This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Theleekycauldron.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.
Thanks for the heads up,Gråbergs Gråa Sång :) without wading into that discussion too directly, I guess what I'd say is that{{Press}} doesn't necessarily imply that a source is reliable, important, whatever, but itdoes imply that we cared enough to put it in a talk page box. So I don't think it makes sense include sources in{{Press}} if we don't actually care about them, like Medium blogs or whatever. I don't know why we'd care about a source that isn't notable, isn't reliable, and doesn't impact our discussion of coverage in any way. Where the ADL lands on all of that, or whether it even counts as "media organization"... I'll leave that to smarter people than me to figure out :)theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)08:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for replying! On our Sheldrake discussion, my motivation for adding it was partly a "heads up, there might by newbies with an attitude coming here", but TBH, also that the article washilarious. From a vaguely NPOV-whatever, I sometimes enjoy adding a non-WP view in these templates. Occasionally, those too inspires productive edits. I think the closer's statement was reasonable, it was a borderline thing.
Sorry I dragged you ladies into a mess this morning, but sometimes examples make themself. They did all the work although I certainly spent a boring two hours of reading to get all the diffs. I decided I wasn't going to let this disrupter go quietly.BusterD (talk)21:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for maintainingWikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders and co! I saw this section and wanted to reiterate what 216 said. There should be no need to spoof browser user-agents (I'm slightly curious why you did so in the first place).
Setting something likeen:User:GalliumBot/vandyke would be totally fine, the main thing is that it gives enough detail on what bot/script is running so that people can find you if there's any issue.Legoktm (talk)15:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Hey, 216 and Lego! you're totally right, that was just kind of something i threw in because i needed to put something there. i'll get around to fixing that soonish :)theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)07:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
The section header says "discussion", and so I placed my comments there. And I think you've been around long enough that I shouldn't need to point out many many other RfAs that had discussions located there.
@jc37: Actually, I don't think I've been around long enough, because I couldn't remember ever seeing that when I moved your comment! I went back and checked every RfA going back to 2020, the year I joined the project, and only foundone example of that happening, a thread you'd started. I guess everyone thought it was normal enough that it didn't get moved, but even on the most heavily discussed RfAs, I couldn't find anyone else leaving comments there. (Also, maybe not the best time for this, but seeMOS:PSEUDOHEAD for some reasons why it's bad to use semicolons to create normal section headings.)theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)00:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not look to your contributions to confirm, I see you around so much, I presumed, and was apparently mistaken.
Here are a few examples, I can find more if you like:
courtesy blanked list
(after clicking several randomly, I stopped with "L" : )
Oh and the semicolon was so that I didn't interfere with the ToC of the page. Not dissimilar to how others on that page used a horizontal line to break up text...
Ah, well. In all of those RfAs, the "general comments" section was above the "discussion" section, so, must've gotten moved at some point? I'm not sure why people weren't commenting in the "general comments" section and instead went in the "discussion" section below it, but that was ten years ago so beats me. I do see where you're coming from now, though :)theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)01:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
@FMSky: you're correct, it seems the topic ban was from transgender-related topics; the filer misrepresented that somewhat, but it's on me to be more careful when parsing diffs. I don't think that actually undermines the substance of what I was saying, but I appreciate you correcting my mistake.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)06:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes and now Im topic banned from GENSEX for what exactly? None of my edits even had anything to do with it --FMSky (talk)06:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
What does the logged warning at Yasuke mean btw? And a question regarding the topic ban, does that include people identifying as gay? So say for example I fix a typo in Elton John's article, would that be a violation? --FMSky (talk)07:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
The logged warning doesn't restrict your editing, it just means there's a record of the warning in theWP:AELOG. I would say that simply editing a gay man's page is not inherently a GENSEX TBAN violation, as long as the edit itself doesn't relate to GENSEX, broadly construed, but those determinations are made based on the specific content and context of the edit and I wouldn't want you to think that there are blank checks I can hand you. Handling a TBAN is hard, and I'd err on the side of caution.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)07:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Since the discussion is closed I'll comment here. I didn't think Tazmin really answered why this is a GENSEX issue. The complaining editor claimed FMsky acted based on " I have now concluded this wont lead anywhere so Im out for now. Notably, the participants at the time included someone with LGBTQ support on their user page, and two who identify as "she/her".” However, that certainly isn't proven. FMsky'a comment isn't on it's face a comment about LGBQT or pronouns in bios. That is an inference the complaining editor made and it's the only part of the complaint that is even remotely GENSEX related. It feels like the complaining editor was looking for some way to make this the same as the previous tban and found it in an open ended statement. FM's comment wasn't a good thing to say as it implies the editors have bias but it critically doesn't say what the bias is. It seems very unfair to give someone a very broad tban for a statement that isn't inherently GENSEX in nature. If nothing, the complaining editor is guilty of the same bias since they, presumably, looked at the same user pages and decided the common thread was GENSEX related content vs other material or the sum of all the material. FMsky shouldn't have edit warred and perhaps a 1RR limit is more appropriate vs trying to shoehorn a GENSEX ban based only on an open ended allegation.Springee (talk)10:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I presented a detailed analysis of the things that FMSky's comment could refer to, and why the gender/pronouns aspect was the only plausible reading. FMSky did not challenge this analysis, despite extensive comments in the thread. AGF is not a suicide pact, and we don't have to ignore the obvious implication of a statement like that. As to jurisdiction, a negative comment about someone's perceived gender politics is obviously a "gender-related dispute or controversy". FMSky is welcome to appeal the sanction, but I'll caution, if a TBAN is procedurally inappropriate here, the only substitute I can see would be something stricter, which would likely mean an indef siteblock. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)15:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
This is going to be a little much, and I recognize now this should've just been put in the AE thread, I apologize.
Same as @Springee's comment. This may be too little too late, but I had hoped the whole thing would blow over once the thread became dormant, and never saw @Theleekycauldron's message before it was too late.
1.) I have absolutely no doubt @Tamzin was acting in good faith. However, I think this was a procedural blunder. GENSEX is clearly a topic close to their heart, and they correctly stated that they would essentially recuse themselves from closing the thread. What doesn't make sense then, is how they inadvertently ended up completely steering the ship of the thread for the whole time. I think we can agree that, unfortunately, that's a little self-defeating.They should have just taken a step back from the thread altogether. We can't have admins saying: "I'm going to recuse myself from closing this....but I'm also going to completely dominate the admin section, dish out warnings, and evenremove the accused's ability to defend himself. I understand that Tamzin explained their reasons for these actions (some were certainly deserved), but it's still a bad idea. There's plenty of people watching AE, and I think this should've been just a full step-back from the case, and it unfortunately swayed the outcome.
2.) Now for the meat of the issue: I also think the GENSEX analysis was off, and that it skewed the thread direction. As I read it, @FMSky's comment reasoning was basically: "Yasuke/AC controversy is a politcal issue ---> The editors seem to have progressive gender stances ---> People with progressive gender stances are more likely to be left-leaning ---> They are biased." Now, I want to be clear. That is not acceptable. That is clearly an ad-hominem attack for insinuating bias. But to say that warrants a GENSEX TBAN is crazy. Those TBans are for people who have either 1.) been disrupting pages of that topic (not applicable here) or 2.) Have illustrated they have problematic stances that reflect personal bias for those topics. However the only "stance" FMSky expressed here was "people with progressive gender views are more likely to be left leaning." But that's not problematic....that's actually just statistically correct. Now, should he have insinuated they were biased? Again, absolutely not. But, to say that's indicative of him having issues worthy of a GENSEX ban is nuts imo.
I have a "Roman Catholic" userbox. If an editor on theAbortion page insinuates I'm biased because Catholics statistically oppose abortion, is that appropriate? No. Does that warrant the editorgetting a full topic ban for all religious topics. Again, absolutely not. Merely acknowledging that Catholics typically oppose abortion is not grounds for a TBAN, and neither is this. This should've been an edit warring dispute with a couple minor time-outs and reprimands, and everyone moves on.Just10A (talk)15:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
I find it also a bit weird that Theleekycauldron said "I'm going to close this thread unless someone objects". Then someone objected and she closes it anyway...FMSky (talk)15:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
The notice asking for objections is to other workers at the case. At AE we are looking for a rough consensus of admins, which we assume is present if other admins aren't objecting to a proposed close.Valereee (talk)16:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
One of the reasons that Assassin's Creed Shadows was subject to vitriol from gamergators was because of queer relationship options, so it's GENSEX even without the other factors.NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk)17:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
FMSky appears to be violating his topic ban with the justification of"Nice try but gays are unrelated to the ban" which seems mildly offensive.[1][2][3][4] I'm not sure if I buy that he is unable to figure out what is and what isn't GENSEX given that he already had a GENSEX related topic ban for a year.NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk)18:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
You did know because you were called out about it[5] and then went to the talk page yet again.[6][7] The statement"Nice try but gays are unrelated to the ban" also implies you knew it had queer characters even before you were called out about it.NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk)19:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
FMSky, I'm not quite willing to block for this because I did say that it's not a TBAN violation to edit about a person who happens to be gay as long as your edits don't concern gender or sexuality. That said, you're stretching my assumption of good faith here quite thin. It's not hard to see that you're (1) targeting the person who brought you to AE and (2) arguing that a video game with gay characters should be characterized more prominently as acomplete flop. If you wanna appeal the GENSEX TBAN, go ahead, but otherwise knock it off.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)19:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm not editing about a person, this is about a video game. I called the game a flop because this is what the sales section says. The comment was before the ban was ever enacted. There is no evidence of there being LGBT characters in the game. However, I'll back off since the matter is being handled somewhere else (and Im not even involved at all, yay) --FMSky (talk)19:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
The sales section does not say that. Your recent edits are a continuation of the same comment. The handful of games where you've done this have protagonist queer characters in common.NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk)05:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
I have literally made a single edit since the ban was enacted (the one on Forspoken) that was, as we now have established, not gensex related. Move on and drop the battleground mentalityFMSky (talk)14:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
@theleekycauldron, FMSky violated his topic ban again as noted by another editor,[8] by removing "conspiracy theorist" and "right-wing" from the description of a prominent Gamergate figure who is notable for the claim that "date rape is liberal fiction".[9] Apologies in advance if this is the wrong spot.NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk)20:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm not around for eight hours at least, possibly sixteen, so I can handle this when I'm back but I'd be fine if another admin got to it first.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)21:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah someone informed me on my talk page that that might be a violation, but wasn't sure himself and neither am I. I didnt see it so that was an honest mistake. Its hard if every person you come across is somehow related to sexuality. The edit is reverted and I wont't visit the topic anymore. Other than that I dont have any arguments here, if that warrants a block than I'll accept it. In fact, I think I'm done with this site for a while as I have completely lost hope in the userbase here.I try man, I really try, but at some point its too muchFMSky (talk)21:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @FMSky: I'm not going to block you, because I don't currently see anydisruption that a block would prevent, but I do think it's important to be clear that this was not just a violation, but an unambiguous violation (contrast the grayer area ofForspoken). The scope ofWP:GENSEX isGender-related disputes or controversies and associated people. Gamergate is a gender-related dispute or controversy (and indeed was explicitly named inthe motion that created GENSEX), as is the legitimacy of the concept of date rape, and Cernovich is associated with both of these things.Elon Musk, who you recently madean edit about, is also a person associated with such controversies; seeViews of Elon Musk § Transgender issues. Based on your comments on this talk page and your own, I get the impression that you misunderstand the nature of this topic ban. You're being a bit overbroad when you say that it'd apply to "every person ... somehow related to sexuality", but you are correct that it covers a broad range of articles, including a large percentage of political figures. And the way topic bans work is that the burden ison you to confirm that each edit you make does not fall into that topic area.Now, speaking just as one admin, if you're making your normal metal- and punk-related edits and you make an edit about someone likeLaura Jane Grace and there's no indication you know she's been involved in trans rights activism, I'm personally not gonna block you over that, because that's a plausible honest mistake, and I don't like making blocks for editsthat improve the encyclopedia. That said, your mileage may vary with other admins; I think most AE admins have some conception of a "de minimis violation", but we don't all necessarily draw the line in the same place. But I think for really any admin, including me, you're going to get a lot less sympathy about "I didn't know this person was related to GENSEX" if they're a political commentator. If you want to make an edit about someone like Cernovich or Musk, you really have to do your due diligence to see if they're "associated people". Reading the lede of their article, certainly, is the bare minimum. (Musk's lede doesn't mention his involvement in trans-related disputes, so compared to Cernovich I think that's a more forgivable mistake, although, again, still a clear violation.)I'm going tolog this as a warning for TBAN violations, but I'm hopeful that the clarifications I've given here, coupled with the openness to feedback you've shown so far, means that this can end here. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)22:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Is it just content about to GENSEX, or broadly every article that includes something about it, where the edit made wasn’t related to GENSEX?Kowal2701 (talk)10:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Sorry if I’ve misunderstood, but isn’t the latter effectively a TBAN from politics? But alternatively, if it were just content directly related to GENSEX, there’d still be edge cases, and broadly construed usually means that if you’re arguing why an edit shouldn’t count as a violation, you’re probably wrongKowal2701 (talk)10:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
(1) the full scope of GENSEX isgender-related disputes or controversies and associated people, and Elon Musk is an associated person. (this is something that should probably be fixed)
(2) Not specifically saying you've done this, but some admins might look at editing about people or things that have been involved with gender-related disputes in ways that tend to align with the editor's stated views on gender as a violation, even if the editing itself doesn't directly touch the gender-related disputes. Like, if I went to a bunch of anti-trans commentators' pages and added in sentences about how they all, say, gotDUIs in college, that would (in addition to probably being a BLP violation) be within the scope of GENSEX. such is the nature of "broadly construed".theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)19:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
OK then, thanks for the clarification. Safe to say I really underestimated the restrictions of this ban..FMSky (talk)19:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything to fix. One of the major problems with GENSEX disruption is its tendency to metastasize outward to related disputes. So a dispute over a trans rights issue becomes a dispute over one activist in that issue becomes a dispute over a creative work that person made, etc. Your DUI-addition example is a good illustration of why the "associated people" clause needs to be there, because otherwise those edits might not be covered (depending on how central those people's anti-trans commentary is). Really it doesn't make GENSEX much different than the way we treat traditional political topic areas; it's just that in those, politicians arede jure part of politics, and so don't need to be mentioned specifically in the scope. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)19:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin: I don't disagree that it's nifty for catching things like "this video game is being brigaded for having an enby creator", but not everyone who catches a GENSEX TBAN is a GamerGate troll. If someone gets TBANed from GENSEX for something closer to 2025 than 2015 – say, poor conduct in the area of trans medicine – I think they'd be quite surprised to find out that they're technically banned from editingDonald Trump filmography. You could argue that most admins would look the other way on that, but unwritten rules and exceptions to overly broad mandates have a tendency to make enforcement unintuitive and arbitrary. It's definitely true that some people, particularly back in 2015, needed that clause, but it's less useful now and I don't think it should be the default. I would look at the DUI example as something that would be covered bygender-related disputes or controversies; if someone did that while on a GENSEX TBAN, i'd be comfortable blocking them even on the narrower scope (on GAMING if nothing else).theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)19:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Someone TBANned in 2025 immediately making contentious but not-gender-related edits to the article of a gender culture warrior would seem a counterexample to that typology. Admins do have the option to impose narrower TBANs than the full scope, and I can see doing that in some cases, although I would have opposed it if suggested here.You're the arb here, and if you want to propose an amendment to the case then that's your prerogative, but I for one would strongly oppose any effort to limit admins' options in moderating one of our most difficult topic areas. I'm curious for the opinions of @CaptainEek, who I was talking to recently about the frustrating limitations in our ability to address cultural proxy wars imported from Twitter and wherever else. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)19:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
probably out of my depth here There’s a big difference between someone where their vocality on trans issues contribute significantly to their notability and someone like Elon Musk/Donald Trump where there a billion other descriptors people would first think of before anti-trans activist (I can think of a few myself!)Kowal2701 (talk)20:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what question I'm being called upon to answer? I must say I'm hard pressed to agree that anything about Elon falls into GENSEX; I don't think the salute controversy is a part of GENSEX. But by that same token, just because someone isn't topic banned in an area doesn't mean that it's advisable for them to edit in it either. If you aren't cut out out for editing culture war topics (i.e. referring to the "gays"), then a wise editor might steer clear of culture war topics more generally (including the ever controversial Elon). We have nearly 7 million articles, most of which have nothing to do with the wide ranging culture war. There are a million articles on plants, fish, birds, esoteric history, and little towns, which are much safer places to edit.Is it time for a "culture wars" CT? Maybe, and I've been receptive to the idea in the past, but we declined to pass one in Yasuke. We'd need the right case, and it would be difficult to come up with a definition that wasn't overly broad.CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓20:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
This is by far the best analysis. I think we all understand Tbans are supposed to be broad, but this Elon argument is a little ridiculous. The idea that someone with a GENSEX tban can't edit, say,History of tariffs in the United States because "such a page includes actions by Trump" ---> "Trump, in the hundreds of political issues he's covered, has touched trans issues ---> "Therefore a GENSEX banned person is barred from editing apage about tariffs " would be losing the forest for the trees several times over.Just10A (talk)01:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Although, I do not currently have a use for 2 DYK credits (feel free to donate it to others!), but I do have aspecial request for you. I would like any form of recognition/award that you can give me for my work. Thanks!~/Bunnypranav:<ping>12:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for improving article quality in April! -My story is about music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC,Easter Oratorio. I wanted that on the main page for Easter Sunday, but no, twice. You are invited to joina discussion about what "On this day" means, day or date. --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receivetournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round.This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.
Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:
History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from fourfeatured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and agood topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews
In addition, we would like to recognizeGeneralissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.
The full scores for round 2 can be seenhere. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
never heard of roundabout dogs, but I love that too! I see and raise youGävle goat.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)19:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Miscellaneous
BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24good articles, 28Did you know articles, and oneIn the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplierfeatured articles onBlack Widow (Natasha Romanova) andGrace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from fourfeatured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and agood topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews
Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.
