Welcome!
|
Hello, Scapulus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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; read about 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.
Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Do not misgender people on Wikipedia. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Transphobia from Scapulus. Thank you. ■ ∃
Madeline ⇔ ∃
Part of me ; 19:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm honored. I wonder what the San-they-drin will decide. Scapulus takk 19:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Salvio
giuliano 20:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Scapulus ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
First, I do commend your efficiency and decisiveness. Now that's how you maintain control, Professor! I can think of some past world leaders who would nod their approval. And yes, I am in fact clapping right now. Second, I don't apologize, especially considering I actually supported following the policy while obviously disagreeing with it. And third, if the Wikiverse is going to implode every time someone says something noncanonical, then I'll gladly protect those tender feelings and refrain from those "sacred" spaces and keep editing the fun things I care about, like Sonic and Muppets and Jesus and Sunday comic strips (not necessarily in that order). I sure hope that's enough of a kowtow. Scapulus takk 20:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Thanks for making this easy. Talk page access revoked. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 20:47, 28 February 2023 (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.
- @
RickinBaltimore and
Salvio giuliano:, Just weighing in as a casual observer, I find this block to be petty, hasty, and a huge overreaction, based on what,
4 comments? They may not have been the most diplomatic edits but they were far from wildly disruptive. But because it deals with (sensitive issues about gender) and some people got their feeling slightly hurt I expect I shall be fully blocked soon as well for pointing this out. Good day.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 07:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- @
Animalparty: It's not acceptable to intentionally misgender people anywhere on Wikipedia and especially not living people per
WP:BLP. The OP's unblock request has made it clear that they have no intention of obeying such a fundamental tenet of BLP so they are unwelcome to edit anything concerning living persons. Their proposal was to "stay away" from certain areas but there is no such thing as an area that is immune. If a Sunday comic strip or a muppets production is created by a transgender person then it is not acceptable to misgender them anywhere on Wikipedia. Nor is it acceptable to misgender a scholar on Jesus anywhere on Wikipedia. With topic bans, we make them broadly construed, and expect the editor subject to such a topic ban to ensure they stay out of any area when such issues come up. These work when we can trust the editor to at least do such a minimum. But when the editor is unable to resist the urge to intentionally misgender people, and then tries to argue about it when someone tries to correct it, then proposes they will stay away from problem areas as a solution to their inability to resist the urge to intentionally misgender living persons; it's hard to imagine the editor will be able to actually resist the urge to do so when it comes up elsewhere. And I'm being very generous in assuming the editor will at least able to resist the urge to intentionally misgender editors like they do with other living persons. Frankly I don't see a reason to be so generous, which means that in reality there's far greater reason not to try.
Nil Einne (
talk) 09:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have observed this discussion only because this talk page is still on my watchlist, having previously left a warning for this editor. My concern is that Scapulus' comments were not injected into articles--in clear violation of policy--but were instead made on an
RFC, which is a forum where editors are invited to share their input, and which frequently result in the creation or change of policy. I have no dog in this fight, and my own opinions are irrelevant, but like it or not, Scapulus' opinions are pretty mainstream among conservatives. So...the community invites editors to share their input about a transgender issue at an RFC, and an editor shares a mainstream conservative opinion, and is subsequently blocked for being transphobic. This sends a chilling message to editors wishing to comment on RFCs about sensitive issues, but perhaps I am missing something.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 12:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sharing input at a content RfC is one thing, deliberate misgendering is another (which, yes, is
against the BLP policy). The big
contentious topic banner on
Talk:Rachel Levine, and the fact that
BLPs in general have been designated as contentious topics, should have served as fair warning that
norms and policies [will be] more strictly enforced
. Doubling down with hateful comments like this is just the cherry on top. The onlychilling message
being sent is that transphobic editors are not welcome. — TheresNoTime ( talk • they/them) 12:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)- Again, I'm not expressing a personal opinion, but that "hateful comment" is shared by
60 percent of the US population, so it's certainly not a fringe opinion.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 13:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- This has nothing to with opinions and everything to do with actions. Scapulus participated in the RfC, arguing that Rachel Levine's birth name should not be included, but did so in a manner which seemed designed to push people's buttons as much as possible and since that's an RfC, those comments were likely to be seen by many people, including those who could find it upsetting. I'll tell you more, if he had stopped at explaining why he thought the policy was ridiculous, I wouldn't have blocked. But he had to add the last part of his comment, the one I described as apparently designed to get a rise out of other editors. The impression that that's what he was trying to do was further cemented by his subsequent comments and attempts at humour. And, well, that's disruptive. Ultimately, we can't force anyone to be empathetic, but we can block those who seem to go out of their way to cause offence.
Salvio
giuliano 18:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Scapulus' fall from grace was certainly swift but by the time an editor is complaining about "dystopian censorship" just because an intentionally offensive Talk page message was redacted (not even removed) and even then only to the minimum extent possible, it is clear that they are showing themselves the door. This was only ever going to end one way and it was probably a kindness to everybody to do it quickly. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Heaven forbid Wikipedia host content that someone might find upsetting on a talk page comment. Good thing
Lynching of Jesse Washington and
Muhammad and
Ejaculation and
Virgin Killer and other quality content have nothing anyone could find objectional, disturbing or offensive.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 22:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's a silly argument and I suspect you are aware. There is a difference between hosting encyclopaedic material which may be offensive to some (or even many) and trying to cause gratuitous offence, and the difference is in the encyclopaedic nature of the content in question (see WP:GRATUITOUS). You're arguing Scapulus's comments were trying to be encyclopaedic? Salvio giuliano 23:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- This has nothing to with opinions and everything to do with actions. Scapulus participated in the RfC, arguing that Rachel Levine's birth name should not be included, but did so in a manner which seemed designed to push people's buttons as much as possible and since that's an RfC, those comments were likely to be seen by many people, including those who could find it upsetting. I'll tell you more, if he had stopped at explaining why he thought the policy was ridiculous, I wouldn't have blocked. But he had to add the last part of his comment, the one I described as apparently designed to get a rise out of other editors. The impression that that's what he was trying to do was further cemented by his subsequent comments and attempts at humour. And, well, that's disruptive. Ultimately, we can't force anyone to be empathetic, but we can block those who seem to go out of their way to cause offence.
Salvio
giuliano 18:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not expressing a personal opinion, but that "hateful comment" is shared by
60 percent of the US population, so it's certainly not a fringe opinion.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 13:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sharing input at a content RfC is one thing, deliberate misgendering is another (which, yes, is
against the BLP policy). The big
contentious topic banner on
Talk:Rachel Levine, and the fact that
BLPs in general have been designated as contentious topics, should have served as fair warning that
- I have observed this discussion only because this talk page is still on my watchlist, having previously left a warning for this editor. My concern is that Scapulus' comments were not injected into articles--in clear violation of policy--but were instead made on an
RFC, which is a forum where editors are invited to share their input, and which frequently result in the creation or change of policy. I have no dog in this fight, and my own opinions are irrelevant, but like it or not, Scapulus' opinions are pretty mainstream among conservatives. So...the community invites editors to share their input about a transgender issue at an RFC, and an editor shares a mainstream conservative opinion, and is subsequently blocked for being transphobic. This sends a chilling message to editors wishing to comment on RFCs about sensitive issues, but perhaps I am missing something.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 12:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- @
Animalparty: It's not acceptable to intentionally misgender people anywhere on Wikipedia and especially not living people per
WP:BLP. The OP's unblock request has made it clear that they have no intention of obeying such a fundamental tenet of BLP so they are unwelcome to edit anything concerning living persons. Their proposal was to "stay away" from certain areas but there is no such thing as an area that is immune. If a Sunday comic strip or a muppets production is created by a transgender person then it is not acceptable to misgender them anywhere on Wikipedia. Nor is it acceptable to misgender a scholar on Jesus anywhere on Wikipedia. With topic bans, we make them broadly construed, and expect the editor subject to such a topic ban to ensure they stay out of any area when such issues come up. These work when we can trust the editor to at least do such a minimum. But when the editor is unable to resist the urge to intentionally misgender people, and then tries to argue about it when someone tries to correct it, then proposes they will stay away from problem areas as a solution to their inability to resist the urge to intentionally misgender living persons; it's hard to imagine the editor will be able to actually resist the urge to do so when it comes up elsewhere. And I'm being very generous in assuming the editor will at least able to resist the urge to intentionally misgender editors like they do with other living persons. Frankly I don't see a reason to be so generous, which means that in reality there's far greater reason not to try.
Nil Einne (
talk) 09:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Welcome!
|
Hello, Scapulus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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; read about 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.
Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Do not misgender people on Wikipedia. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Transphobia from Scapulus. Thank you. ■ ∃
Madeline ⇔ ∃
Part of me ; 19:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm honored. I wonder what the San-they-drin will decide. Scapulus takk 19:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Salvio
giuliano 20:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Scapulus ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
First, I do commend your efficiency and decisiveness. Now that's how you maintain control, Professor! I can think of some past world leaders who would nod their approval. And yes, I am in fact clapping right now. Second, I don't apologize, especially considering I actually supported following the policy while obviously disagreeing with it. And third, if the Wikiverse is going to implode every time someone says something noncanonical, then I'll gladly protect those tender feelings and refrain from those "sacred" spaces and keep editing the fun things I care about, like Sonic and Muppets and Jesus and Sunday comic strips (not necessarily in that order). I sure hope that's enough of a kowtow. Scapulus takk 20:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Thanks for making this easy. Talk page access revoked. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 20:47, 28 February 2023 (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.
- @
RickinBaltimore and
Salvio giuliano:, Just weighing in as a casual observer, I find this block to be petty, hasty, and a huge overreaction, based on what,
4 comments? They may not have been the most diplomatic edits but they were far from wildly disruptive. But because it deals with (sensitive issues about gender) and some people got their feeling slightly hurt I expect I shall be fully blocked soon as well for pointing this out. Good day.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 07:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- @
Animalparty: It's not acceptable to intentionally misgender people anywhere on Wikipedia and especially not living people per
WP:BLP. The OP's unblock request has made it clear that they have no intention of obeying such a fundamental tenet of BLP so they are unwelcome to edit anything concerning living persons. Their proposal was to "stay away" from certain areas but there is no such thing as an area that is immune. If a Sunday comic strip or a muppets production is created by a transgender person then it is not acceptable to misgender them anywhere on Wikipedia. Nor is it acceptable to misgender a scholar on Jesus anywhere on Wikipedia. With topic bans, we make them broadly construed, and expect the editor subject to such a topic ban to ensure they stay out of any area when such issues come up. These work when we can trust the editor to at least do such a minimum. But when the editor is unable to resist the urge to intentionally misgender people, and then tries to argue about it when someone tries to correct it, then proposes they will stay away from problem areas as a solution to their inability to resist the urge to intentionally misgender living persons; it's hard to imagine the editor will be able to actually resist the urge to do so when it comes up elsewhere. And I'm being very generous in assuming the editor will at least able to resist the urge to intentionally misgender editors like they do with other living persons. Frankly I don't see a reason to be so generous, which means that in reality there's far greater reason not to try.
Nil Einne (
talk) 09:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have observed this discussion only because this talk page is still on my watchlist, having previously left a warning for this editor. My concern is that Scapulus' comments were not injected into articles--in clear violation of policy--but were instead made on an
RFC, which is a forum where editors are invited to share their input, and which frequently result in the creation or change of policy. I have no dog in this fight, and my own opinions are irrelevant, but like it or not, Scapulus' opinions are pretty mainstream among conservatives. So...the community invites editors to share their input about a transgender issue at an RFC, and an editor shares a mainstream conservative opinion, and is subsequently blocked for being transphobic. This sends a chilling message to editors wishing to comment on RFCs about sensitive issues, but perhaps I am missing something.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 12:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sharing input at a content RfC is one thing, deliberate misgendering is another (which, yes, is
against the BLP policy). The big
contentious topic banner on
Talk:Rachel Levine, and the fact that
BLPs in general have been designated as contentious topics, should have served as fair warning that
norms and policies [will be] more strictly enforced
. Doubling down with hateful comments like this is just the cherry on top. The onlychilling message
being sent is that transphobic editors are not welcome. — TheresNoTime ( talk • they/them) 12:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)- Again, I'm not expressing a personal opinion, but that "hateful comment" is shared by
60 percent of the US population, so it's certainly not a fringe opinion.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 13:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- This has nothing to with opinions and everything to do with actions. Scapulus participated in the RfC, arguing that Rachel Levine's birth name should not be included, but did so in a manner which seemed designed to push people's buttons as much as possible and since that's an RfC, those comments were likely to be seen by many people, including those who could find it upsetting. I'll tell you more, if he had stopped at explaining why he thought the policy was ridiculous, I wouldn't have blocked. But he had to add the last part of his comment, the one I described as apparently designed to get a rise out of other editors. The impression that that's what he was trying to do was further cemented by his subsequent comments and attempts at humour. And, well, that's disruptive. Ultimately, we can't force anyone to be empathetic, but we can block those who seem to go out of their way to cause offence.
Salvio
giuliano 18:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Scapulus' fall from grace was certainly swift but by the time an editor is complaining about "dystopian censorship" just because an intentionally offensive Talk page message was redacted (not even removed) and even then only to the minimum extent possible, it is clear that they are showing themselves the door. This was only ever going to end one way and it was probably a kindness to everybody to do it quickly. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Heaven forbid Wikipedia host content that someone might find upsetting on a talk page comment. Good thing
Lynching of Jesse Washington and
Muhammad and
Ejaculation and
Virgin Killer and other quality content have nothing anyone could find objectional, disturbing or offensive.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 22:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's a silly argument and I suspect you are aware. There is a difference between hosting encyclopaedic material which may be offensive to some (or even many) and trying to cause gratuitous offence, and the difference is in the encyclopaedic nature of the content in question (see WP:GRATUITOUS). You're arguing Scapulus's comments were trying to be encyclopaedic? Salvio giuliano 23:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- This has nothing to with opinions and everything to do with actions. Scapulus participated in the RfC, arguing that Rachel Levine's birth name should not be included, but did so in a manner which seemed designed to push people's buttons as much as possible and since that's an RfC, those comments were likely to be seen by many people, including those who could find it upsetting. I'll tell you more, if he had stopped at explaining why he thought the policy was ridiculous, I wouldn't have blocked. But he had to add the last part of his comment, the one I described as apparently designed to get a rise out of other editors. The impression that that's what he was trying to do was further cemented by his subsequent comments and attempts at humour. And, well, that's disruptive. Ultimately, we can't force anyone to be empathetic, but we can block those who seem to go out of their way to cause offence.
Salvio
giuliano 18:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not expressing a personal opinion, but that "hateful comment" is shared by
60 percent of the US population, so it's certainly not a fringe opinion.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 13:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sharing input at a content RfC is one thing, deliberate misgendering is another (which, yes, is
against the BLP policy). The big
contentious topic banner on
Talk:Rachel Levine, and the fact that
BLPs in general have been designated as contentious topics, should have served as fair warning that
- I have observed this discussion only because this talk page is still on my watchlist, having previously left a warning for this editor. My concern is that Scapulus' comments were not injected into articles--in clear violation of policy--but were instead made on an
RFC, which is a forum where editors are invited to share their input, and which frequently result in the creation or change of policy. I have no dog in this fight, and my own opinions are irrelevant, but like it or not, Scapulus' opinions are pretty mainstream among conservatives. So...the community invites editors to share their input about a transgender issue at an RFC, and an editor shares a mainstream conservative opinion, and is subsequently blocked for being transphobic. This sends a chilling message to editors wishing to comment on RFCs about sensitive issues, but perhaps I am missing something.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 12:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- @
Animalparty: It's not acceptable to intentionally misgender people anywhere on Wikipedia and especially not living people per
WP:BLP. The OP's unblock request has made it clear that they have no intention of obeying such a fundamental tenet of BLP so they are unwelcome to edit anything concerning living persons. Their proposal was to "stay away" from certain areas but there is no such thing as an area that is immune. If a Sunday comic strip or a muppets production is created by a transgender person then it is not acceptable to misgender them anywhere on Wikipedia. Nor is it acceptable to misgender a scholar on Jesus anywhere on Wikipedia. With topic bans, we make them broadly construed, and expect the editor subject to such a topic ban to ensure they stay out of any area when such issues come up. These work when we can trust the editor to at least do such a minimum. But when the editor is unable to resist the urge to intentionally misgender people, and then tries to argue about it when someone tries to correct it, then proposes they will stay away from problem areas as a solution to their inability to resist the urge to intentionally misgender living persons; it's hard to imagine the editor will be able to actually resist the urge to do so when it comes up elsewhere. And I'm being very generous in assuming the editor will at least able to resist the urge to intentionally misgender editors like they do with other living persons. Frankly I don't see a reason to be so generous, which means that in reality there's far greater reason not to try.
Nil Einne (
talk) 09:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)