User talk:Neutralhomer: Difference between revisions

A Note of Caution. Since you have asserted at Talk:Pauley Perrette, "I am actively trying to communicate with the asexual community on Twitter right now to help them understand the goings-on here at Wikipedia," please be aware it may be problematic to directly contact the subject of a WP:BLP off-wiki, identifying yourself as a Wikipedia editor and requesting information to supplement an on-wiki discussion in which you are involved. Even if the BLP subject responds wholeheartedly, such public communications (potentially read by, among others, the 738K followers of Pauley Perrette's Twitter account) may also be seen as an attempt to influence a Wikipedia community debate by recruiting new or existing users to support your point of view. Be aware that the Wikipedia guideline WP:STEALTH discourages stealth canvassing—i.e., contacting users off-wiki to persuade them to join in discussions. NedFausa (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: Actually, I am contacting multiple groups on Twitter (along with Ms. Perrette) who are in an uproar over this. They didn't understand what was going on. So, I explained things, how we (Wikipedia) works. Secondary sources and all that. Folks did seem to understand, but they are still hurt. They feel like this is "asexual eraser" and I understand where they are coming from. A clearly understood meaning ("ace"), used in the Asexuality page and referenced, Ms. Perrette follows 11 other asexuality pages on Twitter, I mean, what else could she be referencing? But why are we asking?

Someone brought up a good point, if she said If someone came out saying “Gays, it is me” in a tweet and then changed their bio to say “Gay.” as well, would you not allow their page to be edited to say they “came out as homosexual” until “it gets reported” despite it coming from the person themself in two separate places?. I think not. Wikipedia would be done in the eyes of the media and everyone. That celeb would sic their followers on Wikipedia. It would be over. So why must Ms. Perrette have to jump through hoops for coming out as Asexual? By extension, why must I not quell, what is that very same upset on Twitter, because I'm being "STEALTH"?

Point of fact, I mentioned in my tweet, who I was on Wikipedia, so I outed my own Wikipedia account on Twitter, there was no stealth there. Plus, one person from that group had already joined the conversation prior to my explaining the goings on of Wikipedia. So, I didn't encourage that person to come here. I also showed people where the discussion was. I didn't say "come here and share your voice", no. I shared the link. BIG difference. Mole hill, meet Mountain, because that's what you are trying to make and it ain't working.

Back to the bigger point. Why is no one taking Ms. Perrette following the 11 asexuality pages on Twitter seriously? Why are we having to wait for an "unambiguous reference"? Would we do the same for a gay person? A lesbian person? A trans person? Is Wikipedia suffering from a little aphobia? Maybe we are being different to one group of people when we wouldn't to another? I think we need to look at ourselves, a good hard look. Because we wouldn't do this to anyone in the LGBT community, but why the IAQ part? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:19 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, I urge you to be cautious. As for a "lesbian person", please consider the case of Jodie Foster. Literally years of discussion took place on the talk page of her article and repeated attempts to call her a lesbian were reverted because the quality of the sourcing was poor. So the answer is, yes, unambiguous self-identification is required to say that a person is gay or lesbian or transgender or Jewish or Presbyterian or Buddhist or atheist. Or asexual. This is not negotiable and so do not add that content back without a better reference.

The fact that she follows asexual Twitter accounts is evidence of nothing. I follow several transgender people on social media and I am not transgender. Concluding that she is asexual because of who she follows is original research and completely unacceptable.

If a reporter for a reliable source asks her to clarify and she unambiguously self-identifies as asexual, then the matter can be revisited at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: That's surprising and we failed there too. I would like to know where WP:TWITTER comes into play? That is an extension of WP:V. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:19 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

"Aces, it is actually me" is most definitely not an unambiguous self-identification. Even if we accept that she is probably using "Aces" as a synonym for asexual people, she has not said "I am an ace". You have repeatedly pointed out that she follows asexual Twitter accounts. Perhaps she is addressing those people to reassure them that she is an actual follower of those Twitter accounts and that it isn't a fake PP account. There are several of them on Twitter. The sentence is vague, ambiguous and cryptic. It is insufficient for the content you wish to add. I intend to enforce BLP policy in this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: But, as we can prove, just by looking at the account, it's a verified account. Notice the blue and white checkmark. So, it's not a fake. Plus, we use the term "ace" in our own article on Asexuality. So, I am not seeing how this is a problem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:44 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

Please stay on track here, Neutralhomer. I have never challenged the validity of the tweet. I have never contested that asexual is one of the many definitions of the word "ace" (although that word also means "close friend" and that usage is much older). So please do not waste my time with strawman arguments. The problem is the vague, ambiguous and cryptic nature of the tweet. There is no way that tweet can be read as an unambiguous declaration that she is asexual, and it is therefore inadequate as a reference for that claim on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting your time, sorry you think I am. I'm trying to have a discussion. I believe saying that it's not unambiguous is challanging the validity of the tweet. To me, we are saying she isn't saying what she is saying. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:21 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's all snowballed. Now it's happening at Emilie Autumn, Janeane Garofalo, and Mary Cagle, if you're interested. Adam9007 (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice bit of canvassing there, Adam9007. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please... I just thought he might be interested in it, seeing as it's closely related to the kerfuffle he's involved in (note that I haven't asked him to say or do anything; I just pointed it out to him). Adam9007 (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you point it out to any of the other participants (i.e. ones not supporting your viewpoint?) 165.120.15.119 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of them are already aware (is there anyone who hasn't edited those pages or the BLP noticeboard discussion)? Adam9007 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this good enough? Adam9007 (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

165.120.15.119, I was offline and I made it known I would be, so I thank Adam9007 for letting me know about this. It's not canvassing, it's just a heads up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:25 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Here is the link. NedFausa (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

Template:Z33 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: I would like to be clear on this, am I being told not to edit the Pauley Perrette, Emilie Autumn, Janeane Garofalo, and Mary Cagle pages (along with their respective talk pages) and the discussions currently going on on various pages under threat of sanctions? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:20 on January 25, 2020 (UTC)

• Re: Cullen328, Ritchie333, Masem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:31 on January 25, 2020 (UTC)

Pinging like this doesn't work; it has to be on a new, signed, comment. Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they could just be added in. I learned something today. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:31 on January 25, 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they can't. See Help:Fixing failed pings. Adam9007 (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it correct now? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39 on January 25, 2020 (UTC)

This looks okay, but you might want to enable the setting that tells you if your ping was successful (I forget where it is off the top of my head :(). Adam9007 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's at preferences -> notifications -> successful mention. Adam9007 (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that warning is saying you cannot edit those pages, just that simply, because this is the BLP topic area, there are discretionary sanctions that can be imposed by any admin who feels your editors run against the results and motions set by Arbcom in the linked case. (but I don't know for sure if that's Guerillero's effect). --Masem (t) 02:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe this was thrown at me (and only me) to shut me up. Notice how no one else got this on their talk pages and got a public threat of a topic ban. Just sayin'. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:50 on January 25, 2020 (UTC)

You are being asked to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground or a fight. Failing to do that will result in your ejection from the parts of Wikipedia where you are displaying that behavior. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, I do not know why you pinged me. I told you that I had already said everything I intended to say about Pauley Perette, at least until significant new information emerges. I am not the type of editor who enjoys repeating myself over and over and over again. Your repetitive remarks have not changed my mind, and my previous remarks stand. So please ping me if there is something new and substantive to discuss, but until then, I am done with this. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: It appeared Guerillero was offline, so I pinged you for an answer since I knew you were around. That's why I pinged you. He answered, so you weren't needed. Apologizes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:46 on January 25, 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: That is not what I asked. I will ask again, and I would like a "yes" or "no" answer. Am I being told not to edit the Pauley Perrette, Emilie Autumn, Janeane Garofalo, and Mary Cagle pages (along with their respective talk pages) and the discussions currently going on on various pages under threat of sanctions? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:46 on January 25, 2020 (UTC)

No, but you need to edit collegially with the understanding that the people you may disagree with are here to build an encyclopedia. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Good. My next question is why this was only placed on my talk page (and no one else's) and why I only got the public threat of a topic ban. No one has been collegial in this entire thing. This has been a mess and we are all to blame. So why just me? Why target me? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:02 on January 25, 2020 (UTC)

Point out where I have not been collegial. Diffs, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Template:Z8

Your battleground behavior and personal attacks at Talk: Pauley Perrette are completely unacceptable. You must comply with BLP policy now and in the future, and must refrain from all personal attacks on other editors. This is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Excuse me! I make one post, responding to Ned's behavior on this entire thing, this entire discussion, but my behavior is out of line? No.

Am I in violation of the harrassment policy or the BLP policy, but you are quoting both, but blocking me for only one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:46 on January 26, 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, (or any admin) remember how you said "if there is something new and substantive to discuss, but until then, I am done with this" and then immediately after my post saying "No one has been collegial in this entire thing", you replied Point out where I have not been collegial. Diffs, please.? I believe you and I are too tightly connected for you to make a block of me. This would be a prime example of a bad block and misuse of admin tools.

You clearly stated you were going to walk away, then immediately came back. Like you were itching for a fight. I didn't take you up on that invitation (though this would be an example of you not being "collegial"), but now you are the one to block me? Bad move. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:57 on January 26, 2020 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Neutralhomer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Cullen328 was extremely involved both in the discussions that were ongoing and here on my talk page. The BLP DS said "uninvolved administrators", which is clear, Cullen is not. On top of that, while I was blocked for "harrassment", another editor (and IP editor) continued harrassing behavior unabated by Cullen (or any other admin), not so much as a warning. Cullen's block of me was outside of the letter of the BLP DS law and a misuse of his admin tools. I am requesting that I be immediately unblocked and that Cullen be strongly admonished for misuse of his admin tools. There's been enough mess and hurt out of this. If the block will stand, I ask that the editor and IP editor linked be given the same. Fair's fair. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:39 on January 26, 2020 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Cullen328 was ''extremely'' [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]] both in the discussions that were ongoing and here on my talk page. The BLP DS said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937392754&oldid=937392356 "uninvolved administrators"], which is clear, Cullen is ''not''. On top of that, while I was blocked for "harrassment", [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937568966&oldid=937565739 another] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937597450&oldid=937582099 editor] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937582006&oldid=937568966 IP] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937630114&oldid=937597450 editor]) continued harrassing behavior unabated by Cullen (or any other admin), not so much as a warning. Cullen's block of me was outside of the letter of the BLP DS law and a misuse of his admin tools. I am requesting that I be immediately unblocked and that Cullen be strongly admonished for misuse of his admin tools. There's been enough mess and hurt out of this. If the block will stand, I ask that the editor and IP editor linked be given the same. Fair's fair. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">Neutralhomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;">Talk</span>]] • 12:39 on January 26, 2020 (UTC)</small> |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Cullen328 was ''extremely'' [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]] both in the discussions that were ongoing and here on my talk page. The BLP DS said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937392754&oldid=937392356 "uninvolved administrators"], which is clear, Cullen is ''not''. On top of that, while I was blocked for "harrassment", [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937568966&oldid=937565739 another] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937597450&oldid=937582099 editor] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937582006&oldid=937568966 IP] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937630114&oldid=937597450 editor]) continued harrassing behavior unabated by Cullen (or any other admin), not so much as a warning. Cullen's block of me was outside of the letter of the BLP DS law and a misuse of his admin tools. I am requesting that I be immediately unblocked and that Cullen be strongly admonished for misuse of his admin tools. There's been enough mess and hurt out of this. If the block will stand, I ask that the editor and IP editor linked be given the same. Fair's fair. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">Neutralhomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;">Talk</span>]] • 12:39 on January 26, 2020 (UTC)</small> |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Cullen328 was ''extremely'' [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]] both in the discussions that were ongoing and here on my talk page. The BLP DS said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937392754&oldid=937392356 "uninvolved administrators"], which is clear, Cullen is ''not''. On top of that, while I was blocked for "harrassment", [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937568966&oldid=937565739 another] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937597450&oldid=937582099 editor] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937582006&oldid=937568966 IP] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&diff=937630114&oldid=937597450 editor]) continued harrassing behavior unabated by Cullen (or any other admin), not so much as a warning. Cullen's block of me was outside of the letter of the BLP DS law and a misuse of his admin tools. I am requesting that I be immediately unblocked and that Cullen be strongly admonished for misuse of his admin tools. There's been enough mess and hurt out of this. If the block will stand, I ask that the editor and IP editor linked be given the same. Fair's fair. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">Neutralhomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;">Talk</span>]] • 12:39 on January 26, 2020 (UTC)</small> |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I won't review this request - but I will give you some (hopefully helpful) feedback. Much of your request seems to focus on the behavior of others, instead of addressing your own behavior. This typically does not lead to a favorable result for the blocked user, in my experience. SQL^{Query me!} 16:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'IP editor' accused of harassment above here. That Neutralhomer considers this post [1] by me to constitute 'harassment' is absurd. I stated that the 'bashing' mentioned in earlier posts was irrelevant, and then commented solely on the validity and appropriateness of the sources under discussion. As for the second post [2], if Neutralhomer considers my characterisation as 'pestering' of his Tweeting the subject of the article in an unsuccessful attempt to get her confirm her sexuality to constitute 'harassment' I can only suggest that others might see his own behaviour in this instance to be of much more concern. It seems self-evident at this point that either Neutralhomer cannot distinguish between a valid dispute over article content and actual harassment, or that Neutralhomer knows full well that they aren't the same thing, but uses such accusations to try to game the system, in a similar manner to the earlier evidence-free SPI [3] apparently was. I see nothing wrong with Cullen's block, but if another admin thinks it appropriate to review it, I have little doubt that they will reach the same conclusion as to its validity. And may well see this ridiculous attempt to portray an entirely legitimate posting as 'harassment' as grounds to extend the block. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]