just read your submission to the Manning RfAr. I'm here to ask you to take office action regarding the title. The present title is clearly insulting and false, and you are failing in your commitment to the board every second that BLP violation stays in place. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the "office" procedure, a formal complaint would be needed to take such an action. However, I second the request that the Wikimedia Foundation resolves the urgent BLP situation as soon as possible. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I see from WP:OFFICE that office action is usually taken in response to a hysterical phone call to the Foundation. Let's not call it an office action, then, let's just call it Sue doing her job. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The present title is Manning's birth name and legal name. It may not be the name Manning wishes people would use, but that hardly makes it false. While I would support changing the current title to Manning's preferred name, an office action would be excessive and, honestly, kind of annoying since there are far worst things on BLPs that are not going to be addressed by the Foundation. Manning may be displeased at the birth name being the title rather than the desired name, but the latter is given priority in the actual article and we refer to him with the female pronouns in the article itself so any insult is surely lessened.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, we might be more insulting. That's your justification. (I see you still use the male pronoun.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not presenting a justification, only stating that your suggestion this one thing is so egregiously bad that there needs to be an emergency office action is overblown. Bradley Manning is his legal name and birth name so it isn't false and we use Chelsea Manning in the actual article. As I said, I think we should use Chelsea Manning as the title, but it is not office action territory.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sue has made it clear that we are failing in our duty to take account of the dignity of our subject when we can do so without affecting the quality of the article. She has both the power and the duty to fix that. It may cost her some allies and cause a little upset, but she should do what she's being paid to do, and what her principles tell her to do. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, of the myriad issues facing WP and other WMF projects, you really feel this one is the most critical, urgent, and most in need of WMF involvement? Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually. It's a very visible example of the project's institutionalised indifference toward its subjects and readers, born out of the unique demographic that has flocked to this project and grasped its levers. This toxic unempathic alienating ethos is just what such a crowd could be expected to produce, and it is at the root of all other issues here. We need to be told to behave respectfully toward others by somebody with normal social sensibility. I think that's Sue.
Sue, the greatest legacy you could leave Wikipedia would be firm guidance, and compulsion where necessary, in dealing respectfully and empathically with our readers and subjects. We'll never do it on our own, given who/what we mostly are. And, again, you have a professional obligation to the Foundation (presuming the board meant what it said about BLPs) and far more importantly, a moral obligation to our BLP subject. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simply, this is not within Ms. Gardner's power or authority to do. A office action will IMO never happen here, but in the extremely unlikely case that it did, there'd be a palace revolt. At the end of the day, it is just one minority group's opinion on how they wish to be addressed; it is not a human rights issue, nor is it something so critically dire (e.g. when the WMF had to step in to ban a sex offender from the Commons last year) that practically mandates a Foundation intervention. Tarc (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. How do you see this revolt playing out exactly? Let's say Sue tells en.Wikipedia that it may not gratuitously and knowingly (at least on the part of those who actually know the first thing about gender issues) insult Manning as we presently do. What would happen then, exactly? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you recall what happened to Jimbo when he tried to run roughshod at the Commons a few years ago? Tarc (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't follow the denouement. But Sue's not Jimbo, and this is en.Wikipedia. Perhaps you could explain it to me on my talk page, as Sue isn't bighting here. Sorry to have occupied your talk page like this, Sue. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, instead of trying to stamp out fires like this one, if the WMF were to get involved, they should try to address the big picture...i.e. establishing an administrative framework of Wikipedia in which content decisions are made in a thorough, consistent, and non-arbitrary manner. That would mean giving WP some adult supervision which, so far, the WMF appears reluctant to do. Cla68 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Callousness and autism form the root of the problem here, they're not some distracting epiphenomena. Our policy and practice doesn't presently reflect the foundation's humane BLP resolution but once that's addressed, the core remaining issues are our contempt for our readers (specifically regarding gratuitous offensive imagery) and our toxic, dysfunctional internal social norms - particularly our appallingly puerile boneheaded "debating" on article talk pages.
I don't mean to imply that the latter two will be easy, but I believe they will be enough, and larger top-down structural changes shouldn't be necessary. Again, though, a self-selected bunch of mostly tools and misfits will not achieve this on its own. And Sue may be gone in a month, so this is something for her successor. (But today you can oblige this project to conform to the Foundation's BLP resolution!) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, you may wish to adjust your wording up there, as at the moment the "callousness and autism form the root of the problem here" line reads like you're calling other editors with whom you disagree autistic. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm calling the project autistic. It's a hard truth to take on board, I know, but until that's acknowledged, there's no devising an effective management strategy, I'm afraid. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, Manning's lawyer submitted a formal request to Obama to be pardoned, using the terms "Bradley Manning" and "he". If Manning herself and Manning's legal team recognizes the complexity of this shift, especially happening at this particular moment in time, and is able to manage the subtlety and even be willing to use the "insulting" name, and they aren't storming around demanding everyone change everything right! now!, why can't you just take a chill pill and realize that in the fullness of time, sources *will* come around, and the page will be moved. If you are so damn concerned about BLPs, why don't you tackle the thousands of women who are still ghettoized through their categories - remember the media shitstorm? Are you fixing that BLP issue Anthony?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why Anthony's exhortations need to be taken with a large grain of salt. Fifteen months after a huge RFC about the Muhammad images, he's still whinging about how consensus went against the self-appointed "conscience of the community". --NeilN talk to me 20:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of inexcusable behavior at the Manning article's talk page, and I have little patience for some of the arguments that were made there (and elsewhere) to keep "Bradley" in the title. However, it would be highly inappropriate for any office action to be taken on the matter. The day that WMF officials begin unilaterally intervening in content disputes and arguments over the application of WP:BLP—or any other policy founded in community consensus—I'll know it's time to put the "retired" banner on my user page. I wonder if it has occurred to the petitioner here that there may not always be an open-minded, thoughtful executive director at the helm of the Foundation. If Sue were to do what's been asked of her in this thread, it would set a dangerous precedent that could spell terrible trouble for the project somewhere down the road. Incidentally, I think the use of the word "autistic" in this discussion is quite ill-advised, both for the reason Tarc mentions and because it may promote misconceptions and stereotypes about people with autism. Rivertorch (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is any shortage of open-minded idealism surrounding the WMF projects. Unfortunately, sensitivity to transgender and womens' rights won't get WP and and Commons administered better. What that will take is some organizational acumen and decisive action. Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about that. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine. Wikipedia is not unlike the larger world. If the project had existed 50 years ago, there'd be any amount of nonsense going on over topics having to do with racial minorities. Go back 20 years further and we'd be fighting an uphill battle to remove anti-Semitism from articles. Since I've been editing here, I have encountered any amount of offensive drivel on homosexuality-related topics, and I've often found the community's response—or lack thereof—deeply frustrating. But I do believe things are slowly getting better on that front. More slowly than I'd like, to be sure, but I keep telling myself to be patient. In most First World countries, the war over gay rights is over and homophobia will be relegated entirely to the margins within another couple of generations. There are people who are having a lot of trouble accepting that, and we can safely assume that some of them are Wikipedia editors, but they're on the wrong side of history and with each year that passes they are less capable of causing serious problems (and in many cases are less inclined to even want to).
Transgender rights almost certainly constitute the next frontier in human rights, and that's already reflected in what's been happening here. I'm not trans and I don't know a lot about trans issues, but I'm old enough to remember what it felt like to be treated dismissively (or worse) because I was gay, and I think there must be parallels. As much as I'd like to immediately drag Wikipedia into the future (or even the present, as the case may be), I believe in the idea of consensus, of people discovering for themselves (albeit with much gentle persuasion and prodding) that they need to reevaluate their long-held assumptions. When they discover it for themselves, they tend to be reasonable, cooperative, and kind. When it's forced on them, they balk and turn stubborn and stop listening. That's true in real life, and it's true here as well. "Decisive action" likely would alienate many people who are great assets to the community. That would be too bad, because some of those people could wind up on the side of the angels if we'd only be patient and give them a chance to help form a broad consensus instead. Either way, we will get where we're going, but one way involves a lot less animosity and honors the collaborative, community-based spirit of the project. Rivertorch (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hey folks -- just a quick response. I'm sure everyone is aware of this by now, but we have no plans to take an Office Action on the Manning article title, because Office actions are reserved for legal situations not editorial ones. I personally believe, as I blogged, that the article should be named Chelsea Manning but that's my personal opinion as an editor and not the official position of the Wikimedia Foundation, which doesn't get involved in editorial discussions or decision-making. That said, I do *not* mind hosting this conversation here -- I've been reading the conversation and have found it interesting. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor newsletter for September 5

Did you know?

You can search for images directly in VisualEditor. Click the media icon, which looks like this:

Then type a few keywords into the search box. VisualEditor will search Commons for images or other files whose titles or descriptions contain those words, and will display thumbnail pictures of them for your review. Click one time on the image you want to insert in the article.

For more details, read VisualEditor's user guide.

This Thursday's VisualEditor update was mostly about stability and performance improvements, and some preparatory work for major planned improvements, along with bug fixes for non-English language support and right-to-left text. Everything that the English Wikipedia received today has been running on Mediawiki for a week already.

Officially, the problem with the link inspector not linking to a specific section on a page (bug 53219) was fixed in this release, although that critical patch actually appeared here earlier.

A number of bugs related to copy-and-paste functionality were fixed (48604, bug 50043, bug 53362, bug 51538, among others). Full rich copy-and-paste from external sources into VisualEditor is expected "soon".

In other fixes, you can no longer add empty ref tags (<ref/>) (bug 53345). Selecting both an image and some text, and then trying to add a link, previously deleted the selected image and the text. This was fixed in bug 50127. There was another problem related to using arrow keys to move the cursor next to an inline image that was fixed (bug 53507).

Looking ahead: The next planned upgrade is scheduled for next Thursday, and you should expect to find a redesigned toolbar with drop-down menus that include room for references, templates, underline, strikethrough, superscript, subscript, and code formatting. There will also be keyboard shortcuts for setting the format (paragraph vs section headings).

If you are active at other Wikipedias, the next group of Wikipedias to have VisualEditor offered to all users is being determined at this time. Generally speaking, languages that depend on the input method editor are not going to receive VisualEditor this month. The current target date is Tuesday, September 24 for logged-in users only. You can help with translating the documentation. In several cases, most of the translation is already done, and it only needs to be copied over to the relevant Wikipedia. If you are interested in finding out whether a particular Wikipedia is currently on the list, you can leave a message for me at my talk page.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear Sue Gardner.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. 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/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hey Seddon, thanks for this note. I'm planning to contribute to the ArbCom case workshop subpage, and I have read the Guide but still have some questions. I'm going to lay out a few assumptions and questions below and would be grateful if you (or anyone, actually) could give me some help.
  1. Checking an assumption: it's fine for any user to add new proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions on the workshop subpage, right?
  2. Checking an assumption: I ought not to directly edit another editor's proposal, but rather comment below it, right?
  3. Question: I tend to think it'd be more helpful for the arbitrators if editors like me commented on and tried to help refine somebody else's existing proposal (thereby working towards consensus) rather than creating my own proposal (creating more divergence). Is that basically true?
  4. That said, I'm assuming the proposals are the property of the editor who created them. If the editor who created a proposal is not open to it being changed, it does not change. Right? (What I mean is, the proposal doesn't end up constituted of whatever gets the most support on the page. It ends up being whatever the original proposer is most comfortable with.)
Just want to check in on this stuff before I participate -- thanks for any answers you can provide :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Seddon didn't notice your question, so just to say all your assumptions seem correct, although re Q 4) it doesn't affect the outcome much whether or not the proposer accepts any changes to their workshop solutions, unless they happen to be an Arb. Just to add, while there might be little value in creating your own workshop proposals, it might help to add your own brief evidence section. Going by the 3 or 4 Arb cases I've contributed to, the Arbitrators seem to base their solutions more on the evidence submissions than on anything proposed in the workshop. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

Please comment on Talk:Léon: The Professional

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Léon: The Professional. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to hear from people who considered stopping editing due to the Manning article title controversy

In the discussions about what to name the article about Chelsea Manning, a number of editors have said they've been really unhappy with the way other editors were talking to them --- some, to the point where they said they were considering leaving Wikipedia.

From what I could tell, those expressions of pain and anger mostly got ignored, which struck me as strange. In other communities I'm a part of participants mostly try to avoid hurting each other, and when someone is made upset to the point of quitting, the people who are left behind generally express regret and dismay. Even --or maybe especially-- in cases in which the person who left was in some way unusual or an outlier. I think that's wise: communities have a tendency to narrow over time into groupthink and systemic bias, and diversity safeguards against that.

(This is particularly relevant and important to me because the Wikimedia Foundation has of course identified editor retention as the single biggest problem facing Wikipedia. Our top priority is to attract and retain more editors. And importantly, our research tells us that one of the main reasons people cite for quitting is unpleasant interactions with other editors.)

In thinking about this, I decided I wanted to open a spot on my userpage in which people who'd considered leaving Wikipedia because of the Manning dispute could --if they want to-- tell the story of what happened. What specifically about the way you were treated made you unhappy, and what would've needed to have happened to have fixed it. Is there anything other editors could have said or done. If you kept editing afterwards, what motivated you. What could tip the balance for you in future, either way.

You can name people or quote comments if you want, but for the purposes of this I think it probably makes sense not to --- it risks re-staging the same conversations over here, and also I am most interested in what other people could do to help. FWIW I'm not exactly sure what I'm planning to do with this. But at a minimum, I think it'd be useful reading in terms of helping editors figure out how they can best support their colleagues. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fit into this category. For me it was the accusation of hate speech - to me that seemed to be a legal threat, since hate speech is illegal in many countries. The fact that this accusation came from an administrator really makes me question the direction wikipedia is going. I was also unimpressed with admins - yourself included - making off-wiki criticisms about the episode. For various reasons I didn't want to get involved to the point of mentioning this at arbitration - in any case, off-wiki conduct isn't usually subject to sanctions. I don't mean to attack you; I just want to communicate how your actions made me feel. And none of this concerns the way I was treated personally, but it did mean I did not have the freedom to say what I thought were reasonable comments. I've been editing here for quite a few years, with a solid editing history, but this episode has brought me to something of a crossroads regarding my place on Wikipedia. I'm still thinking this through, but since you asked, here you are. StAnselm (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a horrible thought occur to me - I checked, and have discovered that you're not an admin. I'm so sorry. The point still stands regarding my feelings, but I had jumped to conclusions. And maybe I have expectations about admins that is not in keeping with wikipedia ethos and/or policy. StAnselm (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a counterbalance to whatever other people say, I started editing again as a result of this controversy reminding me that editing Wikipedia was a thing. We'll see how long I stick around, but yeah: as long as it's kept within sane limits, the drama's part of the hobby. --erachima talk 06:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I monitored the Manning page and discussion, but did not contribute. I have relevant experience and knowledge of this area, but did not want to get involved in such a hostile space. In particular the accusations of bias/conflict of interest towards anyone with any knowledge and experience was completely off-putting. MRSC (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pretty much. I'm not totally discouraged, after all I'm commenting now. Just sick of seeing the same problem for the last 7 years. It's a bigger problem than either the "Disagree with me? You're a Bigot!" and "How dare these Trans subhuman filth say I'm engaging in Hate Speech!" memes. Both sides are full of smug self-righteousness, one because Social Justice, the other because Exterminate the Perverts. Neither see the other as deserving any respect or consideration, even though on other issues they could disagree amicably. These memes disgust the sane on both sides. Meanwhile those who know their sh1t on the subject are hit with COI charges. OK, I take that back, I *am* totally discouraged and will likely not contribute again. No point. Zoe Brain (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sue. I've emailed you on this matter a few weeks ago; I'd rather not expand here. Sceptre (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I was never much more than a drive by editor, but now I'm not even that. Wikipedia is supposed to strive for accuracy, not to enshrining right-wing Trans and homophobic rubbish. Refusing to title Chelsea's page properly because of personal prejudices about what constitutes a real man or a real woman just reduces the whole project to the level of goddamned tv tropes or memory alpha. As soon as Chelsea Manning announced that she was Chelsea and not her former name and gender, it should have been changed and left changed. I'm not even going to try and correct inaccuracy if all we're doing is publishing rubbish of whoever can weasel loud enough to get their prejudice on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.159.12 (talk • contribs)

Yep. This. No point. Zoe Brain (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I saw the Manning article title change quickly and was pleased and unsurprised. I did not add it to my watchlist, for lack of concern and time.

I was surprised to see in the news last week that it had been changed back. I've since tried to follow the issue…but I've been frustrated with how unclear and verbose the process is, and I've been concerned with how uncivil the comments have been. And one has only so much time to give to Wikipedia.

It's difficult to see people with either no medical training or no personal experience contend what the subject's name and pronoun (present and past) should be.

The somewhat related question of religious or artistic name-changes is interesting and may be valid, and I have previously wondered if the common-name policy might be faulty for such, but I feel less qualified to speak there.

Startswithj (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought from the beginning that the article title change without consensus was on iffy ground in terms of policy compliance, but was ultimately the correct thing to do; however, the amount of vitriol and trans-hate from some people on the talk page was both offensive and disheartening. Those openly questioning the existence and legitimacy of trans identity seemed to be accepted as legitimate participants in the discussion.

Overall, I feel like it descended from a legitimate discussion over policy (whether the initial title change was compliant with policy) into an anti-trans rantfest. While I've decided to continue editing Wikipedia, I'm going to refrain from participating in debates where I feel that my identity - and the identity of millions of other trans people - is questioned. Kiralexis (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am one of the folks who have considered leaving over this dispute. The foundation, Arbcom's and the community's consistent failure to define and enforce WP:CIVILITY has made this project hostile for editors who use logic and reason above emotion. The emotional outburst, in fact, have been consistently condoned for their factual correctness with little regard for their substance and delivery. The inability of some editors to separate hate speech from legitimate discourse and the inability of editors to separate reasonable criticism from vitriol is, frankly, beyond the pale. Your comments in this discussion had two effects, you established that enforced points of view can be legitimate, undermining core policy and foundation principals, and you empowered those who cast wide nets and polarized the discussion. I've very disappointed in you, Sue. You should've take a page out of Jimbo's book and commented about how to discuss the matter rather than picking a side. For this project to succeed, we need to be able to trust in your ability to guide but not direct. This dispute likely would've never occured had the procedure for move discussions taken place properly; and yet it's glossed over. Those arguing that the move had to happen immediately or else it would've been harmful should reevaluate the effect the immediate move actually did have in that now the article is locked into Bradley. Had time and care been taken, the end effect would've been an article properly titled Chelsea Manning by this point, a content community, and less harm to Chelsea. I hope you consider your role in the next dispute and I hope your efforts will provide guidance that will temper emotions and push toward reason and logic above activism, hatred, anger, and fear. We need to build respect for each other in the community, build bridges instead of walls. I've always tried to reach a hand out to my opponents. Someone in your position here had a lot of potential to do that. I'm available to discuss the matter at your convenience if you'd like.--v/r - TP 02:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TP - re " should reevaluate the effect the immediate move actually did have in that now the article is locked into Bradley" - Hear hear! The tragedy here is that the folks who held the pro-Chelsea POV tried to lead rather than follow. Had they just been a bit more humble and sought a consensus based move, this entire load of shenanigans probably wouldn't have have occurred and their viewpoint would have won out. @Sue Gardner - Your question seems to suppose that this debate caused some obvious breaches of WP:CIVIL. If that's the case, could you point to them so that I can take them to the regular channels for this kind of thing (e.g. ANI or AE). If you can't point to them, then why start this discussion? WP has ways to cope incivility. Your asking for complaints here seems to subvert the normal channels. NickCT (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NickCT, I'm interested in this statement of yours ("Had they just been a bit more humble and sought a consensus based move, this entire load of shenanigans probably wouldn't have have occurred and their viewpoint would have won out"). Do you honestly believe that if folks who wanted the page moved to CM had proposed the move on the talk page that we wouldn't have had the BM-titlers and the CM-titlers descend onto the page? NW (Talk) 03:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's always fun to play what-if, so let's play along. What-if, instead of moving and locking, Gerard said "Hmm... Manning's name is widely known, he's certainly not going to be harmed by it sticking around here a few more days, and he's in prison anyway and not browsing wikipedia, so let's wait to what sources do" - so you start a low-grade discussion on talk but no formal move... and then after 7 days or so, once you've built up an arsenal of sources and wire services and so on that have switched, you propose a move. If they had done this, many !votes for Bradley would have been for Chelsea, as I'm assuming they will in the next move. The move-war+lock at the "Wrong version" pissed people off, and it happened BEFORE most sources had moved, and people wrote articles celebrating the fact that wikipedia moved before most sources had moved. It made it look like an amazingly clever team of top editors had quickly convened and make the "right" decision and "Wikipedia" had done the right thing, and then, consensus came back swinging and you saw the result. In the NY Times, the top editors can get together, and make a decision, and it will stick, but that doesn't work here - a small cabal of very clever people still doesn't win out over the masses - that is the model. The end result was, wikipedia looked silly, going both ways. If we would have waited a week or two (like our friends at Brittanica), and then moved by consensus, no-one would have beat us up too badly, and interesting articles about how wikipedia is a tertiary source and we needed to wait until other sources moved would have been written exposing how wikipedia actually works, vs the bullshit articles that were written instead (e.g. Omg, wikipedia is so trans* progressive! Wait, ZOMG, Wikipedia is so trans* regressive!!?? and then, on October 7, Finally, wikipedia is so trans* progressive, again).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand, I really am. Are you saying that people chose BM instead of CM out of spite for David Gerard and Morwen? NW (Talk) 04:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying I think the bulk of people chose BM because of COMMONNAME - which shifted rather quickly as it turns out. Nonetheless, the fact that the article had already been moved w/o discussion drew more flies to the soup as it were. When you do something to piss off your opponent, no matter how right you are, they are unlikely to be convinced by your arguments. So some people who may have switched sides, or taken a more expansive view, I think came in hardened and annoyed. Just MHO. We see a number of people !voting against another page move at Talk:Alexis Reich because they are angry and doubt my motives (ignoring evidence and policy), so the evidence is there that people behave this way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi-Wan Kenobi & NW - I think Obi expresses the case well here. I was definitely was one of those "hardened and annoyed" folks.
Note that near the end of the last RM discussion, a lot of the COMMONNAMERs were saying "Hey! CM wasn't the commonname when the initial move to CM was made, but now it appears that it is" (for the record, I was partially in that camp). That strongly strongly indicates to me, that when the initial move to CM was made it was wrong and unsupported by consensus, but by the end of the RM discussion, it might have been right. "if folks who wanted the page moved to CM had proposed the move on the talk page" my feeling is that conversation would have eventually played out in their favor. NickCT (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right from the start the conversation was transphobic, and I do mean comparing "being transgender" to "thinking that one is a dog". These comments came regularly through the conversation, again, and again, and again. I'm transsexed, and the first time you see one of these comments it takes me back to trapped on the subway two football players sneering at me calling me a dog no way to get out or that time buying a sandwich someone behind me shouts "What is *that*?" get out get to safety. It shuts you out of the discussion, hard. If you label these comments for what they are, transphobic derailing of the conversation, you get shouted at and people say you are as bad as the person who attacked the conversation. I have edited wikipedia before on my PhD research topic, but... why would I contribute to a project that does not respect the fundamentals of my identity? There is no way during conversation to tell whether a comment has widespread support or widespread opprobrium, no 'karma'. Put it like this: the front page of Reddit is a safer space than Wikipedia talk pages. 7daysahead (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@7daysahead: I'm sympathetic to your feelings, but do you feel it makes you a better person to label them when they make those comments? Or have you allowed them to bring you down to their level? Wouldn't you rather take the high road? We have venues to get these things addressed when you see them that doesn't require you to fight back. Venues like WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U, WP:Arbcom, WP:DR and even here on Sue's or Jimbo's pages. Wouldn't you rather be the better person? Where does calling them transphobic get you? Do you think they feel bad? Heck, they probably want you to lash out. You do yourself more credit by not sinking, holding your head up, and letting their comments seal their own fate.--v/r - TP 01:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, TP. Being called transphobic is nothing at all like experiencing transphobia. It is not a slur to correctly identify someone's actions. I am not ashamed to speak when someone uses language which is hurtful. Please consider the weighting you give to these two hurts: me, being dragged back to a time when I was in fear for my life, and an editor whose opinion is not immediately accepted. 7daysahead (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed. Accepting your premise that calling someone transphobic is not as bad as experiencing transphobia, not as bad still doesn't equate to good. I would expect that dignified people would not allow themselves to sink any degree below their character. Just because you haven't sunk as low as someone who would make you fear for your life doesn't mean that calling someone names isn't also low.--v/r - TP 15:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to comment here again, but I can't let that one go. Identifying problem behavior, such as the use of transphobic language, does not constitute "calling someone names". You've made it very clear that you don't think the use of terms like "transphobic" and "homophobic" are helpful to describe comments made by Wikipedians. Fine, you're entitled to that opinion, and in at least a few instances I think you may be right. Nonetheless, I hope you'll try to understand that many of your fellow editors find the terms usefully explanatory because they concisely convey the nature of certain comments and indicate precisely why they are objectionable and disruptive. If a white supremacist SPA has posted offensive comments, are we to eschew saying the comments are racist, for fear of being accused of namecalling? Rivertorch (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, "Where does calling them transphobic get you? Do you think they feel bad? Heck, they probably want you to lash out. You do yourself more credit by not sinking, holding your head up, and letting their comments seal their own fate." If you wish to describe comments as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, theophobic, ect, the proper form is to do so in accordance to WP:NPA by taking the issues to the relevant noticeboards with serious evidence to support such a claim. Laying the accusation out, alone, unsupported, as a retaliation to offense, is not at all helpful or productive to the encyclopedia and only serves to make the person making the accusation feel better. However, their 'feel better' is short lived because two things happen, 1) The editor who made the original offending statement never gets taken to account at a noticeboard, and 2) The editor making the accusation is now at risk of a block themselves. So, as I continue to say, take the higher road and take it to a noticeboard instead of name calling (defined in the context of my voice as "Laying the accusation out, alone, unsupported, as a retaliation to offense").--v/r - TP 18:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I wasn't referring to either "feeling better" or "retaliation". I think we're talking past each other, and I don't suppose Sue's talk page is the place to iron that out (if there is such a place). Rivertorch (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My experience has been one of enlightenment and education. I used a poor choice of words out of ignorance. I chose to say "Chelsea Manning does not exist."[6]. This was not intended to say "exist" as a person but rather "notable" as a name for the person that committed felonies. This was before any notable sources had adopted an MOS definition that would use "Chelsea" to describe her. Since them I am struck by the multitude of experiences and conflict within the trans* community. Even on Wikipeida talk pages I watched a discussion between two self-identified trans women arguing whether "trans woman" or "transwoman" was the correct term (one term implied a third gender while the other did not). On the one hand there are people that are post-transition females that are very wary of "men" defining what it means to be female. I've listed such at the Arbcom evidence page with links to trans* individuals that have different understanding of trans* issues than have been expressed by advocates here. On the other hand, there are accounts of transgender persons that suffer needlessly due to conditions they have no control over. This has included me in the debate as I was "labeled" but I believe the label to be inaccurate. Unfortunately people don't wear signs that say "narcissist" or "transgender" or "straight" or "gay" or "male" or "female". It would be much easier if we all wore signs that said exactly who we are. As for this experience, I am at an impasse as it's not clear to me where Manning should exist. I think I feel somewhat like Christine Benvenuto, who we don't have an article one but wrote about her experience regarding transgender issues and was married to Joy Ladin which we do have an article on. I was struck by an account of a court appointed psychologist that said Joy posed no danger to her children but would not read any accounts or articles on trans* issues that the psychologist recommended [7]. Why wouldn't she do that? Christine was shouted down at her book reading in Amherst [8] by a professor that didn't even read the book before the protest. I don't like people being shouted down or excluded from the debate because their views aren't accepted even though their experiences are real. --DHeyward (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • One thing that really bothers me is that during debates over topics that touch on homosexuality or transgender issues, there are often ad hominem accusations of homophobia and transphobia leveled at editors, usually without strong evidence to back it up. What is really distressing is that WP's administration never does anything about these violations of AGF and NPA. WP effectively gives a free pass to editors who make these unfair and hurtful accusations. It is one reason why I have, for the most part, given up on Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm personally more concerned with the hostile environment this creates to LGBT editors than a few hurt feelings that people who have likely never been discriminated against have when someone brings up their privileges. Sceptre (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right". Being a member of an oppressed class doesn't grant you special privilleges here.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sceptre: I'm curious that, as AFAIK, I fit into the "never been discriminated against" category. I usually feel a certain anonymity with WP. I've had experiences of exclusion as I am not from the country nor speak the native language of my co-workers, but not to the level I would describe as discrimination. At the same time, I've never knowingly experienced any kind of privilege. On WP, I've never expressed gender, sexual preference, age, nationality, etc. In what way have you experienced a hostile environment as an LGBT editor? WP seems to a fairly tolerant place overall and I personally haven't experienced a hostile environment. Can you expand your hostile experience? --DHeyward (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I said who have likely never been discriminated against, which reflects the results of various editorship surveys showing that Wikipedia editors are predominately English speaking college-educated men in OECD countries: those bestow a lot of privileges on people. With regards to hostile environments, the thread on Jimbo's talk is worth a read. In essence, there are many cisgender editors who are effectively saying "journalistic unions are wrong, healthcare professionals are wrong, judges are wrong, I'm right" based on nothing but an apparent animus against transgender people. Even where there is no animus, the fact that we're allowing people who know very little about the topic form a consensus is problematic in itself. Even more so when they're apparently more "neutral" than people who have said knowledge. The moving back of the article to the previous name does send out a message to transgender people that "your identity is predicated on our acceptance", and becomes more worrying when there are reliable sources who will likely never accept it.
    To expand on that, Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, often follows the sources, and there's nothing wrong with that in theory. But theory doesn't really work when you're dealing with living people and disprivileged groups. COMMONNAME has long being problematic, reducing thoughtful discussions to search result comparisons, as if we're so afraid of original research that we can't even read the sources, we just slap a {{cite web}} on it. And when it comes to living people, it becomes a recipe for disaster.
    By resorting to COMMONNAME as a sort-of-guillotine, we abdicate to sources. But what if there is institutional problems with the sources? Lord Justice Leveson remarked last year that transphobia is still rampant in the British media despite the industry's ethical code. And it's a problem that extends to the most progressive news sources in society and can often prove deadly. And such abdication of responsibility must come with the realisation that we can become complicit in perpetuating this systemic violence.
    I'm assuming good faith and applying Hanlon's razor here. While many editors aren't transphobic, they are showing signs that they probably don't understand the first thing about trans issues. Which is understandable in itself, but caution must be advised when editing in topics where you haven't the faintest clue. I don't know anything about phonemic orthography, so I won't edit articles relating to it. And so too must we resist the temptation to edit articles whose subjects have been in the news; it never ends terribly well, even if you are familiar with the topic.
    And a lot of the comments derided as transphobic by other editors are fundamentally based in a miscomprehension of gender identity - that all the markers of gender in the body are immutable, synchronous, and dyadic. Which is what we've been taught, really, and is what our culture has ingrained into us. Furthermore, a lot of people just aren't aware of transgender issues the same way they're aware of gender discrimination, racism, or homophobia. Perhaps a better word for this state of mind could be "transignostic"?
    The worrying part is when we're seeing people deride the move as being "political correctness gone mad" - there, it crosses the line between ignorance and malice. 99% of the time, "political correctness" is used as a boogeyman to oppose all sorts of things because it doesn't fit their political viewpoint (and indeed, political debates around transgenderism typically devolve into accusing trans people of being rapists, pedophiles, or otherwise sexually deviant). And the other 1%? Well, we're out of hope when one of the few editors who should know all about the phrase joins in with the 99%. And worse still is when we're seeing people say, without irony, "just because I think I'm a vegetable doesn't mean I am one". It's not just one thing, it's a lot of things, and it all adds up to hostility and death by a thousand cuts. Sceptre (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Gardner, I am a editor on Wikipedia, and was working very hard on improving the Dance Moms tv show page. I got the article semi protected and was happily working away on it when I left a comment about Bradley Manning. All I said on the Bradley manning talk page was that I believe we should use his legal name, since he has not had a legal name change yet. I think I stated this maybe 3 times. Soon after, I got a message on my talk page that read-"You've written in a few places on the Bradley/Chelsea Manning talk page that it's fine to use the name Bradley because Manning hasn't legally changed her name yet. However, many trans people consider it rude to use the person's birth name in a way that implies that is their proper name (that is, in a way that suggests their new identity is in some sense false or improper). So generally people aren't asserting that it is legally incorrect to use Bradley Manning, but many are asserting that it is impolite, certainly to the subject, who was requested use of Chelsea from now on, and generally to trans people at large. In short: we're not saying "this is her legal name," we're saying "this is her preferred name, please be polite and use it!" I had to ask the person who left the message if the "we're" was referring to Wikipedia as a whole, or was this a Wikipedia rule. He replied back the following-"To be clear, "we" here is "myself and some others that are arguing in favour of CM use". There isn't a special case policy saying you should name a trans person's article a particular way". First of all, I don't like to be told "this is her preferred name, please be polite and use it!" This really pissed me off and I have not edited any articles since. I'm so tired of having to act like Wikipedia is some type of school, where if you voice an opinion,someone's feelings may get hurt. Or even worse, when I voiced my opinion in a polite way, I was told what to do. Being told what to do does not hurt my feelings one bit,but being told what to do by the pro Trans pushers pisses me off. So just because I voiced an opinion about a legal name change I am told I need to "Be polite and just use it". I think everyone coming out of the woodwork on the pro Trans side needs to realize that just because someone dares to disagree with them about something like a legal name change,does not make that person "Transphobic" or whatever word they label anyone that does not agree. BeckiGreen (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daira Hopwood

Lots of cis people here not understanding what "transphobia" even means :-(

I've written much more on this subject but I'll post it later (I'm at a conference at the moment). --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transphobia - Intense dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people. The problem with the words trans-phobia and homo-phobia is that they use the wording phobia in them which means "fear" The wording of phobia is used a-lot and in medical terms as well. My opinion is that I hope over time the trans-community will adopt a better word that can be better understood by people because transphobia is yes a confusing word to many. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because of course the burden lies upon the oppressed minority to adopt terms to describe hate-speech that are more acceptable to the powerful majority among whom the practitioners of that hate-speech find sanctuary. In my opinion, the privileged can get the hell over their etymological discomfort much more easily than trans people can 'get over' being placed at a disadvantage in almost every environment through a mixture of ignorance and hate on the part of others. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AlexTiefling

Yes, I have considered taking a WikiBreak, or even leaving for good, over this issue. I think that the way in which some editors - especially but not only Baseball Bugs - have been allowed to get away with explicitly transphobic remarks and a deeply damaging battleground attitude has permanently harmed my already low esteem for civility on the site. Bugs gets away with a hell of a lot on Reference Desks and ITNC as well; along with a few others, he seems to belong to a mysterious class of 'tolerated trolls' whom I would much rather see banished. For him to dominate the discussion of Manning's gender identity so completely with his usual jerkishness was extremely discouraging. Similarly, we have seen remarks from a wide range of users claiming special knowledge of everything from 'legal name' laws in the USA to the contents of Manning's underwear. This is simply not a responsible way for an encyclopedia to determine policy or write content. I am making a fuller statement to the ArbCom shortly on this basis; I do not yet know whether I will remain as an editor here in the longer term. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ygm

Hello, Sue Gardner. Please check your email; 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YGM from me, too, 2x (or possibly 3x if today's e-mail sent twice...the "send" button was being buggy, sorry). -sche (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Numbers represent an alphabetical ordering by significant words. Various colorings, defined here, differentiate National Historic Landmarks and historic districts from other NRHP buildings, structures, sites or objects.
  2. ^ "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. January 23, 2007.
  3. ^ The eight-digit number below each date is the number assigned to each location in the National Register Information System database, which can be viewed by clicking the number.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner&oldid=573644530"