User talk:5.12.68.204

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Arbitration enforcement discretionary sanctions warning: Transgender issues and paraphilia classification[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

I am specifically warning you not to make frivolous arbitration enforcement requests.  Sandstein  13:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not see it as entirely frivolous or I would not have made it at all, but I do admit to using a hyperbolic style, which I'll avoid in the future as much as I can. Regards, 5.12.68.204 (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Since I'm not able to make article contributions due to the erroneous block below, let me explain why I think my AE request was a long shot but not totally frivolous. In the Sexology case ArbCom endorsed James Cantor's evidence by linking to it in their final finding of fact #3 and they simultaneously dismissed Jokestress' evidence at #2. In his evidence section (now "courtesy" blanked), James Cantor has included a pretty table explaining that his favorite scientific ideas were being "disfavored" on Wikipedia mainly, he claimed, as a result of Jokestress' editing. This table included gynandromorphophilia and autogynephilia, whose little brother is autoandrophilia. Now how comes that after Jokestress was banned, James Cantor yet again lost the argument which seems mainly about the titles under which to present certain theories? Furthermore how comes nobody besides him mustered a straight keep vote for the articles (or article forks) he created? Did ArbCom drink the cool aid when they endorsed his evidence? Or is the Wikipedia community still full of other WP:RANDYs preventing James Cantor from spreading the light of science? Since your (self-appointed, as far as I can tell) job is to enforce Arbitration results, you don't seem to have the luxury to decide if the latter or the former is the case, but appear bound to ban anyone who appears to stand contrary to the ArbCom findings. Am I mistaken? 5.12.68.204 (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've read some AE proceedings in detail and now I agree with you that my request had no chance of success, ergo it was frivolous from the perspective of an experienced admin in that area. So I apologize for misusing AE to vent my consternation at the ArbCom-community chasm in this matter. I see that my request was promptly removed so luckily it didn't waste much precious admin time, which seem to be in short supply given how long AE threads tend to stay open, or how long it takes for an unblock request to receive a response. I guess I'm only used to ANI-type developments, with respect to both style and speed... 5.12.68.204 (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I have edited pages in this area before, for example as Special:Contributions/5.12.69.171 and my content edits have not been objected to by anyone insofar, except possibly for me not being much good at using wiki templates [1]. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Also a few edits as Special:Contributions/5.12.84.31 and Special:Contributions/188.26.163.111. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I mentioned this because I was confused by your voluminous message. I see now that most of it was a template. I guess that there were no other concerns with my editing in that area besides the AE report issue. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
After looking around, it looks like the issue of lay vs. academic sources and terminology in page titles (and editors preferring one vs. the other) should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, where I plan to start a serious discussion about it, assuming the weird block below is dealt with first. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox[edit]

1) Text to be added to autassassinophilia:

The term was introduced by John Money who also coined erotophonophilia as the "reciprocal condition" in which one is aroused by "stage-managing and carrying out the murder of an unsuspecting sexual partner". Money classified both these concepts as paraphilias "of the sacrificial/expiatory type". These concepts, especially their imperfect reciprocity, were criticized by Lisa Downing who wrote that "The autassassinophiliac, for Money, is more interested in his orgasm than in his death, resulting in a compulsion to 'stage manage the possibility rather than the actuality of his end at the hands of another person. The erotophonophiliac, on the other hand, is driven by the actualization of the other's death and – crucially – this other must be unaware of the would-be killer's intentions. These definitions, then, effectively preclude reciprocity and are constructed here in such a way as to prevent the possibility of consent. The sexologist, it seems, is incapable of imagining mutuality in this context. [...] The imagined pact is used here as an incentive to the would-be libertarian to support the suppression of paraphilia and the conversion of a death-related desire to a life-giving form."[1]

2) Lust murder needs to have dacnolagnomania added as another proposed term for it, among other edits needed.

3) John Money needs to mention his extensive publications on extreme paraphilias, esp. those involving death.

Unblock request[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

5.12.68.204 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I see I'm currently blocked for block evasion by User:Rschen7754. I have no idea what that "evasion" might refer to. As far as I know I was never blocked on Wikipedia before. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Not blocked - block expired. SQLQuery me! 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

Additional request for explanation[edit]

Since I've apparently been left to "stew in my own juice" (to quote a phrase from a famous Romanian politician who was talking about the opposition), I request under the Wikipedia policy of admin accountability an official explanation as to which block I was allegedly evading when the current one was placed. I note that the current block has already been prejudicial to me not only because it directly affects my editing but also because another editor concluded on ANI I'm "blocked for ban evasion" and subsequently dismissed my opinion. Therefore, I demand some celerity in the handling of this request for communication and hopefully unblock. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that you are not a new user, and [2] is a dead giveaway. --Rschen7754 09:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
So what? I've never pretended to be such. I have been indeed editing Wikipedia an unregistered user (on and off) for more than five years. You have not answered my question as to which block you allege I'm evading, which is the rationale you put in my block log. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm on 5's side here. Anonymous editing is not a crime. Sceptre (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
But why did you make a frivolous desysop request? -- King of ♠ 09:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the late reply but I was out on a computer-free, mountain hiking this past weekend. The request you inquire about was an initial overreaction, already acknowledged by me as such even before Sandstein's warning and further explained in that section. In brief, it was based on my (back then) poor understanding of how admins are supposed to enforce ArbCom's findings. When I discovered how those AfDs had been closed, I was shocked that not one but two admins contradicted ArbCom's endorsement of the evidence claiming that those topics have been illegitimately disfavored in Wikipedia. Since you bring it up in this context, I have to ask if that request of mine was the actual reason for my block rather than this alleged block evasion, for which no concrete evidence has been presented, despite repeated inquiry. I am genuinely concerned that even after this block expires, I might be reblocked again for "evading" some mysterious block I know nothing about if I edit anything other than this talk page. So please clarify what is the actual reason for my block regardless of your disposition toward lifting it early. One day isn't going to make much practical difference at this point, so from a pragmatic standpoint I'm much more concerned about potential future blocks right now. Regards, 5.12.68.204 (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Rschen7754, it may help to specify who you think he is a sock of. -- King of ♠ 18:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the subsequent diff from the one I posted above, I suppose that it's not entirely proven that this is block evasion, but the trolling alone was a serious issue, and I fail to see how it would improve the encyclopedia to unblock early. --Rschen7754 19:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I suppose we're all lucky you didn't look at the 2nd edit after that [3]. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I should point out that ArbCom don't make content decisions, and a lot of people have been dissatisfied with handling of the case (with one user enforcing RTV after ArbCom didn't do anything to look into blackmail that editor received and forwarded to AC). That said, I do agree it was a cheeky bit of trolling, but not something that deserved a week block. In any case, protocol for mistaken blocks is to re-block with the correct reason, not keep the block because they were blocked for the wrong reason. Sceptre (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, it seems I'm everyone's sockpuppet now [4]. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
After taking a close look at how the ArbCom sausage gets made in a different case, it seems that mishandling cases, at least in part, is more like the norm [5]. They couldn't even get the list of parties settled in that case. See the talk page of the proposed decision. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello editor 5.12.68.204. I've noticed a few of you recent edits and I think you have good intentions with your edits. If you wouldn't mind, please consider taking a small break just so you don't invest your good time for a wasted endeavor. I only say this because the entire project is very new and it is quite possible that either policy or consensus may prohibit IP participation. We should get that answer before you get to involved. In my opinion.--My76Strat (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Suit yourself, although I doubt such policy exists. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. I did see a comment from you on the talk page and your ideas can be known there if you have suggestions; even that you support the IP editing for these kinds of projects? I always suggest people get an account but it's an individual decision. I appreciate your assistance with this.--My76Strat (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. There was no opposing voice and two agree that your contributions are welcome. If you find additional time to assist the clean-up effort that will certainly be appreciated and I want to thank you for the edits you've done already.--My76Strat (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Today was rainy day. The forecast for tomorrow is sunny. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm told you are a special editor[edit]

Why is this? Can I see some diffs of your "special" edits? TETalk 01:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

I notice you are in an edit war on ANI, trying to add material that isn't relevant to that discussion, but instead casts down on the person filing the complaint. The discussion is closed and dealt with, adding this material is disruptive. If you want to file an WP:SPI report then do so, but adding gas to a fire at ANI solely to create more drama isn't helpful, and it is the wrong venue for sockpuppetry anyway. I've reverted your out of place edit. If you continue to revert, you may be blocked. Dennis Brown / / © / @ / Join WER 12:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the feeling that if I do file a SPI you're going to decline it in your clerk capacity in order to protect whoever is that you're trying to protect [6]. In a similar thread my identity and prior edits were up for discussion at ANI, so I don't see how a complaint from an IP address with no prior edits should be received without discussing what the same IP range has edited recently. Also, I cannot file a SPI without registering an account, and I'm not going to bother with one just for this. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Claiming I'm part of some conspiracy isn't going far in establishing your credibility here. I don't remember ever paths with Tristan or Hiji88 or any of the names you are claiming I would protect, so pardon me if I don't take you serious here. What we don't need is edit warring, soapboxing, drama mongering and conspiracy theories. Dennis Brown / / © / @ / Join WER 12:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
That has surely increased my confidence in you being impartial in this matter, towards me anyway. I have not crossed paths with any of them either before the ANI report today, by the way. And I sure hope I don't cross paths with you again if that's your idea of "editor retention". 5.12.68.204 (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"That IP range"[edit]

While investigating some sudden changes to WP:MOS-JA by an IP editor suddenly claiming that there was consensus from a 5 month old thread on the talk page and applying an amendment to the style guide that had never appeared in writing on Wikipedia, I discovered that you too had investigated this IP range. However, your assumption as to who it might be is not that clear. It might very well be someone with a grudge against Tristan noir who has claimed he has been hounded off of the project. Or for all we know it might be the individual who hounded said person off of the project. Evidence leans more towards the former, but there is no means by which this can be properly proven because checkusers will no longer associate IP addresses with any editor, in good standing or not.

The simple fact is you are correct in assuming something fishy is going on in the past two weeks. However, there does not appear to be much that can be done about it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lisa Downing, "Eros and Thanatos in Eurpean and American Sexology" in Kate Fisher, Sarah Toulalan (eds.) Bodies, Sex and Desire from the Renaissance to the Present, Macmillan, 2011, ISBN 0230283683