User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

question about usernames

hiyaa. i noticed you and some other people emphasizing that your wikipedia username should really be something you dont use anywhere else. how important is that... from a scale of, "oh it probably is okay" to "get ready for some revision deletion requests and removing sigs" pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 13:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pauliesnug Shortest answer, it depends lol. Longer answer:

• A big part depends on the threat level: What are you editing/who is likely to target you for it? In my case, I've angered many hate groups, some affiliated with neo-nazis, proud boys, etc - so for me keeping my identity private is hella important. Reviewing your contribs, you have kept out of the more dangerous topics for the most part, but your threat level would change depending on what you edited.
• There are many users who edit with their full identity out, and many who don't, so it really varies. Anecdotally, trans editors are more likely to get targeted when they do.
• If your username is not tied to your personal identity (real name, workplace, photos, etc) in another place, it's less dangerous. If your online footprint is siloed from your IRL identity, all they can get is other social media accounts of yours and etc. Conversely, if your IRL identity is tied to other online accounts with the same name, you should operate on the assumption that anyone who wants to find your identity can.
• If you do decide to change your username for safety, there are a few considerations
  • collateral damage - don't pick a username others use. My original username, "TheTranarchist", did at one point cause others to believe I was some white lady a decade older than me with a similar (not even same iirc) username on Twitter. While this was, ngl, kinda funny - I did worry about her being targeted by people angry at me
  • Wrt "get ready for some revision deletion requests and removing sigs" - at this point you'd be better off just making a clean start account and abandoning this one. There are too many places your sigs been used to really remove them all. I'm not sure admins would grant your request to revdel all of them because it'd be heavily impractical.

I hope this was helpful, and please lmk if you've got any follow up questions! I'm pinging in @Tamzin to see if they can offer any more insights. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

interesting...

• you do awesome work here, forgot to mention!!
• its pretty obvious i trans my gender, especially if anyone bothers to look at my userpage. i haven't had any trouble so far, but i'm definitely not some prolific editor haha
• don't have fully identity out, really the only connection is the username
• i've been very very cautious about opsec, this username has no connection to anything irl other than the city of zurich. but nothing is perfect and i'm 100% sure i missed *something*, so i'm still reasonably worried, especially after all the warnings i've ignored. the only person who uses this username is me as far as i know.
• i have a couple burner usernames prepped already, but yeah. i would probably just ask for deletion if its really serious. i'd like to say i'm capable of handling it if anything were to happen, but people on the internet can be scary scary. if there is a problem, starting fresh is always an option.
• im happy for any more advice though, you've been here a lot longer than i have fighting the good fight.

stay safe, as always. here if you need anything too - pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 22:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My main piece of advice to people is, if you don't want to be outed, say literally nothing about yourself as a person, not even basic demographic information. You'd be surprised how a few non-identifying of facts (say, gender, approximate age, country of residence, and field of work), when combined, can narrow you down dramatically. Consider, if you say three things about yourself that are true of only one in a thousand people, then, assuming independent probabilities, you've narrowed yourself down to eight people on Earth.

Another important thing to understand, if your privacy plan involves getting any information removed that is already out there, that isn't privacy. Assume that anything anyone finds will be known forever by the worst people you can imagine. Oversight is a mirage that only exists to protect the WMF from liability (a noble goal, for sure, but not what most people think it's for). Assume every diff is backed up by a bad actor the moment the edit saves. An account that's been outed once is perpetually still outed, just with a bit more obfuscation; someone who is outed and isn't comfortable with that fact should burn it down and walk away.

Or do what I did when I was 16, and decide it was easier to not have to worry about privacy. (N.B.: Don't do this if you are in fact currently a minor. But in this case grown-up-me agrees with minor-me's decision.) Granted, I come from a funny background, where for as long as I remember I haven't been an entirely private figure (The New Republic. June 2, 1997. Front cover, top row. Kelly, Michael (January 19, 1999). "Back to You, Tom".) So maybe it was easier for me to accept onymity. And being familiar with journalists' research techniques taught me that, once my name was known, I should assume everything else about me was known too. I'm grateful to have been spared any false expectations of privacy that way. I've seen a lot of good people on this site burn out because they thought they were anonymous. It's easier when you know you aren't.

While this was, ngl, kinda funny - I did worry about her being targeted by people angry at me ← The only consequence I regret, from being open about my identity, is one time that somebody was harassed by someone who mistook them for me. Otherwise I regret nothing. I've been doxxed, threatened, and discussed on horrible websites, and I regret none of that. The doxx were never secret to begin with, and the threats and shit-talk are just people's inner monologues made visible. If not for potential effects on some others, I'd put my home address on my userpage, seriously. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, was sued by a purported billionaire over Wikipedia editing; there were a fair number of editors involved, but I was the one who was served, as for various reasons I choose not to hide my identity here. While the suit was eventually pulled without any concession, there was a fair amount of stress involved. I do not ultimately regret my publicness, but there was a real cost. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly not denying that there's a cost, @NatGertler. Just because I say I don't regret my choice doesn't mean that getting death threats from people who know my address has been pleasant, although all things considered that probably caused less stress than a lawsuit would have. (I'm glad to hear the suit worked out in the end. :)) But no, my point is more, better the devil you know. Different people are wired different on this, but for me, I'd far rather have a decent sense of what the threats are in a situation, than do something that may reduce the magnitude of threats overall but also makes it much harder to see them coming. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

sorry for the late response-- this is a bit concerning for us lol, if we were to start from scratch, is there anything important to focus on or a specific process? not extended confirmed, so i guess i dont have to worry about that. im not too worried, and probably won't opt for the not worrying about privacy yet. not sure. thank you for the advice though, it's been really invaluable. pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Transgender health care misinformation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Transgender health care misinformation 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 LoomCreek -- LoomCreek (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, the article has since been approved as a GA.

(I started my review far before i added the template.)

Congrats :) - LoomCreek (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Transgender health care misinformation

The article Transgender health care misinformation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Transgender health care misinformation for comments about the article, and Talk:Transgender health care misinformation/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LoomCreek -- LoomCreek (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

congratulations

I just wanted to put a message congratulating you on the creation and GA status of transgender health care misinformation. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wow, congratulations. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Bluerasberry @LunaHasArrived Thank you! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  belated congratulations, amazing article. good resource! pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 22:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Trade unions

I know this is only a small aspect of what you do and your interest is mostly NYC focused but if there's any chance you'd be interested in improving Seafarers' International Union of Canada, I'd appreciate it. At the very least, the super promotional tone needs to go. I'm hesitant to touch it because I'm a part of the union. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clovermoss, I saw this on a train a while ago and didn't have time to respond then. I did however have time to do a quick lit review and think there's enough to rewrite the article, though it'd end up significantly trimmed. I'll try and get round to it in February, shouldn't be too much work, only ~80 sources in google scholar (at most ~40 are usable) and ~20 sources in google news. Thanks for reaching out and hope you're doing well! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I've kinda been meh lately (I feel like I have a case of cabin fever, especially since my new career is on hold until April because seasons). If the weather wasn't so bad lately, I'd be out hiking. Anyways, thank you for being willing to look into this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Andrew Jackson 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 21:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

That [1] was an appalling BLP violation. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page[2]. Please explain there how its a BLPVio instead of leaving unfounded accusations on my talk page. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Your edit was plainly a smear that Dr Cass is connected with the far right. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

1) No need to reply twice.[3][4] 2) The RS said what it said. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

please don't wp:hound other users with poorly substanciated claims as it's unproductive and could come off as harassing Bejakyo (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sweet6970, one of the sources used here (Them) is owned by Conde Nast, which owns some pretty reputable sources (e.g. Pitchfork, Wired, and Vogue). — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 18:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It's probably better to put this on the Talk:Cass_Review#Far_Right Bejakyo (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine 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, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks

for engaging with Roxy on their talk page the way you are. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem, happy to lend a hand and help discuss things! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. You made some good points. For example, I wasn't aware of women with no chromosomal abnormalities, but high levels of testosterone being excluded from sports. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

quick question about your RfC

Hi, I asked at the RfC, but you haven't responded, so I'm following up. What is the purpose of this RfC? A couple of other editors have indicated that one purpose is to deprecate SEGM as a source. Is that correct? If so, I suggest that you make that clear directly under the RfC question and also advertise the RfC at the RSN. Are there any other purposes for the RfC? That is, the SEGM article already says that it's a fringe organization, so your goal clearly isn't to add this characterization to the SEGM article itself, and I'm trying to get a handle on how you anticipate consensus affecting content in other articles. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion My sincere apologies for keeping you waiting, I kept making mental notes to get back to you as it's a good question but it's been a busy few days.

What is the purpose of this RfC? - I hadn't originally intended an RFC, I reformatted it as one when people started voting and Bluethricecreamman suggested it - my original comment to RSN started: For the past few years, about once a month somebody tries to argue that the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine isn't WP:FRINGE and won't drop the stick. I'd like outside input here and a centralized FTN thread to point to. - The discussion is currently 23 - 6 that it's FRINGE and of the 6, apart from Chess (and BlueBellTree who seems more concerned with targeting WPATH than defending SEGM), all have tendentiously argued across multiple talk pages even since that RSN that SEGM isn't that FRINGE, that their members should be cited in wiki articles, etc.

• That is, the SEGM article already says that it's a fringe organization, so your goal clearly isn't to add this characterization to the SEGM article itself - those editors have been trying to argue that SEGM (and/or conversion therapy group Genspect) should be rewritten to be nicer to them and not say they're FRINGE. So you're right I'm not trying to characterize them as FRINGE in the article, I'm trying to have a discussion with larger input we can point to (and avoid time wasting) and let them get arguments like "but this opinion piece is nice to them" or "look at this primary source they wrote" or even (my favorite) "Gordon Guyatt [who has criticized SEGM's low value on teenagers bodily autonomy and their claims they don't have a position and are neutral when they clearly oppose GAC[5]] accepted funding from them" out of their system.
• I also think this issue could be better dealt with by admins just banning conversion therapy advocates/defenders so they don't waste our time and drive away LGBT editors instead of judging them based only on superficial civility, but that's a bit more difficult lol.

A couple of other editors have indicated that one purpose is to deprecate SEGM as a source. Is that correct? - we already do for the most part per the RSN discussion finding It is fairly clear from this discussion that this advocacy organisation is not reliable for facts about transgender topics (including medical topics), or such is the consensus here[6] An issue with that is there's a bit of difference in scope between the remits of RSN and FTN - while most editors there said "it's not reliable because it's FRINGE", others said "it's not reliable because it's an advocacy group / SPS" - an RS can promote a fringe view (WP:NFRINGE) and an unreliable/less reliable source can be saying completely mainstream things (and even be used to counter FRINGE per WP:PARITY) - so RSN is not the venue to discuss whether the organization's views/advocacy are FRINGE as that's a separate (though very linked) question than whether it's a reliable source.

I'm trying to get a handle on how you anticipate consensus affecting content in other articles - largely, to avoid re-litigating "is SEGM FRINGE" across every article people try and claim they're reliable on. They've never been successful, but that hasn't stopped them trying/wasting people's time. So, this shouldn't effect other article's content so much as make it easier to sidestep tendentious edit-warring/CPOVPUSHING when it comes up.

If I could go back in time, I'd probably rewrite the question Is the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine a WP:FRINGE organization? as Is the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine a WP:FRINGE organization (ie an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints and whose members promote FRINGE viewpoints)? - but I think people broadly understood that's what FRINGE meant in this context. As it stands, I'd be be extremely reticent to modify the RFC's original question at this point as ~30 editors have already commented / discussed it to death.

I hope this clarifies things! And I've quite appreciated your insights across the various RFCs. My best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I agree that it doesn't make sense to rewrite the question after so many people have responded, but I think it would be fine to post a clarification directly under the RfC question (after your initial signature) along the lines of "by 'WP:FRINGE organization,' I mean an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints and whose members promote FRINGE viewpoints." FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

For your efforts :)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I am amazed by your patience and precision at WP:FTN, in spite of the matter at hand proving (unfortunately, but rather expectedly) tricky. A lot of the discussion keeps being derailed in every possible direction, but seeing you consistently navigate this mess while expertly wielding policy and RS is genuinely impressing. Great work! Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 23:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

GET Table

Just a couple of notes about your table.

For Panazzo & Jenkins it still says "example text" in the notes.

Also with regards to the UKCP, their statement came out at roughly the same time as their settlement with James Esses where they made this very similar statement. I'm not certain if this is anything (I didn't initially realise that there was 2 seperate statements) but thought the information might be useful. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip 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 23:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 13:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Transgender health care misinformation

Transgender health care misinformation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Launchballer 11:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Re: Transgender health care misinformation

I haven’t really been keeping a close eye on the reassessment page for two reasons (one being that’s a lot to read and the other being that I want to remain unbiased if i take it on as a review). However if it ends up needing another review, I’m more than happy to do so. I feel somewhat “uniquely” qualified to do so as a medical editor who also does a lot of GAN reviews (those two don’t overlap as much). If it comes to this, feel free to tag me or leave a message on my talkpage to get my attention as I wouldn’t be shocked if someone takes the nomination with the intent of failing it. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Transgender health care misinformation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Transgender health care misinformation 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 IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Transgender health care misinformation

The article Transgender health care misinformation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Transgender health care misinformation for comments about the article, and Talk:Transgender health care misinformation/GA3 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Debriefing and a thank you

@Aaron Liu and Lewisguile: I just wanted to debrief for a bit after that review. Tagging aaron and lewis since they also helped a lot with this review. This was my first time dealing with GENSEX and what a introduction to the area. I feel that everyone (including those who I didn't ping but also contributed) conducted themselves very respectfully at the GAN review. Thank you guys and gals for helping me out so much with that review as I went into it with embarrassing little information (embarrassing as I am trans myself and should really know about this kind of stuff). Thanks for answering all my newbie questions and helping me come to a balanced conclusion. I know this review was probably rough on everyone involved. I promise I am not always that hard of a reviewer lol. As always, I would like to extend an offer of any guidance you may need with GAN or FAC reviews as I enjoy doing them and can help navigate MEDRS stuff (although all of you seem well versed in MEDRS as it is). I hope to see you all around Wikipedia and wish you the best in your future editing! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

You're more than welcome! Your review didn't feel overly hard—it just felt thorough. WP:GENSEX tends to be more fraught than other issues on here (even WP:PIA, in my view), but I appreciated how you kept your cool and waded through the vast volumes of text. But I'm pleased we could bring the article up to scratch. Lewisguile (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense Thank you! And I'll second your review didn't feel hard, just thorough, and I appreciated how responsive you were! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if there are further issues with the page, which avenue would that be explored in? I do not feel GA reassessment is an appropriate avenue for these types of discussions but I would like to familiarize myself with what the procedure would be here so if need be I can contribute. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably talk page and policy-specific noticeboards like RSN. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't hard at all! It seems normal. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar and a thanks

		The LGBTQ Barnstar
		For you patience and your persistence to provide high quality verifiable and NPOV articles on queer and particularly trans topics. Thank you very much and hope to take a page out your book Bejakyo (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I also wanted to say thank you more broadly. Prior to the misinfo article, I made a deliberate effort to avoid editing articles on trans topics due to wanting to avoid the predictable conflict and pushback that is produced in response to providing contributions. While it was only minor stuff I altered, I wanted o thank you for being something of an wikinspiration too. If you ever need someone to give an article the once over feel free to let me know Bejakyo (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!! That makes me very happy to hear :)

I like to think the editing environment in GENSEX has gotten better in recent years, but that doesn't mean it's great lol. On the bright side, that article was somewhat diving into the deep end of the pool so other trans-related articles should be on average less contentious!

I always want to say I deeply appreciate your work documenting the labor movement! I'd likewise be happy to help with Draft:Housing in Vienna and I've been procrastinating some articles on NYC tenant organizing so I'll probably ping you for help with when I get round to them! And standing disclaimer I have never published an article without typos so once-overs are always appreciated on my writing lol Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Damn GENSEX must have been fun before if it's better in recent years haha. In all seriousness though it's good to hear that it seems to be trending better and that others are normally calmer

Thank you! I've gotten a bit side tracked recently reading on the General Jewish Labour Bund (though I suppose that's still labour movement!) and distracted from that as well. Any suggestions or contributions for Draft:Housing in Vienna do absolutely feel free. I've gotten a bit roadblocked with what to do with it while also not really being done with it either.

Definatly feel free to let me know when you do as I'd be intrested to see that. Something that might be of use to you for historical stuff in NYC is: . I found it while researching about Vienna housing history. I've not read the US chapter myself, but hopefully is less dry than the Vienna written by Banik-Schweitzer, as the US stuff is written by Daunton themselves. There's also a fair bit of NYC resources that others have added on the Project Housing and Tenant Rights § Resources section that might be useful, though I imagine most were already taken from the NY housing taskforce stuff.

I'm not great with SPAG stuff myself—lots of stuff I publish has spag errors, so I might not be the best on that front—but I'm good at seeing if an article is idiot-proof haha. I look forward to any future stuff we work on! Bejakyo (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Housing rights activists from Los Angeles has been nominated for splitting

Category:Housing rights activists from Los Angeles has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 02:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)