User talk:Gazumpedheit

Welcome

Hello Gazumpedheit! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Masterhatch (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments 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 Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

"Further reading"

Hi, I see another user has already shifted your contributions to "further reading" on several articles into "see also".

Wikipedia:Further reading is generally reserved for further reading on the subject of the article. So referring to other books in general is not advisable.

Thanks and happy editing. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I am concerned reading your user page that you're essentially saying "I am here to edit Wikipedia from a certain political viewpoint". Please remember to abide by neutrality, having a read of WP:NPOV is probably good to do. GraziePrego (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @GraziePrego. You haven't noticed that most gensex articles on wiki since about 2015 have been heavily biased in favour of TRA (Trans radical activist) viewpoints? I kindly suggest you ask those TRA wikipedians why they have been "edit(ing) Wikipedia from a certain political viewpoint". Neutrality and balance has been missing from these articles, and is bullied off as soon as anyone tries to suggest it.

Meet you here in 5 years and we'll see whether the Graham Linehan page still labels him an "anti-transgender activist" or is finally able to label him as the "women's rights activist" he rightly is. Linehan lost his livelihood for standing up for the rights of women, and for highlighting the chemical castration of children by so-called puberty "blockers" (most of whom would have grown up to be otherwise healthy, gay adults). As a homosexual, I have huge respect for the man, and I'm left looking at the damage the T has done to my LGB community. Unfortunately, these TRA Hiroo Onoda wikipedians will not accept defeat lightly, and it will take years until they accept that reality has won out, and that humans cannot change sex. The good thing is that the Talk pages contain all the receipts we need. Look for the ones with trans flags in the signatures, there you'll find your users who came "to edit Wikipedia from a certain political viewpoint". Gazumpedheit (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao GraziePrego (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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.

CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CambrianCrab Duly noted. Gazumpedheit (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linehan page

Hey,

I don't want to ping them and summon them here, but it's clear that handthatfee... is a biased editor who has made up their mind to shut down all debate. I've tried to hash it out with them on their talk page, but it's clear that no amount of reliable sources I could provide will change their mind as they're pushing their own viewpoint on Wikipedia, which I think is pretty shameful. They said there's an clear consensus, yet I pointed around 40% of editors on the discussion were open to a change, so there's no basis to say there's a clear consensus.

So I was reaching out to see if there's some way we can appeal in a way that doesn't allow them to shut down the discussion unilaterally, either through a RFC or DRN? While I would rather not lose the argument, if I feel like I've lost the argument fairly, by consensus, then I can take it, when it's artificially shut down by activist editors then I cannot take that lying down. Icecold (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Icecold, welcome to Wikipedia of 2025. I'm afraid I can't have much to offer rather than to ping Void if removed for their advice, as a person who has far greater knowledge of the mechanics of Wiki than I. I would wager that Hand That Feeds owes you an apology to be honest, for their unqualified dismissal of your valid points. First they closed the discussion on the Graham Linehan talk page prematurely, then they shut down your well-put and valid points on their talk page, claiming you were "trying to push an agenda".

There's a chilling effect in operation here. Shutting down debate on the Linehan page when clearly an updated debate needs to be had. They're simply not willing to review sources that state that "His comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations..." is clearly now, a much more neutral and unbiased way to describe his stance than simply: He is point blank an "anti-transgender activist".

By the way, based on my previous experiences with this latest Wikipedia, you might notice that the thread you substantially added to on the Linehan page might be conveniently dispatched to the Archive section in a few days without much fanfare; a place where barely anyone will be able to see the objection you brought up, excepting those rare few who actually know how to access the Archive space. Oh, but of course, "it's all part of standard Wikipedia policy"®. Not concealing objection to a page by any means. How fair. How just. Gazumpedheit (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well Hand That Feeds has demanded I keep off their talk page querying their unilateral decision which is ironically generally seen poorly under wikipedia rules - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keep_off_my_talk_page! not that wikipedia conventions seem to matter much to them, they're ignoring NPOV as well.

But yeah, it's very scary. In both the UK (due to the supreme court judgement) and the US (with Trumps exec order) the overton window is shifting to stopping the shutting down of gender critical viewpoints by calling them transphobic, but yet if you come onto wikipedia (or reddit), you're told that any criticism or worries raised is transphobic and bigoted. I've had gender critical accused of being the same as racism which is pure hyperbole. Wikipedia isn't representing society, and is clearly, on several contenious issues, just representing the opinions of a Wikipedia editors, like like how Reddit moderators enforce their opinions on their subreddits. Someone raised that if society does something 'wrong' then wikipedia should call it out, but what makes editors think they are the arbiters of what is right and wrong over what has been decided in due process in a country? One editor indirectly compared the supreme court judgement with Nazi Germany. 😂

The mad thing to me, is I'm only asking for a slight moderation of the language to stop it appearing as if by FACT he is anti-trans/transphobic. I'm happy for it to say he's been accused of it, I'm not trying to shut down or hide criticism of him, I've been convinced that changing to 'Gender Critical' on it's own is a step too far for wikipedia, so I'm only proposing to add to the article not remove. Something like "Linehan has been described and would describe himself as Gender Critical [refs], yet critics would describe him as anti-trans [refs]". That seems as neutral, fair and fact based as you can get. Yet I'm accused of pushing an agenda and trying to use wikipedia as PR to rehabilitate his image?! Pure nonsense. Icecold (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good intentions towards presenting a balanced and more up-to-date summary for Graham Linehan were clear to me from the start. Unfortunately, I was not surprised when they tried to throw you under the bus specifically because of that.

Because Hand That Feeds shut down the thread so quickly, I had to go to @Snokalok's Talk page on 13 May 2025 to respond to one of their comments they had made "that now that the British government has taken a stance that trans rights are bad and evil and this minority group is actually wrong to want basic dignity, we must all "admit" that GC views are actually the correct stance and prostrate ourselves in apology while rewriting the entire project to reflect this "vindication". I tried to explain that actually gender critical (GC) people don't think that "trans rights are bad and evil and this minority group is actually wrong to want basic dignity" and we actually just want fairness for all. You can see for yourself how that went on the talk page. Also, I was told in no uncertain terms never to ping Hand That Feeds again (maybe they meant just that specific thread though - they weren't very clear). Side note: I'd love if someone could provide a link as to how you more experienced editors include text from others' conversations in that green colour within comments here. Some of us are quite new to all this. Pinging @Void if removed for comment. Gazumpedheit (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new section on Graham Linehans talk page. I have gone to pains to make it as neutral and fact based as I possibly can as I do not want to be accused of bringing any bias to the discussion, or for it to be shut down due to insufficent sources etc. I've gone to pains to make it as palatable as possible Icecold (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen they've banned you without seemingly a chance for you to respond and then gloating about it on your talk page. Classy. Icecold (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Gazumpedheit. Thank you. Snokalok (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin forgive me if I'm out of order here, but I've just noticed this, and noticed how the user had less than 30 mins from notice there was a complaint about them to them being banned. Do they not get a chance to mount a defence of themselves? Seems unfair to me Icecold (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin also just to add, a permanent ban seems a massive reaction, do editors not get warnings, temp bans etc first? Icecold (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Icecold Not if the behaviour is egregious enough to warrant an immediate permaban, as in this case. If someone isn't here to build Wikipedia and is here for other reasons then they're shown the door pretty bluntly. GraziePrego (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the area of Gender/Sex on Wikipedia is designated as a "contentious topic", which means that the threshold for admins stepping in is much lower and punishments for bad behaviour more substantial. GraziePrego (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well this was not a contentious topic action, procedurally speaking. Nor is it a punishment. But yes, when an editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather readily acknowledges that they are here to engage in culture-war battleground conduct, and is openly targeting others based on their gender, that merits an immediate and indefinite block. See generally Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, Wikipedia:Zero tolerance, and WP:BEFOREBLOCK. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin just think that everyone, no matter how egregious they have or haven't been, deserve a chance to say something in defence. 🤷 Nevermind. Icecold (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]