user talk:theleekycauldron

	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

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.

1. 13:21, 31 October 2024 – TheNuggeteer
2. 00:32, 3 January 2025 – BusterD
3. 05:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC) fill out your thing at WP:REFLECTIONS – HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 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)

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 mentality FMSky (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 much FMSky (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

(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)

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

@Kowal2701: Please see WP:TBAN. The example there about a TBAN from weather is particularly illustrative. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't really wanna post here anymore but I'm still a bit confused. How exactly can the article Elon Musk salute controversy ever be interpreted as being related to gender or sexuality?? FMSky (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

(1) the full scope of GENSEX is gender-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, got DUIs 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 are de 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 editing Donald 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 by gender-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. CaptainEek ^{Edits 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 a page about tariffs " would be losing the forest for the trees several times over. Just10A (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

30 clippings done

Per Wikipedia:Reward board#Convert 15 newspapers.com /image sources into clippings, I have done the following conversion and de-paywalling:

• 1 (Frank Sinatra)
• 2 (World Wide Web)
• 3, 4 (Jackie Chan)
• 5, 6 (Justin Trudeau)
• 7, 8 (Ku Klux Klan)
• 9, 10 (George Foreman)
• 11, 12, 13 (Los Angeles Lakers)
• 14 (Christopher Columbus)
• 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 (New York Yankees))
• 24, 25, 26, 27 (Wall Street crash of 1929)
• 28 (Babe Ruth)
• 29 (Marco Rubio)
• 30 (Manhattan)

Although, I do not currently have a use for 2 DYK credits (feel free to donate it to others!), but I do have a special 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)

Thanks so much! Happily sending some WikiLove your way :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

April music

story · music · places

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 join a discussion about what "On this day" means, day or date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Your Wikiconference 2024 talk

Hi! I was browsing last year's north america wikiconference program, and was curious if you could share the slides and notes? There wasn't a recording or notes I could find.

Thank you! E mln e (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)