User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/Archive/wiki-love

Thanks! (R.E.: Gloria Hemingway)

Thank you very much for having my back during the whole Gloria Hemingway debacle! I'm still relatively inexperienced in page editing, & I think a more experienced person like yourself has helped articulate my case in ways I couldn't! Logan Sheppard (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for having mine! I'm a newbie myself and only joined a month or so ago. The meta commentary and talk page discussions can often reveal individual biases but luckily Wikipedia's guidelines are overall fair and applying the right arguments and references often leads to the truth coming out. Also, fun life hack especially in cases like these, if someone is stonewalling and accuses you of breaking guidelines most often they're breaking the same ones! While writing all that to prove she was a trans woman was draining I'm glad to see it paying off. If you ever need help applying LGBT-related Wiki rules to an article just tag me! TheTranarchist (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

I decided to check up on the page again, & seeing that the page has been moved had me literally tearing up. I can't believe it. I thought this was an insurmountable battle, but it happened! Logan Sheppard (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads up regarding move reviews, you may want to read Wikipedia:Move review#Commenting in a move review, particularly "Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review." Anyway, it's out of our hands now. StAnselm (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was hoping you would read it. Everything you wrote in this edit is irrelevant to the move review. It is not meant to be a discussion about the article name, but only about whether the close accurately reflected the discussion. Personally, I think your responses are counter-productive to your argument. StAnselm (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I apologize, I wasn't aware that the discussion of past moves and consensus of an article was entirely irrelevant to a discussion on the validity of the current Move (which referenced past talk on the page) in an article. It's not as if the same (disproven) arguments were being used in the last move request as the current one or anything, or if the key point revolved around which policy applied. Thanks for responding to my extensive citations of relevant WP policy btw... It's really touching how you ignore all the guidelines and policies I posted which are extremely relevant to the review in favor of raising other issues. Personally, I find your dismissal of relevant policy and guidelines to be very counter-productive to your argument, but sure, me pointing out context was the issue.

Having indeed read what you sent:

"Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion. In particular, if you believe that a close should have been "not moved" instead of "no consensus" (or vice-versa), that is not a sufficient reason to begin a move review." The discussion was whether COMMONNAME trumped GENDERID. You made your repeated point that it should very clear, sadly WP policy and guidelines didn't back that. I also refer you to "Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page." If you have an issue with the MOS or naming conventions, this wasn't the place to raise it.

"Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within administrator discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal."

Spirit of WP policy is a good one (the spirit of respecting trans people hopefully shouldn't immediately dissipate on death because you want to misapply a technicality). Moreover, what I posted was an analysis of previous move requests. Since page name history is indeed considered in these cases, I fail to see how information regarding it was irrelevant.

"Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. "

I hardly see how past talk page discussion regarding moves is new information. Debate included past debate on page (especially since arguments have changed little since the last move request), applicable policy and guidelines is something I also provided. Pointing out the discussion has for the most part had two opposing viewpoints, policy vs guideline, and concerns have been raised throughout the page's history about respecting her identity is not unreasonable.

"Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion. "

Sources were indeed challenged to object to the original move (I believe taking other people's subjective opinions of whether her being trans was valid is indeed challenging sources). Naming conventions regarding trans people were also ignored for the purpose of this Move Review.

Building a little for fun: I'll highlight the relevance for you:

1) Not notable under Gloria/more notable under Gregory:

An argument still being used to oppose the move to Gloria.

2) We don't know her gender identification/she flip-flopped

An argument also still being used to oppose the move to Gloria, which also happens to be false (and relies on questioning the validity of her identity based on pathologizing frameworks, discounting her identification, tying respect for her identity to the extent of her transition, and blatantly disregarding the "latest" in "latest self-id")

3) Policy-trumps-guideline

This has been a prominent and become the central question in this discussion and has tied heavily into the history of the page. The other points hinge on assuming we should follow this one. The fact this policy and others say gender guidelines apply is conveniently ignored.

Now, lets look at your original premise for the Move Review:

"This was a non-admin close (albeit by an experienced editor) that did not seem at all to attempt to determine the consensus of the discussion."

The decision was split 50-50, what consensus are you referring to? The closer went into explicit detail about why the change was approved based on WP guidelines and noted the current state of consensus. In fact, looking at CONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." That is to say, WP:GENDERID doesn't stop applying just because you say so.

For funsies, from SUPERVOTE: "It should be noted that consensus discussions (including XfDs and RfCs) are not really polls. For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. ... A "non-prejudicial supervote" is when an XfD is closed either against the consensus in the discussion or where there is no clear consensus, though the closer has left a closing rationale that the close is an "editorial decision" and states what the actual consensus is (if there is one)." The moves were based on policy, the keeps were based on very selectively applying policy and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

"The close introduced a lot of new material (such as reference to BLP) that was not in the discussing, making this close a classic example of a supervote."

Except the relevant guidelines cited heavily linked back and forth with BLP, and the quote from BLP was only a slight variation of what was cited frequently. So, which part exactly was new material? The harms of deadnaming even in death (already raised on the talk page)? The various cited policies and guidelines used in the discussion? This seems like more an excuse to tick off "[Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion" than a solid argument.

"Finally, the close relies heavily on the dubious claim that MOS:GENDERID (a guideline) trumps WP:COMMONNAME (a policy). "

So incredibly dubious... It's not as if multiple people have pointed out the inherent flaw in assuming otherwise (completely nullifying MOS:GENDERID). Also not like someone provided extensive citations of WP policy stating look at specific guidelines when applicable and guidelines saying respect trans people.

In short, glass houses, stones. There was more cause for me to raise the history of the talk page and past move requests than there was for you to continue trying to challenge WP policy and guidelines regarding trans people's names. If you have continue to have sincere issues with the policies and guidelines, raise them in the appropriate locations. TheTranarchist (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

DYK for Boots theory

On 3 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boots theory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the "boots" theory, poverty is more expensive than being rich? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boots theory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Boots theory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your work expanding articles on trans topics, e.g. this and this. Hope you didn't mind my minor alterations to the former edit Endwise (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Not at all Endwise (talk · contribs), and thank you! Very proud to get my first barnstar!! TheTranarchist (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your work

I appreciate your works on trans topics. I'm trans too but I haven't really edited trans topics before, any recommendations on articles to improve? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 06:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Immanuelle! Thank you, that means a lot!! I also really like your works in general, Turkic creation myth was really interesting and I might end up helping you out more with things like that. In terms of which trans topics would be good to edit, I've been meaning to add my TODO list to my user page for a while so you were the welcome kick I needed! The to do list is on my main page so please feel free to check it out! TheTranarchist (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and good job

Good job on counterbalancing all the "gender critical" articles that have a disingenuous positive or euphemistic facade\presentation. I'd do the same or would help you out if I had the time and the skills.... –Daveout(talk) 21:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Often it can feel like editing into the void but it's nice to know my work is appreciated! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I don't think we've every interacted directly, but we've had some briefly overlapping edits on some pages related to trans topics and I've come to associate your username with responsible editing and some of the most level-headed discussion from anybody in the Wikipedia:GENSEX area. That ANI discussion is a bit of a farce and I think you handled it just about as well as possible - Don't let them get you down! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 05:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth Thank you!!! That really means a lot to me! I was worried when the whole ANI fiasco started but it warmed my heart that other editors stepped in to defend me and note how spurious the charges were. I'm especially glad since that ensured I could spend the evening relaxing and dancing with some friends and not doing damage control lol. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Cheers! just visiting to say: I guess round & rounder did indeed find out that the sword of ANI cuts both ways ^_^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Licks-rocks Thanks! That little piece of poetic justice indeed brought a smile to face, for a while at least. I appreciated your support and vote, particularly the statistical analysis btw! But I can't tell a lie, since my Mastodon is mostly meta-commentary on my editing and notifications/recaps of new articles, I'd hope when this is all over I'd still be able to post (definitely more tactfully) instead of not at all. I'd crafted a meme (which I sent to my friends who don't edit wikipedia to summarize the situation) I was dying to post there when the case closed: The Gru/presentation-board format with the panels, "I try to get TheTranarchist banned", "Editors defend her conduct and say my account is sus", "I get banned for sockpuppeting", "I get banned for sockpuppeting?" TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll need to accept that making posts about wikipedia relating to controversial topics is almost invariably a bad idea. I think you're going to need to make some sacrifices here to make it clear that you're serious about wikipedia, and it might be that posting about wikipedia elsewhere is one of them. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I just came by to say that I voted at the ANI discussion (of course, I am firmly against TBAN or some other sanctions), and to stress my support for you. I find it appalling that such a discussion was started in the first place, and with a sockpuppet as OP on top of that. I can't remember the last time when I saw such a situation, and I've been around here since 2010. It would be a serious understatement to call it a farce. There certainly is poetic justice to see that all of it backfired to the OP/suckpuppet... Anyway, according to what I saw so far, you really are a constructive and productive contributor, especially when it comes to the trans/gender-related articles, and I would hate to see any restrictions imposed on you, especially a TBAN. Regardless of the outcome there, try to stay positive and continue your great work here! — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sundostund Thank you!!! As ridiculous as it's been to see the various editors calling for a full-on TBAN (many unsurprisingly), it's been heart-warming how many people have spoken to my actual edits and work here! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Editing while trans

Hi! I'm a fan. As a trans woman, I love what you do, and it's a shame to see so many people assuming bad faith on your part. So many implications that LGBTQ sources and editors should be excluded from LGBTQ topics. In a discussion here, you say you try to stay limited to a few articles at a time. That makes sense. But what about a wider critique of wikipedia's policies and culture?

I've become somewhat of a wiki-skeptic or wiki-doomer since realizing this is a website that actively promotes hate groups by ensuring their URLs are towards the top of a google search. I'm not exaggerating. There is (weak) consensus that hate groups, no matter how vile, should have their URLs in the infobox or external links[1] [2]. The RfC couldn't even agree on banning hate sites outside of sharing official group URLs. The RfC makes it pretty clear they're talking about recruitment or propaganda sites for hate groups, but the consensus was still to keep the links. It makes arguing over other sources seem silly when we're on a site that actively helps search engine optimization for stormfront. (in my head: "Oh, you want to reference Abigail Shrier? Well shit, we're giving stormfront free press, so why not...")

That's just one example. I'm sure you're also aware of the deadnaming policy which results in an icon being deadnamed even though she's been on hormones since 1968 and out as a transgender woman since 1979. It clearly violates the spirit of WP:DEADNAME, but any attempt to change it would be spitting into the wind.

I tried to get involved in less-controversial topics in wikipedia, but ethical concerns still pop up in unexpected places. I can't tell you how many bunk real estate data companies I've removed as sources. The large Pharmacology and medicine pages tend to be well-sourced, but there's still plenty of dubious information on here that could be mistaken for health advice.

And that's just on the English wikipedia! We can also talk about the damage wikipedia is able to do to minority languages. Or the inadequate moderation in many of the smaller languages.

Despite all this, wikipedia rarely acknowledges that articles here can have impacts in the real world. BLP policies begin to address this, but that seems mainly tailored to US libel law. The controversial topics policy also begins to address this, but I think that's mainly to prevent talk pages from becoming shitshows, instead of actually reckoning with the fact that we are publishing in the real world. It's like most of wikipedia's core policies were written in the myspace/slashot era, and has only been tweaked at the edges since. Will wikipedia wait for something horrible to happen before something changes? Something like when facebook helped enable a genocide before we change policies here?

What do I propose? IDK! Over time, through essays and discussions, I think consensus could be built on at least re-evaluating what wikipedia's purpose is, and if it can be more responsible as one of the most read publications in the world. We should build solidarity with other marginalized groups on wikipedia, as well as all the radical centrists (lol) who dominate wikipedia's discourse.

I guess my main idea is a long term project to build consensus for making wikipedia a more responsible publication. Maybe these discussions already exist here. Or maybe anyone with these skeptical views inevitably rage quits after a while. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sativa Inflorescence Thank you so much!!!! Made me tear up a little when I saw your comment and how many things you were thinking about that I'd been musing too. Sorry it's taken me a minute to reply, as we know I've been distracted lately. Sadly I'm used to it, not the first and probably not last time "you're trans and can't be impartial" has been used against me or a source...

In terms of linking to far-right sites, I've given that a lot of thought too, and been generally at a loss for how to handle the situation. On the one hand, to my knowledge, Wikipedia links are no-follow and generally not referenced by search engines due to the potential for gaming, but I may be wrong on that. On the other, the concerns about making a link to them present on the WP article itself, presumably the first result, are valid. All in all, I think the problem is less Wikipedia's and more the hosting services that allow them to actually host their content there. Whether or not Wikipedia links to them, presumably they will be among the first results, and I have the feeling anyone who reads a Wikipedia article about a hate group and thinks "I should join them!" would probably have done the additional searching anyways necesssary to find their page anyways, while it serves as a warning to the more average reader who will, if they see that site again, remember it's the group's.

I hadn't been aware the Wendy Carlos article deadnames her, especially so prominently in the lead, but I'm sadly unsurprised. Given the last discussion was 2 years ago, I think there might actually be a pretty good case if we were to re-open it, to remove it entirely or at least remove it from the lead. The quickest argument would be to weigh the sources from before she publicly transitioned to see if she actually was especially notable under her deadname, and further contextualize it in the fact that she'd already been transitioning at that point and was forced to boymode at public events due to the hostile climate.

The problems on other language's Wikipedias are also something I've thought about, but I'm at a complete loss for what to do. One thought I've had is that with any luck as translation and grammar-checking software improves one will be able to view the other language versions of articles with good translations. As we saw with the Saudi case, better protections for editors and vetting for admins to prevent governmental infiltration are sorely needed. To be fair though, I'd be lying if I said I didn't assume the CIA/NSA already have psy-ops divisions doing work on here too, though at least the risk of state repression is not quite so huge. That being said, someone should probably check how many editors who report on US war crimes or CIA operations have mysteriously stopped editing...

I feel your pain about the wiki-skepticism and doomerism, but my two cents is given the number of far-right and anti-trans figures who've gotten mad about articles I've written, something seems to be working lol. Especially in regards to countering misinformation, since it's tireless and exhausting but stopping misinformation proliferating has tangible effects. Even the ANI fiasco just goes to show me that some will attack my editing on spurious grounds because they don't want me doing what I do here.

Bringing me to the next point, I 110% agree that Wikipedia has a huge problem with considering itself so wholly removed from the world. I think the "partisan" quote on my user page covers my thoughts on the topic well lol. It's ridiculous that editors insist that Wikipedia is not a part of the world or by its very nature an active shaper/curator of public knowledge. Instead they seem to think we live in an apolitical vacuum, where "politics" does not factor, failing to consider the very real ways misinformation and hate groups affect the world and the way Wikipedia writes about them affects it.

In short, I'd love to contribute to discussions/essays/consensus-building on making Wikipedia more socially responsible and grapple better with the real-world systemic oppression and organized hate! If everyone who wants to make WP better quits it'll screw up the encyclopedia more than staying to fight to make it better will in the long run, exhausting as it may be. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid the argument for removing Wendy's deadname from the article pre-transition cannot really be made under the current policy framework: she was simply too well-known and well-documented pre-transition. There are plenty of cases that are closer to the threshold, but I haven't seen any suggestion in the sources that she transitioned before 1968, and then she was a mega-star. Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial I'd thought Wendy was only marginally notable pre-transition, and a lot of the publicity of her work from then came only after she transitioned, either way a source review would probably help set the record straight for future reference TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think there is enough coverage from before "Switched-On Bach" that it doesn't make sense to lawyer exactly when in 1968 she privately transitioned - and I don't think we have any good sources to do that, anyway, though I could be wrong. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The LGBT Barnstar
		For your excellent working maintaining and improving the standards of a variety of LGBTQIA+ Topics. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 27 February 2023

Cdjp1 (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 Thank you!!! I cannot tell a lie, I'd been hoping to receive that one for a while lol TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Coming across the notification this afternoon, it looks like you may need to find new areas (should you wish to keep editing wikipedia) to work on for a while. If this is the case may I invite you to WikiProject Socialism, your quality of citations would be greatly appreciated in our efforts. Or, you may be interested more in helping WikiProject Anarchism, where there is also plenty of work finding, adding, and formatting citations. Hope for all the best for you. Cdjp1 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 however the case goes I'm certainly diversifying! I feel I ran out of time to work on Crown Heights Tenant Union like I'd planned for the Wikiproject Organized Labor edit-a-thon but I'll try and get it done in time. Thank you for the invitation - whatever happens, expect to see me more around Wikiprojects Socialism, Anarchism, and Organized Labor! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I am saddened to see you topic-banned; I hope you have fun with other topics, and wish to see you return to GENSEX in an appropriate amount of time.

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste Thank you! Kittens help cheer me up in the worst of times lol. I am planning to diversify my topics a little bit, but hey, looks like I might not be completely out of GENSEX yet! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes the bigots win.

Don't sweat the ban, the GENSEX area is long overdue for an ARBCOM case anyway, and when that comes you can always request an exemption from your topic ban to participate.

Note, I'm not calling all of those who voted in favour of the ban bigots, but the number of them who just wanted to remove you from the discussion to push their own right-wing POV is definitely non-zero. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:527:D713:5DC1:9F2A (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

My offer stands!

Behold! some cool rocks!

see you around in the geology topic space then, I guess? It's a shame you got topic banned, but then again, I bet you'll find the rest of wikipedia a lot less likely to crucify you over single sentences. 😁 Anyway... have some cool rocks to get you started! :P --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, if I don't manage to piss people off in the lefty projects somehow - It's generally hard to tell whether leftist or GENSEX (from what I've seen irl) bickering is worse lol. Thanks for the cool rocks!!! While I'm certainly no geologist, I have my own collection of cool rocks I've picked up over the years and I'm glad it's now extended to to digital realm! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't let the bastards grind you down

Sorry to hear about your topic ban. It's unjust and extremely frustrating that'd they'd topic ban a strong contributor to the topic area while transphobic POV-pushers go unchecked. Best of luck to you in whatever you plan to do next. Loki (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar Thank you, and when I saw your message while out tonight I grinned at the frankness about the double standards! And depressed and angry as I'd been about the TBAN, thinking of all the articles, most uncontroversial, I now couldn't contribute to at all (trying and failing to drive it out of my head for the night, with a lot of trying to drown it in queer punk), god it disappeared when I saw you'd gone ahead and broken down the votes and asked for the close review - couldn't wait to get home and thank you for it!!! I'd thought it was too late for anything, though since I always try and land on my feet I'd been already thinking of what my new topics were going to be: unions, policy brutality, stop cop city, and more, so I'll certainly be getting to those too whichever way this goes! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Stay strong!

Hi! I left my comment at the noticeboard discussion mentioned above. As you can imagine, I disagree with that admin closure, or TBAN against you that resulted from it. I really see that as a sort of injustice. We will see if that TBAN will stay in place... But if it does stay, please, take this seriously – whatever you do, don't even think about breaching the terms of TBAN, and stay far away from the GENSEX area; anything else would surely result in much more severe sanctions, including long-term blocks. I would hate to see a contributor like you removed from the project, so find some other interests and areas where you can contribute. I am sure there are some; I may recommend that you try at WP:ACW, and other topics involving Southern United States. Having in mind our previous exchange of opinions about neo-Confederates, I don't have to worry that you would try to insert trash terms like "War of Northern Aggression" into the American Civil War-related articles. So, you are "politically verified" to participate there in a constructive manner :) — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sundostund Thank you!!! And however this plays out, I will absolutely be careful with the TBAN if I receive one, I don't want to be blocked. As soon as I received it I stepped out of all ongoing GENSEX conversations I'd been taking part in and started making plans for what non-GENSEX articles I could write, even as I lamented the uncontroversial GENSEX plans I had (particularly overhauling LGBT rights in New York). Though, the other night, I did wonder if Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism counts as GENSEX, considering the local consensus was they are not an organization that opposes transgender rights and their campaigns related to trans rights don't belong in the lead lol. I'll certainly check out the WP:ACW project! Though, if I get into the topic area I'd probably be more focused on modern neo-confederates rather than the war itself. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Echoing what @Sundostund said. Please please abide by any restrictions you are under and also stop arguing against said restrictions. Even if you believe yourself innocent at this point, the best thing you can do for your continued ability to contribute and also for continued good will from the people who supported you is to take a step back and let tensions dissipate a little. Lizthegrey (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely crushed about the ban

I'm really bummed to hear about your topic ban. You brought a level of expertise to the articles that will be missed and I have no doubt that it will have a profoundly negative impact on article quality. There was clear identity based bias at play among some that advocated for your ban, but I fear others may not have been equipped to spot it. Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A puppy for you

Ppt91 has given you a puppy!

Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Three times a day is without treats, I should add. Not to even mention plays and walks. In other words, plenty of work to do here. ^{ps. I know it seems hard now, but keep your chin up and think about all of the good work you have done and will continue do in the future.} Ppt91^talk 23:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! (R.E.: Gloria Hemingway)

Thank you very much for having my back during the whole Gloria Hemingway debacle! I'm still relatively inexperienced in page editing, & I think a more experienced person like yourself has helped articulate my case in ways I couldn't! Logan Sheppard (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for having mine! I'm a newbie myself and only joined a month or so ago. The meta commentary and talk page discussions can often reveal individual biases but luckily Wikipedia's guidelines are overall fair and applying the right arguments and references often leads to the truth coming out. Also, fun life hack especially in cases like these, if someone is stonewalling and accuses you of breaking guidelines most often they're breaking the same ones! While writing all that to prove she was a trans woman was draining I'm glad to see it paying off. If you ever need help applying LGBT-related Wiki rules to an article just tag me! TheTranarchist (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

I decided to check up on the page again, & seeing that the page has been moved had me literally tearing up. I can't believe it. I thought this was an insurmountable battle, but it happened! Logan Sheppard (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads up regarding move reviews, you may want to read Wikipedia:Move review#Commenting in a move review, particularly "Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review." Anyway, it's out of our hands now. StAnselm (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was hoping you would read it. Everything you wrote in this edit is irrelevant to the move review. It is not meant to be a discussion about the article name, but only about whether the close accurately reflected the discussion. Personally, I think your responses are counter-productive to your argument. StAnselm (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I apologize, I wasn't aware that the discussion of past moves and consensus of an article was entirely irrelevant to a discussion on the validity of the current Move (which referenced past talk on the page) in an article. It's not as if the same (disproven) arguments were being used in the last move request as the current one or anything, or if the key point revolved around which policy applied. Thanks for responding to my extensive citations of relevant WP policy btw... It's really touching how you ignore all the guidelines and policies I posted which are extremely relevant to the review in favor of raising other issues. Personally, I find your dismissal of relevant policy and guidelines to be very counter-productive to your argument, but sure, me pointing out context was the issue.

Having indeed read what you sent:

"Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion. In particular, if you believe that a close should have been "not moved" instead of "no consensus" (or vice-versa), that is not a sufficient reason to begin a move review." The discussion was whether COMMONNAME trumped GENDERID. You made your repeated point that it should very clear, sadly WP policy and guidelines didn't back that. I also refer you to "Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page." If you have an issue with the MOS or naming conventions, this wasn't the place to raise it.

"Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within administrator discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal."

Spirit of WP policy is a good one (the spirit of respecting trans people hopefully shouldn't immediately dissipate on death because you want to misapply a technicality). Moreover, what I posted was an analysis of previous move requests. Since page name history is indeed considered in these cases, I fail to see how information regarding it was irrelevant.

"Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. "

I hardly see how past talk page discussion regarding moves is new information. Debate included past debate on page (especially since arguments have changed little since the last move request), applicable policy and guidelines is something I also provided. Pointing out the discussion has for the most part had two opposing viewpoints, policy vs guideline, and concerns have been raised throughout the page's history about respecting her identity is not unreasonable.

"Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion. "

Sources were indeed challenged to object to the original move (I believe taking other people's subjective opinions of whether her being trans was valid is indeed challenging sources). Naming conventions regarding trans people were also ignored for the purpose of this Move Review.

Building a little for fun: I'll highlight the relevance for you:

1) Not notable under Gloria/more notable under Gregory:

An argument still being used to oppose the move to Gloria.

2) We don't know her gender identification/she flip-flopped

An argument also still being used to oppose the move to Gloria, which also happens to be false (and relies on questioning the validity of her identity based on pathologizing frameworks, discounting her identification, tying respect for her identity to the extent of her transition, and blatantly disregarding the "latest" in "latest self-id")

3) Policy-trumps-guideline

This has been a prominent and become the central question in this discussion and has tied heavily into the history of the page. The other points hinge on assuming we should follow this one. The fact this policy and others say gender guidelines apply is conveniently ignored.

Now, lets look at your original premise for the Move Review:

"This was a non-admin close (albeit by an experienced editor) that did not seem at all to attempt to determine the consensus of the discussion."

The decision was split 50-50, what consensus are you referring to? The closer went into explicit detail about why the change was approved based on WP guidelines and noted the current state of consensus. In fact, looking at CONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." That is to say, WP:GENDERID doesn't stop applying just because you say so.

For funsies, from SUPERVOTE: "It should be noted that consensus discussions (including XfDs and RfCs) are not really polls. For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. ... A "non-prejudicial supervote" is when an XfD is closed either against the consensus in the discussion or where there is no clear consensus, though the closer has left a closing rationale that the close is an "editorial decision" and states what the actual consensus is (if there is one)." The moves were based on policy, the keeps were based on very selectively applying policy and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

"The close introduced a lot of new material (such as reference to BLP) that was not in the discussing, making this close a classic example of a supervote."

Except the relevant guidelines cited heavily linked back and forth with BLP, and the quote from BLP was only a slight variation of what was cited frequently. So, which part exactly was new material? The harms of deadnaming even in death (already raised on the talk page)? The various cited policies and guidelines used in the discussion? This seems like more an excuse to tick off "[Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion" than a solid argument.

"Finally, the close relies heavily on the dubious claim that MOS:GENDERID (a guideline) trumps WP:COMMONNAME (a policy). "

So incredibly dubious... It's not as if multiple people have pointed out the inherent flaw in assuming otherwise (completely nullifying MOS:GENDERID). Also not like someone provided extensive citations of WP policy stating look at specific guidelines when applicable and guidelines saying respect trans people.

In short, glass houses, stones. There was more cause for me to raise the history of the talk page and past move requests than there was for you to continue trying to challenge WP policy and guidelines regarding trans people's names. If you have continue to have sincere issues with the policies and guidelines, raise them in the appropriate locations. TheTranarchist (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

DYK for Boots theory

On 3 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boots theory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the "boots" theory, poverty is more expensive than being rich? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boots theory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Boots theory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your work expanding articles on trans topics, e.g. this and this. Hope you didn't mind my minor alterations to the former edit Endwise (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Not at all Endwise (talk · contribs), and thank you! Very proud to get my first barnstar!! TheTranarchist (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your work

I appreciate your works on trans topics. I'm trans too but I haven't really edited trans topics before, any recommendations on articles to improve? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 06:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Immanuelle! Thank you, that means a lot!! I also really like your works in general, Turkic creation myth was really interesting and I might end up helping you out more with things like that. In terms of which trans topics would be good to edit, I've been meaning to add my TODO list to my user page for a while so you were the welcome kick I needed! The to do list is on my main page so please feel free to check it out! TheTranarchist (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and good job

Good job on counterbalancing all the "gender critical" articles that have a disingenuous positive or euphemistic facade\presentation. I'd do the same or would help you out if I had the time and the skills.... –Daveout(talk) 21:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Often it can feel like editing into the void but it's nice to know my work is appreciated! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I don't think we've every interacted directly, but we've had some briefly overlapping edits on some pages related to trans topics and I've come to associate your username with responsible editing and some of the most level-headed discussion from anybody in the Wikipedia:GENSEX area. That ANI discussion is a bit of a farce and I think you handled it just about as well as possible - Don't let them get you down! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 05:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth Thank you!!! That really means a lot to me! I was worried when the whole ANI fiasco started but it warmed my heart that other editors stepped in to defend me and note how spurious the charges were. I'm especially glad since that ensured I could spend the evening relaxing and dancing with some friends and not doing damage control lol. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Cheers! just visiting to say: I guess round & rounder did indeed find out that the sword of ANI cuts both ways ^_^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Licks-rocks Thanks! That little piece of poetic justice indeed brought a smile to face, for a while at least. I appreciated your support and vote, particularly the statistical analysis btw! But I can't tell a lie, since my Mastodon is mostly meta-commentary on my editing and notifications/recaps of new articles, I'd hope when this is all over I'd still be able to post (definitely more tactfully) instead of not at all. I'd crafted a meme (which I sent to my friends who don't edit wikipedia to summarize the situation) I was dying to post there when the case closed: The Gru/presentation-board format with the panels, "I try to get TheTranarchist banned", "Editors defend her conduct and say my account is sus", "I get banned for sockpuppeting", "I get banned for sockpuppeting?" TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll need to accept that making posts about wikipedia relating to controversial topics is almost invariably a bad idea. I think you're going to need to make some sacrifices here to make it clear that you're serious about wikipedia, and it might be that posting about wikipedia elsewhere is one of them. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I just came by to say that I voted at the ANI discussion (of course, I am firmly against TBAN or some other sanctions), and to stress my support for you. I find it appalling that such a discussion was started in the first place, and with a sockpuppet as OP on top of that. I can't remember the last time when I saw such a situation, and I've been around here since 2010. It would be a serious understatement to call it a farce. There certainly is poetic justice to see that all of it backfired to the OP/suckpuppet... Anyway, according to what I saw so far, you really are a constructive and productive contributor, especially when it comes to the trans/gender-related articles, and I would hate to see any restrictions imposed on you, especially a TBAN. Regardless of the outcome there, try to stay positive and continue your great work here! — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sundostund Thank you!!! As ridiculous as it's been to see the various editors calling for a full-on TBAN (many unsurprisingly), it's been heart-warming how many people have spoken to my actual edits and work here! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Editing while trans

Hi! I'm a fan. As a trans woman, I love what you do, and it's a shame to see so many people assuming bad faith on your part. So many implications that LGBTQ sources and editors should be excluded from LGBTQ topics. In a discussion here, you say you try to stay limited to a few articles at a time. That makes sense. But what about a wider critique of wikipedia's policies and culture?

I've become somewhat of a wiki-skeptic or wiki-doomer since realizing this is a website that actively promotes hate groups by ensuring their URLs are towards the top of a google search. I'm not exaggerating. There is (weak) consensus that hate groups, no matter how vile, should have their URLs in the infobox or external links[1] [2]. The RfC couldn't even agree on banning hate sites outside of sharing official group URLs. The RfC makes it pretty clear they're talking about recruitment or propaganda sites for hate groups, but the consensus was still to keep the links. It makes arguing over other sources seem silly when we're on a site that actively helps search engine optimization for stormfront. (in my head: "Oh, you want to reference Abigail Shrier? Well shit, we're giving stormfront free press, so why not...")

That's just one example. I'm sure you're also aware of the deadnaming policy which results in an icon being deadnamed even though she's been on hormones since 1968 and out as a transgender woman since 1979. It clearly violates the spirit of WP:DEADNAME, but any attempt to change it would be spitting into the wind.

I tried to get involved in less-controversial topics in wikipedia, but ethical concerns still pop up in unexpected places. I can't tell you how many bunk real estate data companies I've removed as sources. The large Pharmacology and medicine pages tend to be well-sourced, but there's still plenty of dubious information on here that could be mistaken for health advice.

And that's just on the English wikipedia! We can also talk about the damage wikipedia is able to do to minority languages. Or the inadequate moderation in many of the smaller languages.

Despite all this, wikipedia rarely acknowledges that articles here can have impacts in the real world. BLP policies begin to address this, but that seems mainly tailored to US libel law. The controversial topics policy also begins to address this, but I think that's mainly to prevent talk pages from becoming shitshows, instead of actually reckoning with the fact that we are publishing in the real world. It's like most of wikipedia's core policies were written in the myspace/slashot era, and has only been tweaked at the edges since. Will wikipedia wait for something horrible to happen before something changes? Something like when facebook helped enable a genocide before we change policies here?

What do I propose? IDK! Over time, through essays and discussions, I think consensus could be built on at least re-evaluating what wikipedia's purpose is, and if it can be more responsible as one of the most read publications in the world. We should build solidarity with other marginalized groups on wikipedia, as well as all the radical centrists (lol) who dominate wikipedia's discourse.

I guess my main idea is a long term project to build consensus for making wikipedia a more responsible publication. Maybe these discussions already exist here. Or maybe anyone with these skeptical views inevitably rage quits after a while. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sativa Inflorescence Thank you so much!!!! Made me tear up a little when I saw your comment and how many things you were thinking about that I'd been musing too. Sorry it's taken me a minute to reply, as we know I've been distracted lately. Sadly I'm used to it, not the first and probably not last time "you're trans and can't be impartial" has been used against me or a source...

In terms of linking to far-right sites, I've given that a lot of thought too, and been generally at a loss for how to handle the situation. On the one hand, to my knowledge, Wikipedia links are no-follow and generally not referenced by search engines due to the potential for gaming, but I may be wrong on that. On the other, the concerns about making a link to them present on the WP article itself, presumably the first result, are valid. All in all, I think the problem is less Wikipedia's and more the hosting services that allow them to actually host their content there. Whether or not Wikipedia links to them, presumably they will be among the first results, and I have the feeling anyone who reads a Wikipedia article about a hate group and thinks "I should join them!" would probably have done the additional searching anyways necesssary to find their page anyways, while it serves as a warning to the more average reader who will, if they see that site again, remember it's the group's.

I hadn't been aware the Wendy Carlos article deadnames her, especially so prominently in the lead, but I'm sadly unsurprised. Given the last discussion was 2 years ago, I think there might actually be a pretty good case if we were to re-open it, to remove it entirely or at least remove it from the lead. The quickest argument would be to weigh the sources from before she publicly transitioned to see if she actually was especially notable under her deadname, and further contextualize it in the fact that she'd already been transitioning at that point and was forced to boymode at public events due to the hostile climate.

The problems on other language's Wikipedias are also something I've thought about, but I'm at a complete loss for what to do. One thought I've had is that with any luck as translation and grammar-checking software improves one will be able to view the other language versions of articles with good translations. As we saw with the Saudi case, better protections for editors and vetting for admins to prevent governmental infiltration are sorely needed. To be fair though, I'd be lying if I said I didn't assume the CIA/NSA already have psy-ops divisions doing work on here too, though at least the risk of state repression is not quite so huge. That being said, someone should probably check how many editors who report on US war crimes or CIA operations have mysteriously stopped editing...

I feel your pain about the wiki-skepticism and doomerism, but my two cents is given the number of far-right and anti-trans figures who've gotten mad about articles I've written, something seems to be working lol. Especially in regards to countering misinformation, since it's tireless and exhausting but stopping misinformation proliferating has tangible effects. Even the ANI fiasco just goes to show me that some will attack my editing on spurious grounds because they don't want me doing what I do here.

Bringing me to the next point, I 110% agree that Wikipedia has a huge problem with considering itself so wholly removed from the world. I think the "partisan" quote on my user page covers my thoughts on the topic well lol. It's ridiculous that editors insist that Wikipedia is not a part of the world or by its very nature an active shaper/curator of public knowledge. Instead they seem to think we live in an apolitical vacuum, where "politics" does not factor, failing to consider the very real ways misinformation and hate groups affect the world and the way Wikipedia writes about them affects it.

In short, I'd love to contribute to discussions/essays/consensus-building on making Wikipedia more socially responsible and grapple better with the real-world systemic oppression and organized hate! If everyone who wants to make WP better quits it'll screw up the encyclopedia more than staying to fight to make it better will in the long run, exhausting as it may be. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid the argument for removing Wendy's deadname from the article pre-transition cannot really be made under the current policy framework: she was simply too well-known and well-documented pre-transition. There are plenty of cases that are closer to the threshold, but I haven't seen any suggestion in the sources that she transitioned before 1968, and then she was a mega-star. Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial I'd thought Wendy was only marginally notable pre-transition, and a lot of the publicity of her work from then came only after she transitioned, either way a source review would probably help set the record straight for future reference TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think there is enough coverage from before "Switched-On Bach" that it doesn't make sense to lawyer exactly when in 1968 she privately transitioned - and I don't think we have any good sources to do that, anyway, though I could be wrong. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The LGBT Barnstar
		For your excellent working maintaining and improving the standards of a variety of LGBTQIA+ Topics. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 27 February 2023

Cdjp1 (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 Thank you!!! I cannot tell a lie, I'd been hoping to receive that one for a while lol TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Coming across the notification this afternoon, it looks like you may need to find new areas (should you wish to keep editing wikipedia) to work on for a while. If this is the case may I invite you to WikiProject Socialism, your quality of citations would be greatly appreciated in our efforts. Or, you may be interested more in helping WikiProject Anarchism, where there is also plenty of work finding, adding, and formatting citations. Hope for all the best for you. Cdjp1 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 however the case goes I'm certainly diversifying! I feel I ran out of time to work on Crown Heights Tenant Union like I'd planned for the Wikiproject Organized Labor edit-a-thon but I'll try and get it done in time. Thank you for the invitation - whatever happens, expect to see me more around Wikiprojects Socialism, Anarchism, and Organized Labor! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I am saddened to see you topic-banned; I hope you have fun with other topics, and wish to see you return to GENSEX in an appropriate amount of time.

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste Thank you! Kittens help cheer me up in the worst of times lol. I am planning to diversify my topics a little bit, but hey, looks like I might not be completely out of GENSEX yet! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes the bigots win.

Don't sweat the ban, the GENSEX area is long overdue for an ARBCOM case anyway, and when that comes you can always request an exemption from your topic ban to participate.

Note, I'm not calling all of those who voted in favour of the ban bigots, but the number of them who just wanted to remove you from the discussion to push their own right-wing POV is definitely non-zero. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:527:D713:5DC1:9F2A (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

My offer stands!

Behold! some cool rocks!

see you around in the geology topic space then, I guess? It's a shame you got topic banned, but then again, I bet you'll find the rest of wikipedia a lot less likely to crucify you over single sentences. 😁 Anyway... have some cool rocks to get you started! :P --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, if I don't manage to piss people off in the lefty projects somehow - It's generally hard to tell whether leftist or GENSEX (from what I've seen irl) bickering is worse lol. Thanks for the cool rocks!!! While I'm certainly no geologist, I have my own collection of cool rocks I've picked up over the years and I'm glad it's now extended to to digital realm! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't let the bastards grind you down

Sorry to hear about your topic ban. It's unjust and extremely frustrating that'd they'd topic ban a strong contributor to the topic area while transphobic POV-pushers go unchecked. Best of luck to you in whatever you plan to do next. Loki (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar Thank you, and when I saw your message while out tonight I grinned at the frankness about the double standards! And depressed and angry as I'd been about the TBAN, thinking of all the articles, most uncontroversial, I now couldn't contribute to at all (trying and failing to drive it out of my head for the night, with a lot of trying to drown it in queer punk), god it disappeared when I saw you'd gone ahead and broken down the votes and asked for the close review - couldn't wait to get home and thank you for it!!! I'd thought it was too late for anything, though since I always try and land on my feet I'd been already thinking of what my new topics were going to be: unions, policy brutality, stop cop city, and more, so I'll certainly be getting to those too whichever way this goes! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Stay strong!

Hi! I left my comment at the noticeboard discussion mentioned above. As you can imagine, I disagree with that admin closure, or TBAN against you that resulted from it. I really see that as a sort of injustice. We will see if that TBAN will stay in place... But if it does stay, please, take this seriously – whatever you do, don't even think about breaching the terms of TBAN, and stay far away from the GENSEX area; anything else would surely result in much more severe sanctions, including long-term blocks. I would hate to see a contributor like you removed from the project, so find some other interests and areas where you can contribute. I am sure there are some; I may recommend that you try at WP:ACW, and other topics involving Southern United States. Having in mind our previous exchange of opinions about neo-Confederates, I don't have to worry that you would try to insert trash terms like "War of Northern Aggression" into the American Civil War-related articles. So, you are "politically verified" to participate there in a constructive manner :) — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sundostund Thank you!!! And however this plays out, I will absolutely be careful with the TBAN if I receive one, I don't want to be blocked. As soon as I received it I stepped out of all ongoing GENSEX conversations I'd been taking part in and started making plans for what non-GENSEX articles I could write, even as I lamented the uncontroversial GENSEX plans I had (particularly overhauling LGBT rights in New York). Though, the other night, I did wonder if Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism counts as GENSEX, considering the local consensus was they are not an organization that opposes transgender rights and their campaigns related to trans rights don't belong in the lead lol. I'll certainly check out the WP:ACW project! Though, if I get into the topic area I'd probably be more focused on modern neo-confederates rather than the war itself. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Echoing what @Sundostund said. Please please abide by any restrictions you are under and also stop arguing against said restrictions. Even if you believe yourself innocent at this point, the best thing you can do for your continued ability to contribute and also for continued good will from the people who supported you is to take a step back and let tensions dissipate a little. Lizthegrey (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely crushed about the ban

I'm really bummed to hear about your topic ban. You brought a level of expertise to the articles that will be missed and I have no doubt that it will have a profoundly negative impact on article quality. There was clear identity based bias at play among some that advocated for your ban, but I fear others may not have been equipped to spot it. Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A puppy for you

Ppt91 has given you a puppy!

Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Three times a day is without treats, I should add. Not to even mention plays and walks. In other words, plenty of work to do here. ^{ps. I know it seems hard now, but keep your chin up and think about all of the good work you have done and will continue do in the future.} Ppt91^talk 23:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I am pretty sure this forward-marching kitty is singing a punk song, and I hope you are, too.

Beccaynr (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For your kind and helpful comments to new user Johnp99999. Love to see it. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You're amazing!

I noticed that you had added to the litigation and article on Tri-Ess which had to have been so taxing but was such necessary work, thank you! I then saw that you were litigated to hell and back on ANI - for that, I am sorry. It happened to me on my last account for reasons that I don't want to get into but that were very personal and it's not easy. If an issue is personal to you, you become non-objective, if you suggest there's bias on Wikipedia and someone is being a bad actor, you're the problem. I feel I have a better understanding of these social norms now, but the calls to civility as a marginalized person are not easy.

What I will say is that sometimes a ban from a topic could be a blessing in disguise - writing about hate groups and LGBT issues is super important but sometimes we all can need a vacation. I hope you can find joy in your chosen topic areas. Be well. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Purple Barnstar
		Nice job continuing to improve Wikipedia even after all of the recent attacks against you! You are a very productive contributor good at countering Wikipedia's systemic bias, and the campaign to drive you away is disappointing. I am looking forward to having you fully back after your ban expires!  — Freoh 10:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh Sorry it took me a while to get back to you, I was cranking out a final paper (whose thesis I can't mention) and trying to avoid the ANI case by avoiding Wikipedia, so I want to lyk that this brought a tear to my eye when I saw it and really meant a lot to me. Thank you <3 TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Wish you well

Hi TheTranarchist, we've not interacted before, but I suppose you wouldn't mind if I bothered you with a message of support as well. I've read your TBAN appeal and what you've gone and are still going through behind the scenes is awful beyond recognition. Just know that there are many Wikimedians who admire your ability and determination to stand strong in face of systemic injustices, both in the real world and on Wikipedia. Alas, it might be for the best outcome to wait out those 6 months, which I see are almost halfway over now. You did very well addressing the hate movements so far, spending the rest of the TBAN period by addressing social movements that seek to improve society in general, as you're already doing for tenant organizing, seems like a good topic to keep delving into until then. m:Wiki Loves EuroPride 2023 awaits your successful comeback in September! Happy to see you around until then, and wish you well. Cheers! –Vipz (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Aye to all of the above, and in the meantime, follow tewdar's advice. As far as I'm concerned, that includes closure appeals. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Vipz, @Licks-rocks Thank you!!! That's what it looks like, was hoping I'd walk out getting to write about some positive LGBTQ social movements as well this coming month but c'est la vie. I'd forgotten EuroPride was in September, thanks for reminding me, it cheers me up I won't have to miss Pride completely and gives me something concrete to look forward to! Until then I'll indeed be doing tenant organizing articles, might branch out a little more when I feel I'm getting tired of the new niche, feel free to come collaborate on them if either of you are ever interested! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll definitely keep an eye on your contributions ^.^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

An award for you

The Lavender Heart

The Lavender Heart is awarded to Wikipedians who endure anti-LGBTQ+ harassment in the course of their efforts improving the encyclopedia. While we may all do our best to laugh it off and not feed the trolls, it's important to recognize that words can cut deep, and to make sure that no one feels they're alone when they deal with bigotry and harassment. 💜 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime Thank you - That means a lot!!! ♥ I'd been considering putting some of the funnier harassment under my honorable mentions (Glinner cracked me up) but haven't wanted to risk my TBAN (unless some stalking admin descends from the heavens to say mentioning my off-wiki harassment for on-wiki editing on my userpage is fine, but being harassed for being born different and expressing the polar political position such harassment is a bad thing is a GENSEX issue so I'm not hopeful...). It's really nice to know I'm not alone and felt good that many in the community, both as in editors generally and queer editors, saw the harassment I received and were empathetic. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Others gave helpful advice, I just want to say I caught up on the ANI threads and want to say I’m sorry for all the harassment you’ve endured and that I appreciate your contributions/presence in improving queer coverage on Wikipedia. I’ve been around here for 7 years and frequently took long/short breaks in between and would recommend it for you, especially when you’re editing in tenacious areas. Wikipedia is enjoyable, but it should as Tamzin similarly stated not at the expense of your health. Cheers! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Thank you! The irony I would suppose is I did just take an ~1.5 week long wiki-break, got the stress out of my system, and had just returned and was getting my groove back with fixing up non-controversial articles like Boots theory and trying to move forward... The final Pratchett quote on my userpage pretty accurately sums up how I've been feeling these last few months and now especially these past two days.

Btw, seeing your userpage and interests, I'd really appreciate your thoughts/help on Urban Homesteading Assistance Board and Crown Heights Tenant Union when you get a chance! I'm planning to take the former to GA after Boots theory. Might be a minute before I can get back to you on them though lol. I liked this interview you did, we have very similar philoshophies wrt how advertising has no place on the Enclyopedia, but reliable secondary information can be useful and positively impact the world! Also, I agree we need more images of trade unions lol, I've done a little to help :p And if you ever want some help or a second set of eyes on any union-related articles, feel free to give me a ping! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)