User talk:Zanquis

About your contributions to Talk:Non-consensual condom removal

Hello. Since you seem to seek to change an established consensus, I encourage you to move your replies into a new section so that it doesn't get lost in the previous discussion. -- Kzkzb (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is not an established concensus, it is misplaced believes by a few stubborn editors that have so far not provided a single valid argument to make it gender specific. I was dissapointed that the misandry is winning here.

The questions should be simple:

Can woman do this? Answer is yes

Have woman done this? Answer is also yes

Just because almost no male makes a big deal out of it, I sure didn't because I got absolutely zero support after it happened to me. It is similar to rape in that way. Females can engage in rape just it gets very rarely reported. That males can be the victims of domestic violence is also something that has been ignored for years. Zanquis (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation did achieve a consensus, regardless of whether the arguments are valid or not. In any case, the best way to change the consensus here would be to lay your arguments in a new section (in a civil and respectful way), while addressing the arguments laid in the previous discussion (or in this case, explain why they aren't valid). -- Kzkzb (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple, the reasons aren't valid because of 2 reasons: 1) Woman can do it, 2) Woman also do it. More isn't needed. Stop the misandry it has no place on Wikipedia. Zanquis (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, maybe it happened after you achieved your concensus, in Germany a woman was sentenced to prison because of stealthing, literally because of this crime. She wanted to get pregnant by her friends with benefits. I don't care if you don't want to debate me, go convince the judge that she is innocent because no woman does it. Zanquis (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am sympathetic to your arguments (since I did advocate for using gender-neutral language in the previous discussion), your behavior here is disruptive. Please create a new thread for discussing your change, stop edit warring your modifications into the article, and stop accusing of vandalism Wikipedians trying to respect the established consensus. Kzkzb (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I call it out for what is actually is vandalism, the argument for the consnsus was that there was no evidence of woman doing this, since 2022 the evidence was provided that woman also do this behavior. The argument it was all based on, articles everything is gone. There is barely room for debate. Facts should rule, keep reverting it because you once found a consensus on what is now proven to be faulty arguments is not an argument to keep reverting it. Consensu was wrong, proven wrong. Zanquis (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are on the verge of being blocked. Go read WP:RGW and WP:POINT. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have read the WP:RGW The part that woman also participate in this act has reached mainstream media. So that is not an objection. I see that editors keep trying to set it back while actively ignoring valid points in the talks for months. The people violating WP:POINT are in my humble opinion those that revert it under the false pretense that a consensus was achieved. The world wide consensus is both genders, the act is gender neutral. BUT because someone managed to cherry pick enough articles that where fully biased against only males doing this people where tricked and silenced.

If they felt a need that it was mainly done by men that could have been said, but that would just be trying to add it for no good reason. Even if the term stealthing mainly applies to men removing the condom, the article isn't about stealthing. That is just a slang word for the act (which again by plenty of definitions is done by woman also). The people who feel they achieved consensus have completely ignored the talk since they felt they achieved it in 2021, comments have been placed to changes, attempts have been done, but they only acted on undoing any modifications to keep their consensus and fully ignore the talk, then they point to the talk and except for Kzkzb ignore it.

Lets see against the weight, if you would look up articles about stealthing easily 90% or more use gender neutral terms for the term stealthing. Even if the study is purely focused on male partners removing the condom. Almost none of the researchers have even bother to look, if anything it would be better to then also included baby-trapping and sperm theft as for some reason when a woman does it, the term often changes, even if the act is basically the same. Zanquis (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;

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. If you have questions, please contact me. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hi Zanquis! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Non-consensual condom removal several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Non-consensual condom removal, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since November 2022 evidence was provided that it is also woman, despite a previously based on false assumptions consensus that it was only man. Given new evidence a debate about the consensus shouldn't be needed. Contributions to open the debate again have been ignored and have just been blindly reverted to the misandrist language usage that shouldn't be done in the first place, it NEVER contributed to the article i the first place, it was misplaced to do so. It is not just justifiable emotionally but scientifically. Every editor that just reverted the article for the last few months without looking at the presented evidence should apoligize IMHO to the contributers. They where wrong for about 4 years, proven wrong but rather keep their wrongness and ignore the addition to the consensus. There is no consensus reached, you can't reach consensus with just 3 or 4 people for the world, that is just pure arrogance. Zanquis (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passion is fine but stop accusing other editors of vandalism and misandry. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, calling it what is but I will stop with calling it that way to not hurt the feelings of the people who practice it, cause that is important right.

Found that the articles on the Wikipedia page nr 17 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10345329.2019.1604474?journalCode=rcic20 also says that woman can also do it. So to my knowledge that qualifies already as a secondary source. Again, those that tried to enforce the male specific gender language have been wrong for years to keep trying to enforce it for no justifiable good reason Zanquis (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]