User talk:Elliot.fletch

August 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Elliot.fletch, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to do so, we ask the following:

Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
Please send an e-mail to info-enwikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles e-mail is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elliot. Please note that the only reason I've blocked your account is due to the potential for impersonation, and this is strictly to ensure that no-one else runs around Wikipedia under your name, potentially damaging your reputation as a result. I happen to be an OTRS volunteer, so if you respond here after you send in an email, I'll go looking for it very quickly and will unblock you. I apologize for the inconvenience, but it's necessary to ensure you aren't being impersonated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting ticket:2016080310001511. Not yet verified. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Elliot.fletch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just sent an email to let you know that it's really me and I need to be unblocked. I'd be happy to change my username.

Accept reason:

See ticket:2016080310001511. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

You have responses.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected information on my wikipedia page before which has been approved by moderators. At the time, there was no mention of a “conflict of interest”. Elliot.fletch (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A “conflict of interest” would be me having a separate opinion than you. You are talking about my body. I live in my body, I know what my body looks like, I know what I was born as. There is no “conflict”. Elliot.fletch (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of us is capable of being completely impartial about ourselves; so we all have inherent conflicts of interest when writing about ourselves. It's part of the human condition. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a public figure. There are facts about myself on the internet that I have no control over. But simply rewording something to put across the same message and change the misinterpretation is not a “conflict of interest”. There are things that are listed with no sources. I’m deleting those pieces of misinformation and rewording the pieces that could be written better while still putting across the same message. Thanks. Elliot.fletch (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

this is still elliot fletcher, y’all are so fucking weird for blocking someone for trying to correct their own wikipedia page. Elliot.fletch (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Elliot.fletch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am legitimately Elliot Fletcher. I couldn’t remember by login for my verified account so I made a new one to correct inaccurate information on my public wikipedia page. I then remembered my login and started using my verified account again with my verified identity. My identity was verified a couple years ago when a different group of individuals tried to put inaccurate information on my wikipedia page. Now that I have remembered my login, I will delete the other account (Informer 96). I think moderators at wikipedia need to have a serious conversation about how to treat trans individuals’ pages. Because they’re doing it the wrong way. Thanks

Accept reason:

In light of NinjaRobotPirate's comment, and the productive discourse below, I am partially unblocking your account. However, I have left a block on editing the article about you; I know you still want to edit the page directly but for the moment I think following the strictest interpretation of WP:COI and having you make edit requests/hold discussions with other editors is the best idea. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot.fletch (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK

I literally forgot my password to this account so I created a new one (Informer 96). I then was able to log back in to this first account. I started using this one again because my identity is verified on this account. I have no problem deleting Informer 96 now that I have my login information back on this one. I would be more than happy to provide evidence that I am actually Elliot Fletcher. Would sincerely love if this group of men stopped trying to put out misinformation on my public wikipedia page. Would also love if wikipedia our effort into learning about how to deal with trans peoples pages. Thanks. Elliot.fletch (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser must review this block, but I wished to note that it is not "your Wikipedia page", it is a Wikipedia article about you. Your input is very welcome, but you should avoid directly editing the article in most cases, instead you may suggest changes on the article talk page in the form of edit requests. Please read WP:AUTO if you haven't already. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been chatting with them via OTRS. I think the socking part of the block is a little harsh. On the other hand, there is a clear OWNERSHIP issue and until they understand that the discussion about the article should happen on the Talk page and not via edit war, there's not much point in unblocking. If they can agree to that, though, I would endorse an unblock. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why someone might not want their personal issues to be broadcast to the entire world. Just because someone voluntarily shares an anecdote with a newspaper once doesn't mean that you want it to forever define who you are in an encyclopedia. And then you get Wikipedia editors who continually restore that anecdote, as if it's some kind of hard-hitting journalism that needs to stay in the article against your wishes. I agree with Elliot.fletch – Wikipedia is screwed up sometimes. If you want a CheckUser to say it's OK to unblock this editor, you can count me as officially saying that it's OK. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the entry for "The Night" I can't find any reliable sources that support subject's involvement in that project. Elliot, it is important that you understand that even though there's an article about you here, it isn't "your" article. You can't control the content of that article. This is covered in the Wikipedia:Ownership of content policy. We heartily welcome your input about the content of the article, and such input can be posted to Talk:Elliot Fletcher. We really do want to get it right. We also have to be able to verify information through reliable sources. You too can help with that, for example if you're aware of interviews you've given and where the interview might have been published. We take biographies of living people very seriously here, because we know we're potentially affecting the lives of people. There's a policy about that at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and it carries considerable weight. So, help us get it right. We'd welcome the help! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been attempting to “get it right” but people are reverting the page back into what they think is appropriate or factual. I know how to speak about my own life in a way that communicates the same points without using certain language. That’s what I’ve been trying to do this whole time. It puzzles me how some of the editors cannot see that. It also puzzles me that it is my responsibility to help you understand and you welcome the help but, at the same time, I’m expected to not touch a wikipedia page about me due to a “conflict of interest”. I’m sure you can understand that seeing misinformation about yourself online can be frustrating. In my opinion, I shouldn’t really need the approval of people who seemingly don’t know how to deal with trans people. This is an issue involved with how wikipedia (and other websites) deal with trans people. You can disagree but, having dealt with pretty much this exact same situation before, there is definitely some work that needs to be done on the side of wikipedia editors to learn how to handle something like this. And it shouldn’t fall on me to help you understand, especially if someone’s initial response to me is to block me, knowing that my elliot.fletch account is verified and I’ve been proven to actually be Elliot Fletcher. It should not be up to anyone else but me if I want to edit my wikipedia page. Elliot.fletch (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest question is what sources are being used? Because some of the information, there are no sources provided. Or the sources don’t work. So I’m wondering how that information is still valid with no sources/not working sources. Elliot.fletch (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NYTimes article link wasn't working, and I've fixed that. As others have said, we want to get it right - not just making sure the links work, but that the information is correct. There is a process for working with Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, WP:COI goes into detail about how you can point out issues, and the community of editors can work with you; since you don't own the article (nobody does), that doesn't mean they will make the change, but pointing out obvious factual errors is always appreciated. But honestly, I look at your removal of information from the New York Times article, and while I understand why you might not want it out there, you did give them an interview. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the link doesn’t work. Therefore the information that’s being listed using that as a source isn’t valid. Because there is no source to back it up. I did not give them an interview. Again, where is the source for the medical terms used at the bottom of the “early life” section? Have any of you spoken to me about my body in medical terms? Or are you just assuming? Seriously, I’m unsure how you back up information with sources that don’t work or sources that don’t exist. Just like with your removal of “The Night”, there were no sources provided so you took that information off. So why doesn’t that apply to every aspect of the page? Elliot.fletch (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. One, I don't think anybody here cares that you're trans. You're a person. It's certainly nothing I care about, and there is no policy or guideline on Wikipedia that tells us or makes recommendations on how to handle biographies of living people who happen to be trans. It would be distinctly wrong to do so. Trans people are people. That's all that matters, and WP:BLP applies. We've had disagreements on this project before about how to use pronouns on trans BLPs, and it's always (and rightfully so) been decided to use the ones the person prefers. It's not ensconced in policy so far as I'm aware, but that's the practice here. Two, we can not and will not accept the idea that you are the only person who will be allowed to edit your Wikipedia page. If you think that policy should change, you're welcome to start a discussion with your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Autobiography. Three, all Wikipedia articles area work in progress. I might (and did) remove something, and someone else might remove or add something else. I saw you removed the information about The Night, confirmed that I couldn't find sources that indicated you are on that project, and I removed it too. That's progress. When I have time, I may take a closer look at the article and do more to build it. In the meantime, if you are aware of things that you know to be wrong, please tell us. You're already working with us. Let's keep doing that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you’d like to keep doing that, please remove the medical information at the bottom of the “early life” tab as you’ll see there is no source for that, just like with “The Night”. I would also appreciate you not telling me whether this is a trans issue or not. As I said (and you said), I have run into problems regarding the wikipedia page about me before because I am trans person and editors are unsure or very opinionated on how to write pages regarding trans folks. Last time I attempted to correct literal transphobic information, I got blocked. Just like this time. So while you may not think it’s a trans issue (lucky you), that’s not how I’m experiencing this. Elliot.fletch (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any transphobic information on the article, I will remove it right now. I don't see any but I may have my blinders on. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot, I'm sorry you're experiencing this as a transphobic issue. All of us come at things in different perspectives. I'm not seeing it, but that doesn't invalidate your position. Personally, I don't care that your trans and I fail to see a reason to treat the Elliot Fletcher article any differently under WP:BLP because you are trans. The prose noting the suicide attempts and hormone therapy is based on the (now corrected) source of a story in the New York Times which was apparently written by you. Given that we have some contention about whether to include this material or not, I am removing it and starting a discussion on the talk page of the article about whether to include the information or not. I believe this is inline with Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people, especially with regards to points 2 and 4 on that resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your help, I’m not “experiencing” this as a transphobic issue, it just is. I’m not saying you in particular, I think there are other users involved who are a little uneducated on how to deal with trans people so they meet trans people with blocks and condescension rather than being receptive. That being said, I would very much appreciate if we could change the wording of “assigned female at birth” to “fletcher is a trans man” as they mean the exact same thing. The word “female” is misleading and, if we’re taking those guidelines into account (#2 and #4), out of respect, I just wish for it to be reworded. Thank you. Elliot.fletch (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"trans man" is how the article now reads, as it should. That is the kind of edit which any uninvolved editor (i.e., not you) should be glad to do (I went to the article myself to make sure it had been done). Let us know on the article's talk page of other edits like that which are needed. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:Orangemike, that's precisely the kind of edit an article subject can make; and we should thank then for doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]