User talk:Licks-rocks/Archives/2021/October

Discretionary sanctions notice, redux

I came here to leave a gender/sexuality discretionary sanctions notice, but I see that you've already very recently received one [1].

People who falsely accuse other editors of WP:VANDALISM for leaving standardized alert templates, or who otherwise unnecessarily personalize and antagonize in any topic, especially one covered by discretionary sanctions (DS), are headed for a topic ban. If I see another off-topic "vent at other editors" or "posture about my userspace" outburst of that sort in article-talk space, I'll file the WP:AE request myself, especially since you're already well aware of the DS and have been recalcitrantly engaging in increasingly hostile behavior in the topic area anyway.

We do not come to this site to be met with a firehose of social-media-style ranting; this is a hobby for volunteers and we're supposed to enjoy it, in a collegial editing environment centered on writing genuinely encyclopedic material from a neutral point of view. If you cannot do that, then you will be removed from the topic area. Especially since your talk page already seems to consist of little more than a litany of edit-warring and other warnings. You're burning through community goodwill and benefit of the doubt very quickly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, you need to also be aware of the DS that pertain to biographical material about living subject, including J. K. Rowling, the focus of your current squabbling:

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

I.e., the whole "Rowling and gender issues" stuff is covered by two different sets of discretionary sanctions at once.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You did read the part where I said I was leaving this discussion behind me entirely, right? So why do you come onto my talk page with this much hostility to tell me to do so, again? I'm the one who decided it was a good idea to step away from the discussion as clearly it was producing nothing but raised tempers on all sides, including and especially mine. Ever since I took that decision I've been harassed with "standardised warnings" on my talk page that serve no other purpose than to tell me that the topic of JK Rowling is a contentious issue (gee whiz, never noticed) and advising me to stay off the topic going forward, like I already said I was planning to. I really don't know what about "I'm not going to involve myself with this mess anymore" makes you and crossroads so eager to dump these templates telling me not to engage with this mess anymore on my talk page, but I suggest you quit while you're ahead. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)