User talk:Sideswipe9th

Please undo your close of the bare URL RFCs

You're right that this is a controversial close. The first thing is that this should not be speedied and should be left to admins. The second is that there's plenty of valid comments, despite very intense bludgeoning going on. Please undo it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb: It's currently 6:10 AM, my local time, I hope you won't mind too much if I sleep on this and reply shortly after I wake up? Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Well I can't force you to do anything, but I'd rather have an open RFC than one closed for 8 or so hours out of nowhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I will say briefly now that concerns over bludgeoning are not why I early closed the two RfCs. My primary concerns are surrounding the questions, and the circumstances that lead to the rather sudden appearance of the two RfCs. I'm open to being convinced that those two questions will solve the dispute, however at present and based on what I've read over the totality of the discussion sections, I am not currently convinced a consensus outcome can be found as the questions do not seem the right one for the underlying problem.

I'll also say that, should an uninvolved editor or admin wish to reopen the discussions while I'm asleep, I will not cause any fuss over it. I realise the timing is kinda awful for when I closed em and I apologise for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

What are these concerns? They're both neutral and open questions that address the core issues, when bare url tags should be used, and when/how to add/remove them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb:, Ok. So first concern, why two RfCs, with 4 total questions? Were any alternatives considered? In this revision by BrownHairedGirl, which you responded to there was a suggestion for a single RfC, with a single question. About 10 minutes after the first of the two RfCs were launched, BHG's proposed question was supported and slightly extended upon by Barkeep49. What was wrong with that suggested question? And why is the 2 RfC/4 question format superior to that?

Discounting responding to BHG's request for a speedy close, due to the obvious dispute between the two of you, how would you address Rlink2's request for a speedy close? While it is obviously predicated on BHG's arguments, it is still I hope separate enough that an answer on the merits of it could be ascertained. Additionally, how would you respond to Barkeep49's comment that I'm not sure how much actionable feedback we'll get for a close? When contrasted against the closures, I'm sure you'll see the similarities between the words I chose in the closing, and those made by Barkeep.

Elaborating on the comment I made earlier. An experienced closer will be able to wade through any potential bludgeoning in an RfC while determining the consensus, though it may increase the time taken to complete such a closure. That is why concerns over bludgeoning were not why I early closed the RfC. In addition to what I've said and asked in the previous paragraphs about the format, I have a concern, based on the phrasing of this comment, that these RfCs stem from one or more strong emotions. There are several ways in which that comment could be read, including anger, frustration, exasperation, and passion in the heat of the moment. There was a two minute delay between that statement, and the launch of the first RfC, and a further 10 minute delay before expansion of the first RfC to encompass a second question. Obviously I don't want to guess at what was going through your mind at the time, but I hope that you can at least understand how someone saying Fine, you want an RFC, I'll give you an RFC. in the midst of a heated (to put mildly) discussion between two editors, as well as the speediness of the subsequent RfCs being launched, may raise a few eyebrows if not alarm bells. How would you address this concern, that the RfC could be seen as a speedy reaction to a heated discussion, instead of it being a necessary outcome from a prolonged debate that ended in deadlock? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

First, her question is bad and does not address the core issue (when and by which method should bare urls be flagged). The things that need to be addressed is how should this work be done (bots or meatbots, i.e. people with AWB) and where/when should these tags be added/removed. I've incorporated the where/when questions as a direct response to Barkeep's suggestions. Two RFCs because it's easier to discuss additions separate from removals, since adding and removing tags can have different considerations.

As for the speedy close request, it's simply obstructionist reflexive nonsense, and it doesn't stop being nonsense simply because someone else goes 'per original nonsense'. There is no dispute between BHG and me. She'd disagree, but that's mostly because she's taking every comment that she perceives as not going her way as some sort of personal insult and symptomatic of some nebulous agenda (see the unanimous endorsement of my closure of her BRFA).

I'm quite supportive of her bot in general, I've encouraged her multiple times on going forward with an RFC over the months (which she never did). So when she asked me explicitely to make and RFC, I made one. But of course, this was somehow sign that I'm out to get her. The issue is a very minor one, that would leave of 99% or some other ridiculously high percentage of all bare URLs (as she considers them), but that 1% of tags that would be left in place is seen as a personal affront. This was explained to her many, many times, by many more people than just me, and she took that as a sign that everyone else was wrong'.

This is, simply put, intransigent WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour from a would-be bot operator. An RFC shouldn't be held up because someone intransigent is very passionate about a subject and ABF bludgeons everyone around her into submission. Let it run, and the closer can ignore the badgering and see how the community feels independent of BHG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb: With regards to the core issue, as an uninvolved (bar these closures) editor who has reviewed the discussions, I disagree. Based on the state of the discussion prior to the launch of the RfC, the core issue appears to be where in the article should the maintenance template appear. Moxy, who opened the discussion, has expressed some concern about how many articles are tagged with the template, and who is actually fixing the backlog that has become noticeable because of the template. Several editors; Valereee, SnowFire and BD2412, had made various comments in support of the addition of the template. The issue of how the banner is added or removed from an article, prior to the launch of the RfC, was raised only by yourself, and in the discussion prior to the launch of the RfC had been between only you and BrownHairedGirl.

With regards to the state of discussion at the time of closure (close 1, close 2), more had been said about the counting of the number of articles either tagged with the template, or that had bare URL references in general, than on directly answering any of the four questions asked.

With respect to the speedy close requests, I've already drawn a distinction between the request made by BHG, and the one by Rlink2. Prior to the launch of the RfCs, Rlink2 had not made any contributions to the discussion, so I would consider them uninvolved. As such I do not find it convincing that Rlink2 is engaging in obstructionist reflexive nonsense. Nor would I characterise Barkeep49's comment that I'm not sure how much actionable feedback we'll get for a close as obstructionist reflexive nonsense.

I also disagree that there is no dispute between you and BHG. As an uninvolved editor, bar the two speedy closures, I can see quite a clear dispute between both of you, and one that appears to have pre-existed the current discussion based on a skim read of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 9.

As such, I'm afraid I do not find this a convincing rationale to re-open the RfCs. I understand that this is not the outcome you'd want, and if you wish to take this further I will gladly welcome and would recommend a closure review at WP:AN. If you do launch a closure review, please leave me a wikilink to it in this discussion. Or if you wish to make another attempt at convincing me, particularly as to why I should discount both Rlink2 and Barkeep49's comments, feel free and I will continue to hear you out. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Why should Rlink2 and Barkeep49's comments be the basis for closure? Why are their opinions particularly special? Let the RFC run and everyone opine. Otherwise have opined too. There is no reason to nip this in the bud and let the situation be as unclear as it is now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Closure review at AN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll respond there from now on to keep the discussion in one place, if you don't mind. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions

I do have a question. Does the discretionary sanctions alert mean that a user am banned from editing something? If so, how long? I don't know if I should be asking this. I was wondering since I received a notice from you last month. Cwater1 (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Cwater1:, sorry for not getting back to you on this earlier, I missed the message at your talk page. The sanctions alerts don't imply any issue with your contributions, instead they are informative. You're not blocked or banned in any way. There's a bunch of topics on Wikipedia that are, for one reason or another, somewhat controversial. Because of historical issues with those topics, they are considered to be under discretionary sanctions, which in most cases means a stricter application of the normal policies and guidelines and editorial conduct guidance by administrators. There are also a few articles, for example like Donald Trump, which are subject to some additional restrictions as a part of the discretionary sanctions system. Details of the additional restrictions are always found within the banners at the top of the article talk page, for example at Talk:Donald Trump, it states that the article is under a "24 hour BRD cycle", meaning that if you make an edit to that article and it is reverted, you should not reinstate the change without discussion at the talk page and 24 hours have passed from the time of the original edit.

For the most part, editors don't need to worry about the sanctions alerts. Pretty much anyone who edits a discretionary sanctions topic area will get one or more of these alerts relating to the content areas they are editing in, every twelve months. They're only important in the rare occasion that an editor is being disruptive in some way, as they allow uninvolved administrators to take swifter action.

If you have any other questions, feel free to drop me a message here and I'll definitely get a notification about it.

TLDR; you've done nothing wrong, you're not subject to any blocks or bans, and you should read WP:ACDS#guide.expect to see what is generally expected of editors who edit in controversial topic areas. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I was just wondering. When editing, I do want to be careful especially when it has those discretionary sanctions. It is more like a reminder or a warning reminding me to be careful. Cwater1 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah exactly! With the exception of a small set of extraordinary page restrictions, most editors won't have any issues with the sanctions, as most editors aren't seen as disruptive. It's only folks who are seen as being disruptive, whether intentionally or not, that will see any impact from them. For the vast majority, the sanctions system is just a notification to say "be on your best behaviour". Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Irreversible Damage

Hi, you indiated that you have a strong reliable source saying that ROGD is "not backed by credible scientific evidence." None of the articles that I saw had that quote. Lisa Littman has a study and Jack Turban has two studies, the scientific data is mixed and more research is needed considering how quickly the number of people identifying as trans has risen. The statement is misleading readers.

Moreover, Dr. Turban is a highly controversial and disputed source. Stephen Levine, an inordinately respected Psychiatrist with nearly 40 years of research in this field, has questioned Jack Turban's research. Dr. Levine is very apolitical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_B._Levine

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/advocate-rather-than-a-scientist-the-compromised-research-of-child-gender-transition-doctor-jack-turban/

Finally, the Wall Street Journal (a reliable source via wikipedia) has an oped out today questioning Dr. Turban's research.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-american-academy-of-pediatrics-dubious-transgender-science-jack-turban-research-social-contagion-gender-dysphoria-puberty-blockers-uk-11660732791

If you review Dr. Turban's twitter page, he is certainly biased. He even ha a trans rights flag in his bio.

https://twitter.com/jack_turban?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor RaySmall88 (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting by reading the two citations ([1], [2]) that are used as references for and is not backed by credible scientific evidence., neither of which are written by Turban. The second source in particular states There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. and represents the consensus opinion of pretty much every major public health body and organisation in the US.

While Turban's work is the most recent publication on ROGD, it is not the only research that has been conducted into it. Focusing exclusively on Turban's research is not helpful. Aside from those two papers, there have to my knowledge, been no other independent studies done into ROGD. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria

Why are you removing the references to the study's funding on the auspices that it is a coatrack issue about Jack Turban? The grant was funded by an organization that is a manufacturer of puberty blockers? It was disclosed as a conflict of interest in the study. The study was cited as discrediting Rapid Onsent Gender Dysphoria. Why wouldn't readers be able to decide if the conflict of interest is valid? Stephen Levine also cited it as problematic. RaySmall88 (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK. The ROGD article is not an article about Jack Turban, criticism of Turban, if it is due for inclusion should be included in Turban's article, which based on a revert on that article by another editor seems unlikely. Additionally the semi-reliable source used, the National Review, is considered by most editors to require attribution, which was not provided. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't the only citation. The Wall Street Journal (approved) and the Study itself were cited. The National Review only quotes Stephen Levine. It isn't a criticism of Jack Turban. It is pointing out that the study cited has a conflict of interest. If you're going to be fair, the study should be removed or the full context should be given. The pharmacy industry funding a study which could lead to the sale of more puberty blockers is a conflict of interest worthy of note. RaySmall88 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The WSJ piece is not a reliable source in this instance, because it is explicitly an opinion piece. As such it only represents the opinions of the articles authors; Julia Mason and Leor Sapir. As such I am not seeing any convincing reason to remove the study conducted by Turban. I would also advise that The pharmacy industry funding a study which could lead to the sale of more puberty blockers is a conflict of interest worthy of note. reads heavily like original research, which is prohibited in the article space. If there is a conflict of interest involving Turban, then it is only worthy of note if reliable sources factually report on it. Thus far, no such factual reporting has been presented.

Any further discussion on this should occur at Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy so that other editors can contribute. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are part of the pickle cabal has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedians who are part of the pickle cabal has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms

I'd appreciate it if you looked at the talk page, and maybe actually read the primary source cited by the secondary source. Toodles. Naihreloe (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Naihreloe: I'll respond at the article talk page :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Tova Friedman article moved to draft

I have found that the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tova_Beck-Friedman confused this artist with Tova Friedman, Auschwitz survivor. I have made the corrections to this article and created a new article on Tova Friedman. I was in the process of writing it when you have moved it to draft. Now I have completed it and submitted to publication but wikipedia says that 4 months or more are needed. As it is a correction of a previous mistake of a user of wikipedia I ask you to publish it as soon as possible. Tova Friedman is at the center of public attention for her testimonial activity on Holocaust with children in US and fully deserves an article in wikipedia. MSacerdoti (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@MSacerdoti: Two issues. While I can draftify an article, I do not believe I can move an article from draft space to the main space. Secondly, though I'm not yet an Articles for creation reviewer, if I was I would say that while you have improved the draft in the last few hours, it still fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline and the biographies notability guideline. At present the draft does not demonstrate significant coverage, which demonstrate notability via independent secondary reliable sources. In short this means that more sources, which are independent of Friedman, so not work she has written or interviews with her, are needed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Sideswipe9th. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC). 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.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: got it! No worries. It's something I'd probably remove, at least in part, but then I don't have the mop :) Thanks for taking a look at it! Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Kiwifarms URL

I have started a discussion on the VDARE and Right Stuff blog talks saying I think the url should be excised. Since that's relevant to the current Kiwifarms discussion and were mentioned would it be okay if I left a message on the Kiwi Farms discussion saying I started those ones and that people can chip in? Don't think it'd be canvassing since I wouldn't tell people to take a stance but idk cos it was already mentioned. Not tryna canvas though. Also idk if it's self-promo Stephanie921 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanie921: I don't know to be honest. While there's obviously some overlap in the discussions, the articles themselves have less clear links. But it is a limited scale posting, as it's one talk page, and you can make sure the message is neutral and referenced at both locations per WP:INAPPNOTE. Maybe ask ferret on their talk page as they might have more experience figuring that out. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Stephanie921 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Forgive Me For I Have Sinned

Hello! You have reverted my post (revision 1108749352) on Talk:Destiny (streamer) without leaving a WP:REVEXP . I would appreciate WP:NOBITING as I'm quite new to this side of Wikipedia and would like to know what I did wrong and how I could've done it better! It is late here, so if I don't reply right away, I will see it in the morning. Babyblasphemy (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Babyblasphemy:. Late here too, so I'll keep it short. It was a WP:OUTING issue, falling under the other contact information criteria. You made a link between an editor and their off-wiki presence that they had not made publicly on enwiki. We generally don't allow that content, which is why it's also been WP:OVERSIGHTed by one of our oversighters. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I've read something about that, do I need do do anything to ensure the revision cannot be restored, or does oversight handle that? Babyblasphemy (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That's already taken care of. Only folks who could restore it are other oversighters, no-one else can see it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood, sorry for the trouble and thanks for upgrading my knowledge! Babyblasphemy (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Sideswipe9th. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		For mediating between me and the other user when we edit warred in a way that was incredibly kind Stephanie921 (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ahhh! Thank you Stephanie921! Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yw :) Stephanie921 (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)