This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sorry to post this here, since you closed the above conversation . I wonder if you can have a look at these people and let me know what you think. I just don't think they are socks, so reporting to SPI is not the right way. My feeling is that these are bunch fans of Youtuber H3H3 podcast vandalizing pages because H3H3 podcast has discussed the wiki issues at length on their channel and indirectly encouraged it. Please check this video. If you don't consider what I shared vandalism then they are at minimum violating WP:NPOV. UPE is not out of question. Plus there are a bunch more suspect people. Would you mind to have a look and tell me what you think?? If you feel SPI as the right way to tackle this, maybe you can help me by opening for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.178.243 ( talk) 22:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP, I am mostly on a wikibreak so I am not able to look into this, and complicated issues like this are also beyond my experience. I am also not an administrator, but you may wish to follow up with admins such as GeneralNotability, Blablubbs, or Girth Summit. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 22:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Not this nonsense again...IP, pretty sure we've been over this (if not, it was someone paid to do the same thing). Your sockpuppetry allegations are baseless and are pretty clearly intended to discredit people editing a certain way on pages related to Ryan Kavanaugh. Considering that Kavanaugh's company literally hired someone to dig up dirt and file a poorly-reasoned SPI on these editors (admins can see deleted history at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Throast...I'd say I hope they got their money back, but honestly I don't), I'm pretty sure that anyone accusing this same group of editors of sockpuppetry is themselves involved in an astroturfing campaign. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Beccaynr. Thank you for the very nice fairy banner on my Talk Page. I haven't learnt how to create such banners yet, so instead I will just do a plain text greeting :) I hope you have a wonderful holiday season, and all the best for 2023. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, MrsSnoozyTurtle! I tried to work with formatting from other banners, added colors and images from commons (inspired by some of the cover art for books by Gladys Lucy Adshead, but adapted for my wikifairy ways), and never quite got the images to align :) For future reference, a variety of holiday templates are available here:

Happy New Year! Beccaynr ( talk) 15:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:TALKNO

Your recent editing history at Lia Thomas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. A liar is a despicable human being. - Roxy the dog 13:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Roxy the dog, please stop edit-warring over good-faith BLP objections. There is a discussion on the article Talk page about this. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 13:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

	2 Cents
	Try alternative methods of solving the Lia Thomas dispute than just reverting the BLP violation once it's clear you're getting roped into an EW. It's just a waste of your time. Consider engaging an admin if necessary. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Ixtal - I hope my edit history shows I did more than revert, because I also made comments on the reverting editor's userpage and the article Talk page in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Anyroad, the situation seems to have settled down at this point, which is appreciated. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for my inaccurate wording. What I would have done is, noticing they have a recent EW block from the page to directly report them to WP:AN/3 and/or the blocking admin's talk page (if active) as Roxy had been unblocked after promising to stop reverting on the page. This might not be as quick as letting Roxy run into the 3RR wall but might have led to more fitting sanctions. A caution warning on their talk page was unlikely to produce any meaningful change in behaviour, imho, though I don't blame you for trying. I do greatly appreciate your efforts in dealing with the situation and I hope that was clear in my message. I hope you enjoy the rest of the week :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, Ixtal, and I appreciate your perspective - I had hoped my notification about BLP still being invoked would be enough for a seasoned editor to return to the article Talk page (which is why I also went there to reiterate my previous objection), and I would have gone to AN3 had there been a brightline 3RR vio. This is a challenging topic area, and I also appreciate your close of the discussion on the article Talk page, which I think reflects the spirit of BLP policy. Thanks again, Beccaynr ( talk) 14:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

n.b. I meant to write 'reverting editor's user *Talk* page'. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266 Online events: New: Gender studies | Health | Dance | Alphabet run S & T | Books by women Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | See also: Women in Red is supporting Every Book Its Reader through our Books by women event. Tip of the month: When writing about a book, check WP:NBOOK for notability, then see MOS:NOVEL, WP:NONFICTION or WP:POETRYSTANDARDS for guidance. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi

I have brought this here because the wall of words is just becoming background noise to me and there seems to be a bad atmosphere developing in places.

I don't know if you recall my contribution to the talk here (mentioning Rallies, speaker events, and protests)?

If not can you have a look and see if you think there is any potential in what I suggest for improving the article.

If you do is any collaboration possible to try and put something together that will be encyclopaedic and work for as many people as possible who have taken the trouble to be involved in the discussion?

No worries if you don't fancy but thought I'd ask. Lukewarmbeer ( talk) 10:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lukewarmbeer, thank you for your note - I do recall the contribution you mention, and I have not yet had a chance to reply - I will try to respond later, but it will still be a bit before I have the opportunity to fully focus on it. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 15:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I though I'd run this past you. I have picked one paragraph as an example. I don't think our text reflects the sources at all.

The one sided selection of words, particularly when added to the overkill of the 20 other rallies we describe, is why I don't think we have done a good job with this.

I'm putting this here for you because I have the feeling you are also interested in 'our' encyclopaedic integrity and I'm hoping we could be constructive with this. If I start this as a section on the talk without getting the thing into better shape first we will end up with the polarity meter going off the scale again and get nowhere.

I have found that being bold isn't always welcome :) but I'm happy to have a go and try to revise this section - with some assistance!

When you get a mo let me know what you think.

== Rallies, speaker events, and protests ==

Our text on one particular rally.

On 5 February 2023, Keen organised a "Let Women Speak" protest in Glasgow's George Square in response to the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and the Isla Bryson case; hundreds of protesters and counterprotestors attended, and the counterprotestors were organised by the Cabaret Against The Hate Speech.This next is a classic example of why I am unhappy with how this article has developed.

That paragraph has three citations:

One from The Pink news is really an opinion piece and bears no relation to the news coverage of the other two but has given our text most of it's 'thrust' The headline....

"Cis woman interrupts anti-trans protest and instantly becomes an icon: ‘Trans women are women!’"

One, far more balanced and new reporting type article from The National That portrays the rally from both sides.

"Glasgow gender critical rally met with trans activist counter-protest"

One from the Herald - I'd say more

"Hundreds join rally against gender recognition reforms" Lukewarmbeer ( talk) 15:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lukewarmbeer, thank you, and I am sorry that I have not been able to engage as quickly as I had hoped. I added a (probably difficult to find) comment in the midst of a discussion section [1] addressed to you about structuring discussion on the article Talk page, before article editing became unusually busy (you can check the edit history of the article to review what happened). I think it is best to have separate sections about specific issues on the article Talk page, not only to help navigate discussions, but also so other editors can participate.

For example, if you would like to discuss a concern about how many rallies are included in the article, I encourage you to create a new section about this one issue. This way, we can all review the sources, policies such as WP:DUE and the WP:RS guideline. But as a quick note, the sources for this graf:

On 5 February 2023, Keen organised a "Let Women Speak" protest in Glasgow's George Square in response to the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and the Isla Bryson case; hundreds of protesters and counterprotestors attended, and the counterprotestors were organised by the Cabaret Against The Hate Speech.

do not include the Pink News Manchester coverage as a citation, although other Pink News coverage is included as one of the three cites (and the only source that appears to identify this as a "Let Women Speak" event, which is another issue that has been raised on the talk page during a discussion about whether and how to split the article).

Overall, I do not think it is helpful for discussions generally to mix in other issues that are discussed elsewhere on the Talk page. I think our best path towards constructive discussion is to have focused discussion on specific issues whenever possible. I appreciate the care you are taking with your approach to editing, and I encourage you to continue participating in discussion on the article Talk page so these various issues can continue to be addressed collaboratively. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 17:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Will do. Lukewarmbeer ( talk) 17:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

One more thing while I am here - do you think it would be better to let the current issues subside / be resolved before starting another? Lukewarmbeer ( talk) 17:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you should do what you feel comfortable with - editors are clearly paying attention to this article, and moving part of a discussion to a separate section could help focus attention on issues that have otherwise been mixed into other discussions.

If I have time and energy today, I may open a section and pin it to the top of the Talk page as an addendum to the FAQ, to try to corral one of the ongoing discussions happening across multiple sections into one place. I mention this because something like this may help you feel more comfortable with opening a separate section to address a specific issue. I think overall, there is a history of constructive collaboration on this article, and I would like to figure out what more can be done to facilitate effective communication about sources, policies, and guidelines. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 17:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Will keep an eye. Away for a couple of weeks on Saturday so may leave until I return.

All the best.

LWB Lukewarmbeer ( talk) 18:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)