Injusticewtf

  Hello, I'm Rsjaffe. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Incidents of necrophilia, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In context, that was not necrophilia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rsjaffe, yes this is my first edit so thanks for the information. Here is the source.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-b2062466.html

I am not sure what you mean in the last sentence? How to add the source? Injusticewtf (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll see if I can readd it and add the source.

Not sure what you mean "that was not necrophilia". The subject matter is that I quoted. Injusticewtf (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hi Injusticewtf! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Incidents of necrophilia several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Incidents of necrophilia, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The content added is a clear and unambiguous violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. There isn't anything to discuss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No it does not fall under those terms. It states this person matter of factly, quoted with citation.

The terms I added are correct, neutral (NPOV), verifiable (V), which People who reject it are doing so for bias. Yes, there is nothing to discuss if you have a bias and so you shouldn't be commenting here until you address that. Injusticewtf (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Injusticewtf reported by User:Rsjaffe (Result: ). Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks rsjaffe. I Injusticewtf (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at Incidents of necrophilia.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am new here so I did not know we needed to discuss each time on a Talk page. I thought adding the rationale in the Undo was the course for making changes. Nevertheless there is a lot of bias surrounding Johnny Depp which is not allowing me to publish this fact. Johnny Depp's text message meets the criteria of the definition at the top of the page. Since it meets this criteria, please keep it and add page protection. This is history which we should guard. Injusticewtf (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

One other thing but none of the rationales for undo having made any logic. First rationale was it was not necrophilia, when it clearly stated it in the quote. Second was it had to be the act but not the desire, but the editor did not check the definition. Third is it has to ne NPOV, however it was written that way. Calling out bias when I do not understand the logic of the Undo is not inappropriate by the way. Injusticewtf (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Injusticewtf (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is inappropriate; Wikipedia editors are expected to assume those they interact with are dealing in good faith unless there's specific reason not to. It is inappropriate therefore to jump immediately to saying "People who reject it are doing so for bias" as if there's no other reason someone could possibly disagree with you.

If you want to be unblocked, you'll need to use the appeal template as laid out in the block notice. Any reviewing admin is going to be less interested in hearing why your edits were good/why you believe you're right about the content, and more looking to hear that you understand and accept Wikipedia's policies, particularly assuming good faith and consensus. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You said "unless there's a specific reason not to." I do have a good reason to expect there is bias in this case because the public and many individuals are heavily biased due to Johnny Depp's court litigation in the US, which he ensured was televised and was distributed via social media internationally. However, I can be accountable and say that this might also be my bias. Not in my edits, but in expecting those are biased when their edits are incorrect or don't show logic. Also Rsjaffe suggested it requires a page to discuss these issues. I don't think I should be blocked. This is something we are coming to understand. Injusticewtf (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

requires discussion of bias

Decline reason:

Nothing here convinces me it would be beneficial to Wikipedia to lift this block. Yamla (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2024 (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.

hi there, Please see my comments above. I agree with Rsjaffe that this requires more discussion on the page for Incidents of Necrophila and once consensus is met, we need page protection. I believe I am seen as the problem, but it is the subject matter and the heavy bias in the current public milieu that is causing this issue. Also, procedures such as opening pages for more discussion should not require a block, but a suggestion first to do this. Injusticewtf (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

also I just saw a reason that I was blocked as "here only to attack Johnny Depp." This again would show bias as I only added the facts and a citation to support it. Injusticewtf (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your citation in no shape or form even remotely supports the claim that Depp's comments about Heard constitute an 'instance of necrophilia'. We do not base article content on a contributors personal opinion regarding supposed 'pathological fascinations' in a living individual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've mentioned this several times already. I have carpal tunnel syndrom so this is tiring. The definition at the top of the page for Incidents of Necrophilia is this: Necrophilia is a pathological fascination with dead bodies, which often takes the form of a desire to engage with them in sexual activities, such as intercourse.

Depp's comments about Heard discuss his desire to engage with her corpse.

That is not my personal opinion. It is a fact. Since it is a fact, it seems like it is your personal opinion here preventing this history in Wikipedia. Injusticewtf (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The citation is the proof of the quote and the quote is his desire to engage with a corpse. I am not sure how much more matter of fact that I need to be. Injusticewtf (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just saw Yalma's decline. It is a generalization with no details. I give several reasonable rationales. Without Yalma providing a reasonable notes back, unfortunately I have to assume bias again. Is there no editor on Wikipedia with a neutral POV on Johnny Depp who can mediate? Injusticewtf (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing to 'mediate'. Your attempt to force your own personal interpretation of Depp's comments into the article was a violation of multiple core Wikipedia policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This would be a discussion. I was not sure about the introductory phrase (although there is enough facts to support "history of violence" and "extreme misogynistic beliefs." I am fine with editing it down further. I am not interpreting Depp's comments at all. I am simply putting the history of his comments down in a category that it belongs to.

a suggested edit is:

Johnny Depp (b.1963). An American actor. On June 11, 2013 he wrote to a friend: "insert the quote here" with citation. Injusticewtf (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can no longer say the above suggested edit is a personal interpretation. I was expecting editors to point to the sentence at hand to tell me which phrasing would be problematic, but have just experienced assumptions on my intents. Injusticewtf (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

By the way I am a Senior Technical Writer in my profession and I've trusted Wikipedia quite a bit for research, but this is disappointing. I am a very literal writer. Injusticewtf (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The block reason and the continuation also violates policy as it does not assume good faith towards me.

Assume others have assumed (and will assume) good faith towards you. Injusticewtf (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Requires a neutral administrator and editor hi I require a neutral administrator and editor to assist me here. I have not been provided anything logical about the undos for my entry nor for my block. I do understand that consensus needs to be reached and we have to assume good faith, however editors need to recognize when their decisions have unconscious bias as well. I have admitted my bias but I am continuously getting illogical rationales back, which is quite confusing if it is not unconscious bias, as I'd assume editors would have the experience to write factually. Injusticewtf (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Please review WP:BLP very carefully. asilvering (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2024 (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.

That is helpful. I will provide a new request when I have more time later. I have read the appeal page but your description is clearer specifically. Injusticewtf (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is an apology to Rsjaffe because I owe it and no other reason. Most of his recommendations have been matter of fact and this sentence I wrote was jarring: a heavy bias towards this celebrity and don't think necrophilia of women is necrophilia

Im new to Wikipedia so was unnerved. Note that I did provide a citation as you asked but then for a second time you removed the entry. I am still not sure why, but I should have discussed it with you first and assumed good intent. I think there are a few issues at hand. One of them is the understanding of what constitutes a necrophile: whether it is simply the stated desire publicly or the act itself. Anyway, apologies.

Injusticewtf (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I took some time and did this research. Unfortunately, it appears that I am not incorrect that I am dealing with gender disparity causing bias and protection, and false allegations against woman editors.

Gender bias on Wikipedia

I'm extremely disappointed to see my experience falls in this category. Yet I am the only one who must make an assurity of respect. Injusticewtf (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was a useful contribution. The other editors continuously reactively did Undos. Injusticewtf (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

understanding living persons policies Injusticewtf (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Per below. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:46, 8 October 2024 (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.

==

hello

1. I understand what I have been blocked for.
2. I will not continue to cause damage or disruption. However, I will be at peace and there will be no more disruption if the following revised entry is added to the Incidents of Necrophilia page as such.

Johnny Depp (b.1963). An American actor. On June 11, 2013 he wrote to a friend: "“Let’s drown her before we burn her!!! I will f*** her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she is dead...” " with citation. It respects the 'Living persons' policies, as well and falls under the definition of Necrophilia at the top of the page. If it is still refused, then the definition needs to be changed. However, I believe the definition is correct.

1. The above is a useful contribution. I hope my trust in Wikipedia will be thus restored as an encyclopedia. I was disappointed by the gender bias article discussing the issues in Wikipedia here. Gender bias on Wikipedia I'd like to believe Wikipedia is a safe place for women writers and editors. I'll hold my breath and see the answer.

Injusticewtf (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The above clearly and unambiguously violates the following core Wikipedia policies:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia:No original research

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply