User talk:InedibleHulk

Apparent siteban error (not an appeal)

I was led to believe I was being banned from Wikipedia for repeatedly misgendering a dead person, allegedly contrary to MOS:GID. That has nothing to do with gun control, and I resent the implication (especially since my only "cellmate" there is Assault rifle). Please refile this, someone. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

And thanks, Feathers, that was fast! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Least I could do. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You edit-conflicted me. This was a reply, in theory. All good. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I see now that the article about the misgendered dead person is tagged as a gun control story, but then it's clearly not guns at the center of the maelstrom. Someone asked about adding gun details once. That was it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Despite that tag, the article itself is logged under "Gender and sexuality", as it concerns the control of sociohistorical identity, not guns nor politics nor living people. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

"For the purposes of remedies in this case, the scope of "gun control" includes governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues." Eleven people agreed as much in 2014, with no objections. Has something changed?

Some protest and public speaking briefly touched upon governmental regulation, as follows every mass shooting, but the only actual change concerned the allowance of armed police to contract with private schools. The misgendered dead person in this case owned and lied about owning "firearms", but no reports indicate any association with a broader movement on whether any American deserves or deserved the right to do so. I also have no dog in that fight, with a similar lack of evidence to the contrary and this flat denial.

I'd like to have this clerical error fixed without the hassle of a formal appeal, regardless of how or if it must be transcluded to a drama board, and I think most would agree a simple zero-byte move of my entry to "Gender and sexuality" is the least disruptive potential waste of time. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And yes, I've already tried emailing the enforcing admin directly about this, following the link in the autonotice. It failed because I don't have a Wikipedia email account. I didn't try clicking the link on WP:ARCA because in Ontario as well as Texas there's a saying about not wanting to get fooled twice. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Kudos to Folly Mox for bringing this directly to the enforcer's attention and for having a cool name. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Quite bizarre how HJ Mitchell can fully consider a relatively large and complex request that doesn't involve him, make several comments and take such a major action within five hours of stumbling across the case, but not even acknowledge a far clearer, more simple and directly relevant error like this for three days. Not sure how that happens. Looking forward to possibly learning. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

So Harry finally acknowledged the problem. From my perspective, I don't see how filing this under "Gender and sexuality" could possibly offend anyone; it is related to a gender disagreement and GENSEX was the proposed remedy. Unless I'm misunderstanding his explanation (directed at Folly Mox, for some reason), his was a completely arbitrary choice and the wrong one, in hindsight. There should thus be no harm in simply rechoosing correctly, regardless of who does it. In case it needs explaining, "Gun control" is the more offensive choice because it falsely suggests I am either a gun or a someone who feels strongly about their governmental control. The lack of a reason for my block in the line only further allows such inference to corrupt the basic truth of this matter. Please fix this problem without further delay. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

And yes, I wholeheartedly sympathize with the difficulties inherent in working without a proper keyboard, but that week's over now, let's move on before 14:00 Portsmouth time! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

That's nine o'clock in new Portsmouth time, by the way, where and when the rain shall reign over the people's walks of life. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I see I've now been lumped in with Assault rifle and Murder of Garrett Foster, the latter of which I feel unduly paints me and the inanimate carbon rod as somehow complicit in racist/antireckoning police/military brutality. I've already raised my voices on the George Floyd issues (none of which involved a gun) and served my time for doing so. This is cruel and unusual punishment, and I demand to be figuratively moved in with editors accused of misgendering a living or dead person or people, where I belong. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This demand is now contingent on whether I'm soon unblocked. If I am, I'll care less about what my block log suggests (because I won't have to look at it in a big red box whenever I check my contributions). While I'm not, it's still quite urgent. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Serious concerns about how this played out

For a refresher on how this played out, see this discussion on AE.

This sanction is completely absurd. Sorry Hulk. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved bystander who saw your name pop up at WP:AE, I will say that although I disagree with referring to the Covenant school shooter as female when they identified as male (my $0.02: respecting gender pronouns ≠ respecting a person or their actions), I feel that a year-long site ban is unduly harsh when your most recent block was two years ago. I encourage you to appeal and negotiate a lesser sanction. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I was raised in a funeral home, where surviving friends and family's respect came first, and bodies didn't mind anything. From the news, it seems all loved ones remember a daughter and teammate. I respect their opinion with female pronouns, not disrespect the already eternally shamed church/school murderer. And especially not my trans colleagues. They're different people, same as in any group. Anyway, it's a dilemma and I'll appeal when I'm done quitting. Thanks, you two. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This is too much. A two-week block would have sufficed for incivility (you should know better, be civil). Hulk you should have done the smarter thing and just named the subject as Hale. starship.paint (exalt) 04:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this is absolute overkill. IH has done significant good for this project. The concerns raised were answered, and I feel like at most a WP:PBLOCK or WP:TBAN would have worked for this... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I was also raised to believe in destiny, not free will, this was bound to happen as it did. The five of you do good work, too, and five heads are better than one. Mine must be needed elsewhere for a bit, that's all, things will unfold! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I will certainly miss your colorful edit summaries and good work at ITN. Curbon7 (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The entire process was jammed through without any real discussion or consideration for dissent. Absolutely absurd. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what bothers me the most. Just a few admins on AE voiced support, and that's it. A 1-year ban isn't something that should be enacted with so little consideration. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello IH: I'm placing this here because, with the AE discussion already closed, I don't know where else to put it, short of opening an AN or VP discussion, which I am not prepared (or capable, timewise) to do just now. However, although this post is made in opposition to the action taken against you, I'm going to contextualize it by prefacing with some comments, some of which you may disagree with and some of which you are not likely to find flattering. Combining this with the fact that I do not want to get you into a position where you lose talk page access, I will not take it amiss if you choose to delete this. Nevertheless, I find the action taken against you to be so problematic on the whole, I'm going to share these mixed impressions here for whatever community benefit they may have, and leave the decision on whether they should stay to you:

So, for the contextual bit you may not like: I don't recall that you and I have ever directly interacted, though I may be mistaken about that. Nevertheless, as someone who responds to a lot of RfCs and occasionally weighs in at community oversight and administrative spaces, including AN/I, I've gotten a vague impression of your conduct around contentious topics, particularly those touching upon ARBAP and culture war topics. And while that impression is admitedly glancing, I will do you credit to your intelligence by being blunt with you and saying that it has often seemed to me that your involvement in these areas can become problematic and disruptive at a minimum, and possibly going as far as NOTHERE/SOAPBOX/RGW territory on a nontrivial number of occasions. I don't think that the reaction you received in this instance can be entirely divorced from the extent of your block log or the footprint you have built for yourself in this community, and I think that is worth your considering. Indeed, in this specific situation, I also strongly disagree with your rationale for whether it was the right thing to do (in a broader social sense) to refer to that disturbed young person's identity as you did. I accept that you shared a genuine opinion, in good faith, for your decision to do so, but I disagree with your reasoning.

I felt it was important to say all of the above not to pile on to you on a bad week, but so that my following comments will not be perceived as blanket support for your approach or boosterism for you personally. Because what happened to you in that discussion I feel is unacceptable and potentially very problematic for the project at large. Because from what I can tell (or at least what was presented in diffs in that thread), your comments about the subject's gender were restricted entirely to talk space. And personally I don't think there is community consensus captured anywhere at MOS:GID, WP:GENSEX, or WP:BLP that holds that your misgendering a subject on a talk page is a blockable offense, let alone one authorizing a year-long ban. Let me be clear: had you misgendered the subject in the article itself, I feel the intersection of GID and the GENSEX general sanctions mandate, combined with your history of editing in related areas, would have unambiguously authorized a block. But nowhere (that I am aware of, anyway) has this community ever endorsed the rule that disagreeing about someone's gender in goodfaith on a talk page is per se disruptive behaviour, as it was treated here.

I honestly don't know for certain how I would come down on that issue if it were to come to the forefront of community debate (as I suppose it ultimately will). On the one hand I am strong supporter of trans rights and representation, and deeply concerned about the current reactionary response to those interests in our culture at large. On the other, I feel the engine this project runs on is open discourse, and even within the limitations of WP:NOTFREESPEECH, I prefer not to censure for anything short of abject hate speech or clearly disruptive commentary without redeeming editorial purpose. So my priorities are somewhat in tension, and I would have to do some considerable contemplation (as I hope the whole community would) before settling on the best way forward. What I do know is that unless and until the community establishes such a standard, it is clear administrative overreach in this instance for you to have been sanctioned for merely sharing an interpretation of the factual and editorial issues, without malice, intentional disruption, or effort to force those perspectives into our article space content. What happened here is a potentially dangerous precedent taken without consult of the wider community and I hope it is soon reversed, as I strongly feel it should be, or at least referred somewhere to the broader community so we can weigh these issues collectively.

Again, and without the motivation of meaning to slight you, I probably would not have given a second look to your being banned in many other circumstances. And I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the sources and your reasoning for misgendering. But this is about much more than your status and reputation on the project, or our personal interpretations of what the courteous and/or ethical thing to do is, in such a situation. Curtailing good faith disagreements as to the facts on talk pages without a community mandate that there is a strong reason to do so is just not right, and is akin to administrative construction of policy, through a back door. As such, if a challenge is raised to this action (and I think there should be) I would appreciate it if someone would inform me at that time. In the meantime, though I know I have painted a dim view of your contributions here, I want you to know I also find your "what will be will be" attitude towards the outcome to be very dignified and laudable, so I will wish you well over the next year if you are prevented from editing for the duration, and I hope you find more value than offense in the above. If not, I will take no exception this being deleted. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a lot to digest, and I will, slowly. Probably respond later. In the meantime, I've moved your subheader, hope you don't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, certainly, no objection: I can see how it works as well as an objective description of multiple responses here as it did as a subjective statement for me. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

A year in exile for (censored)? What a world the 2020s have fallen into, and you along with it. Swim for shore, good sailor, and wishes for fine seaweed on your trip. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I "hate" seaweed, but love a good Randy Kryn quote, thanks again! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

On further review (and after a once-over of the relevant part on your Talk Page), I'm rather honoured that (for whatever reason) you've presented a stunningly accurate reflection of all that transpired since Hale died. Stunningly accurate as I understand the truth, anyway. If it had been any other editor named there instead of me, with the exact same edits in the exact same places about the exact same sources, your description of that person's post-March 27 situation would still be as factually valid. I've tried it, in a mind experiment, somewhat confirming you're objectively right. Even about this verbose pro bono work "probably" insulting me. It doesn't, but I can 100% understand why you thought it was probable. We may or may not ever agree on whether a dead person is "someone", too, or on what respect mostly or only also entails, but suffice to say I like the cut of your jib, probably as it pertains to more things than not. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Per everyone else. Rarely have I dealt with wittier, ocassionally more acerbic, but always sharp, interesting and and to the point editor. This ban is total overkill IMO - the loss is WPs! And since you like a good quote, this one seems apt, even if the insect in question is somewhat unpalatable and lumpen. Pincrete (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

As a WP loss, I'm hardly special. Levivich, Jimbo Wales, [insert third butterfly]. Different beginnings and ends, sure, but a common central core. Ask not for whom the wheel breaks, eh? I don't even know if that makes sense, but it's based on three quotes that do. A lot of my points and interests are borrowed. I prefer moths, just literally and unimportantly. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a little on-the-nose to pull out the NOTHERE for an editor with 60k mainspace edits over 17 years. GMG^talk 12:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

In record time too, roughly 24 hours. I've seen ANI cases stay open for weeks involving significantly less established editors, however, we already know what the difference here is. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't really followed the goins on very closely. But good lord. If you feel the need to drop a 1k word essay on someone's talk page, go write an article or...just go touch grass. GMG^talk 12:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I've not read this essay, many thanks to you for posting it. =D Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that even an over-long post is a better value-added use of time than a completely unnecessary, sarcastic response to a post that wasn't even intended for you, on a subject you admit you haven't even followed. I don't know if you are 100% in Hulk's corner, or thoroughly opposed to them, so I'm not sure which purity test I failed to pass for you that led to this snark, but in the real world with its complexity and nuance, sometimes when you have to respond to something you find problematic and potentially damaging to a community and project you care about, but you also have context to consider, it takes a little time to explain where you are coming from and how far your support does (and does not) go.

So sorry, all I can tell you if you don't think that was a good use of my time (which I can decide for myself, thanks a lot), is that it's a good thing you don't have to read it and were never the intended recipient. So the good news is that you have plenty of time left in your budget for more completely unnecessary, randomly hostile, psuedo-trolly comments to people who weren't talking to you. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

GMG and I agree on some things, but not this. I've given and received quite a few unsolicited well-meaning text walls. This one was among the more cogent, at least; you should consider writing books alongside CC-by-SA correspondence (if you don't already). As long as the flaws people point out about me are those I actually have, I don't mind the reminder.

I should have grown out of my punk teen/hockey instigator phase by my late twenties, and especially now that I'm in my early forties. Maybe it's that hockey and punk aren't socially acceptable anymore in their truer forms, and people in general have moved more into instant gratification and further from the idea that life is supposed to hurt. Or maybe that's just my attempt to pass the buck, as all people do sometimes, admittedly or not. Whatever.

The important thing to remember (in my opinion) is that since you two are going to fight here, it's consensual, to the point and ends when one goes down or calls time out. The older wiser hulklet in me wishes you wouldn't fight here at all, but again, whatever will be will be. Cheers to that much, from coast to coast and under the sea! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

(By the way, I'm not that offended if someone uses the "wrong" pronouns to mean me, but for what it's worth, I don't think I'm "them" and would even rather be considered a lone female or single object than what (despite the literature) I still feel suggests a group.) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: - in my view, your second comment was unkind. Snow Rise‘a post was not disruptive, there is no need to police it. With more empathy and patience, perhaps you could have appreciated Snow Rise's passion for fairness and willingness to help. A little more kindness may go a long way. starship.paint (exalt) 11:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Locke Cole, if you see this note, I don't think "gravedancing" is the right term, in context. I can reply to anything I read, here. I don't, mostly, because I quit, but I can. If this were like the time I was fully blocked for repeatedly misidentifying my timestamp to AI, I'd totally agree, it sucked. But what's going on with my former editorial opponents no longer bothers me and it shouldn't bother you. If you'd like to continue pointing to my latest case or what you consider personal attacks against me, go for it, but I think associating so closely with any editor now deemed revolting, toxic and vile by the very community you're trying to sway will do more harm than good. It really never helped that "Inedible" was suggestive enough on its own. Long story short, I'm a liability now, not an asset; cut me loose and move on efficiently! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the advice, as always. I'll try to avoid letting the continuous baiting get to me.. Perhaps if you ever do come back, it should be as PalatableHulk. :D —Locke Cole • t • c 05:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Trust me, that'd be a lie. Since 2006, the literally once fine meat behind this puppet has only withered further, smoked not with hickory but nicotine. And figuratively, the record speaks for itself. No, when I come back, it'll be as the usual suspect. The only taste-related adjustments will be an avoidance of contentious pronouns and a newfound tendency to plop down exactly what I meant to post the first time (with proper indentation). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hulk, FWIW, I think there is real doubt as to whether the Covenant school shooter actually, meaningfully 'declared' an adopted gender. If they did so, it isn't clear to me where and when they did it and who they notified. The talk page discussion has a lot of editors asserting that Hale was a trans-man and therefore should be treated as a living trans-person would be, but the evidence is vague and our policies state that this decision is wholly in the hands of the individual themselves, not the media nor WP editors, picking at the bones of a corpse. There seems to be an awful lot of speculation with little solid evidence either by WP editors or WP:RS as to how serious the shooter was about transitioning, or how far along that transition was (toe in the water, adopting an online persona, or total immersion?). There is an RfC and half of the discussion on the page is about whether the - nominally - female birth name (the one used by many/most sources) - or the adopted male name should be used in the article, despite this you have been banned for ocassionally referring to the shooter by female pronouns. I think the decision to ban you was utterly ridiculous and hope you can come back without substantially modifying your principles and beliefs. Your choice of words may have been less-than-wholly-tactful, but your substantive argument was right IMO and needed to be clearly put. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

My beliefs change when I learn more and my principles could be nullified or modified with either a simple brain injury or prolonged torture, but that article and its subjects are dead to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Which I think was fundamentally the whole reason for that AE: to remove people who oppose their point of view. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It beats lobotomy, shock therapy and residential schooling. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Requesting removal of Template:User ja-0

It just isn't true anymore (on my userpage or anywhere). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, this isn't something only an arbitrator, sysop or admin can do. This is a job for anyone who's unblocked, even a newfangled IP with a signature that only half stays the same. Or even Mitch! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again, Feathers! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hello, HJ Mitchell and other admins. I admit I was uncivil (1c and 1d) and deserved a two-week ban for that. I admit I used an identity for the Nashville mass murderer which was contrary to the mainstream Wikipedian view and potentially harmful to living trans people, including trans colleagues. I'm sorry for that and deserve to stay away from gender identity issues until the wider American political mess dies down (which will likely be more than one year). When I come back to work, I will continue to mainly do what I've always done, minor uncontroversial grammar edits at articles which need them and collegiate discussion elsewhere. As to the fairness or unfairness of my block, it doesn't matter what I think. These are discretionary sanctions and an admin used his discretion. I'll just ask the reviewing admin(s) to reconsider the case along with any seemingly pertinent factors that have since popped up in the relevant areas, before using their own discretion(s). And no, I won't heckle anyone who's still opposed to my wider existence here, even slightly, even in summaries. It is OK to disagree! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not correct to state that IH's editing has been "minor uncontroversial grammar edits" etc. The archive of this talk page shows numerous complaints to the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I qualified that with "mainly". It is correct that you and I have never had a collegiate discussion, anywhere. I am sorry for that and deserve to stay away from Donald Trump and Hunter Biden topics where I am most historically likely to disrupt you. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not merely that your participation is "disruptive" -- your posts are frequently incomprehensible and incoherent, as if you were not fully aware of what you are writing. I have no interest in further participation with you here or elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Deal (meaning I honestly have no interest in further participation with you here or elsewhere, especially not at Arbitration Enforcement). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If indeed anyone is so misinformed by the parenthetical I added above that it can be harmful to deciphering a chain of events, considered a breach of TPG or reflective of whatever about SPECIFICO, let me be clear that it's merely explaining the deal (agreement) I thought we'd reached. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible that you don't understand that this continued little spat with S is making you both look bad, and is thus making an unblock request less likely to succeed each time you post? My opinion of each of you drops by a small but measurable amount each time one of you takes just one more dig at the other. I doubt I'm alone. I'd suggest that you stop looking at her contributions, and just pretend that she doesn't exist. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking doesn't hurt and this wasn't a dig, only clarifying, but OK, your opinion is valid, no further comment. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

IH, because this was logged as an arbitration enforcement block, it can't be undone by individual administrators. You can see Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Appeals and amendments for more information about the appeals process: basically, you can appeal to 1) the blocking administrator, 2) WP:AE, 3) the administrators' noticeboard, and/or 4) the Arbitration Committee. Let me know which of these places (if any) you want your appeal copied over to. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to first ask if Harry might trust I'll behave and affirmatively revoke or redo this (1). If not, I'll seek a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE (2). If this process could begin after Wednesday, that'd work best (for me). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: I see I'm not blocked from pinging, after all, and am ready for copying when you are. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Heya Hulk, I saw this looking thru CAT:RFU. I'm willing to copy this over whenever you're ready. Please make sure you're using the correct format (Explained here). Feel free to ping/email/irc/whatever me when ready. I'll be around for a couple hours. SQL^{Query Me!} 00:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

One of these days, somebody should fix the notice we get when we're blocked to link to the correct unblock technique. Otherwise, what's the point? But that's not your problem, thanks for clarifying. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want to appeal to Harry first, you can do that whenever you like either by just pinging him or, if you'd rather do it privately, by emailing him. If that isn't successful and you want to go to AE, just let me (or SQL) know. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

If I get a no or no response for three days, I'll reformat this proof and flip a coin to decide which of you two lands the job. Since you showed up first, you'll be heads. Thanks for the info, regardless of result! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Would you consent to revoking or redoing this? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ:, @SQL: After mulling over what ScottishFinnishRadish recently said (and a bit of what I recently read Ayn Rand wrote), I don't feel I shall require either of your services in the foreseeable future. I'll see what Harry has to say, perhaps, and that's that. Best of luck in your better endeavours! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. If this were a regular block, I'd be inclined to unblock. You appear to me to understand where things went sideways, have a plan to avoid the problematic area in the future, and seem to have genuinely done some self-reflection. I don't believe that this block presently serves to prevent damage to the project - but it's an AE block - so things are not as usual. Best of luck to you as well. SQL^{Query Me!} 04:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where things went sideways, but feel I know more than any other one person here. This block is not only presently unpreventative of damage, but positively preventative of repair, particularly (though by no means exclusively) in the small numeral, common noun and redundancy departments. As a gambling man, I've declared Harry consciously unresponsive and unlikely to return, and so taken the liberty of reformatting this pseudoscript into plain Engish (which works best). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hulk, I apologise for the tardiness of my response. Life outside of Wikipedia has been busy this last week or so. If you just want a formal "no" so you can appeal elsewhere, you have it but I'll do my best to give you a useful rationale to mull over. First, I don't consider the block to belong solely to me; it's my name in the log, but seven admins participated in that AE discussion. All saw a problem with your editing and supported sanctions; five supported a site ban. The issues go beyond just the misgendering. That on its own would not merit the block. I actually thought you were making a reasonable point initially. It only became disruptive when you refused to abide by the consensus when it formed. But that refusal was disruptive—as Sideswipe put it at AE, it was a refusal to follow the normal editorial process. Consensus is how Wikipedia works and you or I can disagree with an individual decision and can attempt to change it but carrying on regardless is not an option. More than that though, your demeanour in general and around contentious topics specifically, has been completely unacceptable. In precisely the sorts of topic areas where cool heads need to prevail, you have adopted a hostile and combative approach to editing and talk page discussions and abused the edit summary field to editorialise on the subject, comment on other editors, and make other unhelpful remarks. This is not a one-off but appears to be your standard operating procedure, and the more the subject is in dispute, the more combative your approach gets. That's why I felt (and feel) that a site ban is appropriate. That's not to say I wouldn't be willing to reconsider in less than a year, but I think a break of more than just two or three weeks is necessary, along with a rethink of your discussion style and your general approach to controversial subjects. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The Hulk I am could contend there still is no consensus on how to refer to Hale and that all progress is naturally and inherently disruptive to those who'd rather conserve what's already held dear than let others build upon it. But the Hulk I'd like to become hears you on how many (or most) people nowadays genuinely fear confrontation or find even the idea of it happening to others unacceptable in today's newfangled vision of society writ large. I'm definitely not ready to abandon my provocative spirit, in general, and doubt I will be in a year. But I certainly continue to develop my tactfulness, as I have with every passing block and the seven interims. Thanks for your tardy response, not even sarcastically; it's far sooner than the never I wrongly assumed I'd get. I think you're a reasonable person, in the right settings, and would rather ask you again in a month or so than deal with another disparate drama board en masse. In the meantime, I still insist it remains fair and easy for you to refile this as something more relevant than a gun control problem. You may not believe it, but your honest mistake in that regard has disrupted my sleep and emotional well-being, and that in turn much dependent miscellany. Think of it as a gesture of good faith, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a cogent argument explaining how this block is needed to prevent disruption to the project. There was consensus for this block among a small number of participants - this is true. On my absolute best use of AGF, this block still appears to be at least partially politically motivated to me (not pinning this on HJ alone, but the group that consensus for this block grew from). And I am not excusing your behavior IH - or stating that you had no part in earning this block - you clearly should have stopped far sooner, if not immediately. You seem to me to understand this. You have made a committment to avoid the problematic subject. You appear to me to have reflected on your role in this incident, and have made a commitment to make changes that would prevent running into this issue going forth.

This block isn't preventing damage to the project at this point, and isn't consistent with our blocking policy. It should be lifted. SQL^{Query Me!} 01:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@SQL: He just said he isn't ready to give up his provocative nature. Am I wrong or are Wikipedians not supposed to deliberately provoke others? ––FormalDude (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Provacative or not - I would hope we foster provocative editors that are willing to work within our guidelines and policies, as IH has committed to. I don't see a policy-based reason to continue blocking IH. SQL^{Query Me!} 02:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I said spirit, not nature. Two totally different things, from my perspective, as are political motivations and humanitarian motivations. I've vowed to avoid Donald Trump, Hunter Biden and gender rights controversy for living and dead people. I've noted I've become politer over the years and will continue to. If I'm in an argument over content, of course I'll ruffle feathers, as "the other side" will have ruffled mine. That's just how dispute works. As it regards our dispute at Nashville, I think I went pretty easy on you in disproving your claim about these reliable sources that don't exist. But yeah, I can see how being told you're wrong can hurt, even if told gently. I find it helps to consider a loss a learning opportunity rather than a personal attack, but your mileage may vary. Anyway, this is all too soon, I'll ask for leniency again in a month or so. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You did not clearly state that you won't continue abusing edit summaries, commenting on other editors, and making other unhelpful remarks. If you're willing to adopt that behavior, you should say so clearly. Sorry I'm hesitant to believe that will happen so easily when you continue to revive the initial dispute, which (as has been pointed out to you), is not the point, as well as your appearing to blame modern society for the problems your actions created. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to state that, clearly or otherwise, too vague/subjective. You're commenting on me (another editor) right now, so it can't be that bad. The difference between "use" and "abuse" or "helpful" and "unhelpful" depends entirely on where one stands in a content dispute. I wasn't trying to revive our dispute so much as tell you I empathize with the way it went. I'm not sorry, but I get it, it probably stung. I'm not blaming modern society for anything. As you say, that's how it appears to you. I can't change that much. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This statement shows that IH understands what went wrong, and is willing to take that feedback onboard, and to make changes for the better. They understand the rules better now. They're willing to make concessions to make sure that we put out the highest-quality encyclopedia possible. That's the goal here after all. SQL^{Query Me!} 02:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@SQL I don't recall seeing you evaluate an AE request and yet you're happy to sit on the sidelines and criticise those who do as making "political" decisions. That kind of enabling behaviour is exactly why AE actions aren't reversible on the whim of a random admin, and they contribute to what makes these areas so difficult to work in. We're not talking about a new editor who had a lapse of judgement but a long-term pattern of behaviour that, on its face, is not outright disruption but, taken as a whole, clearly contributes to the acrimony in a topic area and one specific instance that was at the intersection of four different contentious topics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Near an intersection, but on GENSEX Street. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• I find it odd and amusing that we have an OS telling a CU to screw off. But heck. I've already explained elsewhere in great detail how AE is a usurpation of community consensus. Everything working as intended. GMG^talk 14:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: The 13th of July is fast approaching. This will mark three months since you sitebanned me. The punitive effects have already been felt and another nine months isn't going to somehow further drive home the fact that I did the wrong thing in crossing that line. It'll just plausibly make me forget my password. Preventionwise, I promise you that all the edits I wanted to make and likely would have in the past 80 days were good ones. Sometimes they're stylistic, sometimes only slightly more truthful, but all have been prevented. Nine more months of that helps no one. I think it's fair that you sooner than later give me a chance to prove myself. If I mess up again, you can simply reban me (probably even harder). If I don't, everyone's happy. How about it? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade, Isabelle Belato, Thryduulf, and ScottishFinnishRadish: As Harry suggested last time, it's only technically "his" block, you four also helped, either by supporting the idea or not opposing it. You're welcome to weigh in on whether it's been long enough (or not). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Sorry for overlooking your name, you're welcome, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anyone being told to "screw off" here. I said what I had to say at the AE request. At this point, HJ Mitchell has pretty clearly indicated that he does not intend to lift the sanction at this time, so InedibleHulk, if you want to file an appeal, there's a process for that, and "endlessly discuss it here" is not that process. You were pointed to that above. I am no more permitted to lift an AE block out of process than SQL is (not saying that I would if I could, mind you, just that I can't regardless so it's rather moot.) Nor may any of the other people you pinged. Ultimately, the admin who placed the block is the blocking admin, and absent either their clear and unambiguous consent, or a clear consensus at an appeal (an actual one, not a discussion here), AE blocks can't be lifted. Discussing it more here won't change that.

I will say, in regards to the "provocative" stuff above—there is good and bad provocation, I think. Good provocation would be to open a discussion by saying "I think the second and third paragraphs in the 'Example' section completely misrepresent the sources used. Here's why." That will provoke people to go look at the sources and see if things can be improved, or at least start discussing why they disagree. That gets us somewhere useful. Bad provocation is opening a discussion saying "Well, you idiots have made a complete mess of this, haven't you?". (Note, I am not claiming IH or anyone actually said those things, just presenting them as examples.) Even if that's true, it puts people's back up and impedes, not encourages, improvement and discussion. That just "provokes" a fight, not any kind of useful and meaningful action or discussion. The reason I supported the sanctions against InedibleHulk is too much tendency toward the "bad" provocation. So when you, SQL, discuss encouraging provocative editors—yes to the first type, within reason at least, but certainly not to the second. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm only asking Harry to do the lifting (or not). The rest of you I figured are people whose advice he valued in this exact matter, and might again aid his choice. I don't intend this to be endless, just asked a second time since he first said he wasn't saying he wouldn't reconsider in less than a year. May have meant closer to January than July, but likely basically meant he might reconsider three months in. In any case, yeah, I don't share GMG's views on the "screw off" part and agree that bad provocation is unconstructive; thanks for reiterating! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If you want Harry to reconsider his decision then it is up to you to convince him that it would benefit the project to do so. If you want to appeal to other administrators then you need to make a formal unblock request, using the proper process, that convinces us that unblocking you will be a benefit to the project. Anything else is a waste of your and our time. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I dunno if it's lost on anyone else, but it's really annoying that WP:BLOCKPOL and WP:BANPOL appear to be at odds with one another. BLOCKPOL fairly unambiguously states that blocks are preventative, not punitive. Meanwhile, BANPOL goes the other way, literally outlining that recidivism may result in longer and longer bans (blocks). Regardless, I came here to say that IH seems to understand what prompted this block and does not intend to repeat that behavior. So what, now, is the block preventing? Besides constructive edits? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ruthless Aggression, Cole. Some call it a combative approach, some badgering, others prefer bludgeoning. I still don't know whether I'm blocked or banned, but I damn sure intend to live out the rest of my days as a simple sculptor of words, constructing nothing but faster transmission where essentially similar filler already was. If I have to explain why I trimmed this phrase or that, I'll do it once, politely and succinctly, then shut up and let others decide. A clunky article is not the end of the world. Nor are the many other kinds of weird-yet-wonderful articles in this global encyclopedia. Takes all kinds. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Sidetrack

It's not a waste of my time, Thryduulf. Already, I have a better grasp on the sort of thing Seraphimblade wanted (and wants to) prevent, which only helps. I actually waste less time writing now, and more reading. After perusing EEng's latest AN/I disasterpiece (the first time), I finally really understand why attempting to interject humour into a "dismal depressive swamp" (or a "cesspit") can be so offensive, disruptive and bad to so many worldwide, especially through text. That was also a problem of mine, admit it. No more, though. Not even subtly, in summaries. Sorry for wasting your time. Before it happens again, I know the next step in the process I was shown in May. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@EEng: Just letting you know I think you bettered me. And not in the usual sense, where your jokes are better than mine. Thanks, no kidding. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it's past my bedtime so brain not at full capacity. Can you clarify? EEng 10:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It was (arguably) less you than everyone who weighed in on whether you should be allowed to keep doing what you do, but it wouldn't have gotten done without you. It being your section at AN/I. I called it a disasterpiece without really knowing what that means (it suggested something grand, good and bad to me). I don't know what should happen to you, if anything, but I was inspired to stop trying to be "funny" where things are "fraught", whether let free early or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Template draft

subst:Arbitration enforcement appeal

| Appealing user

 = InedibleHulk

| User imposing the sanction

 = HJ Mitchell

| Sanction being appealed

 = GENSEX/CIVIL/BLUDGEON-related siteban imposed at
      Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive317#InedibleHulk, logged at
      Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#Gun control

| Reason for the appeal

 = It was wrong of me to refer to the Covenant School shooter as a female. I was too trusting of the external sources and not nearly considerate enough of what this might suggest to many transgender editors and readers. I'm not the sort of person who uses a deadname just to be a dick, and wouldn't use one for any reason to refer to a living person. Now, I won't use one to refer to a dead person either, regardless of what the sources say. I don't want any part of this wider culture war or that one article. I also now appreciate how seriously annoying it can be to other editors to be told the same thing (even worded differently) repeatedly, and will stop that, in all discussions. There've been issues with funny, "funny" and confusingly unfunny edit summaries, too; no more in tragic topics. Finally, American politicians, gender controversy and the Florida Panthers are off my menu. With this in mind, I ask for a clear consensus to unban me after three months (on July 13).

@SQL and Extraordinary Writ: If either of you are still available, I think I've filled out the form correctly (minus the beginning and end of what makes it a template). If so, I'd like this pasted to the AE board, as a template, as soon as practical. If not, let me know what needs a tweak; thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If neither of them takes this job after a day, someone else can, to be clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Done—see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by InedibleHulk. Feel free to ping me (or anyone else) if you have any other comments or responses that need to be copied over. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good and sounds like a plan, cheers. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Provided my statement. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Rec'd. I'm only going to respond to questions clearly marked as questions (?) in this one, but I'll have a few words for you on that when this is over. Till then, to you and anyone else who chimes in, just know I'm still in attendance and paying attention. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I've left a comment there. Still very angry that I missed out on the original AE discussion and wasn't able to comment there because apparently giving people time to comment is a foreign concept to admins there... —Locke Cole • t • c 16:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Better late than never? @Floquenbeam: You didn't technically ask me about my thoughts on your involvement/uninvolvement, but it was close enough. I'm too ignorant to decide, passing the deference back to you. Like with ONUS, all I know is the discussions I've read about its applicability seemed long, winding and inconclusive. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as two of the admins posting in that section "have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action", I think it doesn't matter where you post, as long as you're an admin and not the enforcing one. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I do think confusing this with a gun control issue matters, and still object to that suggested ban, given my lack of problematic edits (or even edits) about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Don't worry about rinsing/repeating. Whole other situation then, through which I also learned what not to do. Years wiser now. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thank you for your cautious optimism. To be clear, though, my appeal indicated I'll be avoiding American politicians. This includes their articles and material about them. This is historically where I waste time and bother people. American politics is a far broader alley, plausibly involving areas I've had no problem with, such as geographic features, other countries' problems and a cornucopia of global commodities, securities and industries circulating around the US dollar. I don't have any concrete plans for topics like these (or many more), but it's not unlikely that I'll come across my usual grammar/style mistakes in potentially affected places. That said, I'm not the one who gets to choose, and if I must be hit with the total package, I'll reluctantly accept. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm only making it WORSE?!?

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm sorry if following your contribution history today as it involves me is a faux pas, but could you please explain this doomed hot-air balloon pilot analogy? I just don't get it. Floquenbeam, you're welcome, too (if you want). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I AGF, and assume that no one (aside from the obvious vandals) thinks that their contributions are disruptive, and thinks that their being constructive. When is brought up by other editors, especially if they're not particularly involved or aren't antagonistic that what you're doing isn't helping it should be assumed that they see something that you're missing and you should think about how you're acting. Or if an editor sees that a situation is already fraught they should seek to unfraught it. Although I understand why you clarified, it did nothing but make the whole situation worse, and then when you saw the objection you knew they had seen it. You could have just reverted your clarification and settled the situation. Instead, while waiting on a response to an unblock request, you took the other path and doubled down, thus enfraughtening the situation even more. The whole reason you're blocked right now is because you didn't just shrug and drop something before, and you did the same thing again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought that "objection" was a request for clarification, seriously. It read (to me) like a concern that I might misinform latecomers, not anyone involved (who should clearly already know). I guess not. I don't know what "the whole situation" even is, I'll admit. It seems to fluctuate between a lot of things, some "fraught" with this or that and some not. I had no idea the whole reason I was blocked is for not shrugging and dropping something, because you're the first person to say so, in any words. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You weren't blocked because you didn't drop it, but dropping it would have avoided the entire situation. Much as someone may not get a flat tire because they were driving down a rough road but because they hit a sharp rock and ripped their sidewall open, they wouldn't have gotten a flat if they hadn't driven on that road. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Are there three main things you think this current situation entails? The road I'm on has always been rough, literally and figuratively, and all the tires popped Wikiwise have involved far more apparent sharp rocks (so to speak). The way I see it, the big three on this turn are ill-considered accusations of impropriety, occasionally snippy summaries and (perhaps most acutely) misgendering a dead person. If anyone else knows the entire reason I was blocked, chime in; every bit helps toward the sum of human knowledge. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"Mumbling"

@ThadeusOfNazereth: Upon recently reviewing your review of this redirect, I'll request you reconsider your related retargeting. Yes, "mumble rap" can be a pejorative term, so pointing this there might seem socially inappropriate. But from the grammatical perspective, mumble rap is the only article of the four disambiguated that (reasonably) doubles as a verb, and so it seems appropriate. Regardless of that, good work on those rationale tags! Nice to know why terms suggest what they do around here, now that you mention it; I'll try to stay mindful of those if or when I redirect next. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think your initial target was inappropriate! I've done so many of these this week that I don't remember the specifics, but I think if I re-targeted my assumption was that there was a page for "mumble" as a form of speech linked from the disambiguation page. Given your explanation, I went ahead and reverted it - Might be time for me to take a day off, lol. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not inappropriate, but you thought yours was more appropriate, so I suppose I only inferred some relative inappropriateness. Or maybe I just feel generally guilty lately. All good, anyway, thanks for rethinking! I forget where I noticed this link didn't exist, but I assumed the same thing at first, that the idea of mumbling goes well beyond rap and that there must be enough it's done throughout history to warrant a standalone article. But no, not yet, just this. Maybe one day. Till then, enjoy your weekend, on or off! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think mumbling should go to mumble rap, but all the other three terms in the disambiguation page do not fit either. I'd rather send people to the wikdictionary. starship.paint (exalt) 14:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

What are mumble rappers known for? Exaggerating their income and mumbling. Plenty of other likely targets for income exaggeration, but these guys are the pioneers of slightly monetizing incoherence. That said, Wiktionary isn't a bad idea, either, so long as the entry covers that aspect of "the business". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

At List of national animals, India has a "Bengal Tiger" that should be a "Bengal tiger". The shared link for Antigua and Barbuda's creatures should point to something about their national animals, not national anthems. And insofar as it regards the Andean cock-of-the-rock, I truly believe the words "(widely) regarded as" and "used as" are utterly superfluous; it is Peru's national animal and some have been (possibly still are) pets. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: Not exactly related, but regarding your date format flippage in Killing of Tim McLean, I think you'll find the sources in the article all write the way English Canadians mostly do (and the way most of the article reads). That's not to say a significant minority of us don't follow Quebec and Britain's lead, just that they don't write the news Wikipedians use. Anyway, it's your call; I'd have brought it up on the Talk Page and let others weigh in, but c'est la vie. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: Hello, I pinged you incorrectly above, just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

This section has been brought to my attention and it's been suggested I draw your eye, IH, to one of Wikipedia's sillier, if well-intentioned, policy subsections, WP:PROXYING. In a nutshell, soliciting others to make edits on your behalf could get you into further trouble and my advice would be that an admin who takes a more rigid approach to policy might see it as grounds to revoke your talk page access. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the tip. I wouldn't want that, would hate to see my "proxy" punished for verifiable and productive edits and would rather make my own like a normal person. Do you think it's been long enough yet for you to unblock me (or at least correct the "gun control" part)? If so, that might solve several silly problems. I just saw a few more at an article about an anthropomorphic tank engine (not even suggesting which one). If not, that's less cool, but cool, too. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I thank you for your good faith warning. Personally, due to the text of that policy, which states unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. It appears that the above recommendations are very productive and without content objections, and that users who claim the open opportunity to do these edits do so improve article flow, which is an independent reason as that is a common goal of many Wikipedians. Punishment under that policy should be reserved for more controversial edit suggestions that might not be agreed with by everybody and could have pushback. If talk page access was revoked solely because of the above suggestions, that could prove controversial and people such as me and likely a few others would be ready to protest and speak out against that. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

That's one interpretation of the policy. I've seen it interpreted differently. Personally I think a strict interpretation often causes more problems than it solves but I can't guarantee that all 900 other admins will take the same view. Your protests would carry little weight unless you can establish a consensus that the action was unreasonable. And that kind of drama would reflect poorly on IH and soak up a lot of community time for an issue that's easily side-stepped. IH, I'll reply to you in more detail when I get chance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, you had the chance right there, and responded to the second guy first, so it seems like an easy sidestep. But OK. In the meanwhile, there are forest fires to my north, south and west, so if I don't reply by whenever, prevent forest fires, everyone! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I find that, between you and me, to be quite a solid, respectable response from you. Just for clarity’s sake, I’m just doing some friendly talk-page stalking on my end, and that last sentence from me was not intended to come off as aggressive, and merely as a dissent should it escalate to that. IH, great job with the witty humor and solid message. Please stay safe with these Canadian forest fires. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The trouble I'm still having, Hulk, is that I'm not convinced you see the problem with the actions that were the proximate cause of the ban, much less with your general approach to editing. I don't think you see why it's such a problem that you take such a combative approach to editing in controversial topic areas. I think you're cleverer than the ethno-nationalists who are the more standard fare at AE, in that you wouldn't go straight back to the same article if the ban was lifted unconditionally, but I think the same behaviours would manifest somewhere else in a way that's not easily contained by a topic ban (unlike an ethnic/nationalist editor). You seem to start off making a reasonable argument but when things get heated your approach seems to be to behave as badly as possible without ending up with sanctions rather than to remain calm and reasonable. I want you to persuade me that you'll rethink your approach to disputes and that I'll see more of the former Hulk and less of the latter. Then I'd be willing to talk about a path to returning. And just for absolute clarity, you can appeal to AE/AN at any time if you like your chances better there than with me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think what you consider a "combative approach" is what I consider a "reasonable argument". And what seems to you to be me behaving "as badly as possible", though I don't know the specifics, seems to me an overstatement of whatever example's badness or an underestimation of my potential for evil. I don't know why "ethno-nationalists" even factor into your thought process here, but it doesn't sound promising. I think we're on different wavelengths, fundamentally, and don't think I can write you what you want to read. Sadly, I'll bet you are the relatively understanding and possibly beneficial option, next to whatever unpredictable melting pot of friends, enemies and strangers might show up to an AN or AE appeal. And only you can tweak "gun control". So yeah, I'll bottle it up and simmer politely for another ten months or so. As for staying safe in these forest fires, I make no promises, they're literally toxic, disruptive, widespread, uncaring and (in some cases) unblockable. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

No particular further comments on the situation at hand on Wikipedia, but as a Californian, I been there, done that with the fires between 2017 and 2020. They are terrible and toxic. Never forced to evacuate but many friends lost houses before. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Only saw a bit of those on TV, but even then, it was scary and sad to think about how easily it could happen to me or mine. Knock on wood, just smoky here for now and I haven't noticed any waterbombers overhead. If my house does burn down, I'm pretty sure I won't remain calm, rebuild or any of that shit a responsible adult should. Don't worry, I won't use User:Hinterholk to nominate it for ITN, knowing full well it's not "significant" while rambling to the contrary regardless because I'm "affected". That'd be wrong, on so many levels. I'm just going to loot the neighbourhood till I find an unlocked gun safe, an unboiled liquor cabinet and hopefully a few unwarped '80s metal albums plus a way to play them the way they were allegedly meant to be heard (alone in the dark). All theoretical, thankfully, and the one time I could see the flickering from here, my local firefighters were the real heroes. Despite equally real recent retention issues, I believe some still are. Though I wonder, as folks wonder, who has stopped the rain? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully more firefighters can be trained and can be treated better regarding benefits. Hopefully you’ll be fine though. Anyways, before I fall too far down the Hope rabbit hole, the fires that particularly were bad were the October 2017 Northern California wildfires, the Camp Fire (2018), and the LNU Lightning Complex Fire. The middle was a catastrophe caused by greedy ass PG&E (whom I still have to deal with for gas and electric), while the former and latter affected me personally (I live in Solano County, for reference). Weather sucks, but the past few years have been okay. Hopefully it stays that way as long as possible. DrewieStewie (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I remembered the Camp Fire was destructive, but not that destructive. Damn! Those other two are nothing to forget, either, I'll remember now (not like you do, of course). Canada's never going to have the property damage and human death California does from a fire, but in sheer acreage of carbon life form giving up the ghost this season, it's far from average. I don't like using the U.N.P.R.E.C.E. word, but this time, I think those who do mean it. Maybe if we all hope hard enough, the jetstream will shift and the lion's share of our stank cloud will simply head to Siberia and disperse into nothing instead of reaching Mexico or the ozone layer! Maybe next year, Sami Zayn will win The Big One! Maybe hope isn't a rabbit hole, but a snake ladder! Anyway, it all goes to show how little it matters if one measly anthropomorphic tank engine's article can be fixed or by whom or whenever. Cheers to our common full moon, whatever colour it seems, and to all a good long night! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that this is on the main page with ITN, I realize now that I first heard about the wildfires from you, before the international media widely reported on it. Even when blocked, You’re still a brand new source of reliable news for me now! XD Seriously though, I hope you and your family is staying safe in this mess and your material possessions have remained intact and continue to do so. This is massive. If you need any supplies sent to you, let me know. I’d be happy to help. Blocked or unblocked, admin or common editor, some Wikipedians still look after each other when one is going through disaster, even in the face of potential on-wiki disagreements. DrewieStewie (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Happening now: Rain! The fires near me are having a hard time with that, should be out within a day or so; roads open, supplies adequate, air still filthy but not city filthy. Offer appreciated, back to you! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me for this being out of place, but I had missed the original discussion in regards to IH and feel like this whole talkpage situation goes back to the bigger issue here. I have read through the prior discussion and and understand and agree with the reasons for which a topic ban was requested, but am honestly floored at the site ban assessed, especially given most of the discussion suggested this as the very maximum punishment. Honestly, I was shocked to see this behavior by IH, but I had previously found IH as a very productive member of the WP community in the past. I mean, I guess what is done is done, but it seems we have not just thrown the baby out with the bathwater, but also the tub as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mellohi!: I notice you added a category to my User Page. While by no means inaccurate, I believe it is undue, unusual and unwanted. Like the Commonwealth Wikipedians category and 2023 gun control AE log, I'm the only living item. It's weird in all three cases, but self-made in (what I consider) the good one and apparently unfixable in the (so-called) urgently erroneous one. Please to revert your well-intentioned but moderately imprudent classification? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I now see I wasn't always alone. I should be clear that I don't want this request to explode, erupt or evolve into any sort of war, drama or kerfuffle. Just a suggestion, to go with those you've already read. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

After skimming what kerfuffle has already passed, I see now that everyone has their reasons for doing anything, and that's cool. To be clear, I don't consider this gravedancing, playing God or marking a snake in the garden (which I ain't) with some number that serves some higher purpose to the actual gods here. I'm just one of those who (perhaps too staunchly) believe things like these work better in threes. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I view it as gravedancing and I've removed it. It serves no purpose that the block log doesn't already provide. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I remain skeptical and open to alternative explanations. If it were you-know-who, what's-her-name or the other guy, yeah, obviously. But Mellohi! and I have never had beef, at least under that account, and it's not like there was any nyah-nyah flavour to the category nor ghoulish aspersions thereby. Purposeless? Aye, probably, thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281: Regarding your favour of June 15, regret to inform pressing inability to attend annual Stanley Cup shitshow. Looking forward to discussing this next year, when Old Normal returns to the sport. Till then, remaining watchfully, InedibleHulk (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Just letting you know you're no longer banned from this page. This isn't necessarily an invitation, especially to argue about something, it's just been long enough. Plus, it's my king's ceremonial birthday today, a pardon simply seems fitting. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Wishing you the best my man

Hey Hulkster. I recently came across this whole situation. I was too preoccupied with school to intervene in real time, but I’m sorry you got wikibanned a whole year. I hope sooner or later you get leniency. Having known you, this situation wasn’t ideal, and I know a 2 week or a month block wouldn’t have been that bad, but a year is a bit overkill. You could have conducted yourself better, I admit, but a year is ridiculous in my opinion. Since you always kindly commented on my page at random, I figured I should say hey. Good luck brotha. Wrestlemania and kings playoff basketball (both in sac and SF) was fun in person. $10k in scholarships too! DrewieStewie (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, history guy. Glad you're having fun and getting paid. This year was the first I cared equally about basketball and wrestling; you'll make a fan of me yet! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Who you’ve got in the finals? I’m going for jimmy buckets and the Miami heat. That’s been phenomenal and against all odds so far. (To be honest, I love my kings, but next year I slightly hope they don’t get too far in the playoffs. If they’re eliminated early enough, I might get to graduate with my BA at the golden 1 center, their arena they play in!) DrewieStewie (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I more meant the needle on my squared circle caring meter has dropped to near-basketball levels. As before, I still think it's the second-most exciting Big Four sport to watch, purely in poetry of motion, but following an entire game is still a bit beyond me, much less a season, playoff run or wider player trajectory. I've got the $3.5 million I made mumble rapping riding on the Florida Panthers, though, so I may as well (in theory) put the rest on Jimmy Buckets. They wouldn't call him that if he wasn't that damn good, eh? Anyway, whenever the Kings' opening game is, hit me up and I'll try to spot any potential 2024 MVPs. Till then, as ever, keep one eye on where the ball is going and only the other on where it's probably been! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

(Also, tell Carson Strong the Hulkster sends his belated regards. Not in those exact words, of course, nice and friendly-like! You were right about your boy and the big leagues; if he doesn't "knock 'em dead", he'll at least "turn some heads", I'll now wager.) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Gotchu on Carson!! Michigan Panthers in the USFL is treating him right. Fair enough on the fandom dropping to that level. Still rooting for my Vegas Golden Knights to beat the Panthers in the Stanley Cup though. The mumble rapping might get them a few wins though. Speaking of Miami and mumble rapping, another family friend I knew from my childhood made it into the NFL for the Miami Dolphins as an undrafted free agent; Zeke Vandenburgh! Hoping the best for him too. Somebody I had seen at Sac State was drafted third round by the patriots too; Marte Mapu. Jackalopes are still real. I’ll let you know in October; it very well could be De'Aaron Fox or Domantas Sabonis as MVP if we get lucky. Got to just Light the Beam! DrewieStewie (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Any teams of two friends of an online friend is a team of mine. Go Heat! Go Dolphins! Fuck the Golden Knights, though, whatever the actual amount I have invested against them comes to! Hell, maybe it's just an emotional aversion to seeing the Cup in a desert, instead of a place known for some form of water. A true artist never reveals his or her profession nor worth, it's been said. But, honestly, it just hasn't been the same for me since the mighty Ottawa fell to the once-Mighty Ducks. Since then, I root and I root and I root and for what? It just dries up and blows away. Sad! But life is never that black-and-white, and I can be happy for Zeke, too. His name doesn't carry the same weight, though I know enough about gridiron greatness to know it's not always about the name. Drag That Weight, truly and physically, my friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I miss the mighty ducks. Thought those logo and colors were much better than what they eventually rebranded to. It’s ugly for real. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

For real, worse than Arizona's. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

At least arizona was halfway decent compared to that. Still miss the old coyotes logo. That franchise is in shambles. Not even Gretzky could save them in the front office. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Um.... I hate to break up a conversation on a talkpage I randomly stumbled upon but Wikipedia is not a forum. I'm also sorry you got banned. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 00:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

my goodness. Reading into your story I think a topic ban would've been sufficient. I'm sorry this is a bit overkill. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 00:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Blitzfan51: Hey there. Being longtime Wikipedians, we totally understand that it’s not a forum. However, the other thing to consider is that as a human community, bonds with other Wikipedians including banter on other subjects is bound to happen. As long as we have demonstrated that we are also here to build an encyclopedia instead of being WP:NOTHERE, personal conversations between Wikipedians on user talk pages is not only permitted, but encouraged in order to foster productive collaborative efforts together. Historically, Hulk and I have done so on WikiProject Professional Wrestling and on ITN, and even if the circumstances of Hulk’s block is messy, he has had a net positive effect on-Wiki and has historically been productive on the site. Therefore, even if he’s not active at the moment due to his finite ban, it’s safe to say we can slide in personal conversations since we have demonstrated that we can accomplish some of Wikipedia’s goals (and have done so). Have a nice day! :) DrewieStewie (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I've done some horrible things on this Talk Page, too, to be fair. Not lately. But yeah...historically. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I've just had this talk page pointed out to me, and I do need to remind you that in addition to Wikipedia not being forum, blocked users' talk pages are only supposed to be used for appealing the block. I'm not going to revoke your access, as at the moment I think that would be disproportionate but not every admin is necessarily going to see things the same way. If you want to continue conversing with other Wikipedians, there are multiple off-wiki venues where you can do that, including email. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to revoke your access, as at the moment I think that would be disproportionate I mean the current block is disproportionate as it is. As to your broader comment, this has already been brought up above, and I think it's a hyper strict and unrealistic reading of WP:PAG to make the claims that somehow these conversations on a user talk page are not inline with Wikipedia policy. Do you have a specific policy that you're referring to here that maybe I've missed? —Locke Cole • t • c 13:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

IH, in the event that talk page and email a Wikipedian access is revoked, knock on wood it isn’t, my email is visible on my user page. DrewieStewie (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but my email account is under my secret/real/human name. Last thing that guy needs is guilt by association. Besides, it would make everything you do here all the more suspect to anyone already paranoid about proxies. For the record, I haven't told anyone who's voiced their opinion on this whole shebang to write anything. Believe it or not, that's just consensus. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Let’s not bring it to the point of a throwaway email account. Let’s keep everything possible on here. Even though I’m not in trouble, I’ll do everything I can to avoid getting you in further trouble. Last thing we need. DrewieStewie (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)