Blocking policy > Explanation of blocks
Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made for good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested.
Is it really a good reason that I'm banned for referring to trans-women as male? I've made some good edits per the ideologs banning me, but I went too far stating an indisputable fact that trans-women are male.
Well, that's on Earth, but wherever these editors are based, it's a "fringe theory" because trans-women can literally change their sex -- just by announcing so, apparently!
Blocking policy > Notifiying the blocked user
Administrators must supply a clear and specific reason why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them. Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page. It is usually easier to explain the reason for a block at the time it is applied than afterwards.
I was not given a "clear and specific reason" whatsoever. Galobtter did a "pretty self-explanatory GENSEX indef" (whatever that means), which was subsequently challenged immediately. This is clear and specific to who? When something is only clear to you and other admins challenge it, maybe you should seek to clarify?
Plenty of jargon was used and I was clearly not familiar with any of the references or process.
But making comments calling trans women male and making weird OR arguments against inclusion of certain people is pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE."
1. Trans-women are quite literally male. That's a fundamentally necessary requirement to be a trans-woman. Another person who should not have editing power on this site.
2. IDK what OR arguments means, but I am seriously banned because I wasn't inclusive enough when discussing CRITERIA FOR A PAGE INCLUSION? Properly classifying things and providing accurate information on the subject is the the purpose of an encyclopedia!
Yeah, dude, not everybody gets to belong to every single group. For instance, if you weren't killed for being transgender, you shouldn't be included in "List of people who were killed for being transgender" for crying out loud!
The fact I pointed out several inclusions that were removed at my suggestion is evidence that the current system for that page is very poor. Well, that's if accuracy and factual information are your goals. If you intend to inflate lists to improve your cause at the expense of those things, then yeah, I should be banned.
But I do realize making this a GENSEX indef is a bit overkill for someone with 30 edits, so I'll convert this to a standard WP:NOTHERE block. I'll leave this AE request for review.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE HELL THIS MEANS!
This is not avoiding the use of jargon. These are not "clear and specific" reasons. This is a joke.
It's important that you understand the reasons why the administrator blocked you before starting an unblock request. A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism.
The reasons the administrator blocked me aren't the same as the issues cited against me in arbitration (which were BS, too). None of the people voting to ban me even explained what the issue was, only that I did real bad! If stating facts about a topic is disruptive to a few, they should be the ones removed from making edits.
Sounds like you're here to engage in culture wars. No thanks.
What are you basing that on? I am responding to this stuff, not creating it. None of this is my ideology or something I have a desire to promote or breakdown. I am interested in accurate information and that's all I've contributed.
Did you even look at anything? None of the claims against me were valid. People whose stated goals for Wikipedia include this ideology, referring to me disdainfully as "yet another cis editor", yet I'm interested in "culture wars" here?
What does that even mean? Posting accurate information in good faith shouldn't be grounds for a ban. Sounds like you're defending a culture you've deemed me at war with.
NinjaRobotPirate, can you please clarify?
Randomdude87 (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Banned for "transphobia" — no, it was acknowledgment of biological sex.
I'm banned for correctly referring to a trans-woman as male while asking about criteria for a list. I used "her" and "she" pronouns in every edit I made, both live and in the talk pages.
The issue was arbitrated via kangaroo court by people with a stated focus on Wikipedia of improving representation of marginalized people like transgender/non-binary and those who state, "trans women are female and this is basically universally accepted in academia."
Yet my ban is upheld because it Sounds like you're here to engage in culture wars. What a joke. Sounds like that according to who or what?
Biological sex isn't a culture war to anybody operating in reality. I only contributed in good faith with accurate edits.
It's clear the issue was going against the "representation of marginalized people" by holding the accuracy of information in higher regard than what is best for their personal movement. But the truth is irrelevant to those with an agenda. I was silly to think Wikipedia would be immune to this, I guess.
According to her friends, Ms. Milan told the man that she, too, was a man and asked him whether he wanted to fight.
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
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:
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)
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)
Randomdude87 (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
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."
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)
As a note, trans women are female and this is basically universally accepted in academia; the unusual categorization Sweet6970 articulated above is the perspective held by a small group of (mostly British) activists.- Aquillion
Sounds like you're here to engage in culture wars. No thanks- NinjaRobotPirate
My current (2016–present) focus on Wikipedia is improving representation of marginalized people. Transgender/nonbinary people and Black people are my priorities.- Funcrunch
improving representation of marginalized peopleactually entails? Because to me it sounds like controlling the information presented with a focus on optics over accuracy or truth. Randomdude87 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Galobtter can you please clarify? Randomdude87 (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm a bit up in the air on this, since they made some productive edits. The bad edits were bad enough that I don't object to your block, though. - @ScottishFinnishRadish
Good block. If there was ever an unblock, it would need to come with a GENSEX topic ban, but I can't see it happening. - @Courcelles
To Randomdude87: No-one has yet really explained why you have been blocked. I think the last refusal to unblock you summarises it: Sounds like you're here to engage in culture wars. No thanks.
Wikipedia is edited by people with different views. A major cause of disruption is disputes among editors about issues which are contentious in real life e.g. American politics, Israel/Palestine, gender/sexuality. Wikipedia can’t function if discussion about editing an article is derailed by ideological disputes. I think that in your comments you are implying that I am not an ideologue. Whilst I always aim to edit neutrally, I am pretty sure that there are people who edit in gensex who would say that I am an ideologue– ideology is in the eye of the beholder.
Your post about the so-called ‘Trans panic defence’ was a comment about the issue, not the article. You are entitled to hold those views on that subject. but your views are not relevant to Wikipedia. No editors’ views are, strictly speaking, relevant to Wikipedia. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should be reflecting the views of reliable sources, not the views of its editors…though of course, since it is edited by human beings, it doesn’t always work out like that. For the List of people killed for being transgender article, the question is only – are there reliable sources saying this person was killed for being transgender? If yes, include; if not, exclude. If the discussion is limited to those aspects, it ought to be possible to debate the matter reasonably and with civility. Once you stray away from that, you are not editing in a way which contributes to improving the encyclopaedia. And in addition, your post was framed in inflammatory terms – ‘lying’ ‘extreme deception’ ‘rape’. This is guaranteed to arouse emotion – of which there is already too much in gensex. My assessment (I may be wrong) is that you have been blocked because you have been judged to be one of those editors who cause more disruption to the encyclopaedia than improvement. If you want to get unblocked, you would have to convince an admin that you are not going to engage in arguing about the subject, and will be careful of other editors’ sensitivities.
So I invite you to consider – do you want to edit Wikipedia articles, or do you want to argue about transgender matters? You can’t do both on Wikipedia. And if you edit in gensex you have to bear in mind that editors have various sensitivities which you may not share. And conversely, you may feel insulted by comments from those with different views. I would actually never advise a new editor to edit in a contentious topic – it is better to get experience of how Wikipedia works in less contentious areas before jumping into the minefield of gensex.
Thanks for your appreciation of my support. Unfortunately, my support may not be much use to you – I have a feeling that certain editors have a negative reaction to the sight of my username, which may rub off on you. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Your post about the so-called ‘Trans panic defence’ was a comment about the issue, not the article.
e killed for being transgender article, the question is only – are there reliable sources saying this person was killed for being transgender? If yes, include; if not, exclude
Once you stray away from that, you are not editing in a way which contributes to improving the encyclopaedia. And in addition, your post was framed in inflammatory terms – ‘lying’ ‘extreme deception’ ‘rape’. This is guaranteed to arouse emotion – of which there is already too much in gensex.
So I invite you to consider – do you want to edit Wikipedia articles, or do you want to argue about transgender matters? You can’t do both on Wikipedia. And if you edit in gensex you have to bear in mind that editors have various sensitivities which you may not share. And conversely, you may feel insulted by comments from those with different views. I would actually never advise a new editor to edit in a contentious topic – it is better to get experience of how Wikipedia works in less contentious areas before jumping into the minefield of gensex.
My assessment (I may be wrong) is that you have been blocked because you have been judged to be one of those editors who cause more disruption to the encyclopaedia than improvement.
If you want to get unblocked, you would have to convince an admin that you are not going to engage in arguing about the subject, and will be careful of other editors’ sensitivities.
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)
Decline reason:
Sounds like you're here to engage in culture wars. No thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Randomdude87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am apparently blocked because I correctly believe that humans cannot change sex. This has somehow been turned into transphobia? Every single edit I've made has been an improvement to Wiki and I'm being unfairly blocked due to the views of the admins, not due to any legitimate rule violations. I've not been given a single example of any rule I've broken, only links to general rule sets, none of which my posts are in conflict with. No examples have been provided to validate any of these accusations. Randomdude87 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Talk page access revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Randomdude87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Wikipedia Administrators,
I am writing to seek a reconsideration of the block placed on my account, Randomdude87, which I believe was based on misunderstandings and unfounded accusations. My contributions to Wikipedia have been motivated by a commitment to factual accuracy and a desire to enrich the encyclopedia with reliable, verifiable information. It's frustrating to be accused of "not being here to build an encyclopedia" when literally everything I did was aimed at improving the content here.
The fact that the bulk of my suggestions were approved and sustained is a testament to my meaningful contributions. I've yet to see any of those supporting my block specify anything affirming the contrary. In fact, they even referenced my contributions and edits being good.
I wish to address specific points related to my block:
Unfair Accusation of Engaging in Culture Wars: I have been accused of participating in Wikipedia to "engage in culture wars." This characterization is not only inaccurate but also overlooks my genuine intent to contribute constructively. My edits and contributions were made with the aim of enhancing the encyclopedia's reliability, not to further any personal or political agendas. I have none.
As referenced and confirmed by others, I have acted in good faith by providing better citations for an inclusion to the article in question which I personally disagreed with. In fact, this was provided to the person requesting my arbitration and making the claims against me. To suggest I'm not acting in good faith goes against available evidence.
Lack of Specific Violations: Despite the accusations leading to my block, I have not been presented with specific examples of my edits violating Wikipedia's guidelines or rules. I believe that every edit I made was in compliance with Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and verifiability. My contributions were supported by credible sources and were intended to present information in a balanced and factual manner. I believe I did that. I'd love specific examples that show otherwise for me to think on.
It seems my ban (for "transphobia") is related to accurately referring to trans-women as males. I note that in every instance, including the lone instance I'm referencing that got me banned, I referred to the trans-women in question with "she/her" pronouns. The idea that correctly referencing their sex is hatred or bigotry is absurd to me, especially when this is a requirement to even be included on the pages we're talking about.
Good Faith in Talk Page Comments: My comments on the talk page were made in good faith, aiming to clarify and establish criteria for the content in question. This was in response to existing questions and concerns from other community members on what constitutes inclusion. My intent was to facilitate a constructive discussion to reach a consensus on the inclusion of that particular page within Wikipedia's guidelines.
Unsubstantiated Claims by the Arbitration Requester: The claims made against me by the individual requesting arbitration were, in my view, completely unfounded. No substantial evidence was provided to support the accusations that my edits or conduct were in violation of Wikipedia policies. It is my belief that a fair review of the situation will reveal that my actions were in line with the spirit of constructive contribution and collaboration that Wikipedia encourages.
I'm not trying to make this request about other people, but I don't have much to reply to regarding my ban because I wasn't given anything specific to mull over. I was told multiple things by multiple people with 0 follow-up or clarification. Nobody even affirmed the 2 issues raised in the arbitration.
Given these points, I respectfully request that my block be reviewed and reconsidered. I am fully committed to abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I welcome any guidance or suggestions from the administrator community on how to make positive contributions moving forward. I believe that a constructive dialogue can address any concerns and clarify any misunderstandings regarding my contributions. But I must stand by my edits being beneficial to Wikipedia. I spent a lot of time researching to improve the Amanda Milan page and I definitely consider my contributions an improvement.
Thank you for considering my appeal. I am eager to resolve this matter and hope to continue contributing to Wikipedia in a positive and productive manner.
Sincerely,
Randomdude87
Decline reason:
I've reviewed this matter, and think this was a good block. I see no pathway to you being unblocked without a topic ban from gender issues in some form. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
331dot A good block based on what? I am still confused on what rules I broke or why my edits are somehow at odds with Wikipedia's goals? I don't even understand what I am blocked for because I've been given multiple different reasons that aren't even congruent with one another. Can you at least reference something specifically instead of just saying you reviewed it? It doesn't seem like any admin reviewed anything.
Why would I need to be banned from gender issues? Every single edit I made was helpful to the pages! Please find any suggestion of mine that made the pages weaker or less accurate! Randomdude87 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
331dot I do not have "personal views" on this. It's not a personal view that trans-women are male. It's a requirement of being a trans-woman. It is entirely relevant when discussing the motives of a murder when the killer considers the male identify and homosexual encounter as his motive. It has nothing to do with what someone identifies as or how they live their life — it's specific to why they were killed from the perspective of the killer.
How are you arbitrarily deciding these are my personal views? They are relevant to Wikipedia for accuracy and you're telling me you won't discuss it?
I don't even know what you're linking there? The unfounded claims that weren't substantiated? Yes, that is what I am asking about. What exactly is the issue? I referenced a quote from the woman herself that appears in the sources and is relevant to the case, 100%. You just keep repeating the same thing, but zero specifics in what rule I broke with what action. You are insinuating I am the one with some agenda here. I have never asked for a debate on any of these issues and never wanted one. My goal was to improve the pages, which I absolutely did.
I am asking you, the admin who denied my unblock, to explain what policy I broke? I see nothing in the linked GENDERID policy that applies here. I referred to the people we're discussing with their proper pronouns. I only referenced their male sex (which shouldn't be taboo whatsoever) in relation to their killer's motive. That is the salient detail on inclusion to the list we're discussing and I only brought it up on the talk page to clarify our criteria.
If my edit Sideswipe quoted was so disrespectful and rule-breaking, why is the section still up? I spent a lot of time on that, reading all the cited sources, and corrected several errors in the writing. I even ran it through Chat GPT after to grade my neutral tone. My version makes it clear she was targeted by someone who knew she was trans, which is the reason she has a Wikipedia page. There is nothing wrong with my edit. I also updated the citation URLs and references, even submitting new archive.org backups for them.
What part of the linked GENDER policy did I break here? What part of this isn't me being here to build a better encyclopedia? Seriously, I don't really care that I didn't "get the result I wanted", I just want you to explain specifically what rule it was that I broke and with what specific comment/edit/whatever? It'd help, because respectfully, it isn't clear at all. Randomdude87 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
As stated in the block log, you seem to be not here to build an encyclopedia, as reflected in your postings.WHAT POSTINGS?! Again, you just keep repeating a generic claim with nothing backing it up. You can't even quote a specific thing! None of the posts linked apply to me what-so-ever. I just explained all of this.
You initially said I violated something on the GENDER page, which I did not. Now you're referencing something else, but you can't provide a single example. Please, quote me an example of my contributions that demonstrate not being here to build an encyclopedia!
I've made a single live edit to Wikipedia, which is the linked section I just posted. It's still up! Please tell me how that's not me being here to build an encyclopedia?!
As reflected in my postings? You mean because I correctly referenced the biological sex of someone, which you don't believe in or understand? Yeah, figured as much.
My "lengthy post" where I rebuke everything you say and ask for answers? Why would that make me ineligible for editing about gender issues? You're legitimately just making up rules as you go along.
WHY ARE THERE ADMINISTRATORS WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND BASIC THINGS LIKE BIOLOGICAL SEX?! Y'all are banning me because you want to conflate gender and sex. It's unreal. Randomdude87 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)