This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Randomdude87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. Randomdude87 (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. [[User:Randomdude87|Randomdude87]] ([[User talk:Randomdude87#top|talk]]) 08:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. [[User:Randomdude87|Randomdude87]] ([[User talk:Randomdude87#top|talk]]) 08:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. [[User:Randomdude87|Randomdude87]] ([[User talk:Randomdude87#top|talk]]) 08:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

====Statement by Randomdude87====

1. I never once blamed the victim; the accusation is unwarranted and offensive. Did anybody even review these insane accusations?

If accurately describing a male-to-male sexual encounter is a ban-worthy violation, I seriously question Wikipedia's ability to curate factual information. Yes, their behavior was deceitful, absolutely.

A trans-woman can't identify out of biological sex - this isn't debatable. Preventing heterosexual men from discovering your penis and testicles, knowing they're only interested in natal females, is definitively deceitful.

Beyond lying by omission, some claimed they were on their period to persuade these men into having anal sex. If referencing your non-existent female sex organs isn't an example of lying, what is it then? It's very clear these men wouldn't have consented to these encounters if they were aware.

It's extremely offensive that you're deciding it's not rape when they're clearly not voluntary participants in these encounters. Consent is not suggested, it is required for EVERYBODY to give, including heterosexual males looking for females. To suggest otherwise is operating outside of reality.

Acknowledging this doesn't suggest the victims deserved to die. Christ.

Furthermore, this was a Talk question for community feedback, not an edit to a live page. These men felt raped, which is a different motive. If you disagree, why not just address it there?

2. Your criticism seems disingenuous, as if suggesting I fabricated the quote (and for no reason). I referenced a source directly and used "allegedly" due to uncertain exact wording. But her challenging him by referencing her sex is fully supported elsewhere, too: According to her friends, Ms. Milan told the man that she, too, was a man and asked him whether he wanted to fight.

It's a fairly crucial detail shouldn't be omitted. With her announcing that she is male, there's no denying whether the perpetrator knew she was a trans-woman or not. It also highlights another crucial detail - she challenged him to a fair fight, which he allegedly declined.

Only when she turned to walk away, a universal sign of de-escalation, did he engage physically. And only with a weapon. It leaves no doubt that he knew: she wasn't a threat, she was transgender, she believed the confrontation was over. It relays the reality that this was a deliberate attempt at ending her life.

Everything I wrote is supported by the citations and I consider it an improvement to the original. If anything was against Wiki's editorial guidelines, it was a genuine mistake.

Other

- It shouldn't be held against me for focusing on few articles. You're arbitrarily deciding it's a sign of something sinister. I spent a good chunk of time fact-checking those quotes and fail to see how it could be perceived as anything but fair and accurate.

- I don't consider it fair or impartial that those who explicitly share ALL of your biases on this subject showed up immediately to agree with you. Neither offered any actual criticism or reasoning to their statements. None even mentioned what was wrong with them? It isn't fair arbitration if they make their decisions before I've shared my side.

- This is petty. It's sad that you care more about misrepresenting transgender deaths for your cause than accuracy. And it really sucks that Wikipedia is completely captured, but not surprising.

- It's not "transphobia" to correctly call out rape for what it is. It's absolutely insane that people like this, defending rape of heterosexual men, have such an influence on the internet to spread lies.

Pointing Out Misattributed Quotes

I have no idea why this was an issue, other than your cult has to make up accusations to silence truth.

When researching more for that list, I came upon the Amanda Milan article. Researching her killing, I noticed the Wiki summary was written confusingly, conflating the given sources and incorrectly describing the sequence of events. I also updated a few of the links to current versions, including the reference meta-data.

I then realized tons of the quotes were completely misattributed to an egregious level. And I provided citations that link to the actual pages in the book they came from. This took me quite a while, actually, and I thought it'd be considered helpful to highlight them for the original author to fix. I'm honestly not seeing what the issue is here? It's that I am improving pages by updating them with factual information? Sorry, but when I see egregious errors in quotes like that, my trust in Wikipedia drops. Seeing how corrections are handled by reporting me to some trial board has only furthered this distrust.

Your Repeated Attempts to Shoehorn Non-Trans Related Deaths

Myself and another user both noted the serious problems we found in your criteria for admittance to the "killed for being transgender" list. It seems like this report has more to do with that, obviously.

It's clear to me that you care about advocating for trans-rights first, by any means necessary, with Wikipedia content secondary. I do not believe this should have more importance than remaining neutral and accurate. And despite what you think, it's not helpful to trans-lives.

Good Faith

You accuse me of not operating in good faith, but your evidence are examples of my contributions improving the pages in question. I pointed out completely misattributed quotes, which I honestly feel should be deleted outright due to inaccuracy.

Instead of deleting, I found the book pages and linked them for the author to update. That's not operating in good faith? It's not east to fact-check quotes that are references to ISBN numbers or whatever. It actually took a decent chunk of time for me to update that page, too.

A couple of us also pointed out flaws in your logic regarding the Fred Martinez inclusion in the "transgender killings" page. While I don't at all think it should be included, I still provided a better example for YOUR case that I stumbled upon. The entire back-and-forth was you ignoring the motives given by the authorities to seemingly shoehorn in a death that didn't fit. Myself and the other user both noted this.

Later on, I came across a quote from the time period of the murder that completely supported your stance, much better than your original sources (which you called "weaksauce"). And I didn't have to provide it to you. But I did because I believed it'd improve the page, even if I ultimately disagreed with that entry. And you're accusing me of operating in bad faith for some reason. It's frustrating that your goal isn't to work together with me to improve these pages.

I think it's shameful that you utilize these deaths to further your ideology. This isn't what Wikipedia is for. It is legitimately concerning that those who deny our biological sex are so influential on encyclopedic material with dominant search result. Madness.

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

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

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

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

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

Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:32, 27 February 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 Randomdude87. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randomdude87 (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Galobtter (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even get to respond to the extremely disingenuous "arbitration", huh? Because I accurately updated articles? What a joke. Randomdude87 (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Comment by Sweet6970

I am the other user referred to above. I am baffled by Sideswipe9th’s statement in the AE report Since creating their account on 26 February 2024, this user has been almost exclusively requesting removals of content from List of people killed for being transgender.

This is not correct – they have been engaging in the discussion which, in effect, I initiated, about whether the killing of Fred Martinez should be included. I think the inclusion is dubious. But I note that Randomdude has, as they have said, provided a new source which supports inclusion. This is evidence of complete good faith.

I do not understand the blocking reason ‘pretty self explanatory’ – it doesn’t explain itself to me. Randomdude is an inexperienced user who does not understand the taboos on Wikipedia, but is plainly in good faith.

By the way, I did not participate in the AE discussion because I was not aware it was going on – it started in the middle of the night, after I had logged off, and finished before I woke up. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]