Archives

/Archive /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7

I was led to believe I was being banned from Wikipedia for repeatedly misgendering a dead person, allegedly contrary to MOS:GID. That has nothing to do with gun control, and I resent the implication (especially since my only "cellmate" there is Assault rifle). Please refile this, someone. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks, Feathers, that was fast! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Least I could do. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You edit-conflicted me. This was a reply, in theory. All good. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the article about the misgendered dead person is tagged as a gun control story, but then it's clearly not guns at the center of the maelstrom. Someone asked about adding gun details once. That was it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that tag, the article itself is logged under "Gender and sexuality", as it concerns the control of sociohistorical identity, not guns nor politics nor living people. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"For the purposes of remedies in this case, the scope of "gun control" includes governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues." Eleven people agreed as much in 2014, with no objections. Has something changed?

Some protest and public speaking briefly touched upon governmental regulation, as follows every mass shooting, but the only actual change concerned the allowance of armed police to contract with private schools. The misgendered dead person in this case owned and lied about owning "firearms", but no reports indicate any association with a broader movement on whether any American deserves or deserved the right to do so. I also have no dog in that fight, with a similar lack of evidence to the contrary and this flat denial.

I'd like to have this clerical error fixed without the hassle of a formal appeal, regardless of how or if it must be transcluded to a drama board, and I think most would agree a simple zero-byte move of my entry to "Gender and sexuality" is the least disruptive potential waste of time. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I've already tried emailing the enforcing admin directly about this, following the link in the autonotice. It failed because I don't have a Wikipedia email account. I didn't try clicking the link on WP:ARCA because in Ontario as well as Texas there's a saying about not wanting to get fooled twice. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Folly Mox for bringing this directly to the enforcer's attention and for having a cool name. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite bizarre how HJ Mitchell can fully consider a relatively large and complex request that doesn't involve him, make several comments and take such a major action within five hours of stumbling across the case, but not even acknowledge a far clearer, more simple and directly relevant error like this for three days. Not sure how that happens. Looking forward to possibly learning. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So Harry finally acknowledged the problem. From my perspective, I don't see how filing this under "Gender and sexuality" could possibly offend anyone; it is related to a gender disagreement and GENSEX was the proposed remedy. Unless I'm misunderstanding his explanation (directed at Folly Mox, for some reason), his was a completely arbitrary choice and the wrong one, in hindsight. There should thus be no harm in simply rechoosing correctly, regardless of who does it. In case it needs explaining, "Gun control" is the more offensive choice because it falsely suggests I am either a gun or a someone who feels strongly about their governmental control. The lack of a reason for my block in the line only further allows such inference to corrupt the basic truth of this matter. Please fix this problem without further delay. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I wholeheartedly sympathize with the difficulties inherent in working without a proper keyboard, but that week's over now, let's move on before 14:00 Portsmouth time! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's nine o'clock in new Portsmouth time, by the way, where and when the rain shall reign over the people's walks of life. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see I've now been lumped in with Assault rifle and Murder of Garrett Foster, the latter of which I feel unduly paints me and the inanimate carbon rod as somehow complicit in racist/antireckoning police/military brutality. I've already raised my voices on the George Floyd issues (none of which involved a gun) and served my time for doing so. This is cruel and unusual punishment, and I demand to be figuratively moved in with editors accused of misgendering a living or dead person or people, where I belong. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This demand is now contingent on whether I'm soon unblocked. If I am, I'll care less about what my block log suggests (because I won't have to look at it in a big red box whenever I check my contributions). While I'm not, it's still quite urgent. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a refresher on how this played out, see this discussion on AE.

This sanction is completely absurd. Sorry Hulk. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an uninvolved bystander who saw your name pop up at WP:AE, I will say that although I disagree with referring to the Covenant school shooter as female when they identified as male (my $0.02: respecting gender pronouns ≠ respecting a person or their actions), I feel that a year-long site ban is unduly harsh when your most recent block was two years ago. I encourage you to appeal and negotiate a lesser sanction. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was raised in a funeral home, where surviving friends and family's respect came first, and bodies didn't mind anything. From the news, it seems all loved ones remember a daughter and teammate. I respect their opinion with female pronouns, not disrespect the already eternally shamed church/school murderer. And especially not my trans colleagues. They're different people, same as in any group. Anyway, it's a dilemma and I'll appeal when I'm done quitting. Thanks, you two. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is too much. A two-week block would have sufficed for incivility (you should know better, be civil). Hulk you should have done the smarter thing and just named the subject as Hale. starship.paint (exalt) 04:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is absolute overkill. IH has done significant good for this project. The concerns raised were answered, and I feel like at most a WP:PBLOCK or WP:TBAN would have worked for this... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was also raised to believe in destiny, not free will, this was bound to happen as it did. The five of you do good work, too, and five heads are better than one. Mine must be needed elsewhere for a bit, that's all, things will unfold! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly miss your colorful edit summaries and good work at ITN. Curbon7 (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire process was jammed through without any real discussion or consideration for dissent. Absolutely absurd. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what bothers me the most. Just a few admins on AE voiced support, and that's it. A 1-year ban isn't something that should be enacted with so little consideration. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IH: I'm placing this here because, with the AE discussion already closed, I don't know where else to put it, short of opening an AN or VP discussion, which I am not prepared (or capable, timewise) to do just now. However, although this post is made in opposition to the action taken against you, I'm going to contextualize it by prefacing with some comments, some of which you may disagree with and some of which you are not likely to find flattering. Combining this with the fact that I do not want to get you into a position where you lose talk page access, I will not take it amiss if you choose to delete this. Nevertheless, I find the action taken against you to be so problematic on the whole, I'm going to share these mixed impressions here for whatever community benefit they may have, and leave the decision on whether they should stay to you:

So, for the contextual bit you may not like: I don't recall that you and I have ever directly interacted, though I may be mistaken about that. Nevertheless, as someone who responds to a lot of RfCs and occasionally weighs in at community oversight and administrative spaces, including AN/I, I've gotten a vague impression of your conduct around contentious topics, particularly those touching upon ARBAP and culture war topics. And while that impression is admitedly glancing, I will do you credit to your intelligence by being blunt with you and saying that it has often seemed to me that your involvement in these areas can become problematic and disruptive at a minimum, and possibly going as far as NOTHERE/SOAPBOX/RGW territory on a nontrivial number of occasions. I don't think that the reaction you received in this instance can be entirely divorced from the extent of your block log or the footprint you have built for yourself in this community, and I think that is worth your considering. Indeed, in this specific situation, I also strongly disagree with your rationale for whether it was the right thing to do (in a broader social sense) to refer to that disturbed young person's identity as you did. I accept that you shared a genuine opinion, in good faith, for your decision to do so, but I disagree with your reasoning.

I felt it was important to say all of the above not to pile on to you on a bad week, but so that my following comments will not be perceived as blanket support for your approach or boosterism for you personally. Because what happened to you in that discussion I feel is unacceptable and potentially very problematic for the project at large. Because from what I can tell (or at least what was presented in diffs in that thread), your comments about the subject's gender were restricted entirely to talk space. And personally I don't think there is community consensus captured anywhere at MOS:GID, WP:GENSEX, or WP:BLP that holds that your misgendering a subject on a talk page is a blockable offense, let alone one authorizing a year-long ban. Let me be clear: had you misgendered the subject in the article itself, I feel the intersection of GID and the GENSEX general sanctions mandate, combined with your history of editing in related areas, would have unambiguously authorized a block. But nowhere (that I am aware of, anyway) has this community ever endorsed the rule that disagreeing about someone's gender in goodfaith on a talk page is per se disruptive behaviour, as it was treated here.

I honestly don't know for certain how I would come down on that issue if it were to come to the forefront of community debate (as I suppose it ultimately will). On the one hand I am strong supporter of trans rights and representation, and deeply concerned about the current reactionary response to those interests in our culture at large. On the other, I feel the engine this project runs on is open discourse, and even within the limitations of WP:NOTFREESPEECH, I prefer not to censure for anything short of abject hate speech or clearly disruptive commentary without redeeming editorial purpose. So my priorities are somewhat in tension, and I would have to do some considerable contemplation (as I hope the whole community would) before settling on the best way forward. What I do know is that unless and until the community establishes such a standard, it is clear administrative overreach in this instance for you to have been sanctioned for merely sharing an interpretation of the factual and editorial issues, without malice, intentional disruption, or effort to force those perspectives into our article space content. What happened here is a potentially dangerous precedent taken without consult of the wider community and I hope it is soon reversed, as I strongly feel it should be, or at least referred somewhere to the broader community so we can weigh these issues collectively.

Again, and without the motivation of meaning to slight you, I probably would not have given a second look to your being banned in many other circumstances. And I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the sources and your reasoning for misgendering. But this is about much more than your status and reputation on the project, or our personal interpretations of what the courteous and/or ethical thing to do is, in such a situation. Curtailing good faith disagreements as to the facts on talk pages without a community mandate that there is a strong reason to do so is just not right, and is akin to administrative construction of policy, through a back door. As such, if a challenge is raised to this action (and I think there should be) I would appreciate it if someone would inform me at that time. In the meantime, though I know I have painted a dim view of your contributions here, I want you to know I also find your "what will be will be" attitude towards the outcome to be very dignified and laudable, so I will wish you well over the next year if you are prevented from editing for the duration, and I hope you find more value than offense in the above. If not, I will take no exception this being deleted. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot to digest, and I will, slowly. Probably respond later. In the meantime, I've moved your subheader, hope you don't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, certainly, no objection: I can see how it works as well as an objective description of multiple responses here as it did as a subjective statement for me. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A year in exile for (censored)? What a world the 2020s have fallen into, and you along with it. Swim for shore, good sailor, and wishes for fine seaweed on your trip. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I "hate" seaweed, but love a good Randy Kryn quote, thanks again! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On further review (and after a once-over of the relevant part on your Talk Page), I'm rather honoured that (for whatever reason) you've presented a stunningly accurate reflection of all that transpired since Hale died. Stunningly accurate as I understand the truth, anyway. If it had been any other editor named there instead of me, with the exact same edits in the exact same places about the exact same sources, your description of that person's post-March 27 situation would still be as factually valid. I've tried it, in a mind experiment, somewhat confirming you're objectively right. Even about this verbose pro bono work "probably" insulting me. It doesn't, but I can 100% understand why you thought it was probable. We may or may not ever agree on whether a dead person is "someone", too, or on what respect mostly or only also entails, but suffice to say I like the cut of your jib, probably as it pertains to more things than not. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per everyone else. Rarely have I dealt with wittier, ocassionally more acerbic, but always sharp, interesting and and to the point editor. This ban is total overkill IMO - the loss is WPs! And since you like a good quote, this one seems apt, even if the insect in question is somewhat unpalatable and lumpen. Pincrete (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a WP loss, I'm hardly special. Levivich, Jimbo Wales, [insert third butterfly]. Different beginnings and ends, sure, but a common central core. Ask not for whom the wheel breaks, eh? I don't even know if that makes sense, but it's based on three quotes that do. A lot of my points and interests are borrowed. I prefer moths, just literally and unimportantly. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little on-the-nose to pull out the NOTHERE for an editor with 60k mainspace edits over 17 years. GMG^talk 12:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In record time too, roughly 24 hours. I've seen ANI cases stay open for weeks involving significantly less established editors, however, we already know what the difference here is. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really followed the goins on very closely. But good lord. If you feel the need to drop a 1k word essay on someone's talk page, go write an article or...just go touch grass. GMG^talk 12:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read this essay, many thanks to you for posting it. =D Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel that even an over-long post is a better value-added use of time than a completely unnecessary, sarcastic response to a post that wasn't even intended for you, on a subject you admit you haven't even followed. I don't know if you are 100% in Hulk's corner, or thoroughly opposed to them, so I'm not sure which purity test I failed to pass for you that led to this snark, but in the real world with its complexity and nuance, sometimes when you have to respond to something you find problematic and potentially damaging to a community and project you care about, but you also have context to consider, it takes a little time to explain where you are coming from and how far your support does (and does not) go.

So sorry, all I can tell you if you don't think that was a good use of my time (which I can decide for myself, thanks a lot), is that it's a good thing you don't have to read it and were never the intended recipient. So the good news is that you have plenty of time left in your budget for more completely unnecessary, randomly hostile, psuedo-trolly comments to people who weren't talking to you. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GMG and I agree on some things, but not this. I've given and received quite a few unsolicited well-meaning text walls. This one was among the more cogent, at least; you should consider writing books alongside CC-by-SA correspondence (if you don't already). As long as the flaws people point out about me are those I actually have, I don't mind the reminder.

I should have grown out of my punk teen/hockey instigator phase by my late twenties, and especially now that I'm in my early forties. Maybe it's that hockey and punk aren't socially acceptable anymore in their truer forms, and people in general have moved more into instant gratification and further from the idea that life is supposed to hurt. Or maybe that's just my attempt to pass the buck, as all people do sometimes, admittedly or not. Whatever.

The important thing to remember (in my opinion) is that since you two are going to fight here, it's consensual, to the point and ends when one goes down or calls time out. The older wiser hulklet in me wishes you wouldn't fight here at all, but again, whatever will be will be. Cheers to that much, from coast to coast and under the sea! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, I'm not that offended if someone uses the "wrong" pronouns to mean me, but for what it's worth, I don't think I'm "them" and would even rather be considered a lone female or single object than what (despite the literature) I still feel suggests a group.) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: - in my view, your second comment was unkind. Snow Rise‘a post was not disruptive, there is no need to police it. With more empathy and patience, perhaps you could have appreciated Snow Rise's passion for fairness and willingness to help. A little more kindness may go a long way. starship.paint (exalt) 11:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole, if you see this note, I don't think "gravedancing" is the right term, in context. I can reply to anything I read, here. I don't, mostly, because I quit, but I can. If this were like the time I was fully blocked for repeatedly misidentifying my timestamp to AI, I'd totally agree, it sucked. But what's going on with my former editorial opponents no longer bothers me and it shouldn't bother you. If you'd like to continue pointing to my latest case or what you consider personal attacks against me, go for it, but I think associating so closely with any editor now deemed revolting, toxic and vile by the very community you're trying to sway will do more harm than good. It really never helped that "Inedible" was suggestive enough on its own. Long story short, I'm a liability now, not an asset; cut me loose and move on efficiently! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the advice, as always. I'll try to avoid letting the continuous baiting get to me.. Perhaps if you ever do come back, it should be as PalatableHulk. :D —Locke Cole • t • c 05:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, that'd be a lie. Since 2006, the literally once fine meat behind this puppet has only withered further, smoked not with hickory but nicotine. And figuratively, the record speaks for itself. No, when I come back, it'll be as the usual suspect. The only taste-related adjustments will be an avoidance of contentious pronouns and a newfound tendency to plop down exactly what I meant to post the first time (with proper indentation). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk, FWIW, I think there is real doubt as to whether the Covenant school shooter actually, meaningfully 'declared' an adopted gender. If they did so, it isn't clear to me where and when they did it and who they notified. The talk page discussion has a lot of editors asserting that Hale was a trans-man and therefore should be treated as a living trans-person would be, but the evidence is vague and our policies state that this decision is wholly in the hands of the individual themselves, not the media nor WP editors, picking at the bones of a corpse. There seems to be an awful lot of speculation with little solid evidence either by WP editors or WP:RS as to how serious the shooter was about transitioning, or how far along that transition was (toe in the water, adopting an online persona, or total immersion?). There is an RfC and half of the discussion on the page is about whether the - nominally - female birth name (the one used by many/most sources) - or the adopted male name should be used in the article, despite this you have been banned for ocassionally referring to the shooter by female pronouns. I think the decision to ban you was utterly ridiculous and hope you can come back without substantially modifying your principles and beliefs. Your choice of words may have been less-than-wholly-tactful, but your substantive argument was right IMO and needed to be clearly put. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My beliefs change when I learn more and my principles could be nullified or modified with either a simple brain injury or prolonged torture, but that article and its subjects are dead to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which I think was fundamentally the whole reason for that AE: to remove people who oppose their point of view. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It beats lobotomy, shock therapy and residential schooling. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It just isn't true anymore (on my userpage or anywhere). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this isn't something only an arbitrator, sysop or admin can do. This is a job for anyone who's unblocked, even a newfangled IP with a signature that only half stays the same. Or even Mitch! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Feathers! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HJ Mitchell and other admins. I admit I was uncivil (1c and 1d) and deserved a two-week ban for that. I admit I used an identity for the Nashville mass murderer which was contrary to the mainstream Wikipedian view and potentially harmful to living trans people, including trans colleagues. I'm sorry for that and deserve to stay away from gender identity issues until the wider American political mess dies down (which will likely be more than one year). When I come back to work, I will continue to mainly do what I've always done, minor uncontroversial grammar edits at articles which need them and collegiate discussion elsewhere. As to the fairness or unfairness of my block, it doesn't matter what I think. These are discretionary sanctions and an admin used his discretion. I'll just ask the reviewing admin(s) to reconsider the case along with any seemingly pertinent factors that have since popped up in the relevant areas, before using their own discretion(s). And no, I won't heckle anyone who's still opposed to my wider existence here, even slightly, even in summaries. It is OK to disagree! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct to state that IH's editing has been "minor uncontroversial grammar edits" etc. The archive of this talk page shows numerous complaints to the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I qualified that with "mainly". It is correct that you and I have never had a collegiate discussion, anywhere. I am sorry for that and deserve to stay away from Donald Trump and Hunter Biden topics where I am most historically likely to disrupt you. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not merely that your participation is "disruptive" -- your posts are frequently incomprehensible and incoherent, as if you were not fully aware of what you are writing. I have no interest in further participation with you here or elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deal (meaning I honestly have no interest in further participation with you here or elsewhere, especially not at Arbitration Enforcement). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If indeed anyone is so misinformed by the parenthetical I added above that it can be harmful to deciphering a chain of events, considered a breach of TPG or reflective of whatever about SPECIFICO, let me be clear that it's merely explaining the deal (agreement) I thought we'd reached. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that you don't understand that this continued little spat with S is making you both look bad, and is thus making an unblock request less likely to succeed each time you post? My opinion of each of you drops by a small but measurable amount each time one of you takes just one more dig at the other. I doubt I'm alone. I'd suggest that you stop looking at her contributions, and just pretend that she doesn't exist. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking doesn't hurt and this wasn't a dig, only clarifying, but OK, your opinion is valid, no further comment. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IH, because this was logged as an arbitration enforcement block, it can't be undone by individual administrators. You can see Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Appeals and amendments for more information about the appeals process: basically, you can appeal to 1) the blocking administrator, 2) WP:AE, 3) the administrators' noticeboard, and/or 4) the Arbitration Committee. Let me know which of these places (if any) you want your appeal copied over to. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to first ask if Harry might trust I'll behave and affirmatively revoke or redo this (1). If not, I'll seek a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE (2). If this process could begin after Wednesday, that'd work best (for me). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: I see I'm not blocked from pinging, after all, and am ready for copying when you are. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Hulk, I saw this looking thru CAT:RFU. I'm willing to copy this over whenever you're ready. Please make sure you're using the correct format (Explained here). Feel free to ping/email/irc/whatever me when ready. I'll be around for a couple hours. SQL^{Query Me!} 00:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of these days, somebody should fix the notice we get when we're blocked to link to the correct unblock technique. Otherwise, what's the point? But that's not your problem, thanks for clarifying. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to appeal to Harry first, you can do that whenever you like either by just pinging him or, if you'd rather do it privately, by emailing him. If that isn't successful and you want to go to AE, just let me (or SQL) know. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I get a no or no response for three days, I'll reformat this proof and flip a coin to decide which of you two lands the job. Since you showed up first, you'll be heads. Thanks for the info, regardless of result! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Would you consent to revoking or redoing this? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ:, @SQL: After mulling over what ScottishFinnishRadish recently said (and a bit of what I recently read Ayn Rand wrote), I don't feel I shall require either of your services in the foreseeable future. I'll see what Harry has to say, perhaps, and that's that. Best of luck in your better endeavours! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If this were a regular block, I'd be inclined to unblock. You appear to me to understand where things went sideways, have a plan to avoid the problematic area in the future, and seem to have genuinely done some self-reflection. I don't believe that this block presently serves to prevent damage to the project - but it's an AE block - so things are not as usual. Best of luck to you as well. SQL^{Query Me!} 04:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure where things went sideways, but feel I know more than any other one person here. This block is not only presently unpreventative of damage, but positively preventative of repair, particularly (though by no means exclusively) in the small numeral, common noun and redundancy departments. As a gambling man, I've declared Harry consciously unresponsive and unlikely to return, and so taken the liberty of reformatting this pseudoscript into plain Engish (which works best). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hulk, I apologise for the tardiness of my response. Life outside of Wikipedia has been busy this last week or so. If you just want a formal "no" so you can appeal elsewhere, you have it but I'll do my best to give you a useful rationale to mull over. First, I don't consider the block to belong solely to me; it's my name in the log, but seven admins participated in that AE discussion. All saw a problem with your editing and supported sanctions; five supported a site ban. The issues go beyond just the misgendering. That on its own would not merit the block. I actually thought you were making a reasonable point initially. It only became disruptive when you refused to abide by the consensus when it formed. But that refusal was disruptive—as Sideswipe put it at AE, it was a refusal to follow the normal editorial process. Consensus is how Wikipedia works and you or I can disagree with an individual decision and can attempt to change it but carrying on regardless is not an option. More than that though, your demeanour in general and around contentious topics specifically, has been completely unacceptable. In precisely the sorts of topic areas where cool heads need to prevail, you have adopted a hostile and combative approach to editing and talk page discussions and abused the edit summary field to editorialise on the subject, comment on other editors, and make other unhelpful remarks. This is not a one-off but appears to be your standard operating procedure, and the more the subject is in dispute, the more combative your approach gets. That's why I felt (and feel) that a site ban is appropriate. That's not to say I wouldn't be willing to reconsider in less than a year, but I think a break of more than just two or three weeks is necessary, along with a rethink of your discussion style and your general approach to controversial subjects. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hulk I am could contend there still is no consensus on how to refer to Hale and that all progress is naturally and inherently disruptive to those who'd rather conserve what's already held dear than let others build upon it. But the Hulk I'd like to become hears you on how many (or most) people nowadays genuinely fear confrontation or find even the idea of it happening to others unacceptable in today's newfangled vision of society writ large. I'm definitely not ready to abandon my provocative spirit, in general, and doubt I will be in a year. But I certainly continue to develop my tactfulness, as I have with every passing block and the seven interims. Thanks for your tardy response, not even sarcastically; it's far sooner than the never I wrongly assumed I'd get. I think you're a reasonable person, in the right settings, and would rather ask you again in a month or so than deal with another disparate drama board en masse. In the meantime, I still insist it remains fair and easy for you to refile this as something more relevant than a gun control problem. You may not believe it, but your honest mistake in that regard has disrupted my sleep and emotional well-being, and that in turn much dependent miscellany. Think of it as a gesture of good faith, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a cogent argument explaining how this block is needed to prevent disruption to the project. There was consensus for this block among a small number of participants - this is true. On my absolute best use of AGF, this block still appears to be at least partially politically motivated to me (not pinning this on HJ alone, but the group that consensus for this block grew from). And I am not excusing your behavior IH - or stating that you had no part in earning this block - you clearly should have stopped far sooner, if not immediately. You seem to me to understand this. You have made a committment to avoid the problematic subject. You appear to me to have reflected on your role in this incident, and have made a commitment to make changes that would prevent running into this issue going forth.

This block isn't preventing damage to the project at this point, and isn't consistent with our blocking policy. It should be lifted. SQL^{Query Me!} 01:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: He just said he isn't ready to give up his provocative nature. Am I wrong or are Wikipedians not supposed to deliberately provoke others? ––FormalDude (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Provacative or not - I would hope we foster provocative editors that are willing to work within our guidelines and policies, as IH has committed to. I don't see a policy-based reason to continue blocking IH. SQL^{Query Me!} 02:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said spirit, not nature. Two totally different things, from my perspective, as are political motivations and humanitarian motivations. I've vowed to avoid Donald Trump, Hunter Biden and gender rights controversy for living and dead people. I've noted I've become politer over the years and will continue to. If I'm in an argument over content, of course I'll ruffle feathers, as "the other side" will have ruffled mine. That's just how dispute works. As it regards our dispute at Nashville, I think I went pretty easy on you in disproving your claim about these reliable sources that don't exist. But yeah, I can see how being told you're wrong can hurt, even if told gently. I find it helps to consider a loss a learning opportunity rather than a personal attack, but your mileage may vary. Anyway, this is all too soon, I'll ask for leniency again in a month or so. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not clearly state that you won't continue abusing edit summaries, commenting on other editors, and making other unhelpful remarks. If you're willing to adopt that behavior, you should say so clearly. Sorry I'm hesitant to believe that will happen so easily when you continue to revive the initial dispute, which (as has been pointed out to you), is not the point, as well as your appearing to blame modern society for the problems your actions created. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to state that, clearly or otherwise, too vague/subjective. You're commenting on me (another editor) right now, so it can't be that bad. The difference between "use" and "abuse" or "helpful" and "unhelpful" depends entirely on where one stands in a content dispute. I wasn't trying to revive our dispute so much as tell you I empathize with the way it went. I'm not sorry, but I get it, it probably stung. I'm not blaming modern society for anything. As you say, that's how it appears to you. I can't change that much. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This statement shows that IH understands what went wrong, and is willing to take that feedback onboard, and to make changes for the better. They understand the rules better now. They're willing to make concessions to make sure that we put out the highest-quality encyclopedia possible. That's the goal here after all. SQL^{Query Me!} 02:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL I don't recall seeing you evaluate an AE request and yet you're happy to sit on the sidelines and criticise those who do as making "political" decisions. That kind of enabling behaviour is exactly why AE actions aren't reversible on the whim of a random admin, and they contribute to what makes these areas so difficult to work in. We're not talking about a new editor who had a lapse of judgement but a long-term pattern of behaviour that, on its face, is not outright disruption but, taken as a whole, clearly contributes to the acrimony in a topic area and one specific instance that was at the intersection of four different contentious topics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Near an intersection, but on GENSEX Street. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm sorry if following your contribution history today as it involves me is a faux pas, but could you please explain this doomed hot-air balloon pilot analogy? I just don't get it. Floquenbeam, you're welcome, too (if you want). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I AGF, and assume that no one (aside from the obvious vandals) thinks that their contributions are disruptive, and thinks that their being constructive. When is brought up by other editors, especially if they're not particularly involved or aren't antagonistic that what you're doing isn't helping it should be assumed that they see something that you're missing and you should think about how you're acting. Or if an editor sees that a situation is already fraught they should seek to unfraught it. Although I understand why you clarified, it did nothing but make the whole situation worse, and then when you saw the objection you knew they had seen it. You could have just reverted your clarification and settled the situation. Instead, while waiting on a response to an unblock request, you took the other path and doubled down, thus enfraughtening the situation even more. The whole reason you're blocked right now is because you didn't just shrug and drop something before, and you did the same thing again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that "objection" was a request for clarification, seriously. It read (to me) like a concern that I might misinform latecomers, not anyone involved (who should clearly already know). I guess not. I don't know what "the whole situation" even is, I'll admit. It seems to fluctuate between a lot of things, some "fraught" with this or that and some not. I had no idea the whole reason I was blocked is for not shrugging and dropping something, because you're the first person to say so, in any words. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't blocked because you didn't drop it, but dropping it would have avoided the entire situation. Much as someone may not get a flat tire because they were driving down a rough road but because they hit a sharp rock and ripped their sidewall open, they wouldn't have gotten a flat if they hadn't driven on that road. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Are there three main things you think this current situation entails? The road I'm on has always been rough, literally and figuratively, and all the tires popped Wikiwise have involved far more apparent sharp rocks (so to speak). The way I see it, the big three on this turn are ill-considered accusations of impropriety, occasionally snippy summaries and (perhaps most acutely) misgendering a dead person. If anyone else knows the entire reason I was blocked, chime in; every bit helps toward the sum of human knowledge. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThadeusOfNazereth: Upon recently reviewing your review of this redirect, I'll request you reconsider your related retargeting. Yes, "mumble rap" can be a pejorative term, so pointing this there might seem socially inappropriate. But from the grammatical perspective, mumble rap is the only article of the four disambiguated that (reasonably) doubles as a verb, and so it seems appropriate. Regardless of that, good work on those rationale tags! Nice to know why terms suggest what they do around here, now that you mention it; I'll try to stay mindful of those if or when I redirect next. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your initial target was inappropriate! I've done so many of these this week that I don't remember the specifics, but I think if I re-targeted my assumption was that there was a page for "mumble" as a form of speech linked from the disambiguation page. Given your explanation, I went ahead and reverted it - Might be time for me to take a day off, lol. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not inappropriate, but you thought yours was more appropriate, so I suppose I only inferred some relative inappropriateness. Or maybe I just feel generally guilty lately. All good, anyway, thanks for rethinking! I forget where I noticed this link didn't exist, but I assumed the same thing at first, that the idea of mumbling goes well beyond rap and that there must be enough it's done throughout history to warrant a standalone article. But no, not yet, just this. Maybe one day. Till then, enjoy your weekend, on or off! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At List of national animals, India has a "Bengal Tiger" that should be a "Bengal tiger". The shared link for Antigua and Barbuda's creatures should point to something about their national animals, not national anthems. And insofar as it regards the Andean cock-of-the-rock, I truly believe the words "regarded as" and "used as" are utterly superfluous; it is Peru's national animal and some have been (possibly still are) pets. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]