User talk:Crossroads/2021, 4th quarter

J. K. Rowling discussion

I'm really proud of the compromise we made together. Thank you for collaborating with me and helping me learn how to discuss on Wikipedia. Regina Lunarum (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for compromising as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Stone Age Gender

Did my changes clarify the parts that were unclear? If not please say so and I will try again. The source, "A companion to global gender history", explicitly says "The possibility of third, fourth, or even fifth genders is more than likely (p189)", so... Tewdar (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, the game's up - what have you done with the *real* Crossroads? 🧐 Tewdar (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: trust me Crossroads does a great job with collaboration.CycoMa (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Weasel

Crossroads, in bringing up some of the specifics of MOS:WEASEL at Talk:Kathleen Stock, I felt fairly sure someone had brought up similar points recently. It turns out Sideswipe9th mentioned earlier this month that your interpretation of the guideline is at odds with its text. Since this is an issue that affects multiple articles, I felt bringing it up here would be better than at an article talk. Do you have a different interpretation of the guideline language, or a belief that the guideline should be changed? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see what there is to discuss here. I still maintain that inserting "controversial" in the lead sentence of an article is terrible and POV writing, and contravenes the principle of MOS:WEASEL, although I probably should have pointed more to other parts of MOS:WTW. And that label was not added in the end; other editors also opposed it. Any talk page watchers wish to weigh in? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not bringing this up to settle an article content issue, which I would bring up at an article talk page. I also posted before seeing your response to my comment at Stock Talk. I do maintain that your citation of weasel at both talk pages was improper, in both spirit and letter. Having seen it happen on two recent occasions, my hope is that some discussion might prevent a third. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I agree with both of you: Crossroads' citation of MOS:WEASEL doesn't make much sense in either of the contexts Firefangledfeathers mentions, and pointing to other parts of WTW (like, say, MOS:LABEL) would have made more sense. I'm not sure what else there is to discuss in this case – but yes, Crossroads, it seems like in the future it might make sense to put a bit more thought into which section of WTW you link to. Or maybe just link to the overall guideline, which would also solve the problem while still getting the point across! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Stock lede version #2

Did you intend to give this option the thumbs up? It contains several phrases ("accused of transphobia", "views on transgender rights and gender identity") that I thought you had previously expressed opposition towards. Does the addition of the other stuff somehow make this acceptable to you, or..? Tewdar (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: are you accusing Crossroads of being a transphobe?CycoMa1 (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: do forgive me I wasn’t involved in the discussion you two were in. And I’m not trying to accuse of you of making personal attacks or anything. I’m just asking, what you mean by all that?CycoMa1 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: No. Crossroads made his reasons clear for not wanting "accused of transphobia" to be in the lede (WP:LABEL) and his reasons for opposing "transgender rights" (WP:VAGUE) at the discussion. Which you would probably know if you'd been following the discussion over there. I have no reason to accuse Crossroads of transphobia. Oh, since you're here, did you like my changes over at RainFurrest? I was trying to help save your article from deletion. Perhaps I should not have bothered. ☹️ Tewdar (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: no, I actually really do appreciate what you did for my article. Sorry about that comment.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: it's just when it comes to topics like what you two were talking about civility isn't easy. Like people have accused me of being a POV pusher in topics relating to religion and gender.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to say this earlier, but Tewdar, thanks for the heads up. Everything's all good here. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

On a vaguely related subject, have you seen this browser extension? Looks like you've been "redlisted"! Tewdar (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar, someone else pointed that out to me a while back. Judging by its own criteria, I shouldn't be. But of course, the way it works is very opaque, and all it probably takes is enough people with it to be annoyed you removed or reverted unsourced or poorly sourced material they liked, and they can denounce you on it. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

One of the talk pages here (I forget which - "trans man phobia" or something) has a discussion like, "well Crossroads is on the redlist... better watch out for those edits!" You could try right clicking and "not a transphobe" or whatever the procedure is... I wonder how many editors here use it? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm the one that de-redlisted him, I use the extension and after going through his edit history, the marking seemed either way outdated, or bogus. Hyperwave11 (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If you "de-redlisted" him, you must be doing a lot more than merely "using" the extension. Tewdar (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it's a community database. See a transphobe, mark them red, see an ally, mark them green. Hyperwave11 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperwave11: that's not how it works. That's why Crossroads is still in red on my browser. Perhaps not on yours, because you have (locally) overridden the "community database" on your browser. Tewdar (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope. I checked on two independent devices with different ips. Crossroads isn't red. I know how this extension works, maybe you should read the documentation first. Hyperwave11 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You sure you didn't just override the extension on your own browser? I can't check because I no longer have the extension installed, and don't intend to use it again. Tewdar (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate that, Hyperwave11. Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

{od} Sorry to be the bearer of bad news @Crossroads:, but I just checked, and you are still redlisted. Until the "community database" as a whole determines that you are not a transphobe, one person's vote won't change that. Tewdar (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Said it above, that's not how it works. I checked on multiple devices. It's much more likely someone has a persistent grudge and keeps relisting, as this has happened a few times at irregular intervals. Hyperwave11 (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Talk Page Editing

I am admittedly unfamiliar with what circumstances allow a user to be reported for editing on a talk page. Are there any mechanisms that can prevent behavior such as:

1. Make an excessive number claims against basic logic. To be clear, I'm not talking about statements of fact about the real world, but claims that are knowable from basic logic and their own stated reasoning.

2. Repeatedly bringing up old arguments after they have been discussed and rejected by the community.

3. Make repeated use of WP:... when a particular principles does not apply.

4. Derailing talk page discussion with what can only be described on nonsense, in the sense that it violates basic logic and their own previous statements.

5. Use 1-4 in a clear pattern of motivated reasoning to advanced a certain point of view. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's called WP:Tendentious editing and it can be reported at WP:ANI or WP:AE. However, the Wikipedia community is not very good at addressing cases of WP:SEALIONing. And that holds triply so when the POV being pushed aligns with the political biases of Wikipedia's userbase as a whole - which means most editors will start off with the assumption that the only criticism of CRT is a racist right-wing conspiracy and therefore the editor who opposes any such material is correct. Plus, the editor being reported and any who side with them will likely point to your own mistakes on the page. Then they say that the other person's behavior was justified. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a special case. Editors state on talk pages that logic itself is unsound. This is not an exaggeration. We cannot flag editors for believing the moon is made of cheese. But it is not WP:POV or WP:BIAS to believe that logic is.

Re civility, is it civil to write nonsense, as strictly defined, on talk pages? When a user makes repeated misuse of the same WP topic, is that not an indication that they either do not understand Wikipedia's principles, or willfully ignore them? DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I hear your point about bias--perhaps I'm naive. Would a user still not be restricted if they used improper means to advance a view an administrator agreed with? DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

They'll probably just say it's a content dispute or isn't serious enough, etc. Usually, administrators only take action in more egregious cases. The sooner you understand that Wikipedia's authority system is unfair, the better. You can still make a difference within a flawed system. And not being alone in a position is a big help. I would very much advise you to try to pick more wisely what you'll dispute and what you'll compromise on, and to only bring up academic and mainstream media sources, with academic sources being more authoritative. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I suppose I cannot think what is more egregious than "logic is wrong". But I suppose few editors come to the page motivated by their love of logic. It is odd that even when a page is the top 25, it cannot be edited to a high standard by at least a few editors noting themes like "testable hypotheses".

Do you think it's possible for the system to be fairer if the rules were changed? DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what that would take is far, far beyond my expertise and powers of persuasion. The "logic is wrong" thing will just be chalked up to an irrelevant philosophical dispute, which it sort of is. If anything being in the top 25 is precisely why there is a problem - outside of entertainment topics, that only happens to extremely politically controversial topics. Just do what you can, don't let yourself get baited into 3RR violations or anything, and recognize that article editorial climates can always improve in the longer term (and often do). Crossroads ^-talk- 23:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Hey thanks for helping out at RainFurrest. Felt like I was outnumbered for a minute.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah, with time conversations can change course. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Quote formatting

Just a suggestion about your quoting a comment: I can add the talk quote inline template for you so that it can stand out as a quote. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hetero people in homo relationships

I have no problem with the template removal, but this edit summary seems oversimplified. While I wouldn't want to engage in bi erasure, the Mack-Clyne marriage looks to be the exact phenomenon you describe as essentially ... non-existent. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I did say essentially, and indeed, something so rare it seemingly only happens because a sex trafficking cult demands it hardly makes a societal "phenomenon" (another word I used). Crossroads ^-talk- 06:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That really depends on whether one regards sex trafficking cults as societal, I'd say. And seemingly only is a bit strong; I think "pre-eminently" would do. Newimpartial (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Nah I don't think a one-time (as far as I know) action by a sex trafficking cult makes a 'societal phenomenon' - i.e. something occurring as a result of the general broad culture/society rather than very unusual and specific circumstances. And even if other cases have happened, done by whoever for whatever reason, the point remains that it is so exceedingly rare in comparison to gay people in straight marriages that, for the purpose of WP:WEIGHT and an edit summary, it is essentially non-existent. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Holy moly

I would like to support your positions in some of the threads you are in like Irreversible Damage etc. but those discussions are just impenetrably long and full of bloviating. I admire your patience. Maneesh (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh, thanks. Support helps a great deal though. By the way, I'd suggest expanding your comment a bit at the RfC at Talk:Irreversible Damage to give more reasoning as to why you chose that option. Even if it is not a particularly novel point. Sometimes very short comments get disregarded by a closer. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment in El C talk page

I saw your comment. I just discovered something and piggy-backed on your thread. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I was finally able to find the diffs. But the comments themselves, and who made them .................................... Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 15:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Cookie

Feralcateater000 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hey. Though we have our frequent disagreements, I hope whatever you're celebrating that you're having a good one! Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that, thank you. Same for you as well! Crossroads ^-talk- 23:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)