Scapulus

Welcome!

Hello, Scapulus! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Stikkyy (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Scapulus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2022

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an 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.

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Do not misgender people on Wikipedia. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Men can't be women, and women can't be men. No amount of feelings can change that. Scapulus^takk 19:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Transphobia from Scapulus. Thank you. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm honored. I wonder what the San-they-drin will decide. Scapulus^takk 19:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.   Salvio ^giuliano 20:06, 28 February 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

First, I do commend your efficiency and decisiveness. Now that's how you maintain control, Professor! I can think of some past world leaders who would nod their approval. And yes, I am in fact clapping right now. Second, I don't apologize, especially considering I actually supported following the policy while obviously disagreeing with it. And third, if the Wikiverse is going to implode every time someone says something noncanonical, then I'll gladly protect those tender feelings and refrain from those "sacred" spaces and keep editing the fun things I care about, like Sonic and Muppets and Jesus and Sunday comic strips (not necessarily in that order). I sure hope that's enough of a kowtow. Scapulus^takk 20:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Thanks for making this easy. Talk page access revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2023 (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.

@RickinBaltimore and Salvio giuliano:, Just weighing in as a casual observer, I find this block to be petty, hasty, and a huge overreaction, based on what, 4 comments? They may not have been the most diplomatic edits but they were far from wildly disruptive. But because it deals with (sensitive issues about gender) and some people got their feeling slightly hurt I expect I shall be fully blocked soon as well for pointing this out. Good day. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Animalparty: It's not acceptable to intentionally misgender people anywhere on Wikipedia and especially not living people per WP:BLP. The OP's unblock request has made it clear that they have no intention of obeying such a fundamental tenet of BLP so they are unwelcome to edit anything concerning living persons. Their proposal was to "stay away" from certain areas but there is no such thing as an area that is immune. If a Sunday comic strip or a muppets production is created by a transgender person then it is not acceptable to misgender them anywhere on Wikipedia. Nor is it acceptable to misgender a scholar on Jesus anywhere on Wikipedia. With topic bans, we make them broadly construed, and expect the editor subject to such a topic ban to ensure they stay out of any area when such issues come up. These work when we can trust the editor to at least do such a minimum. But when the editor is unable to resist the urge to intentionally misgender people, and then tries to argue about it when someone tries to correct it, then proposes they will stay away from problem areas as a solution to their inability to resist the urge to intentionally misgender living persons; it's hard to imagine the editor will be able to actually resist the urge to do so when it comes up elsewhere. And I'm being very generous in assuming the editor will at least able to resist the urge to intentionally misgender editors like they do with other living persons. Frankly I don't see a reason to be so generous, which means that in reality there's far greater reason not to try. Nil Einne (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I have observed this discussion only because this talk page is still on my watchlist, having previously left a warning for this editor. My concern is that Scapulus' comments were not injected into articles--in clear violation of policy--but were instead made on an RFC, which is a forum where editors are invited to share their input, and which frequently result in the creation or change of policy. I have no dog in this fight, and my own opinions are irrelevant, but like it or not, Scapulus' opinions are pretty mainstream among conservatives. So...the community invites editors to share their input about a transgender issue at an RFC, and an editor shares a mainstream conservative opinion, and is subsequently blocked for being transphobic. This sends a chilling message to editors wishing to comment on RFCs about sensitive issues, but perhaps I am missing something. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Sharing input at a content RfC is one thing, deliberate misgendering is another (which, yes, is against the BLP policy). The big contentious topic banner on Talk:Rachel Levine, and the fact that BLPs in general have been designated as contentious topics, should have served as fair warning that norms and policies [will be] more strictly enforced. Doubling down with hateful comments like this is just the cherry on top. The only chilling message being sent is that transphobic editors are not welcome. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I'm not expressing a personal opinion, but that "hateful comment" is shared by 60 percent of the US population, so it's certainly not a fringe opinion. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to with opinions and everything to do with actions. Scapulus participated in the RfC, arguing that Rachel Levine's birth name should not be included, but did so in a manner which seemed designed to push people's buttons as much as possible and since that's an RfC, those comments were likely to be seen by many people, including those who could find it upsetting. I'll tell you more, if he had stopped at explaining why he thought the policy was ridiculous, I wouldn't have blocked. But he had to add the last part of his comment, the one I described as apparently designed to get a rise out of other editors. The impression that that's what he was trying to do was further cemented by his subsequent comments and attempts at humour. And, well, that's disruptive. Ultimately, we can't force anyone to be empathetic, but we can block those who seem to go out of their way to cause offence. Salvio ^giuliano 18:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Scapulus' fall from grace was certainly swift but by the time an editor is complaining about "dystopian censorship" just because an intentionally offensive Talk page message was redacted (not even removed) and even then only to the minimum extent possible, it is clear that they are showing themselves the door. This was only ever going to end one way and it was probably a kindness to everybody to do it quickly. DanielRigal (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Heaven forbid Wikipedia host content that someone might find upsetting on a talk page comment. Good thing Lynching of Jesse Washington and Muhammad and Ejaculation and Virgin Killer and other quality content have nothing anyone could find objectional, disturbing or offensive. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a silly argument and I suspect you are aware. There is a difference between hosting encyclopaedic material which may be offensive to some (or even many) and trying to cause gratuitous offence, and the difference is in the encyclopaedic nature of the content in question (see WP:GRATUITOUS). You're arguing Scapulus's comments were trying to be encyclopaedic? Salvio ^giuliano 23:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)