User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/Archive/3

Ways to improve Novae Terrae Foundation

Hello, TheTranarchist,

Thank you for creating Novae Terrae Foundation.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice article! I fixed some WP:DISAMBIG links and also typos, but this should be proofread further.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Shushugah}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic alerts

Hey. Just wanted to let you know, when you're issuing a CT alert to an editor for the first time, you need to use {{subst:alert/first|topic=...}} instead of {{subst:alert|topic=...}}. The {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} template produces a longer text version with more info in it, and also includes a default uneditable header. I dunno why ArbCom decided to create separate first and second alert templates, but they did.

Oh and if you're issuing multiple alerts due to overlap (eg GENSEX + BLP), I've taken to doing an alert/first for the first topic, and then in the same message use alert for every other topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and tips! Just fixed it, it had felt off/shorter than usual but I thought they'd just updated the template lol. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOCONFED

I must say, that's quite a way to state your endorsement! Also, if you know some other users who might be interested in this essay and its topic, please inform them! — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sundostund Thank you, I try my best lol. I spent a few years in my childhood in a small town in upstate NY where people flew confederate flags off their porches, so I know first-hand it's got fuck all to do with heritage and is nothing but flagging as a racist with the thinnest (or just fully transparent) veneer of plausible deniability. My dad taught me John Brown's Body (among a host of lefty, socialist, civil war union and trade union songs) and I've sung it long as I can remember, so it seemed very fitting! I'll make a post about it on Mastodon. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Upstate NY? From the historical perspective, I find it very ironical (and surprising) that such things happen in a former Union stronghold; somehow, I always thought that neo-Confederates are mostly limited to the Southern United States (as these are ex-Confederate territories). I guess one can learn something new every day... On the other hand, its not surprising that it was a small town; such environment (somewhat rural, etc) is far more fertile ground for neo-Confederate ideas, than large urban areas (as far as I know). — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sundostund My thoughts exactly, there was no "heritage" excuse for flying them up there. They are certainly more visible in the South (where you get open confederate monuments from Jim Crow), and more broadly in rural areas than urban ones, but I've even seen confederate flags in NYC. Though they're usually flown next to nazi flags, with proud boys, or at MAGA marches - more in temporary displays at far right events than permanent fixtures (though the case in different in conservative bastions such as long island and staten island and some fly from homes there). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, "heritage" excuse (or "appeal to tradition") can't be a justification for flying them up even in the South, not to mention the North, etc. Also, I just can't believe that you saw confederate flags in NYC, but I'll take your word for it. As for confederate monuments, I'd say that their number is dwindling somewhat in recent years, even in the South, along with other confederate symbols... — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional

Also, I want to say that I appreciate your decision to share your life story (or some of it) on your userpage; I am sure that many people, in the same or similar situation, will find your experience as something helpful. I am sorry to hear about you being forced to stay in the closet and only able to transition at 16; I can't even imagine the burden of living in a small town, with a bunch of neo-Confederate people nearby, and being forced to hide your true identity. Thankfully, all of that is behind you now. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I was going for! To be so explicitly un-apologetically trans Wikipedia feels safer for other editors and to perhaps humanize me in the eyes of transphobes checking out my page (though that's a long shot lol).

To clarify though, I only spent 2/3 years of my life up there, though I have friends there and would visit occasionally growing up. I actually spent most of my time closeted in the big apple, which was only marginally better, as trans people have been beaten, attacked, stabbed, and harassed within a close radius of my home, and all over the city for that matter. I watched my trans friends, those who were lucky enough to have supportive families and come out younger, still get all sorts of abuse. In hindsight I was very obviously trans, to the extend that even in elementary school a trans boy I was friends with was taken off the school-bus by his mother since I was a "bad influence" (presumably she'd somehow learned we would draw queer art together and I would sometimes be more openly feminine since the back of the bus was where the queer kids hung out). I watched the public schools get slowly more accepting, though that was patchy, as I watched my trans friends in high school facing bullshit from other students and the administration; one time my Econ/Gov teacher had us debate and discuss the Aimee Stephens case and talked about how weird she looked and how it might disturb a grieving family. I was only able to come out after I graduated and moved out (at 16) since I knew my father wouldn't be accepting, but at least of the mindset that if I was already self-sufficient he'd just sign off.

The closet is behind me, but it's out of the frying pan and into the fire. I'm no longer a suicidal alcoholic trying to bury the pain of living a lie - I'm myself without any shame and have solid friends and people know me for who I really am. But we also have transphobes and fascists explicitly ramping up their calls for genocide and state repression of trans people and rapidly using the issue to consolidate power. I've always done everything in my power to fight and organize for a better world and against fascism, as it's fight or die, so I'm openly proud to make sure fascists don't get to control Wikipedia or information. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Your edit to Conversion therapy has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. You can't just copy from the source and change a few words, it needs to be completely rewritten. (t · c) buidhe 18:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe How was this calculated? The 3 paragraphs removed are a reworded summary of concepts covered and mentioned in a span of 20 pages in the book - I have it open right now and the language is consistently markedly different (sadly can't get a digital copy anywhere). I tried checking the Earwig Copyvio detector on the old revision id but it won't load. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Making no comment on the copyvio for now, but the cited book chapter is available at WP:LIB through the American Psychological Association collection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd been waiting for it to be available there for a while (I can finally return this overdue loan from the library lol). Checked there before you commented but couldn't find it for some reason, changing my search terms worked though! The removed paragraphs still seem mostly summarization, but I'll rewrite them when I get a chance tonight. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, read the three removed paragraphs from the article, and the cited source side by side now. In doing so I was able to clearly identify specific sentences from the book chapter that were only minimally paraphrased from the source text. I've listed below the mappings between the article and source texts.

Article text -> Source text

First paragraph, first sentence -> second paragraph (first new paragraph) on page 53, first sentence

First paragraph, second sentence -> second paragraph (first new paragraph) on page 53, third sentence

First paragraph, third sentence -> second paragraph (first new paragraph) on page 53, fourth sentence

Second paragraph, first sentence -> page 58, first sentence in Treatments for Gender Identity section

Second paragraph, second sentence -> page 58, second sentence in Treatments section

Second paragraph, third sentence -> page 58, fifth sentence in Treatments section?

Second paragraph, fourth sentence -> page 58, fourth and fifth sentence in Treatments section

Second paragraph, fifth sentence -> page 58, seventh sentence in treatments section

Third paragraph, first sentence -> page 58, first sentence, second paragraph in Treatments section

Third paragraph, second sentence -> page 58, second sentence, second paragraph in Treatments section

Third paragraph, third sentence -> page 58, third sentence, second paragraph in Treatments section

This to me does read like a close paraphrase issue, which would not be reliably detected by Earwig even if it had access to the source. That said, for some of the sentences, there is an degree of WP:LIMITED in play. But when each paragraph is read as a whole, the similarities not only in word order but also sentence order with respect to the source text does make this a CLOP problem. This is particularly evident in the third paragraph of the article, which is exceptionally similar to the second paragraph of the Treatments section in the source material. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

It is a violation of the policy regarding Biographies of living persons to call a living person a "nazi barbie" anywhere on Wikipedia. Do not repeat that misconduct. Cullen328 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Does that extend to people who openly work with white-supremacists and have literally used a Nazi barbie as a profile picture? If this is in regards to my commit message, I said her nazi barbie debacle, which refers to her profile picture, not directly calling her something. If this is in regards to my user page, she called me a "trancel", so let she who is without sin cast the first stone and all that. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion, as someone else who has also been harassed by a subject/entity we have an article on in this content area, it's difficult to be objective about that subject/entity when they are currently or previously have harassed you. Given those circumstances, it might be better to limit yourself to only preforming uncontroversial maintenance edits on the article (eg vandalism removal), and make suggestions for controversial edits on the article's talk page instead of making them directly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair approach. On the other hand though, her harassment (consisting of two insults in two tweets) was directly in regards to the fact I wrote the article and she didn't like the contents. It feels like an extremely dangerous precedent for TERFs †, or anyone for that matter, to be able to insult someone who edited their article on Twitter and in doing so force them to step back from the article. None of my edits have been controversial thus far, as no editors (barring SPA's and people blocked for persistent transphobia) have raised any issues with my edits there, as they've all been factual and easily verifiable. If it can help avoid further issues, should I declare the potential COI and context on the article talk page?

† Before anyone says that's an insult, it's not, but more importantly it's a term she uses for herself regularly TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

BLP policy applies to every single living portion on Earth, no matter how reprehensible they are. No exceptions. It is a really bad idea to edit the biographies of people that you are feuding with off-Wikipedia. Keep in mind that the Neutral point of view is a core content policy that must be followed by all editors. It is difficult to be neutral about a person you are arguing with. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not "feuding" with her off-wikipedia though. I have never interacted with her in my life outside of having written the article about her. She has only ever written one thing about me directly, HINT : the wikipedia entry is made by a rather boastful trancel who enjoys lying about people online, having previously more generally said The defamatory page about me on @Wikipedia @JWalesF has been semi protected and cannot be edited. All edits in the history have been undone. The sad little incels are ensuring the lies remain. My only response was to include that she said that in my honorable mentions, mention that she has literally used a nazi barbie as a profile picture, and get on with my life.If every time a public figure complains about their article and insults the editors who wrote it or an editor who significantly contributed is grounds for the editors having to step back on the basis of WP:NPOV, we would very quickly lose all our editors. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Certainly that sort of harassment could easily be gamed by an article subject, and at the extreme end of it yes it could lead to attempts to stack the consensus deck off-wiki. However we do already have processes in place for handling that sort of thing, from noticeboards like BLPN and ANI, right the way through to WMF Trust and Safety.

On declaring the COI with one of the templates, only you can really answer that I think. There is a balance between declaring a COI, and outing yourself. In the case of the harassment against me, that entity posted photos of me alongside my name and social media links. While I could declare my COI with the templates, it would make it somewhat easier to link me to an offline identity. I largely trust myself enough to self-police with regards to that article, and save COI declarations for when they are contextually relevant. Thankfully, despite the noise that organisation makes online, the article itself sees very little editorial interest outside of the occasional bit of drive-by vandalism and the addition of sources whenever they are noticed in the media. Thus far I've only had to declare it once, in a discussion over a year ago.

I don't know the full context behind how KJKM has attacked you. Whether or not the harassment was something generic and relatively anonymous like "look at this anonymous editor who has been editing my page, they are such a [insert derogatory term here]", or more targeted like "TheTranarchist is [insert personal details here], they are such a [insert derogatory term here]", and whether or not declaring a COI could lead to further harassment by the article subject. Those are really only questions you can ask and answer to yourself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Was just about to publish my above comment when you did lol. Her only harassment has been towards the wikipedia editors who have protected her page from vandalism in general and me specifically by calling me a "trancel" (and even then, not naming me, just referring to me). There is no link to my personal life, her only beef with me has been the fact I wrote the article. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This diff is inappropriate. Please remove the WP:POLEMIC material from your userpage. gnu57 00:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC refers to attacking other editors and content unrelated to the encyclopedia. Noting popular responses to articles I've written does not count as WP:POLEMIC by any stretch. Nothing there is false, most is in her article. Which part specifically do you take issue with? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

No Wikipedia editor should be writing things like this about a living person that the editor has written a biography of: She just doesn't like reality and thinks if she yells enough it will suddenly change. Frankly, the funniest part is not only does she just mindlessly yell "lies" (which her followers uncritically regurgitate in lockstep, pointlessly swarming the article's talk page), she feels forced to resort to ad-hominems of some 19 year old girl she's never met (which are even funnier when you consider, as my best friend laughed pointing out, I'm poly and have three girlfriends). But hey, attacking trans kids while lying through her teeth and claiming everyone else is the liar is really par for the course. That type of commentary is unseemly, definitely polemical and a violation of BLP policy. Do not write a Wikipedia biography and then denounce that person on your Wikipedia userpage. If publicized, it could bring discredit on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Although I am far from a fan of this particular BLP I have to agree that this type of commentary is gratitutous and unhelpful. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to denounce people (even if they are genuinely awful). (t · c) buidhe 09:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence admittedly might be too on the nose and can be rewritten/removed. The second sentence is factual: she indeed called the article full of lies (I can drop the "mindlessly", and to be fair her PR strategy isn't mindless so much as coldly calculated, I hope), indeed never bothered to point a single supposed lie out, and her followers indeed swarmed the talk page to call the article biased and full of lies (once again, never bothering to point any out). The ad-hominem is plain to see, and I reserve to right to point out how ridiculously off the mark it is (I didn't even bother to respond with any ad-hominen of my own, I just laughed at how bad hers was, and it took all my New York soul to not actually throw any serious shade). The third sentence points out that given her history and activities, her personal attacks on me are entirely predictable, and when her only notability is campaigning against trans rights and harassing trans people that's not exactly a big secret. I am here to build an encyclopedia and this isn't denouncement, just laughing about an honorable mention, ie her criticism of the article and childish insults towards me. I'm not in the habit of "denouncing" people on my userpage after writing articles, my userpage would be a lot longer if I was, I just list public attention I get for my work here and analyze it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Ways to improve Gays Against Groomers

Hello, TheTranarchist,

Thank you for creating Gays Against Groomers.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Engaging article, but needs a lot of improvements. Formatting needs to be addressed to better comply with MOS:LAYOUT and specifically MOS:BODY. Current section titles make it difficult for the reader to navigate the article with ease and content goes into too much extraneous detail. It might be a good idea to take a look at some GA-level articles on political organizations and see how they are organized (like English Defence League--another far-right group, which despite being a very long article covers its subject very well). It's important to keep in mind the expectations of a reader unfamiliar with the subject and whether the article would be easy for them to navigate. Also, be mindful of overciting; the reflist needs to be cleaned up. Finally, some images would be helpful. Feel free to reach out if you have any more questions!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ppt91}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Ppt91 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ppt91, thank you for reviewing the page! Dealing with the vandalism and updating it a bit I forgot to reach back out to you for some advice on this. I was originally trying to model it more off Libs of TikTok, but that they upgraded from a twitter account to an organization poses some difficulties. I created the sections after compiling the articles mentioning them and the sections were based off the themes that consistently emerged.

Running an idea past you, what do you think of updating it to the following sectioning?

• History
  • Founding
  • Funding
• Activities
  • Protests and rallies
  • Legislation
  • Harassment (which should also be updated to include a bit more of their targeting of individual journalists/parents/public figures)
• Reception
  • Criticism (currently present but listed under Reception rather than a subsection)
  • Social media platforms
  • Conservative and far-right media

Additionally, that's not the first time I've been told my articles can be intricately/overly-detailed lol, so could you point out some sections that need addressing in that regard so I can trim them down? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist Thanks for getting back to me. Replying in haste to let you know I'll definitely look through and provide some more thoughtful feedback soon. Also, I wanted to let you know that I am in strong support of the work you're doing and, especially as a queer man myself, think Wikipedia needs more well-crafted LGBTQ focused pages, including of course those shedding light on groups actively hostile to the community. I'll be back in touch soon! Ppt91 (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist here's my feedback regarding structure

• History (Heading) I would divide into appropriate subsections using Subheading 1 eg "Political origins (2017 to 2020)" or something along those lines; just a suggestion; you can include Funding here as a subsection
• Activities (Heading)
  • Protests and rallies (Subheading 1)
  • Legislation (Subheading 1)
  • Harassment (Subheading 1) I think this is fine as is with possible smaller subsections using Subheading 2 for topics that really need one
• Reception (Heading)
  • Criticism (Subheading 1) Keeping it simple and, as above, using smaller subsections if needed with the use of Subheading 2
  • Praise (Subheading 1)

I believe this structure should satisfy MOS:LAYOUT but abide by its rules in case there are any inconsistencies in my recommendation.

As for writing tips specifically, I think a clearer structure will lend itself to better prose because you will remain more focused on what needs to be included in each. See how it goes and I am happy to help in the process! Ppt91 (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Sorry it took me a minute to respond to this but as we know I got caught up dealing with other articles lol.

I'll update the article along these lines tomorrow!

A few quick thoughts, for "History" I'm thinking of splitting it into subsections "Twitter account" and "Incorporation", which will have subsubsection "Funding". For "Praise", I'm not sure if we have the sourcing to justify that but I can double check. I can't recall any sources that mention them being praised per se, usually they just note that they appear frequently on far-right media and are agreed with there.

Additionally, do you think the image should be their Twitter profile or the image on their website? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it looks much better--of course, feel free to adjust the section names accordingly. My idea with "Praise" had more to do with staying neutral and illustrate that this group has been featured and promoted in media outlets (Fox, OAN etc.), but perhaps there is a more accurate word that will fit better (the deadpan "I'm not sure if we have the sourcing to justify that" made me lol).

Also, I do actually think that "Harassment" sounds too biased and that it should not be used as section title; that could be easily construed as direct accusation of harassment that in turn can be seen as slander on BLP and get the entire section deleted. For the sake of NPOV, I've changed it to very intentionally muted "Other" and then "Alleged personal harassment" and so on for now. We know and have sources to demonstrate that they have been accused of harassment but that is all that can be implied, especially for BLP and contentious topics, where these kinds of semantics are really important and very much scrutinized.

Also for sources, https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/02/08/proposed-gender-alteration-ban-for-minors-draws-hundreds-to-nebraska-capitol/ this could be used for legislation and https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/20/nyregion/drag-queen-story-hours-protests-nyc.html this for "groomer" definition among other things

Overall in terms of sources, I'd reduce the list and cut down on The Advocate as I think it tends to dominate the references and can be seen as, unfortunately, reflective of bias if it's relied upon too heavily; it should obviously extensively reference their well-vetted content, but I'd just use less articles overall. I'll look for more sources when I have a moment. And happy to move this over to article talk page and continue there! Ppt91 (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist One last thing--as I was changing the section names to conform to NPOV, I've noticed some language inconsistencies that could, again, be seen as inflammatory and that did not use verbiage like "allege" etc. I've temporarily attached an NPOV tag to the article so that these can all be addressed. In other words, I am making sure all issues are covered and sources are double checked before the next wave of trolling inevitably arrives. I hope this logic makes sense. Ppt91 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic warning

As you have already received the notice about contentious topics being in affect, I'm officially giving you a warning about your conduct in the area. External links that identify people further than they have disclosed on Wikipedia are not permitted and are a very fast way to get blocked, regardless of who the person is that you are levying them against or if you or I agree with any of their thoughts. Please ensure that all your edits fully comply with the policies and practices of Wikipedia. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@AmandaNP My apologies, someone else had identified the conflict of interest without providing any evidence and I wanted to independently verify the information since that's a heavy charge to make without supporting details. Thanks for the link, I see now I should have emailed that directly to an admin or arbitrator. Would it be appropriate to add a COI template to the relevant talk page or should I leave that to an uninvolved admin? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not too involved in the COI enforcement realm. Which template are we talking about? Also excuse my bad link above, I have fixed it. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries, the one at WP:DISCLOSE, I'm not sure if he'd have to add that himself or if someone else could. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be a self-disclosure template. Not saying this rises to a level of needing a post here, but at the top of WP:COIN might provide some useful advice for you. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Might not be necessary yet, he's tried to edit the page once and left three comments on the talk page, all in favor of describing her as a "women's rights activist" campaigning for "single-sex female only spaces", but that's it. If he continues it might be more worth it, given that he supports the person/organization and has gone as far as to show up at their rallies so is not neutral. However, it would be best if he was forthright and open about the COI on that page so it doesn't need to be brought to WP:COIN. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Tranarchist, how many edit wars do you want to be in at any one time? Because now it's Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, where I think you're duking it out with four other editors. And this is after Chloe Cole and Mridul Wadhwa. AmandaNP, I think this user's heart in the right place--but they are seriously overdoing it, and this is too much conflict. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies In all honesty, for my mental health and sanity I try and set a cap at 2 or 3 concurrent ones, preferably 1, or even better none.

Any outside perspectives on the FAIR article would be greatly appreciated as it's been very draining. "Local consensus" there seems to be 1) to remove anything vaguely critical of the organization, 2) to remove relevant details (such as multiple RS pointing out Rufo had a large role in creating the CRT panic), 3) to convert the article into a puff piece where the lead doesn't follow the body and just lists their fucking mission statement, 4) to launch personal attacks against me rather than responding to any points raised, and 5) to push a POV and factually incorrect notion that transgender students do not have a recognized right to have their names/pronouns respected. As a sidenote, one of the biggest pushers of all of those fields finds it apparently acceptable behavior to deadname Brianna Ghey in an unrelated discussion then cry about being censored - somehow managing to make the Times look comparatively progressive on trans issues as even they apologized for their deadnaming. That's not even mentioning the massive undisclosed COI that I raised to arb-com this afternoon but have yet to receive word on.

That being said, neither the Cole or Wadhwa articles have involved edit warring, there have been mostly productive discussions on improving the article on the talk page. By that math, in the past few days I've only been involved in 1 edit conflict, hardly "overdoing it" or "too much conflict". TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Tranarch, please review wp:APPNOTE. This notification [1] should be reviewed in context of, "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". Additionally, you only notified one discussion board which could be seen as selective notification. Given the contentious nature of the subject area and the discussions in question please be more careful going forward and consider editing your notification. Springee (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Spring, that has a neutral title and was politely worded, clear in presentation, and brief. The LGBT noticeboard is the obvious place for a question on what classifies as transgender rights, so I've no clue which other relevant noticeboards you think I didn't notify... It presented the discussion, and the context behind that discussion, that some editors objected solely based on their opinion on what rights trans people should have. Consensus now seems to be trans kids do indeed have a right to be respected in school and that the fringe insistence otherwise is odd and not based on more than opinion. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the whole notification needs to be neutral and not just the title. "Apparently, citations to US laws, UN statements, and human rights groups are meaningless if an editor loudly repeats their opinions that those sources don't count and trans students don't have that right, so outside input would be appreciated." is most definitely not neutral. It's often better to just use one of the templates with no additional wording. If you wish to use a custom wording it's probably worth briefly discussing it on the RfC before you notify and especially if you cannot recognise that your notification was not neutral. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed that this wasn't about an RfC. We tend to be less fussed about neutral notifications for general discussions. Still, it could be considered canvassing and you should consider whether it's helpful or necessary to make such comments when a more neutral one may sufficiently explain the issues and people can check out the discussion to understand why there's a dispute. This is especially the case for notifications on wikiprojects instead of noticeboards. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking into this more, frankly even considering it was not an RfC your notification was terrible and this includes the title. There is almost no chance anyone reading that would have any idea before AnimalParty commented that the dispute was whether Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism should be in Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the actual issue at stake was whether categorization needs to be based simply on the preferred terms/labels/characterizarions used in sources or whether the community can apply its own criteria based on sourced info about the org. I have always leaned in the direction of source characterization, myself, but in any event it wasnt actually a discussion of whether or not pronouns should be respected - which is how it was framed in your notice, TheTranarchist.

That said, I see wilder mischaracterizations than this (whether consciously or unconsciously made) on a sadly routine basis when editing GENSEX topics. Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Quick note

Hi @TheTranarchist. I have so much respect for you and think the work you do here is really important, but I would wholeheartedly recommend that you take it one article at a time and disengage from the distracting—and potentially disruptive—stuff. It is not worth it. The best thing you can do for ensuring these really difficult topics are well covered here is through sustained and laborious editorial process. Rather than exhausting yourself, focus on exhaustive NPOV sourcing (I know you already do), consensus building (even when it feels like an impossible task), and pushing forward with encyclopedic, quality content (even it means covering less topics). And know that you're not alone. There are numerous editors, myself included, who are willing to help. Ppt91 (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91 thank you, that really means a lot to me! I generally try and take it at one or two articles at a time, it's just a pity that disruptive editing keeps me from actually working on improving or working on articles I'd like to and over-stretches me. I love when people give me honest feedback to improve an article and we can have productive discussions, and good-faith criticism of my work helps me and the encyclopedia improve, but sadly too often talk pages devolve into stopping POV pushing and whitewashing and I'm suddenly playing defense on multiple fronts. I've been focused nearly exclusively on the FAIR nonsense and advertification the past few days when I'd wanted to work on the Crown Heights Tenant Union and circle back on fixing up GAG. If you could take a look at the FAIR article and contribute your thoughts I'd greatly appreciate it! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that. It's really important to prioritize one's mental health, especially given the incessant amount of vitriol the community is exposed to daily in various forms (though I don't think Wikipedia is one of those places, but I'll get to that in a moment).

As for FAIR, I think it might be a similar issue to GAG where a contentious topic article is very long and overtly detailed (even though it is clearly well researched), making it difficult to navigate and potentially exposing it to a lot of criticism, much of which is meant to be constructive and WP:GOODFAITH.

Considering your rhetoric is quite passionate and that your prose can even come off as accusatory in case of these ultraconservative organizations (rightfully so from an ethical standpoint, but not a Wikipedia standpoint) some might suspect a degree of WP:ADVOCACY as opposed to WP:STEWARDSHIP. This, in turn, can cause immediate clashes to ensure NPOV is maintained.

In other words, you can easily and inadvertently alienate editors—some of whom might be even ideologically aligned with most of your views—who want to preserve the neutrality of the website. I know I would do the same as that obligation comes before my own views.

Cutting down on a lot of content to clearly represent NPOV will make these articles less susceptible to potentially inflammatory outside interventions and is likely to cause less friction. That's where good section organization will be really beneficial, as I had mentioned earlier. Moreover, it could also help with drafting a better and more appropriate lead WP:LEAD, which becomes challenging if you have more text in the body without clear structure.

Just some of my thoughts. Always here to give more constructive feedback or help in any other way I can! Ppt91 (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ppt91 (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91 It'd be easier to assume good faith for FAIR if the editors raising criticisms didn't include 1) a person with a massive undisclosed COI who considers it acceptable behavior to deadname Brianna Ghey in an unrelated discussion 2) An SPA created that same day that made a few grammar fixes before leaving a lengthy comment on a topic unrelated to any of the other articles they'd edited, and 3) a use who made no attempt to discuss the content and jumped straight into personal attacks and calling for the article to be deleted. Regardless, now some more editors are looking at it, I'm going to start trying to repair the article and lead and clear up any lingering POV issues (though at this point, the most pressing POV issue is the lead and first section read like an advert).

Also, I'm not sure if you saw, I responded to your original post here about GAG with some thoughts last night, and just implemented some of what we discussed. Love to hear your feedback! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist I get it and I know you're facing a lot at once. But remember that you will never make everyone happy and the best course of action is to not get distracted by those who are not worth it and instead remain committed to the editorial integrity of this place (as you have been doing). That way even the most irrational critics and trolls will eventually hit the wall and run out of ammunition. At the risk of sounding corny: don't rush the process, it's a marathon. I'll take a look at the updates to GAG structure by tomorrow. Stay strong and keep up the good work!! Ppt91 (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! But have to note that in terms of the best course of action is to not get distracted by those who are not worth it, I try but it's hard, see the topic below... At least even the most irrational critics and trolls will eventually hit the wall and run out of ammunition rings very true! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about your editing

I have started a discussion about your editing. Although you have been warned about not editing impartially, you don't appear to have changed how you edit. There are now multiple discussions going on at talk pages and noticeboards.

We shouldn't co-opt Wikipedia to attack people or groups that we don't like. That sword cuts both ways. Round and rounder (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

TheTranarchist, whether you get a warning or a TBAN, just wanted to let you know that you should continue improving as a wiki editor regardless. I myself have been banned from pages and warned (by ARBCOM!) before, and used it productively to become a better editor (see block log). Myself and other editors, as they have commented in the ANI thread, believe you can become a better editor than some of the evidence shows you as being. Wikipedia is a fantastic place and as you learn to edit more neutrally as well as to recognize your own biases, you will see how much of a positive impact you will have both on trans subjects and others. Remember, the core values of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:NOR are most beneficial to queer people and other minorities. Sticking by these values will help cover the topics you feel closest to more than editing in an us-vs-them manner. Whatever the resolution of the ANI thread, I hope you will continue editing and further hope to see you around ^u^. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ixtal Thank you!!! I always strive to improve regardless, and while I started a little shakily I quickly started learning the ropes and have been improving nonstop since, but honestly a TBAN will prevent me from doing so further, as it's no secret my focus is the GENSEX area. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia in the fields of trans history/politics/healthcare, as that's the basis of the majority of my knowledge/studies/expertise and an area that Wikipedia lags behind in accurately covering and often includes poor sourcing and FRINGE positions in, not any random article. An admitted niche, but a pretty large one considering, and there's no rule against that. I always strive for NPOV, BLP, and NOR, but this whole case feels less like assuming good faith and trying to address concerns collaboratively/productively in those areas and more like a targeted attack.

Frankly, while I started out with the idea Wikipedia is a fantastic place, if I get TBANned I doubt I'll be able to continue to believe that. A sockpuppet started attacking me and my articles and filed a spurious case against me, canvassing in an editor who'd been arguing with me on multiple pages to push their POV on trans topics. Other editors noted my long history of good contributions and productive editing and it all seemed to be coming to a close, with either no action or a sanction on publishing directly to mainspace to ensure I didn't let bias slip in, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Then the floodgates opened, and numerous editors used my statements off wikipedia as evidence in and of itself of poor editing, while not providing evidence of that actually manifesting counter to NPOV, BLP, or NOR on Wikipedia itself. Repeated citations to the warning about improperly reporting a COI as evidence of being warned for my conduct in the area in general made me want to bang my head against the wall... Lots of selective interpretations of RGW and NOTHERE as well, ignoring that it's ok to have reasons for writing an article and not providing evidence those manifested in non-neutral content. With the biggest piece of evidence being the improper sourcing of 3 sources in the KJK article, which I've no problem stepping back from and already hadn't edited in a while since it all got too personal after she publicly called me a liar and insulted me for writing the article, even being at that point wholly impeccably sourced. To the valid criticisms raised there, I've been responsive and tried to integrate them and improve based off them, but people have continued to call for a blanket ban as if the majority of my contributions aren't overwhelmingly well-regarded and I'm just here putting OR and non-RS in every article I find and not the opposite... It's been like pinball, watching people speak to my contributions and the relative in-severity of the crime and others calling to damn me and stop me editing at all. Overall, a TBAN would be grossly disproportionate and prove that despite my general history of a good editing, a few mistakes in highly specific areas, which I've acknowledged and seriously want to improve on, are enough to see me kicked off entirely. That TBAN would also extend to stopping me correcting misinformation or poorly sourced junk, or even generally writing about trans history (as GENSEX is not just anti-trans figures/organizations, and even then trans history usually involves anti-trans figures/organizations). Goodbye to even working on WP:USALGBT... I tried to do the math on how the vote is going earlier today, and it seems nerve-wrackingly 50/50, perhaps slightly in my favor (with the dubious honor of seemingly being the most hotly contested notice on the page), and I don't know enough about how ANI works to have a clue how this is going to go.

I really hope I get to stay here and continue improving, but if I somehow end up fully topic banned I'm probably just sadly saying good riddance to the site. On a daily basis, I put up with trolls, vandals, COI editors, and sock-puppets who push WP:FRINGE theories, use unreliable sources, whitewash articles about hate groups, make personal attacks against me, just generally say transphobic shit, and generally screw up the encyclopedia and make it a pain to work here. It's exhausting, but the thanks from other editors and knowledge of a job well done and encyclopedia kept up-to-snuff has keeps me going. I believe in my soul in the encyclopedia - a global compilation of knowledge and truth free for everyone to read and contribute to - and I'm a dedicated scholar and do everything I can to make sure my sources and evidence are impeccable. But if my reward for countless hours upon hours of trying to good work to improve the encyclopedia is to be raked over the coals for a fraction of my contributions, an inquisition started by a blocked sock-puppet out to get me for some reason, that raised some issues that could have been dealt with in good faith through more appropriate channels, I honestly wouldn't know why to stay. I hope I get to stay, and that the truth of my contributions speak for themselves, but either way until this case ends the stress is killing me and it's hard to think of this place as fantastic. Sorry if this became a bit of a rant, this whole thing is just getting to me. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless the ratio changes dramatically, I'm guessing there will be no consensus for a topic ban. That means no ban will be applied but you must improve in the future as you're more likely to be banned if you get dragged to the noticeboard again. (t · c) buidhe 07:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe Thanks for the clarification! Certainly does wonders for my mental health lol TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Multiple RfCs

TheTranarchist, I would suggest restoring the RfC you closed here [2] and closing the new one that has no replies other than your own. Closing a RfC after editors have already replied is generally not OK. While I think the original RfC was poorly structured and advertised, it got responses. Opening up the new one so quickly after the old one was started was bad form and disruptive if unintentionally so. It can also look like gaming the system as the first RfC had responses that appear to go against your preferred outcome. Note, your actual intentions can be good faith but the optics are there. I would suggest reverting your close and allowing the original RfC to continue. BTW, I'm mentioning this here because I don't want this too look like a talk page fight when I suspect this is just inexperience with the RfC process. Springee (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Other interests

Surely you must have some? Go and edit something else for a couple of weeks! You are hardly improving your chances of emerging unscathed from AN/I by continuing to contribute to the talk pages of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull and the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, at least in my opinion...  Tewdar  16:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I do, in fact I have a little notability (not enough for WP:GNG lol) as a historian in a particular historical period that I never touch here to protect my identity. Before the recent shitshows started, I wanted to work on the Crown Heights Tenant Union for the organized labor edit-a-thon, improve some old articles, and work on WP:USALGBT to continue improving LGBT rights in New York. At KJK, I've not edited the article, and most discussions have been reliability of the sourcing and some sources to consider, and even then I've tried not to comment much. Apparently the comments have not been especially controversial, since if some even thought they could raise it as another example of why I should be kicked off at ANI they'd do so. But at Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism? That article was whitewashed and advertified by a COI editor, who also called for my ban, and the other editor who's supported their whitewashing and behavior was canvassed in and seemingly has nothing better to do than find a problem with everything I do. I'm seeing this case through, making sure FAIR is up-to-snuff, mostly ignoring KJK, and then taking a break in some less controversial areas of GENSEX (does such a think exist?) - hopefully having time to actually write the CHTU article before the month ends. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

taking a break in some less controversial areas of GENSEX - Trudgeon on his tractor!!! Well, I tried...  Tewdar  17:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You can come help us at the geology wikiproject any time you like XP --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Though geology is the one science course I've never taken (just bio, chem, physics, and computers for me), As long as I won't get TBANed for saying we shouldn't say most rocks are liquid on wikipedia off wikipedia I'm tempted! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"the one science course I've never taken" : that makes it an excellent choice of an area for you to contribute, because you have no pre-conceived biases. Go climb a rock[pile of reliable sources], and then write it up! Mathglot (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Come one, surely there's at least one GENSEX article with no controversies or history of edit wars I could work on :P TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe try anti-gender movement? There are so many clearly RS sources (like academic journal articles) and it's more prominent in the non English speaking world, meaning that it's fairly easy to edit without getting into too much trouble. (t · c) buidhe 06:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI (again)

I'd recommend striking or removing the comment where you challenge Levivich to look up more divs too, tbh. If they wanna find something they'll find something. Just remove it and then leave the discussion be. Don't throw fuel on the fire etc. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Licks-rocks thanks for the advice! I have a feeling that it's too late to put that particular cat back in the bag and Levivich is currently going through all my non-BLP/non-BLPGROUP edits, so instead of striking I posted a small clarification that he'll hopefully take in good faith. I swear that's my final comment there lol, no matter his reply TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

just strike/remove it. It's honestly the better choice here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That crazy ANI

Hello, TheTranarchist! (Fabulous name, by the way; i love a good portmanteau word.) I just wanted to pop by and say that although i supported the TBAN business, however the whole thing is closed i do hope that you are able to, if necessary step back and reflect and, in the end draw something positive for your editing. To that end (and truly hoping i don't sound pompous), i commend you for the self-reflection and commitment shown in your comment dated 05:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC); i believe it shows maturity and strength, two things that i wish every editor in this community had.
I really hope that the next time i come across your cool name it will be something simple and positive, like gnoming an article you have created or worked on. Meantime, take care; Lindsay^Hello 15:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@LindsayH Thank you! I'm a little confused though as to which comment you're referencing. I tried to find which one you were referring too and this was the only 5:03 one I could find, and even then it's the 28th and an edit to unrelated article, so I'm assuming that's not it lol. Hopefully this is my last time at ANI, and with any luck over the next month or so I'll indeed be gnoming my old articles! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the comment i meant; i found it very good. And i completely second your wish about ANI and getting away from it. See you around! Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 23:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense and is what I'd guessed you meant, no clue why it didn't show when I searched that timestamp on my contributions page and the ANI page though lol. Thank you again and see you around! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies

Re: So far, 3 people have tried to explain to you that the American College of Pediatricians is a WP:FRINGE organization, both in terms of the fact they support conversion therapy and oppose gay couples adopting, which should make it obvious, and the fact community consensus is very clear they are a WP:FRINGE organization. Actually I wasn't trying to use them in the article anyway, and technically the linked discussion only establishes them as fringe iro conversion therapy and gay adoption, but fundamentally I was still wrong in assuming that ACAP was a professional body.

I'm bringing it here because the article page is already fairly unreadable. Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, for admitting that and that for coming here instead of lengthening the talk page lol. Still, mentioning them as opposing experts on talk to try and go against established MEDRS is still a reason to point out they're fringe. However, to your credit, it was more so Slywriter than you who tried to repeatedly establish they weren't fringe. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring alert

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chloe Cole. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Springee (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Springee You deleted text there was a clear consensus to include. As it stands, I am incredibly tempted to take you to ANI over your WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING, WP:POVPUSHING, WP:IDHT, WP:IDLI, WP:WHITEWASHING, repeated misapplication of WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:GUILT, consistently spurious accusations at my own ANI case, and clear refusal to accept consensus. Given your last comment at my ANI case led to other editors criticizing your claims and pointing to your own poor behavior on that article and others, I have a feeling it wouldn't end in your favor. Stop leaving these nonsensical warnings on my talk page. Don't bother replying here, or I'll take that as a final straw and an invitation to file the case. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Your edit to Crown Heights Tenant Union has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You are now subject to a community sanction

I have just closed the ANI thread around your editing. You are now subject to an indefinite topic ban from the WP:GENSEX topic area. You may appeal this topic ban, at WP:AN, no sooner than 6 months from now. Beyond that, I copy the advice section from my close. TheTranarchist is clearly a very dedicated editor who believes strongly in the work she is doing. I want to thank her for being engaged and responsive in the thread. She clearly showed an understanding of various aspects of her behavior. That was unfortunately not enough to outweigh the issues, but in my mind it indicates the community should be willing to accept an appeal here after a reasonable time frame of editing in other areas of the encyclopedia. Indefinite is not infinite. TheTranarchist: now is the time to get some experience in other areas of the encyclopedia, build up your editing knowledge, and use it to come back stronger. I understand that receiving a sanction is difficult and unpleasant. But I hope you stick around and edit in other areas of the encyclopedia. You have a lot of passion in editing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Tranarchist, I hope you find some joy in editing other parts of the encyclopedia. I generally find working on the less controversial bits to be a refreshing experience. Feel free to ping me if you want to collaborate on something or want a copyedit. Best of luck to you in negotiating the TBAN, and beware the "broadly construed". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers thank you! And I'll be sure to take you up on that! I'll probably give you a ping when I'm done with the Crown Heights Tenant Union. And the "broadly construed" is certainly something to beware - as since there are basically no hate groups on my radar that don't at least marginally touch on trans rights my edits will sadly most likely have to stay away from hate groups generally. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Loki (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

(To be specific, I've opened a close review about your topic ban after going through the counts and discovering CaptainEek significantly undercounted oppose votes.) Loki (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

"How can I improve as an editor?"

In response to that question, which you posted here, I suggest that you embrace the spirit, if not the strict numerical recommendation, of WP:COAL. It isn't always easy, but it has really helped me in the construction of compelling comments/interpretations/opinions/etc. It has also helped me to avoid bludgeoning discussions, casting aspersions, making personal attacks, and all sorts of other, unhelpful behaviors. Good luck going forward. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful essay, thank you! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Bloc by Bloc

Hi, TheTranarchist. I hope this message is welcome. If not, of course feel free to ignore.

I'm trying to work out whether Bloc by Bloc^draft is notable. I see [3] and [4], and in theory two RS is all you need, but many treat three as the de facto minimum. Can you find anything else?

Beyond that, it would be silly to write an article on the game without playing it, and as discussed before it's apparently a beast. I and the rest of my little anarchist(-adjacent) polycule were thinking of doing a mixed in-person/VC playthrough. Any interest? (I'm reachable on Discord if you prefer—inquire by email or find me on the community server.)

All the best. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin, it's very welcome, thank you! I'll have a look at sources for Bloc By Bloc now, and I just emailed you my discord handle since I'd love to do a playthrough with you! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin(lmk if you're watching and I should stop pinging lol). Just did a search for some sources:

Strong:

• [5] (~4 page review of the game in the Journal of Resistance Studies)
• [6] (~2 page review of the game from the Center for a Stateless Society)
• [7] (comments on Quotor's article and treatment of Bloc by Bloc)

Weak:

• [8] (2 paragraphs about the game and how it served as an inspiration for the game the author created and speaks about in the article)
• [9] (some details about a co-designer),
• [10] (not sure if crimethinc is usable for a eulogy, even if attributed, but may be wrong),
• [11] (brief mention as a modern progressive game in an opinion piece, possibly relevant).

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Warning: breach of topic ban

This edit is a clear violation of your topic ban from gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people. As a reminder, a topic ban means you may not edit any page anywhere on the English Wikipedia which is related to the scope of the topic ban, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project discussions, and requests for comment or enforcement, under any circumstances, unless and until the ban expires or is successfully appealed. I see that you have been advised not to test the boundaries of your topic ban before; this is now a warning that future violations will be met with blocks. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I believe you are mistaken here. I reviewed and restored the edit in question, after checking if any changes were made that changed any gender related content. I would also point out that TheTranarchist asked CaptainEek at the start of March whether editing the non-gender related content in the article would be a violation of the TBAN. My reading of the advice given in March was that the non-gender content in the article would be acceptable within the scope of the TBAN if otherwise unadvisable due to the controversial nature of the rest of the content in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I disagree. The topic itself is a gender-related controversy; the organization only does business in generating gender-related controversy, as demonstrated by reliable coverage of that topic in our article. Further violations will result in a block; I am not here to debate this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sideswipe here. I certainly don't think that edit qualifies as a "clear violation" of their topic ban. And the organization appears to focus more on race rather than gender. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: unless you wish to make the assertion that Critical race theory is a gender-related controversy, I believe you are mistaken. While the gender section of the article is sizable, it is dwarfed by the critical race theory section, as well as their involvements in racial discrimination lawsuits. I again repeat my objection to this warning, and I will happily take this to WP:AARV or WP:AN for review, especially as the finality of I am not here to debate this is counter to the letter and spirit of WP:ADMINACCT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TheTranarchist: GENSEX topic ban warning disputed. Thank you. I am inviting you to participate in this discussion per WP:BANEX and will note this in the discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

With respect to the first two sentences in this edit, I suggest practicing the arts of the long pause before responding and of allowing other people to have a last word (even if you disagree with them). In general, responding argumentatively to every post one disagrees with gives neutral observers a negative impression, and the easiest way not to get sucked into long combative back-and-forths is to delay or stop responding. Your conduct seems defensible and has defenders; you would probably be better off letting them defend you. Best of luck, JBL (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I keep saying it but DO NOT RESPOND to accusations like this except to give a very short explanation of what happened, then leave the discussion completely and don't come back. Or, to put it in other words: [12] --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I do kinda agree with the two above. When people are defending you, let them do so and stay out of the conversation. When things are going your way, there's no need to step in at all. Particularly if doing so might only make things worse. Silverseren^C 21:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this puts me in mind of this, and while I don't want to suggest anything beyond what the three users immediately above me have suggested, if anything else in that discussion resonates with you, perhaps consider it. -sche (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll, @Licks-rocks, @Silver seren, @-sche: Thanks for the advice! I knew I was probably being stupid when I did it but I sometimes take the bait too easily, and ANI automatically puts me in fight or flight since the original case. The first 3 paragraphs of this were certainly superfluous, it was nice to clear the air with Tewdar though, I didn't realize he didn't know I appreciated his humor (most of my friends and I are constantly cheeky when discussing stuff). Also, wrt the first two sentences, to expand on the metaphor in a way I was mulling over since I wrote it, the easiest way for me not to get sucked into ANI is to avoid the encyclopedia all together. The more time I spend away, the easier it is, but editing, even an appropriate response at case, kinda resets me and I have to fight the gravity again. More like planets than black holes I suppose. The gravitational pull is escapable, but very difficult from the ground. Even if you're on a different continent (not ANI), it's a much shorter trip there than leaving.

A key takeaway from this apart from the not respond so much (I was doing well at first), and to be more paranoid about my ban, is that when I eventually appeal, I'm going to recognize what ANI does to me and set a condition that it be immediately withdrawn if I make any other edit than 1) responding to a direct ping question or 2) fixing typos/broken links/etc

This is one of my favorite videos, me and my nesting gf show it to people often, I even showed it to my younger sister to educate her on what to do if questioned. I feel silly for having overlooked its advice lol.

And finally wrt to this, I saw it start to unfold but didn't keep up with it at the time. But the tips on navigating Wikipedia as an autistic person are certainly useful to review so thank you! I don't disclose it because 1) I'd have to lose a userbox and 2) it's already hard enough here sometimes as it is. I also tend to assume most people here are neurodivergent and that's honestly one of the perks of wikipedia for me. I had some issues bludgeoning when I started editing but soon got better and generally find it easy to communicate here, but ANI reverts me. Who knows, maybe a little neurodiverse pride userbox will help avoid confusion? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Telegram

Hello, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating your topic ban.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@ScottishFinnishRadish, @Sideswipe9th just dm'ed me and I was just about to self-revert before the block (pinging so they can confirm). I was cleaning up my userpage while waiting for input on Boots theory since I'm currently trying to take it to GA and I'd thought the edit was fine since it was more self-damning and conciliatory than the previous statement there which had been ok-ed and I felt that previous one didn't acknowledge enough of my own culpability in the TBAN. Could I be unblocked (with the understanding any future block will jump straight to a month or two long) and given the opportunity to revert it (either to the previous version or the previous version with the first paragraph just replaced by Here are my contributions, the original ANI case, the close review, my appeal 3 months into my ban, and a tactically stupid but earnest appeal for a limited exception based on the results of the previous. Judge it all for yourself., whichever you find more appropriate)? Whichever version you endorse I'll leave it at that and not touch that section of my userpage for the remainder of my ban. All I can say was I was trying to take more responsibility for my ban, not violate it, though I obviously unintentionally did. I should've ran it by an admin first and feel stupid about this, sorry, and it won't happen again. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WRT Sideswipe9th's comments, I'd be happy to delete the section entirely if you agree that's the best course of action. I was planning to remove the GENSEX related to-do items from my page after that edit as well if you think that's wise (though my gf has been trying to get me to go to an appointment we have and rushing me out the door so it'd have to wait until I get back tonight). One question though, is there a standard template/format to acknowledge a ban on my userpage? IIRC, though I may be mistaken and am too rushed to search through the relevant wiki-policy, I thought I am supposed to acknowledge that I'm banned on my user page. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Good morning to anyone watching, I just want to state for the record I did really appreciate SFR's advice wrt footshooting (for transparency/context, the diff wrt the discreet warning was this one, where shortly after our bans I offered Newimpartial condolences, apologized for my own role in their ban, and offered to collaborate on non-GENSEX topics, and I was about to revert per SFR's email but Newimpartial beat me to it.) The warning was disputed by others and ruled a grey area since it was 1) reverting vandalism 2) unrelated to GENSEX 3) on an article where consensus was the org is not defined by it's relation to trans rights (its anti-CRT) and 4) I'd asked CaptainEek if FAIR was entirely covered by GENSEX or just the "Gender" section, and was told the gender section is but wasn't explicitly told the entire article was (if I had been, I would have stayed completely away).

FWIW, I have really been doing everything to stick to the TBAN, and while I fucked up I have always stuck to the spirit of the ban (if misinterpreting how it's applied). I haven't discussed article content or edited any GENSEX articles (save for that weird schrodingers-GENSEX situation with FAIR), I haven't discussed it on talk inappropriately apart from that message to Newimpartial right after my ban (I've not done similar since), and I'd thought since the pre-existing section on my userpage had been ruled fine, updating it to acknowledge more of my own fuck-ups and role in the case would be (since if this was a vio, so was the previous, and it's been up for months without people raising issues, so I hope my confusion is understandable). I wish I'd been told the pre-existing section was a violation, as I would have removed it then (and I'd been notified I overstepped and was self-reverting right before SFR imposed this block). While I've stepped over my TBAN, I do want to stress it was accidental, due to ambiguity (and I'd say an element of that is my autistic/very-literal-minded nature), and won't happen again. I'd be happy to remove all GENSEX mentions from my page - I have no problem following clearly defined rules and directives, it's the subtext and how others will interpret it I have trouble picking up on. In short, even though it wasn't intentional, I recognize that I did fuck up, and ask to be given some good faith it was due to a reasonable misunderstanding, and little ROPE to prove it won't happen again (and I'm happy to accept even harsher sanctions if it does to back up my word it won't), as I was hoping to continue work on Boots theory this week. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Accept reason:

Per discussion below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I can confirm that I advised TheTranarchist offwiki, after the edit was made, that the edit was a bad idea and should not have been made. Instead of self-reverting, I would recommend just removing the hiatus section entirely. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Just acknowledging that I've read this, and I'm thinking on it. This does not mean other admins shouldn't handle this as they normally would. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm involved here so obviously won't review the unblock request, but I do want to say that jumping to a block for a section on a user page feels a little on the nose. It's clearly inadvisable, but a firm "remove that" probably would have sufficed. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

While a valid block under the terms of the topic ban, I’m not sure it needs to be served out. A stern warning that GENSEX applies in all namespaces could have served the same result. I’m inclined to grant the appeal this time. (Had this been done anywhere but her own userpage, I’d not be so inclined.) Courcelles (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

And, @TheTranarchist, if granted, cut the section entirely. And, no, short of a siteban, I’m unaware of userpage templates, as that would be an invitation to tag folks with scarlet letters. Courcelles (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I gave her a warning to that effect back in March via email. I reached out off-wiki at the time to give her the heads up without causing additional drama by drawing attention. Since then, she's received a another warning. If this were a first time issue, I wouldn't have blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

A fair point 🙂 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm. I was inclined to grant this appeal, but… nope, not after reading that. Courcelles (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

1. I didn't know I could comment outside the unblock request until I replied to Shushugah lol
2. I tracked down the policy I was thinking of that confused me - WP:BANNOTICE: Banned editors' user and user talk pages should be updated with a notice of the ban, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits.
3. @ScottishFinnishRadish - I forgot to clarify this morning that last night when I'd pinged you it was because I thought the admin who instituted a block was the one who would be responsible for an unblock (Sideswipe9th corrected me via discord while I was out). My first block so I'm hazy on the procedure. Also, lmk if you're watching this page please in case I'm redundantly pinging.
4. @Courcelles, I'm not sure if you're watching this page, so giving you a courtesy ping in case you didn't see my latest comment. The TLDR, the last warning was ruled a grey area and context is above, I feel the text of BANNOTICE and the fact a summary of my case/close review/ban had already been on my page for months without issue did make it a reasonable mistake of ignorance to think I could update the text, and I've no issue removing all the GENSEX stuff on my page now that the issue has been pointed out. (Also please lmk if you're watching and my pings are redundant lol).

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I have the page watched, and I'm still pondering. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish. I think I’m actually inclined again to grant the appeal, under the condition that NO, as in none at all, other than personal statement of identity, GENSEX content remain on the userpage. I’m thinking along the lines of the user boxes that identify who she is can stay, but the paragraphs that mention GENSEX all need to go. Courcelles (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That's where I'm at, and with the understanding that any mention anywhere on-wiki is a violation, and to stay as far away as possible, and that the next block be stepped up from a week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!!! That was really wonderful to wake up to hear, I've been pretty stressed about this block honestly. I'm willing to do that - I want to clarify a few things for scope:

1. As discussed above, I'm assuming this includes the GENSEX to-do list section, the GENSEX hiatus section, and all of "a note to transphobes" (definitely the second paragraph of it at least but I'd be happy to remove it all.)
2. Does this include the first few paragraphs of about me and why I joined?
   1. The first few paragraphs of "about me" ("hello wikipedia! - "produce the enclyopedia!") I feel are essential to understanding who I am and why I'm here and they've been on my userpage almost as long as I've been editing. The specific article that inspired me to join was conversion therapy and I did join with the express purpose of improving queer coverage generally so I feel it would be dishonest of me not to acknowledge that.
   2. I'm not sure if y'all saw Newimpartial's advice on how to state you are banned non-controversially, should I follow that? I'm thinking particularly in regards to the 4th full paragraph of about me, or is the current thing there ok? I'm still confused on if WP:BANNOTICE does apply since it doesn't specify site-bans only.
3. Does that include the articles worked on/created section? I'd hope it would be fine as it's a comprehensive non-controversial list of the stuff I edited/wrote.
4. Does that include the Honorable mentions section? Those were also there before my ban, and I'd prefer to tone them down if they're too ostentatious (such as quoting what was said about me but removing all my commentary), but I'd be happy to remove them all. If it does, does that include the Gloria Hemingway mention?

Sorry for the questions, I don't want it to be misconstrued as trying to wiki-lawyer, I just want to know exactly what I'm supposed to remove, as quite a lot of my userpage had some tie to GENSEX and existed long before the bans (so IIRC correctly is okay to leave up under the terms of my ban), so it's gonna be a pretty major reformatting lol. I'd prefer to tone down honorable mentions but would be fine with removing it entirely, and I'm completely fine scrapping a note to transphobes, the hiatus section, and the to-do list. I will honestly say, if it's acceptable to y'all, it would really mean a lot if the paragraphs of about me and my articles created list could stay (as both listing my contributions and explaining why I joined are 1) very important to me 2) allowed under the terms of my ban as they're pre-existing 3) hopefully not that controversial). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, forgot to mention this in my audit of the page: does it also apply to my barnstars/awards/dyks/pets? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not terribly bothered by the essay stuff, as long as you don't edit it while under your topic ban. I'd say removing everything after the second paragraph of the introduction, and the gensex hiatus section should cover Courcelles concerns, but I'll ping to let them speak for themself. I also don't personally care about your list of articles you've worked on and such, but again, I'll let Courcelles speak on that.

You don't have to have any ban notice. Even if you're community banned, there is no hard and fast rule that there has to be a ban notice. Your topic ban is logged at WP:RESTRICT, so you're covered on that.

Really, the most important thing is please stop editing in any way anything that has to do with GENSEX topic area. You're doing good work and every time something like this comes up it's going to be harder and harder for you to successfully appeal. I know it sucks, I know you think it's unjust, but at this point it is what it is. I know you're in contact with people who can give you good advice, so please reach out to them if you're even slightly concerned you may be at the farthest edges of your topic ban, or even anything contentious. It will be much easier to appeal when you can point to the work you've done during your topic ban and no one can point to any issues with conflicts, topic ban adherence, or anything else about your editing.

As soon as I get the word from Courcelles on what exactly to remove and you remove it I'll unblock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

They can’t remove anything until they’re unblocked, @ScottishFinnishRadish. ;). Blocked users can’t edit their user pages.

But yes, those removals would work. Honestly, TA, a broadly construed topic ban like you’re under is flashing sign to stay far, far away from a topic as possible. The way out of this is to stay far away for six months. Courcelles (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like something broke in the unblock template, but she's unblocked now. TheTranarchist, if you have any questions or concerns feel free to reach out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both! I'll start fixing it now, it'll be in a big chunk covering all the changes since I have some custom edit sections set up that are a PITA when I resection the page lol. I'd appreciate your feedback after that edit to let me know if I missed anything, though I may not be able to respond until tomorrow since I'm going to a friend's party tonight. Quick question to clarify, ScottishFinnishRadish, which part were you referring to with the "essay stuff"? There are a few pretty lengthy sections on my page lol TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Your edit looks fine to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, @Courcelles: I want to run a reformatting of my articles worked on/created section with y'all (very low priority so no rush to respond as I'm about to go to bed anyways.)

Currently, I list articles I wrote from a stub or self sourced mess in the following format:

 • Crown Heights Tenant Union ‡

For a while (because I want to show the before/after) I've wanted to update that format to:

 • Crown Heights Tenant Union ‡ (old version)

Most articles in that format have been since my ban but one of them, Tri-Ess (old version is this one), is from before it - I want to make sure it would be ok to reformat that in that manner as well. Otherwise I'll wait a few months to reformat them all since non-standard formatting on my userpage would bug me.

Best, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

As long as you stay away from adding commentary that would go against your topic ban, I can’t imagine this being a problem. Courcelles (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I also don't see an issue if, as Courcelles says, you stay away from adding commentary that would violate your topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for the quick replies! I did assume it would be fine, I've just been wrong a few times before so wanted to double check for safety lol. Best, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree that blocking TheTranarchist was inappropriate. I would argue that there is no consensus for the topic ban, and I cannot see what kind of disruption this block was meant to prevent. This block feels more punitive than anything, and in my view, ScottishFinnishRadish has disrupted Wikipedia more in the last couple days than TheTranarchist ever has.  — Freoh 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boots theory

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boots theory you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boots theory

The article Boots theory you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Boots theory and Talk:Boots theory/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boots theory

The article Boots theory you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Boots theory for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of highest-grossing films based on television series on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)