User talk:Thomas.W/Archive 12

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Que? I haven't edited a single article, or even article talk page, about gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, all I have done is oppose an attempt on WP:ANI to topic ban an editor for no other reason than that you and others didn't like the opinion they expressed in a single post on an article talk page. And if you had bothered to read what I wrote on ANI you would have seen that every word I wrote is completely neutral, siding with noone and nothing other than Wikipedia's policies, which you and others are trying to bend to suit your views. But, have a good day anyway! - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you would deny that the dispute you participated in is gender-related, but anyway thr notice is procedural and implies no fault. Newimpartial (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia for 15 years and 10 months by now, so I know what those notices are about, and do or don't imply, but I still haven't edited within that field, not even on ANI (since my objections there are procedural and about following the rules, and have nothing to do with the underlying dispute), and have no plans for doing so, so I still wonder why I got it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can comment on the purpose and scope of a proposed GENSEX topic ban without thereby participating in a gender-related dispute - well, they call it WP:WIKILAWYERING for a reason. Newimpartial (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That diff is quite a bit off target if you intended it to prove that I had commented on the "purpose and scope of a proposed GENSEX topic ban" since it's a short explanation of what topic bans are for and how personal attacks etc are to be handled, and has absolutely nothing to do with GENSEX. As for the purpose of that particular proposed topic ban it's an obvious attempt to silence a critic, including by using false claims, such as you claiming that there has been a "pattern of incivility", when the editor in question has in fact made only one single edit on an article talk page, and one edit makes no pattern. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that edits outside of article space are not relevant to an ACDS topic ban, and that civility in such comments is not a factor in the placement of such a ban, appears to be mistaken. Meanwhile, your claim that the purpose of that particular proposed topic ban is an obvious attempt to silence a critic is an obvious (and unsubstantiated) ≠personal attack. Please don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get real, calling it for what it is isn't a personal attack, so don't try that. It's obvious from the fact that you, even after being corrected by other editors, keep making misleading statements in an attempt to make other editors believe it's an editor with a history of making hateful posts ("a pattern of incivility", sheesh...), and other editors repeatedly referring to WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE as if it's a policy, in spite of being only a partisan essay. Making a single, by some seen as hateful, edit on an article talk page, without ever, AFAIK, having edited an article within the scope of GENSEX, could have merited a short block right after it was done, but isn't disruptive editing, and does not merit a permanent topic ban from the entire GENSEX area (with some editors even demanding a community ban...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are not calling it for what it is - you are "calling it" the way you see it which is not at all the same thing. It doesn't matter how the comments are distributed between article Talk pages and user Talk pages - these are multiple comments refusing to back down on the "Wikipedia cabal = progressive article OWNers = supporters of Mengele" POV without any acknowledgement that anything they had said is problematic, much less a recognition that their comments on this run directly counter to "normal science" and medical practice in this area. I get that you don't see this as disruptive, and the most polite interpretation of that, that I can see, is that you don't really understand the topic area. Newimpartial (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In an ANI case it's more important to understand which sanctions are used for what, and what a reasonable sanction is, than understanding the topic area, and you (and a number of others there) obviously either don't understand what's reasonable, or choose to ignore it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, for what it's worth, Newimpartial has decided to place this notice on the page of many editors who have voiced issues with /commented on gender related articles Newimpartial has been involved with[1]. Placing these notices certainly can come across as an attempt to scare editors who disagree away from contentious topics. It may in fact do that (regardless of intent) but it probably won't result in a better article if less involved editors decide it's not worth getting involved. It's also ironic that Newimpartial doesn't actually have such a notice on their own page. The BLP notice I added to their page (added due to the inclusion of some labels that aren't supported by sources within the article) was immediately removed. Springee (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this comment you expressed the opinion that Wefa's user Talk comment, denying the existence of people with nonbinary gender identities (like myself) does not contain anything remotely worthy of sanctions. From this I conclude (i) that I was correct to place the GENSEX notice here, because you seem to have no clue about the topic and this has clearly affected your judgement in the ANI matter, and (ii) that you obviously either don't understand what's reasonable, or choose to ignore it when it comes to the interaction of ACDS sanctions and civility issues. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at ANI, so let's keep the discussion there, where everyone can read it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked account attacking you

Hi. I've just blocked User:Funny how Thomas.W always ends up reverted. Secretlondon (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And others... I'll revdel the attacks. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

your signature

hi, per WP:SIGIMAGE, your signature must not contain the twitter checkmark. could you remove it? lettherebedarklight 晚安 13:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lettherebedarklight:

Done - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W ^talk 15:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Believe it or not, but what you see above is not an image, and well within the length of sig and markup allowed by WP:SIG...)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Hedlund

Very good points raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Hedlund Thomas.W! --Tenthenock (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]