User talk:Kingsindian

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 16:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Kings, you asked at AE Suppose someone self-identifies as a woman. Doesn't matter for this question whether they're cis or trans. Am I not allowed to use the singular "they" as a pronoun for them in talk page discussions? Where does MOS:GENDERID prohibit this practice? As far as I can see, the only sentence at all dealing with "they" in the MOS is this: Singular they/them/their pronouns are appropriate to use in reference to any person who goes by them. As I read the sentence, it is dealing with people who wish to be called by the pronoun "they" -- so Wikipedia editors should respect their wishes. This sentence does not prohibit Wikipedia editors from using "they" for anyone else, say a man or woman. I understand completely that it's a problem if someone uses "she" for a person who self-identifies as a man (or vice versa). That problem arises because "she" or "he" are not gender-neutral. But the singular they is a gender-neutral pronoun, and useful precisely because of it is so. I use the singular they all the time in my normal conversation.

I don't want to clog up AE with tangential discussion, but I'm wondering: based on the evidence I presented and the comments by uninvolved admins in the results section, you thought this was a relevant issue at that case? Was it simply because another commenter had brought it up? Valereee (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee: I asked because there was a long discussion on the talk page of the editor in question. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Well, for me, the use of they/them, and the subsequent objection when someone else used they to refer to him, was intentionally obtuse. Many of us use they/them all the time when referring to other editors and sometimes for other people. I almost always do, unless I'm pretty sure the editor/person has stated a preference or seems to be obviously presenting as male or female. And I don't object to being referred to as they/them myself, even though both I've set my preferences to she/her, which can be seen by visiting my user or by hovering with nav popups enable. Very few people would take offense, and very few watching would support the taking of offense from someone who hadn't bothered to specify it in their settings.

In this case, the editor they/them'd someone who clearly and publicly had identified herself as female AND had a history of being publicly misgendered. When someone called him out on this in the discussion you linked above, he feigned innocence and came to the intentionally obtuse conclusion that the correct response was "I will try to refrain from using "they" in the future". And then when someone in the original discussion they'd him, he claimed offense because "Some guy deleted a comment I made because I used "they" as a neutral pronoun. So I felt justified in pointing out that Nil NZ used the same neutral pronoun referring to me". Clearly trolling.

I do not believe you are being intentionally obtuse by asking about this. The series of discussions was long and took place on multiple pages, so you may not have picked up on the fact this editor is sealioning to make a point, and when called out on that, going immediately to gaslighting with "No, I'm not! You are!" Sealioning in particular is frustratingly tedious to both prove and assess. Someone has to be willing to collect the diffs to prove it, and in some cases that requires 20+ diffs. Which then someone else has to go through to assess it, and being asked to go through 20+ diffs will put a lot of admins off.

At any rate, FWIW: that's my take on the they/them brouhaha at this AE report. Valereee (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee: You may have whatever opinion about someone's mental states and behaviour. I simply asked whether it's against Wikipedia policy to use "they". You can read the talk page discussion, and people say in that discussion it's obviously a violation. Either they're wrong, or I'm wrong. I would like to know which it is. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not against wikipedia policy to use the word they. I disagree that means, in that particular talk page discussion and the discussion at the editor's talk, Either they're wrong, or I'm wrong. YMMV. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee: Yes, I agree that it's not against Wikipedia policy. Do you have any words to say about the multiple people on that talk page claiming, very confidently, the reverse? Do you feel that this interaction, with an unsubtle mention of possible sanctions, might have something to do with the behaviour of the editor in question? WP:BITE is relevant, even for people who may have different factual, ideological or political opinions on a topic. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure. They weren't claiming the reverse. They were pointing out that the editor was being pointy at a CT, which is on its face disruptive editing. This person isn't at AE because of they were disagreeing, which was explained to them many times in multiple discussions on my talk, their talk, and the article talk. They're at AE because they're sealioning at a CT and, when called on that, gaslighting. It's disruptive, no matter which side of what discussion you're arguing. Mentioning sanctions didn't even seem to get the editor's attention; their response at AE was to ask why they hadn't been warned. When they had been warned/alerted, multiple times by multiple editors, and had either deleted or gaslighted those warnings. Valereee (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

So, if you already knew Yes, I agree that it's not against Wikipedia policy, why are you asking this at an AE discussion? And when you didn't get an answer, doubling down with a second request for an answer, this time pinging one of the workers there? You're an experienced editor. I'm a little flummoxed. Valereee (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee: The second comment is about a separate question, having nothing to do with the first. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee: I don't see how one can fairly say that They weren't claiming the reverse. The diff I pointed to explicitly says that it's a BLP violation. This comment says that it's a MOS:GENDERID violation. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a difference between using they/them because either 1. you always do or 2. you don't know the person's gender/prounouns and using they/them when you absolutely DO know the person's gender and pronouns and are fully aware the person has been misgendered repeatedly publicly. Using they in such a case is arguably misgendering that person, which is a BLP violation. Then feigning ignorance about the entire thing is pointy and disruptive in a CT. Valereee (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee: So, let me ask a simple question: if I use "they" on the talk page, is it a BLP violation? (I have always used "she" so far.) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

If you use it to refer to Khelif, it might be seen as pointiness at a CT and as intentional misgendering, which is a BLP vio and a GENSEX vio. If you use it to refer to me, you're good. :) Valereee (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee: I meant in reference to Khelif. Let me make an obvious point: "pointiness" is subjective. What if, instead of using "she", I start avoiding any pronouns, but use "Khelif" everywhere? Is that pointiness? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

It would likely be considered to be by some of your more experienced and well-intentioned colleagues.

Re: pointiness is subjective...well, I'd say there's certainly room for marginal cases, but I don't think this is really one of them.

1. Khelif says she's female
2. You know this but disagree, or disagree it's been proven, or want to signal you have reservations, or whatever reason you don't want to use she/her
3. You also don't want to use he/him, as you know that's a BLP/GENSEX vio
4. So you use they/Khelif to...what? Make the point that you know she uses she/her pronouns but disapprove of it and want everyone to realize you disapprove of it without actually calling her him?

Or at least I suspect that's how it might be perceived by people familiar with the nuances in this situation. It's not actually in my wheelhouse. Valereee (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee: In this hypothetical about me, two possibilities to ponder.

First: if people consider some of my usage "pointy", perhaps some of the responsibility lies with them, and not me.

Second, in regards to your point (4): I disapprove of the pronoun, so I use an explicitly gender-neutral pronoun, or her name instead of a pronoun. That way, I can be accurate without saying something I personally disapprove of.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Here's another possibility to ponder: If you personally disapprove to the point you prefer not to type a pronoun you think or suspect is incorrect, and 99% of the discussion of that article centers around things like the person's pronoun/identity...maybe your POV is so strong that you shouldn't be editing at that BLP?

Because I can guarantee you there are other editors who have reservations about things like Khelif's inclusion in women's boxing, but who can bring themselves to type "she" and don't need to make sure they're clearly signalling their reservations at every opportunity. They're capable of in good faith trying to edit neutrally, and they can represent that point of view without being pointy about it. Valereee (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'm afraid we're not communicating, so there's little point in continuing the discussion. Thanks for your comments. I would still like a statement by the AE admins whether my interpretation of MOS:GENDERID is correct or not. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries, best to you! Valereee (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)