user talk:theleekycauldron

This talk page is archived.
To browse the archives, press "Show" and select the month of posts you want to view.

2020 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to move, so it's leeky's turn – check back later! (last mover: CopperyMarrow15)

Inbox

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Sometimes messages slip through the cracks. Sorry about that! I keep this list to let me know what I still need to respond to – feel free to add your own name and message here if you're still looking for a response from me.

13:21, 31 October 2024 – TheNuggeteer
00:32, 3 January 2025 – BusterD
05:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC) fill out your thing at WP:REFLECTIONS – House Blaster (talk • he/they)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

Dennis Brown

Bureaucrat changes

Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

GB fan

Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your AE post

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1284869455

I never once had a GENSEX topic ban at any point before. Why did you write this? FMSky (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think your edits absolutely related to GENSEX; I'll refer you to this comment of Tamzin's in the AE thread. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The logged warning doesn't restrict your editing, it just means there's a record of the warning in the WP: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 even remove 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 the Abortion page insinuates I'm biased because Catholics statistically oppose abortion, is that appropriate? No. Does that warrant the editor getting 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note

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.

It's not that big a deal, but it really was weird to see my comments moved. - jc37 23:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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 found one 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 see MOS: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)[reply]

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...

I hope this helps. - jc37 01:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Possible topic ban violation

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)[reply]

The article Forspoken is not related to gender or sexuality - FMSky (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The protagonist is a lesbian and it is one of the games that was repeatedly targeted by gamergators and "anti-woke" activists from places like 4chan due to Black Girl Gamers. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the case (if it is, it should probably be added?) but the article says nothing about this at all and I wasn't editing anything related to that. I discovered the article because of the user BMWF's conduct https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forspoken&diff=prev&oldid=1285195737 --FMSky (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 a complete 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 mentality FMSky (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 much FMSky (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @FMSky: I'm not going to block you, because I don't currently see any disruption 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 of Forspoken). The scope of WP:GENSEX is Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people. Gamergate is a gender-related dispute or controversy (and indeed was explicitly named in the 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 made an edit about, is also a person associated with such controversies; see Views 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 is on 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 like Laura 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 edits that 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 to log 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 wrong Kowal2701 (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]