User talk:An actual biological woman

Daniel Küblböck

Dear An actual biological woman, I am going to revert your previous reversion again and restore the origial article. The reason is as follows: while the sources the IP editor referred to indicate some ambiguity about the sexuality and name, we cannot be certain that the reasons are and how reliable they are. For one, the name "Dana" is from an unverifiable statement of the room neighbour and this is therefore not reliable. Küblböck apparently uploaded pictures dressed like a woman, however there is no indication whatsoever if this was due to a beginning transsexual transformation or some kind of transvestiate act or simply a play-form, an alter ego or such. The article also indicates that the ownership of that social media account is unconfirmed. As those sources are unclear, the Wikipedia article should not jump to conclusions, participate in speculations or turn speculation into fact. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: If she called herself Dana, dresses as a woman, and called herself a woman, then what is she? A woman. Personally, I would err on the side of caution. I'd rather be respectful and potentially wrong than disrespectful and completely wrong. Also, just a heads up, it's better form to use transgender rather than transsexual. An actual biological woman (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from, however two of the core principles of Wikipedia are verifiability and reliability. In this context, is worth reading the essay about verifiability, not truth. Based on hearsay and speculation, we cannot know what her wishes are and how she may want to be remembered. Jumping to conclusions may in hindsight be as harmful as not respecting wishes in the absence of firm evidence. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: That seems a little jobsworth-y, but I understand. An actual biological woman (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, *redacted - transphobic comment*. Please stop "edit-war". Regards --Serols (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serols: Thinking transgenderism simply amounts to surgery is highly disrespectful, and I've already lost my patience with you. An actual biological woman (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:An_actual_biological_woman reported by User:Jake Brockman (Result: ). Thank you. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 15 October 2018 (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).

An actual biological woman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is my only account. Even if you claim something like "checkuser," I can confirm that this is the only account I've ever opened. An actual biological woman (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirming that this is indeed a sock account bypassing a block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2018 (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.

no i ain't

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

An actual biological woman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22954 was submitted on Oct 15, 2018 17:35:43. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2018 (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).

An actual biological woman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have never been a sock. I wouldn't be surprised if this is just a targeted attack.

Decline reason:

yes, you is. In reviewing your edits, it's pretty obvious to me, the most AGF admin reviewing unblocks, that you are socking. Even if I could overturn a WP:check user block, I would be disinclined to do so. Claiming malfeasance and crying "victim!' is not going to induce anyone to unblock you. Admit your other accounts and appeal on your original account, please.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2018 (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.

If you are innocent, you always have the right to email arbcom as a final appeal. Jonathunder (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read up on WP:check user. You'd be amazed at how much they see. Two of them have looked at your account. You need to consider ceasing the personal attacks and the lack of WP:AGF on the part of others. If it's any consolation, the problem you brought to ANI is being dealt with, which pretty well counters your casting of aspersions.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]