User talk:SreySros/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:SreySros. 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.

Archive 1

"Your previous account" - Discussion with Flyer22 Frozen, 1-2 December 2020

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Benjiboi/Archive#02_December_2020, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WanderingWanda/Archive, as well as several CheckUser comments: [1], [2], [3], [4]

I'm asking this per having looked at your contributions and seen edits like this one, which does not speak to you being a newbie, and a few editors having contacted me via email about your account.

So will you disclose your previous account here on your talk page, maintain that you are a newbie, or ignore this post? Keep in mind that I am allowed to ask you this, which is clear by the following: Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 15#Guidance about whether to simply ask them.

No need to ping me. I'll check back here for your response. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but the truth is that I am indeed a newbie. I did have one previous account, Warpmayer, which I made back in September, used to make one edit (removing an errant comma from the page for Nezahualcoyotl) and got locked out of the account. I didn't know that that warranted a disclosure, but now that you mention it I see under WP:SOCKLEGIT (section "Compromised accounts") that it technically does. My failure to disclose that was out of ignorance, not malice, and I think few will see it as an attempt to deceive anyone or to undermine consensus.

As for the relative familiarity with policy which seems to have landed me in this situation, I spent a decent amount of time reading discussions on talk pages before starting to edit. I understand the harsh tone of your message given that you believe I am a sockpuppet, and I hope that I can satisfy you otherwise. You're welcome to do a CheckUser or SPI on me.

You mentioned that several users emailed you about me. This concerns me. If other users have concerns about my edits or contributions, I hope they would feel comfortable bringing them here to me, so that I may read their criticisms and improve as an editor. Thank you, SreySros (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I added a disclosure box to my user page with my previous username on it. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. SreySros (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of socks who have given the explanation that you gave above. Some will state that they started out editing as an IP, but at least "started out editing as an IP" is more believable since it does sometimes happen. No one is going to buy that you are a newbie who just so happened to read our policies and guidelines so thoroughly that you edit just like an experienced editor. And this disbelief is heightened by the fact that it takes newbies months or years to work toward the policies and guidelines that you wield with little effort. It's one thing to know about WP:Pillars. It's another to know about the things you know already. We have many guidelines and various policies, and you appear to know about them all. Even editors who have been with us a year usually do not know about all of them, especially as far as the obscure ones go. You even know about WP:MEDRS. When it comes to newbies, certain groups of WP:Student editors are far likelier than other newbies to know about WP:MEDRS. On top of that, there is other behavior that indicates that you are not a newbie, and that includes immediately creating a user page and turning your account blue (which is something that socks do to blend in). It is very unusual for a newbie to turn their user page blue with their first edit. And when they do, it will not be with a single dot or a brief sentence. You turned your talk page blue a month later. And it is only after these "turn it blue" actions that you moved full steam ahead on the editing path. Editors usually take months or years to add userboxes. Newbies hardly ever sign their post on their very first post, like you did here. They are not aware of WP:LISTGAP, like you clearly are. Even many experienced editors (and that includes me) do not always (or often) adhere to WP:LISTGAP. Many don't at all. But you do. Newbies do not call me "Flyer." But you have. Every so-called newbie who has called me "Flyer" without being familiar with me has turned out to be a sock. It is one of the telltale signs. Newbies do not come out of the gate editing like you do. They just don't.

As for WP:CheckUser, something else that newbies rarely know about? It doesn't always help. I think you know that.

But, hey, you gave me your explanation. And that's that for now. I see no need to respond further to you in this section on your talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have caused you such concern, and unfortunately it seems like I can't satisfy you that I am not a sockpuppet. I could go through the things you have mentioned and explain them, but I don't know how much good that would do. I'm sorry to have started off on the wrong foot with you, and I hope that this doesn't affect our editing relationship going forward, as we seem to have similar interests and have already bumped into each other on a few pages. If there's anything I can do to satisfy you that I am not a sockpuppet, please let me know, and on a related note I encourage you to take whatever action (CU, SPI, etc.) you feel is necessary. SreySros (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Note

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I didn't see {{ds/aware}} on your user page. Normally that's supposed to go on your talk page per the template's documentation. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh whoops, I'll add that here! Thank you for the welcome and for the note! Srey Sros^talk 16:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, SreySros! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Wikipedia:Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Note from SMcCandlish, Mar 2021

I was about to leave the same notice [referring to MJL's DS notice above], since SreySros is inappropriately going out of their way to personalize dispute in this topic area. As this also happened at an MoS page, and MoS is also covered by DS, then this notice also becomes pertinent, as unconstructive behavior regarding gender issues, at MoS, is a doubly poor idea:

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 the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. 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.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved this comment to its own section to preserve chronological order. Srey Sros^talk 21:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

For anyone else reading this, here are the three diffs relevant to the interaction SMcCandlish refers to, in order: [5]^¶3, [6], [7]. Srey Sros^talk 03:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Name Pronunciation

Hey SreySros. I'm not quite sure how to pronounce your name. Is it (SRAY-SRAUCE), rhymes with "Say Sauce"? — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> <📧> 01:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Angry Red Hammer Guy, I think the IPA would be /srǝy’srɑh/. On this IPA reader, IMO the "Astrid" voice pronounces it the best. If you read Khmer script, I think it would be ស្រីស្រស់ (Google Translate can pronounce it too). Although, you're welcome to pronounce it however you like. Srey Sros^talk 02:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Cool name. I do not read Khmer script, do you? — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> <📧> 03:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Note from CatCafe regarding content dispute on Jessica Yaniv, May 2021

Your recent editing history at Jessica Yaniv 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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.

As explained in detail to you on the Talk:Jessica Yaniv‎ page. CatCafe (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@CatCafe: which edits of mine are you referring to? Srey Sros^talk 23:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to link to individual diffs buy you will find all your reverts here [8]. Editor Crossroads has well explained your current misinterpretation of the GENDERID policy on the JY talk-page there. I am glad that you are now taking steps to interpret that policy correctly, as your previous reverts were based on your misinterpretations. CatCafe (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with both of your characterizations, both of my reasoning as a misinterpretation and of my actions as an edit war. Looking at the history, I count only three edits of mine which could be construed as reverts, and they span roughly a week. Srey Sros^talk 00:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Templates

I quite like the look of the talk-page templates you've made - maybe this is a bit presumptuous, but would you consider moving them to template-space at some point? I feel like they could become somewhat-more widely used (generally user-space ones aren't, as much). No pressure, of course. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Thank you! I'm not familiar with what the process of moving to template space would entail, but if other editors find them useful I would love to do that at some point. I should probably test them more comprehensively before doing so, but do you know how I would go about moving them to template space? Srey Sros^talk 16:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It'd be the same as moving any other page, just use the "move" tab. I'd be happy to assist (and write documentation/templatedata) if you'd like me to. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Especially since you're the one other user who's used the template, I thought I'd let you know that I moved {{wli}} to template-space. Thank you for your help! I'll probably get around to writing up docs for the others and moving them in the next week or so. Srey Sros^talk 02:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! Elli (talk | contribs) 02:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, SreySros. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Note from Sesquivalent, Feb 2022

Note: section heading originally read "PAG talk pages are not your personal blog". SreySros (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Even less are they a place to resume polemics against editors from an RfC that did not go your way. Looking at the ROGD discussion I see you already took several of the same swipes there. I let it pass at the time.

Polemic WALLOFTEXT dossiers of other users' supposed transgressions, compiled from unrelated pages and enormous discussions (the ROGD RfC) that readers of the current page cannot possibly investigate in detail to evaluate your claims, are a waste of everyone's time and an abuse of the talk page. Move it to user talk here or at my page if it is suddenly important to "educate" me on whatever subjects. Or just delete the comment entirely (I will delete my reply in that case; or consider this my permission to delete both comments together if you prefer). If you have behavioral complaints the prescribed outlets are user talk and ANI, in that order. Not derailing already long talk page discussions with personal BATTLEposts. Sesquivalent (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems you misunderstand the point of my comment on the MOS talk. I do not argue there that your behavior warrants sanction – just that your argument^(diff) regarding source reliability and weight is incompatible with policy. Namely, your insistence that it is acceptable to discount due weight and reliability of what you see as "LGBTQ-affiliated" sources, either because you believe they have an inherent conflict of interest or because you believe they are (inherently and as a group) so loose with definitions as to not be reliable for issues of word usage.

My point in the comment you object to is that your continued argument of this point seems to be based on an overall misunderstanding of the reliable sources policy. I could have asserted that without evidence, but I thought it better to include my reasoning. Hardly a dossier, I link two diffs^{([9] and [10])} where you've made the same argument as you do in your comment. I include those diffs to justify why I am discussing your understanding and application of the overall policy as it affects your argument.

You're correct that discussions of user behavior should usually take place on User talk or other pages designed for that (e.g. AE), and should I wish to discuss your behavior in the future you can trust that I will take it to an appropriate venue. Srey Sros^talk 00:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You tried that argument at the ROGD RfC; I answered your comment there, with no reply from you. The short answer is that DUE, and RfC discussions, and interpreting "consensus" (of whom? where?) for RS/AC and FRINGE and "fringe"-in-wikivoice analyses, are all processes in which qualifying the sources is undisputedly important. I haven't actually claimed, certainly not at WTW, that any particular property of "LGBT affiliated sources" makes them unreliable compared to non LGBT sources; just that most appearances of "transphobic" occur there, and those have the breadth and inconsistency properties asserted (whether or not that inheres in their LGBT origin; it just happens to be how they write about this subject, for whatever reason). Sesquivalent (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to my reply to your lengthy post^(diff) regarding the Bauer et al. paper, in which you argue that we should disregard it as a reliable source because you feel you have personally identified issues with "the content and mathematics in the paper" that the editors and peer-review process of the Journal of Pediatrics somehow missed?

That seems to be the only interaction I've had with you on that page, so if that's not what you are referring to, perhaps you confuse me for someone else. If that is what you are referring to, I fail to see how your message there addresses the points made above. In your reply^(diff) you merely double-down on your assertion that is is valid to base assessments of due weight and reliability on whether or not you are personally convinced by a source. That argument is so plainly counter to policy that I didn't feel that it warranted a response, and regarding your ...with no reply from you aside I would like to remind you that that no one is ever obligated to satisfy you in a discussion.

Regarding your statement that qualifying the sources is undisputedly important in editorial discussions, it is very important that you understand that these decisions must be based in policy. The fact that editorial judgement comes into play when deciding, say, whether some niche publication meets WP:RS absolutely does not mean that we are free to disregard a known RS because we aren't convinced by it, or because we believe that the demographic category an RS is associated with means that it is inherently less reliable.

The distinction you attempt to draw (I haven't actually claimed, certainly not at WTW, that any particular property of "LGBT affiliated sources" makes them unreliable compared to non LGBT sources... it just happens to be how [LGBT sources] write about this subject, for whatever reason) does not translate into a WP-relevant difference. Even aside from the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your claims, the argument "X source shouldn't be used because it's LGBTQ-affiliated and thus unreliable" is incompatible with policy regardless of which, if any, properties of those sources you blame for that. Srey Sros^talk 00:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You persistently mischaracterize my remarks (e.g., as about excluding sources rather than policy-required judgements of DUE weight and independence of RS; or that those arguments proceed a priori from some property of LGBT rather than L,G,B or T applying as an a posteriori label to sources that have some DUE-relevant property; or overruling journal editors rather than correcting overstatements by Wikipedia editors as to what a paper contains. To name a few.) In any event the issue that brought us here is whether your post at Talk:WTW triggers WP:POLEMIC, ASPERSION, CRYPHOBE, TPG, TPO, NPA and the like in relation to hatting and deletion and you are rather quiet about that. Sesquivalent (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

With regard to whether I've mischaracterized your remarks, I don't have any more to say other than to direct any third parties reading this to the remarks themselves (linked above), as I think your words stand for themselves. It's also rather ironic that you include TPO in your list of guidelines I've supposedly violated at WTW – I haven't touched anyone else's comments there, but that is precisely the guideline you would be violating if you were to collapse my comment at WTW. Srey Sros^talk 00:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Sesquivalent, you continue to make arguments on article and policy Talk pages that certain reliable sources should not be followed, because of their supposed COI or the biases of these sources. When you do this, you should expect the counterargument that, on Wikipedia, rash, blanket assessments of COI attributed to mainstream views held in of medical authorities and other sources are interpreted as the personal POV of the editor rather than as a polcy-relevant considerations for guidelines or article text. Pointing out POV in the argumentation other editors, by presenting diffs, is relevant in such cases, and your construal of such comments as screeds or polemics does little credit either to your reading comprehension or to your attitude towards collaboration. Defensive outrage is not really a stance that leads to constructive consensus, certainly not to a consensus favorable to the insights you intend to share. Newimpartial (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned COI or the biases of these sources, nor any equivalents, in the WTW discussion. You and SreySros imagined that I have an axe to grind about a supposed Gay Agenda and went to the races based on those suppositions, rather than quoting and answering specific points made at WTW (e.g., does the LGBT press use "transphobic" inconsistently and broadly in comparison to what Modal Wikipedia Reader would understand from wikivoice use of the term? It's an empirical claim that can be checked, such as in the half dozen cases SideSwipeth says the term was debated to death on talk pages). Obviously it is WP:DE to take user X's comment on topic Y and use it to relitigate X's comments on topic Z from a closed RfC. And here we are on this page still debating the suppositions rather than any particular statement made at WTW. Sesquivalent (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You may believe that you have separated the views concerning COI and mainstream sources on gender identity, which you have expressed elsewhere, from your views expressed at WT:WTW using some kind of watertight compartments, but other editors are not required by AGF to accept that belief (q.v., AGFISNOTASUICIDEPACT). There is absolutely no requirement that editors pretend to "forget" the views of other editors, previously expressed, when encountering an editor promoting the same POV in a subsequent discussion, and it is by no means disruptive (or unCIVIL) to point that out. I see no attempt to relitigate anything, only pointers to your quite evidently minoritarian POV. Your suggestion that an LGBT press exists in some sense relevant to WP's RS policy - and that it has certain properties that you attribute to it without evidence - lacks either policy or evidentiary support, and reads as a simple expression of prejudice on your part. Which, by the way, is why I couldn't be bothered to respond to the most recent expressions of your views on WT:WTW. Life is too short for that, but it isn't too short to call you out when you fly off the handle defending your "original" assertions. Newimpartial (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Evidently I was not wrong categorizing all this as POVRAILROAD. "Screed" and "polemic", specifically WP:POLEMIC, were accurate. You are welcome of course to fantasize whatever you wish regarding the views of other editors; the issue at hand is whether putting it on a talk page violates TPG, TPO, POLEMIC, NPA etc etc. Talk pages are simply not a forum for exploration of editors' opinions of other editors' (real or imagined) opinions on topics outside the discussion, or (also imaginary) attributed views of how Wikipedia works. I'm not sure if SreySros comment is eligible for deletion, but I see no reason not to hat it. Sesquivalent (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Reversion

My thinking was that something does not become a human right but it can start to be seen as one. Previous wording did not make sense, maybe not grammar? But it read weird either way. Not gonna edit war but just wanted to clarify. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)