Wikipedia

Talk:Meghan Murphy/Archive 2

< Talk:Meghan Murphy
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Pyxis Solitary in topic RfC to rebuild the Meghan Murphy biography
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Lead (or "lede" as some prefer) and edits that led to article restriction

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Because the above discussion "First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist" may be exhausting for some editors to follow the what-why, this may help others understand the embroglio that led to the page restriction.

This is the lead that existed on 24 July 2019:

Meghan Emily Murphy is a Canadian writer, journalist, and founder of Feminist Current,[1] a radical feminist blog and podcast.[2][3]
Based in Vancouver, Murphy has written for CBC News, The Globe and Mail, National Post, rabble.ca, and the New Statesman, among others, on women's issues from a radical-feminist perspective. Her writing critiques third-wave feminism, transgender rights, the sex industry, and exploitation of women in mass media.

  • IP 104.232.202.112 changed "a radical-feminist perspective"  to  "a trans-exclusionary radical-feminist perspective" (@ 13:39, 24 July 2019).
  • I reverted it (@ 03:30, 25 July 2019).
  • IP 104.232.202.112 reverted back to his/her version (@ 03:53, 25 July 2019). The edit was reverted again (@ 04:42, 25 July 2019). IP 104.232.202.112 reverted back to his/her version (@ 14:48, 26 July 2019). It was reverted (@ 09:22, 27 July 2019).

The lead was then edited by me (@ 11:43, 27 July 2019) to:

Meghan Emily Murphy is a Canadian writer, journalist, and founder of Feminist Current,[1] a radical feminist blog and podcast.[2][3] Her writing, speeches, and talks have criticized third-wave feminism, male feminists, the sex industry, exploitation of women in mass media, censoring, and transgender rights.
Based in Vancouver, Murphy has written for CBC News, The Globe and Mail, National Post, rabble.ca, and the New Statesman, among others. Feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler described Murphy as a "Fourth Wave torchbearer".[4]

  • IP 104.232.202.112 changed "a radical feminist blog and podcast"  to  "a trans-exclusionary radical feminist blog and podcast" (@ 15:12, 1 August 2019).
  • Edit was reverted by SunTaxed (@ 21:50, 1 August 2019).
  • Newimpartial reverted SunTaxed back to the IP 104.232.202.112 version:  "trans-exclusionary radical feminist blog....", (@ 21:53, 1 August 2019).
  • I undid the revert by Newimpartial (@ 10:51, 2 August 2019).
  • Fae reverted my revert back to the IP 104.232.202.112 version:  "a trans-exclusionary radical....", (@ 10:55, 2 August 2019 ).

On 23:26, 2 August 2019, Rhinocera edited the lead to:

Meghan Emily Murphy is a Canadian writer, journalist, and founder of Feminist Current, a feminist blog and podcast.[1] Her writing, speeches, and talks have criticized third-wave feminism, male feminists, the sex industry, exploitation of women in mass media, censoring, and transgender activism. Based in Vancouver, Murphy has written for CBC News, The Globe and Mail, National Post, rabble.ca, and the New Statesman, among others. Feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler described Murphy as a "Fourth Wave torchbearer".[2] Her views on transgender issues led to Murphy being labeled a trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF, a label which she rejects and considers to be hate speech.[3][4][5]

  • Newimpartial reverted this back to the version by IP 104.232.202.112 (@ 23:28, 2 August 2019).
  • Rhinocera undid the revert by Newimpartial (@ 23:40, 2 August 2019).
  • Newimpartial reverted Rhinocera back to the version by IP 104.232.202.112 (@ 23:42, 2 August 2019).
  • Rhinocera undid the revert by Newimpartial and returned it to the 23:26, 2 August 2019 status. (@ 23:55, 2 August 2019).
  • Newimpartial reverted Rhinocera and returned the lead to version by IP 104.232.202.112 (@ 03:43, 4 August 2019).
  • Halo Jerk1 reverted Newimpartial and returned the lead to the version by Rhinocera (@ 04:40, 4 August 2019).
  • Fæ reverted Halo Jerk1 and retuned the lead to the version by IP 104.232.202.112 (@ 08:27, 4 August 2019).
  • I reverted Fæ back to the version by Rhinocera (@ 09:04, 4 August 2019).
  • Fæ reverted my revert and restored the version by IP 104.232.202.112 (@ 09:17, 4 August 2019).

On 12:56, 4 August 2019, CambridgeBayWeather protected the article with {{pp-dispute}}, requiring administrator access. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure the history is on the history tab, without your commentary, should anyone want to examine it. What you miss out is that Rhinocera is a sockpuppet with the puppet master, originally blocked by @GorillaWarfare: for disruptive editing on transgender related articles, later having a unblock request rejected, now blocked indefinitely for the sockpuppetry. The puppet master was directly in contact with Meghan Murphy, so that leads to the valid concern that this article may have been subject to meat puppetry and may still be being targeted by other sockpuppet accounts.
The reverts of anything added by Rhinocera are not just valid, but are now automatically exempt from WP:3RR as WP:EVADE specifically supersedes it. Should any other accounts come to light, their edits in any article or discussion, may be reverted by anyone as a means to remove the significant disruption we have seen here from sockpuppetry.
The page protection should remain in place until we are more confident of the extent of manipulation and have a better idea of how to repair the article. In other cases, the article has been stripped down to a stub and then gradually rebuilt to avoid any long term influence to the encyclopaedia due to meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry or COI.
Should anyone have been in dialogue with Meghan Murphy, Rhinocera, or anyone else off-wiki about editing this article, they should declare it on this page to avoid doubt. Similarly Halo Jerk1 appears to be canvassing by email for the related BLP/N,diff diff this too should make everyone doubt the edits being made until this is properly declared and we are clear who has been doing what, or indeed whether even that is subject to unfortunate joe jobbing. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Protection

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I protected the page because people seem to be edit warring over it and I don't like blocking people because then they can't discuss things. I don't know which version is correct but just protected in whatever it was, The Wrong Version, when I got there. Discuss the problems and come to an understanding. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for encouraging discussion! --Fæ (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed the most recent comment by User:Rhinocera, this was block evasion and sockpuppetry. --Fæ (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, all of the discussion that is going to be had about this was had at this article's talk page. The only thing left here now is stonewalling. I'd taken the issue to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists for opinions from the more general community. Even after most folks there so far have said we should attribute, this revert[1] was made at this article with a declaration that "An RFC would be excessive." There is now an RfC at the BLP noticeboard because this issue doesn't just affect this article. Thanks for wanting to stop the edit warring. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
No they have not. Please stop misrepresenting consensus. That discussion at BLP/N shows multiple users telling you off for your canvassing and misrepresentation of statements by others. Misrepresentation in this way is a shockingly bad way of manipulating the views of the Wikipedia community. You are blatantly gaming the system, badly. --Fæ (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, we are reading two different noticeboards. It took this alert[2] just to get anyone to say "don't attribute." Keep believing what you want, I guess. The RfC there now will put a stop to you declaring falsehoods. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not Jesus Christ. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: In the light of the extensive manipulation of discussion and the article by a sock puppet account, refer to #Possible COI editing or meatpuppetry, I suggest that page protection is not lifted until contributors have had sufficient time to discuss and evaluate the extent to which manipulation can be identified or corrected. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Can you confirm that it is a sock puppet account? Or are we now to take the word of 'Joe Blow' editors as gospel? Pyxis Solitary yak 07:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather was not involved in the sockpuppet investigation. This was already posted below, but to make it super easy to find, here's the link again: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TaylanUB/Archive. By the way, I am not American, so I was not familiar with "Joe Blow". If you are characterizing other editors to this page, it would be a good idea to explain or link to something that explains it to avoid giving unintentional offence. At first glance it looked a lot like a sexual joke. --Fæ (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Halo Jerk1 I saw the discussion at the BLP board. That's how I found this page in the first place. Pyxis Solitary I see that Bbb23 blocked Rhinocera and they seem to be pretty good at this sockpuppet stuff. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TaylanUB/Archive. Fæ Joe Blow redirects to John Q. Public. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

God help roommates and family members who share Internet service. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Fortunately the checkuser process is slightly more sophisticated that seeing an IP match. If you are personally concerned that you edit from a shared address, it is always advisable to make a statement to that effect on your user page. I edit from other shared machines and shared networks frequently, and have stated this in the past on my user pages. It has never been an issue. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not name the person who Meghan Murphy misgendered on Twitter?

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

I tried to refine the article by specifying the person who Meghan Murphy "misgendered" on Twitter, since it's the infamous Jessica Yaniv who's been making the rounds in the news lately, for that weird human rights complaint regarding genital waxing, as well as allegations of sexual harassment of a minor. There seems to be enough material about this case to possibly add Jessica Yaniv to Wikipedia. Is there any particular reason my edits were reverted to not name Yaniv? Is it because the Jessica Yaniv page doesn't yet exist? Thanks. Rhino (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Jessica Yaniv has not yet been shown to meet WP Notability criteria, since there is no article, and I doubt they ever will given the "one event" principle. BLP policy favors the preservation of individual privacy in such cases whether or not the subject is Trans. She should therefore be neither named in this article nor redlinked. Newimpartial (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Re Jessica Yaniv:
The truth about Jessica Yaniv is beginning to emerge, Anna Slatz (July 18, 2019), The Post Millennial.
Publication ban lifted on transgender complainant’s name in Surrey waxing dispute, Tom Zytaruk (July 19, 2019), Surrey Now-Leader, Black Press.
A Canadian Human Rights Spectacle Exposes the Risks of Unfettered Gender Self-ID, Helen Joyce (July 25, 2019), Quillette.
Yaniv used public venues to communicate and self-identify — which is why the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal lifted the ban on access to the name and the proceedings in Jessica Yaniv vs. Various Waxing Salons.
By the way, are Canadian sources the only ones that are to be considered reliable for use in Wikipedia when editing content about Yaniv (and for that matter, Meghan Murphy, who sued Twitter Inc. in a U.S. court)? Pyxis Solitary yak 09:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you just stop quoting Quillette please? It is not a reliable source. It is famous for being the right wing creator of misogynist and homophobic personal attacks Toby Young's blog of choice, and is the home of self promotional pundits trying to be a outrageously controversial as possible to increase their click-bait profiles.
The "thepostmillennial" post is by Anna Slatz who, yes, writes for the Quillette.[3] What exactly is "thepostmillennial", it has no editorial policies whatsoever as far as I can make out. There are 2 named editors and one is Barrett Wilson (a psudonym created last year), notable for being an editor on, can't make it up, Quillette, and based on their personal twitter stream seems pretty devoted to making and retweeting anti-trans tweets.
The last and third source you choose to quote is "surreynowleader", a website devoted to free news related to Surrey, BC and owned by Black News Media, among 150 websites they run which seem established to raise money from "marketing solutions" based on their self description. Er, what? How is that a good source for an article about Jessica Yaniv, or to prove that she meets PERSON?
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
There are many more reliable sources about Jessica Yaniv. Please just use Google. :-) Maybe I'll make it the topic of my first Wikipedia article. Rhino (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Please do go ahead. It's easier to see whether an article has been created rather than debating hypothetical notability based on what seems an absence of quality sources that would establish notability. --Fæ (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BLP1E, it's better to err in favor of not naming people who are not widely known outside of a single event. This earlier discussion dealt with the same case, and the general view was that she was not notable enough to be named. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or to call attention to "infamous" figures. The important facts here are that Meghan Murphy was banned for calling a trans woman "he" on Twitter, and she filed a lawsuit as a result. The name adds nothing of encyclopedic value. The mere existence of sources is not a sufficient reason to create an article, and sites like the Postmillenial and Quillette are really not the sorts of high quality sources that we should be using here. Nblund talk 13:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Rhino, whether or not you start working on an article about her, please respect her pronouns. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
* After going through the BLP guidelines and checking all the sources I could find, I've decided to create an "event" article rather than a biographical one. Only one source I could find, an opinion piece, talks about something other than the genital waxing case, so I thought it's best to create an article about that. Here it is: Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case. I think maybe the title could be better, but let's discuss that in the talk page of that article. Rhino (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The Post Millennial is not included in WP:RS/P.
Surrey Now-Leader is not included in WP:RS/P.
"There is no consensus on the reliability of Quillette." Additionally, Helen Joyce is the finance editor for The Economist. Authoring an article in Quillette does not negate her credibility.
No one has crowned you ruler of reliable sources. I said it once and repeat it again: WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective....Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Pyxis Solitary yak 07:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a BLP. Just because a website is not listed as prohibited, does not mean that any old biased crud is fair game. Quillette is a source for reading what right-wing loons think is normal, it is quite literally extremist, conspiracy theorist, self promoting trash. If you feel you need to defend it, please go and actually carefully read the articles by Toby Young who was socially disgraced last year for being a published disgusting misogynist and homophobe, or the fictional character that writes there that was created last year, ... after being socially disgraced last year, and is now one of the two editors of "postmillennial" which you also seem to think is good as a source for Wikipedia articles you are editing. Join the dots please. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary, how does being finance editor for the Economist grant a writer WEIGHT or reliability for the discussion of gender identity? Surely we would not be citing Judith Butler in an article on economics, even if she published a money piece in a webzine, so I don't understand what you're getting at here. Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Simple answer. How does being a Caucasian person grant Paul Kivel weight or reliablility for writing a book about racism? How about Gay men as the subject: are gay men the only ones granted weight and reliability for writing about gay men and for the discussion of gay men? How about traditional marriage as the subject: are heterosexuals the only ones granted weight and reliability for writing about traditional marriage and for the discussion of heterosexual relationships? If a journalist, editor, writer, author is educated on a subject, regardless of what publication he/she is affiliated with, he/she has as much weight or reliability as any other journalist, editor, writer, author on the subject. Your nitpicking is ridiculous. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow. I have never seen goalposts move so fast. I ask why qualifications in Economics equate to WEIGHT in gender identity, and I get a reply sustaining which identities grant speaking positions about topics. I didn't talk about anybody's identities in this discussion, only qualifications. In other words, being demonstrably "educated in a subject". There is nothing in the Economist editor's CV that makes her competent to write about gender identity, any more than there is something in Judith Butler's CV that makes her competent to write about finance. Quilette is essentially a SPS without editorial oversight, so it does not grant reliability on its own (and neither does Daily Nous for that matter). Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Anyone that chooses to post in the notorious self-promotional crap-fest that is Quillette, does not deserve to be taken seriously as a source on Wikipedia, for anything. They lose all credibility. --Fæ (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the name of a non-notable person from the subtitle, this is unnecessary naming and shaming of a trans woman and should be avoided. I have struck the paragraph by the sock puppet account. Please avoid reposting material created or promoted from someone who is indefinitely blocked. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible COI editing or meatpuppetry

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Rhinocera

The account User:Rhinocera is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:TaylanUB. Refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TaylanUB/Archive. Thanks to Nblund for being alert and creating the investigation request.

Worryingly, TaylanUB claims to have been in email contact with Meghan Murphy diff. TaylanUB was the creator of the Meghan Murphy article, just over a year ago. At that time the text was directly cut and past from Murphy's own profile on the FeministCurrent blog, and up until today, as the sock puppet account Rhinocera continued to change both the article and lobby and manipulate discussion on this talk page and on user talk pages while blocked.

@SlimVirgin:, on TaylanUB's talk page they claim to have forwarded you an email from Meghan Murphy. Could you say more about what that email was about, or whether correspondence with Murphy has resulted in any changes in the article?

In the light of this covert manipulation and possible meatpuppetry, I believe it would be sensible and accurate to add a COI editing notice to this talk page so that nobody is in doubt that these problems are likely to exist. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This seem excessive. If we can't point to specific content that violates policy, and the potentially conflicted user has been blocked, then there's nothing of significance to say here. If there's bad content, we should remove it. If there isn't, we should postpone the auto-da-fe. Nblund talk 14:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
There remain obvious questions hanging over content. My proposal to "press the reset button" may be a less controversial way forward, ... so long as nobody is still being emailed by Meghan Murphy to get changes to this BLP about herself. --Fæ (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Others

Hi @SlimVirgin:. I am separating your edits from the above, but in the light that the sockmaster TaylanUB stated on 30 October 2018 "I just forwarded you an email from Meghan Murphy about possible BLP violations, since apparently she couldn't contact you. Pinging you here too since it seemed important..." there are obvious questions.

  1. Did you receive any emails or other off-wiki correspondence about this BLP before 30 October 2018 from anyone?
  2. You made significant changes to the article after 30 October 2019,[4] in fact just 5 days after TaylanUB stated they sent you an email from Meghan Murphy. Were any of the changes you made in any way in response to the email from Meghan Murphy?
  3. Did you enter into direct correspondence with Meghan Murphy?

For those that are unaware, SlimVirgin is an administrator on this project.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Unlike the sock accounts, we have been around this project for a long time, so have you. Having been an admin myself, I appreciate the policies that apply in these circumstances and I also have significant respect for SV's past contributions. SV knows what I am doing, and I hope will provide suitable reassurance. Your inflammatory remarks here, and in other places in the last 24 hours have been unhelpful. Give it a rest, I am not your enemy, so you should stop trying to turn me in to one. --Fæ (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Fæ, I'd appreciate it if you would remove my name from the heading.
First, re: Taylan and possible COI, bias for or against doesn't constitute a COI (see WP:COINOTBIAS). COI is the result of an editor having a stake in a topic. An editor would have a COI if they were a close friend, family member, employee, or rival of the subject. If there is evidence of COI, WP:COIN is the best place to discuss it.
As for the subject's email to me, I contacted her in June 2018 to ask for a photograph, and that's all we discussed. In October she emailed me to say there were problems with the article. I didn't respond to that email or (as I recall) read it in detail. When dealing with contentious BLPs, I prefer to make my own decisions and not be influenced by suggestions or sources offered by the subject, whenever possible. In November, I made a few edits based on my own reading of the RS.
Like all BLPs, this article has to be written "responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone" (per WP:BLPSTYLE), all the more so because the subject is borderline notable. Editors with strong feelings in either direction should bear WP:BLPCOI in mind: "[E]ditors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." SarahSV (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to add "transphobic hate speech" to the lede

Latest comment: 5 years ago29 comments9 people in discussion

Based on the sources supplied during these talk page discussions by Rhinocera, is has become increasingly clear that Meghan Murphy is most notable for her hate speech against trans women generally as well as trans women specifically.

  • It is not contested that she was banned on Twitter for her use of that social media platform to repeatedly publish transphobic hate speech.
  • It is a matter of fact that Murphy has refused to retract her transphobic statements and publications.
  • A reading of Murphy's polemical articles, such as https://spectator.us/yaniv-scandal-end-product-trans-activism, shows that Murphy's notability has been built on promulgating the transphobic myth of a "gender identity ideology" or "transgender ideology", attacking the "LGBT community" as being part of a fantasy "transgender ideology" for supporting transgender people, consistently and deliberately misgendering trans women, condemning Canadian society in general for "swallowing" a "gender identity ideology"... the list goes on if anyone can bother to keep finding examples in the transphobic diatribes.

Given Murphy's own publications that are packed with defamatory transphobic myths and fantasies, given also the history of her ban from Twitter for hate speech, and court records of that hate speech described in her associated failed attempt to sue Twitter, there is remarkably robust evidence that Murphy meets every possible definition of being a transphobe and a publisher of transphobic hate speech. It is a failure for Wikipedia for this not to be mentioned in the lead of the article. When unprotected, the lead should be amended to at least mention the Twitter ban and include a statement about her use of hate speech and the resulting Twitter ban and instances of being no-platformed because of her use of hate speech against transgender people. I believe it would be fair and correct in "Wikipedia's voice" to say that Murphy is a transphobe or to be labelled or categorized as a transphobe based on the overwhelming evidence of her transphobic abuse of others, the transgender community and the LGBT+ community.

Maybe someone can come up with a specific sentence to add. It's very easy to find reliable sources for all of this, including Murphy's own publications and the most respected reliable sources, such as The Times. I guess this will also make it fair and reasonable to add the article to any categories Wikipedia has for "Hate speech publishers" or "Transphobic hate speech" or the equivalent, this BLP provides a very useful rare reference example of someone known for publishing transphobic hate speech with impeccable and indisputable source to support it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

* Comment - "transphobic" should probably be mentioned (possibly not in wikivoice), but I haven't seen any RS characterizing the subject's work as "hate speech". "Hate speech" also has a legal definition in Canada, and AFAIK there haven't been any legal opinions that Murphy has run afoul of this concept, so introducing it in the article would be OR. Noting the responses by mainstream Canadian feminist and queer organizations to the subject's various FRINGE positions and statements should be sufficient, IMO. The lede must not, however, be whitewashed. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Not directly related to the topic of this section but: could you please stop referring to political positions as FRINGE unless you have solid citations to back up the claim? I keep seeing you make such confident statements in passing, going as far as saying they're the consensus here, when I see no actual indication thereof. Rhino (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Gender identity is constitutionally protected against discrimination in Canadian law, and Trans women are legally women according to law and according to the practice of all mainstream Canadian feminists and women's organizations. Quebec's largest feminist group elected a trans woman as its president a couple of years ago. Transphobic positions such as those taken by this article's subject are therefore FRINGE in relation to both Canadian society at large and feminism in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The court summary of the attempt to sue Twitter confirms that she was publishing hate speech, and she has posted most of that exact same content which was correctly identified as hate speech in other places, including the Spectator article. Specifically, Murphy's lawyers never attempted to deny the publications on Twitter were hate speech, and never attempted to appeal Twitter's assessment of it as being hate speech directed at trans women. --Fæ (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid you'll need a cite for that. Violations of the terms of service cannot be assumed to be hate speech, without evidence. "Hate speech" is a very specific term. Newimpartial (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I don't think we've got the sourcing we would need for making that claim in Wikipedia's voice. Nblund talk 19:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Secondary sources consistently refer to "hate speech", "hateful speech" and "hateful conduct". None of the following are op-eds, they are actual journalism:
  1. "In October, Twitter created new rules effectively categorizing anti-transgenderism commentary as hate speech. A Canadian writer named Meghan Murphy who does not accept that transgender people have the right to decide which gender they will be called got herself permanently banned from Twitter."
    The Lebanon Daily News (Pennsylvania), December 18, 2018, "Twitter and free speech"
  2. "On February 11, 2019 Meghan Murphy filed suit against Twitter Inc. and Twitter International Company after the social media platform permanently banned her account. Twitter has alleged that Murphy "misgender[ed] another user" and engaged in other hateful speech that violated their Hateful Conduct Policy."
    James Madison Institute, June 4, 2019, Social Media: Publisher, Public Forum, or Something Else?
  3. "In November, the argument reached a crescendo when Twitter permanently booted Murphy from the platform for violating the site's rules against hateful conduct, after she referenced a transgender woman as "him." Twitter's decision came after it updated its policy against hateful conduct last year. The updated policy bars users from referring to a transgender person with the incorrect pronoun, a practice it calls "misgendering." The company also prohibits users from addressing transgender people by birth name, a practice that's known as "deadnaming." Murphy, who filed the lawsuit on Monday in the Superior Court of California, alleges that Twitter violated its agreement with users when it changed the hateful conduct policy without alerting the public."
    CNET, February 12, 2019, Twitter sued by blogger who was barred for tweets about transgender people; A Canadian blogger clashes with Twitter over tweets such as "How are transwomen not men?" Twitter calls the claims in the lawsuit "meritless."
  4. A row has broken out after a radical feminist banned from Twitter for "hateful conduct" over posts about a trans woman was invited to speak at the Scottish parliament. ... Ms Murphy believes that biological males should not be allowed to use women only spaces, such as changing rooms and toilets, or compete in women's sport. She is suing Twitter after it ruled that a tweet describing a transgender woman as "him" breached its hateful conduct policy on "misgendering" and banned her for life.
    The Times, May 4, 2019 'Transphobic' blogger invited to Holyrood
--Fæ (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
*If you can reliably source the reason for the Twitter ban as "hateful conduct" then that could be included in the lede, but there is still a distinction that would make the move to "hate speech" OR if not sourced more effectively than the Lebanon Daily News. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The sources say that Twitter banned her for violating the policies on hate speech, but they don't appear to adopt that language themselves. Twitter is (fortunately) not really the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes hate speech. Nblund talk 19:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, fortunately it is the secondary sources which use the language, which means that is precisely what we need to use it ourselves. It would be a problem if only primary sources used it. --Fæ (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
So far you have one secondary source doing so, the Lebanon Daily News. The bar for criminal accusations on BLPs (and no mistake, Canada criminalizes hate speech) is higher than that. Newimpartial (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Er, this is Wikipedia, not Canada. --Fæ (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The BLP subject lives in Canada and is subject to Canadian criminal law. The relevant policy is WP:BLPCRIME, not WP:BLPUSCRIME. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. We need to stick closely to sources and be hesitant about saying things in Wikivoice. We do not want to become RationalWiki, and be dismissed by readers as partisan. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the comment from User:Rhinocera, and left another as struck, this was block evasion and sock puppetry. --Fæ (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's examine the fact "she was banned from Twitter for using the social media platform to repeatedly publish hateful speech attacking trans women". In what way is that not accurate and precise as a description of the Twitter ban? --Fæ (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. "Hate speech" has a legal significance in the criminal law of Canada, which applies to this BLP subject. "Hateful speech" does not. Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Cool, based on Freedom of speech in Canada, we have no problems with this factual statement then. It can be added to the lede text to clarify this important aspect of Murphy's fundamental public notability. --Fæ (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
"Hateful speech" (Twitter's term) is not "Hate speech" (your term): it is the latter that is criminal where this BLP subject lives and your OR claim is therefore subject to BLPCRIME. I don't understand why you aren't taking this more seriously - violating BLPCRIME has resulted in a number of blocks and bans, and you are verging into WP:CIR territory on this issue. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Please actually read what I wrote above, no need to start making threats. Here it is again: Let's examine the fact "she was banned from Twitter for using the social media platform to repeatedly publish hateful speech attacking trans women".
A bit rich to be waiving WP:CIR at me, when you appear to be failing to read what you are replying to. --Fæ (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Throughout this discussion you insisted on "hate speech" until just now, and even that doesn't make a clear change to your earlier proposal - it is ambiguous. No gaslighting please. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Sigh, how about reserving claims about gaslighting for cases when the facts support the allegation of this type of harassment?
You dismissed me as being incompetent by waiving CIR at me (see my talk page for the list of articles I have created, competently). To find it ironic that you have not actually read the sentence and words within it that you are complaining about, is not gaslighting in anyone's common sense understanding. However, if your intent was to derail discussion, congratulations, you are obviously skilled at introducing tangents. --Fæ (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I have read your every contribution to this discussion. This was the first time you may have been proposing "hateful speech" (and the sentence reads like COPYVIO, so I didn't know whether it was an actual proposal). Until then you had been proposing "hate speech" contra BLP crime. I shouldn't have to provide the same diffs over and over to respond to your misstatements about the content of your own Post a (AKA "gaalighting"). Newimpartial (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
So, in conclusion you have raised no objection to "she was banned from Twitter for using the social media platform to repeatedly publish hateful speech attacking trans women" being in the lede, naturally with supporting sources. This can of course wait pending the 'reboot' RfC below. --Fæ (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Which RS even call Murphy a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist"?

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Just asking this question in a new section because the other one is a huge mess. Could someone please link the reliable sources which have called Meghan Murphy a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist"? The two citations at the end of the sentence using that phrase don't actually use that phrase. We've been discussing how "TERF" is (or isn't) a contentious term that shouldn't (or should) be used in Wikipedia's tone, but that whole discussion is moot if there is no RS that calls her by this term in the first place; correct me if I'm wrong. Rhino (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources you provide show that Murphy calls herself a radical feminist. So no problem there with those two words.
By any meaningful interpretation or spin on the words "trans-exclusionary", this precisely describes Murphy. She refuses to call trans women women, but repeatedly and in multiple publications over a period of years calls them men. Her notoriety is entirely based on transphobic hate speech, thanks to the Twitter case, and this appears to have massively added to her notability (in practice hard to distinguish from notoriety). It is uncontroversial to say that based on her own publications she appears to go out of her way to court controversy, presumably seeking reposts and requotes, for saying offensive things about trans women and attacks the LGBT community.
Some sources which class Murphy as a TERF:
  • Herald Scotland, January 19, 2019, What can Scotland learn from Canada about the feminist trans rights backlash?, Shona Craven
  • Pink News, Lord Moonie quits Labour party over transphobia accusations, Sofia Lotto Persio, May 15, 2019
  • Herald Sun (Australia), July 31, 2019, Feminists avoiding the hard issues, Rita Panahi
--Fæ (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The Herald Scotland piece does not call her a TERF, only says some people call her so.
  • The Herald Sun piece seems paywalled but a short Google preview indicates it also doesn't call her a TERF, only says some people call her so.
  • The Pink News opinion piece calls her an "anti-trans writer." In any case, Pink News is very biased, like Feminist Current, and cannot be used for statements of fact.
It looks like we've been having a totally moot argument.
The current wording in the lead is not supported by a single RS. It should be changed imminently unless someone can provide one.
Rhino (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason that you would not call Murphy a transphobe, based on her own transphobic hate speech as well as the mountain of reliable sources that reported her hate speech? Even The Times uses that word, in their headline 'Transphobic' blogger invited to Holyrood. It's the very epitome of being a famous transphobe, having a Times headline confirm it. --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, is there any reason I would go by personal opinions rather than reliable sources? Rhino (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
No. It's a question of fact. Read transphobe. If you can explain exactly how all the verifiable evidence on the record of hate speech, misgendering women because they are trans, falsely and bizarrely promoting a "trans ideology", making personal abusive attacks against specific trans women because they are trans women, attacking the entire LGBT+ community as "enablers", and deriding any form of equality or legal protection for trans women is somehow, by definition, not the actions of a transphobe, then I would very much like to read your definition of what a transphobe is, that might almost magically exclude all the acts which almost everyone else interprets as transphobic. An answer would be nice, rather than another question. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Qmunity certainly does so, and they do have the expertise, but since they are an advocacy organization we would have to give in-text attribution for their labelling (which is reliably sourced here). Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we start by removing the statement of fact which is not found in a single reliable source? We could achieve this by notifying the adiminstrator who protected the page that we have established that the current content is not based on any reliable source. And it's a WP:BLP article. Rhino (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Which are who questioning: the Georgia Straight's RS status or the expertise of Qmunity? Also, what is wrong with Global news or the other RSes? Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Georgia Straight does not call Meghan Murphy a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." They cite Qmunity, a highly biased advocacy group, doing so. (The Morning Star quotes A Woman's Place UK; should we use those quotes for statements of fact?) I see no citation from Global News. I see no other RSs. The lead section of this WP:BLP article is currently a catastrophe. Rhino (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the terf tag in the globalnews website, you will find their Megan Murphy coverage. Shocking, I know, but a catastrophe? Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Here are the descriptions I've been able to find in mainstream reliable sources:

  • NBC News: self-proclaimed radical feminist Meghan Murphy ...To the ire of many trans advocates and allies, Murphy, who is heterosexual, regularly critiques transgender activism and alleges that gender identity is an “ideology” that hurts women’s rights.
  • Global News Self-described radical feminist Meghan Murphy, founder of the online publication Feminist Current
  • The Hill Murphy, founder and editor of the website Feminist Current
  • The Wall Street Journal: Meghan Murphy, a gender-politics blogger
  • CNET Meghan Murphy, founder of the blog Feminist Current
  • The CBC does not use it's own voice to describe her, but quotes others who call her an anti-trans speaker.

I don't see sources consistently describing either Murphy or Feminist Current as a "feminist" or "trans-exclusionary feminist" in their own voices - so neither of these descriptors seems well supported to me. I agree that "trans-exclusionary" seems like a logical summation of her views, but we need firmer footing. That said: every single one of these sources covers her in relation to her controversial views on trans people, her ban from twitter, and/or her advocacy against self-ID and other trans rights bills - so the failure to cite that controversy in the lead also seems like a problem. Nblund talk 18:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with this. I feel like people are getting too caught up in the specific language used. The key point is that she's mostly famous as an anti-trans activist; that needs to be both prominent in the lead and in the body. The current version presents her as mainly famous as a feminist, which is absolutely not accurate. (In fact, my problem with "trans-exclusionary feminist" in this case is that the feminist part seems poorly-cited outside of Murphy's self-description - we can include it, but we shouldn't structure the entire article around her self-identification as a feminist when she's largely famous as an anti-trans activist.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed the most recent comment by User:Rhinocera, this was block evasion and sockpuppetry. --Fæ (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC to rebuild the Meghan Murphy biography

Latest comment: 5 years ago27 comments14 people in discussion

The consensus is against replacing the article with a stub. Editors prefer to use normal editing to fix any issues in the article.

Cunard (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meghan Murphy is a radical feminist known for their opposition to transgender rights and their ban from Twitter for "hateful speech" directed at trans women. Due to extensive manipulation, including that the original text was created from Meghan Murphy's own published profile by a contributor who has been blocked for disrupting transgender related articles, and while blocked has continued to manipulate the article content and discussions using sockpuppets, I propose that the article is now rebuilt. This is being raised as an RfC to gain a wider consensus, partly because local discussions have been significantly manipulated by confirmed sockpuppetry.

The proposal is to replace with a non controversial stub, based on only independent BLP compliant reliable sources. As a community we can then gradually add sources and material one at a time, ensuring that there is a balance of material in line with policy and documented consensus on controversial topics.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. The article does not need rebuilding. It is factual with WP:VER. What this article needs is adherence to WP:NPOV (with particular attention to WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:WEIGHT), WP:NOR, and WP:LABEL.
Any editor responding to this RfC who is unfamiliar with this BLP should first look at the entirety of comments in the discussions on this talk page. The revision history can be daunting to go through, so I made finding edit warring on the lead easy to see in the above topic: Lead (or "lede" as some prefer) and edits that led to article restriction. Also, see W:BLP/N discussion: Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, where this BLP is discussed and the editor who created this RfC is actively involved. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
These remarks illustrate why resetting this article is needed, and how pervasive the manipulation of discussion about this article by a user indef blocked for their hostile disruption of transgender related articles has been. The sockpuppet account's disruption appears in all of the other pages linked by Pyxis Solitary. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It's called transparency. Your efforts to close the Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists discussion have failed. Which naturally led to this RfC to replace the article as a stub. (Which is why I suggested that other editors follow the bread crumbs.)
"The sockpuppet account's disruption appears in all of the other pages linked by Pyxis Solitary." So what? The sockpuppet Rhinocera was called out and dealt with on 22:39, 4 August 2019 -- after your last edit war revert on 09:17, 4 August 2019. Are you trying to link me with the sock? Because if not, you wouldn't have associated my name with it.
Furthermore, the sockpuppet was exposed, but the substance of the content he/she added to the lead on 23:26, 2 August 2019 is still valid as it is verified with RS (The Hill, The Scotsman, and Murphy's essay in which she states "While “TERF” has always been a slur, what has become clear of late is that it is no longer just that: it is hate speech.") As such, this content can be taken on by a non-sock editor. There are many bad apples on Wikipedia, but when it comes to legitimate material the edits of one bad apple does not spoil the whole article. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC); (edited) 07:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support sweeping rewrites, although WP:TNT back to a stub may not be necessary. Just at a glance, the page seems to rely too heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources, especially in the section on "Writing", "Feminist Current", and on Murphy's views; this naturally leads to an unduly promotional tone. The article as a whole also doesn't seem to give enough focus to her anti-trans views, which (based on a quick search) seem to be the main think she's famous for. --Aquillion (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - As it stand now, the article really does seem to be a promotional piece, and radically editing it to exclude most primary sources is probably the best way to make sure that changes. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is not a particularly long article. I don't see why any improper content can't just be removed/replaced/reworked to be appropriate. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's no need to take it back to a stub, and it would be unusual to write a BLP without using the subject as a source. Perhaps that's why biographical detail about her family was removed, and that her first radio show was broadcast from a trailer in BC. The article should be written by people who have little interest in the topic so that it complies with BLP: "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone". Not a vanity page, not an attack page, not full of trivia, but also not devoid of detail just because she's the source. SarahSV (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hell no. Oppose. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. It is totally unnecessary as TaylanUB only has ~8.2% authorship. [5] [better link added] This RfC may be an attempt at forum shopping after the BLP noticeboard. I am not at all reassured by whatever Fæ has in mind as "a balance of material in line with policy and documented consensus on controversial topics." And for the record, I am not a fan of radical anything, let alone this article's subject. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for the link, it shows that known sockpuppets confirmed by checkuser have created 19.2% of the article text. In comparison it rates me as having added 0.4%. I have not investigated the exact definitions used by the tool's designer. As an aside, even when only examining the highest contributors, the same report highlights a recent single purpose account not previously discussed and some single purpose IP addresses. If the text is kept, these contributions may be worth further examination for obvious reasons. --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
You appear to be looking at the graph for "top 10 by added text". That is not the same as much text later gets removed over time. This shows that TaylanUB only wrote about 8.2%, and their sock Rhinocera added all of 8 characters, rounded to 0%. There are no other known or suspected socks. I suggest closing this RfC as the rationale is in error. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesnt make any sense - the article is nowhere near long to require nuke option and reversal back to stub, plus there is utterly no reason why the current form wouldnt be rebuilt from that anyway. There is ongoing BLP discussion and this does look like forum shopping. Let BLP conclude and base decisions from that onwards. Otherwise WP:RS and WP:V applies and if there are suspicions that its being violated, its what we have ANI for. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would oppose on two grounds. First, there is no reason why the article can't be evolved through the normal editing process. Second, it appears that the motive is to remove a great deal of information that explains the subject's POV on topics that are controversial. Personally I think that's far better than an article that would just quote those who are critical of her. Sure the critical response to her views are part of why she is notable but we do the reader no favor when we just post things like "she has been criticized for her views against trans-rights and general transphobia." At that point the reader doesn't know if she is just spewing hateful "kill them all" comments or more nuanced concerns about the possible unintended consequences of new laws etc. We are a far more useful resource when we let the articles present different views on the same topic, or in this case, the views of the subject and the responses from the critics. Some will claim that only the criticism is DUE but that is foolish. We also have IAR. If we have to use a few more lines of text to offer a complete and dispassionate explanation of the views of the article subject I'm sure our readers will forgive us. We can always balance that out with more detailed, dispassionate rebuttals to the subject's ideas. Springee (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
That all may be true, Springee, and I don't advocate TNT, but the current article is far more deferential to the subject than the sources would support. I'm particular, the "controversies" section offers remarkably little controversy, as it includes neither the rather extreme views the subject has often taken nor the widespread criticism of her views from mainstream Canadian feminists. Likewise, the Feminist Current section (which was once its own article) leaves the impression that it is a respected feminist publication, which is not in fact the case. Instead criticism of the subject is attributed to the "left", which is scarce!y the only source of hostility to her views, at least in the Canadian context in which she lives and works. Newimpartial (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Springee, normal editing should be able to fix any failings + an attempt to describe Murphy's viewa is a great deal more informative than simply saying "many (Canadians?) condemn her" - which does appear to be the underlying logic of the proposal. Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC editor

The editor that created this RfC has been topic banned from "human sexuality, broadly construed" articles and talk pages, including all articles and pages associated with transgender topics and issues. As the editor can no longer pursue this RfC or engage in it, should this RfC be closed? Pyxis Solitary yak 06:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I won't do it myself, but it should be done per the clear consensus above and point 2 of WP:RFCEND. -Crossroads- (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Only if the close follows WP:RFCEND. RFCEND offers several closing options but I don't think this qualifies for any of them. Up to the point an editor is blocked/banned they and their comments are in good standing and their comments/RfCs should be treated as if they were made by an editor in good standing. We also have a few supports who's views should be respected. Even though I oppose the RfC we should respect the process and those who !voted to endorse. The results don't look like WP:SNOW to me and while slowed it's too soon to say the discussion stopped. I would suggest letting it follow the normal course. Springee (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to reopen the RFC if you do so. Singling out individual editors doesn't resolve the entire discussion. Personally, I would prefer reopening the discussion about deleting the article, by basis of WP:NOTABILITY and especially WP:BLP1E: the subject is known singularly for being banned from Twitter due to violating their policies against hate speech. Blackened0 (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of Fae: I notice that you have yet to apologize for, redact, or even acknowledge that you WP:PAed them. You falsely accused them of being homophobic to win an argument on the noticeboard. I'm convinced that you and your brigading friends contributed to their unfair topic ban. When you falsely accuse people of homophobia, you undermine that legitimate problem. When you abuse the rules to get people banned, you give people a reason not to follow them. Blackened0 (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a permanent record of everything posted by an editor. This is the second malicious accusation you've made against me in a discussion. Continue with the personal attacks and you will find yourself blocked. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for drawing attention to that comment. I will do the same. You are a TERF. You've posted comments disputing "trans ideology," and you've posted comments that you're a feminist. I don't see why you can agree with those two views, but deny the descriptive term of TERF. To say you that calling you a TERF is malicious is to say calling the sky blue is malicious. If it upsets you to be called a TERF, my best advice for you is to stop being one. Further, apologize and redact your false and widely harmful comments about Fae before throwing stones inside your glass house. Blackened0 (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Good to see that everyone stays on topic here and not drift into the shallow waters, since PA is being quoted around here. Why dont you find a room you two if you cant keep it on the article? Cool? Cool. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
"Qui tacet consentire videtur." Pyxis Solitary yak 11:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
No. RfCs belong to the community not to any particular editor. If the editor concerned was the only one supporting the change, then I'd support closing this RfC as moot. Maybe if it was only open a few hours ago and there was limited participation, then I'd support closing it waiting for an editor who could take part. But neither of these apply here so the RfC should stay open. Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I would rather go with speedy resolution here. The consensus is quite clear, the OP is topic-banned, not much else to discuss. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

_____

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meghan_Murphy/Archive_2&oldid=943010624"