User talk:RafaelJC12

Welcome!

Hello, RafaelJC12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Romani people did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Govindaharihari (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2021 (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 special powers 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 practice;
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.

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. 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. — SamX [talk · contribs] 21:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, tell me what "unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content" have I written. I can't know what you're talking about if you're this vague. Please tell me whether I have said anything that's untruthful. RafaelJC12 (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SamX RafaelJC12 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sophie Labelle. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How was my editing disruptive? RafaelJC12 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}. – bradv 21:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RafaelJC12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The admins of Sophie Labelle's page are just censoring any mention of Labelle's fetish art. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/21/trans-cartoonist-diaper-fetish-art-kink-invited-speak-children/ https://www.heraldscotland.com/life_style/arts_ents/23342004.row-trans-nappy-cartoonist-asked-speak-library/#comments-anchor RafaelJC12 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating the Biographies of Living Persons policy, but you seem to think that your comments(that even I as an admin cannot see) were proper, so there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@331dot I believe that my editing, which you can check here, was proper. Furthermore, it is impossible for me to conclude that any of my editing was improper if the admins will not give any argument for why it should be. The only reason my edits are reverted is because the admins want to censor any mention of the subjects' fetish material. RafaelJC12 (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot How can you decline unblocking without even verifying if the blocking was warranted? RafaelJC12 (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are not buried that deep lightly. I trust the oversighter involved, who has been vetted in order to obtain that function. If you truly feel that tool was misused, that's a matter for WP:ARBCOM. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I appeal to them? RafaelJC12 (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RafaelJC12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked after making this edit on Sophie Labelle page, which was censored by the admins without proper justification. In fact, the admins of Sophie Labelle's page have repeatedly censored any mentioned of Labelle's fetish material, such as this one. RafaelJC12 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not a reason to unblock you. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Daniel Case How? I just argued that the blocking was unwarranted , how is this not a reason to unblock? RafaelJC12 (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note from blocking administrator: You were blocked for repeatedly attacking the subject of an article, in violation of our biographies on living persons policies. The diff you linked above is one such example, but some of your comments were so bad that they had to be oversighted, deleted from the history and from the record of your contributions. I chose to apply a regular block rather than an oversight block in the hopes that you would realize that such comments have no place here, whether they are aimed toward an individual or toward a group of people. The ball is in your court to convince an administrator (any admin) that you are prepared to refrain from such rhetoric and instead help us write a collaborative encyclopedia. – bradv 17:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv Mentioning the fetish art is not "attacking the subject of the article". You're just being dishonest. My comments on the talk page we're literally just "you can't talk about Labelle's fetish material here", you just censored it because, again, you'll censor any mention of the fetish material she made. RafaelJC12 (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]