I'm Walter Görlitz, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some
common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at
my talk page or type {{helpme}}
here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can
contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can
use a sandbox. You can
create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}}
on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click
here to start it.
Please remember to:
~~~~
at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your
signature, a link to your talk page, and a
timestamp.Sincerely,
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
07:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
(Leave me a message)
Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz: Hello Walter,
Thanks muchly for the welcome; appreciate the list of links. Looks to be quite a learning curve.
Sorry for the delay in responding; took me some time to figure out the correct syntax for the "Reply to" template.
BTW, I had put my signature in square brackets which didn't work; standard curved ones seems to.
Regards, Jim ( TillermanJimW ( talk) 04:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC))
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huashang, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here.
Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 00:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Talk:Laurel Hubbard, 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. Your comment has been removed per
WP:NOTFORUM and because it appears to be a dispute with the
MOS:GENDERID guideline. It has been suggested that you can bring your concern to
WP:VILLAGEPUMP instead. And because you asked "How many undos do I get?", please review
the three-revert rule. Thank you,
Beccaynr (
talk)
01:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
female, adjective: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
If you or the other editor weighing in had bothered to look at the substance of the section I’d added, which I feel does not assume good faith by myself or Newimpartial, and was something I did not want to keep on my Talk page.
I think you’d see that the definition of “female” as a sex – and not as a gender – is anything but “fringe”- the part of this that is WP:FRINGE is the part stating
and not as a gender. Many, many reliable sources on sex and gender - including ones you yourself cited in your long Talk page intervention - observe that "female" is the term for a sex, and a!so a gender. Arguing that it is not also a gender label is FRINGE, and op-eds will never be reliable sources for such a claim. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
article on woman which basically defines “woman” as “an adult female human”. I rather doubt that Hubbard qualifies on either accountviolates Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people. Don't do that. Substantively, since female is a term for gender and since Hubbard unquestionably has a female gender identity, your statement is also factually false on both counts, as well as being un civil. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Relating to women or the female gender- the claim that
female is NOT a genderis certainly not proven by the sources you offer, which is a good thing because it is, in fact, false according to the overwhelming weight of Reliable Sources available, Which, in fact, the Wikipedia article on Woman also reflects, as it discusses both female sex and female gender. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
female is NOT a genderis certainly not proven by the sources you offer": It is NOT necessary to prove that "female is NOT a gender". It's implicit in the definition, in how intensional and extensional definitions work, in what is implied by the phrase "necessary and sufficient conditions". It's not necessary to say that Sally or Mike is not a teenager - if they're not 13 to 19 then, ipso facto, they don't qualify. It would be ridiculous beyond belief - not to mention impossible - to give a definition for "female" by listing all of the things that it is not: "female: the sex that produces ova, but also not cars, boats, trains, planes, rivers, mountains, electrical connectors, and most certainly not bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens ..." There's a myriad of things that "female" is not, but there is, at least in a the context of biology, only ONE "thing" that a female is: "an ovum-producing organism".
female can also be used to refer to gender. Your own Oxford dictionary source defines the word female as
Relating to women or the female gender. You have made an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, and need sources to back it up that are both extraordinary and explicit in their support. The original research you are offering here (scholastic reasoning through categories) is simply irrelevant to Wikipedia, in both article space and, frankly, in Talk space as well. I see no need to humour this further.
there’s a post & quote also at the top of the page of a Wikipedia article on woman which basically defines “woman” as “an adult female human”. I rather doubt that Hubbard qualifies on either account, particularly those last three words? Newimpartial ( talk) 23:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
a quite specific and entirely circumscribed definitionfrom biology and
a colloquial reference to a gendershows that you were not able to read with comprehension your own dictionary reference, presumably because of the great pressure of your own POV requirements. Competence is, actually, required. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Laurel Hubbard, 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 here. I removed the NPOV template you added to because it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed per
WP:WTRMT and the discussion here. It continues to appear that your dispute is with the
MOS:GENDERID guideline and the
WP:NPOV policy, and based on
WP:OR. Please consider posting your dispute at
WP:VILLAGEPUMP instead. Thank you,
Beccaynr (
talk)
03:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Laurel Hubbard shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Crossroads -talk- 04:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
colloquialcontexts, either - legal authorities and rigorous sources in the social sciences define and use "female as a gender" at all levels of formal diction.
everyone does it: thanks for the WP:STRAWMAN. What I was actually pointing out was that the highest-quality sources available distinguish between sex and gender, and recognize that in most contexts to do with human beings, "female" refers to female gender.
"self-identified" genderin the actual question on gender is unaffected by the ruling.
that assumptions of good faith are not always justified. Well done. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TillermanJimW reported by User:Crossroads (Result: ). Thank you.
Crossroads
-talk-
04:50, 23 August 2021 (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."
TillermanJimW ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
For being unfair and overly draconian (a week?) if not punitive – particularly for a new user, and not taking into account a number of extenuating circumstances. While I will freely admit to having transgressed 3RR – mea culpa, shoot me at dawn – and will promise not to do so again (cross my heart and hope to die), I also think there are a number of extenuating circumstances that the blocking administrator neglected to consider. And first and foremost is that in the “notice of edit warring” posted by Crosstalk, he said “the editors removing his comment from the talk page were themselves in the wrong by removing a comment about content without justification”. While, as WP:GAB notes, two wrongs don’t make a right, those removals required me to use up two of my own reverts which seems rather unfair right out of the chute. But more importantly, the crux of the discussion – which was removed by those other editors including the blocking administrator – is that I had posted, as per WP:NPOVD, the requisite tag [POV] on the main page – which was reverted within 3 or 4 minutes before I’d even had time to complete the posting of the required explanatory section in the talk page called for in that NPOVD document. Which raises the question, regardless of my 3RR transgression, to what extent any of the editors who reverted my posts addressing the issue, including the blocking administrator himself, are justified in removing that NPOV tag. At least without some evidence of addressing the points presented – which did not happen at all. And particularly where Crosstalk himself acknowledged that “His comment above is about a particular phrase in the article and does make an argument against it, so misguided though it be, it is not a violation of BLPTALK, GENDERID, or NOTFORUM." Had kinda thought – on some evidence (Five Pillars) – that the NPOV policy was more or less trump and that it would have been sufficient to at least temper the application of that sanction – as I had said. But I hadn’t even realized a sanction was in force as Crosstalk’s post only talked about “a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring” – not that a sanction had been applied. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that, but it should count for something. In any case, when or if you rescind my block – sooner would be better as there are other edits I have in mind on less controversial issues – I’ll look into the possibility of taking that NPOV dispute re the Hubbard article to the NPOV noticeboard. However, as the putative POV transgression took place in the Hubbard article that seems to be where the discussion should take place. To that end, it might expedite things if you were to revert that POV tag and my justifications for it - if that is at all possible. Maybe even add a page block or protections or whatever else you might think is appropriate in the circumstances. But I think that issue has to be addressed in one place or another. So would appreciate the earliest rescinding of my block so I can proceed as soon as possible accordingly. Thanks for addressing these points. --TillermanJimW (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is an arbitration enforcement block. As such no administrator can unilaterally undo it. It can only be undone if there is a consensus among uninvolved administrators. Please see the instructions for appeal in your block notice. Specifically you need to request that your unblock request be copied over to arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Please note requests there are limited to 500 words, I am seeing about 550 words here.
My advice is to wait out the block. If you do request a review at AE the most likely outcome is that the appeal will be declined. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:54, 24 August 2021 (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.
Even if you were entirely right about that - and I didn't revert you so I am largely indifferent on that point - it would not justify your 3RR violation, nor would it validate your choice to be confrontational with other editors in a DS area. TL; DR: you don't get conduct points for "being right". Newimpartial ( talk) 03:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
In any war there tends to be guilt on both sides, but one generally has the moral high or higher ground. Disproportionally penalizing the side with the lesser transgression with, hyperbolically speaking, crucifixion while turning a blind eye to the other side with the more egregious transgressions just calls into disrepute the whole adjudication process- as long as you see things this way, you will not edit successfully on WP.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based
cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
femininity and masculinity." And: "although Madison Bentley had already in 1945 defined gender as the socialized obverse of sex. ..." Using the same words - "male" & "female" - to refer to members of entirely different categories is often just a pretext for equivocation in the aid of politically motivated ideology. -- TillermanJimW ( talk) 05:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
"who is to decide what counts as NPOV language for WP": That's something of a reasonable question. Which the WP:NPOV document discusses in some detail which I'll briefly address later.
However, that is something of a red herring as the crux of the matter is the rather egregious removal by several editors of the POV tag. Editors, one might emphasize, who, one might reasonably argue - not that anyone seems to be listening - had seriously exceeded the limits of their authority. There's a fundamental dichotomy that most if not all of you seem to be missing - or are trying to sweep under the carpet: on the one hand there's the discussion as to what constitutes "NPOV language" and, on the other hand, the non-negotiable policy
that thou shalt NOT remove that POV tag without having met the stipulated conditions.
And one of those conditions is to actually discuss the relevant NPOV language and policy in the Talk section of the supposedly offending article. A discussion which y'all seem rather disconcertingly bound and determined against - not to say "pigheadedly biased against" - allowing that to happen.
In any case, as I said, there's likely to be a fruitful discussion possible on the question of NPOV language in general and relevant to the sex and gender issue in particular. As I had noted before, the OED definition of gender indicates that a common use is to see it as a synonym for sex. And noted "brain surgeon" and erstwhile HUD secretary Ben Carson clearly subscribes to that view - not a "reliable source"? But to wit:
But Wikipedia has, one might argue as a Devil's advocate, clearly abrogated its own NPOV policy by commendably endorsing the " conventional wisdom" - which is often seriously wrong - that sex and gender are two entirely different kettles of fish. Although I seem to recollect that the Wikipedia article on Gender acknowledges that "colloquial" (?) use is often based on a (mis)perception that sex and gender are equivalent.
But the point there is that the NPOV policy does not extend to describing or endorsing all possible views on a subject or issue - Wikipedia does subscribe to some fundamental premises and axioms and assumptions. Even if some of those may not be entirely tenable though that's a rather murky topic. But the point is also that, on some ubiquitous evidence, there is a great deal of common confusion about the dichotomy between sex and gender. Which is causing no end of controversy and substantial degrees of serious grief. Think that Wikipedia has something of an obligation to not contribute to that by not clearly differentiating between the two concepts - as has happened in the Hubbard article. -- TillermanJimW ( talk) 19:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be under the false impression that you are blocked only for a technical 3RR violation. This is not the case. You are blocked for edit warring yes, but also for taking a very confrontational attitude in an area under discretionary sanctions. The attitude you are taking that you are right and thus can wield the might of the NPOV policy to trump other policies and the opinions of other editors is very much part of the problem.
I am well aware that you are using hyperbolic analogy, I am telling you comparing a user's actions to rape and murder is very much beyond the line defined by our personal attack policy. That policy recommends issuing a warning before resorting to a block and I have given such a warning. You can make your point without such comparisons.
You have found yourself in a hole and right now you are trying to dig your way out, but the first rule of being in a hole is to stop digging. At this point I find it very unlikely that your appeal will be accepted. I advised you not to make this appeal because I knew it was a good block and the appeal would be declined, I knew all it would accomplish would be to draw more attention to your behavior. You can see that more than one administrator there, including myself, is talking about a topic ban from the area if there is further disruption from you.
As you were informed with the notice on the 22nd the topic of gender and sexuality is under a more stringent set of rules, these rules are enforced far more strictly. If you feel we are being too strict this is why and you may find things more lenient in topics not covered by discretionary sanctions.
The best thing you can do is wait out your block and then either avoid the area entirely or change your attitude significantly. Specifically if other editors are complaining about your actions then listen to them and not insist they are wrong.
The current path you are taking will result in a topic ban from the area and if you continue further possibly removal from the project. Right now it is a simple block and it can end with that, it is up to you. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
raising the issue of NPOV transgressionscould have helped you in any way at AE. The whole point of WP's WP:EW doctrine is not to edit war over an issue even if you are obviously right, unless the issue falls under the very limited exceptions set out in 3RRNO. And "my own interpretation of this contentious area tells me that the current consensus text is wrong" will never be an obviously right statement, anyway. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Can you condense for me, in three sentences or less, the exact changes you are trying to make re: gender? The reason your POV tag was removed was because you did not clearly state an issue. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views.The article used the mainstream view.
Almost nothing can be added to or removed from the Gender article without the agreement of both Crossroads and Newimpartial. And they agree on very little. Tewdar ( talk) 09:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
helpful. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial - I don't know "what a person internally feels". Except myself. Sometimes. So, like I say, unless you have a better method, I'm stuck with believing what people tell me is their "sincere conviction". Tewdar ( talk) 23:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
to ask whether they're madder than hatters - ie., many if not most of the transgendered - or notis a WP:BLP violation and in present company also violates WP:CIVIL. Don't do that and expect to keep editing WP. Also, if you live in a society and culture that distinguishes sex and gender, but you idiosyncratically refuse to do so, that leaves you as the one person who denies consensus reality. That isn't a place most people want to find ourselves... Newimpartial ( talk) 00:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Newimpartial: - Are you actually suggesting that Wikipedia should require that people undergo lie detector tests and sanity checks before Wikipedia refers to them by their declared gender identity? Because I'm pretty sure that, at the moment, the policy is that, they declare their gender, an RS reports it, and WP uses this gender and appropriate pronouns in articles, without going through a process of checking that they are not lying or mentally ill. Tewdar ( talk) 07:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The best advice I can give you on said-topic? This ain't no Ben Shapiro site. GoodDay ( talk) 01:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The following topic ban now applies to you:
You are indefinitely banned from the topic of gender and sexuality broadly construed anywhere on Wikipedia.
You have been sanctioned for multiple incidences of dispruption in the topic area including violations of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not( WP:NOTADVOCACY), Wikipedia:Tendentious editing( WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS), and Wikipedia:Civility. Your previous discretionary sanction block for the same behavior was taken into account when deciding on this topic ban.
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.
If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban carefully. Any violations of this topic ban will likely result in blocks of escalating duration or indefinite blocks. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
13:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)TillermanJimW ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I’m appealing this block because I think it’s based on biased premises, trumped-up charges, draconian “punishment”, a refusal to consider my evidence, and an abrogation of NPOV policy.
More particularly, the “reason” stated for the block is “because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia”. “appears”? Rather subjective at best – where’s the smoking gun? While I haven’t made more than a dozen or so substantive edits since joining here about 2 years ago – some of a quite technical nature – those edits make it a serious stretch to even suggest that I’m only here just to “disrupt” things for my own entertainment.
As for trumped-up charges, while I won’t repeat the entire chapter and verse that led to this state, it is due to a biased escalation from a bogus topic ban – supposedly because of “advocacy”, “tendentious editing”, and “incivility” (the horror ....) – to a categorical and indefinite site-wide block. Although I expect the topic ban was more because I’d offended someone’s “gender religion”.
But the topic ban was apparently due to my arguing – with a cast of thousands – that several editors and administrators had seriously exceeded the limits of their authority in removing a POV tag I had placed on the Laurel Hubbard article – with its rather risible assertion that Hubbard had “transitioned to female” – without meeting the stipulated conditions. In passing, you might note that I’ve had some support (NPOV discussion) for what I’d done there including with the application of the POV tag ( thanks again @ GoodDay:).
But the topic ban was also for arguing there that the Gender article, in failing to clearly summarize the many quite serious controversies over the whole concept, was likewise abrogating NPOV policy. Bit of a stretch to see how defending fundamental and foundational policies qualifies as “advocacy” and “tendentious editing”.
To elaborate a bit, while I think there’s some justification for the concept of gender – “broadly construed” – there’s also no shortage of evidence that far too much of it is “logically incoherent” – being charitable. Not to mention being based on various “ideological biases”, and on the “virulent anti-intellectual and anti-scientific sentiments” undergirding much of “women studies” and feminist “philosophy” in general. But both of those threads are little short of outright Lysenkoism – note the bit in a Nature article that argues that “the spectre of Lysenkoism lurks in current scientific discourse on gender, race and intelligence”.
Houston, we have a serious and quite “mission-critical” problem. Those two cases alone – and there are many others – should have set alarm bells ringing from one end of Wikipedia to the other; that it clearly didn’t should be a major topic of concern and debate.
But to close, I might note the “commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and guidelines” in the WP:INDEF document. But I’m the one who’s doing that “observing” of a commitment, at least to the “higher” and “non-negotiable” principle of NPOV, and not to the largely picayune policies about “incivility” that characterizes too many others. Methinks that y’all really won’t have an encyclopedia for much longer if your actual commitment to NPOV policy is nothing more than the lip service I’ve seen so far.
Thanks for your earliest and equitable attention to this appeal. -- TillermanJimW ( talk) 00:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. – bradv 🍁 01:54, 15 September 2021 (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.
Reviewing admin, kindly refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive293#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TillermanJimW for context. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Bradv:: What a bloody joke. You clearly haven't read anything at all of what I've posted. Do you seriously "think" that the only option I have is to throw myself on the "mercy (ha!)" of the court?
You don't seem to have an effen clue that the Guide to appealing a block explicitly says, "State your reason for believing your block was incorrect"? Which I have done in some detail. Which you clearly are refusing to consider. I stated right out the chute that my reasons were that the block was "based on biased premises, trumped-up charges, draconian punishment a refusal to consider my evidence, and an abrogation of NPOV policy". Did you even bother to read anything at all about why I was arguing that? Those were all the reasons why the block is "incorrect".
"a bloody joke" is only the tip of the iceberg. "equitable attention" was clearly too much to expect. -- TillermanJimW ( talk) 02:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Since you have continued to talk about gender topics in violation of your topic ban I am revoking talk page access. You can appeal to arbcom or UTRS if you really want, but I don't think you will have much luck. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm Walter Görlitz, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some
common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at
my talk page or type {{helpme}}
here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can
contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can
use a sandbox. You can
create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}}
on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click
here to start it.
Please remember to:
~~~~
at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your
signature, a link to your talk page, and a
timestamp.Sincerely,
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
07:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
(Leave me a message)
Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz: Hello Walter,
Thanks muchly for the welcome; appreciate the list of links. Looks to be quite a learning curve.
Sorry for the delay in responding; took me some time to figure out the correct syntax for the "Reply to" template.
BTW, I had put my signature in square brackets which didn't work; standard curved ones seems to.
Regards, Jim ( TillermanJimW ( talk) 04:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC))
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huashang, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here.
Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 00:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Talk:Laurel Hubbard, 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. Your comment has been removed per
WP:NOTFORUM and because it appears to be a dispute with the
MOS:GENDERID guideline. It has been suggested that you can bring your concern to
WP:VILLAGEPUMP instead. And because you asked "How many undos do I get?", please review
the three-revert rule. Thank you,
Beccaynr (
talk)
01:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
female, adjective: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
If you or the other editor weighing in had bothered to look at the substance of the section I’d added, which I feel does not assume good faith by myself or Newimpartial, and was something I did not want to keep on my Talk page.
I think you’d see that the definition of “female” as a sex – and not as a gender – is anything but “fringe”- the part of this that is WP:FRINGE is the part stating
and not as a gender. Many, many reliable sources on sex and gender - including ones you yourself cited in your long Talk page intervention - observe that "female" is the term for a sex, and a!so a gender. Arguing that it is not also a gender label is FRINGE, and op-eds will never be reliable sources for such a claim. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
article on woman which basically defines “woman” as “an adult female human”. I rather doubt that Hubbard qualifies on either accountviolates Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people. Don't do that. Substantively, since female is a term for gender and since Hubbard unquestionably has a female gender identity, your statement is also factually false on both counts, as well as being un civil. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Relating to women or the female gender- the claim that
female is NOT a genderis certainly not proven by the sources you offer, which is a good thing because it is, in fact, false according to the overwhelming weight of Reliable Sources available, Which, in fact, the Wikipedia article on Woman also reflects, as it discusses both female sex and female gender. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
female is NOT a genderis certainly not proven by the sources you offer": It is NOT necessary to prove that "female is NOT a gender". It's implicit in the definition, in how intensional and extensional definitions work, in what is implied by the phrase "necessary and sufficient conditions". It's not necessary to say that Sally or Mike is not a teenager - if they're not 13 to 19 then, ipso facto, they don't qualify. It would be ridiculous beyond belief - not to mention impossible - to give a definition for "female" by listing all of the things that it is not: "female: the sex that produces ova, but also not cars, boats, trains, planes, rivers, mountains, electrical connectors, and most certainly not bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens ..." There's a myriad of things that "female" is not, but there is, at least in a the context of biology, only ONE "thing" that a female is: "an ovum-producing organism".
female can also be used to refer to gender. Your own Oxford dictionary source defines the word female as
Relating to women or the female gender. You have made an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, and need sources to back it up that are both extraordinary and explicit in their support. The original research you are offering here (scholastic reasoning through categories) is simply irrelevant to Wikipedia, in both article space and, frankly, in Talk space as well. I see no need to humour this further.
there’s a post & quote also at the top of the page of a Wikipedia article on woman which basically defines “woman” as “an adult female human”. I rather doubt that Hubbard qualifies on either account, particularly those last three words? Newimpartial ( talk) 23:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
a quite specific and entirely circumscribed definitionfrom biology and
a colloquial reference to a gendershows that you were not able to read with comprehension your own dictionary reference, presumably because of the great pressure of your own POV requirements. Competence is, actually, required. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Laurel Hubbard, 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 here. I removed the NPOV template you added to because it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed per
WP:WTRMT and the discussion here. It continues to appear that your dispute is with the
MOS:GENDERID guideline and the
WP:NPOV policy, and based on
WP:OR. Please consider posting your dispute at
WP:VILLAGEPUMP instead. Thank you,
Beccaynr (
talk)
03:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Laurel Hubbard shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Crossroads -talk- 04:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
colloquialcontexts, either - legal authorities and rigorous sources in the social sciences define and use "female as a gender" at all levels of formal diction.
everyone does it: thanks for the WP:STRAWMAN. What I was actually pointing out was that the highest-quality sources available distinguish between sex and gender, and recognize that in most contexts to do with human beings, "female" refers to female gender.
"self-identified" genderin the actual question on gender is unaffected by the ruling.
that assumptions of good faith are not always justified. Well done. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TillermanJimW reported by User:Crossroads (Result: ). Thank you.
Crossroads
-talk-
04:50, 23 August 2021 (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."
TillermanJimW ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
For being unfair and overly draconian (a week?) if not punitive – particularly for a new user, and not taking into account a number of extenuating circumstances. While I will freely admit to having transgressed 3RR – mea culpa, shoot me at dawn – and will promise not to do so again (cross my heart and hope to die), I also think there are a number of extenuating circumstances that the blocking administrator neglected to consider. And first and foremost is that in the “notice of edit warring” posted by Crosstalk, he said “the editors removing his comment from the talk page were themselves in the wrong by removing a comment about content without justification”. While, as WP:GAB notes, two wrongs don’t make a right, those removals required me to use up two of my own reverts which seems rather unfair right out of the chute. But more importantly, the crux of the discussion – which was removed by those other editors including the blocking administrator – is that I had posted, as per WP:NPOVD, the requisite tag [POV] on the main page – which was reverted within 3 or 4 minutes before I’d even had time to complete the posting of the required explanatory section in the talk page called for in that NPOVD document. Which raises the question, regardless of my 3RR transgression, to what extent any of the editors who reverted my posts addressing the issue, including the blocking administrator himself, are justified in removing that NPOV tag. At least without some evidence of addressing the points presented – which did not happen at all. And particularly where Crosstalk himself acknowledged that “His comment above is about a particular phrase in the article and does make an argument against it, so misguided though it be, it is not a violation of BLPTALK, GENDERID, or NOTFORUM." Had kinda thought – on some evidence (Five Pillars) – that the NPOV policy was more or less trump and that it would have been sufficient to at least temper the application of that sanction – as I had said. But I hadn’t even realized a sanction was in force as Crosstalk’s post only talked about “a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring” – not that a sanction had been applied. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that, but it should count for something. In any case, when or if you rescind my block – sooner would be better as there are other edits I have in mind on less controversial issues – I’ll look into the possibility of taking that NPOV dispute re the Hubbard article to the NPOV noticeboard. However, as the putative POV transgression took place in the Hubbard article that seems to be where the discussion should take place. To that end, it might expedite things if you were to revert that POV tag and my justifications for it - if that is at all possible. Maybe even add a page block or protections or whatever else you might think is appropriate in the circumstances. But I think that issue has to be addressed in one place or another. So would appreciate the earliest rescinding of my block so I can proceed as soon as possible accordingly. Thanks for addressing these points. --TillermanJimW (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is an arbitration enforcement block. As such no administrator can unilaterally undo it. It can only be undone if there is a consensus among uninvolved administrators. Please see the instructions for appeal in your block notice. Specifically you need to request that your unblock request be copied over to arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Please note requests there are limited to 500 words, I am seeing about 550 words here.
My advice is to wait out the block. If you do request a review at AE the most likely outcome is that the appeal will be declined. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:54, 24 August 2021 (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.
Even if you were entirely right about that - and I didn't revert you so I am largely indifferent on that point - it would not justify your 3RR violation, nor would it validate your choice to be confrontational with other editors in a DS area. TL; DR: you don't get conduct points for "being right". Newimpartial ( talk) 03:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
In any war there tends to be guilt on both sides, but one generally has the moral high or higher ground. Disproportionally penalizing the side with the lesser transgression with, hyperbolically speaking, crucifixion while turning a blind eye to the other side with the more egregious transgressions just calls into disrepute the whole adjudication process- as long as you see things this way, you will not edit successfully on WP.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based
cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
femininity and masculinity." And: "although Madison Bentley had already in 1945 defined gender as the socialized obverse of sex. ..." Using the same words - "male" & "female" - to refer to members of entirely different categories is often just a pretext for equivocation in the aid of politically motivated ideology. -- TillermanJimW ( talk) 05:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
"who is to decide what counts as NPOV language for WP": That's something of a reasonable question. Which the WP:NPOV document discusses in some detail which I'll briefly address later.
However, that is something of a red herring as the crux of the matter is the rather egregious removal by several editors of the POV tag. Editors, one might emphasize, who, one might reasonably argue - not that anyone seems to be listening - had seriously exceeded the limits of their authority. There's a fundamental dichotomy that most if not all of you seem to be missing - or are trying to sweep under the carpet: on the one hand there's the discussion as to what constitutes "NPOV language" and, on the other hand, the non-negotiable policy
that thou shalt NOT remove that POV tag without having met the stipulated conditions.
And one of those conditions is to actually discuss the relevant NPOV language and policy in the Talk section of the supposedly offending article. A discussion which y'all seem rather disconcertingly bound and determined against - not to say "pigheadedly biased against" - allowing that to happen.
In any case, as I said, there's likely to be a fruitful discussion possible on the question of NPOV language in general and relevant to the sex and gender issue in particular. As I had noted before, the OED definition of gender indicates that a common use is to see it as a synonym for sex. And noted "brain surgeon" and erstwhile HUD secretary Ben Carson clearly subscribes to that view - not a "reliable source"? But to wit:
But Wikipedia has, one might argue as a Devil's advocate, clearly abrogated its own NPOV policy by commendably endorsing the " conventional wisdom" - which is often seriously wrong - that sex and gender are two entirely different kettles of fish. Although I seem to recollect that the Wikipedia article on Gender acknowledges that "colloquial" (?) use is often based on a (mis)perception that sex and gender are equivalent.
But the point there is that the NPOV policy does not extend to describing or endorsing all possible views on a subject or issue - Wikipedia does subscribe to some fundamental premises and axioms and assumptions. Even if some of those may not be entirely tenable though that's a rather murky topic. But the point is also that, on some ubiquitous evidence, there is a great deal of common confusion about the dichotomy between sex and gender. Which is causing no end of controversy and substantial degrees of serious grief. Think that Wikipedia has something of an obligation to not contribute to that by not clearly differentiating between the two concepts - as has happened in the Hubbard article. -- TillermanJimW ( talk) 19:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be under the false impression that you are blocked only for a technical 3RR violation. This is not the case. You are blocked for edit warring yes, but also for taking a very confrontational attitude in an area under discretionary sanctions. The attitude you are taking that you are right and thus can wield the might of the NPOV policy to trump other policies and the opinions of other editors is very much part of the problem.
I am well aware that you are using hyperbolic analogy, I am telling you comparing a user's actions to rape and murder is very much beyond the line defined by our personal attack policy. That policy recommends issuing a warning before resorting to a block and I have given such a warning. You can make your point without such comparisons.
You have found yourself in a hole and right now you are trying to dig your way out, but the first rule of being in a hole is to stop digging. At this point I find it very unlikely that your appeal will be accepted. I advised you not to make this appeal because I knew it was a good block and the appeal would be declined, I knew all it would accomplish would be to draw more attention to your behavior. You can see that more than one administrator there, including myself, is talking about a topic ban from the area if there is further disruption from you.
As you were informed with the notice on the 22nd the topic of gender and sexuality is under a more stringent set of rules, these rules are enforced far more strictly. If you feel we are being too strict this is why and you may find things more lenient in topics not covered by discretionary sanctions.
The best thing you can do is wait out your block and then either avoid the area entirely or change your attitude significantly. Specifically if other editors are complaining about your actions then listen to them and not insist they are wrong.
The current path you are taking will result in a topic ban from the area and if you continue further possibly removal from the project. Right now it is a simple block and it can end with that, it is up to you. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
raising the issue of NPOV transgressionscould have helped you in any way at AE. The whole point of WP's WP:EW doctrine is not to edit war over an issue even if you are obviously right, unless the issue falls under the very limited exceptions set out in 3RRNO. And "my own interpretation of this contentious area tells me that the current consensus text is wrong" will never be an obviously right statement, anyway. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Can you condense for me, in three sentences or less, the exact changes you are trying to make re: gender? The reason your POV tag was removed was because you did not clearly state an issue. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views.The article used the mainstream view.
Almost nothing can be added to or removed from the Gender article without the agreement of both Crossroads and Newimpartial. And they agree on very little. Tewdar ( talk) 09:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
helpful. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial - I don't know "what a person internally feels". Except myself. Sometimes. So, like I say, unless you have a better method, I'm stuck with believing what people tell me is their "sincere conviction". Tewdar ( talk) 23:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
to ask whether they're madder than hatters - ie., many if not most of the transgendered - or notis a WP:BLP violation and in present company also violates WP:CIVIL. Don't do that and expect to keep editing WP. Also, if you live in a society and culture that distinguishes sex and gender, but you idiosyncratically refuse to do so, that leaves you as the one person who denies consensus reality. That isn't a place most people want to find ourselves... Newimpartial ( talk) 00:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Newimpartial: - Are you actually suggesting that Wikipedia should require that people undergo lie detector tests and sanity checks before Wikipedia refers to them by their declared gender identity? Because I'm pretty sure that, at the moment, the policy is that, they declare their gender, an RS reports it, and WP uses this gender and appropriate pronouns in articles, without going through a process of checking that they are not lying or mentally ill. Tewdar ( talk) 07:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The best advice I can give you on said-topic? This ain't no Ben Shapiro site. GoodDay ( talk) 01:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The following topic ban now applies to you:
You are indefinitely banned from the topic of gender and sexuality broadly construed anywhere on Wikipedia.
You have been sanctioned for multiple incidences of dispruption in the topic area including violations of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not( WP:NOTADVOCACY), Wikipedia:Tendentious editing( WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS), and Wikipedia:Civility. Your previous discretionary sanction block for the same behavior was taken into account when deciding on this topic ban.
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.
If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban carefully. Any violations of this topic ban will likely result in blocks of escalating duration or indefinite blocks. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
13:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)TillermanJimW ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I’m appealing this block because I think it’s based on biased premises, trumped-up charges, draconian “punishment”, a refusal to consider my evidence, and an abrogation of NPOV policy.
More particularly, the “reason” stated for the block is “because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia”. “appears”? Rather subjective at best – where’s the smoking gun? While I haven’t made more than a dozen or so substantive edits since joining here about 2 years ago – some of a quite technical nature – those edits make it a serious stretch to even suggest that I’m only here just to “disrupt” things for my own entertainment.
As for trumped-up charges, while I won’t repeat the entire chapter and verse that led to this state, it is due to a biased escalation from a bogus topic ban – supposedly because of “advocacy”, “tendentious editing”, and “incivility” (the horror ....) – to a categorical and indefinite site-wide block. Although I expect the topic ban was more because I’d offended someone’s “gender religion”.
But the topic ban was apparently due to my arguing – with a cast of thousands – that several editors and administrators had seriously exceeded the limits of their authority in removing a POV tag I had placed on the Laurel Hubbard article – with its rather risible assertion that Hubbard had “transitioned to female” – without meeting the stipulated conditions. In passing, you might note that I’ve had some support (NPOV discussion) for what I’d done there including with the application of the POV tag ( thanks again @ GoodDay:).
But the topic ban was also for arguing there that the Gender article, in failing to clearly summarize the many quite serious controversies over the whole concept, was likewise abrogating NPOV policy. Bit of a stretch to see how defending fundamental and foundational policies qualifies as “advocacy” and “tendentious editing”.
To elaborate a bit, while I think there’s some justification for the concept of gender – “broadly construed” – there’s also no shortage of evidence that far too much of it is “logically incoherent” – being charitable. Not to mention being based on various “ideological biases”, and on the “virulent anti-intellectual and anti-scientific sentiments” undergirding much of “women studies” and feminist “philosophy” in general. But both of those threads are little short of outright Lysenkoism – note the bit in a Nature article that argues that “the spectre of Lysenkoism lurks in current scientific discourse on gender, race and intelligence”.
Houston, we have a serious and quite “mission-critical” problem. Those two cases alone – and there are many others – should have set alarm bells ringing from one end of Wikipedia to the other; that it clearly didn’t should be a major topic of concern and debate.
But to close, I might note the “commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and guidelines” in the WP:INDEF document. But I’m the one who’s doing that “observing” of a commitment, at least to the “higher” and “non-negotiable” principle of NPOV, and not to the largely picayune policies about “incivility” that characterizes too many others. Methinks that y’all really won’t have an encyclopedia for much longer if your actual commitment to NPOV policy is nothing more than the lip service I’ve seen so far.
Thanks for your earliest and equitable attention to this appeal. -- TillermanJimW ( talk) 00:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. – bradv 🍁 01:54, 15 September 2021 (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.
Reviewing admin, kindly refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive293#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TillermanJimW for context. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Bradv:: What a bloody joke. You clearly haven't read anything at all of what I've posted. Do you seriously "think" that the only option I have is to throw myself on the "mercy (ha!)" of the court?
You don't seem to have an effen clue that the Guide to appealing a block explicitly says, "State your reason for believing your block was incorrect"? Which I have done in some detail. Which you clearly are refusing to consider. I stated right out the chute that my reasons were that the block was "based on biased premises, trumped-up charges, draconian punishment a refusal to consider my evidence, and an abrogation of NPOV policy". Did you even bother to read anything at all about why I was arguing that? Those were all the reasons why the block is "incorrect".
"a bloody joke" is only the tip of the iceberg. "equitable attention" was clearly too much to expect. -- TillermanJimW ( talk) 02:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Since you have continued to talk about gender topics in violation of your topic ban I am revoking talk page access. You can appeal to arbcom or UTRS if you really want, but I don't think you will have much luck. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)