User talk:JacktheBrown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from User talk:JackkBrown)


Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Ukranie Russian war

Stop icon

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: edit war? Not true. And anyway, if that were true, the edit war is with you, so there's no point in you sending me the warning. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted [[1]] [[2]] [[3]], a revert does not have to be all of an edit, only some of it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no, not just me. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can give you a contentious topic, you can’t forbid them

This page doesn’t belong to you. Yes, you can remove things, that signifies that you’ve read it. “ Also, a user cannot avoid administrator attention or notices and communications that policies or guidelines require to be posted merely by demanding their talk page not be posted to. Still, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or a similar kind of disruptive behavior.”. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: the user in question has never previously "banned" me from writing on their talk page, on the contrary they "banned" me without warning me first (see: [4]). I'm not at fault, I only contacted them once, today. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just telling you policy. You can ban someone from the usual sort of posts, but not from giving you that alert. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sapsby (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sapsby: you have reported me for objectively correct edits; clearly you want to kill my Wikipedia profile. Congratulations. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White pizza and Pizza bianca

I have now split the article. I believe you saw my proposal and didn't object.

We could use a photo of a pizza bianca, if you can get hold of one. If you can take it yourself, that is. Also, there's content from it:Pizza bianca that could be added to the English article. Un assiolo (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Un assiolo: very good work, congratulations! JacktheBrown (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Hi, Jack. I'm sorry to have to inform you that you've been topic banned from WP:GENSEX per the discussion at ANI. I'm hoping this won't be a difficult area for you to avoid, as it's nowhere near any of your primary editing interests.

Please read the links above to make sure you understand exactly what this means, as while I'm not adding broadly construed to this (which I hope will help you stay out of trouble), you really shouldn't get anywhere near it. Any questions, general ones about what this means or specific ones about whether a particular edit would be seen as violating this, should be dealt with here on your talk page by discussing with an administrator. Valereee (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: you administrators have made a very fair decision. "I'm hoping this won't be a difficult area for you to avoid, as it's nowhere near any of your primary editing interests.": no problem. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: could you please list me all the controversial articles that I should, to be safe, avoid? JacktheBrown (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't possible. Just stay away from anything vaguely to do with sexuality. And it's not just articles, it's anywhere. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, Doug is correct, it's impossible to list every article where GENSEX could apply. One thing you can do is check the article's talk page to see if it's listed as a CT within GENSEX, as some aren't obvious. For instance, J. K. Rowling is listed as contentious within GENSEX. She herself is a cisgender woman, but she's expressed opinions about trans people that are controversial. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, it would be much simpler if you advised that they shouldn't discuss or edit about sexuality or gender anywhere and that they should stay away form articles where it is clear that is a major part of the material. TarnishedPathtalk 14:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I would like to inform you that the user blocked indefinitely created this, but I never used those two accounts and IPs; I would like a check user to take care of it. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's something we don't do. See WP:CHECKME. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: if it's not checked, it should be closed; I never used those two accounts and IPs, but I would like a decision to be made. Thank you very much. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not be closed. You're accused of using accounts, not just IPs. I'm not touching it . Doug Weller talk 14:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, there's a backlog, it'll be closed eventually. Valereee (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, the WP:TBAN policy explicitly states that WP:BROADLY applies unless otherwise stated. Are you explicitly stating that WP:BROADLY doesn't apply? TarnishedPathtalk 14:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that. I think without broadly construed it is confusing and ambiguous. How would an editor know what they could not do? Doug Weller talk 14:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller, I entirely agree. How would an editor know where the bounds are? TarnishedPathtalk 14:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally left out broadly construed because it's GENSEX, but I see TP is correct that this needs to be specifically stated, so I'll go do that at the editing restrictions. I don't feel it's any more confusing or ambiguous with/without, but I do feel someone could jump on the t-banned editor for validly correcting a typo from he > her, for example. Valereee (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I would like to stay completely out of topics on GENSEX, they aren't suitable for me. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping on someone for a he/her typo would obviously be out of order, but I do feel that without the WP:BROADLY the terms of the WP:TBAN become too ambiguous. TarnishedPathtalk 14:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can bring it up at WP:XRV if you like. I'm open to the community deciding I'm incorrect. Valereee (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think about it. I'm generally against going to appeal boards so I probably won't. I do however think that leaving out the BROADLY is leaving it more problematic both for the editor and everyone else. I'll leave it there for this particular discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 14:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have some thoughts on this too, but I've taken them to Valereee's talk page. If any of this ends up affecting JTB, someone can update him. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a t-banned editor for about 18 months, I can attest that the "broadly construed" part is exactly what's kept me thinking I'll be jumped for correcting any small typo at J.K. Rowling's article. I agree that such a jump would be "obviously" out of order, but that wouldn't stop it from happening; the truth of what's "obvious" would just become part of the post-jump discussion. I advise you keep strictly to that simplest path of complete avoidance you mentioned at 14:39, Jack, and be lulled into no sense of security (false or otherwise). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I've made plenty of edits involving gender and sexuality during my ban, and not one has been a problem to anyone. Granted, you have no reason to think my past experience indicative of your own future results, so choose wisely. But I think you'll likewise have nothing to fear when it involves cis people's genders and sexualities. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: I have forbidden myself to edit all controversial topics; style changes (example: MOS:CAPTION and MOS:GEOLINK) are, obviously, allowed: [5]. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If those allowances are what's obvious to you at this point, I think that only seems fair; good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Jack. The discussion at AN is telling me pretty clearly that I did not have this much discretion in setting the limits of the topic ban from GENSEX; I'm going to have to convert it to a 'broadly construed' restriction.
Broadly construed in GENSEX is particularly difficult to navigate. It often intersects with BLP, another contentious topic, the level of scrutiny for folks under a GENSEX tban is extremely high, and the tolerance for edits that can trigger a complaint is extremely low. I would highly recommend you ask here first before editing a biography of anyone who is not cisgender and/or of anyone who has ever weighed in on subjects of gender/sexual identity/politics. And as I said before, check the talk page headers; if GENSEX is in there, just let it go, even if it's an obvious typo. Don't weigh in on any discussions anywhere that involve GENSEX. Literally the only place you should be discussing or asking questions is here on this talk page with me or another admin. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I didn't understand; can I edit, for example, pages like Ricky Martin (he's homosexual), Tiziano Ferro (he's homosexual) and Gianni Versace (he was homosexual)? JacktheBrown (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs

Jack, you'd asked whether you are allowed to edit Ricky Martin, Tiziano Ferro, and Gianni Versace, all of whom are/were gay. None of these articles has a GENSEX banner, so in theory you should be able to edit any portion of those articles that didn't deal with their sexuality or their stance on politics, etc., as it affects LGBTQ+ people.

In practice, however: probably best to simply stay away. One thing other editors definitely do not want to see is any hint of you 'nibbling around the edges' of the topic ban. The goal here is to avoid it altogether, not try to determine exact boundaries. No one really knows what broadly construed means. The exact boundaries are always going to be blurry and are always going to be in the eye of the beholder. Trying to figure those boundaries out for yourself is just going to make people think you're trying to figure out how to game the system.

And again, to be very, very clear: you may only ask these questions HERE. You may not ask them or discuss the ban on any other page, including my talk, Teahouse, or anywhere else. The only exception is in an appeal, which is not something you should even be thinking about right now. Valereee (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: no, I absolutely don't want to violate the rules, the rules must be respected. Simply I have already edited these three articles in the past (for example, regarding an unmentioned article, I wrote the initial quote on the Sergio Leone page (here). I'm Italian, so I know Leone very well; excluding me from editing the page wouldn't be good for the encyclopaedia). JacktheBrown (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a particular edit is or isn't good for the encyclopedia isn't going to be part of anyone's assessment of whether or not that edit violates a topic ban. I am not exaggerating; it will receive zero consideration. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: so basically I can no longer edit any page of any living person? Only Italian cuisine? I don't comment. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can edit pages of living people, the tban is not about BLPs. It's when a BLP crosses into sexuality and gender that you need to be careful. Leone isn't gay? Totally outside the tban except something like reporting his stance on LGBTQ+ people or something. Valereee (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: however, Sergio Leone was heterosexual. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so probably completely outside the tban unless like J. K. Rowling he's made statements or has done work that would be covered by the ban. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: but for homosexual people I can't even make style changes (e.g. MOS:CAPTION)? JacktheBrown (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, it's not that simple. In theory, you can work on biographies of people who are LGBTQ+, and in general it should be outside the topic ban if the article is not bannered as GENSEX and the edits you're making aren't related to GENSEX. The fact a person is LGBTQ+ doesn't mean the article about them is necessarily contentious. Some gay people are just people who are gay. Others are contentious figures. Some cis people involve themselves in gender politics.
It might be more productive if you'd like to ask about a specific edit you were wondering if you can make rather than trying to pin down the hypothetical boundaries, which as I've said are blurry and in the eye of the beholder. Valereee (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: the specific edits are, for example, MOS:CAPTION, MOS:GEOLINK, fixing quotation marks and apostrophes, adding commas, etc. (see: [6]). JacktheBrown (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At Foreign relations of Israel? What are you seeing as possibly GENSEX there? This tban isn't about all WP:contentious topics. It's about WP:GENSEX, gender and sexuality. Valereee (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: no, this is an example of the kind of edits I'm talking about. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Yes, in theory edits like these should be fine in an article that both
  1. isn't bannered GENSEX
  2. and, even if the article itself isn't bannered, aren't within a section that deals with GENSEX-related content.
You can read more at WP:TBAN, which uses a tban from 'weather' as an example. Valereee (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: in order to avoid risks, I will only edit pages about sexually non-controversial people, and therefore, as a consequence, articles about these people will be less precise in terms of style changes; the encyclopaedia will lose something. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's fair to Wikipedia, considering how very many sexually controversial people are/were not GENSEX-related. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender. Also, Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force.
There's absolutely nothing in that explicitly approved scope that a reasonable person might construe to prevent style edits to an article or section pertaining to a dispute about any traditional marital affair, non-hate sex crime, inanimate object fetish, raunchy lyric, anatomically correct statue or cisgender celebrity's real or rumoured interactions with a conventional gerbil, uncle or aunt.
That said, again, we are the test subjects in this experiment and Wikipedia is a work in progress. You might get jumped for an edit that changes the presentation or layout of sex talk, despite it having nothing to do with those two kinds of discussions/disputes to which the GENSEX page claims its discretionary sanctions apply. I don't recall reading of it happening to someone else, yet, that's all. I could be forgetting someone. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JacktheBrown&oldid=1242466435"