Archives

1

I think your username is misleading. I think you should either change it or make your signature show that it is your username. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is my username misleading? An actual unregistered user would just be an IP address, which is just a bunch of numbers. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I got confused, I thought an IP user attempted to hide username poorly. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you archived the thread before I could reply, Schnapp does not say "Will is not gay" in the source you linked. He said it's "open to interpretation", and whether or not Will is gay is "beside the point", and questioned whether liking certain things makes one gay. It's not an explicit denial, which is what I sought after you claimed so. As I said, this was not the point anyway. Claiming Schnapp said Will is not gay when he didn't explicitly say so and claiming Technoblade's tweet was "not proven to exist" when it's still up on Twitter are to me hot takes. Also, you misinterpreted what I said. I said you have received more notices about sanctions applying to all editors editing in controversial topic areas than I had ever seen. I didn't say sanctions applying to you only. But you have also received a lot of guidance from editors based on your apparent heated arguments with others over controversial topics, and I'm saying you need to be careful going forward. It's not bad advice, it's good because from a glance at your contributions, since registering you have gone to a lot of divisive topic areas in the news. If it's all an editor does, and with a name like "Unnamed anon", it looks like trying to stir up arguments for the sake of it. I reiterate: I don't think "be careful with doing this" is bad advice based on what I see. Ss112 07:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair advice, thanks. Sorry that I misread your other one. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Time to eat your words and step back from removing anything about Will's sexuality from Stranger Things articles. Straight from Noah Schnapp's mouth, "Now it's 100% clear that he is gay and he does love Mike." He even admits that it was "obviously hinted at" as early as season one. I really do hope you are telling the truth when you say you don't have something against mentions of characters as LGBT or using LGBT sources on Wikipedia. Ss112 03:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Inside Job (2021 TV series), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at WP:RFPP regarding your request for protection of List of Rick and Morty characters are obnoxious. There is no reason for you to post such comments anywhere on Wikipedia. If I see you do this again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I admit I should have controlled my anger. However, did you actually check the diffs I linked on the request for protection, or did you deny it because of my admittedly obnoxious behavior (I felt like this was the only way to reach these IPs who refuse to read the hidden note and discuss on the talk page)? The level of disruption is genuinely really, really bad. When you see other angry comments I made, for which I apologize, those were before your warning. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even without your language, I would have declined it. There hasn't been enough recent activity to justify protection. It's not "really, really bad". You're obviously too invested in this to be objective.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010 film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:FILM, "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews; do not synthesize individual reviews. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly.". Per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.". Rotten Tomatoes directly contradicts your statement, and it is unsourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to stop posting your own personal synthesis that directly contradicts what some of the sources say, as you did in this edit. This film did not receive mixed reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, so you can't say that it received mixed reviews just because one aggregator out of the two cited in the article said it was mixed. This is undue weight and cherry picking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only one adding undue weight is you, for mentioning specific aggregate sites in the lede. Read it again. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement… and, as I have made it very clear already, I do not appreciate the accusation of this being "my opinion". In the case of Pirates of the Caribbean 4 though, I can see that 33% is very low, and am willing to call that movie as having mixed-to-negative reviews. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are you talking about? Since your last message on my talk page, I agreed that 33% was too low to call it mixed. Although does not solve the problem of mentioning aggregate sites by name in the lede, I agreed with you that 33% was too low. I didn't add original research to that page at all since your last post; in fact since your last post I didn't add anything at all, I only removed content that was undue. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1168156326 was rightly reverted as synthesis an hour after Special:Diff/1168142632. MOS:FILM is pretty clear that a summary in the lead must "reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources" without synthesizing something that none of them say. WP:NPOV is also pretty clear that "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance". This means not making up a synthy mash-up of their views but stating what their views are. There is also a general dislike of phrases like "mixed to negative" across various WikiProjects. See WP:VG/MIXED for an example from another project which probably should be copy-pasted into WikiProject's Film's MOS, too (or moved to a more general MOS page). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that edit, yes. I actually eventually agreed with Betty Logan that "mixed-to-negative" was unencyclopedic if you read my edit summary after hers. While I still do not appreciate the block warning for something I had conceded and came to an agreement in, I do appreciate you pointing out your specific concern here. Thank you. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, while you may not like the presence of slang, it is not considered disqualifying for a reliable source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for adding that archive link to the reference on List of Teen Titans episodes. I wanted to bring to your attention that I corrected the syntax for the archive link here. You can find out more about the template syntax at Template:Cite_web#archive-url EvergreenFir (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat what I said in my revert of you: You obviously and transparently disapprove of this essay. That's fine, but after the deletion discussion ended in "keep", I've seen you consistently attempting to remove the stuff you don't like through regular editing. Occasionally by deleting entire sections and more generally by removing bullet-points that contain information you dislike. Editing other people's essays is fine, but I don't think trying to undermine an essay you don't like through edits after outright removal has failed can be described as anything other than disruptive behaviour, and I'm asking you to cut it out now, before I have to get mods involved over edit warring. Thanks in advance. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Licks-rocks: First, I haven't been edit warring. It's three reverts for a war, and generally I have either taken it to discussion or dropped the stick after it was reverted once. Secondly, how the hell is editing an essay I don't like "disruptive"? The reason why I don't like the essay is that I feel a lot of it is casting aspersions, and removing those aspersions would make the essay be less likely to be abused. I have seen some essays wrongly cited as Wikipedia policy, and if this essay would also be wrongly cited as policy I do not want real debates to be taken as bigotry, nor do I want to see good faith editors blocked for taking a neutral stance instead of taking a clear side. It's telling that my edits from before the MfD concluded are what caused several people to strike their !delete votes, as before my edits, the essay was too accusatory and broad, and frankly was very close to being a personal attack. I do not see a problem with continuing to improve the page even after the deletion discussion has ended; as I said in the MfD, I'm not upset that the page remained up, but my opinion on the page will shift back to a negative view if editors try to adding back their loose definitions of queerphobia and mixing it with actual bigotry again. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's good I didn't mainly accuse you of edit warring then. I also accused you of disruptive editing. Your arguments below that are a rehash of what you said at MfD in the hopes of getting the whole article deleted, which just goes to support my point that you're now trying to achieve your desired result for that MfD through other means. Additionally, Edit warring refers to a broader category of behaviour than just 3RR, there's also things like slow edit warring. Your repeated removals of various parts of that essay, only to get reverted and do the same thing to another part, definitely qualifies. Again: cut it out. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, I experienced an editor repeatedly (at least 5 times) reverting a page to his desired revision every month or two that removed valid content despite it a prior discussion that the content was valid. I reported that as edit warring, and it wasn't considered as warring. So if that wasn't warring, neither is what I'm doing, because I take it to discussion after being reverted once or twice. I also am getting the impression that you are assuming bad faith because I'm trying to achieve your desired result for that MfD through other means. My desired result for the MfD was to prevent false aspersions, and you are correct that this is the reason I am editing the article. I do not see what is wrong with trying to get a compromise though; as you saw, several editors removed their !delete votes because my edits were overall improvements to make it less accusatory. I see nothing wrong with continuing to remove accusations even after the MfD ended. I'd also like to address your thought that I obviously disagree with the premise of the essay; no, I don't. That's another part in a long line of assuming bad faith by making shit up about me, and if you do this again I may have to report you to mods as well. I have repeatedly said that queerphobia is hate and that it shouldn't be allowed; the problem was the list of what editors considered hateful, which, as I've stated many times, I do not want good faith edits to be lumped in with real hate. Yes, this is a repeat of my MfD argument, and that's because it still holds up. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never assume bad faith. I prefer to describe behaviour instead, and I never make claims about behaviour that I can't back up. I'm incredibly careful about that. You've admitted to "trying to achieve your desired result for that MfD through other means." several times already. You did it in this very comment immediately after you accused me of assuming bad faith over it.

bviously disagree with the premise of the essay; no, I don't" Yes you do, you've been pretty clear about that. And you need to stop. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed anon, I have no comment on whether you're edit warring in the essay but I should warn you that whatever happened with your previous experience you've either misunderstood or were misinformed. You do not get to make 3 reverts or 5 reverts, and even repeatedly making on revert can be edit warring. Besides the 3RR bright line, there is no clear definition of edit warring, but what you describe definitely could be edit warring and blockable edit warring in the right circumstances. I strongly suggest you change how you edit and stop assuming it's fine to make 3 reverts or 5 reverts or even 1 revert repeatedly since if you keep at it there's a fair chance you will be blocked over it eventually and your excuse that your were told it wasn't edit warring when some other editor did it once is not likely to fly. Especially now that you've been told you are wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne:, understood about what constitutes as edit warring. I'll try to fix that. Unnamed anon (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Unnamed anon. Thank you. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend removing the "doxxing" thing from the arb statement: you were editing as an IP address, meaning literally anybody could geolocate it. In fact, the menu at the top of an IP's talk page gives me five separate dropdown menu items for the "IP lookup" section -- and one of them is the link that Serial posted on that talk page. He was literally linking a page that shows up on a dropdown using a very common gadget. If he were posting your irl name or something (or alluding to it etc) that'd be one thing, but as it stands, you are making a very absurd claim. jp×g🗯️ 00:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand that now. I don't think publicly stating it was appropriate for that discussion and it definitely felt uncivil (especially with calling me a "crufter", but you're right, it's not technically doxxing. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I issued a warning at WP:ANI which you acknowledged that you had read by thanking me for my edit. In the 20 plus hours since then, you have persisted with your blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, which you have admitted yourself. Your repeated references to doxxing are utterly spurious, as saying that an IP geolocates to California says only that the IP may be possibly be used by someone who lives in or is visiting California, which has a population of about 39 million people, and stretches 950 miles from Crescent City to Calexico. Those repeated remarks indicate a lack of perspective and proportion, and an inclination towards fighting for the sake of fighting. So, please be on alert that a return to this kind of behavioral pattern may result in an indefinite block. So, when your block expires, focus like a laser beam on edits that 99.9% of active editors would readily agree are productive. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I owe you all an apology for my comments towards Serial Number and YFNS. I should have realized that acknowledging my BATTLEGROUND behavior isn't enough if I keep doing it. While I did feel wronged when both users resorted to name-calling and "Feel free to cry" statements, plus I was uncomfortable with Serial Number using diffs where I eventually reached an agreement to say I was stubborn (you and JPxG did clear the doxxing concerns), I accept full responsibility by being no better than how I viewed their behavior. Am I still upset at YFNS and Serial Number? Well, yes, it's hard not to be upset at being called derogatory names or being told to "feel free to cry", but I can acknowledge that I reacted very inappropriately with my BATTLEGROUND approach, so to both of you I also apologize for me WP:BLUDGEONing you. I still accept the temporary ban, because today has made it clear that provocations will send me over the edge; a week of being forced out is a good mental break for me to reflect on why I can't react calmly to incivility, regardless of if it's valid or perceived.

As for the discussion at ANI, I have no more interest in editing the No Queerphobia essay, as I fully realize that, regardless of my intent, it is clear I do have a disruptive editing pattern there. I fully understand 0xDeadbeef and Licks-rocks' points that I added content way too fast after seeing it on the talk page. It would be better for everybody's mental health, including mine, for me to outright ignore the essay. I would prefer not having an official page ban, at least not an indefinite one, as the block notice on my contributions list will remind me of the page's existence and defeat the whole purpose of me ignoring its existence. This talk page section serves as a good reminder for me without being the reminder being constantly everywhere, but I will promise to never touch that essay again. If I do edit that essay again, especially in the way the users are concerned about that adds talk page input immediately after hearing it, then an official page ban can be in order. As you can see with my edits since the MfD ended, I can make constructive changes to other pages, mostly small changes that fix things like grammar. Unnamed anon (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I neither need nor am I interested in an apology from you. All I care about is that you refrain from any disruptive or tendentious or TLDR or axe grinding behavior going forward. Any such new behavior will lead to a swift block. So focus instead on uncontroversially improving encyclopedia articles, and all will be well. Cullen328 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

small tip: this ping doesn't work. Pings only work when you insert a signature in the edit. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like for the ongoing ANI to conclude and treat this temporary block as my sanction, with the knowledge that if I step out of line again the next block will be more severe. I don't think going straight to a siteban, like how the ANI seems to be heading, over a single page now and a second one four years ago is a good idea. I do think it would be helpful for me to be unblocked to reply to an ongoing ANI case involving me, though I won't ask for it since I know this block is deserved. If I do somehow get unblocked early, I will make sure to strike my BATTLEGROUND comments and incivility at ANI, I want to strike my requests for two-way interaction bans that I no longer desire, and I need to apologize to several other users (specifically YFNS, Serial, Licks-rocks, and OxDeadbeef). As mentioned, after this block expires, I will no longer edit the essay I was disruptive on and will drop the WP:STICK towards it, and will instead edit other uncontroversial articles. I'd mention in the ANI I'll accept a page ban if I could reply there (I just found out about the differences between blocks and bans, and I believe a page block reminder will show up in your contributions list but a ban will not, which would help me ignore the page); If I stay blocked for the week, I reckon it's annoying for another editor to look through both my talk page and the ANI for my willingness to take advice, but so be it, though again this block is deserved. I will make sure I don't act tendentious, vengeful, or disruptive in the future, and will strike all times I acted this way at ANI. If I get unblocked to reply to ANI, feel free to reinstate the week long block if I resort to BATTLEGROUND again.

• I'd also like to respond to Serial Number 54129's calls for an indefinite siteban and 0xDeadbeef's suggestion for a community ban, as I can't comment at ANI directly due to my block. I hope I am being civil about this, let me know if I'm not. If you look at my edits regarding any page besides YFNS's essay for the past year or two, most of my edits are uncontroversial, and the few times they were disputed (such as with my edits to Hazbin Hotel), I either had a proper discussion that ended the dispute quickly, or dropped the stick after a few days at most. I do have BLUDGEON concerns on AfD's, and a brief content dispute with NinjaRobotPirate, but those were the only other chronic problems in the past two years. In terms of my week block going into an indefinite ban, I think only a page ban is necessary at most, and even then I will voluntarily leave editing that essay even without a sanction now. As for SN's question if I could demonstrate a year or two of productive, anger- and confrontation-free editing at other projects, here is me mostly conflict-free for a year or two at the Super Smash Bros. Wiki. Cheers, Unnamed anon (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out next steps and what to write in response, but feel free to comment here what specific parts you would like to strike and what comments you would like people to carry over to ANI. (for me, a word limit would probably apply, I won't copy over walls of text obviously) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 0xDeadbeef. I would like for you to strike for me:

• • In the first wall of text, strike everything between While I hate to bring up an entirely separate discussion into the mix and I hope anybody else reading can understand that I was frustrated at clear slow-motion edit warring from SN54129 being called "not warring" and especially towards being doxxed and everything between those two sentences. Keep everything afterwards unstruck aside from the word "doxxing", as I do feel that Serial Number was misrepresenting the diffs, which is why I had such an inexcusable reaction.

• • Strike this phrase: I'd like to mention that, while I was editing as an IP, SN publicly stated my location at the time with a whatismyipaddress link and used immature name-calling, the former of which comes dangerously close to doxxing. Frankly, now that this is the first time me and SN have interacted in years, I'm open for a two-way interaction ban between the two of us as well, because he can't respond to me civilly. Keep the part about how I haven't continued forumshopping unstruck.

• • Strike The edit warring he's accusing me of was primarily from him, as it's irrelevant to this and hostile towards Serial.

• • Strike and I still haven't forgiven him for doxxing my location four years ago. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that he's acting in bad faith. Dishonest use of "diffs". Making a claim, then providing a link in a form of a diff which supposedly supports the claim when the diff actually shows nothing of the sort, as well as strike my request for interaction bans at the end, though keep the phrase and diffs between them since I am still confused about Serial's consistent claims that I don't listen to advice/counseling when I do in fact listen to advice.

As for what I would like you to copy into there:

• • I will make sure to strike my BATTLEGROUND comments and incivility at ANI, I want to strike my requests for two-way interaction bans that I no longer desire, and I need to apologize to several other users (specifically YFNS, Serial, Cullen, Licks-rocks, and OxDeadbeef). As mentioned, after this block expires, I will no longer edit the essay I was disruptive on and will drop the WP:STICK towards it, and will instead edit other non-controversial articles. and

• • I would like for the ongoing ANI to conclude and treat this temporary block as my sanction, with the knowledge that if I step out of line again the next block or ban will be more severe. I don't think going straight to a siteban, like how the ANI seems to be heading, over a single page currently, is a good idea. and

• • If you look at my edits regarding any page besides YFNS's essay for the past year, most of my edits are uncontroversial, and the few times they were disputed (such as with my edits to Hazbin Hotel), I either had a proper discussion that ended the dispute quickly with the other user's agreement, or dropped the stick after a day or two. I do have BLUDGEON concerns on AfD's, and a brief content dispute with NinjaRobotPirate, but those were the only other major chronic disputes I found in the past year. In terms of my week block going into an indefinite ban, I think only a page ban from the essay is necessary at most (as long as the page ban won't give a notification every time I open my contributions like a page block does, as I want to completely ignore it), and even then I will voluntarily leave editing that essay even without any sanction needed. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223:, @Hydrangeans:, and @Serial Number 54129:, I understand the reasons for a topic ban, though I do want clarification on how broadly construed it would be, since I make plenty of constructive edits for LGBT BLPs or media featuring LGBT characters. I acknowledge my past disruption on transgender pages can be concerning. However, I also make productive edits on non-transgender LGBT pages, such as:

• • fixing the grammar on a sentence and asking for sourcing for a bisexual he/they BLP,

• • verifying the real name of an asexual BLP,

• • removing original research for a lesbian BLP.

I also do generally productively edit media that contain LGBT categories, such as:

• • removing original research for a show featuring a gay couple, and for the same show reverting vandalism

• • reducing confusion for a different show featuring another gay couple, properly sourcing confirmation of another season of a third show with a lesbian couple,

• • fixing the plot summary for a show where the majority of its main cast is LGBT,

• • another properly sourced edit on a movie with a lesbian related controversy.

For transgender-related articles specifically:

• • Here is an uncontroversial timeline clarification edit for a transgender character,

• • here is me trimming the section titles for a page with the Transgender Portal

• • There is also a long list of constructive edits I have to Across the Spiderverse, primarily to its plot summary, a movie with an LGBT controversy in its categories, though it should probably be noted that it basically comes down to split second shot of a trans flag in the background.

It could also be noted that for the most part, my edits on these LGBT-related pages have nothing to do with the LGBT aspect of these pages aside from the Celeste edit. Aside from the LGBT Simpsons page (where my issue was primarily FANCRUFT from poor sourcing for most of its characters that I eventually removed without major controversy) I don't have a history of disruption on homosexual/bisexual/asexual-related articles, only transgender-related articles, and even then my Gwen Stacy and Celeste edits (both transgender-related pages), and Alpharad (a BLP who uses he/they pronouns), I think would be considered fine. If possible, could the sanction only be given on transgender-related articles? Would I be fully unable to edit these articles because of their categories, or would I simply be given a notification before/after I edit and trigger a log that I edited that page? I see that even trivial violations can result in blocking (for example, correcting a spelling error on an article from which you are topic banned), and that would be a problem because a lot of, if not most of the TV or movie pages I edit uncontroversially do have LGBT (usually homosexual or bisexual) characters and/or categories. If I a topic ban, goes as far as making grammar fixes to pages of shows with homosexual couples, I don't think it's necessary at all. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: most of your examples are either from the one essay that I an voluntarily leaving, while the other diffs not regarding it are things I don't believe anymore. I no longer believe that being LGBT is a deviancy; less common than straight/cisgender, but I wouldn't use the word "deviancy" now because I know it's offensive. As for stereotyping concerns, I also don't do that anymore; I specifically say here that I have partaken in a couple discussions on LGBT BLPs where Tamzin, who if I remember correctly is non-binary, also partook, and they were very neutral on the topic and very reasonable.. As for your concerns with me in that same diff objecting to your objection that all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists, I simply copied most of the sentence as a point that I had doubted that the reasons for making the essay were proper; my mind was on removing the superfluous portion of the point before that but keeping the "and whatever else" after. To be clear, I have never heard of that stereotype until you mentioned it, and I only removed that on the essay because it was hyper-specific, not because I disagreed with it. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0xDeadbeef please see my comments above (or this diff if you can't find it), that I frequently make uncontroversial edits regarding LGBT BLPs, or media featuring LGBT characters and couples; in fact, I don't have a history of anything controversial on homosexual/bisexual content. If a topic ban stretches to being unable to make grammar fixes or uncontroversial source additions to those pages, then I do not believe a topic ban is appropriate. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawyer777: I no longer believe in that "sexual deviancy" phrase. I realized it was offensive and wrong shortly after making that edit. Please also see my comment with diffs above (or this diff if you can't find it) showing that a topic ban would be a net negative. I commonly edit pages of shows or movies with LGBT characters very productively and uncontroversially (as in fixing grammar or sources), and occasionally LGBT BLPs (such as with requesting or adding sources, or removing original research). I'm reading that I can't even fix grammar or sources on pages of that sort with a topic ban, which would be a net negative since my edits to LGBT-related pages, with 4 exceptions, 3 of which were long ago, are generally productive. My edits on pages with LGBT categories that were productive outnumber the times they were disruptive. At the very least, I do not have a history at homosexual-related disputes, only transgender-related ones. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i appreciate your change of views, and i understand that you've made many constructive edits on LGBT-related articles - for this reason, i am empathetic. however, there are millions (literally) of other articles for you to work on if you're topic-banned, and doing exactly that without resorting to BATTLEGROUND behavior & stereotyping of other editors is the best way to get a topic ban lifted. moreover, many many many editors have made productive edits in the areas they were later topic-banned from, because positive contributions do not cancel out ongoing disruptive behavior when the community is considering a TBAN. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic: thank you for providing the info that a topic ban won't prevent me from editing movie and tv pages if they happen to feature LGBT characters. I was under the impression that a topic ban would prevent me from editing an article altogether if the word LGBT was even mentioned once, or if it had an LGBT category, but if all I'm unable to do on said articles is edit sections or sentences specifically about sexuality/gender, then I fully accept a topic ban. I have no intention of editing categories or articles that directly relate to what being LGBT is about, and I agree that forcing me to not partake in article discussions surrounding gender and sexuality for the time being is for the better.

I do want some more clarification before my topic ban is likely imposed. For example, would I be unable to edit the personal life section for BLPs who happen to be LGBT but are notable for other prospects? I listed above a time where I've made constructive edits to the personal life section on a bisexual BLP to fix grammar and request sourcing that he had moved homes, and generally that section is where it is stated on a BLP that they happen to be LGBT. I assume I can edit the personal life section, but not sentences stating the BLP is LGBT?

Similarly, if a fictional character happens to be LGBT, would I still be able to edit the page normally aside from anything directly related to their sexuality? If I need to move a sentence in a plot summary around for grammar reasons, would I be unable to do so if the sentence happens to mention a same-sex relationship, given that moving content is essentially deleting and re-adding content in the same edit? Unnamed anon (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there does turn out to be consensus for a topic ban from the Gender and Sexuality topic area, I would strongly encourage you to not make edits—including copyedits—to articles about persons or characters who are LGBT; doing so seems likely to violate the topic ban. WP:TBAN states that a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic (italics added), and WP:BMB clarifies that The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrangeans: I don't think it's a good idea to bar me from editing BLP or fictional characters who just so happen to be LGBT if their sexuality isn't even a main talking point. For example, the asexual BLP I helped verify the name for, Jaiden Animations, only talks about her sexuality in a single video, and is primarily notable for her youtube channel talking about video games. The same goes for bisexual youtuber Alpharad and lesbian actress Kate McKinnon, they're primarily notable for youtube and acting; Alpharad also rarely talks about his sexuality and I had honestly forgotten Kate McKinnon was lesbian until today, and both are famous for entertainment that appeals to anybody. I had also forgotten to mention this, but earlier this year I made an uncontroversial move request for an asexual character in a cartoon, who is who is primarily notable because he's a main character in a cartoon and there were zero disputes about him being asexual. Again, net positive when it isn't a transgender related discussion or when I'm not actively talking about sexuality for a BLP or character. But the rest of the characters' and BLP's pages shouldn't be blocked for me too if I have shown almost nothing but productive editing there, especially if I never talk about their sexuality

• • There are only 3 homosexual related disputes where I can recall and that I became mildly disruptive, feel free to tell me if you find more. The recent essay edit where I wrongly went through with another user's talk page comment even though I didn't actually agree with their comment; fictional character Will Byers, where my edits were specifically about his sexuality and I won't defend; and the LGBT Simpsons article.

• • As for bisexual disputes, I can't find any, and my only asexual dispute was regarding Jaiden Animations having an LGBT category since, at the time, I didn't know that people commonly considered asexual LGBT, and stopped after two edits and a discussion that ended with zero fighting. In this case, I properly followed the 3RR rule by taking it to discussion after 2 reverts, and had a normal discussion that ended without hassle. The only thing that sticks out was the offensive term that I have since taken back.

I'm not going to pretend I didn't have homosexual-related disputes in the past now that I have found them, but my tendentious editing is primarily on transgender topics. I agree to a topic ban on transgender-related pages, but not a sexuality-related ban because my edits to those pages tends to be completely unrelated to their sexuality. Often BLPs or characters are interesting to me for other reasons but happen to be homo/bi/asexual, and I don't think those should be barred for me if I generally don't touch sentences talking about their sexualities. If the sexuality ban is enforced, only forbid me from sections or sentences specifically regarding BLP/characters' sexuality, but otherwise let me edit the rest of the pages normally. Unnamed anon (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@0xDeadbeef: I do accept that I need some sort of topic ban; likely indefinite, but appealable after at least six months. The reason I am still talking is because I want to get clarification on which pages I have previously productively edited I would no longer be able to. My primary interest is in movies/shows/games/books, or the BLPs working on them, and many, especially recent ones, happen to feature queer characters that may eventually get spun into their own articles; or the people working on them happen to be homo/bi/asexual, sometimes without prior knowledge that they are even queer, and I edit sentences that have nothing to do with their sexuality since I don't know or care about their sexuality. @Simonm223: I see here that many users have been topic banned specifically on transgender topics, rather than both gender and sexuality, which is why I'm open for a specific transgender topic ban. Unnamed anon (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially going to let the block stay for the week, but now that editors at this ANI thread are suggesting a topic ban based off of incomplete evidence since users need to see both ANI and my talk page, and I feel the need to directly partake in the ANI to list my defenses instead of constantly pinging users who comment there. My block was deserved because I had a BATTLEGROUND behavior, but I have since cooled off and forgiven all of the users I had said behavior towards, and believe that all of us can work constructively together. As mentioned at ANI, this measure is being suggested at a point of time where the subject of the suggested sanction is not able to explain themself. Unnamed anon (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) (initially an unblock request, dropped to prevent wasting admins' time since it's only a week long block and I accepted the topic ban)[reply]

@Cullen328: how do you feel about this? The user seems to understand why they were blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, at this point I prefer to let the discussion at ANI about a topic ban play out before I make detailed remarks. The one thing that I will say now is that I am very concerned about this editor's tendency to waste other editors time. If another administrator wants to unblock sooner, then I will neither support nor oppose that. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: @Ivanvector: I'd like to remedy my time wasting tendency by supporting my own topic ban to GENSEX pages, thereby ending the ANI discussion. There's already a very clear consensus, and I can deal with staying away from copyedits BLPs or fictional characters that happen to be LGBT for 6 months. I am still concerned that I won't be able to edit pages regarding tv/movies/games/books if they contain a few LGBT characters (as most recent media does have LGBT representation), or if a BLP or fictional character I am interested in comes out as queer after already being invested in their page and/or I am interested in a different aspect of them and didn't know they were queer, but per Raladic's comment, I'm apparently still allowed to edit at least the former as long as I stay away from affecting sentences or sections regarding LGBT. If I don't get into any more disruption, I'll likely try to appeal it in six months, sometime on or after November 21, 2024.

One more question since this is my first sanction: If I am in an apartment complex with at least a hundred others living there, I believe it's the same IP address for everybody in an apartment. I have no control over anybody in the apartment's edits, so if somebody in my apartment vandalizes an LGBT BLP, I'm worried it would be wrongly linked back to me and unfairly be used to block me or deny me an appeal. How would CheckUser be used to verify that an IP vandal in my apartment complex is not me? Unnamed anon (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general exceptions to topic bans are covered at WP:BANEX. My view is pretty much the same as Raladic, and supported by my own past experiences: if you are topic-banned from gender and sexuality then you cannot edit any page that is about those topics, or any specific content in a more general article which covers those topics. In your example I think you would be fine editing general details on an article about a fictional character who also happens to be queer, you would not be okay editing anything specifically about them being queer. If it's a character who is primarily known for their gender/sexuality (I'm struggling to think of an example) then I'd steer clear. Always err on the side of caution - accidental violations are treated as seriously as deliberate ones. Someone once said in one of these discussions that you should make it so that if someone were to say you were violating the sanction, everyone else would think them a fool. I believe that's good advice. You also can always ask questions about things you want to edit before you edit them.

As for checkuser: I can't give you much detail on what goes on inside the tool, but as reassurance let me say that we have millions of editors who edit from shared connections like university campuses, apartment complexes, shared housing, public networks, and so on, to the point that you'd expect to see many accounts with similar or even identical technical signatures in any check, and in fact we do, but if there was an epidemic of false positives you'd likely have heard about it. There are other data points we consider besides IP address, and we're very good at separating the wheat from the chaff. I wouldn't worry about it at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Alright, thank you for alleviating all of my concerns that I can edit general details on these articles. Those were the only reasons I opposed a Tban, but I'm no longer concerned. You can go ahead and topic ban me and close the ANI. If all goes well, I'll appeal in six months. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI thread is still open, but in the meantime of my block I accept my topic ban and would like for somebody to close the ANI, involved or not, so that nobody wastes Arbcom's time if the ANI section gets archived without official closure. I don't know if there's any technical aspect to a topic ban aside from blocks for edits in violation of the Tban, but if I do violate the Tban the technical aspects can be imposed. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]