110.44.18.224

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Funcrunch (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

abuse of process to silence dissenters. classic. 110.44.18.224 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Transphobia, you may be blocked from editing. Funcrunch (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

silenced because i don't believe what you believe. classic.110.44.18.224 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Amortias (T)(C) 20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

i got blocked because you're bigots who will silence any dissent.110.44.18.224 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

i got blocked because some editors are bigots who will silence any dissent, using bots to ensure articles that confirm their bias are unable to be improved to remove bias. not even the talk pages are safe. 110.44.18.224 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your posts were representing your opinion, as opposed to views of reliable sources. You are not assuming good faith of other editors. I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Responding to a block about your civility by being more uncivil is generally the opposite tack to take to assuage the reviewing admin of continued disruptive behavior. Q ^{T C} 20:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

im not being uncivil, i have been accused of enaging in badfaith, lacking civility and trolling. all because i know that men cannot become women, and women cannot become men. i am not transphobic. i beleive transfolk should be treated with the same dignity and respect as the rest of us. but because i don't embrace the beliefs of other people, and am not afraid to say so, i am now fair game.110.44.18.224 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Transphobia

The fact that the article in question makes absolutely no reference to the ideological discourse between: people who hold views critical of gender and trans rights activists, and wikipedia bans talking about it, such as what is happening to me right now, highlights the ideological capture of editors of wikipedia.

i can know that men are incapable of becoming women, and that women are incapable of becoming men, without having a negative opinion of those who falsely believe that they can change their sex. where does the article account for people like me?

i love you all, but you hate me unless i convert or stay silent. where is your movement of love and peace now? what is inclusion and diversity worth if only an echo chamber is permitted? 110.44.18.224 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

i can know that men are incapable of becoming women, and that women are incapable of becoming men, without having a negative opinion of those who falsely believe that they can change their sex. where does the article account for people like me? 110.44.18.224 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are endless websites where you can post your culture war rhetoric and argue with people. Wikipedia is one of the few places on the internet where you can't. Since that seems to be your sole purpose, the block has indeed been extended, and your talk page access has been revoked. You can follow the instructions below if you think you can convince an administrator that you're here to write encyclopedia articles rather than argue about culture war topics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Given the unrepentant trolling, I think there is a good case to extend this block (maybe for a few weeks?) and also to revoke Talk page access as the unblock template, and this User Talk page more generally, is only being abused for further trolling. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

i'm not trolling, so consider for a moment that my genuinely held beliefs according to your religion can only be viewed as trolling. consider how inclusive and diverse your echo chamber really is.110.44.18.224 (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

---