User talk:Randomdude87

Wiki Rules on Blocking
Blocking policy > Explanation of blocks

Is it really a good reason that I'm banned for referring to trans-women as male? I've made some good edits per the ideologs banning me, but I went too far stating an indisputable fact that trans-women are male.

Well, that's on Earth, but wherever these editors are based, it's a "fringe theory" because trans-women can literally change their sex -- just by announcing so, apparently!

Blocking policy > Notifiying the blocked user

I was not given a "clear and specific reason" whatsoever. Galobtter did a "pretty self-explanatory GENSEX indef" (whatever that means), which was subsequently challenged immediately. This is clear and specific to who? When something is only clear to you and other admins challenge it, maybe you should seek to clarify?

Plenty of jargon was used and I was clearly not familiar with any of the references or process.

1. Trans-women are quite literally male. That's a fundamentally necessary requirement to be a trans-woman. Another person who should not have editing power on this site.

2. IDK what OR arguments means, but I am seriously banned because I wasn't inclusive enough when discussing CRITERIA FOR A PAGE INCLUSION? Properly classifying things and providing accurate information on the subject is the the purpose of an encyclopedia!

Yeah, dude, not everybody gets to belong to every single group. For instance, if you weren't killed for being transgender, you shouldn't be included in "List of people who were killed for being transgender" for crying out loud!

The fact I pointed out several inclusions that were removed at my suggestion is evidence that the current system for that page is very poor. Well, that's if accuracy and factual information are your goals. If you intend to inflate lists to improve your cause at the expense of those things, then yeah, I should be banned.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE HELL THIS MEANS!

This is not avoiding the use of jargon. These are not "clear and specific" reasons. This is a joke.


 * Randomdude: The difference between an Arbitration Enforcement (AE) block and an ‘ordinary’ block is in the procedure for appealing. There is a special procedure for appealing against an AE block which is described in the essay ‘Guide to appealing blocks’ WP:GAPB at 4.1 . An ordinary block can be appealed by using the standard unblock appeal template, and it can be lifted by a single admin unilaterally i.e. it is, in principle, easier to get an ‘ordinary’ block lifted than an AE block. But Randomdude, please read the Guide and Law of holes. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info on the block. I already appealed and it was denied due to BS. I'm not going to pretend it's anything other than BS that I was blocked. It shouldn't be considered digging a hole by calling it out.


 * It's important that you understand the reasons why the administrator blocked you before starting an unblock request. A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism.

The reasons the administrator blocked me aren't the same as the issues cited against me in arbitration (which were BS, too). None of the people voting to ban me even explained what the issue was, only that I did real bad! If stating facts about a topic is disruptive to a few, they should be the ones removed from making edits.


 * Nex unfortunately died by suicide, by the way. Randomdude87 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"Culture Wars"
- NinjaRobotPirate

What are you basing that on? I am responding to this stuff, not creating it. None of this is my ideology or something I have a desire to promote or breakdown. I am interested in accurate information and that's all I've contributed.

Did you even look at anything? None of the claims against me were valid. People whose stated goals for Wikipedia include this ideology, referring to me disdainfully as "yet another cis editor", yet I'm interested in "culture wars" here?

What does that even mean? Posting accurate information in good faith shouldn't be grounds for a ban. Sounds like you're defending a culture you've deemed me at war with.

NinjaRobotPirate, can you please clarify?

Randomdude87 (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki No Longer Knows What Female Means?
Banned for "transphobia" no, it was acknowledgment of biological sex.

I'm banned for correctly referring to a trans-woman as male while asking about criteria for a list. I used "her" and "she" pronouns in every edit I made, both live and in the talk pages.

The issue was arbitrated via kangaroo court by people with a stated focus on Wikipedia of improving representation of marginalized people like transgender/non-binary and those who state, "trans women are female and this is basically universally accepted in academia."

Yet my ban is upheld because it Sounds like you're here to engage in culture wars. What a joke. Sounds like that according to who or what?

Biological sex isn't a culture war to anybody operating in reality. I only contributed in good faith with accurate edits.

It's clear the issue was going against the "representation of marginalized people" by holding the accuracy of information in higher regard than what is best for their personal movement. But the truth is irrelevant to those with an agenda. I was silly to think Wikipedia would be immune to this, I guess.


 * ====Statement by Randomdude87====
 * 1. I never once blamed the victim; the accusation is unwarranted and offensive. Did anybody even review these insane accusations?


 * If accurately describing a male-to-male sexual encounter is a ban-worthy violation, I seriously question Wikipedia's ability to curate factual information. Yes, their behavior was deceitful, absolutely.


 * A trans-woman can't identify out of biological sex - this isn't debatable. Preventing heterosexual men from discovering your penis and testicles, knowing they're only interested in natal females, is definitively deceitful.


 * Beyond lying by omission, some claimed they were on their period to persuade these men into having anal sex. If referencing your non-existent female sex organs isn't an example of lying, what is it then? It's very clear these men wouldn't have consented to these encounters if they were aware.


 * It's extremely offensive that you're deciding it's not rape when they're clearly not voluntary participants in these encounters. Consent is not suggested, it is required for EVERYBODY to give, including heterosexual males looking for females. To suggest otherwise is operating outside of reality.


 * Acknowledging this doesn't suggest the victims deserved to die. Christ.
 * Furthermore, this was a Talk question for community feedback, not an edit to a live page. These men felt raped, which is a different motive. If you disagree, why not just address it there?


 * 2. Your criticism seems disingenuous, as if suggesting I fabricated the quote (and for no reason). I referenced a source directly and used "allegedly" due to uncertain exact wording. But her challenging him by referencing her sex is fully supported elsewhere, too: According to her friends, Ms. Milan told the man that she, too, was a man and asked him whether he wanted to fight.


 * It's a fairly crucial detail shouldn't be omitted. With her announcing that she is male, there's no denying whether the perpetrator knew she was a trans-woman or not. It also highlights another crucial detail - she challenged him to a fair fight, which he allegedly declined.


 * Only when she turned to walk away, a universal sign of de-escalation, did he engage physically. And only with a weapon. It leaves no doubt that he knew: she wasn't a threat, she was transgender, she believed the confrontation was over. It relays the reality that this was a deliberate attempt at ending her life.


 * Everything I wrote is supported by the citations and I consider it an improvement to the original. If anything was against Wiki's editorial guidelines, it was a genuine mistake.
 * Other
 * - It shouldn't be held against me for focusing on few articles. You're arbitrarily deciding it's a sign of something sinister. I spent a good chunk of time fact-checking those quotes and fail to see how it could be perceived as anything but fair and accurate.


 * - I don't consider it fair or impartial that those who explicitly share ALL of your biases on this subject showed up immediately to agree with you. Neither offered any actual criticism or reasoning to their statements. None even mentioned what was wrong with them? It isn't fair arbitration if they make their decisions before I've shared my side.


 * - This is petty. It's sad that you care more about misrepresenting transgender deaths for your cause than accuracy. And it really sucks that Wikipedia is completely captured, but not surprising.


 * - It's not "transphobia" to correctly call out rape for what it is. It's absolutely insane that people like this, defending rape of heterosexual men, have such an influence on the internet to spread lies.


 * Pointing Out Misattributed Quotes


 * I have no idea why this was an issue, other than your cult has to make up accusations to silence truth.


 * When researching more for that list, I came upon the Amanda Milan article. Researching her killing, I noticed the Wiki summary was written confusingly, conflating the given sources and incorrectly describing the sequence of events. I also updated a few of the links to current versions, including the reference meta-data.


 * I then realized tons of the quotes were completely misattributed to an egregious level. And I provided citations that link to the actual pages in the book they came from. This took me quite a while, actually, and I thought it'd be considered helpful to highlight them for the original author to fix. I'm honestly not seeing what the issue is here? It's that I am improving pages by updating them with factual information? Sorry, but when I see egregious errors in quotes like that, my trust in Wikipedia drops. Seeing how corrections are handled by reporting me to some trial board has only furthered this distrust.


 * Your Repeated Attempts to Shoehorn Non-Trans Related Deaths


 * Myself and another user both noted the serious problems we found in your criteria for admittance to the "killed for being transgender" list. It seems like this report has more to do with that, obviously.


 * It's clear to me that you care about advocating for trans-rights first, by any means necessary, with Wikipedia content secondary. I do not believe this should have more importance than remaining neutral and accurate. And despite what you think, it's not helpful to trans-lives.


 * Good Faith


 * You accuse me of not operating in good faith, but your evidence are examples of my contributions improving the pages in question. I pointed out completely misattributed quotes, which I honestly feel should be deleted outright due to inaccuracy.


 * Instead of deleting, I found the book pages and linked them for the author to update. That's not operating in good faith? It's not east to fact-check quotes that are references to ISBN numbers or whatever. It actually took a decent chunk of time for me to update that page, too.


 * A couple of us also pointed out flaws in your logic regarding the Fred Martinez inclusion in the "transgender killings" page. While I don't at all think it should be included, I still provided a better example for YOUR case that I stumbled upon. The entire back-and-forth was you ignoring the motives given by the authorities to seemingly shoehorn in a death that didn't fit. Myself and the other user both noted this.


 * Later on, I came across a quote from the time period of the murder that completely supported your stance, much better than your original sources (which you called "weaksauce"). And I didn't have to provide it to you. But I did because I believed it'd improve the page, even if I ultimately disagreed with that entry. And you're accusing me of operating in bad faith for some reason. It's frustrating that your goal isn't to work together with me to improve these pages.


 * I think it's shameful that you utilize these deaths to further your ideology. This isn't what Wikipedia is for. It is legitimately concerning that those who deny our biological sex are so influential on encyclopedic material with dominant search result. Madness.

Introduction to contentious topics - gender and sexuality
Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Randomdude87. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Randomdude87 (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Galobtter (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't even get to respond to the extremely disingenuous "arbitration", huh? Because I accurately updated articles? What a joke. Randomdude87 (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Comment by Sweet6970
I am the other user referred to above. I am baffled by ’s statement in the AE report Since creating their account on 26 February 2024, this user has been almost exclusively requesting removals of content from List of people killed for being transgender.

This is not correct – they have been engaging in the discussion which, in effect, I initiated, about whether the killing of Fred Martinez should be included. I think the inclusion is dubious. But I note that Randomdude has, as they have said, provided a new source which supports inclusion. This is evidence of complete good faith.

I do not understand the blocking reason ‘pretty self explanatory’ – it doesn’t explain itself to me. Randomdude is an inexperienced user who does not understand the taboos on Wikipedia, but is plainly in good faith.

By the way, I did not participate in the AE discussion because I was not aware it was going on – it started in the middle of the night, after I had logged off, and finished before I woke up. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you coming to bat for me. It's disheartening realizing Wikipedia, which I believed was a decent source for accurate information, has been taken over by ideologs. I stand by the edits I made and am in disbelief that the process for banning someone takes place in such a kangaroo court.
 * As a note, trans women are female and this is basically universally accepted in academia; the unusual categorization Sweet6970 articulated above is the perspective held by a small group of (mostly British) activists. - Aquillion
 * Is this real life? Female is absolutely NOT "accepted in academia" as a trans-woman. The "fringe" theory is that man and woman no longer refer to the adult versions of biological sex.
 * My ban is denied because Sounds like you're here to engage in culture wars. No thanks - NinjaRobotPirate
 * Um, the only people introducing these "culture wars" are those who got me banned. I updated pages with accurate information because that's what I care about. The fact I got multiple removal suggestions approved, which are still standing, is evidence that THESE PAGES ARE INACCURATE.
 * I thought this was what Wikipedia was about?!
 * When people who decide who gets to contribute unironically believe male/female are fringe theories in relation to our biology, something is seriously very wrong here.
 * My current (2016–present) focus on Wikipedia is improving representation of marginalized people. Transgender/nonbinary people and Black people are my priorities. - Funcrunch
 * User Funcrunch was part of my ban. Looking at his page, his stated goals seem like a huge conflict of interest to me. Improving the representation of marginalized people shouldn't come at the expense of article integrity and truth.
 * The fact that someone like Aquillion has a say in my ban is unreal. How can Wikipedia consider itself an encyclopedia when the curators deny such basic facts?! Randomdude87 (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You should let people know when you talk about them.
 * Doug Weller talk 21:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, @Doug (though I'm already subscribed to this page section). Yawn, yet another cis editor assuming that openly declaring my trans status means I can't follow WP:NPOV. (Also, I'm a they, not a he, which is also stated on my user page.) Funcrunch (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your stated goals and subsequent role in my undeserved banning are what I had issue with, not whatever you identify as. The fact you refer to me with such disdain, referencing me a "yet another cis editor", is exactly what I'm talking about. You seriously think this is an example of neutrality?
 * People who think gender identity supersedes or overwrites a person's biological sex should not have this much control over Wikipedia. Do you mind clarifying what improving representation of marginalized people actually entails? Because to me it sounds like controlling the information presented with a focus on optics over accuracy or truth. Randomdude87 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of that feature or I would've. Thanks. @Galobtter, you converted this to "normal block." What does that mean? What was it before? I'm still confused how I am banned when none of the reason are congruent with the claims? I am banned for not being here to build an encyclopedia, but it's for transphobia, but it's actually because I referred to a trans-woman as a male in a talk page, but it's also because I'm not operating in good faith, but the issue was the 2 points raised by the person lodging the complaint (neither of which were true or evidence of the aforementioned issues)?
 * I was unaware of that feature or I would've. Thanks. @Galobtter, you converted this to "normal block." What does that mean? What was it before? I'm still confused how I am banned when none of the reason are congruent with the claims? I am banned for not being here to build an encyclopedia, but it's for transphobia, but it's actually because I referred to a trans-woman as a male in a talk page, but it's also because I'm not operating in good faith, but the issue was the 2 points raised by the person lodging the complaint (neither of which were true or evidence of the aforementioned issues)?

@Galobtter can you please clarify? Randomdude87 (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Funcrunch I didn't comment on your declaration of trans-status, though. I didn't know you were trans/non-binary. Beyond knowing how to address you now, it's not something I care about at all. I skimmed the very top where you stated your goals for Wikipedia, which I find to be in conflict with Wikipedia's stated goals. I am not sure why you're commenting on my sex/gender (or what you assume it is) as I don't find either relevant to this discussion. I do not use the term "cis" to describe myself and would prefer you not use it toward me. Dismissing my issue due to my perceived "cis" gender certainly doesn't give the illusion of neutrality, either. I care about accurate information and facts on Wikipedia because it's such a widely used tool. I don't care about promoting specific groups in the best light possible at the expense of truth. Randomdude87 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My stated goals are no different from those of WikiProjects such as Women in Red. And I assumed nothing about your gender other than that you are not trans. Funcrunch (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You assumed nothing about my gender? Uh, other than my gender entirely, which isn't exactly the neutral statement you think. How are you determining I am not trans? Because I correctly stated that trans-women are male and that male-to-male sexual contact is referred to as homosexual? These are called facts, dude.
 * And again, why is my gender relevant? "Yawn, yet another non-trans person" is again, not very neutral. Why are you not focused on contributions to Wiki instead of things like the user's gender? If I were trans, you'd not be yawning at me rudely? My sex/gender is not relevant at all and I don't appreciate being judged by your assumptions on it. It's not okay.
 * Women in Red seems to have the goal of increasing information about women, not making sure they're seen in the best light. Also, that project is specifically referring to females, is it not? Randomdude87 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * With that project is specifically referring to females, is it not?, are you asking whether trans women and their works are included at WiR? Every June the project runs an LGBTQ+ event encouraging such creations. Here is last June's. Valereee (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am asking what distinction the term "women" in "Women In Red" is referring to? It says the original title for the group included "XX" in it. It just seems silly that I'm listening to people banning me who state things like "trans women are female and this is basically universally accepted in academia", which is complete and utter horseshit. I'm sorry, but someone calling the reality that trans-women are male an "unusual categorization" and a "[fringe] perspective" that's only held by a small group of (mostly British) activists" should disqualify someone from editing privileges. Why does Wikipedia no longer care about accuracy? Randomdude87 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WiR doesn't really care what someone's chromosomes are. You call yourself a woman, we'll take your word for it. Valereee (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would it have been titled "xx" prior if not referring to females? How can you contribute to an encyclopedia if you can't even recognize the sex binary of our own species? "We'll take your word for it" is the criteria needed? lol ok Randomdude87 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, given that basically none of you ever specified anything at all, I'm still confused on what I did that was wrong. Would you mind telling me what the "bad edits" were?
 * Again, do you mind elaborating on what rules I broke or why I need to be banned?
 * Nearly all of my contributions were accepted. Even when I disagreed with the user who filed the complaint, I still posted evidence I found that best supported his stance. While I still feel the criteria of the list should be clarified and cleaned up, if the quote I found for them is all that's needed, I'm not going to hide it just because I don't think it's good enough evidence. I fail to see how anyone can substantiate his claims that I'm not acting in good faith.
 * I stand by my update and edits to the Amanda Milan page, too. There was no reason to revert it when I fixed multiple incorrect statements, updated citations and links, provided additional detail, etc. They could've fact-checked the specific facts I noted in my edit in order to update the reverted version, but didn't. I also did the legwork to validate quotes from a book, finding them to be completely inaccurate. That page is less accurate now with the reverted edits. How is someone acting in good faith when they revert my edits for bogus reasons, but don't bother editing out the misattributed quotes?
 * There is no logic involved that validates me being problematic to Wikipedia article strength. Randomdude87 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, the details shouldn't matter to you that much, but a regular block can be overturned by any admin, while an arbitration enforcement block can only be overturned by me or a consensus of uninvolved admins or editors. Galobtter (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no logic involved that validates me being problematic to Wikipedia article strength. Randomdude87 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, the details shouldn't matter to you that much, but a regular block can be overturned by any admin, while an arbitration enforcement block can only be overturned by me or a consensus of uninvolved admins or editors. Galobtter (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

To Randomdude87: No-one has yet really explained why you have been blocked. I think the last refusal to unblock you summarises it: Sounds like you're here to engage in culture wars. No thanks. Wikipedia is edited by people with different views. A major cause of disruption is disputes among editors about issues which are contentious in real life e.g. American politics, Israel/Palestine, gender/sexuality. Wikipedia can’t function if discussion about editing an article is derailed by ideological disputes. I think that in your comments you are implying that I am not an ideologue. Whilst I always aim to edit neutrally, I am pretty sure that there are people who edit in gensex who would say that I am an ideologue– ideology is in the eye of the beholder.

Your post about the so-called ‘Trans panic defence’ was a comment about the issue, not the article. You are entitled to hold those views on that subject. but your views are not relevant to Wikipedia. No editors’ views are, strictly speaking, relevant to Wikipedia. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should be reflecting the views of reliable sources, not the views of its editors…though of course, since it is edited by human beings, it doesn’t always work out like that. For the List of people killed for being transgender article, the question is only – are there reliable sources saying this person was killed for being transgender? If yes, include; if not, exclude. If the discussion is limited to those aspects, it ought to be possible to debate the matter reasonably and with civility. Once you stray away from that, you are not editing in a way which contributes to improving the encyclopaedia. And in addition, your post was framed in inflammatory terms – ‘lying’ ‘extreme deception’ ‘rape’. This is guaranteed to arouse emotion – of which there is already too much in gensex. My assessment (I may be wrong) is that you have been blocked because you have been judged to be one of those editors who cause more disruption to the encyclopaedia than improvement. If you want to get unblocked, you would have to convince an admin that you are not going to engage in arguing about the subject, and will be careful of other editors’ sensitivities.

So I invite you to consider – do you want to edit Wikipedia articles, or do you want to argue about transgender matters? You can’t do both on Wikipedia. And if you edit in gensex you have to bear in mind that editors have various sensitivities which you may not share. And conversely, you may feel insulted by comments from those with different views. I would actually never advise a new editor to edit in a contentious topic – it is better to get experience of how Wikipedia works in less contentious areas before jumping into the minefield of gensex.

Thanks for your appreciation of my support. Unfortunately, my support may not be much use to you – I have a feeling that certain editors have a negative reaction to the sight of my username, which may rub off on you. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Your post about the so-called ‘Trans panic defence’ was a comment about the issue, not the article.
 * Respectfully, my post really wasn't about the issue. My post was made to get clarification on criteria for inclusion because it's anything but clear. The person who catalyzed my banning was asking theoretical questions about whether non-transgender people should be listed if they were killed because someone thought they were trans. I fail to see how my post is any different. I looked through archives and thought that was the place to discuss the direction of the page.
 * e killed for being transgender article, the question is only – are there reliable sources saying this person was killed for being transgender? If yes, include; if not, exclude
 * It clearly isn't that black-and-white, though. There's 2 posts in Talk about Nex, who AFAIK, is non-binary and not  transgender. Beyond not even being ruled a killing yet, their death wouldn't be eligible due to NB and not TG from my POV. But people are already gearing up for it, leading me to believe that either I'm misunderstanding the criteria, or people are doing what I now suspect: trying to slip in whatever they can to inflate the page.
 * Plenty of included killings have zero evidence of the fitting transgender motive. I got 2 removed where the killing had no suspect, which the scope clearly states makes the case ineligible. That's as black-and-white as it gets, yet they made it in, despite a single Google search being all that's needed to validate the inclusion. You were involved in plenty of back-and-forth on whether a case meets this seemingly simple criteria. So again, respectfully, I disagree that no discussion is needed on clarifying the criteria.
 * The "trans-panic" cases don't mesh with this criteria to me. That's why I made the post. I understood the list to be for people who were targeted and killed on the basis of their transgender identity. The perpetrators had no idea the person was trans, believing they were female (which apparently is a meaningless, arbitrary distinction now). Upon finding out they were male and had been deceived into sex they did not consent to, they became enraged. If the killers don't know about or even acknowledge this transgender identity, I don't agree that it can be their motive. And again, the "gay panic defense" was largely about men overreacting with violence to something innocuous like being hit on. The fact these men felt they were taken advantage of sexually is the major factor, in my opinion.
 * Once you stray away from that, you are not editing in a way which contributes to improving the encyclopaedia. And in addition, your post was framed in inflammatory terms – ‘lying’ ‘extreme deception’ ‘rape’. This is guaranteed to arouse emotion – of which there is already too much in gensex.
 * Inflammatory terms? I accurately described what happened in those scenarios, especially from the perspective of those we're assigning a motive to. When someone is only engaging in a sexual activity because someone lied about their sex (not gender), that's not consent. When they're going so far as to falsely claim they're on their period to convince a heterosexual man to engage in anal sex with them, that's deception. This is why the perpetrators responded with comments about how they "can't be gay", began vomiting, were freaking out and crying, etc. They were obviously severely distressed by the revelation they'd been duped into having sex with males. Duped, lied to, even coerced are all accurate words to describe that behavior. Stealthing is considered rape in certain jurisdictions, so why wouldn't this be? Anyway, whatever.
 * Perhaps the people who get overly emotional when discussing these issues shouldn't be the ones in control of the pages?
 * So I invite you to consider – do you want to edit Wikipedia articles, or do you want to argue about transgender matters? You can’t do both on Wikipedia. And if you edit in gensex you have to bear in mind that editors have various sensitivities which you may not share. And conversely, you may feel insulted by comments from those with different views. I would actually never advise a new editor to edit in a contentious topic – it is better to get experience of how Wikipedia works in less contentious areas before jumping into the minefield of gensex.
 * You're describing politics and ideology overtaking the accuracy of information. I didn't stray from anything. I made solid edits to a very select few pages, acted in good faith toward the person who got me banned, and didn't break any rules that I can see. There were 2 examples of some alleged rule-breaking, both of which were unfounded. Obviously it wasn't about my edits or quality of contributions, though.
 * To be honest, I find it embarrassing that people who literally think transwomen have changed their sex and are actually females has a say in whether I'm banned or not. This is a hugely problematic system. People are punished on Wikipedia for speaking truthfully about something undeniable.
 * My assessment (I may be wrong) is that you have been blocked because you have been judged to be one of those editors who cause more disruption to the encyclopaedia than improvement.
 * I correctly referred to trans-women as males. I correctly suggested people remove entries to a list they didn't want removed. I correctly referred to male-to-male sexual contact as homosexual. That is the "disruption." I can't believe reality and the proper use of terms is seen as harmful to an encyclopedia. Shouldn't it be a bigger concern that people who decide whether I'm banned or not think biological sex is some fringe theory of British activists?
 * My "disruption" is entirely localized to specific people and their ideology, not me breaking Wikipedia rules or actually being harmful to the site. I only made a few suggestions/edits to live pages and every single one improved the pages. Sorry that I stirred the pot by recognizing rape, which is exactly what those situations were.
 * Your entire message should be to the people banning me. I don't to discuss transgender matters whatsoever, obviously. I am not the one with stated goals of promoting an ideology on Wikipedia. I shouldn't have to worry about the "sensitivities" of people who are so sensitive to reality that we dare not speak it. Wikipedia should be for accurate information only. I obviously think we should be kind to one another, including their sensitivities, too. But omitting truth can't be the result. I don't think I was rude to anyone. I think people yawning at me as "yet another cis" are being rude, focusing on transgender issues, but whatever.
 * If you want to get unblocked, you would have to convince an admin that you are not going to engage in arguing about the subject, and will be careful of other editors’ sensitivities.
 * I appreciate the post and understand what you're saying. I'm not playing this game, though. If I'm unblocked, I'll be blocked again for some other wrongspeak in my next post. Keep fighting the good fight. Cheers. Randomdude87 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Note, I've converted this to a normal block per, so copying this isn't necessary anymore. You can see more of how to appeal a regular block at WP:UNBLOCK. Galobtter (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Unblock Request 2
331dot A good block based on what? I am still confused on what rules I broke or why my edits are somehow at odds with Wikipedia's goals? I don't even understand what I am blocked for because I've been given multiple different reasons that aren't even congruent with one another. Can you at least reference something specifically instead of just saying you reviewed it? It doesn't seem like any admin reviewed anything.

Why would I need to be banned from gender issues? Every single edit I made was helpful to the pages! Please find any suggestion of mine that made the pages weaker or less accurate! Randomdude87 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pings do not work unless you sign your post, I came back here by chance. That you didn't get the result you wanted does not mean that it was not reviewed. You seem to be unable to set aside your personal views on gender identity and stick to policy. I'm not here to debate those views with you, but they aren't relevant to this project. You are free to make another unblock request for someone else to review, but I maintain my view that you are unlikely to be unblocked without a topic ban in some form. Maybe not from all gender issues, but at least some. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

331dot I do not have "personal views" on this. It's not a personal view that trans-women are male. It's a requirement of being a trans-woman. It is entirely relevant when discussing the motives of a murder when the killer considers the male identify and homosexual encounter as his motive. It has nothing to do with what someone identifies as or how they live their life it's specific to why they were killed from the perspective of the killer.

How are you arbitrarily deciding these are my personal views? They are relevant to Wikipedia for accuracy and you're telling me you won't discuss it?

I don't even know what you're linking there? The unfounded claims that weren't substantiated? Yes, that is what I am asking about. What exactly is the issue? I referenced a quote from the woman herself that appears in the sources and is relevant to the case, 100%. You just keep repeating the same thing, but zero specifics in what rule I broke with what action. You are insinuating I am the one with some agenda here. I have never asked for a debate on any of these issues and never wanted one. My goal was to improve the pages, which I absolutely did.

I am asking you, the admin who denied my unblock, to explain what policy I broke? I see nothing in the linked GENDERID policy that applies here. I referred to the people we're discussing with their proper pronouns. I only referenced their male sex (which shouldn't be taboo whatsoever) in relation to their killer's motive. That is the salient detail on inclusion to the list we're discussing and I only brought it up on the talk page to clarify our criteria.

If my edit Sideswipe quoted was so disrespectful and rule-breaking, why is the section still up? I spent a lot of time on that, reading all the cited sources, and corrected several errors in the writing. I even ran it through Chat GPT after to grade my neutral tone. My version makes it clear she was targeted by someone who knew she was trans, which is the reason she has a Wikipedia page. There is nothing wrong with my edit. I also updated the citation URLs and references, even submitting new archive.org backups for them.

What part of the linked GENDER policy did I break here? What part of this isn't me being here to build a better encyclopedia? Seriously, I don't really care that I didn't "get the result I wanted", I just want you to explain specifically what rule it was that I broke and with what specific comment/edit/whatever? It'd help, because respectfully, it isn't clear at all. Randomdude87 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely a personal view not reflected in the scientific/medical consensus. Again, I am not here to debate your views with you. As stated in the block log, you seem to be not here to build an encyclopedia, as reflected in your postings.  This lengthy post is just demonstrating why you should be topic banned from editing about gender issues.  If you have no agenda as you claim, a topic ban should be easy to agree to. You may make a new request for someone else to review in which you attempt to persuade them to unblock you without a topic ban. I have nothing else to add. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. What?! Yes, it is absolutely reflected in scientific consensus. You cannot change your sex! This isn't debated by anybody.  Again, these are not my "personal views", but well-established facts of our species. Christ almighty, what is going on here?
 * 2. As stated in the block log, you seem to be not here to build an encyclopedia, as reflected in your postings. WHAT POSTINGS?! Again, you just keep repeating a generic claim with nothing backing it up. You can't even quote a specific thing! None of the posts linked apply to me what-so-ever. I just explained all of this.

You initially said I violated something on the GENDER page, which I did not. Now you're referencing something else, but you can't provide a single example. Please, quote me an example of my contributions that demonstrate not being here to build an encyclopedia!

I've made a single live edit to Wikipedia, which is the linked section I just posted. It's still up! Please tell me how that's not me being here to build an encyclopedia?!

As reflected in my postings? You mean because I correctly referenced the biological sex of someone, which you don't believe in or understand? Yeah, figured as much.

My "lengthy post" where I rebuke everything you say and ask for answers? Why would that make me ineligible for editing about gender issues? You're legitimately just making up rules as you go along.

WHY ARE THERE ADMINISTRATORS WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND BASIC THINGS LIKE BIOLOGICAL SEX?! Y'all are banning me because you want to conflate gender and sex. It's unreal. Randomdude87 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems like Wikipedia is not the place for you. Your next move should be to make an unblock request, or not, and find somewhere else to spend your time. Good day. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems Wikipedia is specifically for agenda-driven ideologs with "culture wars" in mind. Randomdude87 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're on a path to losing access to this page. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I fixed your request, someone else will look at it. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on what? Rules that I didn't break just like before? And why did you delete my other unblock request?Randomdude87 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't. Scroll to the bottom. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I moved it because proper order is to place posts at the bottom. But it's up to you. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)