User talk:Licks-rocks

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2021/July; 2021/October; 2021/December; 2022/January; 2022/May; 2022/November; 2023/January; 2023; 2024;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is Licks-rocks's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Raladic (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least it's not an ARBPIA case. Anyway, Welcome back @Raladic, regardless of context, I am glad to see you here again. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

Hey, thank you very much for closing the discussion about EMHRM. However, I don’t think non-admin closure is appropriate for this discussion, as it is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial. On content, while I disagree with the weighting of arguments (which is not very surprising), I‘m mostly concerned about how you a) weighted arguments made by banned editors, and those implicitly or explicitly relying on them, and b) the specifics of their I/P coverage, which was discussed in depth but only addressed briefly in the closure. Would you consider vacating your close? FortunateSons (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I see you have already done so. I‘m not sure if actually let me put this one back in the oven for a moment means that you plan to re-close it yourself. If not, feel free to disregard this :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons I was thinking about it but I don't think I will, because I came to very similar conclusions that you did, specifically with regard to the sockpuppet issue mentioned at CR (which I unfortunately only noticed when I went to mark it as done), but also because I argued myself out of the conclusion I posted the microsecond I hit send. If I were to reattempt I think I would close as GUNREL now. Anyway feel free to deploy a reasonably sized trout in my general direction, because that was definitely a screw-up on my part. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Licks-rocks, that stuff can happen, don’t worry about it; thank you very much! :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NACing something no admin dared to touch for 2 months FortunateSons (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to my barnstar box as a reminder to stay humble! --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I feel bad :/ FortunateSons (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender healthcare and people arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 11, 2025 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking through the case and I am honestly a bit lost on why I am listed as a party? I am, as far as I can tell, not particularly involved in most of the bigger discussions listed and have only been mentioned by preliminary statements in the sense that I should probably be removed from the list. @SilverLocust could you maybe give me some context on what my expected role is? This is my first Arbcom case, so I must admit to being a bit confused. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Licks-rocks. In reviewing the prior dispute resolution links, the drafting arbitrators thought you had sufficient involvement in Wikipedia:No queerphobia and the essay's deletion discussion and in some other discussions to be included as a party.

If there is anything that you think the Arbitration Committee should do to address disruption with regard to this topic, then this is an opportunity for you to present evidence to justify that, or to make proposals in the workshop page for what should be done based on any evidence. (The Committee doesn't go looking for evidence on its own.)

Provided that nobody submits evidence that you engaged in misconduct, you can participate as little as you want without any negative consequence (and the only difference will be that you are permitted to submit twice as much of evidence as a non-party without first seeking an extension). In contrast, parties accused of misconduct are expected to participate at least to address their own conduct.

Let me know if that leaves you with remaining questions. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 01:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that! Thank you for the explanation, I'll be on a vacation soon (next week, in fact), but I'll see what I can do in the meantime. ^_^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]