User talk:Thisischarlesarthur: Difference between revisions

Line 135: Line 135:

:::It’s encouraging that there’s a growing number of people on the Khelif Talk page who can see the group of gatekeepers who will under no circumstances countenance the idea that Khelif has an SRY gene, no matter who says so, including Khelif.

:::That little group of gatekeepers and those like them, though, are ruining the Wikipedia experience for would-be editors. While their precise agenda is not clear, they really should ask themselves what they are defending. Perhaps they could tell the rest of us, because I for one certainly can’t figure it out. [[User:Thisischarlesarthur|Thisischarlesarthur]] ([[User talk:Thisischarlesarthur#top|talk]]) 00:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

{{Uw-aeblock|indef=yes|topic=gg|reason=topic ban violations on your own talk page in response to a topic ban violation block|sig=yes}}

== Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion ==

Hello, Thisischarlesarthur!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don’t be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It’s normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don’t worry if you don’t understand everything at first—it’s fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article’s talk page. Be civil, and don’t restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

I don’t have sufficient status to edit the Imane Khelif page, so I thought I’d put what seemed germane into Talk. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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.

M.Bitton (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

M.Bitton (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:2024 Summer Olympics boxing controversy (see diff). Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. M.Bitton (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a link to a BBC article which discussed the topic. Is the BBC now regarded as an unreliable source?

I pointed out that the page topic completely misrepresents what the controversy was actually about. Please explain why making Wikipedia more accurately reflect the real world is defamatory.

I have also responded on the Talk page for the Sex verification in sports, requesting consensus for adding the fact that SRY screening was in place in 1992-6 at the Olympics, and is being reintroduced by multiple sports organisations. At the moment, Wikipedia readers of that page would be less informed about the history and the present. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion was that they had the DSD 46XY 5-ARD, which means they have been through male puberty is your claim about living people. M.Bitton (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a precise description of the assertion, and what it would mean.

Would you find it tolerable if it simply said the assertion was they are 46XY 5-ARD?

If your concern is that repeating a claim could be libellous, then why is the (simply untrue and never made and eagerly refuted here) asserted claim of trans status acceptable? Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Thisischarlesarthur. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thisischarlesarthur,

Your comment at Special:Diff/1336812702 is a clear violation of your topic ban. Pinging @Asilvering for visibility. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ordinarily I’d give a warning before a block but there really is no ambiguity about that comment at all. — asilvering (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban on the page Talk:Imane Khelif, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

asilvering (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: “No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see “Important notes“). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.”

It’s somewhat ironic that the hammer of God has come down on this user, substantially for good-faith statements that were arguable (though unpopular) at the time they were made, but some of which now seem justified. Riposte97 (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There’s nothing ironic about someone who has blatantly violated their topic ban receiving a block. TarnishedPath^talk 16:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Riposte97 – I do find it very funny that attempting to help people who are dithering about something by providing the original text and a translation of a relevant passage on a *Talk* page merits a ban. No good deed goes unpunished.

But the linguistic contortions on show to insist that someone from a former French colony, where French is a widely used language, who spoke in French in the interview (sometimes checking for the precise translation from Arabic, as the L’Equipe interview mentions) must be utterly mistaken when they reply “Yes” to a question – that is just too hilarious. And to then insist that the word “or” in a set of regulations actually means “and” – I thought I’d seen it all, but no.

It’s encouraging that there’s a growing number of people on the Khelif Talk page who can see the group of gatekeepers who will under no circumstances countenance the idea that Khelif has an SRY gene, no matter who says so, including Khelif.

That little group of gatekeepers and those like them, though, are ruining the Wikipedia experience for would-be editors. While their precise agenda is not clear, they really should ask themselves what they are defending. Perhaps they could tell the rest of us, because I for one certainly can’t figure it out. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for topic ban violations on your own talk page in response to a topic ban violation block, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

~~~~

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Thisischarlesarthur. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 00:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply