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)

References

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)

Hello!

Hi, YFNS! How have you been lately? I suppose you can't be perfect, having in mind the recent developments regarding the trans rights at the federal level in the US... I hope you are fine, and that your GENSEX-related work here is going on smoothly, without much drama that happened in the past; I haven't really looked much at that topic, as my attention here is mostly focused elsewhere. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Sundostund! Relatively fine all things considered except the rise of fascism here lol. Must confess that as terrifying as the prospect of Trump winning was and all the things I worried would happen, I still wasn't prepared for the onslaught to be this fast. Slightly fucked as I procrastinated updating my passport (haven't had money to travel so was my lowest priority documentation change) - hoping his order gets blocked at least temporarily so I can get it fixed. Been doing more community organizing and rededicating myself to writing (quite proud of transgender health care misinformation). Vaguely reassured by the fact that NYC will likely remain the trans mecca for the time being and be the last to fall.

I don't think it's coincidental that shortly after the election, me and some friends were trans-bashed by MAGA chucklefucks in the village and shortly after the results were called I was attacked again by a different guy. I'm hearing about more bashings per month than I used to hear about a year these days... Haven't seen a single news article on the uptick of violence, focused as they are on the legislation itself, but it's palpable in the community.

My GENSEX work is going relatively smoothly, like molasses (check out the talk page for the misinfo article if you want a headache). I'm luckily staying out of trouble except to end it.[7] Got mentioned in this article lately which warmed my heart.[8] Still, it continues to be a shame that anti-trans and pro-conversion therapy POV pushing gets a pass on WP as long as it's "civil".

Appreciate you checking in, and hope you've been doing well! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for asking, I have been doing just great. As for your situation – in all honesty, your description of events is, pretty much, exactly as I expected them to be. Having in mind the new administration's policies and executive orders regarding the trans rights, it would be a miracle if its any different. I am sorry to hear about your passport issues, and I agree with your assessment of the situation in NYC; living in such an environment, you and other trans people will surely have a much easier situation that those who are living away from NYC and other large urban centers. At least you aren't living anymore in that small town in upstate New York. Imagine how that would look like now...

Its interesting that I'm going through my own "version of transitioning" (if it can be called that way) as I adopted they as alternative pronoun, at least here on WP; maybe my motivation to do that was what is currently happening in the US, beside some of my underlying issues. Who knows...

I'm very glad to hear that your GENSEX work is going smoothly. Keep up the great work, and keep staying away from trouble; its great to hear that now you are not just staying away from it, but help to end it when it occurs. And, of course – thumbs up for being mentioned in that article! You surely deserve it, having in mind your work here. As for anti-trans and pro-conversion POV pushing being tolerated if it's "civil", I'm not surprized by that in the least; hopefully it will be root out in the future, along with other kinds of extremism that aren't tolerated anymore around here.

As for GENSEX topics, I wanted to ask for your help regarding what we discussed here, some time ago. Being much more versed in this area of work than me, you will far better know how to incorporate mentioning of her activisim in her article (by possibly adding a section?), backed up by sources that could be considered relevant, especially since its an article falling under the BLP rules.

Its been a pleasure to hear from you, as always! In the end – whatever happens, stay strong both here and in real life. Cheers! — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

WP NYC resists

You might want to have a look at The good, the bad, and the unusual in this week's Signpost, regarding "how New York-based Wikipedians are holding up under the recent onslaught of attacks from several right-wing sources against the encyclopedia and its contributors". Mathglot (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot I saw! It was a fun read. Haven't had the chance to go to a wikiNYC function in a while, hoping to sometime again.

Hope you're doing well! Sorry I never got a chance to reply to your email btw, life got a little crazy and most of the time I had for wp ended up being spent at FTN and on the GAR/GA3 trans health care misinformation recently lol. Really appreciated it and did get a chance to start working on the article before getting distracted luckily! It's a local draft on my machine, I'll dust it off and polish before pinging you for help with the draft! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

"Disease Biology, Genetics, and Socioecology"

In the Cass Review article you removed the addition of a paper from the journal Disease Biology, Genetics, and Socioecology. Just here to point out some stuff if you hadn't found it already, journal is only a couple years old, published by Scilight Press who seem to have been set up in 2022, and they announce a new journal they've set up every two to three months on average since then. Then, looking at the images the make for their journals in their announcements, seems they're fans of using "AI" tools to make images. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Housing rights activists from Indianapolis has been nominated for splitting

Category:Housing rights activists from Indianapolis 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 00:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't advocate for child abuse on my talk page

Your recent edit on my talk page pushing for the abuse of children is gross and horrid. Don't do it again. Ergzay (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ergzay God ur bigotry and transphobia is laughable. Leaving this message to show my support against bigoted attacks like yours. LoomCreek (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This was reverted as a personal attack[9], but I'm putting it back up since it should probably go above the apology for context. And for future readers interested what this is all about, see the ANI thread.[10] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

happy tdov

(well, still tdov in my time zone at least!) and thank you for bringing that editor to ANI. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Apology for my previous comments

I'm sorry for my previous comments I made on your talk page. They were made in a fit of anger over recent content I'd watched interviewing the father recounting his life's story and distress. After a night's sleep I've calmed down some. What I said was out of line and completely inappropriate for Wikipedia discussion. For reference in case you see the other comments, I've made this same comment on three different talk pages. Ergzay (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Housing rights activists from New Orleans has been nominated for merging

Category:Housing rights activists from New Orleans has been nominated for merging. 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. Lost in Quebec (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Accidental double vote

It seems you accidently voted twice on the noticeboard. Thought i'd notify you so you can strike one off Bejakyo (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Politics

Your edit summary at Talk:Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle was entirely correct but it was probably impolitic to be quite so stridently correct. Somebody looking to cause you trouble could try to leverage that against you. I find it best to yell things like that at the screen and then type something a little more filtered into the box itself. Yeah, I know it's not easy and I know that I've been successfully goaded in the past. Anyway, I've given that idiotic troll IP an only warning template. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I did in fact take a minute to wonder if the "fuck right off" was a little too much, and perhaps could be used against me at some point in future, but then I double checked and the IP had in fact said Whose psychopath woke mommy like you all grooming trannies is brainwashing so I thought it was comparably very tame and even the most dedicated anti-trans povpushers would struggle to make me look bad with that one lol. Though, I must confess, it would be very funny to watch one go to ANI with the complaint "YFNS told somebody who said grooming trannies to fuck off"! [11][12][13] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Pull back

I'm saying this as a friend, you're not winning any points on ANI at this point. If you keep going, you're probably going to lose them. Pull back. Snokalok (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's been giving me a headache anyways. Tbh, the discussion should probably have been snowclosed by now but ofc, the unwritten rule of ANI has always been to leave trans-related discussions up for far longer than necessary or helpful. Closely tied to the unwritten rule that trans editors/admins can !vote but can't close because "bias". Depressing, but not surprising, that when it comes to trans people - no matter how bigoted an editor acts - you will always find people coming to their defense to argue the solution is just "don't allow them to talk about trans people", a standard applied to nobody else. C'est la vie...

At some point, I want to compile all past trans-related ANI threads and do some analysis, preferably in comparison to other CTOPs - see just how often open bigotry gets an INDEF in each topic.

Hope you're doing well, and thanks for the friendly advice, best Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink per your offer, I would indeed like your clarification/evidence on 1) why you think this is an area [I] have a great emotional investment into well beyond [my] identity, 2) why you apparently consider me incapable of recognizing my emotional state (and what emotions are allowed, considering everybody is always in an emotional state, especially those who claim not to be), and 3) what exactly you think an editor who said Don't close topics you're personally invested in, about a discussion on a trans kid, after claiming the very concept of trans children does not jive with reality, and accusing another trans editor of being overly biased since her signature had a trans flag (which signifies nothing other than being trans), referred to if not my identity.[14]

My emotional state is, for the record, exasperated, as somebody made a lot of bigoted comments and personal attacks against me, other trans editors, editors who follow MOS:GID, and trans people at large - and as always happens at ANI you have people claiming his behavior wasn't even transphobic, and now somebody is vaguely handwaving about "emotional investment" and insinuating I can't even recognize my emotions...

Point 3 is really the main one. If you are going to argue in Ergzay's defense that him saying an article about a trans kid is a topic I am personally invested (on our first interaction) is in fact, somehow, not about me being trans (with a userpage noting I transitioned as a minor), but some mysterious other emotional investment, please by all means explain what he meant. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Before I begin, I would greatly appreciate if you stop with the loaded accusations. This is a collaborative environment. We're all here to make the site better. I'm not coming to his defense, what he did and said was heinous. I maintain that blocks are preventative, not punitive. If he promises change, given he showed he could positively contribute, give him one (1) more chance.

As you gave a request for evidence in a forum where it would have been disruptive for me to provide and articulate it, given others recognized it as well, the options were either you couldn't recognize it, or you were sealioning. Assuming good faith, I went with the former. You weren't getting the point other editors were bringing up. Not to accuse you of doing so of course, but it comes off as very WP:IDHTy.

I'm not disallowing your emotions, and please don't frame things that way. I'm saying that it is a topic where your emotions interfere with your neutrality. The "negative" limbic emotions. (ex. Anger, sadness, fear, vindictiveness, etc) (again, not to say these ones were necessarily present, an example of what negative limbic emotions are), with presence evidenced by defensive and cross-examiney pattern of speech evident to anyone with a modicum of empathy. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, you're fully allowed to feel that way, and I'm not telling you that you shouldn't feel that way.

All I'm saying is those emotions, which everyone has on various topics, can plausibly interfere with impartiality on the topic. For that reason, you should allow others to close to avoid accidentally causing disruption. Not to say you did, but it's why we have that "rule." DarmaniLink (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Now, what I was mentioning prior:

Requesting for clarification and requesting for evidence are similar in the action you request someone perform, however, combined with the curtness, differ in a more hostile and forcing implication. It comes off as combative.

You replied to uninvolved editors with aggressive rhetorical questions that puts people on defense, rather than attempting to understand their point of view, or even choosing not to borderline attack them. I'm sorry, are you arguing that an editor misgendering a living person (on a page that has warning markup, by text he edited, noting the talk consensus) in almost a dozen edits after being warned, accusing subjects of the article of child abuse, and accusing multiple editors of supporting child abuse and being biased for being trans is not disruption? And claiming that trans kids cannot know they're trans, and are being pressured into being trans by their parents, isn't transphobic? And multiple warnings for edit warring are not a history of problems? Are you actually arguing this is about wrong think?

This just comes off as outright combative You don't buy it, but the majority of editors here consider open bigotry against editors, article subjects, and the minority they're a part of, after multiple warnings, worthy of a CBAN and not a ban on discussing the minority. So feel free not to purchase

You then harassed an editor who opposed your proposal, going from wanting a reply
You think it's stupid to ban editors from the site for bigotry / personal attacks instead of a topic area, that's your prerogative. Your opinion has been expressed and noted. I won't change your mind and vice versa so we have to agree to disagree. I asked a question of Springee, and things they said about me, which I'd like an answer to, so I won't reply to you any further here. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to demanding one
@Springee, me and apparently @LightNightLights would like an answer as to why you think Ergzay's actions weren't transphobic and why you think reporting an editor for accusing me, and other editors, and living people of supporting child abuse is trying to punish an editor for wrong think? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
who then resultingly needed to give a defensive reply
In reading the original complaint I don't think I gave the child abuse part enough merit. If the claim was "what is happening to that child is child abuse" I would view that as something that an editor is allowed to think. However, suggesting any editor supports child abuse, regardless of type, is not OK. That said, it also appears that this was said in the heat of the moment and after the editor felt attacked. They apologized the next morning, even reaching out to you to apologize directly. That further supports my view that an INDEF/CBAN is unjustified. Springee (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
when they aren't even an accused party, they're just a !voting editor.

To someone who recognizes its an contentious area of profound interest, investment and opinion to you, coming off as argumentative and hostile. And I would aver that's a nonsensical explanation that goes far out of it's way to avoid the obvious answer - 1) his comment came right after saying another trans editor was highly biased for having trans flags in their signature, 2) editing in a topic area does not make you "personally invested" in it, and 3) the outspoken opinion that bigotry is bad also doesn't make one "personally invested" (unless one is the subject of the bigotry, in which case we are back to square one). Occam's razor applies..

On a side note, the honorable mentions section of your userpage appears to me that you're proud of causing them distress, even if you were being honest or don't like them, I can't understand seeing it as a positive rather than an unfortunate consequence. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

None of this is a response to my question: what are you arguing Ergzay was referring to when he said I was "personally invested" in a topic (trans kids)? Arguments that what I said in the ANI thread prove it make no sense, as that was our very first interaction, and his second comment ever to me after accusing me of being in favor of child abuse, and immediately after accusing another editor of bias for having a trans flag... Personally invested in this case obviously refers to the fact I'm trans - Occam's razor.

I am not making any accusation of you. This whole discussion started because an editor said Ergzays comment wasn't about my trans identity, I said it was, and you chimed in it wasn't and my emotions proved personal involvement. I'm not saying you totally condone him. Please correct me if I am wrong: your argument is that his personal investment comment was not about me being trans?

Regarding those quotes:

1) a response to an editor who argued that I was going after somebody for "wrong think" and that transphobia accusations were less than ideal

2) a response to somebody else, who asked a question of me in response to 1, which he knew answer to, explicitly saying he doesn't buy my answer, so I said it's ok not to buy it

3) same editor, who in the reply to me saying we disagree, was to mock me and explicitly say he thinks my position is stupid, to which I said we can agree to disagree (which you find "harassing"...)

4) reiterating the question about their aspersion against me from 1, and noting another editor inquired why it wasn't answered

5) they answered, recognizing they gave less weight than they should have to personal attacks, that's really all there is to it

6) I disagreed with somebody saying Ergzays comment I'm personally invested was because I have "strong opinions" and not because I'm trans. You frame this as if he pointed out a fact and not announced his opinion

What you have presented here is a list of responses to aspersions against me, where you don't mention the original aspersions or context, and try to frame me poorly through their exclusion. And it still doesn't answer the question. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Assuming that people think you have an investment is *only* because you're trans is the pinnacle of assuming bad faith. and try to frame me poorly through their exclusion is also assuming bad faith.

You appear to be looking to further litigate these points rather than seek to better recognize when you're being combative and emotional, so I'm going to disengage.

I came here to help you understand how your responses come off to others, and also reading WP:ANI Advice might help. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

comments about other editors which are not or cannot be backed up with sufficient evidence are called aspersions and should be avoided. Saying that the accused party is assuming bad faith for asserting their innocence seems a bit outside the scope of what the bad faith clause is meant for. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Read the relevant conversations on ANI, and you will see those users are being taken severely out of context. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I already had by the time I posted this. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Assuming that people think you have an investment is *only* because you're trans is the pinnacle of assuming bad faith - Let me fix that for you Assuming that [the specific editor, with whom I'd never previously interacted prior, who just made a lot of transphobic comments, including claiming trans kids "don't jive with reality", and accused another editor of being biased for being trans] think you [an editor whose userpage notes you transitioned as a child] have a [personal] investment [in the topic of trans children] is *only* because you're trans is the pinnacle of [common sense, Occam's razor, and not letting AGF be a suicide pact]. You keep trying to generalize and abstract my question of in this specific context, with this specific editor, what did he mean when he said I was personally invested in the topic (a discussion about a trans kid).

It's ironic you accuse me of attacking editors for defending myself of aspersions while leaving out all context, then when another agrees you did that claim you will see those users are being taken severely out of context.

A breakdown of the quotes I'm responding to in the discussion...

1) Oppose INDEF/CBAN but... a clear warning or perhaps a gender-related TBAN is justified if a history of problems can be shown. This is an editor who has been on the site since 2006 with a clear block log. YFNS's actions come off as more trying to punish an editor for wrong think rather than for some sort of wide spread disruption. Additionally, the transphobia accusation is less than ideal given the context and absent some sort of additional evidence. 2) Zanahary replied to my comment from one, that did not mention TBANs or CBANs, to ask That disruption would be handled by a TBAN. Why is a CBAN necessary? I reply that The disruption was open bigotry against a minority, living article subjects who are members of it, and editors who are. Besides, this is a question to Springee why they do not consider Ergzay's behavior transphobic or disruption and why they call it "wrong think" for me to report an editor for accusing me of supporting child abuse... and quoted WP:HID, they replied again that Yeah, I really don’t buy that we can argue there is sitewide disruption from topic-specific misbehavior... 3) They replied again after, saying Uh, okay. Thanks. Are you gonna reply something to the effect of “that’s just what YOU think! Say whatever you want, it’s not what everyone else thinks!” to everyone who opposes your proposal? I think blocking editors because they’re permanently and fundamentally tarred with a fact that will make some editors feel uncomfortable collaborating with them is stupid. You cut off the first half of my response You replied to a question I asked of another user to ask me one I've already made my answer clear to in this discussion. When I reiterate my reasoning, and say you can disagree, you reiterate that you disagree and object to me pointing out you're free to disagree. How is this helpful? before saying we'll have to agree to disagree. Your claim I then harassed an editor who opposed your proposal is nonsense - I was trying to get an to DROPTHESTICK after they derailed a question about an aspersion about me and repeatedly would not take variations on "we can agree to disagree on this, please stop derailing my question about an aspersion to me" as an answer. 4) Another editor had, after Springee made multiple comments after ignoring my question about their aspersion, indeed said So, uh, any response to YFNS's reply to your !vote? 5) Springee agreed that accusing editors of supporting child abuse is indeed at least sanction worthy and updated their vote Edit to remove warning and go with tban. I think the additional discussions have convinced me that a warning isn't sufficient. Namely the implication that editors here are defending child abuse. 6) When I noted to Ergzay "Don't close topics you're personally invested in". was directed at me hatting your discussion.[276] It was the 8th bullet on my opening post here. [he had said I did not mention it in my OP] What reason am I personally invested if not for the fact I'm trans? There's absolutely no other way to read that but ~"trans editors shouldn't close discussions about trans topics"., another editor said I would aver the basis for the claim is because you often edit in this topic area and have outspoken opinions about it., to which I pointed out this makes no sense in this context.

Besides, this is all moot as it was closed with clear consensus for a CBAN.[15] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, those are all extremely civil, in which you responded with hostility and snark, and are continuing to do so. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The replies were not civil, and were instead flippant and pointless personal attacks unconductive to a collaberative environment. As lick-rock stated, they were plainly unproductive aspersions. YFNS responded to such aspersions with civility, and certainly in better faith than was afforded to them in those messages. Bejakyo (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

I will echo others (because it really cannot be said enough) in thanking you for all the work you do on Wikipedia's coverage of transgender issues. Especially and not the least for your work on Transgender health care misinformation. I re-read that article's talk page whenever I need a reminder of how brutal this website can be. The work you do is invaluable not only to Wikipedia but also the trans community, more so now than ever. Viv Desjardin (talk, contrib) 19:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Seconded - you do good work that benefits this project greatly. Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Viv Desjardin and @Simonm223 thank you!!! That means a lot, it can be pretty brutal but thanks like this do help keep me here so it's very appreciated <3

And Viv, thank you for your work on organized labor! I see you're fairly new to the site so I want you to know that it's seen and appreciated! There's a lot of notable strikes and actions we don't cover so your work helping do so is wonderful and much needed. And fwiw, GENSEX is far less brutal than it used to be lol - things were fairly bad when I started but have improved, and even that was not so bad as before I joined when we had professional anti-trans WP:QUACKS editing for over a decade... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Inaugural awarding of the Trans Barnstar

		The Trans Barnstar
		Inaugural awarding of the Trans Barnstar for your consistent and high quality efforts to create and improve transgender specific articles such as Transgender health care misinformation and Transgender history in Brazil to good article status as well as the creation and substantial improvement of dozens of articles related to anti-trans groups and individual activists. Awarded by Relm (talk) 9 April 2025

As shown by other comments on your page, I am not alone in saying that you have inspired me to edit more actively, and reinforced Wikipedia's position as a welcoming place for Transgender editors, despite the efforts of some to make it hostile. Relm (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@RelmC thank you so much!!! I'm honored and proudly grinning ear to ear <3 Your comment popped up just as I responded to the one above and took me by very pleasant surprise!

Normally, if I catch up on my watchlist before work I end up exasperated but today's breaking the mold lol Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

<3

I made and uploaded it because I felt that there was a significant disparity between editing articles dealing with sexuality versus articles tackling gender, with the latter increasingly being mired in far more CTOPs, lengthy ANIs/RSNs/FRINGE noticeboard discussions, and increased scrutiny for every edit. I want this barnstar to commemorate the efforts of people such as yourself to improve main space articles in such an environment while hoping that this barnstar eventually becomes redundant.

I am still new and haven't taken a crack at creating or substantially rewriting articles yet but would like to start soon, and your efforts were a large part of that inspiration. Relm (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about recent SEGM Fringe Close

I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with the close, but I have to be honest I haven't been paying attention recently. I also have questions about someone with ~1000 edits doing a close that might be construed as a WP:SUPERVOTE. I'm counting at least 4 to 1 for pro-FRINGE.

Would it make sense to consider asking closer to unclose? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

That definitely seems like a supervote to me, when they are using the arguments of a minority within the minority view to override the entire discussion. I think it's relevant to add also that the userboxen they've chosen to purposefully put on their userpage makes me extremely question their objectivity in, truthfully, any topic area connected to politics whatsoever, particularly if they're actively promoting this article from Larry Sanger that's largely him whining about Wikipedia not promoting Trump's viewpoints more on topics. Silverseren^C 22:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to read over WP:ADHOM, as it is inappropriate to use your assumptions of one's personal beliefs or ideological leanings in a way to discredit their character and motivations. Not that it is the business of anyone here, but I do not support Trump nor did I vote for him in this previous election. I added the NPOV userbox because I generally agree with Sanger that Wikipedia has an unfair ideological bias, but that does not mean I agree with Larry Sanger on everything. DocZach (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:INVOLVED, it is inappropriate for editors to close RFCs on disputes for which they have expressed strong feelings, as you have here (also [16] and [17]); even if you feel you are capable of being impartial despite your strong beliefs here, WP:NACINV specifically says that Closing editors should be aware of any actual, potential or apparent conflicts of interest they may have that could affect their decision making, or give the appearance of impropriety, potentially compromising a consensus reached by the community by casting doubts on a closure, ie. even the appearance of strong feelings is sufficient to bar you from closing RFCs. And for WP:CTOPs, like GENSEX, involvement has generally been found to cover the entire underlying dispute of the topic area - though in this case, as I pointed out, you weighed in on a dispute directly related to whether SEGM is fringe in the form of the RFC about trans pathologization, which was spun off from the SEGM one. --Aquillion (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note that they were also WP:INVOLVED; they'd weighed in on a connected RFC, here, which was spun off as a part of the SEGM one and which essentially asks about one of the core questions the SEGM one did with broader framing. I've given them a chance to self-revert under the presumption that this was an honest mistake and that they forgot that they'd weighed in on one of the core issues at stake in the RFC, but if they respond with anything other than an immediate revert of the close, I suggest taking it to ANI and seeking a restriction barring them from closing any RFCs going forwards, since this is so clearly inappropriate - if it wasn't a mistake then they shouldn't be closing RFCs at all until they gain a better understanding of WP:INVOLVED. (They've also weighed in on trans issues on Wikipedia in the past in a way that shows strong feelings on the underlying dispute, eg. [18][19].) --Aquillion (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Advans on a "Economy, trade, and companies" 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, 10 April 2025 (UTC)