User talk:Scapulus

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

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

Introduction to contentious topics
■ ∃ 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. Scapulustakk 19:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Transphobia from Scapulus. Thank you. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 19:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm honored. I wonder what the San-they-drin will decide. <b style="color:#EC9906">Scap</b><b style="color:#BEB25A">ulus</b><b style="color:#FFC419">takk</b> 19:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
<div class="user-block uw-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> 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:. Salvio giuliano 20:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * , 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)
 * 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)