User talk:Nowearskirts

Welcome!

Hi Nowearskirts! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Megaman en m (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to sign talk page posts

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 07:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FYI. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. I guess I jumped into the pit's fire when I followed a user to the domestic violence page from another discussion area. "You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them." Technically, it's only been one gender-related dispute (domestic violence) at present because the non-binary thing doesn't count since I didn't cull back those edits, but I'm sure I'll find more gender-related disputes to get involved in really soon.

FYI: I'd never not take the alert message seriously, but if you want people to take it more seriously when you send it to someone, you should also send it to the other party. Or else, people will wonder why you singled me out. Out of the blue. Totally unprompted. I wouldn't want people thinking you were being biased and weren't acting in good faith. Anyway, thanks for the alert message. Nowearskirts (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Request:

Please see my post discrimination against trans men for my response. Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes Vulture (a.k.a. Transandrosupport) (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vulture (a.k.a. Transandrosupport), it wasn't a request. It was a suggestion.

I signed my post. I'm uncertain why you asked me to please sign my posts. Nowearskirts (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Don't welcome users who haven't made any edits. See, e.g., User talk:Chapligasob.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Bbb23. Thanks. I would see the new accounts from the "Recent changes" page. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response at ANI

Extended content

In my opinion even though there may be some limited discussion about who you may be at ANI, it's a mistake for you to respond with counter evidence. The SPI is deleted. If there is any case to answer it sounds like it will be dealt with offwiki for now. If you are blocked your are free to engage with arbcom off wiki or potentially they will question you first via e-mail. If not there's nothing really to answer and but by you responding it means the evidence and alleged connection may become a point of discussion. I don't think this is helpful if you are not who it has been suggested you are even if it may seem a little unfair the allegation is out there but you can't respond. Last I checked no one had responded to your post so IMO you are free to delete it. If the SPI is undeleted or a new one opened you can respond there. ANI is not the best place to discuss complicated sock cases anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Are you aware that some "evidence" has been posted here (and is still visible)? Also, searching at ANI for "behavioral evidence presented here is compelling" shows where another editor linked to the post. Given that, I think it is reasonable for Nowearskirts to reply there. I looked at the post earlier and couldn't make sense of it (it shows two editors each of whom is capable of TLDR posts—nothing new there). I think the claim is inappropriate (without a clear explanation of what we're supposed to see) and I would be happy if it were rev-deleted if you felt inclined. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy-relevant reason why my comment would be rev-delled? I am not aware of any relevant policy; it is pretty much a non-standard DUCK observation. Newimpartial (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Sorry I was on my phone so was maybe a bit briefer than I'd normally be. I'm aware of the link and the claim it is compelling and I understand the the desire to reply and not questioning the right to do so. If I were a dictator who could force compliance, I'd delete the whole ANI thread, and all discussion of evidence and leave it up to arbcom. (Although frankly even if I were this just seems a good way to ensure there's a lot of discussion public but off-site which I'm not sure is really better.)

But a problem as I see it is sort of exemplified by Newimpartial comment, as it all on-wiki evidence, and a number of respected editors feel it's something okay to discuss and I'm not sure there's a clear policy violation. Trying to remove stuff from on high seems likely to just mean the Streisand effect and more effective discussion of the issue. In truth I see no good solution so I'm just offering a suggestion I hope reduces the possible impact and likelihood of IMO unwelcome discussion.

People can blame arbcom or whoever else for how we got here, and I am hoping everyone involved will consider if they could have handled things different. But people have different views on how things should be handled. I've explained my view at ANI such as it is, hoping to be at least part of the spark which may change someone's mind but as with a lot of things, I'm not sure how many people are likely to change their minds whatever happens. I didn't see much chance Newimpartial or the editor who linked the post would change their mind at least in the short term, and it seems even less likely the editor who opened the SPI will.

But since I feel there's a risk that despite the SPI now being deleted, discussing shortcomings in alleged evidence is just going to lead to back and forths of further evidence or responses to the shortcomings i.e. a mini SPI and it will be hard to shut down since it is just a series of responses. By comparison, if someone just start presenting more evidence unprompted it's easier to shut that down as "this isn't SPI". You could try the same if back and forths develop but that seems more likely to lead to disputes than if you just say "you're wrong, but this isn't the place to discuss it so I won't". If Nowearskirts doesn't agree, so be it. Either way, hopefully that ANI thread peters out or is successfully closed.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as I have said repeatedly, I don't have a theory of the case; what I do have is a cautiously developed and sincere view that many editors and administrators on "both sides" are making unfounded assumptions within their personal blind spots, and believe they know much more about the case than they actually do. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I see what you mean and certainly I would strongly advise that anyone planning to continue the "discussion" should stop.

@Newimpartial: You posted a comment that strongly implied the two provided links demonstrated a sock connection. I tried to make sense of that but completely failed. Your post was worse than an aspersion because at least an aspersion is seen to be evidence-free. However, posting links to complex comments with no clue of what they are supposed to show will be taken by conspiracy theorists as strong evidence whereas it was in fact unsubstantiated blather. If you have evidence, forward it to Arbcom. Otherwise, do not post anything. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case my own comment was overly terse, Aquillion has parsed the situation I was describing accurately IMO and without unfounded aspersion. I defer to their analysis. Newimpartial (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to conduct this involved discussion on a new editor's talk page. Please move it to your own talk pages or a noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For future notes: More aspersion-casting is seen here by Newimpartial. Nowearskirts (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]