User talk:Ariana Williscroft

Welcome!

Hello, Ariana Williscroft, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try 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. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POV editing, Original research, Edit warring

Your recent edits at Attraction to transgender people seem based on your own personal experience, and biased based on what you find offensive or acceptable. In this edit, you said:

Blanchard's view of trans people and the idea of 'autogynephiia' as a descriptor for us is deeply transphobic. And, I feel like it's unnecessary to explore 'attraction to crossdressers and transvestites' in this article - as they're not transgender, so that topic is irrelevant. If people want to publish information about those topics on Wikipedia, that info should be written somewhere separate.

Please understand that as Wikipedia editors, our function is to summarize what reliable sources have to say about a topic, whether we find them personally offensive or not. It is not up to you, to decide what goes in this article, and a continued pattern of this behavior could be viewed as WP:DISRUPTIVE. The best course of action now, would be for you to revert your last edits, and raise a discussion on the Talk page, to discuss this issue with other editors. If you have any questions about this, please {{Reply}} below, or raise a new topic on my Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Reply}} What you said there was extremely transphobic and manipulative. Firstly, why do you think that my edits seem based on my own personal experiences? What made you think that may be the case? And, secondly - you said that it seemed to be like that - and then immediately came to that conclusion without asking me why I thought that and just started imposing your own viewpoint! I never said that it edited it based off me finding it offensive - you said that could be the case - and then you just started using that as an argument to revert my edit, as if I'd confirmed your theory! Blanchard's source is not reliable! It is widely considered to be transphobic! Blanchard's studies, views and any other study that associates trans people with autogynephilia has been widely rebuked by doctors and scientists! And, if it was not up to anybody to decide what goes in Wikipedia articles - no one would edit anything! You told me that you had a theory and then just immediately told me "it's not up to you to edit this article" without asking me if what you said was true or not! I am reverting my edits now. I am not upset with you - but in the future I would advise that you consider people's feelings more and actually have a conversation about their viewpoints - instead of behaving like you have with me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariana Williscroft (talk • contribs) 08:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a breath. First of all, thanks for your self-revert at the article. What with Crossroads having reverted before you got there, and the typos in your edit summary having resulted in a couple extra back-and-forth reverts that I don't think you were originally planning on, I think you may have lost track of where you ended up, and in fact, were one revert short. I've supplied one more revert for you, which I think complies with your intention at the outset to undo your earlier removals, and take it to Talk for discussion.

In response to your questions above:

I made the comment about your edits being related to your personal experience, in reaction to your edit summaries, which mentioned your personal experience, and your feeling that certain content in the article which you removed was transphobic. But we don't justify additions or removals from articles based on whether individual editors, or even other researchers, find them transphobic or not, but based on whether they are considered to be reliable sources for the topic they are publishing on.
I didn't revert your edit because you claimed it was transphobic. That is not a sufficient justification to revert an edit. I reverted it because it removed content in the article that was sourced by a citation to a published, reliable, secondary source, and you didn't give any reason to remove it other than your own protestations that it is transphobic. That's not sufficient grounds to remove content based on published sources. The correct path in that case, is to go to the Talk page of the article (Talk:Attraction to transgender people), start a discussion there about the content you'd like to see removed, and try to achieve consensus among other editors for your opinion. Once you gain consensus, you can then remove that content.
You said:
Blanchard's source is not reliable! It is widely considered to be transphobic!

You may take this issue up at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. If there is a consensus there that Blanchard is not reliable, that source may be removed. You also said:

Blanchard's studies, views and any other study that associates trans people with autogynephilia has been widely rebuked by doctors and scientists!

Any reliable sources criticizing Blanchard about this could certainly be added to the article, as counterpoint to Blanchard. Another approach might be that the Blanchard study is a primary source, and Wikipedia encourages the use of WP:SECONDARY sources, and discourages primary sources. In addition, a lot of it dates to the 90s, and so is not very recent. The problem is, that there is not a ton of published research about this topic, so we kind of have to go with what's available. Certainly if you find newer sources, especially secondary ones, that would be great, and you can add those to the article at any time. Perhaps there are some sources at Blanchard's transsexualism typology that you could use in this effort.
You said:
I would advise that you consider people's feelings more and actually have a conversation about their viewpoints - instead of behaving like you have with me!
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but my intention is to uphold the principles of the online encyclopedia. You are both new, and have chosen to edit in an area that is highly controversial, so much so that even experienced editors at Wikipedia often avoid it, because it tends to generate a lot of strife. As a new editor, you might want to start in a topic area that isn't so fraught. However, that is up to you; I would just suggest that if you wish to continue to edit in topics related to gender, and more specifically to transgender, which is one of the hottest button culture war issues currently, you should try and develop a bit of a thick skin, because you will need it. Although Wikipedia certainly has its share of annoying vandals, trolls, and transphobes, in general I think you will find that there are more allies and supporters here than you will find in the general public. A good principle to go by, and one of Wikipedia's core principles, is "assume good faith", meaning, more or less, assume that people are trying to improve the encyclopedia, and if their actions on some point or other seem to diverge from yours, don't just assume they are an enemy or something. Assume the best—they may turn out to be your strongest friend and supporter.

I hope you enjoy your time here as an editor, and will continue to edit. Don't hestitate to contact me here (via {{Reply|Mathglot}}) or on my Talk page, at any time. You can also ask questions at the WP:Tea house as well. Hope I answered your questions, and I hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I never talked about my personal experiences in my comments. So, you must have misunderstood something I said - and I would appreciate it if you clarified what you were talking about there.

Secondly, please don't patronise me by telling me to "develop a thick skin" to people being transphobic when they are the ones who are wrong in the first place. And thirdly, there isn't a culture war about transgender people. Transphobic people try to act as if their bigotry is anything but that. I'll respond to the rest of your message later Ariana Williscroft (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notice about editing gender-related articles

This is a standard notice about editing gender-related articles. It isn't about you or your editing; everybody that edits gender-related articles gets one of these sooner or later. Basically, the notice informs you that beyond all the regular rules around here, there is a more stringent set of rules governing the behavior of editors who edit in certain controversial topic areas, like gender, that you need to know about. Please read it, and follow the links. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mathglot (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hi Ariana Williscroft. Thanks for identifying that issue at Caitlyn Jenner. I do hope you take a look at WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Following BRD will help you avoid a lot of the traps and pitfalls that get editors blocked. I also think it's important that you don't call other editors "cowards". I know you didn't ask for my advice, but here it is anyway, and I hope it helps. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you very much for showing me these rules. I will make sure to look at them when I wake up (it's very late in my timezone). And, you're right - I shouldn't have called that editor a coward. I will apologise to them right now and I won't call editors cowards (or anything similar) in the future. Your advice is super helpful and deeply appreciated. Thank you for being so kind and mature. Ariana Williscroft (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BeywheelzLetItRip. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Neil Parish—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. — B. L. I. R. 20:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Neil Parish) because of WP:BLP violations in that area.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ariana Williscroft (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I won't do it again and will only make constructive edits from now on. Ariana Williscroft (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're only blocked from editing one article for now. Any further BLP violations will result in an expansions of this block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment Having seen what you did to the article, it would have been a straight indef from me. Think yourself lucky. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So after I partial block you, you create a sock puppet to evade my blocking you? GN's 2 weeks was exceedingly restrained. SMDH. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ariana Williscroft. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ariana Williscroft (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not been using that other account for illegitimate reasons. I have been editing controversial areas - but none of my edits violated any rules and I have been following all guidelines. I don't want to use that old account anymore and don't mind being blocked on that account from editing Neil Parish which I was blocked from editing on this account. I created Gabrielle103 because I made this account in secondary school. I chose the name Ariana in secondary school, and using this account reminds me of my experience there which is deeply traumatic for me as a trans woman. This account - where I was publicly female - was one of the only times where I could be like that, due to my transphobic mother. I had to create it in secret. All I can think about whenever I log on here and see that name was my time being closeted in secondary school as a trans girl and everything bad that happened to me. It's incredibly painful and distressing. I don't want to think about that anymore and I want to do things constructive with the time I have left. Ariana Williscroft (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ariana Williscroft, you attempted to mislead us as to whether or not Gabrielle103 was a sockpuppet account. It was, and I have Confirmed it was. You were free to privately disclose the sockpuppet account but instead decided to attempt to mislead us. I echo the suggestions below. This is not the end of the line for you editing Wikipedia, and it's only a 2 week block. Yamla (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@TheDragonFire300: Here's my explanation to your question you asked me. Thanks for asking it to me nicely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariana Williscroft (talk • contribs) 03:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ping someone, you need to sign it at the same time you added the ping not like this [1] so I'll @TheDragonFire300: for you. As for the rest, while you have our great sympathies for the distress this account name caused you, I think you're going to find it hard to convince editors you did not have mixed motivations since creating that new account was also just after you got into enough trouble with this one to be partially blocked and you never declared any connection, and even when the sockpuppetry allegations were made, you kept insisting you were not a sock and you were innocent without at least mentioning you had an older account privately to someone. Considering the seriousness of the concerns with your editing with this account, it's doesn't seem realistic that the two accounts won't be prominently linked going forward. Therefore it'll probably be better to just ask for a username change. While I believe stewards are generally reluctant to process a username change request when you have active sanctions, you might be able to convince them if you explain your reasons and it seems to me much realistic route than being allowed to edit with the new account since it will keep your edit history in one place. Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Nil Einne and I urge you to wait out the two week block, then file for a username change. Even though I do not endorse it, I will not and cannot stop you from moving ahead with an unblock request, however. Additionally, I am concerned about your statement under Gabrielle103, I'm not a sockpuppet account., despite later evidence to the contrary. Frankly, this is dishonest, and coupled with the too good to be true fresh start when you'd just been partially blocked, makes it hard to believe that your reason for starting afresh was anything less than to escape the stigma of your old username. To reiterate, you should file for a change of username as soon as your block is released, whether through an unblock request or waiting out the block length. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to mislead anyone it was a genuine mistake. I thought sockpuppet meant someone who was using their account to evade bans, and that alternate accounts were used for legitimate reasons - hence why I said alternate account. The multiple account template says multiple accounts are allowed for legitimate reasons but sockpuppets for deception are not, which is why I was genuinely confused. Ariana Williscroft (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, your use of Gabrielle103 would indeed be considered as a legit use because it was being used to start anew with a new username. Unfortunately, there are several requirements to such an account, namely that Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions imposed is not eligible for such an account. You had just come off a partial block which counts as a sanction under this policy, so therefore you cannot change your username this way by abandoning your account. You are free to request a change of username per the avenues suggested to you by Nil Einne and I. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ariana Williscroft. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]