| Revision as of 06:21, 5 June 2006 editAlexR (talk | contribs)3,829 edits The ususal slander, what else.← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:50, 5 June 2006 edit undoCatamorphism (talk | contribs)5,215 edits →Alex' Response: sockpuppet? strange claims.Next edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| ===Alex' Response=== | ===Alex' Response=== | ||
| Catamorphism, not unlikely a sockpuppt of FemVoice (I would rather not believe there are two such ... persons ... around) is of course misrepresenting the situation. It did not start at ] but at ] where both of them kept removing the term "ciswoman" claiming that while it was a redir to ], it was not a word. They prefered to refer to a comparison of ciswomen to cismen (regarding anatomical featues) as one between "women" and "men", hence claiming that transwomen are not "women". When I added the refererence (which was so obvious that any person with a gain of brains would not have needed or requested it) to ], they started to delete it. Obviously this is either a personal matter, although why I don't know, or a transphobic attempt to redefine trans(wo)men as non-(wo)men. Of course a combination is possible. Both are obviously nutcases and vandals, while FemVoice is trying the not-exactly-new stunt of "I did it, therefore I am an expert", Catamorphism is tying, and this is one of the worst jokes I ever saw, a band-new "I screwed one, therefore I am an expert" routine (see edit comment ). Now they have turned to delete even more content from the article, obviously, for all their quoting of policy, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tag escaped their notice. Hence, obviously, what they say has little merrit, and I just can't be bothered to waste any more time on this. They can have personal vendettas as much as they like, but with me, they are wasting their time. I won't stand for any deletion of content because of it. Same goes for any other article on my watchlist that this terrible duo of vandals will descend on. EOD. -- ] 06:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | Catamorphism, not unlikely a sockpuppt of FemVoice (I would rather not believe there are two such ... persons ... around) is of course misrepresenting the situation. It did not start at ] but at ] where both of them kept removing the term "ciswoman" claiming that while it was a redir to ], it was not a word. They prefered to refer to a comparison of ciswomen to cismen (regarding anatomical featues) as one between "women" and "men", hence claiming that transwomen are not "women". When I added the refererence (which was so obvious that any person with a gain of brains would not have needed or requested it) to ], they started to delete it. Obviously this is either a personal matter, although why I don't know, or a transphobic attempt to redefine trans(wo)men as non-(wo)men. Of course a combination is possible. Both are obviously nutcases and vandals, while FemVoice is trying the not-exactly-new stunt of "I did it, therefore I am an expert", Catamorphism is tying, and this is one of the worst jokes I ever saw, a band-new "I screwed one, therefore I am an expert" routine (see edit comment ). Now they have turned to delete even more content from the article, obviously, for all their quoting of policy, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tag escaped their notice. Hence, obviously, what they say has little merrit, and I just can't be bothered to waste any more time on this. They can have personal vendettas as much as they like, but with me, they are wasting their time. I won't stand for any deletion of content because of it. Same goes for any other article on my watchlist that this terrible duo of vandals will descend on. EOD. -- ] 06:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| : The claim that I am a sockpuppet of FemVoice is strange, since FemVoice's first edit was May 26, 2006, and mine was June 30, 2005. I've also never edited ], so your claim about that is false. I'm also not sure what ]'s "I dated a transsexual" comment that you linked to has to do with this mediation request. | |||
| : To clarify, the issue here is that the terms "ciswoman" and "cisman" are being defined, unsourced, in the article on ]. Your comment above has not addressed the need for citations of these definitions. ] 06:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Mediator response === | === Mediator response === | ||
Revision as of 06:50, 5 June 2006
Mediation Case: 2006-06-04 Cisgender
Please observe Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information
- Request made by: Catamorphism 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- On the article Cisgender and on Talk:Cisgender.
- What's going on?
- Originally, the terms "cisman" and "ciswoman" were removed from Cisgender because of a lack of reliable sources that indicate these terms are commonly used (analogously to "cisgender", which refers to people who are not transgender, "cisman" and "ciswoman" are supposed to refer to a man or a woman respectively who are not transgender). AlexR continues to revert these changes and insists that these terms belong in the article, but has refused to provide sources for them even when asked (the only source AlexR was able to come up with to show that these terms are used was a blog). AlexR has also used a very aggressive and incivil tone when it isn't warranted, as in this edit. Finally, AlexR has reverted good-faith edits using the edit summary "rvv".
- What would you like to change about that?
- I would like to either have reliable sources showing that "cisman" and "ciswoman" are in common usage added to this article, or have the article restored to this state with no further edit-warring.
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
- Reaching me on my talk page is fine.
- Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
- This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
- what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.
- Sorry, don't have the time right now.
Alex' Response
Catamorphism, not unlikely a sockpuppt of FemVoice (I would rather not believe there are two such ... persons ... around) is of course misrepresenting the situation. It did not start at cisgender but at Voice feminization where both of them kept removing the term "ciswoman" claiming that while it was a redir to cisgender, it was not a word. They prefered to refer to a comparison of ciswomen to cismen (regarding anatomical featues) as one between "women" and "men", hence claiming that transwomen are not "women". When I added the refererence (which was so obvious that any person with a gain of brains would not have needed or requested it) to cisgender, they started to delete it. Obviously this is either a personal matter, although why I don't know, or a transphobic attempt to redefine trans(wo)men as non-(wo)men. Of course a combination is possible. Both are obviously nutcases and vandals, while FemVoice is trying the not-exactly-new stunt of "I did it, therefore I am an expert", Catamorphism is tying, and this is one of the worst jokes I ever saw, a band-new "I screwed one, therefore I am an expert" routine (see edit comment ). Now they have turned to delete even more content from the article, obviously, for all their quoting of policy, the {{fact}}-tag escaped their notice. Hence, obviously, what they say has little merrit, and I just can't be bothered to waste any more time on this. They can have personal vendettas as much as they like, but with me, they are wasting their time. I won't stand for any deletion of content because of it. Same goes for any other article on my watchlist that this terrible duo of vandals will descend on. EOD. -- AlexR 06:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- The claim that I am a sockpuppet of FemVoice is strange, since FemVoice's first edit was May 26, 2006, and mine was June 30, 2005. I've also never edited Voice feminization, so your claim about that is false. I'm also not sure what User:Czolgolz's "I dated a transsexual" comment that you linked to has to do with this mediation request.
- To clarify, the issue here is that the terms "ciswoman" and "cisman" are being defined, unsourced, in the article on Cisgender. Your comment above has not addressed the need for citations of these definitions. Catamorphism 06:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Mediator response
Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need
help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Misplaced Pages:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.
Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
Comments by others
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Misplaced Pages is based on consensus.