Jump to content

User talk:Sideswipe9th/Archives/2022

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Defining bad content

Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Section with evidence of bad content but the many posts there show a conflict between what I was trying to achieve and what people are discussing. There is no way that identifying bad content could OUT an editor—my question concerns whether the content is bad, not whether the editor had a COI. That is what is being lost in the walls-of-text. We oppose COI not for moral purity but because having a COI usually results in bad outcomes for the encyclopedia. That's why we should collect evidence.

There are two issues. There is the obvious COI, but a second important consideration is whether the content is bad. If it is, all the editors should be indefinitely blocked without delay. If it's not, what should occur is less clear but might involve mentoring or topic bans.

Currently, the section has 960 words but I can only see one diff offered as evidence, namely this. That shows a perfectly reasonable edit with good content, although apart from a COI, the edit has a problem, namely that the source may not be suitable for that topic. The quick answer is that such a source is not suitable for a medical topic, yet there is the complication that Anorexia nervosa has been surrounded by hocus pocus for decades. I haven't fully investigated, but I suspect I would oppose use of the source with regret because the quoted text is probably completely accurate and useful.

I'm sorry to raise this on your talk but the WP:COIN section is already too long and I wanted to clarify what (in my humble opinion) should be happening, namely we should use one section to focus on bad content. If you would like to reply, please do so here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

  • Senkaku islands
  • Waldorf education
  • Ancient Egyptian race controversy
  • Scientology
  • Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

  • India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
  • Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

  • Senkaku islands
  • Waldorf education
  • Ancient Egyptian race controversy
  • Scientology
  • Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

  • India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
  • Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts

Hi, Sideswipe9th. Thank you for giving Harvestdancer a DS alert for biographies a few days ago. But I was wondering why you also gave them one for American politics. They don't edit very frequently, and in 2022 they have edited nothing but Talk:Lauren Southern. When did they show interest in American politics? Bishonen | tålk 07:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Hey! For some reason at the time I issued the alert I thought Lauren was in the American politics DS area, though upon reflection and prompting to re-check per this message I recognise that as a mistake. I'm sorry for that. Do you want me to apologise to Harvestdancer? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Not sure; that's up to you. They haven't been editing in the last few days — not since just after your alerts — I don't know if that might be because the alerts worried them. On the other hand, their editing pattern has always been desultory, so maybe not. The simplest thing would be for you to just remove the Am Pol alert, I think, since they haven't commented on it in any way. With perhaps an apologetic edit summary? Bishonen | tålk 16:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Done :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Bishonen: Desultory? It is true that I don't have an agenda, but I thought that was a good thing. When I am involved in a dispute on any site, due to my addictive nature and rather combative attitude I have made it a personal policy to always take a day between days in which I participate. That helps prevent me from saying something I otherwise should not. If that is a bad thing, please let me know. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - biography of living persons

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 14:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Harvestdancer:. Though I would like to point out the Template:Ds/aware notice at the top of this talk page already included the BLP discretionary sanctions in it, so this notice was unneeded. You may wish to add this template to your own talk page to prevent future notifications. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration request for amendment: Discretionary sanctions procedure page and templates

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions procedure page and templates and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, — Newslinger talk 04:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sideswipe9th, as we discussed in Template talk:Ds § Suggestion - add Wikilink to Template:Ds/aware into ds/alert?, I have just filed a request for amendment to advance this suggestion to the Arbitration Committee. Please feel free to comment on the request if you would like the Committee to hear your thoughts. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 04:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

A recommendation

I recommend that you read both WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NPA. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I can confirm that I have read both @Sweet6970:. In particular from WP:TE I'd like to draw your attention to Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject per [1] which was contradicted per the judgement text [2] and Not accepting independent input per [3]. As is demonstrated, this is textbook tendentious editing. By supplying diffs, I have not made a personal attack per WP:WIAPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions procedure page and templates closed

Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions procedure page and templates has closed. 3 changes to {{ds/alert}}/{{ds/talk notice}} were approved and will be implemented by the Arbitration Committee and the clerk team.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: Awesome! Thanks for this! Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

COI Accusation

Your accusation of my inappropriate placement of COI accusation on the WDI talk page is correct, however I do not know how to implement the suggestion you have made re withdrawal and striking. Please advise how this may be accomplished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartleyo (talk • contribs) 06:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bartleyo, you can strike your comment by using <s>...</s>, see also WP:STRIKE. Thank you! Justiyaya 08:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Thankyou. Bartleyo (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For your work on J. K. Rowling, contributing input that helped in drafting a difficult section. Well done! It's an achievement. Victoria (tk) 23:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Aaah, thank you so much @Victoriaearle:! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

User space harassment

Reminder. As per WP:HUSH:

"A common problem is harassment in userspace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page..."

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@EnlightenmentNow1792: Three of the posts on your user page this evening ([4], [5], [6]) were standard discretionary sanctions notices. They are not considered false, questionable, or warnings in any manner. Only one post was a warning, the one for edit warring. This post was not false or questionable, you were engaged in an edit war per your two erroneous removals of well sourced content ([7], [8]). While the first removal could, under an assumption of good faith be considered a part of the normal Bold, Revert, Discuss editing style, the second was self evidently the start of an attempted edit war.
You are of course more than welcome to bring this to any editor conduct noticeboard (WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:ARE)), however I am confident that my conduct has not been an issue, and I would remind you to be aware of the possibility of boomerangs given your own conduct. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC) edited to add missing word Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll remind you for a third time that "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." as per WP:BLP. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@EnlightenmentNow1792: Please keep discussion on content relating to Libs of TikTok on that article's talk page, as it is not relevant to what you erroneously perceive to be a behavioural issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The ANI thread

Just wanted to reach out about the ANI thread you started. I don't disagree with what you were trying to do, there were certainly concerns worth addressing, nor do I think you were aiming for drama. It was just that, in my judgement and experience, at that time it would have just turned into just another long ANI thread with no productive conclusion and a lot of damaged relationships. I'm sorry if I came across as judgemental or disapproving. It wasn't my intent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey @ScottishFinnishRadish:, it's all good my friend. And certainly I can see why you had that reaction, I've seen plenty of AN and ANI shitshows by now. So no worries :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad you understand. We've gotten along everytime we've been involved in the same discussion, and I'd hate to strain that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
There's no strain at all! People disagree, it's a fact of life. I appreciate the view point, even when I don't agree with it :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I've started to implement the two week rule for myself: if I still feel it is worth taking to ANI an editor two weeks after their last uh lapse of judgement then and only then I'll start a section. So far none, as I've never found it worth the trouble after two whole weeks. It also helps that if two weeks have passed and it's still worth it, editors won't look at it already warmed up and biased. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 23:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah that's good advice. There's some occasions though where it is time sensitive, but on the whole good advice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
In my experience either something is going to have any action taken, most of the time AIV would have sufficed. As soon as there's any context necessary it's a crapshoot.
The first ANI thread I opened has a bunch of people agreeing there was an issue, it was never closed and no action was taken. Months later the person I opened it about was blocked for UPE and sock puppeting. I haven't been able to work up the motivation to go back and fix the NPOV issues on the article, as I have up and removed it from my watchlist after the lack of action.
Generally ANI ends up being a waste of time for all involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Chetsford (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting#Inclusion of conspiracy theories

I noticed you have offered an opinion but haven't "voted". 48Pills (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Elliot Page

Hello! I was not aware that there were specific rules regarding his page and how it was done. I apologize for any issues it may have caused. I did read what you linked in the Edit summary. I do have a question regarding that though. Why is he a special case and "born" & "birth_name" is not allowed? --ACase0000 (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey @ACase0000: it's not so much that Elliot is a special case, it's that we have special rules for all trans and non-binary people. To respect their privacy and dignity, we only note once in an article, in the lead sentence, a trans or non-binary person's name if they were notable under that name. We don't note it in the infobox, except when the person is still happy to refer to themselves under their former name for past events. As far as I'm aware Elliot does not use their past name to do so, so only a single reference to it in the lead sentence is what we do.
There's a counterpart page to MOS:GENDERID, MOS:IDINFO that has a table where all of the major discussions relating to names, pronouns, infobox images, and the like have been discussed since 2004. If something specifically isn't clear as to why certain practice is followed or not, it's usually somewhere in that table. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to point out a wrinkle in the Elliot Page case that is not true of all decisions under MOS:GENDERID. Elliot is clearly notable with a former name, but that name isn't the same as Elliot's birth name (which, without deadaming, appears to include a hyphenated last name). Because Elliot was notable while using the stage name "Ellen Page" but not under his birth name, we (1) do not include the birth name in the article and (2) do not present the notable name as though it were the birth name.
One other wrinkle: I don't think there is site-wide consensus that people who are happy to refer to themselves under their former name for past events are the only cases where the former name may appear in an infobox or in an Early life section. Of course it does make sense that, in the cases mentioned, the deadname might appear more than once. However. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and infobox policies tend to support the inclusion of a notable birth name in an infobox and/or in an Early life section, in addition to the lead sentence. For the Elliot Page article, though, we don't have a notable birth name, and the consensus seems to favor only the mention in the lead sentence (some editors believe that GENDERID mandates only one mention in the case of all deadnames, but that isn't what the guideline actually says nor is there community consensus to make this a general restriction). I hope this is helpful rather than confusing detail. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for clearing that up. I wasn't aware of the guidelines on the subject and I didn't know that Ellen Page was not his birth name. I apologize. --ACase0000 (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
No worries at my end. Elliot is an unusually complex case, because of the difference - but not complete dissimilarity - between his birth name and his former professional name. Newimpartial (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Cheers @Newimpartial:! I had forgotten entirely about the stage name while off editing other content! Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Moving Pages Conversation

Thank you for having a very civil conversation with me about moving pages convention. I have withdrawn my original request, and posted a new one for 2022 Tulsa hospital shooting.

Thanks again Sheehanpg93 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey. It's all good! You may also be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Guidance at WP:NCEVENTS out of step with application of it as it relates to the broader issues of article naming for events such as this one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
This is EXACTLY related to our conversation, thanks for bringing me in on it. Sheehanpg93 (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for those eyes

On Tops Friendly Markets and Conklin, New York you reverted an ip who reverted you back about insertion of shooter details. It turns out when I blocked them to prevent more BLP vios, another admin recognized the pattern and was able to use the info to further hinder an LTA from Downunder. Good on ya. I appreciate your help acknowledging: you were just doing what you do. If I can ever be of help, please feel invited to call on me. BusterD (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD: Oh wow! I thought it was just the average disruptive editing those articles have been seeing since that shooting. Glad to be of help! Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
As someone who has seen a few of these real time article episodes unfold, I'm really proud of how the team of editors came together and built a very reliable and well-anchored article. It's very difficult to undo a well-developed and strongly cited pagespace. BusterD (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see the MRDA talk page

re your revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovingboth (talk • contribs) 07:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Ton courriel

Oui, oui, et oui.

You might want to read Wikipediocracy forums, if only for the popcorn. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

And pictures of my top-tier wood working and gardening. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: I have indeed been reading that forum. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Claims of July 2022

Hi User talk:Sideswipe9th... on my talk page, you made a claim: "a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template." Kindly point me to: a) The exact edit that you refer to, and, b) the exact "warning or blocking template" that was "a misuse".

Wisefroggy (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Wisefroggy: the misuse of the warning template by yourself was in this edit; where you used the templates {{uw-ew}} and {{uw-3rr}}. If you check the edit history at Marci Bowers, you'll see that I've only made a single revert of content that you had boldly added at 04:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC), had reverted by another editor at 12:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC), which you then restored at 14:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC) and then extended at 14:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC).
As of the time of this reply, you have restored the content that you boldly added twice; [9] and [10] which is a technical violation of our edit war policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Embedded signatures and ordered list continuity

I updated the conversion definitions page you added to recently, moving Roxy's {{unsig}} back to proper position, after her number #2 entry. I suspect that what you were going for here, was the ability to have the refs be numbered continuously, so yours starts with #3; maybe you tried a couple of ways and it didn't work? Anyway, here's how you can get continuous numbering, even with the embedded sig between numbered entries. This also ensures that new refs added after yours will start with the next number, instead of #1 all over again. The trick is to remove the extraneous newline(s) which break the ordered list, and start it over at #1 again. If you wish to maintain a visual break in the wikicode so you can find the end of your list and the beginning of the next one more easily, you can still do that using HTML comment delimiters, like this: 

# Some ref before yours by User1
# Last ref by them. User1 (talk) at hh:mm dd Month yyyy
# Your refs, ending with:
#: {{cite web |url=https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Policy_Statements/2018/Conversion_Therapy.aspx |title=Conversion Therapy |website=[[American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry]] |date=February 2018}}<!--

--><small> — Entries 3-17 added by/on [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 21:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)</small>
# Some ref added after yours by User3
# Another ref User3 (talk) at hh:mm dd Month yyyy

Note the comment delimiters surrounding the white space. This renders as:

  1. Some ref before yours by User1
  2. Last ref by them. User1 (talk) at hh:mm dd Month yyyy
  3. Your refs, ending with:
    "Conversion Therapy". American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. February 2018. — Entries 3-17 added by/on Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  4. Some ref added after yours by User3
  5. Another ref User3 (talk) at hh:mm dd Month yyyy

The blank line disappears in the display, and the numbering is continuous. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: no worries. I wasn't sure what Roxy's intent was for that list; whether it was something we all added to and made a note separately of our contributions to it, or if it was intended as a list for just her investigations. I'll likely not get another look at the page again until after the weekend, as I'll be keeping a close eye on J. K. Rowling while it's featured on the front page as part of WP:TFA, but what you've done seems to be fine. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Jo Rowling

Are you sure about this edit? It restores at least two outright errors to the article. Could you please look again at this? Thanks in advance. --Wubslin (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Wubslin: I've opened a discussion on it over at Talk:J._K._Rowling#Wubslin_edits. I'd appreciate if you could elaborate there what the errors are please. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks for your prompt and courteous response. I have answered over there. --Wubslin (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Happy to help @Wubslin:. Sorry for reverting it wholesale like that. As the article is currently featured on the main page as part of the today's featured article segment/portal, I was being a bit over cautious on restoring an older version, with the intent of looking in depth at any edits I'd reverted once the flurry from being on the main page had died down. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
It's no problem, I quite understand. Thanks for your vigilance and positivity. --Wubslin (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@Wubslin: Oh and feel free to ping me here again if you need a hand or want a second opinion on something elsewhere on wiki. I'm happy to help wherever I can :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Assembly elections, consistency

Howdy. If you're going to 'delete' the majority seats bit? Then do so for all the Northern Ireland Assembly election pages, not just two. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I will happily do so, however I was in the process of typing up a message for your talk page explaining how the mandatory coalition required by statute in NI works. Reverting me is just making this take longer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
If you'll remove the 'majority' bit from all of them? I won't revert you. PS - I do understand the 'power-sharing' setup of Northern Ireland :) GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
If you understand the power-sharing setup of the Assembly, then why did you add the parameter to those two, and not remove it from the others? In any event, it is now removed from all of them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Because, it's easier to add to the few, then delete from the many. PS - I don't know who added them to the pre-2022 elections, or when. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
It's not easier, it's faster. There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way. Putting in the wrong information was definitely the Max Power way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Either way, hopefully the executive will be up & running soon. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I certainly hope so as we still haven't recovered from the last prolonged period where our devolved government was absent, though I fear the Brexit power-play will continue for quite some time. It will be interesting to see though if the Secretary of State uses his new powers to call another election in 4/5 months time, or if he'll let the deadlock continue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Citation bot

Hi Sideswipe9th, I've been away for a few weeks and have not kept up with the discussion. Since you seem to be driving it somewhat I thought you might be in the best position to catch me up with how it is going. I personally have very little interest in continuing to argue with the editors that run the bot, but I do still feel strongly that wider consensus needs to be determined for or against having the bot make those automatic conversions. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There hasn't really been any changes in the last couple of weeks. I still would like someone to check my summaries in the "Reasoning to use X" table, just to make sure I haven't missed anything and have summarised all of the positions fairly, but so far no-one has been willing to do that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I think they look fine in the second draft section, though I would clarify one point in the "Reasoning to use {{cite web}}" section like this (or similar): Specialised templates should only be used for print or digital editions of a publication. Not content on their websites. --> Specialised templates only include additional parameters for print or digital editions of a publication. Those additional parameters do not apply to web pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Specialised templates only include additional parameters for print or digital editions of a publication. I'm not sure if that's entirely true? Could you link me a diff to the comment or set of comments where that was asserted? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The only parameters in {{cite magazine}} that are not in {{cite web}}, according to the template documentation for both, are |others=, |magazine=, |edition=, |publication-date=, |volume=, |issue=, |no-pp=, and |registration=. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: pinging as I'm not sure if you've got my talk page watchlisted.
I think I might have been unclear here. What I meant was, that I'm not sure that was an argument that had been made in the prior discussion. That's why I asked for a diff to a comment, or set of comments, where that was asserted and discussed. The purpose of the table is to summarise the key points of the prior discussion, and not to introduce new ones. Introducing new discussion points is best done at an RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
(Brought here from the User talk:Citation bot) This was mentioned briefly here and here, though I admit this wasn't a main argument. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the RfC started, Sideswipe9th. Do you think it would be considered WP:CANVASSING to post a notification on WP:MCU, since that is where the issue originally arose? Just wanted to make sure before I did anything. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: To be honest I'm not entirely sure. So far I've only notified Help talk:Citation Style 1 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Citation cleanup, as while I'm certain there are other pages who should be notified, I'm not sure what those pages are. You're probably best asking that in the discussion section in the RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Will do, once I've finished structuring my response. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

stop hounding

stop hounding me or I'll report it Taramalan (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Taramalan: All of the pages where we have interacted so far have been on my watchlist for a significant period of time. Responding to issues on my watchlist is not hounding. You are of course welcome to make a report to ANI if you are unsatisfied with this answer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The sock is blocked.[11] Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Saw that! Thanks @Newimpartial:. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't just delete comments

My comment is part of a discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It has nothing to do with unrelated topics, or statements based on anyone's thoughts or feelings. The discussion was about the question of whether the link between five-pointed stars and Islam should be pointed out in the article. If you have an opinion one way or the other, please weigh in in that comment thread and make your case either way. Or be bold and add the material to the article, provided you cite reliable sources. But Reinyday pretended in bad faith not to know of any such relationship. If you really believe he doesn't know, I've got a bridge to sell you. If I had been an evil detestable person who doesn't deserve air he breathes and who'll burn in Hell for all eternity, I might have deleted his comment. But I'm a good person, so I gently chided him instead. The question of whether to cross-reference the article to the topic of Islam in some way is still open. If you have an opinion on the matter please state it clearly and don't use any underhanded methods. 92.67.227.181 (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio tag on transgender genocide

This edit seems to have removed a phrase as copyvio, but it's an attributed quotation that has quotation marks. I don't think that the removed text was a copyright violation, given that it was an attributed quote of relatively short length. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10 Will respond on the article talk :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Asterisks to indent list elements

Could be worse. See troff. General Ization Talk 23:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@General Ization: something something, abolish bulleted lists on talk page discussions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

What did I do wrong, and should I avoid? Cwater1 (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Cwater1: At Tops Friendly Markets there's a consensus to not mention the shooting at the Buffalo store, due to its lack of effects on the remainder of the chain and how we exclude similar information from other American businesses that have had shooting incidents. There's nothing really to do there, unless you want to re-open that discussion, though I suspect consensus hasn't changed on that.
At 2022 Buffalo shooting you introduced text that was not supported by a reliable source and appeared to be original research. You'd need a reliable source who makes the link between the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings, as well as mentions the ten day period between them, before trying to restore that text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry about that. I need to look at talk pages. On the Buffalo shooting, I can find a reliable source and get back to you before adding it if I decide to add it. Again, sorry the troubles today. Cwater1 (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I determined that on the Buffalo shooting, adding that it happened 10 days before the elementary shooting is not really needed. I didn't find the reliable. They articles explained that the elementary shooting happened 10 days after the supermarket shooting. I did learn some lessons today. Always cite when it comes to living person biology and look at talk pages.Cwater1 (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

consensus

Hi Sideswipe9th your comment in this edit [12] appears to indicate you misunderstood what was happening in that particular subsection. The other editor wanted to make piecemeal but unilateral changes to the involved paragraph and this is evidenced by the fact that they were responding to me directly [13]. My revert was simply restoring the article to its prior version (I explained my reasons for doing so here [14]

Since you’ve read the related subsection perhaps you can provide your input and speed up the dispute resolution process so that we don’t need to go resolve it by a RFC and drag the issue out any longer than we need to Thundercloss (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There are two editors who disagree with you on the talk page, and now SS9 who reverted you. It looks like there already is consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
youre confusing two separate issues. The two editors disagree with my proposed paragraph as a whole. Sideswipe9th’s revert however stemmed from changes regarding specific aspects of the current version of the paragraph which one of the two disagreeing editors made. These changes were unilateral and ironically aligned with the changes I have been proposing so there would have been strong incentive for me not to revert their changes Thundercloss (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Then why did you revert them? You don't WP:OWN that article, and anyone at any time can make edits as you say "unilaterally". Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I made small changes, mostly suggested by Thundercloss and Dumuzid. After Thundercloss reverted, they wrote to me "please write your proposed paragraph in this section and incorporate those changes there instead of implementing them piecemeal into the main article. It will be easier to identify and discuss what the exact areas of contention are". It appears they don't have any specific objection in mind yet but chose to revert regardless. But technically it was not against any existing consensus. I will try to not change anything for now to avoid confusion, and make a similar note on Radish's page too in case they don't check back here. Vacosea (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
to get the other user to write out their proposed paragraph on the talk page so that we don’t end up with another RFC which has degenerated into a protest venue where we are arguing over requirements that should’ve been met long beforehand Thundercloss (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for your help with the RFC. Andrevan@ 17:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much @Andrevan:! Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Oooh, that's a fancy barnstar. Nice work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Indentation at Talk:Allison Bailey

I know your intention is to be helpful, and I’m not an expert on indentation, but I don’t understand why you have changed the indentation at the Allison Bailey Talk page. My post of 18:20 27 July was in reply to NHCLS, but your change makes it look as if I am replying to myself. Have I missed something here? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Hey @Sweet6970:, if you check the diff of that edit all I did was reduce the number of colon indents so that each reply was only +1 level from the previous one, and trim some extraneous new line whitespace that was breaking the list per WP:TALKGAP. I hadn't touched the order of the comments in any way, as if you compare the state of the thread before and after you'll see that your comment at 18:20 UTC already looked like it was replying to yourself. If the intent was for that to be a reply to NHCLS' message at 17:51, then it should have appeared after that message and not your message that was posted at 18:03.
    Looking at the diffs again, am I right in assuming that the 18:03 message is a continuation of your 17:32 message, and that the 18:20 message is a reply to NHCLS' 17:51 message? If that is the case, then moving the 18:20 thread to be directly under NHCLS' 17:51 message would be the way to solve it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    One further note, is this reply posted today at 11:45 a reply to JezGrove? If that's the case then it should only have a single : indent, and not three, because that is the first level of the reply in that thread. If instead it's a follow-on message to your 09:55 message and is a further reply to NHCLS' message at 18:40 yesterday, then it should appear above JezGrove's message and not below it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for your response. My post of 18:20 was indented one more than NHCLS’s comment – I was intending to show that this was a reply to NHCLS, taking into account my second comment. Perhaps this is too complex to work on an indentation system.
    My post at 11:45 was in reply to Jez Grove, and I indented it one more than the bulk of the comment. It looks like I should have indented it only one more than the beginning and end of that comment.
    Thank you for your explanation. Regards. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    Ahhh I get you. Yeah Wikipedias comment threading is kinda awful,it doesn't handle complex discussions well at all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Greetings, Sideswipe9th. I happened upon this discussion while checking out your talk page. For what it's worth, and having spent many an hour or years as an admin in online message boards, let me say that I find Wikipedia's identation system to be excellent: It's simple, a fact that needs no elaboration, and actually quite efficient, since it's immediately obvious who is responding to whom, provided we pay a bit of attention. The same amount of attention also required from participants in a discussion. For that reason, allow me too to offer you my congratulations for the work you did to that page. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    @The Gnome: Thanks! I think the way Wikipedia handles talk page comments can be simple and efficient, until you get to complex discussions. Anything that involves mixing indent schemes, like RfCs and AFDs can get messy when editors aren't, as you say, paying attention can get messy real quick. Thankfully most fixes though are more simple than that, usually an editor has typed one or more colons or asterisks than they meant, or there's a new line break in the list somewhere causing the indentation of an asterisk list to go screwy.
    Personally I'd prefer if it was abstracted away from the editor somewhat, akin to forums or Reddit where you just click reply on the message you want to reply to, and the underlying software handles the nesting. The new reply tool and new discussion tool help a lot in this regard, which is why I use it nearly exclusively now, though the reply tool still doesn't have a way to natively do an asterisk reply to the opening comment of a discussion section. Hopefully with the reply tool being rolled out as default to editors, over time we'll see less screwed up talk page discussions that require fixing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
On the above: My concern is not just the people participating in a discussion. These folks can rather easily navigate through even an unkempt maze, since they have left markers from their own participation. My concern is mainly the reader who happens upon the discussion. For that person, I find the identation system best of all alternatives. (Not for me the Twitter royal mess!) -The Gnome (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree, in addition to being a hellsite right now where everyone is angry at everyone else, Twitter's UX is awful. Facebook, for all that's wrong with it ("Hi, it's me Meta, I has all your datas, nom nom"), actually has a somewhat decent reply indenting system these days. Reddit is good too, except that by default replies after the fifth or so level require you to load a separate page. I think that's more of a holdover from when we had 4:3 aspect ratio screens, whereas almost everyone these days is using 16:9 or 16:10 either on desktop or mobile.
If you want to see a particularly messy current discussion though, that outright breaks screen readers and is a nightmare to navigate when editing the source, take a look at Talk:2022 Laguna Woods shooting#RFC: Accused section, second paragraph. It's got two inline reflists, multiple listgap issues, and a big wall of text in the middle. I'd try to tackle that one, but I'm pretty sure it would just break again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Please undo your close of the bare URL RFCs

You're right that this is a controversial close. The first thing is that this should not be speedied and should be left to admins. The second is that there's plenty of valid comments, despite very intense bludgeoning going on. Please undo it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb: It's currently 6:10 AM, my local time, I hope you won't mind too much if I sleep on this and reply shortly after I wake up? Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Well I can't force you to do anything, but I'd rather have an open RFC than one closed for 8 or so hours out of nowhere. Headbomb {t ·

c · p · b} 05:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I will say briefly now that concerns over bludgeoning are not why I early closed the two RfCs. My primary concerns are surrounding the questions, and the circumstances that lead to the rather sudden appearance of the two RfCs. I'm open to being convinced that those two questions will solve the dispute, however at present and based on what I've read over the totality of the discussion sections, I am not currently convinced a consensus outcome can be found as the questions do not seem the right one for the underlying problem.
I'll also say that, should an uninvolved editor or admin wish to reopen the discussions while I'm asleep, I will not cause any fuss over it. I realise the timing is kinda awful for when I closed em and I apologise for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
What are these concerns? They're both neutral and open questions that address the core issues, when bare url tags should be used, and when/how to add/remove them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Headbomb:, Ok. So first concern, why two RfCs, with 4 total questions? Were any alternatives considered? In this revision by BrownHairedGirl, which you responded to there was a suggestion for a single RfC, with a single question. About 10 minutes after the first of the two RfCs were launched, BHG's proposed question was supported and slightly extended upon by Barkeep49. What was wrong with that suggested question? And why is the 2 RfC/4 question format superior to that?
Discounting responding to BHG's request for a speedy close, due to the obvious dispute between the two of you, how would you address Rlink2's request for a speedy close? While it is obviously predicated on BHG's arguments, it is still I hope separate enough that an answer on the merits of it could be ascertained. Additionally, how would you respond to Barkeep49's comment that I'm not sure how much actionable feedback we'll get for a close? When contrasted against the closures, I'm sure you'll see the similarities between the words I chose in the closing, and those made by Barkeep.
Elaborating on the comment I made earlier. An experienced closer will be able to wade through any potential bludgeoning in an RfC while determining the consensus, though it may increase the time taken to complete such a closure. That is why concerns over bludgeoning were not why I early closed the RfC. In addition to what I've said and asked in the previous paragraphs about the format, I have a concern, based on the phrasing of this comment, that these RfCs stem from one or more strong emotions. There are several ways in which that comment could be read, including anger, frustration, exasperation, and passion in the heat of the moment. There was a two minute delay between that statement, and the launch of the first RfC, and a further 10 minute delay before expansion of the first RfC to encompass a second question. Obviously I don't want to guess at what was going through your mind at the time, but I hope that you can at least understand how someone saying Fine, you want an RFC, I'll give you an RFC. in the midst of a heated (to put mildly) discussion between two editors, as well as the speediness of the subsequent RfCs being launched, may raise a few eyebrows if not alarm bells. How would you address this concern, that the RfC could be seen as a speedy reaction to a heated discussion, instead of it being a necessary outcome from a prolonged debate that ended in deadlock? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
First, her question is bad and does not address the core issue (when and by which method should bare urls be flagged). The things that need to be addressed is how should this work be done (bots or meatbots, i.e. people with AWB) and where/when should these tags be added/removed. I've incorporated the where/when questions as a direct response to Barkeep's suggestions. Two RFCs because it's easier to discuss additions separate from removals, since adding and removing tags can have different considerations.
As for the speedy close request, it's simply obstructionist reflexive nonsense, and it doesn't stop being nonsense simply because someone else goes 'per original nonsense'. There is no dispute between BHG and me. She'd disagree, but that's mostly because she's taking every comment that she perceives as not going her way as some sort of personal insult and symptomatic of some nebulous agenda (see the unanimous endorsement of my closure of her BRFA).
I'm quite supportive of her bot in general, I've encouraged her multiple times on going forward with an RFC over the months (which she never did). So when she asked me explicitely to make and RFC, I made one. But of course, this was somehow sign that I'm out to get her. The issue is a very minor one, that would leave of 99% or some other ridiculously high percentage of all bare URLs (as she considers them), but that 1% of tags that would be left in place is seen as a personal affront. This was explained to her many, many times, by many more people than just me, and she took that as a sign that everyone else was wrong'.
This is, simply put, intransigent WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour from a would-be bot operator. An RFC shouldn't be held up because someone intransigent is very passionate about a subject and ABF bludgeons everyone around her into submission. Let it run, and the closer can ignore the badgering and see how the community feels independent of BHG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Headbomb: With regards to the core issue, as an uninvolved (bar these closures) editor who has reviewed the discussions, I disagree. Based on the state of the discussion prior to the launch of the RfC, the core issue appears to be where in the article should the maintenance template appear. Moxy, who opened the discussion, has expressed some concern about how many articles are tagged with the template, and who is actually fixing the backlog that has become noticeable because of the template. Several editors; Valereee, SnowFire and BD2412, had made various comments in support of the addition of the template. The issue of how the banner is added or removed from an article, prior to the launch of the RfC, was raised only by yourself, and in the discussion prior to the launch of the RfC had been between only you and BrownHairedGirl.
With regards to the state of discussion at the time of closure (close 1, close 2), more had been said about the counting of the number of articles either tagged with the template, or that had bare URL references in general, than on directly answering any of the four questions asked.
With respect to the speedy close requests, I've already drawn a distinction between the request made by BHG, and the one by Rlink2. Prior to the launch of the RfCs, Rlink2 had not made any contributions to the discussion, so I would consider them uninvolved. As such I do not find it convincing that Rlink2 is engaging in obstructionist reflexive nonsense. Nor would I characterise Barkeep49's comment that I'm not sure how much actionable feedback we'll get for a close as obstructionist reflexive nonsense.
I also disagree that there is no dispute between you and BHG. As an uninvolved editor, bar the two speedy closures, I can see quite a clear dispute between both of you, and one that appears to have pre-existed the current discussion based on a skim read of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 9.
As such, I'm afraid I do not find this a convincing rationale to re-open the RfCs. I understand that this is not the outcome you'd want, and if you wish to take this further I will gladly welcome and would recommend a closure review at WP:AN. If you do launch a closure review, please leave me a wikilink to it in this discussion. Or if you wish to make another attempt at convincing me, particularly as to why I should discount both Rlink2 and Barkeep49's comments, feel free and I will continue to hear you out. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Why should Rlink2 and Barkeep49's comments be the basis for closure? Why are their opinions particularly special? Let the RFC run and everyone opine. Otherwise have opined too. There is no reason to nip this in the bud and let the situation be as unclear as it is now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Closure review at AN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll respond there from now on to keep the discussion in one place, if you don't mind. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions

I do have a question. Does the discretionary sanctions alert mean that a user am banned from editing something? If so, how long? I don't know if I should be asking this. I was wondering since I received a notice from you last month. Cwater1 (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Cwater1:, sorry for not getting back to you on this earlier, I missed the message at your talk page. The sanctions alerts don't imply any issue with your contributions, instead they are informative. You're not blocked or banned in any way. There's a bunch of topics on Wikipedia that are, for one reason or another, somewhat controversial. Because of historical issues with those topics, they are considered to be under discretionary sanctions, which in most cases means a stricter application of the normal policies and guidelines and editorial conduct guidance by administrators. There are also a few articles, for example like Donald Trump, which are subject to some additional restrictions as a part of the discretionary sanctions system. Details of the additional restrictions are always found within the banners at the top of the article talk page, for example at Talk:Donald Trump, it states that the article is under a "24 hour BRD cycle", meaning that if you make an edit to that article and it is reverted, you should not reinstate the change without discussion at the talk page and 24 hours have passed from the time of the original edit.
For the most part, editors don't need to worry about the sanctions alerts. Pretty much anyone who edits a discretionary sanctions topic area will get one or more of these alerts relating to the content areas they are editing in, every twelve months. They're only important in the rare occasion that an editor is being disruptive in some way, as they allow uninvolved administrators to take swifter action.
If you have any other questions, feel free to drop me a message here and I'll definitely get a notification about it.
TLDR; you've done nothing wrong, you're not subject to any blocks or bans, and you should read WP:ACDS#guide.expect to see what is generally expected of editors who edit in controversial topic areas. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay. I was just wondering. When editing, I do want to be careful especially when it has those discretionary sanctions. It is more like a reminder or a warning reminding me to be careful. Cwater1 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah exactly! With the exception of a small set of extraordinary page restrictions, most editors won't have any issues with the sanctions, as most editors aren't seen as disruptive. It's only folks who are seen as being disruptive, whether intentionally or not, that will see any impact from them. For the vast majority, the sanctions system is just a notification to say "be on your best behaviour". Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Irreversible Damage

Hi, you indiated that you have a strong reliable source saying that ROGD is "not backed by credible scientific evidence." None of the articles that I saw had that quote. Lisa Littman has a study and Jack Turban has two studies, the scientific data is mixed and more research is needed considering how quickly the number of people identifying as trans has risen. The statement is misleading readers.

Moreover, Dr. Turban is a highly controversial and disputed source. Stephen Levine, an inordinately respected Psychiatrist with nearly 40 years of research in this field, has questioned Jack Turban's research. Dr. Levine is very apolitical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_B._Levine

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/advocate-rather-than-a-scientist-the-compromised-research-of-child-gender-transition-doctor-jack-turban/

Finally, the Wall Street Journal (a reliable source via wikipedia) has an oped out today questioning Dr. Turban's research.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-american-academy-of-pediatrics-dubious-transgender-science-jack-turban-research-social-contagion-gender-dysphoria-puberty-blockers-uk-11660732791

If you review Dr. Turban's twitter page, he is certainly biased. He even ha a trans rights flag in his bio.

https://twitter.com/jack_turban?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor RaySmall88 (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting by reading the two citations ([15], [16]) that are used as references for and is not backed by credible scientific evidence., neither of which are written by Turban. The second source in particular states There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. and represents the consensus opinion of pretty much every major public health body and organisation in the US.
While Turban's work is the most recent publication on ROGD, it is not the only research that has been conducted into it. Focusing exclusively on Turban's research is not helpful. Aside from those two papers, there have to my knowledge, been no other independent studies done into ROGD. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria

Why are you removing the references to the study's funding on the auspices that it is a coatrack issue about Jack Turban? The grant was funded by an organization that is a manufacturer of puberty blockers? It was disclosed as a conflict of interest in the study. The study was cited as discrediting Rapid Onsent Gender Dysphoria. Why wouldn't readers be able to decide if the conflict of interest is valid? Stephen Levine also cited it as problematic. RaySmall88 (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK. The ROGD article is not an article about Jack Turban, criticism of Turban, if it is due for inclusion should be included in Turban's article, which based on a revert on that article by another editor seems unlikely. Additionally the semi-reliable source used, the National Review, is considered by most editors to require attribution, which was not provided. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
That wasn't the only citation. The Wall Street Journal (approved) and the Study itself were cited. The National Review only quotes Stephen Levine. It isn't a criticism of Jack Turban. It is pointing out that the study cited has a conflict of interest. If you're going to be fair, the study should be removed or the full context should be given. The pharmacy industry funding a study which could lead to the sale of more puberty blockers is a conflict of interest worthy of note. RaySmall88 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The WSJ piece is not a reliable source in this instance, because it is explicitly an opinion piece. As such it only represents the opinions of the articles authors; Julia Mason and Leor Sapir. As such I am not seeing any convincing reason to remove the study conducted by Turban. I would also advise that The pharmacy industry funding a study which could lead to the sale of more puberty blockers is a conflict of interest worthy of note. reads heavily like original research, which is prohibited in the article space. If there is a conflict of interest involving Turban, then it is only worthy of note if reliable sources factually report on it. Thus far, no such factual reporting has been presented.
Any further discussion on this should occur at Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy so that other editors can contribute. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are part of the pickle cabal has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedians who are part of the pickle cabal has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms

I'd appreciate it if you looked at the talk page, and maybe actually read the primary source cited by the secondary source. Toodles. Naihreloe (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Naihreloe: I'll respond at the article talk page :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Tova Friedman article moved to draft

I have found that the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tova_Beck-Friedman confused this artist with Tova Friedman, Auschwitz survivor. I have made the corrections to this article and created a new article on Tova Friedman. I was in the process of writing it when you have moved it to draft. Now I have completed it and submitted to publication but wikipedia says that 4 months or more are needed. As it is a correction of a previous mistake of a user of wikipedia I ask you to publish it as soon as possible. Tova Friedman is at the center of public attention for her testimonial activity on Holocaust with children in US and fully deserves an article in wikipedia. MSacerdoti (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@MSacerdoti: Two issues. While I can draftify an article, I do not believe I can move an article from draft space to the main space. Secondly, though I'm not yet an Articles for creation reviewer, if I was I would say that while you have improved the draft in the last few hours, it still fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline and the biographies notability guideline. At present the draft does not demonstrate significant coverage, which demonstrate notability via independent secondary reliable sources. In short this means that more sources, which are independent of Friedman, so not work she has written or interviews with her, are needed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Sideswipe9th/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: got it! No worries. It's something I'd probably remove, at least in part, but then I don't have the mop :) Thanks for taking a look at it! Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Kiwifarms URL

I have started a discussion on the VDARE and Right Stuff blog talks saying I think the url should be excised. Since that's relevant to the current Kiwifarms discussion and were mentioned would it be okay if I left a message on the Kiwi Farms discussion saying I started those ones and that people can chip in? Don't think it'd be canvassing since I wouldn't tell people to take a stance but idk cos it was already mentioned. Not tryna canvas though. Also idk if it's self-promo Stephanie921 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanie921: I don't know to be honest. While there's obviously some overlap in the discussions, the articles themselves have less clear links. But it is a limited scale posting, as it's one talk page, and you can make sure the message is neutral and referenced at both locations per WP:INAPPNOTE. Maybe ask ferret on their talk page as they might have more experience figuring that out. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Stephanie921 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Forgive Me For I Have Sinned

Hello! You have reverted my post (revision 1108749352) on Talk:Destiny (streamer) without leaving a WP:REVEXP . I would appreciate WP:NOBITING as I'm quite new to this side of Wikipedia and would like to know what I did wrong and how I could've done it better! It is late here, so if I don't reply right away, I will see it in the morning. Babyblasphemy (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Babyblasphemy:. Late here too, so I'll keep it short. It was a WP:OUTING issue, falling under the other contact information criteria. You made a link between an editor and their off-wiki presence that they had not made publicly on enwiki. We generally don't allow that content, which is why it's also been WP:OVERSIGHTed by one of our oversighters. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I've read something about that, do I need do do anything to ensure the revision cannot be restored, or does oversight handle that? Babyblasphemy (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That's already taken care of. Only folks who could restore it are other oversighters, no-one else can see it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Understood, sorry for the trouble and thanks for upgrading my knowledge! Babyblasphemy (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Sideswipe9th. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 03:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For mediating between me and the other user when we edit warred in a way that was incredibly kind Stephanie921 (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Ahhh! Thank you Stephanie921! Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Yw :) Stephanie921 (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It is so ironic that you take such issue with 'attacks' on other editors but seemingly condone other editors remodeling articles into what are basically hatchet jobs on people who do not align with their politics. So sad that wikipedia has come to this.Kont Dracula (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes critic score

That other editor clearly misunderstands the past discussion. Please read the talk page. If you personally object then go ahead and object and state your argument but please do not perpetuate the misunderstanding that other editor has based on a misreading of the past discussion. It is perfectly normal to include the Rotten Tomatoes critic score in a film article, but it is also possible to contrive an objection. Due to WP:3RR I will have to wait but I cannot argue against a past consensus that did not exist. -- 109.79.67.41 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Irony

If only I had a mop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hehehe. You gotta have courage friend! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar!

All-Around Amazing Barnstar
For generally being one of the Wikipedians who've kept me on the site and inspired me, your great work across Wikipedia and various topics, and specifically for stopping me shooting myself in the foot with the Genspect RFC! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Always happy to help :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill?. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC) Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.136.197.235 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
Your contributions at WP:WPOP are noticed and appreciated. Well done! GeneralNotability (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @GeneralNotability! Always happy to help out wherever I can :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Mermaids

Talk page note left. 80.229.22.58 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to applaud you for the effort and thoughtfulness you approached this topic with, Sideswipe9th. You've been a credit to the project there. Thanks. 80.229.22.58 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That's been a difficult discussion for many reasons. But I'm glad we've been able to find a way to thread that needle. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Sideswipe9th. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Femke (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

BlackShot

Hello! I've noticed you've tagged the article for G4 (where I added a lot of content and references), primary reliance tag (only the first reference is a press release, others are all secondary reviews/coverage) and a permanently dead url tag (not only is the article still accessible, but so is its archive from 5 months ago as well, which I added). So I just wanted to see with you whether the article is okay now, or if there are some misunderstandings. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Jovanmilic97:. Huh, I'm not sure what happened there. When reviewing the article last night, I had tried to open every citation to check for any verification issues. The Inven citation was the only one that wouldn't load. I tried to check if it was just an intermittent issue, but as far as I could tell that website had been offline for a while. When I tried to search for the article on the major archives sites, all came back with no archived versions available. Glad that's sorted now though! You may wish to run IABot with the "add archives to all non-dead references" option selected, which should automatically add archives for the other sites if they've been archived previously, just to ensure that if those other citations do go offline the content is still verifiable.
Upon re-reviewing it now, I have a slight concern about the Inven source. Though I can't rule out a translation issue, or a cultural style difference in Korean games media, it reads to me more like a user review you'd expect to find on Steam. I'm assuming inven.co.kr is related in some way to Inven Communications and Inven Global? Do they accept and republish user reviews, or is the author of this definitely a current or former staff member? I'm also slightly concerned about the reliability of Gamemeca, This is game, Gameshot, TGDaily, though that's more due to my unfamiliarity with Korean games media, and I wouldn't kick up a fuss over it if you're convinced they are reliable.
As for primary sources, I'll remove that tag now. I've re-translated all of the citations as best as I can, and you're right that only the Ongam source is a press release. Not sure why I thought last night that there was more primary sources in the article. All I can offer is my apologies for that. As for the rest of the article, you might want to see if you can add a "Critical reactions" subsection, just to include commentary from the reviews about the reception the game has received. But otherwise everything else looks good for now. Sorry again for the hassle caused over this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Please, don't be sorry at all! It can always happen to the best of us and that's why I decided to talk it out here. Thank you for some fair advices (especially on the Reception part), will look more into some things about the reliability that sadly seems so tough to verify with foreign sources. Yes, the Inven webzine is related to Inven Communications, with an article in Korean Wiki: ko:인벤 (up since 2004). On glance, it appears to be reliable but some more research and reliability discussion of these on the Wikiproject will have to do when I have more time. Thank you once more! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Cyber Anakin, you may be blocked from editing. WikiEd has been contacted regarding your disruption, stonewalling, canvassing, and so on, along with systematic bias. Do not make further edits to the article without approval of WikiEd and admin JBW. 181.36.121.236 (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey look whos back using another proxy, and accusing us of canvassing! Softlemonades (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request: Gender and sexuality closed and archived

Clarification request: Gender and sexuality has been closed and archived. You can view the request in the archive at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 122 § Clarification request: Gender and sexuality. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

NPP

Following up from User_talk:MaxnaCarta#NPP_of_Health_Liberation_Now!. I've not forgotten, but health is bleh, so not sure if I'm able to do it tonight or tomorrow. Femke (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Femke: that's alright! I saw the note at the talk of your top page, and I know how awful that can be. Hopefully the worst eases up again soon :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm way past the worst fortunately :). Still housebound, but can do most day-to-day activities again.
Just looked through your patrols. Could you tell me a bit more about your though process behind these reviews? And if you'd do them differently now? (Not saying they're all bad). My goal here is to offer some more mentoring if that is required.
Femke (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
That's some good news at least!
Of course. One thread through all of my reviews is that I always have the NPP flowchart to hand. One of the benefits of a multi-monitor setup :)
  • Conspiracy of Silence - This was the state of the article at the time I reviewed it. After reading through it, and based solely on the content and citations present, I though that it failed WP:NFILM and WP:NTV. Because it is a television film, it seems to straddle that grey area between those two SNGs. There were four citations, one to IMDB, a YouTube channel (not a video), a GeoCities archival site (Oocities), and the book the film was based on. The IMDB and OOcities sources would ordinarily be considered unreliable, the YouTube channel belongs to one of the lead actors, and the book the film is based upon does not demonstrate notability for the film. I then proceeded to do a Google Search to see if the work had been any significant coverage of the film in reliable sources per WP:NFO; reviews, pieces on the film's development and production, anything attesting to the lasting legacy of the production. Unfortunately despite my best Google-fu, my search came up with a lot of noise. The term "conspiracy of silence" is not uncommon, and just per our Conspiracy of silence disambiguation page, there are several other films and books with the same name. The only source that stood out to me was a CBC News article, on the real world events that lead to the book and film. Unfortunately that source only contains a very brief passing mention of the film (12 words total). Through the Google search there was no sign that the film had won any awards.
Because I was unable to find any reliable sources on the film, I proceeded down through the remainder of the checklist. Had the film been older than 1991, I would have suspected that some of the information that demonstrated notability would have been unavailable, however I would not have draftified the article as at the time it was 140 days old, and draftify says not to draftify articles older than 90 days. Because of the relative lack of editing activity, and that the article creator had blocked for sockpuppetry, I felt as though a PROD was not likely to be contested. So I proceeded to PROD the article, and leave it unreviewed. I didn't add any other tags as that is not part of the chain leading towards PROD. About a day later another editor contested the PROD, and was able to provide a reliable source (a 1993 obituary that was published in Maclean's) that verified it was winning at least one Gemini Award.
In terms of what I'd do differently, I will definitely reassess my own internal cut-off date for subjects whose notability was established in the early days of the internet. When evaluating productions like this, that were only available within a specific country or region, I will also expand my tangential searches to try and find any major awards like an Emmy, BAFTA, or Gemini Award, in order to better tailor my searches. Though I am a little hesitant to do so, because IMDB is far from the most reliable of sources, I will also make sure to check if any awards are listed there and use that information to guide searches for reliable sources. Had I found such sources during my search, I would have included them directly into the article, as Matt91486 and Ovinus has done. I would also have tagged the article with {{more citations needed}}, along with a note on the talk page, as while the Maclean's source does verify that the director won the 1993 Gemini Best Director award, it does not verify any of the other awards the film has won.
  • Tihomir Stoytchev - This was the state of the article at the time I reviewed it. After reading through it, and based solely on the content and citations present, I thought that the article failed WP:NBASIC, WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Of the four sources, one is unreliable (AllGov), two are primary (Bulgaria-embassy.org, mfa.bg), and the final one is a stock images site. I carried out a search for sources that would demonstrate notability, where I found several RS with a brief passing mention of Stoytchev, and only one unreliable source (AllGov) with anything that came close to meeting WP:SIGCOV. I then ran the bgwiki version of the article through a translator, in the hopes of finding any Bulgarian language sources that may not have shown up when searching for the Romanisation of Stoytchev's name. Unfortunately the bgwiki version has only two sources, the same mfa.bg source used in the English version, and a Bulgarian blog that doesn't seem to meet the RS criteria. Searching for Stoytchev's name in Bulgarian is complicated, as there is at least one other person with the same name who is also somewhat prominent in Bulgaria.
As such, I followed the flow chart. As it was a BLP with some references, it did not meet the criteria for BLP PROD. Due to the lack of RS, both in the article and via searches, I felt as though it failed NBASIC. I also felt as though it failed NPOL, as while ambassadors are politicians, not all ambassadors are notable, even if they are an ambassador to a prominent country. Because this is a BLP, I tagged the article with {{more citations needed}} due to the previously mentioned lack of RS, and with {{primary sources}} as two of the four citations are to primary sources. While the article contained useful prose, due to the age it was unsuitable for draftification. Due to the lack of overall editing history, with only three edits total prior to my review, I considered a PROD unlikely to be challenged and PRODed it. The article was then deprodded by one editor, and then subsequently reviewed by another.
For what I'd do different with this one, I'm not sure to be honest. I still have concerns over the notability of Stoytchev, that weren't addressed in the deprodding or subsequent review by Onel5969. Were I not feeling somewhat less confident in my interpretations of the relevant SNGs, per the discussion on MaxnaCarta's talk page over NCORP, I would still be considering taking this to an AfD. After this is all over, I think I will ask Onel5969 why they felt as though the article met GNG and/or the relevant SNGs.
  • River Medway - This was the state of the article at the time I reviewed it. After reading through the article, and based on the content and citations present, I though that the article met WP:NBASIC, and additionally may meet WP:ENTERTAINER#1 in the future. The second KentOnline is sufficiently in-depth and independent of her, as it describes the impact she has had on Drag Race UK fans, and within her local area, so partially fulfils NBASIC. The first KentOnline source, while primarily an interview with Medway, does also contain content from her performance on Drag Race that was both separate from the interview and indepth. The Attitude source is independent of Medway, describing an impactful moment from an episode of Drag Race. The other citations in the article are primarily Q&A style interviews with Medway, and outside of NCORP, based on discussions in the WT:N archives, there doesn't appear to be a community consensus on whether such interviews count towards SIGCOV. (WT:N Archive 64, WT:N Archive 72, WT:N Archive 74). Because of this ambiguity, I'd err on the side of caution that the Q&A interviews do not demonstrate SIGCOV.
As for ENTERTAINER#1, I don't think it controversial to say that Drag Race UK is notable. The 2022 Official Tour may also be notable, I've not checked to be sure, but I'm not convinced that it's independent enough from the TV Drag Race to count. Death Drop is I think notable via sources I'm aware of, though that article needs a pretty large clean-up to better demonstrate it, and Medway is confirmed to be in the cast for the upcoming UK tour. Her exact significance within the play remains to be confirmed as the tour does not begin until the end of this month, but Medway is one of the five billed performers for the tour, so I would assume her role is likely to be significant. However that is something that she'll meet in the future.
After I felt as though NBASIC was met, I did a copy-vio search and didn't find anything that concerned me. I made a quick copy-edit cleanup of the article. One source was linked to an AMP version of the site, so I swapped that to the regular version and adjusted the archive to match. I also checked for how we handled pronouns on other notable drag artists, where the consensus is to use the pronouns in our sources. As the sources overwhelmingly used she/her pronouns, I adjusted the article text to match. I also ran the MOSNUM dates script to ensure that the date format was consistent throughout the article and citation, and then marked it as reviewed.
For what I'd do differently, there's a couple of sources that I've found since the review that could further shore up NBASIC; Kent and Sussex Courier, PinkNews, which I would either have added in or have left a note to add in on the talk page. But aside from that, I'm not sure. I don't think there were any maintenance tags that needed adding. I could have ran IABot to add archives to the citations that were missing them.
Hope this helps, and sorry if it's all a bit wordy. Figured it's best to go through everything I considered, and the issues I ran into than leave stuff unsaid. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, not sure if you've got my talk page temporarily watched, so courtesy ping @Femke: to let you know I've replied. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Overall this looks good, a few comments (I'm going to try to not be as minimalistic with my responses as usual).
  • Conspiracy of silence: Your initial analysis was almost there, and I'm confident with the description of what you'd do differently, you'd reach the correct outcome next time. IMDB will be a good point of departure for if you need to do a further search of awards. It's probably not an efficient use of your time to look for awards if IMDB does not list any. Given the preference of sources 5 years after release in WP:NFILM, I think the cut-off date only needs to pushed a few years into the future.
  • A difficult one. With these articles, I always keep in mind the systemic bias on Wikipedia against non-latin scripts topics. A search is difficult, given that neighbouring countries may have a different transliteration of Bulgarian than English. My own search showed a lot of passing mentions, but no significant coverage. (Admission: usually I'm too lazy at this point to continue). Since there is no applicable SNG, but Bulgarian ambassadors to the US are often notable, this article requires a thorought WP:before. If you look at one of their predecessors, Elena Poptodorova, sources are in Bulgarian and Polish. Have you tried searching the name in combination with ambassador in Bulgarian? Or in combination with United States? (DeepL is a better machine translator than Google translate). If the thorough before did not give anything, AfD is the better option out of {PROD, AfD}, given the precedence of having articles for these ambassadors. Another option is to leave it in the hope we have a Bulgarian speaker among our NPP reviewers, while leaving a message to the article creator asking for more sources.
  • To be continued. Femke (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • About River Medway: are you aware that to count towards notability sources need to be independent of the topic ánd each other? (see WP:GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.") So the KentOnline source only counts once. That leaves two sources clearly contributing to notability when you did your review, which most people would not consider sufficient. You're analysis about softball Q&A interviews is right; most people consider them non-independent.
    Entertainment is very far from my usual areas of interest, but it's possible that 'multiple' in ENTERTAINER#1 is interpreted at >2. Only with the sources you found later could notability be established.
Femke (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
On Stoytchev, I generally use a mixture of both DeepL and Google Translate. I prefer DeepL, as it does give better translations, but it is also missing some languages. Google Translate's URL translation is also helpful for getting a rough idea for how the source article looks in-situ, especially when there are images with captions. I had done a few variations on the search in English and Bulgarian, adding specifiers like "United States" and "ambassador", but didn't find any sources that would help.
On sources needing to be independent of each other, yup I'm aware of that. I should have made it clearer above that I included them as a logical or. By that I mean, the second or first Kent Online demonstrates SIGCOV, but only count for one source per "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability".
Two sources counting towards notability is a difficult one to reconcile with the guidance. The NPP flowchart states "2 or more references to independent, reliable sources", and the text of GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". While the flowchart gives an explicit number, and the text of GNG leaves that somewhat up to editor discretion, if there is a general consensus across notability and deletion discussions that two sources are not considered sufficient then perhaps the guidance needs tweaked to accommodate that? I was aware of one brief discussion in 2019 in the WT:NBIO archives, where some folks felt as though two or more was enough, and others felt as though three or more is needed. I know from reading this it could look like I'm trying to wikilawyer this, that's not my intent. If the community consensus is that three or more sources are required, I'm happy to take your word for it, but I would also recommend that that source number floor level needs clarification in the guidance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no community consensus on an exact number, and it depends on the sources. If the sources are really good (full chapter, in-depth article), many people are happy with 2. If sources are a bit more bare and/or have a smaller audience (like local sources without much analysis), many people will go with 3 or even more. I think this was a case where three sources were required, but opinions may vary.
Happy with your answers :). Good luck with the rest of your patrolling, and let me know if you have any questions. Femke (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I understand! I think my autistic brain prefers structure, guidance that says declarative statements like "X is the minimum required to demonstrate Y", and it always surprises me that in a project with so many neurodiverse editors our guidance has so many grey areas open to interpretation. But there is also freedom and flexibility in that approach too.
Thanks for taking your time to do this :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility

Hi there. Having watched and posted to some of the recent drama boards, I've also seen some of your longer posts, and was hoping you'd consider a small change. Right now you're separating long comments into paragraphs by creating new list items for each paragraph, and only signing the last item. That looks fine for a lot of people. But for people using screen readers and similar assistive techniques that interpret the source, it interprets the same as if different people had put a bunch of unsigned posts in a row at the same level, and requires even more work than usual to figure out who's saying what. Would you consider using the {{pb}} template for paragraph breaks within a single list item, as MOS:INDENTMIX ("Multiple paragraphs within list items") suggests? That will look exactly the same for most people, but will be interpreted correctly by assistive devices as one long single comment with your signature at the end. Thanks for considering it. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Heya. 99% of the time I'm using the new reply tool when writing comments on talk pages, and I'm just entering a single linebreak whenever I start a new paragraph and let it handle the rest. I suspect this is true for a lot of editors now, and that maybe this is something that should be raised to the reply tool devs to find a workaround that respects screen readers?
For the remaining 1% of the time where I have to use the old edit source method of replying, I personally find replies that use {{pb}} or similar produce accessibility issues when parsing replies in the diff tool, or in the source editor, as they appear as one long run-on paragraph. While I certainly empathise with folks who use a screen reader, as I use them myself from time to time, I can't see a way to resolve this without trading off one accessibility problem for another, if that makes sense?
On the whole, and I'm sorry if this sounds dismissive, this strikes me as something better handled by the MediaWiki developers at the backend, as ultimately they can define how Wikitext markup is parsed into HTML. From looking at how talk page comments get parsed in the HTML, each new-line indent before a signature is wrapped inside a <dd></dd> pair, with the thread as a whole a bunch of nested <dl></dl>. I'm not entirely sure if this is in keeping with the W3 accessibility guidelines when it comes to using description lists, though it has been quite a while since I looked at the relevant guidelines. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@Indignant Flamingo: sorry, I dunno if you have my talk page watchlisted, and I forgot to ping. So ping! Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I think the idea behind MOS:INDENTMIX on this point is that general-purpose screen readers have local ways to break up long text (e.g. by pausing every so often when reading back) because that is a common problem across all digital text, but no way to reassemble different unsigned list items into a single talk page comment, which is a condition resulting from (as you note) various MediaWiki idiosyncrasies. But hey, you considered it, that's all I asked for. Take care. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@Indignant Flamingo yeah I get the theory behind the screen reader tech. It hasn't changed too much in the last 7/8 years when I was last doing any sort of real webdev work. There is one other issue I ran into when doing the test I discussed below. Unless you configure it, the reply tool defaults to the visual mode, but it throws up an warning/error any time you try to use any Wikitext markup, like the {{pb}} template. I'm not sure how to work around that, and with the reply tool currently being offered by default, I suspect that without some sort of intervention by the MediaWiki developers, any attempt at trying to resolve this would be an exercise in futility. This is because the default tool provided to editors enforces to some extent the bad habits that INDENTMIX want you to avoid. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
It's 5.30am my time now, so I'll maybe poke that Phabricator task and/or the Reply Tool talk page tomorrow afternoon when I wake up and my mind is clear. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
T230683 is probably more what you're looking for if you're trying to make reply-tool work right. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Just did a test over in my sandbox. The first reply was made using the reply tool in visual mode. The second reply was made using the reply tool in source mode. In both cases, I just typed text and pressed enter at the end of each line. I did not manually enter the colons, which were added by the reply tool itself. The HTML output for that looks...odd to me. The second level reply (comments made in source view) get added as a nested description list within the last description definition entry for the first level reply. Not sure why its parsing that way, but from looking at the source of other talk page discussions it is at least consistent.
It looks like there's a old, long running Phab ticket on this phab:T6521 issue, dating back to 2006. There was some activity after an RfC in 2019, but it seems otherwise dormant. Might be worth giving it a poke? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

If you have time

I don't have access to a paginated version of this source. If you have time, could you possibly find the page number for the sentence, "ROGD has been critiqued as anti-trans propaganda and bad science." I'd really appreciate if you could, but I understand if you don't have time or don't have access. Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: The relevant quote is page 39. From the same page and possibly relevant to the is ROGD Pseudoscientific RFC, A scientific critique of this study is that it violates principles of research methods by using a pathologizing framework and language. For example, Littman uses terminology (e.g., cluster out-breaks) that promotes the conceptualization of gender dysphoria and identification as trans as a contagious disease or disorder. The aims provided in the article are as follows: “(1) to describe an atypical presentation of gender dysphoria occurring with sudden and rapid onset in adolescents and young adults; and (2) to generate hypotheses about the condition, including the role of social and peer contagion in its development.” Likening trans identities to a disease is in conflict with national and international organizations whose positions clearly state that identifying as trans is not a mental disorder (e.g., the American Psychiatric Association, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and the World Health Organization). As such, bias appears to be present from the basic premise of the study and continued through each stage of the research process. Think it's worth including in the discussion? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy ping for Newimpartial. Tranarchist, adding/fixing pings is a bit tricky. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@TheTranarchist yes this is very much worth bringing up on the ROGD talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: full citation is:
  • Goldberg, A.E.; Beemyn, G. (2021). "Anti-Trans Theories". The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies. SAGE Publications. p. 39. doi:10.4135/9781544393858.n12. ISBN 978-1-5443-9384-1. ROGD has been critiqued as anti-trans propaganda and bad science.
  • {{cite book | last=Goldberg | first=A.E. | last2=Beemyn | first2=G. | title=The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies | publisher=SAGE Publications | year=2021 | isbn=978-1-5443-9384-1 | chapter=Anti-Trans Theories |page=39 |quote=ROGD has been critiqued as anti-trans propaganda and bad science. | doi=10.4135/9781544393858.n12}}
Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
theTranarchist if you could add the full citation, page number, and original quotation to my added sentence, I would really appreciate it (or anyone who wants to mess with the parameters, frankly.
It would also be appropriate to add citations of this source in the article body to add WP:WEIGHT (and potentially nuance) to the criticisms of both Littman's methodology and the ideological deployments (my term, not theirs) for which ROGD is used. But I was after something simpler in my edit, which was to add a sourced "log" of the key objections, beyond "no evidence", which had been largely missing from the lead paragraph. Newimpartial (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Your edit to stabilize the page on 2022 Russian invasion page did not revert to the control edit which was done on October 13, and not earlier today. If you are restoring a previous version for neutral purposes then the control edit from Oct 13 is here: [17]. I've been spending a large part of today encouraging editors to use the Talk page to discuss this and appeared to be succeeding; if you are restoring to a neutral version then could use use the correct edit from 13 Oct which I've just linked from User:Steven. All editors are welcome to join the Talk page discussion in progress. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: when I reviewed the situation on that article, and the corresponding talk page discussion, the only edits between October 13 and today that appear to be in dispute are those that you have restored repeatedly against consensus (the section on Darya Dugina). When looking at the composite diff between the edits by Slatersteven and now, and leaving aside some minor housekeeping of wikilinks, the addition of a few citations, and some copy-editing, the two other paragraph additions appear to be non-controversial. As such I will not be reverting the article content to the version from October 13. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

GENSEX ARCA

Hi, since you opened the WP:ARCA about WP:ARBGS, may I ask you if anything more came from it? It's still bugging me and I feel if not, it may be reasonable to bring it up with the community like some arbs suggested. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Maddy, apart from the request being closed, nothing more has come from it yet. I was hoping the committee would solve it via a simple motion, to clarify the language, but alas even within that there seems to be a split on A) whether it's needed, and B) whether sexuality is or is not included.
I'm not sure what the next step should be. The path suggested by KevinL seems like the most straightforward, though I suspect any discussion at AN is likely going to be fraught. If we want to do it, which arguably we should given the ambiguity, we should probably look at past community authorised discretionary sanctions to figure out how to structure the initial request, and figure out how that discussion can feed into the second step where ArbCom amends the existing remedy by motion. What do you think? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Just butting in, here, but I think any clarification process needs to be made as simple as possible, and it also needs to carry in mind the background. Historically, the GENSEX sanctions emerge from the Gamergate sanctions, which were broadly gender-related, and another sexuality-related sanction. My understanding is that, when they were combined, ArbCom intended to retain all of the previous scope, while adding at the margins. Therefore I think the narrow reading of "GENSEX" as only being about gender identity is simply an error arising from a misreading (or perhaps mis-writing) of the combined sanction. Newimpartial (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Pretty sure it's a mis-writing. As I said in the ARCA request, if you actually search the GENSEX sanctions for the word "sexuality" it only appears once, in the title. Nowhere else does it directly mention or indirectly illude to sexuality, unless you widely interpret (as Levivich did) sexuality to be a "gender-related dispute or controversy".
I also went through the history of the current sanctions in a reply, where the sole mention of sexuality was in the repealed sexology case. Sexuality appears there because of an editor who was topic banned from human sexuality, and that standard discretionary sanctions could apply through a broad definition of the word paraphilia (eg, Blanchard). Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that in practice, sexuality is included in the sanctions. But there is an ambiguous point a mile wide in the current wording of the sanctions, that allows for determined wikilawyering, even if that is ultimately unsuccessful in most cases. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The thing is, when the discretionary sanctions for the Sexology topic were repealed, the rationale seems to have been that any topic within "Sexology" was by definition covered by what were then the Gamergate sanctions, which refer to "gender-related disputes". So both gender identity issues - which had been within Sexology - and sexuality issues (grounded in but not limited to paraphilias) were seen to be "gender-related", as were for example misogyny-related issues. The "gender" in GENSEX was never limited to, though it has always included, gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
If that is the case, and I'll take your word that it is, then it's not clear that it is so. Even from reading through the Sexology case shell, it's not clear that sexuality is considered a gender-related dispute.
Think about this from the perspective of an editor who wasn't around for the Sexology case. You get a DS/alert because you made an edit about sexuality on a page that's covered under the sanctions. You don't know what this means, so you go and read the linked sanctions page, which aside from the name does not mention sexuality. The only text that is unambiguious is that sanctions apply to any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. A plain reading of "gender-related dispute" ordinarily means it's a dispute relating to gender (that could be gender identity, or other trans or non-binary content). Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not saying you're wrong, you're very likely right. I'm just saying what I said at the case, that the fullness of the scope of the case is unclear based on the text of the case. This is different from the useful ambiguity of a phrase like "broadly construed", in that this ambiguity creates and enables wikilawyering behaviour (similar to that at Maneesh's case) that makes enforcing it more difficult. Not only do you need to prove that an editor's conduct falls below the standards required in a DS topic, you also may need to convince the admin panel that the topic is actually covered under the sanctions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
And I'm not saying that the GENSEX wording is usefully ambiguous, or that everyone knows what I believe to be true. I wouldn't even assume that all of the current Arbs know (or remember) what happened when the sexology DS were rescinded. But reading the link I have above, and especially reading the arb statements that produced the decision, its major premise (that all sexuality controversies fall within gender-related controversies - which was already quite broadly construed) seems clearly expressed. I see the point in a case or at least a motion to clarify the matter, but I think the starting point should be to set out how the issue seems to have been understood at the time Sexology was wrapped up and to ask whether that scope is what ArbCom sees as included now. Newimpartial (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
True, however it feels arbcom punted this one back to the community, the alternative path […] where the community comes to some consensus and we change the remedy based on that community consensus. I take that to mean we should have a community discussion on what should be covered rather than ask[ing] whether that scope is what ArbCom sees as included now. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
That initial question, however, was framed as "should the GENSEX DS cover sexuality, because the language of the sanction isn't clear" and the response can be parsed as either "if you want to change the language, get community consensus" or "if you want to change the scope of the sanctions, get community consensus", without specifying which (or perhaps meaning both).
The question I would ask is, "were the GENSEX sanctions intended to cover sexuality" (using the Sexology recinding statement as key evidence) and "do they still have that scope". Both of those are questions for ArbCom, not for the community, and I think they need to be answered before any community discussion about changing the language and/or scope of the sanctions. Fundamentally, I care more about what the scope of GENSEX is de jure than I do about the policy language itself. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think the initial question was framed as "should the GENSEX DS cover sexuality", when the first question was Are edits relating to sexuality within the scope of the Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions, if those edits are in relation to a person who is not trans or non-binary. Maybe it's an ENGVAR issue, but as I wrote it, and as was interpreted by BDD, Primefac, and KevinL, it was a question on the pre-existing scope of the sanctions and whether or not they covered sexuality. As it stands, it seems like the answer is to paraphrase KevinL, yes but not always.
The problem with leaving the scope de jure is, how do you expect someone to plainly interpret it, in such a way that it prevents disruption? In practice, I believe the sanctions do cover sexuality distinct from gender, but that is not clear per the letter. Even within that clarification request, you can see a broad range of interpretations, ranging from considering disputes about sexuality as being the same as disputes about gender (Levivich and Seren_Dept), to not all sexuality edits are covered under the sanctions (KevinL, MJL), and to the scope can't possibly be that narrow based on practice (Aquillion).
I believe all three of us are aware of just how contentious considering disputes about sexuality as being the same as disputes about gender are on talk pages. Even leaving aside the low level disruption we regularly see from IP and newly registered accounts, I think I can safely say (without naming them specifically) that there are well established editors we all interact with daily who would be outraged by such. As for not all sexuality edits being covered under the sanctions, this has presented issues in the past where I've gone to serve a DS/alert and warning onto an editor who was being homophobic, but not transphobic.
That all said, we could file another ARCA, on this question of were the GENSEX sanctions intended to cover sexuality and do they still have that scope, using the Sexology case as the framing device. But, I can't help but wonder if that would just get a quick "didn't we just answer this question" response by the committee. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, I think this at the very least is an opportunity to talk things through publicly before doing anything, which I believe to be a best practice. One of the things I saw as suboptimal about the last filing was the focus on whether a person is trans or non-binary might be a boundary in application, which is a strange question to ask IMO no matter how one interprets GENSEX. I understand the temptation to frame GENSEX broadly as an LGBTQ+-related sanction, and then to ask which parts of which letters are actually included, but I think this would be a fundamental mistake.
For one thing, GENSEX (now) and GG (before) have always included gender-related controversies that may have nothing in particular to do with gender identity, so that e.g. MGTOW is subject to discretionary sanctions under GENSEX even though it has not particularly related to gender identity, because the topic is nevertheless gender-related. Similarly, gender identity topics that are not notably about trans and nonbinary people, e.g. Cisgender, are also explicitly under GENSEX sanctions.
Now, I'm not saying that the previous filing necessarily assumed that GENSEX sanctions were only related to trans and nonbinary identities. But I think that asking whether trans and nonbinary people form a category to whom sexuality sanctions under GENSEX apply - but possibly not for cis people - tends to raise irrelevant questions. As another example, it seems clear to me that the debates about porn and sex work discussed on Radical feminism are understood to be directly within the GENSEX topic, not only by extension based on the discussion of "transgender topics" elsewhere in that article (indeed, IMO the discussion of radical lesbianism there is also within GENSEX, not because it is about lesbians as such but because it is "gender-related" - in fact, I can't readily imagine something more gender-related than political lesbianism).
So does that begin to set out why I feel that the prior question to ArbCom was not framed in an optimal way? There may indeed be aspects of sexuality that are not "gender-related", such as some aspects of asexuality and possibly some elements of the underlying physiology of sexual reproduction, and maybe things I haven't considered. But asking whether cis people-related topics can be covered or not doesn't seem to me like a relevant question.
Finally, to make an unfortunately nit-picky point, I still feel that "Are (certain edits) within the scope" of GENSEX sits in an ambigous space between the possible alternative specifications "should they be" and "were they intended to be". While I would have hoped that the arbs would concentrate on the latter question, my reading of that whole conversation was that the former question crept in, and it was that one in particular that they were inclined to defer to the comminity to answer. Newimpartial (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
So the focus on whether a person is trans or non-binary comes from the text of clarification 1 which lays out an exceptionally narrow scope and states that Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender. Aquillion focused on this rather strict narrowing of scope in their reply at ARCA, and I do agree that a reading that narrow is very out of step with how the sanctions are actually enforced.
I agree that MGTOW, and related manosphere topics are inherently a gender related dispute. However the transphobic members of those communities will no doubt frame it as a sex related dispute. While you, I, and most admins would not give such arguments the time of day should a case be brought up at AE, nonetheless the current framing of GENSEX covering only gender related disputes gives wikilawyering tendentious editors who disagree with that framing another area they can be disruptive. For example, take the opening argument from Maneesh in his AE case. He tried to wikilawyer the current wording of GENSEX on two points, individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender and systemic bias faced by female editors, with the intent to prove that the sanctions did not apply to his edits. Thankfully that was only one part of his gish gallop defence, and one that wasn't meaningfully picked up on by any of the other participants. However that potential still exists because of the way the current set of sanctions are worded.
The problem here is that the text at GENSEX gives two definitions. A very broad sanction that applies to any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, and a very narrow scope that applies to the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender. The broad sanction is problematic because the definition of gender-related dispute or controversy is as I've said previously, open to wikilawyering about what exactly disputes are gender-related and which are not. The narrow scope seems to limit that further to only individual[s] known to be or self-identifying as transgender, which as we've seen in Maneesh's case is also an avenue for wikilawyering. My ideal solution would be one that keeps the sanctions broad, but also makes it clearer in scope as to what they apply to, to prevent that level of wikilawyering. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't mean to be obtuse, but as far as I can tell, 1. and 2. of that motion were never meant to be exhaustive of the scope of GENSEX, but were always intended to be "guaranteed inclusions" within a wider domain. The idea that 1 (and 2) were intended to be exhaustive seems absurd to me, and the express purpose of the points, In order to preserve previous clarifications about the scope, seems clear that it is saying that these topics in particular are gender-related disputes, whether or not they might seem so to particular editors. It doesn't at all imply that the only gender-related disputes concern MOS:GENDERID and the Gender Gap Task Force, which would be a very narrow scope indeed.
Tactically, I see a danger in accepting too much of the premises of a Maneesh-type position by accepting that the GENSEX sanctions cover, e.g., men and women only in relation to their gender identity. Gender is a much broader concept than gender identity, and its domain includes everything from historical discourses on biological essentialism based on "sex" to so called "sex differences in intelligence" to gender critical posturing that "sex" as opposed to gender "matters". These are all situated within gender-related disputes (even though not all relevant articles are tagged - which, as you know, means nothing). I have yet to encounter an arb or admin active in the space who didn't immediately grasp that all these disputes are gender-related, including during Maneesh's attempt to pretend that GENSEX didn't cover edits about "biological sex". So even framing the possibility that there is a set of disputes that might be sex-related but not gender-related (unless they have to do with fairly abstruse issues of genetics and cell biology) strikes me as taking a step backwards from where the community already is. I would wait for some editor to actually make some tiny bit of headway with the pretext that "sex isn't gender-related" before taking that one to the community.
On the other hand, I do think it is worth clarifying (1) that the domain covered by Sexology at the time it was rescinded is all understood to be "gender-related" (as seems clear from the discussion I linked before) and if necessary (2) that bullets 1 and 2 of GENSEX are examples and not exhaustive. Again, both of these points seem painfully obvious to me, and I don't see anything from the arbs to make me doubt my view, but if you've had trouble making them stick in on-wiki discussions then I think a clarification might be helpful. Perhaps a double-barreled request could ask first whether the issues discussed at Sexology and Gamergate are still covered, and then propose language for a clarifying motion, adding a bullet or two. Newimpartial (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I get the fear from such a request providing definitive out clause for a biological essentialist viewpoint, and certainly going into the ARCA request I was afraid that my attempt to strengthen the sanctions by clarifying the scope would actually undermine or somehow lead to a repeal of them (anxiety Sideswipe says "Hiiiiiiiiiii").

As for admins or arbs who wouldn't see that disputes like those we have been talking about are gender-related, I'm fairly certain that based on the related discussion at ANI, there are admins who are at the very least sympathetic to the perspective that discussions such as these are not gender-related. While I don't recognise those admins as being active at AE at the present time, there is the potential that they could be in the future. If that were to happen, it is not something that I think would be easier to counteract in retrospective, and could likely be seen as WP:POINTy were such a perspective to become more commonly accepted.

On a double-barrelled request, that could work, though I still fear the arbs answer will be "didn't we just answer this?" and "why has there been no community discussion on this yet?" Maybe that's something we could float with one or both of the involved clerks though (MJL and firefly) after drafting the question(s) and prior to making a request? I think an ideal outcome to such a request would be so that one didn't have to look at or be intimately familiar with the remedies of the GamerGate or Sexology cases in order to assess the full extent of the scope of the current sanctions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, if the arbs had been idiots and said something like, GENSEX only covers GENDERID, that would have been a major setback, but they weren't idiots - in fact, their comments weren't any more foolish than the filing (any filing that suggests the possibility that "maybe bullet one is restrictive in intent" had to be at least a little bit foolish - the reason I didn't address that point from Maneesh at AE, besides the BLUDGEON issues, was that it was so obviously misconceived).
I also wouldn't put too much stock in the most recent ANI discussions, because (1) both of them concerned instances where an editor/admin had made less than a handful of comments setting out their "gender critical" views, thus clouding the issues, and (2) they were held at ANI, which is well known to be a cesspit and which better-informed editors and admins know to avoid. I put more stock in the state of opinion at ARE or even at AN, and this is an instance where what matters most is the views of the arbs themselves.
Finally, I think publicly drafting a question and framing, possibly right here, would be the best course. I am much less worried about this than you are - I would never have been put off templating the Homosexuality POV-warrior a few months ago, for example, because it is obvious to me (and has never been disputed by anyone with authority) that whether the definition of homosexuality sometimes includes gender, or not, is obviously a gender-related dispute, just as a debate over whether a joke is misogynist or not would obviously be a gender-related dispute. The argument that the latter wasn't gender-related because the joke isn't misogynist is an obvious logical fallacy, but a parallel argument in the former case follows exactly the same fallacy. And just to be clear (and for the lurkers), being part of a gender-related dispute does not mean that only one "side" of the dispute can be expressed, in article space or on talk. It simply means that discretionary sanctions standards apply, including the requirement to show basic civility and respect to other participants in these discussions. That shouldn't have to be said, but you have no idea how tired I am of being quoted selectively and out of context. Newimpartial (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
"little bit foolish" Heyyy! I resemble that remark >.<
Heh, you have better faith than I do right now. At the low points of the whole Lourdes affair, I was tempted to just stop editing because it looked like enwiki was on the slope to becoming a trans and non-binary hostile space. I've not reached that point yet, but there are some editors who skirt the acceptable line pretty closely that make it much more difficult than it should be to edit in this area and who definitely contribute to that feeling.
Mmmm, that homosexuality POV-warrior was one I was hesitant to GENSEX alert, as was another homosexuality SPA about a month back (though about three/four days after I hesitated, I did feel like their later edits put them past the threshold to alert). I don't mind doing a drafting and framing here, or maybe at WP:LGBT? Because of your greater familiarity with the Sexology case, would you be able to do a first draft? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, no question there is hostility in the space, and everybody needs to decide for themselves what to do about that. I don't think additional clarity on the GENSEX sanctions will make much difference to the overall environment, one way or another.
If you can be patient I could post a first draft here - possibly a draft draft - and you could decide where to go from there in terms of redrafting here or moving to the project. Newimpartial (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Early end of the backlog drive

A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Break

Sideswipe9th, could you please take a break. In particular, please do not use WAID's draft space to fight with editors. You know the old saying, "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it". But I think you need to take a break from the dispute at Pregnancy too. -- Colin°Talk 18:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Colin. In terms of the main dispute at Pregnancy, I don't think I've much else to say there. I think that it may be symptomatic of potential larger structural issues in the article, which is why the thrust of most of my posts after the first one have been about what I see as the structural issues.
WAID's sandbox is a difficult one. I don't really have anything more to say there for now, so taking a break for it is easy. But I also don't see a meaningful difference between quoting and linking to a problematic edit summary or talk page contribution, and directly engaging with the editor making the problematic edits to begin with. The problematic content is still problematic either way.
I hope you're doing OK though. I did like your suggestion/invitation for a GA/FA review, if my proposal gets consensus. It seems odd that an article on a core human experience is not flagged as one of our best. I'm always happy to talk more if you are, and feel free to ping me if you think there's something else I can help with :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Award

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This award is given to Sideswipe9th/Archives for collecting more than 10 points doing reviews and re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Updated language around Tennessee to accurately reflect the state laws

Hi Sideswipe,

I wanted to provide a little background on the Tennessee edit.

I believe the text of the law supports the interpretation that only changing clothes, not simply going to the bathroom, is indecent exposure in Tennessee.

When defining incident exposure, the text (https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/111/Bill/HB1151.pdf) states:

(ii) In a restroom, locker room, dressing room, or shower, any of which are designated for single-sex, multi-person use, and the person is a member of the opposite sex than the sex designated for use: (a) Intentionally: (1) Exposes the person's genitals or buttocks to another; or (2) Engages in sexual contact or sexual penetration as defined in § 39-13-501; and (b) Reasonably expects that the acts will be viewed by another and the acts: (1) Will offend an ordinary viewer; or (2) Are for the purpose of sexual arousal and gratification of the defendant;

Certainly simply using the bathroom is not criminalized under this law as one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom stall.

I believe my edit should be restored - please do so if you agree. I will crosspost this to the talk page so it is there too (sorry if that is not the right thing to do - I am new to Wikipedia)

Just to add a little more context about why I think it is important to clarify this - I am trans and I recently had to travel to Tennessee for work. This article was very confusing and made me worried about whether I would be able to safely use the bathroom while there. It took a bit of research to figure out that this law would not effect me simply using the bathroom, it would only apply to changing my clothes. I hope the edit can be made so at this is clearer to people looking for this information in the future. 216.194.103.237 (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey. Welcome to my page and Wikipedia!
Thanks for leaving a message. You're doing the right thing by wanting to discuss it, and don't worry about cross-posting it. Usually the article talk page is the best place to discuss content issues, as it allows for more editors to see and discuss the changed content. So I'll respond to the content issues over there shortly :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Genspect

I don’t understand why you’re saying this isn’t an opinion piece. This by definition the author’s opinion. The author doesn’t cite an example of Genspect spreading misinformation, only states their opinion that Genspect spread misinformation. Maybe they did, but there should be a better source than someone’s opinion.

“Those of us in the trans health field practice gender-affirming, informed consent care in the framework of science-based medicine, as bolstered by the WPATH SOC8. Are the WPATH SOC8 perfect? Far from it. Are they intended to be rigid, immovable, and followed without questions? That would be unscientific. The SOC8 are best practices meant to evolve as science evolves and new research develops and adapts to individual clinical” situations. PerseusMeredith (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not Sodeswipe9th, but I'm afraid you don't seem to understand what Wikipedia means by "opinion" pieces; please see WP:RSOPINION. A qualified authority writing within its area of expertise is considered a reliable source in general, whether or not the source were to cite an example. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. The article should then quote the author as opposed to making a statement of fact when it is really an opinion.

“When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion.“ PerseusMeredith (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The article does make a statement of fact. In the relevant quotation; Genspect, who promoted the misinformation against BCH, tried to claim that adolescence lasts until age 25; therefore, BCH does indeed do surgery on adolescents. the words "tried to claim", "that adolescence", and "lasts until age 25" are linked to two Tweets (tweet 1, tweet 2) and an open letter on Genspect's website that confirms and verifies that statement. The content in all three links is misinformation, as Science Based Medicine explains elsewhere in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I saw those. But I don’t see where Genspect says BCH was performing surgery on those under 18? The tweets say 18-25 and the letter doesn’t reference BCH? PerseusMeredith (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Tweet 1 is a quote retweet of a statement made by BCH after the harassment and bomb threats. In BCH's statement they say that they do not preform gender-affirming surgeries on minors, and that any seeking such surgeries must be over the age of 18, and legally an adult before they can consent to the procedure(s). In response to that, Genspect said that 18-25 are still adolescents, and therefore cannot consent to the procedures, and that BCH are conducting surgeries on adolescents. The misinformation stems from the redefinition of adolescence by Genspect to be up to the age of 25. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Now I see. Thank you for the explanation. PerseusMeredith (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tricky one that many wouldn't catch. Basically it boils down to "You're doing the thing I said you're doing, but only if you use my special definition". Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Sideswipe9th/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste: got it, thanks! Will do a side-by-side with the machine translation later to see how it fared up and if it changes my opinion :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts - biographies of living people, gender and sexuality

I take it that these notices are designed to have me cowering in fear in the corner? I should probably walk away from editing in this early 'cause I certainly don't want to receive more scary banners. Pardon while I go hug my blue blanket. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Ummmm...that isn't the intended (or actual) effect of the notices. The WP:ACDS system is designed (!) not to work except among editors who have received prior notification within the prededing year. One may question whether this is an especially helpful feature of the DS system, or not, but it is most definitely a reality all editors share. Newimpartial (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Trump

Howdy. I was going to also 'collapse' the closure, too. PS - You could've waited a few hours & let me do it. GoodDay (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hallo! I could, but then I wouldn't have been able to practice my "this might be a controversial closure" technique :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please never return to mine. Thanks. -Roxy the dog 17:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Aside from notices required by policy, and any further BLP violations, message acknowledged. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
No violation occurred in my opinion. you are incorrect. -Roxy the dog 17:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Even dogs must know that edit warring behaviour can be identified prior to a bright-line 3RR violation. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
We are not talking about 3RR. -Roxy the dog 17:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, that was what the discussion on your Talk page was about. Accusing living people of cheating without RS evidence of same is a clear BLP vio, however, and BLP policy applies to Talk pages. It is disappointing that I have to point this out, even to a dog. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Plurality website

You need to click "Read now" on the website to see Lizzies's forward: "Are you curious about what it's like to work with or manage someone who is plural? Or, if you're plural, perhaps you've wondered how to get your coworkers to better understand and accept your neurodivergence. In 2016, FreyasSpirit and Irenes realized that they could write a guide to plurality for all three of these audiences and help other plural systems come out in the workplace and thrive. This document is the product of that effort, and was published internally with the benefit of feedback from other plural systems. Hundreds of employees read this guide or used it when coming out to their teams. Personally, it was helpful for me to be a better ally at first, and even more useful after we awakened as a plural system ourselves. The authors of this document debated whether or when to publish it to the entire world. They were worried about facing retaliation from the company for doing so without its approval. Given the publicity surrounding the #pluralgang hashtag in early 2019 and the increasing number of systems that are coming out, they have decided that now is the right time to publish, with or without management's approval, and we are proud of them for taking that risk. We and the authors hope that this document helps an even greater audience understand each other and themselves. We all hope you find it both historically interesting, and practically useful. Liz Fong-Jones (who are also a collection of Lizzes)" 107.115.29.89 (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ABA edits

It was not my intention to cause an “edit” war, but there has clearly been no consensus made on the content of large parts of the article, and it is my concern that a small number of users have been treating the page more as their personal blog than a neutral description of ABA. If there is anything you would like to discuss regarding my thoughts on the article, please feel free to let me know and hopefully we can reach common ground. 2600:1700:3330:9B60:194C:32C6:9A02:AE36 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see the this section I've just created on the ABA talk page. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Closure review of WP:BLP closure

I have raised the closure review as you requested and it can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Gusfriend (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Happy New Year, Sideswipe9th!

Happy New Year!

Sideswipe9th,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sideswipe9th/Archives/2022&oldid=1139269085"