Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04 Cisgender: Difference between revisions

Request made by: Catamorphism 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

On the article Cisgender and on Talk:Cisgender.

Who's involved?

AlexR, FemVoice, and myself.

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?

Sorry, don't have the time right now.

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 [1]). 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)[reply]

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.

What has the date to do with that? She might be yours. All I see, though, is that there are two stooges in each article which make exactly the same edits and with exactly the same (that is, no) reasons. -- AlexR 14:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you start deleting everything that is not yet sources, then WP will shrink a great deal. Those two words are, obviously, analogously coined to trans(wo)man, and since all the cis- words are coined analogously, what the heck do you need a quote for? That is, if your Google is still broke ...

This mediation, BTW, is just another way of harassing me, which you and your buddy have been doing ever since I did, on her request, add the content she claimed was missing. Ever since the two of you have been trying to delete it, for no reason whatsover, except maybe a bad case of transphobia, or an unwillingness to live with the existance of a concept that goes over your head. In any case, I am not your shrink, so I don't bother why, I insist you stop it, and I will stop you. You are not the first person who claims they don't like content and try to delete or vandalize it, and you won't be the last. You will have just as much success as the other ones, though. None. And that is the end of this utterly pointless and thoroughly insincere attempt for a "Mediation". I only saw your latest "comments" because accidentally I watched this page. I will remove the watch tag when saving, and that is the last I have to do with this harassment of those two stooges. -- AlexR 14:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlexR is truly one of a kind. In order of confusion.

Since I have been threatened with blocking when I remove the lies and slander of certain persons, I guess I will have to reply to those instead. What a waste of time ... especially since this particular batch of slander does not even belong onto this page [AR]

1) Sockpuppet

• Catamorphisme is not a sockpuppeet of anyone
• FemVoice is not a sockpuppeet of anyone
• Czolgolz is not a sockpuppeet of anyone

They act the part - hence the suspicison, which was never a definite statement. [AR]

2) The situation did start with cisgender, as a result of AlexR’s misuse of the word ciswoman / cisman on Voice feminization and adding it to cisgender 17:05, 28 May 2006 with the comment (if you missed it so much ...). AlexR even admits adding the reference to ciswoman and cisman in response to my complaints [2], ‘’First, you complain that it is not in this article, and insult and vandalize in FV, then I put it in here, and then you descend on this article. And AlexR again shows that the term's ciswoman and cisman were added in response to the problems with it being used incorrectly in voice feminization. [3]

There was no misuse of those words, they were exactly where they needed to be. Nor were they incorrect; you have claimed that quite often, but - what a surprise - you never bothered to explain that ridiculous claim. Also, why "admitt" - she complained that while cisman and ciswoman were redirs to cisgender, they were not explained. Now, a person with an ounce of brain would have been able to figure it out, but obviously, not everybody possesses that much. So I added it, on her request. And ever since she has tried to remove it. [AR]

3) AlexR is confused when he says ‘’both of them kept removing the term "ciswoman”’’ as Catamorphisme to my knowledge has never been on Voice feminization. I double checked the history and I am correct, Catamorphisme has never been on Voice feminization.

That may be the case, but then why is ey harassing me with this laughable "mediation"?

4) AlexR misrepresents the history of Voice Feminization and the associated talk page in that in the article the word woman was used and was removed by AlexR and replaced by a ‘’nonword ciswoman’’. (The same goes with cisman and man). Most of the talk on the talk page was about the fact that ciswoman was not a word in ‘’any’’ dictionary and could not be found in google except in a blog. (check google with search of ciswoman cisgender)

I don't misrepresent anything, everybody interested may wish to read the talk page by themselfes. Don't forget to go though the history, though, FemVoice has removed much content there. [AR]

Also, when it has been found in a blog, it obviously exists. But equally obviously FemVoice is one of those transwomen who feel insulted when one points out that there are still a few obvious differences between transwomen and ciswomen, and hence wishes to, in true Orwellian fashion, to remove any words that might be used to describe this difference. [AR]

5) AlexR is confused the the logic that - since both man and woman are used in the sentence together and since they both have separate definition, but that ciswoman and cisman both point to cisgender and that they are not defined in cisgender (at the time) that AlexR’s changes were incorrect. At about that time AlexR modified them from ciswoman to cisgendered woman and added the corresponding ciswoman into cisgender. AlexR also does not quote me from the article saying CISGENDER May be correct, but CISman and CISwoman are not used at all in Wikipedia, except for this article - Correcting to something more common. FemVoice 22:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should I quote you? So far, you have not exactly shown a reluctance to quote yourself or others, or, rather and most of the time, misquote them. What exactly you want to say with the first sentence, well, I sure don't know. But then, you never make much sense ... [AR]

6) AlexR gets off topic, when I showed each of the searches and quoted the usage and the fact that ciswoman is not in common usage Even in cisgender it states "The word is rarely used by people outside communities concerned with transgender issues". That does not mean that it must be used in this article. cisman, ciswoman create confusion and seem to be politically motivated instead of being easy to read. If you intent is to obfuscate the meaning of the information then that will have succeeded. The changes were made to clarify the paragraph, but I will take a moment to think how it can be re-written so that it maintains factually correct information without causing confusion. Until then I will let the phrases stand as the article is unreadable as a whole anyway. FemVoice 11:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, there is only one person with politial motives, and that is you -- you are the one who removes information. And if a word is indeed unknown, that is completely irrelevant as long as it is a link. A link that, in this case, everybody but you and your stooges understood. There is no better word than cisgender, unless you want to claim that the proper term for ciswomen is "women", which unfortunately would make you a non-woman, something you probably did not wish to claim. But even if you would, it could not stand. And I strongly recomment not more vandalising and confusion from you, either. [AR]

7) AlexR again says that he added a term that upon research shows that ciswoman is not a real word according to the definition of wikipedia, since it can not be referenced. And according to wikipedia it was removed and placed in the talk page asking for a reference to which no valid one has ever been supplied.

Since you refered to said reference yourself, that is a fine, typical example of your style of slander and misinformation. [AR]

8) AlexR claims that this is a personal matter, but if you check the user page User:AlexR you will see “I used to be quite active in the German Wikipedia until I found the climate unfavorable to my health.” That suggests that AlexR was having problems adjusting to the rules of wikipedia there also.

I did not, and I have not here, either. You know nothing at all about the reasons I left de:, but that does not stop you from spekulating. [AR]

9) AlexR speculats that I am a transphopic individual, when in reality I am one of the leaders in the Transsexual community in my area and regularly attend conferences where I have given talks on ‘Voice feminization’.

Most unfortunatley, being trans yourself does hardly proove that you are not transphobic, some of the worst transphobes are part of the "But I have always been sooooo female, and now after surgery I am just a perfectly ordinary woman" crowd. However, what I did say was that your edit claimed that transwomen were not "women" which is undisputable, and that is hardly a trans-friendly POV. Of course, you may be too stupid to see that, or politically motivated not to see it, or whatever ... Not that I care, as far as I am concerned you are as relevant as the proverbial sack of rice in China, but since you insist on harassing and slandering me, I most unfortunately cannot escape the aquaintance. [AR]

10) AlexR says that I have attempted to redefine transwomen when in fact all I have been trying to do is correct AlexR’s improper edits.

Where did I say that, and where did I do improper edits. No, don't answer the 2nd question - I have heard enough pointless rants on that. [AR]

11) AlexR complains that we are what we are not – Catamorphisme is obviously a very intelligent woman and I myself am a computer professional. Catamorphisme, FemVoice, and Czolgolz are obviously not vandals and we have tried to deal rationally with AlexR. Whenever we add comments to try to talk to AlexR he tries to hide every attempt at communications by deleting it off of the User_talk:AlexR page.

Neither of you has tried to deal rationally with me, or even remote friendly with me, as is obviously from the talk pages and the way you especially kept ranting on my talk page (which I asked you several times to stop; now if that isn't harassment, what is?). Czolgolt BTW did exactly one comment on my talk page, an Catamorphisme NONE.

And removal of content, which is what you and your stooges try to do all the time, is vandalism, hence you are vandals. (As opposed to removing slander from a pointless "mediation" page, but if one does that, one is threatened with blockage.)[AR]

12) AlexR is confused in saying that Catamorphisme says “I screwed one, therefore I am an expert” in that was never said by Catamorphisme, but instead a comment by Czolgolz “(I've known many transsexuals (and even dated one) and never knew anyone to be insulted by the word 'man' or 'woman')” making it ugly when it is in fact an assertion that transwoman would not be offended by being called a woman, nor would a woman for that matter. And low and behold, there is the quote about dating a transsexual. [4]

That indeed is true, I saw jet another user starting with CA... doing exactly the same thing, so what do you expect? That I demand a foto and a curriculum vitae from each person I encounter that harasses me and slanders me and tries to delete content? I've got better things to do. [AR]

Not the perverted comment screwing one.

Screwing is perverted? My, my, you are delicate, are you?

13) AlexR claims that I have not read the policy – I have not read all of the policy, but I have read Wikipedia:Verifiability and know “Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references.” I removed the information and placed it in the user talk page asking for a source, knowing full well that the only reason that it was added in the first place was AlexR’s attemp at proving a point. I know full well what the ‘fact’ tag is and that in this case, it is not called for, but the removal of false information is mandated again from Wikipedia:Verifiability ‘’’Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.."’’’ AND I FOLLOWED THE GUIDELINES. AlexR on the other hand has said “Since you can not prove it is false” [5] which is not what policy says.

And you obviously would not recognise truthfullness if it jumped on you and bit you. What I said is: "Since you cannot proove it is false, either, you are a bit prematur with removing the infomation." Which is quite different from your intentional misquote. And funny how you insist on sources here, but they are sooo missing from your original artice. Nor have I seen you descending on any other article. Hence that bit of policy which just happens to fit your intentions get quoted and quoted and quoted, because you can use it to harass me and remove content that does not go well with your delusion. Very impressive, but hardly convincing. [AR]

14) AlexR is wrong is saying that he can not be bother to waste any more time on this, because AlexR has wasted others times with comments like (rvv) when in fact if Alex did bother to read the comments, he would find that there was research and it was not vandalism. AlexR is the one that could be called a vandal, but maybe it is just a language problem in that AlexR does not read English very well.

And how do you know I did not read them? However, I would hardly call that "research". Things like "Google does not find any" when in fact it does and so on. Am I really expected to participate in such utterly pointless non-debates? I don't think so. And where exactly am I a vandal? Because I protest the removing of content and the claim that trans(wo)men are not (wo)men? Obviously, in your book that is a deed that makes me liable to being harassed and slandered by you and your stooges. Only I don't think so. [AR]

15) AlexR claim that this is a vendeta is not true, and if the edits for each of the pages as well as from the users are looked at, you will see that the only one with constant finger pointing is AlexR.

Of course it is, and this dishonest rant you delivered on this page, while not even being a participant in this non-case, prooves that beyond doubt. [AR]

AND FINALY, for now, AlexR ignores again the fact that ciswoman and cisman have not been sourced. AlexR insists that it is OUR responsibility when in fact Wikipedia rules quoted in the talk pages show that it is the person that wishes the information to stay.

And the Mediation is NOT a way to harass, but instead a way to get an editor that is making politically motivated changes to understand that others who have the research have the right to change what it is that was incorrect in the first place.

Pity for you, then, since you are the one who is politically motivated. That is, if you are not just annoyed that I edited your errors out of your first article, or told you that the edit button on a page is for all, or whatnot. [AR]

Oh, more fodder (great)- AlexR says that there are 'two stooges' when in fact there are three. Apparently AlexR does not know how to tell the difference between Catamorphisme and Czolgolz. They both are in separate articles and it seems that I am the only one that crossed over between the two. But AlexR seems to find it easy to say that 'two' are causing the problem instead of 'three'. Or instead of 'one'. When I first came here, I figured I didn't know so I had to read, and read, and read and everything that I read said that I was correct. It was very hard for me to delete the text, but that is what it said to do in how to be a good Wikipedian. So I did. It said not to revert more than three times, AlexR ignores that rule also and put it to exactly the way that he feels it should be and there is not a comment about it in the talk page.

• Revision as of 20:04, 21 May 2006 (edit) -- VoiceOfOne First added.
  • A genetic female has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in most genetic male voices.
• Revision as of 20:09, 21 May 2006 (edit) -- Czolgolz
  • A genetic female has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in most genetic male voices.
• (1) Revision as of 00:03, 22 May 2006 (edit) -- AlexR
  • A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of anatomically male persons.
• Revision as of 01:45, 22 May 2006 (edit) -- VoiceOfOne
  • A ciswoman (Genetic Female), on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of cismen (Genetic Male).
• (2) Revision as of 05:53, 22 May 2006 (edit) -- AlexR
  • A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of cismen.
• Revision as of 12:35, 22 May 2006 (edit) --- Czolgolz (changed cismen to and cis women to men and women...the 'cis' term is unfamiliar to most people and not relavent to the article)
  • A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of men.
• (3) Revision as of 16:32, 22 May 2006 (edit) -- AlexR ( revert - a) it's not just transsexual people, and certainly not the male half. And as for cis*, that is a link. Man and woman is insulting for transpeople)
  • A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of cismen.
• Revision as of 16:46, 22 May 2006 (edit) -- Czolgolz (I've known many transsexuals (and even dated one) and never knew anyone to be insulted by the word 'man' or 'woman')
  • A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of men.
• (4) Revision as of 17:11, 22 May 2006 (edit) -- AlexR (rvv)
  • A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of cismen.
• Revision as of 22:32, 26 May 2006 (edit) -- FemVoice (ciswoman and cisman are not in common use - search of google indicated that ciswoman is not commonly used)
  • A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of men.
• Revision as of 08:46, 27 May 2006 (edit) -- AlexR
  • A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of cismen.
• Revision as of 13:43, 27 May 2006 (edit) -- Czolgolz (google search revealed cisman is an Indian surname)
  • A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of men.
• Revision as of 18:54, 27 May 2006 (edit) -- AlexR
  • A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of cismen.
• Revision as of 19:27, 28 May 2006 (edit) -- FemVoice (Searching online dictionaries returns word not found. A search of google indicates that this word has no definition. See comment in Talk:Voice_feminization)
  • A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of man.
• Revision as of 13:04, 29 May 2006 (edit) -- AlexR (Last attempt to compromise -- I won't stand you declaring transwoman are not women, and transmen are - and tried to make this less essay-is, and fmt)
  • A cisgender woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that is heard in the voices of grown man.
• Revision as of 03:37, 5 June 2006 (edit) -- FemVoice
  • Removed sentence entirely while re-writing article to make sense.

AlexR says that if you deleted everything that is not yet sourced, but fails to provide a source when one is requested because there is not one to be found. I searched, and could not find it anywhere, which is the reason that the incorrect information was deleted. I would have added a source, if I had found one. AlexR seems to like to mix up two different ideas when talking and try to defend what is being talked about how the words were coined, but can not provide a reference as to when or how they were coined. And then goes to explain that the word is obvious, so why do you need a reference to add a new word into the wikipedia. Alex defends the creation of a new word by saying "Those two words are, obviously, analogously coined to trans(wo)man, and since all the cis- words are coined analogously, what the heck do you need a quote for?" when wikipedia says "- - - One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. - - -" It would seem that the rules do not have to apply for AlexR.

Yeah, right. And when I add the content in question, it is deleted ... go figure. [AR]

When AlexR says that this mediation is a way of harassing - AlexR forgets to explain all of the uses of vulgarities and disparagement that has been used against not only the three of us, but many others in a long stream. You see, when I found out that the total history of all edits for any particular person could be looked at, I started reading AlexR's edit history and found that AlexR is no stranger to mediation.

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

I especially like the one where AWilliamson explains that AlexR is behaving like a sockpuppet and to finally ban AlexR as a "troll". I will have to find this user and let them know of what AlexR is doing now and if he would like to survey the edits that are happing and the fairness of those edits.

Ah, I see you really read the cases involved ... Say, you b...., don't you think it might be a good idea to find out what was going on in other disagreements before you try to use them against me? Because the usage of those would backfire first class. Ops, you already used them ... soooooo sorry. [AR]

When AlexR says that I requested to have information added to wikipedia, it is a blatant fabrication. If you check, you will see that it is in response to a loosing argument where AlexR finally realized that he made a serious mistake added false information to wikipedia. Not knowing that I was reading every entry that AlexR was making and saw it immediately. I did not do anything about it till I had my research in order and then I removed the information and put a comment into the talk page like you are suppose to do.

Errrrr ... yes ... and of course you are the only one who knows to use a contributors edit history. Guess whose one I am checking daily. And I might add that at this time I really figured that if there were those redirs, I'd better explain them. That has nothing to do with "loosing an argument" since I never lost any. [AR]

AlexR fails to understand that there is indeed a reason why we are trying to delete the entry. It is a blatant fabrication and as the above information points out AlexR has no interest in putting information that requires any kind of research into wikipedia, but instead would prefer conjecture instead.

Slander, slander, more slander. And how does that fit with the tons of (insincere) compliments you filled my talk page with? Not well, does it ... [AR]

When AlexR says "Ever since the two of you have been trying to delete it, for no reason whatsover" what this person fails to realize is that everything about this was documented in the talk page in what I hoped even an idiot could understand. I guess I misjudged AlexR's intelligence.

No, you didn't -- it seems to me that only an idiot (although we should probably not insult all idiots) would understand your rants. Seems I don't qualify, then. [AR]

And calling me 'transphobic' - please! That is an insult of the first order and does not even deserve a response.

AlexR - This is not about me - the mediation is two/three to one against you. It is three people that when it is looked at are rational and trying to coddle what can only be described as a political activist with intent to push their mindset above all others. If you would take the time to read everything that has been written and consider the possibility that you are wrong, you would see that you are making a fool of yourself, and I am letting you.

This is not about you indeed - your rant does absolutely not belong to this pointless page in the first place. But hey, that has never stopped you, did it. And everybody reading that rant will realize that you are dishonest, and out to harass me, for whatever reason ... [AR]

If you insist that I stop trying to improve wikipedia and let you destroy with political garbage the written work here, you are sadly mistaken.

Oh! Then who is deleting content and trying to push her political agenda? Hint: It's not me. [AR]

AlexR! I have tried to give you the links to show you that not only are your claims unjustified, but that your use of the word VANDALIZE is also incorrect. Others have told you that as well, and you insist that you are right. Wouldn't you think that since you are getting the same thing said to you that you might be wrong?

What are you? You set yourself up as a holy person that will succeed and make a mockery of mediation? You will ignore the comments that you do not want to hear? You will only believe what you want so as to protect what? This is an electronic enclycopidia and not a

Holy person? Me? Where exactly did I do that. And just because I don't want my talkpage cluttered with insincere and slandering harassment does not mean I ignore anything -- as this pointless answer to your rant shows.

Getting sick with what this b.... writes, and her lies and slander, and her harassment of me, I end this pointless comment. It is a damnd shame that anybody has to deal with such persons. -- AlexR 11:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You make blatant personal attacks.

• You violate the Three revert rule

• You do not know the definition of vandalize. That "-- Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.--", "-- Sneaky vandalism

Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos--" You are what is called a 'sneaky vandal'. You added information that you could not prove and have been insisting that I have to prove it wrong. And when I do, you claim that we are attacking you.

• You do not understand the definition of no original research.-- Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". and you even admit that you have done so in your comments! Ciswoman has NOT been published anywhere, but you insist on using it!

• You refuse to accept that articles need to be verifiable and that " Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. "

• You have shown meretricious activity in how you violate civility. Not only have you not tried to unintentionally offend, you have brazenly violated this with no regard to anyone's feelings as is even shown in your contempt that you accidentally saw this and are now going to have nothing to do with "those two stooges" on this complaint.

• By the definition of a Internet_troll. "-- In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion.--" With all of your inflammatory, rude and offensive messages, I would have to say you are a troll.

FemVoice 05:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, b....! I have been working on Wikipedia since December 2002, and I am not the one who lies whenever they touch their keyboard (sufficient proof for that is above). Also, weren't you the one who claimed several times (as sincerely as a caged rat, certainly, but nevertheles) how many good contributions I had made? Obviously, that view of yours only changed when you saw that you don't get any further with your insincere compliments than with your lies! There is only one troll here, and that is not me. You, however, fit your own definition just perfectly. And you are bloody lucky you are not in Germany, otherwise, I'd see you in court for those lies and false accusations and slander.

Should anybody not connected to this madness read that in the future, I have little hope that anything this ... person ... says in the future will be more true or less slanderous that what she said above or at other places. And since I have better things to do than to let myself harass by such a b.... and her stooges, I am out of here for a while. You can hack the article as you like, but don't worry, I will put it back into something correct and comprehensive every now and then. Just as I will do with any other article you and your pack descend on to vandalise. And this, as far as I am concerned, is the end of this pathetic non-debate.

P.S. Further "messages" on my talk page will also be pointless, I have a new account, so I will just now and then delete what I don't like there. Despite threats from some people to block me for it. -- AlexR 15:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to enter this as a mediator. Since AlexR (talk · contribs) seems unwilling to continue discussion I wonder if there is meaning in continuing this Mediation page. Participants, feel free to comment on this and I am happy to give this more time before I close it. Usrnme h8er 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can bet I am unwilling to discuss this lies and slander some more. And certainly not with you, who has already shown sufficiently on whose side you are. I am most certainly not willing to discuss anything before the lies and slanders, particularly, but not exclusively, by User:FemVoice are removed from this pages. I also won't respond to anything very quickly, since I for the time being I only log in under this username maybe once a day, maybe less often. After all, all I get to read is more one-sided "warnings" on my userpage (harassment is more to the point, though), and, if I am stupid enough to check some pages, more lies and slander. Too sickening. So you either get a new moderator, and clean up this page, or you can close it now. -- AlexR 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the indeendent research I've done in the last couple of days shows any notability of the terms cisman and ciswoman. These terms appear to have been derived by the user who is pushing them from the term cisgender and as such should be considered non-notable original research. A quick google (a tool which for all its failings is very good as snooping out usage of words) shows 105 hits (12 unique, wiki and one russian brides link included) for ciswoman (should be compared to 92,000 for transwoman). Only onle usage of ciswoman appears to have the cisgender meaning, a blog entry. The term cisman comes up about 12,000 times, but almost exclusively in the context of a surname. Much as I try to be inclusionist with small definition clauses in other pages I just can't motivate it in this case. I also want to ask everyone to remain as civil as possible. Your arguements will stand on their merits alone and the edit history does not lie, wild accusations won't move this argument any closer to a resolution. Usrnme h8er 12:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but you don't really think that this has anything to do with the article, do you? Obviously, the sole reason for this non-mediation was to give certain people the opportunity to lie, slander and harass me, and nothing else. Well, see above, but of course, you would not like to loose your illusion that I am the bad guy here.

As for your accusations, sorry, but it is not "orignial research", as much as a certain kind of people spits out that term whenever they encounter something they do not like. Or where exactly is the "research" supposed to be? Probably right next to the truth of those accusations ... nowhere. -- AlexR 14:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]