User talk:RosaSubmarine

January 2025

Hello, RosaSubmarine, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_bias_on_circumcision

I'll read the rules on that. Thank you. I only reincluded edits made by a friend.

I'm not coordinating with anyone and have stated my affilation and bias (if one wants to call human rights that). It was of my own accord. Unless you think multiple editors getting notified of an issue and editing at once is coordination. I do not believe we're in the violation of any rules. I'm from IntactWiki and with other users have noted that Wikipedia's articles on genital cutting misrepresent the consensus of leading genital cutting scholars.

No one is harming anything and there's no need for coordination if there's science and scholars holding these viewpoints. As we speak, pages on children's rights, female genital mutilation, human's rights, male circumcision, and genital modification and mutilation have all been recently improved upon editor notice. No longer is the cutting of a male's or intersex individual's genitals seen as different from the cutting of a female's genitals. The articles on FGM now note its similarities to male circumcision, the Brussels Statement has been included, and similarities between male "circumcision" and FGM have been noted. RosaSubmarine (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here because someone asked you to on twitter (as you stated you did) and reincluding edits 'made by a friend' is exactly the problem coordination at issue. MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian never asked us to edit. He pointed out problems with the article. If multiple people edit the article in response to that awareness then I wouldn't consider that coordination if we openly state it. None of us are "working together" if that's what you mesn. It's independent edits.

I'll look into it further. My bad if we got off on the wrong track. RosaSubmarine (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @RosaSubmarine, I see you might have misunderstood a few things about how some things are done on Wikipedia, and figured some advice might help. I can predict that you are going to face strong opposition if you continue on this track, and you might take it as confirmation that some sort of establishment disagrees with your position, whereas the opposition has nothing to do with that. This is for three separate reasons:

The specific thing you (accidentally) engaged in that is not allowed is something that is called meatpuppetry, which involves any level of coordination with other people while editing an article towards a specific viewpoint. That you declare it or make your bias clear is irrelevant when it comes to this policy, and not respecting it might bring you problems quite fast.
The core of the issue with your approach is that you seem to be there to do what we call righting great wrongs. The section on the page I linked explains very well what is meant by that, but in summary, Wikipedia is not the place to set the record straight, but instead where all relevant views about all issues are included. Then, we figure out by consensus the due weight to give to each viewpoint, as part of the neutral point of view policy, based on the best reliable secondary sources available.
Finally, and this is a rather smaller point, but starting your answer with a link to something that is clearly an attack page on this site will exhaust goodwill towards you very fast and make assuming good faith towards you more difficult. That it starts by quoting Larry Sanger and the Heartland Institute significantly impacts your credibility and those of your edits, for reasons that are obvious after reading the corresponding wiki pages.

If you change your approach while editing the pages that are of interest to you, you will face way less resistance. There is bias on Wikipedia of course, but this is not the way to go about fixing it. I tried to include links to the pages that I think will help the most. Please feel free to send me a message on my talk page for further explanation or questions. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 14:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:KlayCax per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Spicy (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]