Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-22/Charlie Anders

Where is the dispute?
The dispute is regarding Charlie_Anders and has been raging on her edit history, talk page, and the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard - as well as a bit on my talk page.

Who is involved?
User: 76.169.140.29 (me - my usual posting IP) User:Lquilter User:BigDaddy1981 User:Lizzard User:Dannyobrien User:Active_Banana User:macwhiz User:CharlieAnders User:Fred_Bauder User:Skomorokh User:Dragonflysixtyseven User:Muzemike User:99.155.199.17 User:98.148.100.213

What is the dispute?
I, User:76.169.140.29 attempted to expand and upgrade the article Charlie_Anders with more sourced detail. I was excited when others joined in soon afterwards to flesh it out even further. A couple of users disagreed, and User:Lizzard opened an entry on the Biographies_of_Living_persons/Noticeboard about the question. These users claimed the material added and updated was not present in the citations, which was not true. Seeing there was a conflict going on, I raised the question of a key quote from Anders' first publication on the talk page, rather than just put it in the article, hoping this would be a better way to approach such an addition. However, this seemed to only escalate tensions. BigDaddy1981 stepped in and attempted to calm the discussion, rather than simply deleting the quote.

At this point, I identified that Lizzard had a conflict of interest, since off-Wiki, she writes for one of Anders' publications. When BigDaddy1981 raised questions regarding a COI for DragonflySixtySeven, that user revealed that he, too, knew Anders in real life, hence his ability to cite unpublished information - first, admitting to one conversation with Anders, then when pressed, to two. User Dannyobrien weighed in, but he, too, turned out to have an off-Wiki connection to Anders.

BigDaddy1981 repeatedly had to warn Lizzard from bullying behavior and unfounded accusations.

The dispute, as preserved on the talk page for the Anders article, seemed to center around Anders' friends not wanting to include certain sourced, citable information simply because Anders had said she didn't want it in the article, and wanted her article to focus on other details and themes of her choosing. At this point, Anders herself posted in the talk. (I erroneously chastised her for doing so, not realizing the Wikipedia encourages such inclusion - which runs counter to the mass-media portrayals regarding editing one's own (or one's company's) entry. I apologized on my talk page for that.) Between what Anders and her friends are saying, it seems that Anders - a clearly public figure - only wishes to be known for some of the things that have been published about her, and not others.

Anders suggested links to three articles about her, which however, contained an extremely limited amount of information. However, I added what I could from those. MacWhiz suggested that Anders go out and get some new interviews done that would include information she wanted to get in the article. I attempted to be helpful to that process of feeding Wikipedia pro-actively, by putting in the three items Anders had said on the talk page that she wanted included, in advance, with citation needed tags. This, however, brought more anger from Anders' friends.

Anders pointed to two transgender author articles she felt were a good model for her page. I did some further work on the article, taking those as a model, which surprisingly brought more anger from Anders' friends - claiming that information and themes of the type in the two pages Anders suggested were wrong or inappropriate here - though all the information was properly sourced in reputable publications.

Anders then posted on my talkpage asking to speak off-Wiki, which I declined to do (as is allowed by Wikipedia policies). User Fred_Baude misrepresented that response to Anders as demanding Anders post personal information on my talk page. This was the opposite of what I had just written - I did not want any non-edit-related, personal interaction with Anders on or off-Wiki, considering all the conflict that had been going on. I pointed this out to Fred, who ignored me.

My last revision seemed to stand for a time, until a new user, MuzeMike, pruned certain items from the article, then claimed he'd reverted everything I'd done, which doesn't match up with what he actually did. He demanded that anyone who wished to change the article email him first. I did that a few days ago and have had no response. At this point, I don't know what to do. The article has been rife with COI tampering and stonewalling. I'm only a novice editor, and I tried to flesh out Anders' biographical article - but somehow everything I did was wrong. It seemed incomprehensible that Anders and her friends wanted to actually transform this into a vanity article, when it could easily have drawn on all manner of published sources to include a broad range of Anders' accomplishments. Could someone please help here?! I feel like David and Goliath trying to explain to Anders' friends why they're doing her a disservice by pulling all this sourced info! Formerly 76.169.140.29 (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?
I would like to see a truly neutral, unaffiliated admin take a look at the article's history and talk board and decide what seems best for the article, in terms of Wikipedia's goals?

How do you think we can help?
Would someone help - who has no connection to Anders, or the writers' community of the greater San Francisco Bay Area, and who can take a dispassionate view of transgender issues? My September 9th edition of the article seemed to be okay for 10 days - I stand behind it. Could someone who has no interest in this article or the issues involved take a look and see what seems to make the best article here?

Mediator notes
I will mediate this dispute if acceptable to the parties. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For disclosure purposes - I have not been to the bay area for 4 years. The last time I was there it was to taste wines and go to The French Laundry (on my brother's dime, who also hasn't been to the bay area since). I don't care a wit about transgender issues, but I should note that I believe undisputed policy on gender identity is that wikipedia uses the expressed preferences of the subject as to their gender pronouning. Hipocrite (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Other constraints have come up that prevent me from taking this case. Best of luck. Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take this on as far as my resources can take me.  Arctic   Night  14:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm not an admin, but I'll still weigh in as far as I can. I've never been to the Bay Area, so I'm safe there.  Arctic   Night  15:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes
The filer of this case,, is a single-purpose sockpuppet of. I have blocked the former, but I am not sure whether to block the main account or not, considering that he has not edited in a month. If another admin feels it should be done, I have no objections. J.delanoy gabs adds 23:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the other account due to evident intent to deceive. If anyone is against this feel free to contact me. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
This case involves some private information in which I was made aware of; I can provide Hipocrite a copy of the conversation I have had with another administrator who had brought this up to my attention regarding this. I do not recall receiving an email or anything, but my email has been spotty for some reason (I have had other cases in which others had to email me a second time).

There is also some CheckUser information involved here, which, per the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy, I cannot disclose. To that end, I suspect sock puppetry, but I will not, as I am now involved, act on it. –MuZemike 00:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see that we can't resolve this amicably, as long as we focus on WP:UNDUE, and WP:ENC. I don't think the role of the mediator should be that of having privlidged information - it's to present the parties with a discussion space that works when other spaces have failed. To that end, it would be nice to get buy in from the parties. Hipocrite (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to send you some of the communication that I have had privately (someone which directly involves Anders himself) if that helps anything. –MuZemike 21:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If there's anything I can do to be helpful let me know. My email is on my User page or I'm happy to talk in public wherever appropriate. I'm not sure how best to engage here, though. A lot of the representations made above by 76.xxx are once again framing their own behavior in a particular light, and often are not accurate. For one thing, I was attempting to counter and report to admins what I saw as a pattern of deliberate harassment focused on one person and her family, by two editors, BigDaddy and 76.xxx, who appear also to edit the same pattern of articles across Wikipedia. That is not "bullying". I would really prefer if the person would stop name-calling on me. And I do hope a neutral admin takes this up and can see through the clouds of obfuscation. Thanks. --Lizzard (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Findings of fact
OK, this one looks interesting, so I would like to take it on. I'm not an admin, but I hope I can mediate as effectively as possible by applying my policy knowledge. I'd like to do an ArbCom here and establish some 'findings of fact'. From here on in, I'll refer to IP 76.169.140.29 as 'IP user'.


 * IP user says that they stand by their September 9, 2010 revision, meaning that we can assume everything the IP user inserted here is what Charlie Anders and co. consider contentious. These include:
 * Whether Anders is currently the editor of other magazine
 * The Lazy Crossdresser inclusion
 * "I take requests" re gender identity
 * Whether Anders has gone by the names 'Charliegirl' and Julia in the past
 * Whether Anders has legally changed her gender
 * Whether Anders has undergone gender identity surgery
 * Whether The Chasing Amy Social Club's policy on transgender women was challenged by Anders

 Arctic   Night  15:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In order:
 * Yes
 * it's a minor work from years ago; include it in the bibliography instead of the lede
 * undue weight
 * undue weight; nicknames from years ago hardly matter
 * Yes
 * None of your business (or mine either, for that matter)
 * "such a minor incident, it was a livejournal tiff that got reported in one small newspaper"


 * This is mostly an issue of undue weight; Charlie is not a trans activist who happens to write, she is a writer who happens to be trans. The user who (under multiple identities) wanted to add this information to the article seems to have been adding this sort of thing to many articles. DS (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 6. 'None of your business' - er, I don't care whether Anders has gone through gender identity surgery or not, but the article history says she has, and all I did was bring it up as a point of contention. Can you provide reliable sources to back up those facts? In addition, I'd like to hear from the other side. If they're blocked (and all socks blocked too), I see no reason for mediation.  Arctic   Night  11:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, then: the other side is blocked, and all socks are blocked too. Anders has asked that her surgical status not be included in the article, and whether she is pre, post, or non, it's really not relevant.  DS (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure if that request carries much weight. I can't find anything in Autobiography on this, and unfortunately, a person can't usually decide what goes into their own Wikipedia article. However, since this is not a case I have policy experience in, I would like to hear from someone else (a 'second opinion' of sorts) before moving forward.  Arctic   Night  16:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Some questions I have
 Arctic   Night  15:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Why do Anders and co object to the inclusion of the above in the article?
 * 2) What else is contentious? I need to know exactly, what, with diffs if possible