86.23.218.87

Sealioning and Discretionary Sanctions Alerts

You appear to have a history of sealioning, a form of disruptive editing, on certain topics. In light of that, please be aware of the following:

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't heard the term sealioning before but have read the introductory paragraph. It refers to requesting evidence for something that was previously addressed. I was just asking to be pointed to WHERE it was addressed, in some reasonably concise form that wouldn't require me to get absorbed in Wikipedia for weeks. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not....a place to get answers to your questions 86.23.218.87 (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a complaints department. Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't complain. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This sequence of edits certainly reads to me as someone dissatisfied with the service they are receiving (and wanting to speak to the manager). Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I've yet to receive any service or see any evidence that this website is being managed. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Q.e.d. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There are some rare occasions when Karen is actually right. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You people are just psychogical abusers. Sadly for you, you're not the first I've encountered. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Now, now. The sealion is losing his (or hers, or their, I don't want to misgender) patience and calm. Assume good faith to other editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You've just sanctioned me based on a category called "sealioning", calling me a troll, a harasser, fake (only pretending to be civil/sincere) and FEIGNING ignorance (as if I ACTUALLY do know how the consensus on Wikipedia was formed and am only pretending not to). The page states the "sealion" MAY be acting in bad faith but that's pretty clearly impled. Then you tell me that it's me who is failing to assume good faith? 86.23.218.87 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Acting in certain ways yourself and then accusing your target of doing so in a high-handed way is typical of psychological abusers. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You weren't sanctioned. You were informed of the existence of discretionary sanctions. And you seem to me to be working hard to get someone to impose them on you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I've done nothing wrong and you know it. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Wasting the time of others is not conducive to participation in a collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Your time is clearly so precious given that you're Wikipedia admins. I'm sure Elon Musk envies you. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I think we have spent too much time here. This is my last comment on this matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Me too, or perhaps #metoo. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

lol 86.23.218.87 (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

So I've learned that there is no explanation and no justification for how a woman is supposed to become a man. The difference is so obvious I can tell just from interacting with you both online. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If you choose to waste your time interacting with us, rather than wasting your time reading the answer to your original question that has repeatedly been provided to you, that as they say is a you problem.

But thanks for moving the goalposts to justification for how a woman is supposed to become a man, documenting quite clearly that you were, in fact, a marine mammal all along. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I made no secret of the fact that I wanted to hear discussion of that, and I never said I would be persuaded to change my views by that discussion. I just wanted to see evidence that there had been one. To trawl through the labyrinth of Wikipedia looking for some account of how this point was reached is certainly not a good use of my time. I just wanted to establish that you are not actually seeking to enlighten users. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether a woman can objectively become a man is naturally the foundation of what should be considered objective/encyclopedic. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Since "woman" and "man" are objectively terms for social genders, of course a woman can objectively become a man (or nonbinary) as a result of an objective, social process. This isn't, as they say, rocket science. Fortunately, the recent, reliable sources provide extensive documentation of this rather elementary fact. Newimpartial (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This is what people of your persuasion do, try to intimidate people through academic language into accepting absurdities. There is nothing elementary or even reasonable about what you're proposing. But again, I would be glad to hear this issue fully thrashed out on Wikipedia with all sides being fully heard, if you could point me to where that happened. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You seem to believe that it is within the remit of Wikipedia to resolve questions of ontology. It isn't. Wikipedia answers the question, "how do the highest quality of recent, reliable sources address the topic at hand?" In the case of trans people, that answer is, as you have surmised, that the encyclopedic treatment is for references to a person's gender to correspond to their own preference rather than their sex assignment. If you WP:DONTLIKEIT, your beef is with the sources, not with Wikipedia, and this run in behind the sources to your own personal ontology is unlikely to convince anyone. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Just evidence of any voice dissenting from your opinion being preserved on the site would be a start. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The evidence is in the links you refuse to read, documented like tombstones at MOS:GIDINFO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

For the last time, that link presents the conclusions, not the discussions leading to that conclusions. Do you just automatically find yourself innocent of gaslighting because you're female? 86.23.218.87 (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Enough bullshit. Go find another place to bother people. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you able to follow hyperlinks? There is literally a long table of hyperlinks (with appropriate metadata) pointing to the discussions themselves! (The section in question is labelled "discussion timeline", without even a modicum of dissimulation creativity).

As far as gaslighting is concerned, given the above, perhaps you would benefit from a long, hard look in the mirror. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

TIL about sealioning. Thanks EvergreenFir. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Provide me with one quote from one page on Wikipedia where someone suggests that a person cannot change sex and that therefore it's unencyclopedic to speak as if they have. You're more familiar with the contents of the site than me. Just provide me one quote and I will believe that this site isn't completely one-sided. Just one. Then we will see who's gaslighting. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you happy now? Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

That user sounds smart. It's a shame you apparently learned nothing from them, but apparently blocked them for even stating their point of view. From the fact this is the only link you have provided of this point of view being expressed, I can assume this is the only context where I will find it: the user pages of users who have been blocked for saying these things. I was asking whether what you presumably call the "essentialist" view was permitted to be expressed and was actually rationally addressed, preserved as a matter of public record in a place where any user would be able to easily read it, and would in fact be encouraged to do so, because you smart Wikipedia admins had addressed their objections in such a compelling and comprehensive way that any neutral third party would be persuaded. My assumption would be that this isn't actually possible and that's why you can't point to any instance of it happening, or even allow these points of view to be heard on your site in a context which doesn't come across as a warning to other users not to express them. That is not how genuine consensus is formed. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally Newimpartial, your colleague Acroterian used the term "transgenderism" on the Elliot Page talk page, and is therefore guilty of dog-whistling and disruption. I trust appropriate disciplinary action will be taken. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

How far do you think those goalposts are going to move? They must be getting pretty heavy by now.

Anyway, at least now you are beginning to recognize a difference between consensus and your own personal vision of genuine consensus, so perhaps enlightenment is finally arriving after all.

Re: my link, I'm sorry you had your irony glands removed. That must be hard for you. Newimpartial (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

My own personal vision in my crazy mind eh? Yeah, it's me who's gaslighting. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering your repeated insistence that the discussions producing the consensus at MOS:GENDERID were not being provided to you, when the table containing all those discussions (at MOS:GIDINFO) was presented to you over and over again - yup, you are one engaged in gaslighting in this matter. And, like so many gaslighters, you have engaged in more gaslighting by denying what you were doing. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what gaslighting is but okay. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I am questioning whether a valid consensus-forming process has occurred, not whether some pretence of a discussion is there. We can measure this by one simple criterion: is the so-called "essentialist" viewpoint contained in this discussion in some measure proportional to how it is held within society at large, who are the people this website SHOULD be here to serve (much as you apparently feel no need to WP:SATSIFY anyone).

You and your colleagues are engaged in gaslighting tactics, as you well know, by (a) isolating me from the mainstream discourse on this subject and (b) implying that anyone holding my view is some freak occurrence when countless other people do. This is the key element of gaslighting is creating isolation for the victim. You're not isolated, you are on the side of the powerful majority in this context. I hope that clarifies somewhat. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No, the key element of gaslighting is asserting that what a person knows has happened has not, in fact, happened. A key example is this diff, where you said For the last time, that link presents the conclusions, not the discussions leading to that conclusions - a truly flagrant example of gaslighting, given the content of the link.

Also, if you think trans people and our allies constitute a powerful majority while at the same time your "essentialist" viewpoint is widely held within society at large - well, the cognitive dissonance you experience must be alarming. Where are the reliable sources that support this supposedly "widely held" view? Does the "powerful majority" of LGBTQ folks suppress it somehow? This seems, ahem, fanciful to me. Newimpartial (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The first thing I read on MIS:GIDINFO is "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise."

I perhaps shouldn't even have said this link presents the conclusions. I should have said the link presents directives based on the conclusions. The kind of page I'm looking for would start "so how should we deal with this gender identity stuff then?". Where's the discussion on MIS:GIDINFO? It sounds like everything's already been decided.

I did not say trans people and allies consitute a powerful majority within society. I said you are clearly a powerful majority in this context of Wikipedia. That's clear given that the only quote you've provided me expressing an "essentialist" view is from someone who was banned for doing so, and that I myself was banned for supposed disruption of a consensus that I'm just told to accept without explanation. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I also see the Discussion Timeline below which does link to discussions. Apologies. I am still assuming though that "essentialist" comments were removed and labelled as trolling and harassment i.e. that these are discussions of the nuances of how to be sensitive to trans people on the assumption that their (your) expectations are reasonable, rather than discuss of whether they are. I'm assuming this based on the fact that you didn't provide me any quote from any of these discussions which was "essentialist".

For the record, I think presenting yourself as the opposite sex from the one you were born and asking other people to agree with that is an extreme form of gaslighting and so perhaps I've been predisposed to think that I am being gaslighted in support of that notion. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I think presenting yourself as the opposite sex from the one you were born and asking other people to agree with that is an extreme form of gaslighting and so perhaps I've been predisposed to think that I am being gaslighted in support of that notion.

Gaslighting or not, the view you are advocating here has repeatedly been expressed on WP and rejected; trolls naïve editors who arrive on WP to rehash the issue are now understood to be disruptive and the disruption they make is limited by editors and administrators in defense of WP's norms of civility. WP is a collaborative project, where we care about the ways reliable sources treat topics, not the feelings of editors who disagree with consensus reality.

And re: I am still assuming though that "essentialist" comments were removed and labelled as trolling and harassment - if you go back to discussions from the 2000s and even the 2010s, you will see multiple comments from editors who disagreed with consensus as it moved unevenly towards something like the current MOS:GENDERID (the language transcluded at the top of MOS:GIDINFO). In the early discussions, deadnaming and misgendering was fairly widely tolerated - it was only after the broadly-participated discussions of, say, 2015-2020 that contributions demanding that editors SATISFY dissidents and rehash old discussions on demand have been seen as disruptive.

The fact remains that there is a community consensus against deadnaming and misgendering and for the treatment of content embodied in MOS:GENDERID. Every time the circle of these discussions is expanded to the broader community, said consensus has become stronger. Wikipedia is somewhat akin to a "common law" jurisdiction in that the "statutory" policies and guidelines are only the tip of a large iceberg of community norms embodied more diffusely in various discussions; the case of MOS:GENDERID is one where the community has shifted the guidelines from time to time while consistently maintaining the WP:BLP and WP:V principles underlying it. And once again, these processes do not care about your (or anyone else's) feelings. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, I can only assume they've been developed precisely to be sensitive to the feelings of individuals like yourself. Why not be honest and accept that your transgenderism is a "reality" that is real to only yourself and therefore something entirely subjective?

Claiming that the consensus of Wikipedia is not motivated by political ideologies and sensibilities and is somehow just purely objective is obviously disignenuous. One of your own founders has denounced the site as being taken over by political interests.

Regardless I would be happy to read points of view I disagree with if they are presented in a concise and helpful way. You have been terse and dismissive with me from the word go. Had you linked me to something like what you wrote above it would have saved us both a lot of time. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

There is what you assume and then there is what exists for others as consensus reality. Only the latter matters for WP content determination - or for community norms of civility, for that matter. Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It matters that one of your founders believes the site can no longer be trusted. I never realised what a sick insular world you WP admins live in. Rather you than me. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Since a founder of Wikipedia has subscribed to conspiracy theories, it is a good thing that that person didn't produce much of a Founder effect. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Also note that Acrotetion was actually turning your own use of "transgenderism" back at you, in the comment to which you refer. You are really quite an accomplished gaslighter, particularly for a marine mammal. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Why bother? It's clear that any and all actions of your admins will be blamed on the "problematic" user they were interacting with at the time. Pure narcissism. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the consensus reality that exists for other people with what you see as "narcissism". I'm afraid I can't help you with that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Go and ask 50 people on the street whether you're a man or a woman, and promise not to report them to the police or their employer for giving an honest answer.

Your colleague above wrote "the sealion is losing his (or hers, or their, I don't want to misgender) patience and calm." Although he said he didn't want to misgender, he clearly initially assumed that I was male. What do you think? Can you tell what sex I am by interacting with me online?

That's the reality we both live in sweetheart. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Where I live, a person of nonbinary gender is running for mayor of the nation's capital, and another nonbinary person is running for the leadership of a national political party. Gender is not really an issue for either of them, politically. You apparently don't live in my reality. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

These things are never issues unless someone says anything about them. No one will ever just look at a person and say "ah they're non-binary". People will just see what biological sex they are. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That's WP:OR, dude. OR is irrelevant on Wikipedia - nobody cares what you personally believe to be true. Newimpartial (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

But if you didn't PERSONALLY BELIEVE that you were a man, would anything think you were anything but a woman (assuming it's that way round?). My point is no one would observe these things about you unless you personally claimed them to be the case. Same for Elliot Page. This site is literally organising itself around what people personally believe to be true. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources on gender identity describe it as a real phenomenon. The reliable sources on Elliot Page recognize him as a nonbinary trans man. Wikipedia follows the sources on these matters; people who do not could be described as curmudgeons or misanthropes, I suppose, but in any case their opinions don't matter on Wikipedia, since they do not correspond to the consensus of the reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

But real phenomena are OBSERVABLE by other people. They don't contradict EVERYBODY'S honest observations. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Your own personal beliefs about epistemology and ontology aren't relevant on Wikipedia, no matter how strongly you feel that they are true. WP:NOTTRUTH might be worth looking at, in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Using big words doesn't change the fact that everyone can see what sex a person is or isn't. This isn't about my personal beliefs, but again if you can isolate each individual one at a time and convince them of this... 86.23.218.87 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Actual reliable sources on the topic show that people interact socially on the basis of social gender, not biological sex. But I fear that the probability of you reading any of the reliable sources on the topic is vanishing slim, since you "already know" what "everyone can see". You are quite literally using the same rhetorical tropes as flat earth proponents. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

So don't ask me. Go out on the street and ask as many people as you like. Oh right, they're not "educated"... 86.23.218.87 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If I go out into an American street and ask people, I will probably learn that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. But that isn't a form of "research" that I can use for Wikipedia content determination. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's arguable that all sources become less reliable when people can lose their livelihood for coming to the wrong finding. But this is how consensus is forced. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy your life as a conspiracy theorist. I hear that the snacks are good. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I take it you haven't heard of Dr David Mackereth who was fired for refusing to use transgender pronouns? What world are you living in? 86.23.218.87 (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I live in the timeline where Mackereth was fired for bigotry. There are things in this timeline I could do without, but I'm fine with that one. Mackereth wasn't notably producing knowledge, though, so you can't use him as "evidence" for your CT. Newimpartial (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

And any researcher who found against transgenderism would meet the same fate on the same grounds of "not producing knowledge", or not the right knowledge anyway. Anyway, I will leave that there as I'm feeling pretty nauseous at your willingness to lie to serve your own interests. Goodbye. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You are nauseous. Can confirm. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

All that to argue about ontology? Positivist, post-structuralist, essentialist, solipsist... IP isn't looking to consider a new viewpoint so why bother? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm very open to new viewpoints, for example that of Abigail Shrier. Never heard of her till now, but Wikipedia says she's unscientific in the very first paragraph so she must really be telling the truth. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Demagoguery is not an ontological viewpoint. I wouldn't point to David Avocado Wolfe or Bill Maher, so why pretend Shrier noteworthy EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I've never heard of David Avocado Wolfe but he sounds like he has some extreme ideas. Not so extreme as the idea that a person can change sex but still. What did Maher say to trouble you? 86.23.218.87 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---