GoldenRing (talk | contribs) →Your topic ban appeal: new section |
|||
Line 719: | Line 719: | ||
I want to be clear that the grounds for overturning it were technical and procedural, not that you were not being disruptive. I haven't looked into this dispute much and don't know the rights and the wrongs of it but reading through your talk page above, it seems there are possible problems of hounding and that discussion of administrative actions has got very heated. Please do remain collegial and collaborative. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 09:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC) |
I want to be clear that the grounds for overturning it were technical and procedural, not that you were not being disruptive. I haven't looked into this dispute much and don't know the rights and the wrongs of it but reading through your talk page above, it seems there are possible problems of hounding and that discussion of administrative actions has got very heated. Please do remain collegial and collaborative. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 09:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
:I'm doing my best, but it is hard to be collegial when standard, noncontroversial edits are arbitrarily deemed "disruptive" and "hounding"/"stalking" (especially when announced in advance and no objections made). [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs#top|talk]]) 15:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:12, 15 July 2019
Damn fine football game
Howdy! I can only assume that you are somewhere large quantities of alcohol are being consumed in celebratory fashion. Congratulations on your kids' fine victory, and welcome to the conference. Your kids passed the final exam. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh...my head...was that really all a dream? It wasn't?!?! WHOOOOOOOP!!!
- ...and thank you! :-) Buffs (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Iowa Hawkeyes Logo.svg and others
Have you been relying on any source besides sportslogos.net in order to determine which logos are PD due to age and any lack of copyright notice? I've been doing some research the last few days and am questioning its reliability as a source for such information (and I see no indication there of any registration information or lack thereof). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've been relying on that site for the first usage of the logo. I checked with the US copyright office's website and found no registration of copyright for said logo (or any others I labeled) as such. That is not to say that these are not trademarked (for which they are), but that trademark protections are different. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, I have two follow-up points. First, with regards to the date of publication: How reliable is sportslogos.net? What source(s) are they relying upon? I've been looking into File:OSU beavers.gif and found a different site which seems to indicate that it came into use/was published in 1997 as opposed to 1986 as indicated on sportslogos.net and our article on the matter claims it was made in 2000. I'm not familiar enough with the sites or subject matter to determine which is actually correct nor have I yet found firm confirmation for any particular date.
- Second, with regards to the copyright office: I would urge a more thorough investigative approach (either on your own or by seeking assistance from others) before retagging something as PD for reasons of no notice/registration. For instance, the creator of the Iowa's Tiger Hawk logo is Bill Colbert, who both registered the copyright and transferred it to the university. Similarly, Kansas State's PowerCat logo was created by Tom Bookwalter who both registered and transferred it to the university. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- The best way is to address these each individually as each situation is unique.
- Iowa's logo: Has been in the news in many differing circumstances, but in every trademark case, copyright is not mentioned a single time. Copyright violations are MUCH easier to prove and I find it highly unlikely that they would chose trademark courts over copyright. Moreover, they do not claim copyright, but explicitly claim and defend it as a registered trademark. That said, you have a valid point and, if this is the exact same logo, then you have the evidence you need. That said, I'm not seeing the representation of said logo in the links you provided. If it's the case, then indeed it needs to be removed as a PD image.
- Kansas State logo: Same situation as above
- Oregon State's logo: I too am confused as to the design on OSU, so given the references in the article, I'd say we should remove it as copyrighted.
- As for checking the copyright notices, I do check and did my best. I regret any mistakes, but we can certainly change them. I don't think a rebuke is in order here. Buffs (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- The best way is to address these each individually as each situation is unique.
- I certainly understand that you do check, I'm just trying to say that when it comes to copyright situations we should be particularly cautious about asserting that it's free when there's no positive proof as such (e.g. a clear denial of a registration number). Determining just how much research is required to provide evidence of absence is never easy.
- With regards to Iowa and Kansas State (and other similar cases), there could be any number of reasons they choose to pursue trademark rather than copyright litigation ranging from the uncertainty of a fair use copyright defense to the risk of trademark genericization should they not pursue such cases.
- Now the copyright office doesn't provide copies of registered works except to authorized parties or pursuant to litigation, so unless the universities explicitly claim the copyright for their logos like they do the trademark, we don't know for sure that it's the same work. That said, since the times, creators, and general description match up with the information in the news articles I linked to, I strongly feel we need to respect the probability that they are indeed copyrighted logos, for similar reasons to the precautionary principle on Commons and the wording at WP:PUF which calls for "proof that the file is indeed free". VernoWhitney (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've been putting this off for a while now, but I do still think the other two images should be retagged as non-free to be on the safe side. If you wish I'll take them to a discussion at WP:PUF or WP:MCQ for some more opinions. Would you like me to start up a discussion about the images or can I simply retag them as non-free? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I went ahead and retagged both of those images as non-free. I thought you might also want to know that I listed File:University of Kansas Jayhawk logo.svg at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 December 21 since I found some evidence that it too could be copyrighted.
- On the free side of the coin, I found File:Kstate text logo.svg which is close but not quite the same as the text logo you have listed on your FBS logo page for Kansas State. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Florida Gators football: "State Championships"
Your objective, third-party opinion is hereby requested: Talk:Florida Gators football#"State Championships". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate the invite, but the discussion is already one-sided...and I concur with that "one side". No need for additional input on this one. Buffs (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
12th Man (football) edits
The information on the page when I first found it this summer was somewhat inaccurate (dare I say hagiographic at times) and incomplete with respect to the context in which the phrase was used in the 1920s and 1930s. TheunUniv of Iowa edits were necessary to coorect the record.
In my most recent set of edits, it is important to note none of the events of Jan 2, 1922 are supported with citations from 3rd party accounts. Neither the Houston Post, Houston Chronicle of Dallas Morning News editions of 3 Jan 1922 mention the team being down to 11 players or Gill even being in the press box. Also there is no evidence to show Gill was a member of the team who left early to prepare for basketball season. The first 3rd party account of Gill's actions come from the Dallas Morning News July 16, 1942 which is why the description of Gill's role has been changed with the DMN article as a citation. If any earlier 3rd party accounts can be found, the information in that article should be considered for updating the entry.
As for the last paragraphs in the "History" section, it is important not to give the impression the term was applied to only one school, that being TAMU. There are other citations I can give for the term being applied to individuals including a Dallas area high school principal and in connection with a former Vanderbilt football player slain in WW1. Additionally, there are many instances I can offer for the term being applied to other fan bases. Since the predominant context given is to describe the TAMU fan base, adding how it was applied to the TAMU and Texas in connection with their rivalry game in 1938 adds much context to is widespread use during the 1920s and 1930s. Its use after the 1942 DMN article about Gill's WW2 service is unresearched. The next cited use of the term I know of is in the 1980s.
Much of the information on the phrase "12th Man" is unsupported by reputable citations and needs to be cited. I am attempting to do just this and will continue to edit or add context as I research further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph Duke (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Being only a short drive away from the University of Arkansas campus, I see (and wear) the Razorback a lot. However, I must tell you that the version of the razorback logo we have on Wikipedia isn't in the public domain. You are correct that the razorback was on the helmet was from 1964, but changes were made from the 1967 logo (http://www.hogdb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1967-2000-Razorback-Logo1.png) to the 2001 logo (as documented by http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2001-07-18-arkansas-logo.htm) that it will enjoy copyright protection. I am not going to call for the deletion of the image, but we need to have FURs for it again. However, hope is not lost for any kind of razorback logo usage. I recently located PDF copies of all of the Razorback logos, including textual ones (so we can use PD text), so if you can work me on this, that would be great. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you will note on [1] there arealternate logos that were in use during this timeframe (including the one you mentioned), but the design to which you are referring in the USAToday article is the current one (a 3D view, not a side view), not the one on the pages here, so, no it is not copyrighted. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your first source is a bit suspect as a fan site, but I've tweaked the image accordingly. Buffs (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- "The razorback that adorns the red football helmet will look slightly meaner, but otherwise will change little. Officials said they didn't want to make dramatic changes in the pig, which has adorned the helmet since 1964." So the helmet design was indeed changed so while the version from the 1960's is public domain, this is not. I also have to agree with an earlier poster here that the sportslogo page you cite for public domain usage should be used with caution. http://d3pczhwof661ii.cloudfront.net/downloads2/e35dd536-a500-48f1-8aba-74c83724fd9f_preview.jpg and http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SpuGRTzo_-A/T6HHL535ZoI/AAAAAAAAADE/JAN2KLgA1G4/s1600/nuttinbutfuntowel.jpg show the logo usage in the 1990's, and I still believe that we cannot claim the 2001 logo as public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- But a user talked to me off-site and mentioned the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case. It was mention that any type of updating or refreshing the logo where subtle changes were made will not enjoy the updated work to copyright status. If that is the case, I have vector logos of all University of Arkansas sports icons (and of the university) so if you want those, I can shoot you an email. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC) (edit, Meshwerks v. Toyota also gives us ideas).
- Ironholds makes a good argument that that case isn't as persuasive as it might have been, but ATC Distr. Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc. is closer. Nevertheless, the question is a question of fact ("does it meet the threshold of originality"), and might be arguable either way.
- That said, I think that the changes are clearly de minimis and mostly a consequence of the move vector art. Since the new logo is clearly intended to be the same "razorback" as the older one, my opinion is that this does not cause a new copyright protection to exist. — Coren (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Coren on this one. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- But a user talked to me off-site and mentioned the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case. It was mention that any type of updating or refreshing the logo where subtle changes were made will not enjoy the updated work to copyright status. If that is the case, I have vector logos of all University of Arkansas sports icons (and of the university) so if you want those, I can shoot you an email. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC) (edit, Meshwerks v. Toyota also gives us ideas).
- "The razorback that adorns the red football helmet will look slightly meaner, but otherwise will change little. Officials said they didn't want to make dramatic changes in the pig, which has adorned the helmet since 1964." So the helmet design was indeed changed so while the version from the 1960's is public domain, this is not. I also have to agree with an earlier poster here that the sportslogo page you cite for public domain usage should be used with caution. http://d3pczhwof661ii.cloudfront.net/downloads2/e35dd536-a500-48f1-8aba-74c83724fd9f_preview.jpg and http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SpuGRTzo_-A/T6HHL535ZoI/AAAAAAAAADE/JAN2KLgA1G4/s1600/nuttinbutfuntowel.jpg show the logo usage in the 1990's, and I still believe that we cannot claim the 2001 logo as public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Art
http://www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/pdf8/849897.pdf here you go User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force
I have restored my edits which you reverted on Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force. I had no choice, I had made more than one edit and your blanket revert gave little information other than claiming "POV". I'm not sure you examined my contributions because not only did I not introduce any new material or unsourced information but the entire passage had stood previously. I am able to explain each and every amendment I made but you need to ask me what the purpose was behind each one, unless you do this, I would be forced to publish a directory for you to find the alleged "POV" response. The very fact that my version contains fewer characters is justifiable is that it reduces clutter. Had I removed something by mistake (I believe I didn't because I checked), I would far rather you restored that particular piece. Naturally if it seems that I added something that is either POV or unsourced, your two options are to boldly remove the controversial part or to place a citation tag so that I may provide sources. Blanking of contributions however is not constructive, particularly in light of it having been a clean-up, designed to make more sense and not to be repetitive nor to send readers on a path of needless circumlocution. As the subject in question is one close to my area of knowledge, I am able to discuss this topic. Please enlighten me on what you believed to be POV so that I may either explain it or make further amendments to the page which I am quite happy to do. Thank you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note I have made some more changes and have spotted something that was out of tune if not POV-intended. I have tried to clean those parts. Please also be aware though that if you mass revert me, you will not remove anything or bring anything back because everything was already on the page prior to my first edit. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are intentionally removing one well-referenced point of view to bolster your POV and burying it behind simple changes to make it more difficult to revert. The dates were fine the way they were. So, that, but definition is POV pushing. Buffs (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Be very careful throwing accusations of "intentionally removing one well-referenced point of view to bolster your POV and burying it behind simple changes" if you do not wish to be the subject of WP:ANI. Had you taken the trouble to examine my edit in comparison to the previous you would see that nothing was added and nothing was removed. I removed no source, the page has been viewed many times between your contribuions and only one editor (User:Bobrayner) removed a link. I invited you to present my alleged "POV" and you failed to provide a response whereas I adequately explained my amendments and they in turn contained fewer characters than the previous revision therefore I have the jusification of clutter-removal. Therefore, if in future you have a problem with my edits on the article, I sugest take the mater to admins. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll deal with it on my own, thank you very much. I don't need the sheriff. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- And I stand by my assessment. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- And that is? Just which side do you think I am on? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think you are on the side of accuracy and I'm an asshole.
- Dude, I was WAY wrong. I must have clicked the wrong diffs twice on one day and AGAIN on the next. I made a HUGE mistake and I'm sorry. Buffs (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- No you're not, don't be hard on yourself. But do me one favour, as things are there really is a repeated section. The second paragraph beginning with Jamie Shea now features twice. I'll leave it to you to take out whichever you feel most appropriate. All the best! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- The Lead of an article is supposed to summarize the contents, that is it is a duplicate/summary of some information contained later in the article. As such, you removed something and pushed it up top, but it had nothing to go with it below. As such, it is now a straight duplicate. Keeping the latter and summarizing the former is the best solution. Buffs (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- No you're not, don't be hard on yourself. But do me one favour, as things are there really is a repeated section. The second paragraph beginning with Jamie Shea now features twice. I'll leave it to you to take out whichever you feel most appropriate. All the best! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- And that is? Just which side do you think I am on? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've tied it to LEDE and took out lower part. I hope you like it but if wish to make chnges to it, I am all right with it. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Be very careful throwing accusations of "intentionally removing one well-referenced point of view to bolster your POV and burying it behind simple changes" if you do not wish to be the subject of WP:ANI. Had you taken the trouble to examine my edit in comparison to the previous you would see that nothing was added and nothing was removed. I removed no source, the page has been viewed many times between your contribuions and only one editor (User:Bobrayner) removed a link. I invited you to present my alleged "POV" and you failed to provide a response whereas I adequately explained my amendments and they in turn contained fewer characters than the previous revision therefore I have the jusification of clutter-removal. Therefore, if in future you have a problem with my edits on the article, I sugest take the mater to admins. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Merge Chili burger to Chili con carne
I am letting you know that I have proposed a merge of Chili burger to Chili con carne. Being that you participated in the AfD, I'd be interested in your thoughts. The discussion is at Talk:Chili con carne#Merger proposal. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It was suggested that Hamburger might be a better target, and I was implored to allow that as a possibility. Therefore, I've moved the discussion to Talk:Chili burger#Merger proposal to allow for this. Please accept my apologies if it seemed that I was advocating for one solution over another. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Aggies
I thought you might appreciate this Doonesbury Sat 15 Dec. NtheP (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Holiday cheer
Holiday Cheer | ||
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. |
Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Paul Watson
Your return to the discussion at Talk:Paul Watson would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Buffs. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Buffs. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The file File:New mexico.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The file File:UNLV textlogo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Famousbirthdays.com as a source
Hi Buffs. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for biographical information in Dave Ramsey. Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- So...a non-controversial piece of information (a birthday) is worth adding "citation needed". You appear to be striving to be awfully pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. You're reverting A change that's also accurate: [2]. Take your pick of an article. Slamming this with a 6-year-old discussion with no widespread discussion seems petty. Buffs (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- BLP demands a great deal from editors, and places the burden on those seeking inclusion.
- IMDB is not reliable for such information. Successstory.com doesn't look any better. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- It sounds as if there genuinely is no such source that would prove to be acceptable to you that is accessible by the wider populace; from your original note, even his birth certificate would be an original document and "inadmissible". I'm fully aware of WP:RS and have 5+ FAs under my belt, however, I stand by my assessment that you're being rather stilted on the subject by using WP:BLP as a club attempting to meet the letter of the law as you see it rather than looking at the clear intent. While "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source", you're neglecting the "material challenged or likely to be challenged" component. There is little doubt of any kind in his date. He's even mentioned it in his radio show, for crying out loud. I provided a link for you to provide a source better suited for you and, instead of a discussion over a relatively insignificant portion of a WP:BLP article, you seem to be hyper-focused on trivial minutia and demanding from others something you aren't willing to provide. I've added it back with a bunch of sources + google search results. Buffs (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but none of those are reliable sources, let alone reliable sources suitable for BLP information.
- As I pointed out in my edit summary, I looked and didn't find anything that's clearly not being copied from Wikipedia, let alone anything that meets BLP requirements.
- If he's mentioned it himself, a source is still required. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- "didn't find anything that's clearly not being copied from Wikipedia". The Google search result comes up with the same result (not website results, but the search itself. I've added the radio program and broadcast date, if you want to hear it. I'm sure you can look it up in the VAST history of his podcasts if you want to pay for a subscription. Buffs (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- It sounds as if there genuinely is no such source that would prove to be acceptable to you that is accessible by the wider populace; from your original note, even his birth certificate would be an original document and "inadmissible". I'm fully aware of WP:RS and have 5+ FAs under my belt, however, I stand by my assessment that you're being rather stilted on the subject by using WP:BLP as a club attempting to meet the letter of the law as you see it rather than looking at the clear intent. While "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source", you're neglecting the "material challenged or likely to be challenged" component. There is little doubt of any kind in his date. He's even mentioned it in his radio show, for crying out loud. I provided a link for you to provide a source better suited for you and, instead of a discussion over a relatively insignificant portion of a WP:BLP article, you seem to be hyper-focused on trivial minutia and demanding from others something you aren't willing to provide. I've added it back with a bunch of sources + google search results. Buffs (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Your edits on Order of the Arrow and now Warbonnet
Are showing a clear pattern of trying to remove Native American sources and minimize the voices of Native Americans who protest having white people do offensive mimicry of Native cultures. In multiple cases now, you've marked sources as dead links, or tried to remove them completely, when a simple search or check of the wayback machine shows they are archived and easily updated. You have not done this removal and degradation to any of the non-Native content or sourcing. The edits you make to the text are almost wholly disruptive, not improvements, and show, at best, a lack of familiarity with serious concerns around racism and cultural insensitivity in these topics. Some of the content you've tried to introduce past-tenses living peoples and living cultures, with a bias towards supporting the non-Natives who mimic these cultures, against the express protests of Indigenous groups. Wikipedia has a problem with systemic bias. We don't need more of it. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea what "past-tensing" is.
- If there are articles/paragraphs that lack reliable sources per WP:RS, then they should be removed ESPECIALLY if they are contentious.
- That you view WP as having a problem with "systemic bias" is irrelevant and you are NOT the police to undo all edits of those who disagree with you. You do NOT own these articles and you cannot solely dictate what is/isn't acceptable. I've offered multiple questions/opportunities to collaborate and I'm met with silence or accusations. Instead of fighting, collaborate.
- You have no idea what I do/do not know. All you care about is that I disagree with you. You've already called my edits for compliance with WP:RS "racist" and you have no problem simply undoing my edits and QUICKLY adding intermediate edits in order to prevent their quick undoing.
- Disagreement with you personally is NOT Disruptive editing
- You have NO knowledge as to my motives for input into these related articles, but it isn't what you think it is.
- Regardless of my motives, Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view. That means we include notable opinions that support AND oppose (to use your words) "non-Natives who mimic these cultures against the express protests of Indigenous groups" or any other notable topic. It is not up to you to suppress views on ANY side of an issue nor is it appropriate to imply that all Native Americans agree with the points of view you're advocating (they don't). Buffs (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Civility Barnstar
The Civility Barnstar | ||
Civility by example during a heated edit discussion 0pen$0urce (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC) |
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
Ten years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Page blanking Edits on Indigenous intellectual property
Removing UN resolutions, statements from elders councils, the Native American Rights Fund, etc, etc, etc, without consensus.[3]. With the history you have of this stuff? You really want to go down this road again? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 01:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Let me paraphrase what saying and how it's being interpreted: "Changing things from the way I and others want it is wrong. In order for you to do anything, you need to make sure that everyone else agrees with you including me. DO THINGS THE WAY I WANT OR ELSE!!!"
- Stop threatening anyone who disagrees with you. WP:BEBOLD applies in spades, here. I hardly "blanked" it. I provided a summary. Over HALF of the page was quotes! As such, I summarized them per WP:MOS: " Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text...". Buffs (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
More effective use of talk pages
Hi, Buffs,
I responded at the Rfc on Order of the Arrow. Just wanted to make a comment about improving your effectiveness at talk pages or Rfcs. Regarding conversational tone or style, I think the use of caps, bold, or other methods of emphasis can be useful when used in a very limited fashion. At that Rfc for example, you are most effective when sticking calmly to the facts, but sometimes you seem to get goaded by comments of others, and in those cases you don't always help your case by the tone of your responses, regardless how provoked or misunderstood you might feel. I ended up supporting your position, but frankly, the tone or style of your response made it harder to do so. (It shouldn't—I shouldn't be swayed by that at all as it's completely irrelevant to the discussion, but I couldn't help it, I'm human.)
If you feel someone else's comments are inaccurate, correct them, dispassionately, one time. If you feel you can't do that, either wait a day or two and come back and try again later when you've cooled down, or go to another editor's talk page you trust and ask them to do it on your behalf, if they feel it merits it. If you feel an editor's behavior at an Rfc violates user standards, don't mention it there, but take it up on their use Talk page instead. Another approach, if you've already made your case about some point once in a TP discussion, and some editor responds as if they never read what you said, or didn't understand it, is to trust third party editors to see what's going simply let the other editor's remarks stand, in all their glorious inaccuracy.
And especially, don't feel you have to respond every time someone says something you think is wrong; consider just letting it be, and have faith in other editors to consider what you already said earlier and take it into account along with opposing viewpoints and weigh everything properly, regardless who repeated their same argument more times or posted it last. Repeating your argument, louder, bolder, all in caps, with exasperated tone at some editor's failure to see the golden light, isn't going to persuade them or help them understand, and might alienate neutral editors.
So, don't do that. Make your best case, add new comments only when you have new arguments, and when you don't, just chill. Smell the flowers. Have a nice cup of java, tea, or whatever your poison is. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- At this point, any edits are met with assumptions of bad faith, incivility, "You can't do that! I'm the gatekeeper and you MUST pass through me!", WP:MEATPUPPETRY, and a host of other hostile/noncollaborative responses. The last significant edits of an article I edited was Indigenous intellectual property. My edits were derided as "blanking" despite the fact that there was no blanking. Any logic on this talk page is summarily dismissed as "you're just mad you lost" and subsequently ignored. Any attempts of discussion are derided as edit warring when no edit warring exists. At this point, I see no way forward as no one is willing to say that this admin is CLEARLY acting in bad faith, blocking those with whom he disagrees, insulting others, threatening people with blocks, etc.
- Why has NO ONE addressed his demeanor? Buffs (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2600:8806:4802:B100:F5D0:E36E:97D8:1796
Keeps reposting the personal attack against you. What do I do? SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- I am now at level 3 with this IP. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Leave it alone if he reposts. Buffs (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks! SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Leave it alone if he reposts. Buffs (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Buffs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #25595 was submitted on Jun 14, 2019 15:33:08. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Buffs - did you submit this UTRS appeal? Just Chilling (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:Just Chilling, no. Not sure why it was posted here. Buffs (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I'll close it with no action. We know what is happening. Just Chilling (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Um...User:Just Chilling, I'd like to know what is happening. Was this a case of someone appealing a ban and putting my name in it somehow? Or is this a technical glitch? Or is someone submitting me for a block without my knowledge? Buffs (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's a disgruntled blocked user trying to cause trouble. You were an innocent victim. Just Chilling (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Um...User:Just Chilling, I'd like to know what is happening. Was this a case of someone appealing a ban and putting my name in it somehow? Or is this a technical glitch? Or is someone submitting me for a block without my knowledge? Buffs (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I'll close it with no action. We know what is happening. Just Chilling (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:Just Chilling, no. Not sure why it was posted here. Buffs (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I ask that you quietly drop the rumor
You now state bald rumor on that page, I would hope you would reconsider, and just withdraw it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've pulled the direct implication and stuck to what the WMF Chair specifically said + included a link. Buffs (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless, do not factor others' comments. Buffs (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- You have no evidence and no reliable source for the claims you are making about the personal lives of people, and the Chair's statement most certainly does not provide any such evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Please follow BRD on Order of the Arrow
You were bold, but you were revered. So now the onus is on you to gain consensus for your changes on the article talk page, not revert again. Please be patient and let the discussion commence. Thanks. El_C 17:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's literally impossible to gain consensus when they refuse to discuss or address the points. Perhaps it would be better to address the person who refuses to discuss? Buffs (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've addressed the point that it's "burying the words of those who object". It's absurd that you aren't addressing this with the person who's reverting in contravention with WP:SUMMARY. Add to it for all I care, but this isn't the only place where Corbie is adding copious quotes in contravention of policy to advance a political agenda and accuse anyone who attempts to summarize as doing so for nefarious purposes. Buffs (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please avoid casting aspersions — that is problematic. Anyway, you only wrote on the talk page about this yesterday. Please just be patient and give participants a chance to respond. You are both changing the prose and hiding the quotes in the ref with that one edit — a major change. Which needs consensus. A few hours delay on the talk page does not indicate there's no one to talk to. El_C 17:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please avoid casting aspersions — that is problematic. I'm not "hiding" anything. See WP:SUMMARY. If anything, I incorporated MORE of the comment than the commentary stated. We seem to be able to do this everywhere in the article except for where Corbie wants to apply it. I don't care HOW it's summarized and I've invited others to summarize for months now. I specifically wrote the same thing 3 weeks ago with no response. How long am I supposed to wait for a reply? Buffs (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- How am I casting aspersions? Let's go one edit at a time, shall we? El_C 18:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- How?
- "You only wrote on the talk page about this yesterday." - No, I've been writing about it for months. I specifically asked for input weeks ago. I also invited discussion yesterday. I was met with a reversion, a derisive comment, and continued silence. You are effectively claiming I'm being impatient, ergo, an aspersion.
- "You are...hiding the quotes in the ref..." I'm "hiding" nothing. To accuse me of doing something wrong when I'm following WP:MOSQUOTE is, again, an aspersion. "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style..."
- Since you're (inaccurately) criticizing only me and ignoring the incivility of others, it seems pretty one-sided as well. Calling these "aspersions" is pretty damned appropriate.
- Buffs (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Again, one edit at a time. I am speaking to the other user, also. Please try to tone it down, in the meantime. El_C 18:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- El_C, YHGBKM! I DID do one edit at a time solely to make it easier to undo if there were problems. Literally as you're telling me to do what I'm already doing, Corbie, instead of addressing each point, he blanket reverts EVERYTHING thereby reintroducing spelling errors, scrambling the order of references, etc in addition to undoing what he personally doesn't like and reverting to his preferred version (or what he calls "stable"). I request that you ask Corbie to undo that last edit and undo ONLY those he finds objectionable AND answer the questions I posed on the talk page. Ample time has been provided. Buffs (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- I assure you I am not kidding. The response is already on the talk page. I expect concise summaries as well as slow and steady progress toward reaching consensus. El_C 22:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- El_C, YHGBKM! I DID do one edit at a time solely to make it easier to undo if there were problems. Literally as you're telling me to do what I'm already doing, Corbie, instead of addressing each point, he blanket reverts EVERYTHING thereby reintroducing spelling errors, scrambling the order of references, etc in addition to undoing what he personally doesn't like and reverting to his preferred version (or what he calls "stable"). I request that you ask Corbie to undo that last edit and undo ONLY those he finds objectionable AND answer the questions I posed on the talk page. Ample time has been provided. Buffs (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Again, one edit at a time. I am speaking to the other user, also. Please try to tone it down, in the meantime. El_C 18:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- How am I casting aspersions? Let's go one edit at a time, shall we? El_C 18:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please avoid casting aspersions — that is problematic. I'm not "hiding" anything. See WP:SUMMARY. If anything, I incorporated MORE of the comment than the commentary stated. We seem to be able to do this everywhere in the article except for where Corbie wants to apply it. I don't care HOW it's summarized and I've invited others to summarize for months now. I specifically wrote the same thing 3 weeks ago with no response. How long am I supposed to wait for a reply? Buffs (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please avoid casting aspersions — that is problematic. Anyway, you only wrote on the talk page about this yesterday. Please just be patient and give participants a chance to respond. You are both changing the prose and hiding the quotes in the ref with that one edit — a major change. Which needs consensus. A few hours delay on the talk page does not indicate there's no one to talk to. El_C 17:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@El C:, I've been following this conflict off and on since early March, 2019. In my following overview, I've offered some diffs but in the interest of brevity, I haven't provided thorough, point-by-point diffs for every statement. I can, though. I made a comment in the RfC on the Order of the Arrow talk page and even gave Buffs a warning on his talk page about his behaviour. Bishonen also left a detailed warning on Buffs' talk page. My observation is that Buffs is an extremely tendentious editor on this page (and others), obstructive to compromise in a disruptive manner, and liberally misrepresents WP policies in discussion. Reading some of the early conversations between Buffs, Indigenous girl, and CorbieV was a little disorienting until I realized Buffs was quoting and linking to policies that were not applicable in the situation. His comments, individually, often seem reasonable but if you look closer and pull apart his policy citations, they are either not pertinent or carefully cherry-picked out of the policy matrix.
I see the basic conflict on Order of the Arrow as Buffs not wanting any critical views/sources included in the article. Further, he very specifically does not want any Native American/Indigenous sources of criticism used in the article (this is de facto, not necessarily explicitly stated). The citing of Adrienne Keene in the article provides an example. On 6 March 2019, there was this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The result was generally in favor of using Dr. Keene as a RS. Later in March, Buffs brought it back to RS/N with additional grievances. At that point, GreenMeansGo entered the fray with Buffs. The consensus outcome again said Dr. Keene was a RS. Look carefully at the shotgun spray of policies and guidelines by Buffs in the comments, some quite inexplicable for the circumstance. On the heels of that outcome came an RfC from GreenMeansGo that again had consensus for using Dr. Keene. This, to me, shows persistent tendentiousness and complete rejection of consensus outcomes that do not align with Buffs' goals.
This is just one telling example of extreme long-term disruption. I've watched Buffs use a variety of tactics designed to wear down other editors rather than reach compromise. I've seen so many of these tactics deployed that it has become extremely difficult for me to assume good faith of Buffs. Here are some of these tactics. If a compromise is reached, Buffs will continue to push for more. He'll request citations for a sentence/point which will already be cited/sourced, then when more citations are added, it is over-cited according to Buffs. Then Buffs will delete the best citations, leaving one to say the sentence isn't well-sourced enough and delete the sentence. He continually changes the goalposts, sometimes contradicting his previous position or goal. Eventually, I noticed that Buffs often used DARVO in talk page discussion, i.e., attributing to other editors the behaviours he was doing. Buffs is not stupid. Deliberately or not (personally I favor the former), Buffs engages in a long drawn process of grinding attrition with other editors until they give up, at least in this case.
Like you, El C, I would like to see discussion, collaboration, and compromise between these editors, a collegial approach to shaping an article and content. From what I've seen, once you look past the surface, Buffs has little interest in that process. If this seems like casting aspersions, I can provide diffs/proof for any of those points. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, that's a HIGHLY biased/misleading take of the discussion...
- There was well-reasoned discussion on the subject of Keene's inclusion with multiple people concurring with my opinion. However, others disagreed. Likewise, I didn't open the RfC on Keene, others did that. Though I disagree with the conclusion, the majority opinion was inclusion and I've not touched Keene's sourcing (other than re-ordering) since that discussion. There goes the "unwilling to accept consensus" garbage.
- Evidence of warnings is not evidence of wrongdoing and I'm really growing sick of this guilt-by-accusation nonsense. "Warnings" for behavior that is perfectly acceptable is like complaining about someone driving too fast even though they are going the speed limit. When the police come to your door to talk about it, they find nothing actually wrong, but your neighbor whines "He's been warned over and over for his behavior! He should be punished for going that speed!".
- As for "He'll request citations for a sentence/point which will already be cited/sourced, then when more citations are added, it is over-cited according to Buffs. Then Buffs will delete the best citations, leaving one to say the sentence isn't well-sourced enough and delete the sentence." That's absolute garbage. I've NEVER done that. User:El_C, I assume that casting aspersions and other uncivil behavior is also not allowed under the ARBCOM warning? Or do we just let people get badmouthed on their own talkpage as long as it isn't on the talkpage of the article? Buffs (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- You are free to remove it, which I thought you did. But I'll pose this question: if you are, indeed, editing tendentiously, which two editors have now claimed, how can that be expressed without expressing it? El_C 09:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Nesting a comment here I almost missed it. How about demanding diffs from them? You're demanding diffs and references and clarification from me. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Instead I'm stuck defending vague accusations with zero evidence and you seem to be perfectly willing to trust them. He accuses me of meatpuppetry with a backhanded remark "It is sometimes difficult to parse, particularly with some surrogate editors participating on Buffs' behalf..." and such unproven claims are not only unchallenged, but you thank him. I hope you'll understand my skepticism that this is an even exchange of ideas. Buffs (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- You are free to remove it, which I thought you did. But I'll pose this question: if you are, indeed, editing tendentiously, which two editors have now claimed, how can that be expressed without expressing it? El_C 09:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- One more thing: the accusation that I'm trying to eliminate all criticism of the subject is laughable. At no point have I EVER said or advocated for "no criticism". I will state that this criticism is exceptionally weak. Sources in these articles go back to a single protestor at a college campus as reported by a college student newspaper, a vague claim that all costumes are an attempt to silence a minority, an activist, and a "grievance studies" professor whose paper(s) and conclusions are based on opinions of those who agree with their viewpoint, not actual research. Again, I find these to be really weak sources, but given WP standards, they are included and, regardless of my opinions on their quality, SHOULD be included! Sources that were eliminated were from personal blogs of non-experts and (literally) ungraded, undergraduate student essays (!!!). Buffs (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- You keep saying that (undergraduate student essay). Sorry, am I suppose to guess where in the article that is? El_C 09:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- No, I would have thought Ctrl+F and "paper" would have been sufficient on the discussion page or history, but here it is anyway:
- link diff where it was added
- I'll happily point out the bias of Corbie specifically. He literally considers this group to be a bunch racists...even the SPLC doesn't consider the OA or Boy Scouts racists (and their definitions are pretty liberal), but they do note their "anti-LGBT policies", so they are even looking at them... Buffs (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, again, I don't see the harm in including a ref to a well sourced 44-page (albeit undergraduate) essay. How is that damaging to our readership, if it's just a ref along several others, which I gather from that diff was your position, as well (?). I'm not saying it should be used for anything authoritative, but I also don't see the harm of it backing up a minor fact, if it's itself well sourced on that front. Maybe I'm missing something. Feel free to clarify. And, again, feel free to also take it to RSN if it's that important to you. As for the point of view — one is entitled to have one, so long as they edit in an NPOV manner: by fairly representing the scholarly and mainstream consensus regarding the subject. El_C 17:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- The point here is that fails the criteria for WP:RS. Furthermore, for the statement it allegedly supports, the paper uses the same source, ergo, it's redundant. At the time, people were adding "sources" to support all kinds of things that didn't support the statements made. Buffs (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't know about any of that. Maybe that's true. What, at any event, would you like done, concretely? El_C 17:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- The point here is that fails the criteria for WP:RS. Furthermore, for the statement it allegedly supports, the paper uses the same source, ergo, it's redundant. At the time, people were adding "sources" to support all kinds of things that didn't support the statements made. Buffs (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, again, I don't see the harm in including a ref to a well sourced 44-page (albeit undergraduate) essay. How is that damaging to our readership, if it's just a ref along several others, which I gather from that diff was your position, as well (?). I'm not saying it should be used for anything authoritative, but I also don't see the harm of it backing up a minor fact, if it's itself well sourced on that front. Maybe I'm missing something. Feel free to clarify. And, again, feel free to also take it to RSN if it's that important to you. As for the point of view — one is entitled to have one, so long as they edit in an NPOV manner: by fairly representing the scholarly and mainstream consensus regarding the subject. El_C 17:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- You keep saying that (undergraduate student essay). Sorry, am I suppose to guess where in the article that is? El_C 09:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- One more thing: the accusation that I'm trying to eliminate all criticism of the subject is laughable. At no point have I EVER said or advocated for "no criticism". I will state that this criticism is exceptionally weak. Sources in these articles go back to a single protestor at a college campus as reported by a college student newspaper, a vague claim that all costumes are an attempt to silence a minority, an activist, and a "grievance studies" professor whose paper(s) and conclusions are based on opinions of those who agree with their viewpoint, not actual research. Again, I find these to be really weak sources, but given WP standards, they are included and, regardless of my opinions on their quality, SHOULD be included! Sources that were eliminated were from personal blogs of non-experts and (literally) ungraded, undergraduate student essays (!!!). Buffs (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- The only side I entered the fray on behalf of was not using blogs for sources, which I will continue to not do, and will continue to argue against at every possible opportunity regardless of the subject matter or the editors involved. I'm not a partisan and please do not paint me as one. GMGtalk 01:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
El_C, would you be so kind as to talk to Corbie about his remarks. At 2/3rds are comments about me/irrelevant material to the discussion at hand. "The problem here is that Buffs..." is not collegial, it's uncivil (specifically 1c, 1d, 2a, and most egregiously 2e), and focuses not on edits, but the editor, and he delves into attempting to correct historic injustices. As a buffer and attempt to moderate disagreement, I will respond solely to the substantive remarks and allow you to speak about behavior at your discretion; if you feel there's nothing wrong, please let me know. Response to remarks above will be forthcoming after the response on the talk page. Buffs (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm finding you both to be a little unfocused. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm wasting my time here. El_C 01:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- (ec) I don't think you are wasting your time, but the personal remarks need to stop. That's driving the animosity. Please address it.
- To address the remarks above, what I'm looking for is
- to remove the notes about "It's worth noting..." (that's explicitly prohibited per WP:NPOV)
- Remarks of "Goodman claimed" should also be removed. The fact is that multiple reliable sources of the time period back up this definition of the word: 1 2. Goodman used the word based on a reliable translation without malice or neglect. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Point_of_view You cannot say he “claimed” or “stated” it meant something because it casts aspersions that he’s incorrect that are not backed up in reliable sources. Likewise, it isn’t proof to say “it was made up” by pointing only to sources available now (especially those that are incomplete). “Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Content Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that...would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.". Absence now ≠ proof that “it’s a made up word”. Phrasing designed to introduce doubt or push the anti-cultural appropriation agenda fail WP:NPOV Even if it isn’t in use today, that doesn’t prove it wasn’t used then. Plenty of words are not in use today that were in use at that time. Examples of just English:
- Barnish then & now
- Beastlings then & now
- Gynecandrical then & now
- etc
- Lastly The last section should be in summary style. Instead of blanket reversions saying "no not that, I want it this way" are not the way to build consensus.
- Specific remarks I'd like you to address:
This is the same argument Buffs pushed on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, claiming that Native objections to these activities are "Fringe" and not notable due to the "small number" of people still alive to voice them.
- I NEVER claimed that all Native objections are fringe. I certainly never stated that they were fringe because of the small number of people alive to voice them. Read the quote and context and feel free to let me know if I'm wrong. I stated that the opinions stated there are fringe opinions. There is NO evidence to show that they are even held by a sizable minority of the Native American population, much less by the population at large. I've asked for such information...no response.
- Such opinions are being given undue weight: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well...If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."
- As such, it's being given undue weight in this article, but NOT because it is an opinion held by Native Americans; it's because the opinions should be excluded by our guidelines.
- All that said, I'm willing to include some anyway. Like I said before, 3-4 instances are fine. It's not like OA activities are 100% approved by everyone (nothing is). Buffs (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Specific remarks I'd like you to address:
Your thoughts?
El_C, your thoughts on adding to the talk page? Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed this ping — which I hope is understandable in light of the volume of material now on this talk page. Related to that, my suggestion would be for you to temper your expectations as to the overall intensiveness and extensiveness of the editorial process here, on Wikipedia. Again, my advise would be for you to attend to one item at a time. Frankly, I find your user talk page to be a bit inaccessible now due to you seemingly trying to do everything at once. El_C 17:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- People ask me to specify what I want done and then I get complaints that it's "too much". Fine. That's why I asked. I put it here for reference. It is absurd that people (especially admins!) can revert all changes, demand consensus, and then refuse discussion with no consequence. Buffs (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Huh? Look, I'm not sure what all that is about. But maybe use collapse fields to even better condense and prioritize by highlighting summaries...(?) El_C 18:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- People ask me to specify what I want done and then I get complaints that it's "too much". Fine. That's why I asked. I put it here for reference. It is absurd that people (especially admins!) can revert all changes, demand consensus, and then refuse discussion with no consequence. Buffs (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Proposed solutions
IG has expressed that she doesn't have time to put together proposed changes. I don't see how these issues require much effort to fix, but, in order to assist, I'm putting together a list of the areas that I feel need a fix and my proposed solution. I'm attempting to be as concise as possible with Rationales of 1-2 sentences. Hopefully, this will serve as a place for discussion, other takes on these passages, and resolution. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Specific areas Buffs feels need improvement
- It uses imagery commonly associated with American Indian cultures for its self-invented ceremonies.
- Along with his assistant camp director, Carroll A. Edson, he started an experimental honor society to acknowledge those campers he felt best exemplified these qualities, calling the program, Wimachtendienk, a word he stated meant "Brotherhood" in one of the Lenape dialects.
- <ref name=WimachtenienkNote>''Wimachtendienk'' is not contained in any current online dictionary of the Lenape People, including the tribes own language site: ''[http://www.talk-lenape.org/results?query=Wimachtendienk&lang=lenape Wimachtendienk]'', but neither is a translation for the English, "[http://talk-lenape.org/results?query=brotherhood brotherhood]"</ref>.
- On July 23, 2018 the National Order of the Arrow Committee announced that they had received "many complaints surrounding these ceremonies from various American Indian tribes due to the manner in which they are conducted as well as the inconsistent nature in which they are performed." and that effective as of January 1, 2019, "lodges and chapters that are asked to conduct Arrow of Light or crossover ceremonies for Cub Scout packs will only be permitted to conduct them using the new approved official ceremonies which can be found in the OA Inductions Portal. These ceremonies are to be conducted in a Scout uniform and are no longer permitted to be done in American Indian regalia."<ref name=Complaints>{{cite web |title=Official Arrow of Light and crossover ceremonies |publisher=[[Boy Scouts of America]] - Order of the Arrow |date=July 23, 2018 |url=https://oa-bsa.org/article/official-arrow-light-and-crossover-ceremonies|accessdate=March 4, 2019}}</ref>
- In a letter to the State News of MSU, OA member Philip Rice wrote in regard...They are alive, they are sacred.<ref>{{cite web |last=Ikwe |first=Ozheebeegay |title=Boys Scouts Order of the Arrow Guilty of Cultural Appropriation |publisher=Last Real Indians |url=http://lastrealindians.com/boys-scouts-order-of-the-arrow-guilty-of-cultural-appropriation-by-ozheebeegay-ikwe//|accessdate=November 2, 2017}}</ref>}} (truncated for brevity)
- David Prochaska, professor in the University of Illinois History Department states when addressing the issue of cultural appropriation and the implications of such...{{quote|Boy Scouts, Eagle Scouts, Order of the Arrow, Order of Red Men, Campfire Girls, Woodcraft, Boston Tea Party. "White Indians" - white New Agers as Native American "wannabes." ... what is "playing Indian," "playing Native," "playing an Other," all about? It is about play, for one thing, in the sense of dressing up, masquerade, the Bakhtinian carnivalesque. It is also about appropriation, in the sense of taking on, assuming an other's identity, taking another's identity. The implication here is replacing one with another, silencing another, speaking for another.<ref>{{cite book |author=King, C. Richard |authorlink= |author2=Springwood, Charles Fruehling |title=Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy |publisher=U of Nebraska Press |year=2001 |isbn=978-0803277984 |pages=166}}</ref>}}
Proposed solutions
- "It uses imagery commonly associated with American Indian cultures for its ceremonies."
- Rationale: At no point does the article or the OA claim their ceremonies are modeled on those of Native Americans. Adding this remark only serves to unnecessarily highlight "THESE ARE NOT REAL NATIVE AMERICANS!!!" and in a disparaging manner. "It uses imagery..." is sufficient for this task. Nothing in the article or a referenced source backs up that claim. The words "self-invented" should be removed per WP:LEAD, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Along with his assistant camp director, Carroll A. Edson, he started an experimental honor society to acknowledge those campers he felt best exemplified these qualities, calling the program, Wimachtendienk, or "Brotherhood" in one of the Lenape dialects."
- Rationale: "a word he stated meant" is redundant as the previous phrase "calling the program..."; it is also an attempt to register doubt without a factual basis in a reliable source. Reliable sources state otherwise; no reliable source to back up the current claim; it fails WP:MOSQUOTE, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- remove
- Rationale: This statement is now a note that does not support the given statement. As noted above, fails per WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN. Likewise, "In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings...". Even if currently incorrect now, it was as accurate as possible at the time it was stated. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- On July 23, 2018 the National Order of the Arrow Committee announced that they had received complaints about Arrow of Light crossover ceremonies from Native Americans. Given the inconsistent nature of the ceremonies, the only authorized ceremony by Arrowmen would be conducted without Native American regalia.<ref name=Complaints>{{cite web |title=Official Arrow of Light and crossover ceremonies |publisher=[[Boy Scouts of America]] - Order of the Arrow |date=July 23, 2018 |url=https://oa-bsa.org/article/official-arrow-light-and-crossover-ceremonies|accessdate=March 4, 2019|quote=many complaints surrounding these ceremonies from various American Indian tribes due to the manner in which they are conducted as well as the inconsistent nature in which they are performed... [effective as of January 1, 2019] "...lodges and chapters that are asked to conduct Arrow of Light or crossover ceremonies for Cub Scout packs will only be permitted to conduct them using the new approved official ceremonies which can be found in the OA Inductions Portal. These ceremonies are to be conducted in a Scout uniform and are no longer permitted to be done in American Indian regalia."}}</ref>
- Rationale: summarize and place into prose per WP:MOSQUOTE: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style...It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- In a letter to the State News of MSU, OA member Philip Rice wrote in regard to the National Order of the Arrow Conference being held on the MSU campus expressing his displeasure of the OA's choice of logo, despite its improvement, and accusing them of "flagrant cultural appropriation and borderline racism".<ref name=PRice>{{cite web|url=https://statenews.com/article/2015/08/letter-boy-scouts-on-campus-demonstrate-insensitivity-to-native-american-traditions,|title=LETTER: Boy Scouts on campus demonstrate insensitivity to Native American traditions|website=The State News|quote="For years, the OA's official logo was a stylized image of a generic "native" face with a swirling headdress. Their logo has since changed to a rough-hewn arrowhead, and although it is better than a dehumanizing image a la CMU's old "Chippewa" logo or the current Washington Redskins logo, it is still a symbol deliberately and shamelessly appropriated from a stylized stereotype of Native American artifacts. The OA website, as of today, features a prominent image of the "original chief bonnet," a feather headdress on a young white man's head. There is nothing "original" about this "bonnet." It is a symbol stolen from a culture that has absolutely nothing to do with the British tradition of Boy Scouts. Although the Boy Scouts have made some very recent advances toward being more socially aware...their honor society remains guilty of flagrant cultural appropriation and borderline racism."}}</ref> Ceremonial elements from from Native American groups have also been criticized. By using objects Native American groups deem not only sacred, but alive and/or blending the traditional elements of various Nations without apparent recognition or regard to distinctions between them, activists have criticized that the OA has shown disrespect and contempt.<ref>{{cite web |last=Ikwe |first=Ozheebeegay |title=Boys Scouts Order of the Arrow Guilty of Cultural Appropriation |publisher=Last Real Indians |url=http://lastrealindians.com/boys-scouts-order-of-the-arrow-guilty-of-cultural-appropriation-by-ozheebeegay-ikwe//|accessdate=November 2, 2017|"I have been told that if we are not using these sacred objects as they are intended, we aren't walking the walk. Along with carrying and using these items, comes a great deal of responsibility. Not just anyone should have them. I want my children to know the truth that is the Drum, Pipe, and Eagle Feather. I want them to understand that traditional ways are not a costume or boy scout initiation. They are alive, they are sacred."}}</ref>
- I'm not sure we should reference this. If we do, it should be incorporated as-is, not with editorializing
- Rationale: Ignoring the accuracy of the assessment (example: people in the Boston Tea Party First dressed up as Native Americans in various manners to disguise who they were, not to portray themselves as Native Americans or silence them; Eagle Scouts are Boy Scouts...it's redundant; etc) and grammar (There are a stream of single-noun "sentences"), this isn't even a proper quote. It removes the original text (grammar errors and all), omits an entire paragraph, and changes the meaning of what was actually stated. Criticism of the Order of the Arrow is mentioned in passing once in the entire book of 250+ pages and nothing the OA does is even mentioned. It's just a blanket accusation. As placed in the book, the phrasing of the second part of the quote seems to better apply in accusation to the film "Cannibal Tours", and not to the Order of the Arrow. At no point does the author even mention how Boy Scouts, the OA, Eagle Scouts, etc. even fulfill the stated criteria, though other groups' actions are described in detail. At a bare minimum, it should be quoted accurately. Buffs (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Following Indigenous girl (Scouting in Vermont)
First article
I would appreciate if you were to refrain from that. Thanks. El_C 01:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would appreciate if you were to tell IG to refrain from editorializing to advance a political agenda and to be more careful in her quotations and accurate in her sourcing. Buffs (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- As long as IG continues to edit scouting articles, we'll probably edit some of the same articles, but I tell you what, if I come across something in my editing that Corbie or IG have done, I'll just bring it up here first so I don't get accused of "following" again.
- I'll be continuing auditing language that no longer applies tomorrow in other scouting articles if I have time (there's a lot of "Boy Scout" vs the more-appropriate "Scouts" lingering from the change to co-ed in February). Buffs (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was just being polite — this wasn't really a request. El_C 10:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I was just being polite too. Right now, all the "warnings"/threats are exceptionally one-sided. Buffs (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't threat, but I do warn. And this is such a warning. I haven't warned her because I fail to see what she's done wrong. But I obviously don't think it's appropriate that you ended up following her around to an article she had just edited a few hours before. What was the point of that? El_C 17:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- You don't see anything wrong about misleading quotes (one implies they lied; the other that they just haven't taken such action recently)? You don't see anything wrong with saying that paraphrasing shouldn't be allowed by anyone disagrees with Corbie?
- Buffs (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just don't want you following her around to other articles, period. I agree that there has been an overreliance on lengthy quotes and have said that much on the article talk page. Again, I want to look forward rather than relitigate the past (which I told Corbie, also), but you're not making it easy. El_C 18:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't threat, but I do warn. And this is such a warning. I haven't warned her because I fail to see what she's done wrong. But I obviously don't think it's appropriate that you ended up following her around to an article she had just edited a few hours before. What was the point of that? El_C 17:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I was just being polite too. Right now, all the "warnings"/threats are exceptionally one-sided. Buffs (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was just being polite — this wasn't really a request. El_C 10:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Post setting me up
- Let me add to this ~ Stop following them ~ it's called Hounding ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Let me add to this. SHE SET ME UP! She was following MY edits!!! I NEVER changed or edited a thing she did, but she happily chose an article I said I was going to be working on. Buffs (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- She did not set you up. You tried to follow her in a clever way, after you were warned, and it did not work. El_C 23:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Garbage, how could I possibly "follow her in a clever way"? I was doing these edits BEFORE she edited the page. My edits are 100% consistent from article to article. I didn't even touch what she wrote. Practically speaking, she jumped in front of the truck and claimed I hit her.
- Here are the relevant edits from IG and my edits; inapplicable edits removed; I'm unaware of an efficient way to grab 100+ diffs. I was editing these articles well before IG: (My edits and her edits. in chronological order:
- June 30, 22:36 IG edited a page [[4] (Added here for a
4th5th time on the page because the blocking Admin wants it) - 22:45, 1 July 2019 diff hist +15 Scouting in Arkansas BSA is more accurate now current
- 22:46, 1 July 2019 diff hist -2 Scouting in Texas abbrev is fine current
- 22:47, 1 July 2019 diff hist +6 Scouting in Oklahoma →Scouting in Oklahoma today: add BSA current
- 22:49, 1 July 2019 diff hist +13 Scouting in Vermont →Boy Scouting in Vermont today: more accurate terms
- 22:54, 1 July 2019 diff hist -8 Scouting in Hawaii →History since statehood: misleading word choice
- 22:56, 1 July 2019 diff hist +6 Scouting in Hawaii rephrase current
- 22:57, 1 July 2019 diff hist +12 Scouting in Vermont →Recent history (1950–2010): full quote states just that summer, not all-time
- 22:59, 1 July 2019 diff hist -20 Scouting in Utah →Boy Scouting in Utah today: update current
- 07:40, 2 July 2019 diff hist +823 User talk:Buffs →Following Indigenous girl (Scouting in Vermont): fine I explain my intent to work on these articles tomorrow
- 15:08, 2 July 2019 diff hist +183 User talk:Buffs →Following Indigenous girl (Scouting in Vermont): resp
- 17:16, 2 July 2019 diff hist +6 Scouting in Alabama →Early history (1910-1950): add start working through them in alphabetical order
- 17:16, 2 July 2019 diff hist -6 Scouting in Alabama →Camps: rephrase
- 17:17, 2 July 2019 diff hist -193 Scouting in Alabama →Greater Alabama Council: redundant; already mentioned in the article current
- 17:20, 2 July 2019 diff hist +2 Scouting in Arizona →Today: delink per WP:OVERLINK + add abbrev
- 17:22, 2 July 2019 diff hist -4 Scouting in Arizona →Grand Canyon Council: updates current
- 17:24, 2 July 2019 diff hist +1 Scouting in California →Defunct Boy Scout Councils: past tense
- 17:26, 2 July 2019 diff hist -765 Scouting in California →Defunct Boy Scout Councils: removed redundancies current
- 17:29, 2 July 2019 diff hist +6 Scouting in Colorado →Scouting in Colorado today: ADD abbrev
- 17:30, 2 July 2019 diff hist -23 Scouting in Colorado →Camp Patiya: add current
- 17:56, 2 July 2019 diff hist +1,808 User talk:Buffs →Following Indigenous girl (Scouting in Vermont): resp
- 17:56, 2 July 2019 diff hist 0 User talk:Buffs →Following Indigenous girl (Scouting in Vermont): move
- 18:01, 2 July 2019 diff hist +391 User talk:Buffs →Your thoughts?: resp
- 19:03, 2 July 2019 diff hist +343 User talk:Buffs →Following Indigenous girl (Scouting in Vermont): resp
- 19:05, 2 July 2019 diff hist -9 Scouting in Connecticut →Camp Mattatuck: fix
- 19:07, 2 July 2019 diff hist +13 Scouting in Connecticut →Camp Nahaco: rephrase/fix current
- 19:09, 2 July 2019 diff hist +35 Scouting in Florida add full name+ abbrevs
- 19:09, 2 July 2019 diff hist -22 Scouting in Florida →Boy Scouts of America in Florida today: add
- 19:10, 2 July 2019 diff hist -39 Scouting in Florida →Gulf Stream Council: remove reduindancy
- 19:11, 2 July 2019 diff hist -37 Scouting in Florida →South Florida Council: redundant current
- 19:13, 2 July 2019 diff hist -4 Scouting in Massachusetts →Boy Scouting in Massachusetts today: updated to be contemporary. This is her first ever edit to Scouting in Massachusetts and it happens only as I've announced I'm going to work on it and begin the work
- 19:14, 2 July 2019 diff hist +54 Scouting in Georgia (U.S. state) →Boy Scouts of America: add + abbrev
- 19:14, 2 July 2019 diff hist -6 Scouting in Georgia (U.S. state) →Boy Scouts of America: rephrase
- 19:15, 2 July 2019 diff hist 0 Scouting in Georgia (U.S. state) →Historic councils: typo fix
- 19:15, 2 July 2019 diff hist -17 Scouting in Georgia (U.S. state) →Boy Scouts today: add
- 19:16, 2 July 2019 diff hist -54 Scouting in Georgia (U.S. state) →Central Georgia Council: redundant
- 19:17, 2 July 2019 diff hist +15 Scouting in Idaho →Boy Scouting in Idaho today: add abbrev, spell out
- 19:17, 2 July 2019 diff hist -4 Scouting in Idaho →Camps: rm "boy" current
- 19:19, 2 July 2019 diff hist +30 Scouting in Illinois →Early history (1910–1950): add
- 19:20, 2 July 2019 diff hist -26 Scouting in Illinois →Lincoln Trails Council: redundant
- 19:21, 2 July 2019 diff hist -67 Scouting in Illinois →Buffalo Trace Council: fix typo + redundancies
- 19:22, 2 July 2019 diff hist -155 Scouting in Illinois →Northeast Illinois Council: not a BSA property; owned locally
- 19:23, 2 July 2019 diff hist +1 Scouting in Illinois →Camp Napowan: add
- 19:24, 2 July 2019 diff hist +2 Scouting in Illinois →Rainbow Council: update
- 19:24, 2 July 2019 diff hist -1 Scouting in Illinois →Rainbow Council: fix ref current
- 19:25, 2 July 2019 diff hist +23 Scouting in Indiana →Scouting in Indiana today: link + more
- 19:26, 2 July 2019 diff hist -20 Scouting in Indiana →Anthony Wayne Scout Reservation: update
- 19:26, 2 July 2019 diff hist -46 Scouting in Indiana →Buffalo Trace Council: redundant
- 19:27, 2 July 2019 diff hist +226 Scouting in Massachusetts →Mohegan Council: changed and sourced origin of Pachachaug
- 19:27, 2 July 2019 diff hist +1 Scouting in Indiana →John Work House and Mill Site|Tunnel Mill Scout Reservation: update
- 19:28, 2 July 2019 diff hist -1 Scouting in Indiana →Sagamore Council: update current
- 19:29, 2 July 2019 diff hist -32 Scouting in Iowa →Mid America Council: redundant
- 19:30, 2 July 2019 diff hist +21 Scouting in Iowa →Early history (1910-1950): link + abbrev
- 19:30, 2 July 2019 diff hist -18 Scouting in Iowa →Councils: abbrv current
- 19:31, 2 July 2019 diff hist +10 Scouting in Kansas →Scouting in Kansas today: abbrev + link
- 19:31, 2 July 2019 diff hist -17 Scouting in Kansas →Quivira Council: update
- 19:32, 2 July 2019 diff hist -27 Scouting in Kansas →Spanish Peaks Scout Ranch: redundant current
- 19:33, 2 July 2019 diff hist -163 Scouting in Kentucky →Recent history (1950–1990): no reference
- 19:34, 2 July 2019 diff hist -22 Scouting in Kentucky →Scouting in Kentucky today: abbrev current
- 19:34, 2 July 2019 diff hist -1,550 Scouting in Massachusetts →History: no source for content of will
- 19:37, 2 July 2019 diff hist -419 Scouting in Louisiana →Early history (1910-1950): not Louisiana history
- 19:37, 2 July 2019 diff hist +28 Scouting in Louisiana →Early history (1910-1950): abbrev
- 19:39, 2 July 2019 diff hist -83 Scouting in Louisiana abbrev + move
- 19:40, 2 July 2019 diff hist -27 Scouting in Louisiana →Boy Scouts of America Today: redundant current
- 19:41, 2 July 2019 diff hist -22 Scouting in Maine →Camps: fix
- 19:42, 2 July 2019 diff hist +1 Scouting in Maine →Camp William Hinds: update current
- 19:44, 2 July 2019 diff hist -3 Scouting in Maryland →Early history (1910-1950): add
- 19:46, 2 July 2019 diff hist +10 Scouting in Maryland →Boy Scouts of America: add abbrev
- 19:49, 2 July 2019 diff hist -99 Scouting in Maryland →Boy Scouts of America: rem redundancies + update current
- 19:51, 2 July 2019 diff hist +10 Scouting in Massachusetts update
- 19:57, 2 July 2019 diff hist -147 Scouting in Michigan abbrev + add link + update with current terminology + remove reduncancies current
- 19:59, 2 July 2019 diff hist -133 Scouting in Minnesota abbrev + add link + update with current terminology + remove reduncancies
- 20:00, 2 July 2019 diff hist -129 Scouting in Minnesota rm blanks (been there for 9 years)
- 20:00, 2 July 2019 diff hist -97 Scouting in Minnesota update
- 20:01, 2 July 2019 diff hist +6 Scouting in Mississippi abbrev current
- 20:04, 2 July 2019 diff hist -159 Scouting in Missouri move + abbrev + update
- 20:06, 2 July 2019 diff hist +13 Scouting in Missouri →Scouting in Missouri today: rephrase
- 20:07, 2 July 2019 diff hist +1 Scouting in Missouri →Camp Arrowhead: update
- 20:07, 2 July 2019 diff hist -361 Scouting in Missouri →Camp Geiger: box not needed current
- 20:08, 2 July 2019 diff hist +19 Scouting in Montana →Scouting in Montana today: update current
- 20:09, 2 July 2019 diff hist -29 Scouting in Nebraska →Longs Peak Council: redundant
- 20:09, 2 July 2019 diff hist -33 Scouting in Nebraska →Mid-America Council: redundant current
- 20:11, 2 July 2019 diff hist -56 Scouting in Nevada updated refs current
- 20:13, 2 July 2019 diff hist +10 Scouting in New Hampshire update current
- 20:18, 2 July 2019 diff hist -110 Scouting in New Jersey update + fix redundancies current
- 20:19, 2 July 2019 diff hist -18 Scouting in New Mexico update + abbrev + link current
- 20:24, 2 July 2019 diff hist -104 Scouting in New York rephrase + update current
- 20:27, 2 July 2019 diff hist -183 Scouting in North Carolina update current
- 20:28, 2 July 2019 diff hist +21 Scouting in North Dakota →Recent history (1950-1990): update current
- 20:30, 2 July 2019 diff hist -53 Scouting in Ohio update current
- 20:32, 2 July 2019 diff hist -24 Scouting in Oregon update current
- 20:35, 2 July 2019 diff hist -145 Scouting in Pennsylvania update current
- 20:36, 2 July 2019 diff hist -24 Scouting in South Carolina fix current
- 20:38, 2 July 2019 diff hist -54 Scouting in South Dakota →Scouting in South Dakota today: update current
- 20:40, 2 July 2019 diff hist -13 Scouting in Tennessee update + fix current
- 20:42, 2 July 2019 diff hist -1,880 Scouting in Virginia remove unnecessary/redundant infobox + remove redundancies current
- 20:44, 2 July 2019 diff hist +2 Scouting in Washington (state) update refs + add abbrev + fix + update current
- 20:47, 2 July 2019 diff hist -174 Scouting in West Virginia add abbrev + fix + update + remove advertising current
- 20:49, 2 July 2019 diff hist -72 Scouting in Wyoming update + remove redundancies removed (pun intended) current
- 20:50, 2 July 2019 diff hist -129 Scouting in Washington, D.C. pared down description current
- 20:51, 2 July 2019 diff hist +15 Scouting in American Samoa link current
- 20:52, 2 July 2019 diff hist -27 Scouting in Guam add current
- 20:53, 2 July 2019 diff hist -3 Scouting in the Northern Mariana Islands add current
- 20:55, 2 July 2019 diff hist -157 Scouting in Puerto Rico removed redundancies
- 20:57, 2 July 2019 diff hist +12 Scouting in the United States Virgin Islands update current
- 20:59, 2 July 2019 diff hist -61 American Scouting overseas update + abbrevs current
- 21:03, 2 July 2019 diff hist +13 Scouting in Massachusetts better title current
- 21:04, 2 July 2019 diff hist +741 User talk:El C →The guy is still following me: new section I finish my edits, immediate complaint.
- This is a terrible interpretation of what happened. Buffs (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- You followed her to Scouting in Vermont. You were warned not do repeat this. You ignored that warning and followed her to Scouting in Massachusetts. Yes, in between, you edited many scouting-by-state articles. Which, frankly, volume of which is kinda impressive, but it does not change these basic facts. El_C 03:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was warned not to repeat it. Fine. But your initial warning was in error too: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy..." Fixing a BLP issue is explicitly excluded.
- Tell me how the hell I "followed her"? I was making mass updates by hand. She hadn't edited the article before I started. She made the edits only after I started. I was already working on it when she jumped in. It should be abundantly clear that I also didn't touch a thing she edited. If I'm harassing her, I'm doing a VERY poor job of it. I've also edited the Boy Scouts of America article and dozens of other scouting articles. It's an interest of mine. Corbie claims I'm focusing too much in one area of WP. You recommend looking at other articles/go elsewhere. I do exactly that. And you block me. "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason.." This does NOT meet the criteria in either case, and you still haven't addressed her WP:BLP issue (nor have you undone my edit...which leads me to think that you know I'm right) or Corbie's civility issues. Buffs (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- You followed her to Scouting in Vermont. You were warned not do repeat this. You ignored that warning and followed her to Scouting in Massachusetts. Yes, in between, you edited many scouting-by-state articles. Which, frankly, volume of which is kinda impressive, but it does not change these basic facts. El_C 03:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- She did not set you up. You tried to follow her in a clever way, after you were warned, and it did not work. El_C 23:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
If someone made a spelling fix on every single page I edited, immediately after I edited the page, with the sole intention of annoying me, I don't think I'd be able to ignore that forever [...] --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It is that principle for which SolarStorm1859 was blocked indefinitely per this AN report. It doesn't matter what edits you were preforming, you were told to stay away and you didn't. Nor, for that matter, did I see you invoke any sort of a BLP emergency in any of those edits. I see no reason to overturn the block on that basis at this time. El_C 03:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I pointed this out to you multiple times both before AND after you blocked me: [5] [6] [7] [8] You dismissed them each & every time. Buffs (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- El_C, your conclusion was "Why would you even start editing the scouting-by-state articles right after she did?" The answer is: I didn't. She started editing after me. (see above).
- As for "It is that principle for which SolarStorm1859 was blocked indefinitely per this AN report." Wonderful. From what I read, it sounds like they did the right thing. I'm not SolarStorm nor was I aware of (or cared much) why he got blocked, but sounds like found a weakness in the application of a bot and abused its access...I do everything by hand, so I have no idea why that applies here. Likewise, ANI cases are NOT policy. BLP is.
- This was a setup. Buffs (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- It applies because the bot's edits were minor improvements, also — but it was clearly used to stalk. Sorry, your timeline (and its omissions) is still not adding up, as has already been proven below. Drowning the page in text is unlikely to advance your argument, either. El_C 04:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- So, now we're expected to not only know policy, but every ANI case too? How does the timeline NOT add up? What omissions? Prior to me starting on these state pages, she had not edited them. In the middle of editing them for what amounts to just updating terminology, she jumped in, made an edit, and then claimed I was going after her. You're literally calling TWO edits (one a BLP violation you deny I even brought up and still choose not to address and the other consisted of innocuous edits that didn't even touch her edits) "stalking". What's more likely?
- I was making updates to a group of articles that needed updating because they had the wrong terminology/were 9-10 years out of date in a field I've edited extensively in for at least the last four months and completely consistent from page to page
- I went out of my way to update articles (that IG hadn't ever touched prior to these edits) for 2+ hours in alphabetical order, in the desperate hope that IG would hop on one of those pages, I could make the same innocuous edits in alphabetical order, and somehow that would piss her off and get me blocked.
- Your reasoning is truly baffling! Buffs (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't expect you to know about it — that was merely noted for context. Anyway, she edited the Vermont article on 30 June, which as mentioned, your breakdown omits. El_C 04:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- That context doesn't apply here. You still haven't addressed BLP issues. Furthermore, my breakdown mentions that explicitly (with diffs).
- You're unwilling to listen to reason/facts or admit you made a mistake. I'll wait for someone else to review. Buffs (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wow. Your breakdown above (in red text) begins with 22:45, 1 July 2019 — it does not mention her 30 June edit. It's plain for all to see. El_C 05:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, I didn't write it there (again) because it would be an unnecessary duplicate of information that's already been written down and emphasized 3 other times on this page in the past 24 hours by me alone. If we add in your comments, it's more like 12+ times. You complain that I'm writing too much, you ignore what I have written, and then want me to write more? You're all over the place here. I added it, but I'm perplexed as to why you think it's necessary. I don't think it's going to change your mind, you were already aware of it. My appeal LEADS with it. It seems like just one more pointless hoop you want me to jump through. Buffs (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am willing to stop editing on Scouting articles with the exception of Order of the Arrow, Koshare Indian Museum and Dancers, Tribe of Mic-O-Say and Mid-Iowa Council. There are a couple of bios pertaining to these pages that need sourcing as well further clean up on the Massachusetts page, primarily the sourcing, that I will leave alone. I made the edit to the Vermont article because I was familiar with the event. I am 100% willing to own that I left out two very important words that were in the newspaper article. This was completely unintentional and I will try and be more diligent in the future. There is a collection at Smith College that has original documents relating to the instance that tainted my edit and I am sorry for it. I make mistakes, I'm human. Buffs did state that,"As long as IG continues to edit scouting articles, we'll probably edit some of the same articles, but I tell you what, if I come across something in my editing that Corbie or IG have done, I'll just bring it up here first so I don't get accused of "following" again." That did not happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buffs&diff=904449042&oldid=904421943
- No, I didn't write it there (again) because it would be an unnecessary duplicate of information that's already been written down and emphasized 3 other times on this page in the past 24 hours by me alone. If we add in your comments, it's more like 12+ times. You complain that I'm writing too much, you ignore what I have written, and then want me to write more? You're all over the place here. I added it, but I'm perplexed as to why you think it's necessary. I don't think it's going to change your mind, you were already aware of it. My appeal LEADS with it. It seems like just one more pointless hoop you want me to jump through. Buffs (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wow. Your breakdown above (in red text) begins with 22:45, 1 July 2019 — it does not mention her 30 June edit. It's plain for all to see. El_C 05:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't expect you to know about it — that was merely noted for context. Anyway, she edited the Vermont article on 30 June, which as mentioned, your breakdown omits. El_C 04:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- So, now we're expected to not only know policy, but every ANI case too? How does the timeline NOT add up? What omissions? Prior to me starting on these state pages, she had not edited them. In the middle of editing them for what amounts to just updating terminology, she jumped in, made an edit, and then claimed I was going after her. You're literally calling TWO edits (one a BLP violation you deny I even brought up and still choose not to address and the other consisted of innocuous edits that didn't even touch her edits) "stalking". What's more likely?
- It applies because the bot's edits were minor improvements, also — but it was clearly used to stalk. Sorry, your timeline (and its omissions) is still not adding up, as has already been proven below. Drowning the page in text is unlikely to advance your argument, either. El_C 04:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- In the aftermath of SolarStorm I am extremely wary of being followed/stalked/hounded, primarily because of the interactions between Buffs and SS including -
- That entire situation got to the point of ridiculousness when CitationBot was utilized to hound.
- I edited the Massachusetts article, yes. I have edited other scouting pages in the past couple of days as well. I did one out of character edit while I was looking for a language source for the Nipmuc word that was inaccurately attributed on that page. I removed unsourced material and had planned on adding sources as I have been doing slowly on another scouting page. I also had the Minnesota page on my todo list because of a link issue but I did not touch it, I did not want to give the appearance of following Buffs or being disruptive. Indigenous girl (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is absurd. You admitted following me and then manipulating the situation in order to get me blocked. I finished my edits, closed the tabs I was working on, and you immediately reported me (within a minute) without mentioning you were watching what happened the entire time (only after the fact). Even if I'd noticed it, I wouldn't have had a chance to report it. Let me be clear, I don't care what pages you edit at all; fire away! My edits are NOT based on yours. Buffs (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Block
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. El_C 21:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Buffs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You have GOT to be kidding me! I was editing them first and I announced what I was going to do! BEFORE she made an edit. This was a setup from the beginning! I also didn't touch a THING she edited. I started editing these in alphabetical order BEFORE she made the edit! This was all a setup on a page she never edited prior to me starting to UPDATE these! Remove this block and get rid of it from my record! You aren't even an uninvolved Admin, so you shouldn't have placed the block in the first place! Why don't you go talk to HER about WP:BLP and following MY edits! Buffs (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only: your block has now expired. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
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.
Comment from involved admin: Buffs account of the timeline is not accurate. Here's the timeline:
- June 30, 22:36, Indigenous girl edits Scouting in Vermont:[10]
- July 1, 22:45, Buffs then starts in on Scouting in the various States articles with Scouting in Arkansas:[11] then follows Indigenous girl to Vermont.[12] Is warned by El C.[13] Buffs engages and complains but then ignores the warning and follows Indigenous girl to Massachusetts anyway.[14] - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is a complete distortion of the truth and you know it!
- June 30, 22:36 IG edited a page [[15]
- July 1, 22:45 In a series of edits to fix Boy Scouts vs Scouts BSA problems, I fixed a WP:BLP violation of hers.
- July 2, 7:40: I announced I'd be editing the rest of the pages later.<--- this is the crucial step
- July 2, 17:16 I start making such edits then break for lunch
- July 2, 19:03 I finish lunch and start editing again
- July 2, 19:13-34 On an article she's NEVER edited she suddenly takes up a position with edits unlike others she normally does
- July 2, 19:51 I get to that one
- This is poisoning the well and you damn well know it! Buffs (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- "follows Indigenous girl to Massachusetts anyway." I was editing those articles BEFORE she started editing them. There is a VERY clear breakdown above (100+ edits). Buffs (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, you didn't. You started editing those articles (1 July) after she did (30 June). Your breakdown omits that. El_C 04:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- My breakdown mentions that explicitly (with diffs).
- She edited a single article. I mentioned that I would be editing the entire series. You had no objections when I did that.
- I left her edits completely alone.
- If I'm harassing her, I'm really doing a piss-poor job (see above). At this point, you've decided to just assume the worst about me and logic/evidence isn't going to work. Your scenario as presented is absurd/completely implausible, but it seems pretty clear you're unwilling to admit when you've made a mistake (BLP, this, phantom omissions, etc). I'm just going to wait for another admin to review it. Buffs (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Phantom omission? Her first edit to the Vermont article (30 June) was omitted in your breakdown. I keep mentioning that and you keep inexplicably denying it. To what end is beyond me. El_C 04:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- That was the lead in my appeal; I certainly didn't deny. I didn't see a need to re-re-re-re-re mention it on this page. I thought it was clear since I started with it. Added anyway.Buffs (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is mentioned now, but wasn't at the time. El_C 22:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, let's just jump through some more hoops then and spell it out in absolutely crystal clear terminology then (not like I haven't mentioned it at least a dozen times in the past 24 hours):
- What IG put in the article is a BLP violation. She implied a living person lied by cutting part of the information from her source. This living person did not confess to lying about having a Native American review their camp program. He confessed it hadn't been reviewed that summer. I fixed the quote.
- THAT was the edit you warned me about, so you should have CLEARLY seen it. Instead, I'm guessing you just looked at the edit history and didn't bother with looking at the content and context. You're not being even handed here. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is mentioned now, but wasn't at the time. El_C 22:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- That was the lead in my appeal; I certainly didn't deny. I didn't see a need to re-re-re-re-re mention it on this page. I thought it was clear since I started with it. Added anyway.Buffs (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Phantom omission? Her first edit to the Vermont article (30 June) was omitted in your breakdown. I keep mentioning that and you keep inexplicably denying it. To what end is beyond me. El_C 04:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, you didn't. You started editing those articles (1 July) after she did (30 June). Your breakdown omits that. El_C 04:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- "follows Indigenous girl to Massachusetts anyway." I was editing those articles BEFORE she started editing them. There is a VERY clear breakdown above (100+ edits). Buffs (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is a complete distortion of the truth and you know it!
Buffs, I am most certainly am an uninvolved admin. Why would you even start editing the scouting-by-state articles right after she did? I find your unblock request to be projecting and unresponsive. My block notice explains exactly why you were blocked. Nobody set you up — you chose to follow her all on your own. El_C 23:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- To be fair, part of the problem is that IG and Corbie follow one another around, agree with each other, and call it a consensus. Not saying that's a valid rationale for an unblock request, but it's part of the issue that needs addressed, since El C seems intent on mediating the situation. GMGtalk 00:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- That may or may not be an issue. I'd need better evidence than that, at any case. But that is an aside which has nothing to do with Buffs continuing to follow Indigenous girl around after already being warned not to do so. El_C 00:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- You'd need better evidence than someone having to post on their talk page four years ago that they're not a sock, and showing up in conflict after conflict to say that they do not know each other either IRL or off-wiki? It is an aside, but a sysop claiming consensus in a content dispute on an article based on the agreement of someone they clearly know off-wiki is a serious problem. GMGtalk 01:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure to what or to whom you are referring to, but you may find this AN report instructive. El_C 01:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:CorbieVreccan and User:Indigenous girl, what is your off-wiki relationship? GMGtalk 02:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm an old hat at SPI, please don't make me spend hours digging up the diffs of you intervening in disputes where there was no on-wiki communication. GMGtalk 02:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Corbie and I met on Wikipedia during Idle No More and the Theresa Spence hunger strike. It is next to impossible to find/edit any indigenous articles that Corbie has not edited though there's maybe been a few, I have never bothered to keep track. The comment on my page was due to a previous accusation of my having been Corbie's sock which was resolved via check user. I cannot recall who did the investigation, Corbie might remember. I communicate with Corbie via our Wikipedia email. I communicate with others in that manner as well. Full transparency - I have met them in person I think six or seven times since 2012, we have ended up at the same events as we do live in the same general area. Indian Country is small, especially in this general area, and I am not going to not go to events and I do not expect Corbie to refrain from attending events. We have never done social things like go to parties or meet for coffee together. I do have Corbie on my watch list and will participate on articles I have not edited before if I am familiar with the topic which means it usually relates to Indian Country in some manner though that manner may not initially be obvious. User:GreenMeansGo I don't know what I am supposed to do. If you have further questions I am happy to answer them. Indigenous girl (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, the problem I'm getting at isn't off-wiki connections per se. I'd be happy to buy any of you a coffee at a meetup one day and sit around cackling about Wiki-loves-monuments, or how wonderful and/or devastating Wikidata is. The problem is having someone with whom you have an extended relationship, both on and off-wiki, and with whom you reliably agree (to the point of being repeatedly and easily mistaken for socks), and using that to support one another in content disputes, claim a two-person consensus, and enforce it through the revert button. That's not really a consensus. That's just two people following one another around agreeing.
- Of course you're welcome to continue to work together to help improve articles on topics you both care about, and enjoy collaborating on. But you really shouldn't be trying to claim consensus in a dispute based merely on an agreement among the two of you. GMGtalk 15:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Corbie and I met on Wikipedia during Idle No More and the Theresa Spence hunger strike. It is next to impossible to find/edit any indigenous articles that Corbie has not edited though there's maybe been a few, I have never bothered to keep track. The comment on my page was due to a previous accusation of my having been Corbie's sock which was resolved via check user. I cannot recall who did the investigation, Corbie might remember. I communicate with Corbie via our Wikipedia email. I communicate with others in that manner as well. Full transparency - I have met them in person I think six or seven times since 2012, we have ended up at the same events as we do live in the same general area. Indian Country is small, especially in this general area, and I am not going to not go to events and I do not expect Corbie to refrain from attending events. We have never done social things like go to parties or meet for coffee together. I do have Corbie on my watch list and will participate on articles I have not edited before if I am familiar with the topic which means it usually relates to Indian Country in some manner though that manner may not initially be obvious. User:GreenMeansGo I don't know what I am supposed to do. If you have further questions I am happy to answer them. Indigenous girl (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure to what or to whom you are referring to, but you may find this AN report instructive. El_C 01:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- You'd need better evidence than someone having to post on their talk page four years ago that they're not a sock, and showing up in conflict after conflict to say that they do not know each other either IRL or off-wiki? It is an aside, but a sysop claiming consensus in a content dispute on an article based on the agreement of someone they clearly know off-wiki is a serious problem. GMGtalk 01:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
review
Well, the secret is this. We sometimes review and cannot make a decision, so we leave it for the next reviewer. And as the block expires in 28 minutes, I'm just gonna let it expire. I'm sorry for the waiting, but it was only 24 hours. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:Dlohcierekim, then I request the block be extended until it can be reviewed. I know when it ends. Buffs (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Buffs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #25797 was submitted on Jul 03, 2019 21:13:11. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not something I can do. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- "I note that your block has now expired so it is now outside the scope of UTRS. If there are related issues that you wish to pursue further then they should be raised either on an appropriate talk page or on a suitable admin noticeboard." (From the "reviewer")
- Translation of both people here: no one is going to bother to lift a finger to review this. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not something I can do. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Please do not refactor or hide other editor's comments on talk pages
El C recently warned you not to refactor other editors' talk page comments. comments.[17] I'd like to reiterate that warning. Specifically, your recent actions on Order of the Arrow where you hid the comments of an editor you had just been blocked for harassing. This was a violation of the guidelines for talk pages as well as consensus conventions of WP:CLOSE. It could also be perceived as continued efforts to harass this particular editor by way of silencing and intimidation. Article talk pages are for discussion about content of the article. Hiding another editor's comment does not advance discussion. Even if it includes OR, talk page research into citations goes to reliability of source material. The talk page is certainly the place to discuss it. Please be more considerate of other editors. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I marked another person's comments no differently than other comments of mine have been marked. No one had an objection then. Instead I get banned without warning. It's a double standard. Had anyone asked, I would have undone it personally. Likewise, by the time you'd "warned"/threatened me (again, an involved admin...there's a pattern here), it had already been undone.
- Likewise, you're reading what you want in policy/guidelines rather than citing what's actually there (emphasis mine):
- WP:CLOSE#Policy states: "Many closures are also based upon Wikipedia policy. As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted." Of those, WP:OR is SPECIFICALLY mentioned "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information[!!!] be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.
- As such, it still should be removed, but...
- WP:TPO states: "If a discussion goes off-topic...editors may hide it using the templates {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."
- There were no objections voiced by IG or El C (though El C had advised IG not to do insert WP:OR) AND IG admitted it was WP:OR), but after my edit, there were objections voiced by Corbie, who undid my edit. I did not undo this edit because, obviously, there were now objections. Buffs (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- I realized, perhaps belatedly, that your hiding of her comments was just plain inappropriate and that it can be viewed as a form of harassment. El_C 03:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Like I said, it was done to me and an admin involved in the discussion (Corbie) didn't undo it or voice any objection. As such, the behavior was tacitly endorsed and I felt it was "normal". It also isn't disallowed under WP:CLOSE or WP:TPO. (If it's a problem, maybe it should be). It wasn't intended as harassment, but to uphold WP:OR along with other policies. WP:CLOSE#Policy: "Wikipedia policy...requires that articles and information[!!!]...avoid being original research...[it] is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." It was undone AND we were discussing it.
- I just plain didn't see anything wrong with it nor any objections. As soon as objections were voiced, I let it go to discussion in accordance with the conditions you set for the article AND the talk page. To be arbitrarily banned from what's becoming quite a productive discussion for 6 months over something that could be simply discussed on a talk page (AND WAS!) is absurd.
- It feels very much like you've just chosen to consider any edits I make "harassment" without examining content or intent. In the past 2 weeks: 1 warning for something you and IG later admitted was indeed a WP:BLP violation, 1 block for what is at best a coincidence/at worst a setup, another block before I'd had a chance to see a ban, and the ban itself over something completely benign that no one involved seems to have objected to. You seem to claim there's no such thing as coincidences, therefore the warning was valid (ignoring the BLP exception), but are not only happy to assume there is a coincidence in favor of IG (discounting what's clearly a setup), you blocked me for it. Given all that, I hope you can see this and say, "ok, I can see your point. Let's put this all behind us and just continue to have a productive discussion." Buffs (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Editing the comment field of an editor whom you were just blocked for
stalkingis not benign. El_C 16:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)- You continue to malign my actions as "stalking". That's a loaded and legal term. Please stop
- Others moving it is ok though? Buffs (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Happy to retract. I'll go with WP:FOLLOWING, then. Anyway, I'm not sure the other move was the right call, either, which is what I said at the time. El_C 18:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- And yet, I'm the only one banned. Hopefully you can see how this appears to be one-sided. Please do retract. Buffs (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Because, as mentioned, you were already warned about modifying the comment fields of other editors. El_C 20:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- 6 months for something that can (and was) easily undone if someone disagreed with it is absurd. Her comments were 100% intact and I didn't touch them (as requested) and I did not add comments within them. There is no significant difference between that and archiving. It's a side discussion/side show that is trying to get WP:OR into the article via backdoor means with footnotes and phrasing. It's still a significant portion of the talk page. That the WP:OR still exists in the article AND sources have been modified to state things that weren't said in the source IS the primary problem. The OR on the talk page is an attempt to justify that. That an admin is leading the charge for such OR is reprehensible. That you're enabling him to do so without any criticism and I get banned...it's unconscionable. Admins should be preventing OR, not putting it in and enabling it to continue. Buffs (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is starting to become circular. Archiving her comment was an intrusive and prohibited act. Again, I already warned you not to edit the comment field of other users, but you did it again nonetheless. To someone whom you were just blocked for following around to other articles. I'm not sure I can sum it anymore clearly than that. El_C 17:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- El C, YOU suggested doing just that. I mean, banning me for something you suggested I do... come on! Buffs (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is starting to become circular. Archiving her comment was an intrusive and prohibited act. Again, I already warned you not to edit the comment field of other users, but you did it again nonetheless. To someone whom you were just blocked for following around to other articles. I'm not sure I can sum it anymore clearly than that. El_C 17:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- 6 months for something that can (and was) easily undone if someone disagreed with it is absurd. Her comments were 100% intact and I didn't touch them (as requested) and I did not add comments within them. There is no significant difference between that and archiving. It's a side discussion/side show that is trying to get WP:OR into the article via backdoor means with footnotes and phrasing. It's still a significant portion of the talk page. That the WP:OR still exists in the article AND sources have been modified to state things that weren't said in the source IS the primary problem. The OR on the talk page is an attempt to justify that. That an admin is leading the charge for such OR is reprehensible. That you're enabling him to do so without any criticism and I get banned...it's unconscionable. Admins should be preventing OR, not putting it in and enabling it to continue. Buffs (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- And yet, I'm the only one banned. Hopefully you can see how this appears to be one-sided. Please do retract. Buffs (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Happy to retract. I'll go with WP:FOLLOWING, then. Anyway, I'm not sure the other move was the right call, either, which is what I said at the time. El_C 18:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Editing the comment field of an editor whom you were just blocked for
- I realized, perhaps belatedly, that your hiding of her comments was just plain inappropriate and that it can be viewed as a form of harassment. El_C 03:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Article ban from Order of the Arrow for six months
Buffs, you know what? I've had it with the underhanded conduct — like hiding the comment of someone whom you were just blocked for following around from article to article. What did you call that above — "jumping in front of the truck"? Anyway, the consequence from that is as follows: under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions, I am article banning you from the Order of the Arrow and its talk page for six months, with the option of an appeal in three months. Please note that this sanction may turn into a topic ban if your conduct isn't up to par in other Native American articles. Simply put, go do something else. El_C 00:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Note that I originally intended to ban for two months with an appeal after one month (as partially seen in my edit summary), but in the end had evaluated that this was too brief of a duration. El_C 00:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- El_C, I'm not sure you've exactly adhered to the very special rules the must be adhered to in order to enforce our very special rules. GMGtalk 01:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- GreenMeansGo, your (vague) objection has been noted. Please feel free to bring this up to review in any forum you see fit. El_C 01:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- (ec) This is absurd, excessive, and capricious (see appeal below). Another admin already warned me. Before I'd even responded, you arbitrarily decided that I should be further punished. Buffs (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a punishment, this is to prevent you from disrupting Wikipedia with further tactics that are meant to make it unpleasant for your opponents in content disputes to edit in peace. I don't understand why you can't edit normally. Without modifying the comment fields of those whom you are in dispute with, or following them around to other articles. El_C 03:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- It doesn't feel like it isn't a punishment. It's a game of "Gotcha!" Instead of telling me on the page I was on "hey, you're banned. undo those edits", you blocked me for a week and undid my edits without additional conversation.
- For the last time, I WASN'T FOLLOWING!!! Even if I was following her on the first one, WP:BLP is an exception. Even if I was following her on the first one, there's no way I was following her on the second. I would literally have to have been psychic to know that she would edit that page (a page she'd never been to in the past!).
- Here's the order of events:
- IG makes an edit
- I make a series of edits to related pages noting they need updates and make the discovery of a BLP violation. I correct it.
- You warn me about editing after her
- I tell you I didn't do that and I'll be making more edits to those pages.
- (and this is crucial) I start the edits of the rest of these pages in order.
- IG edits a page she knows I will eventually get to.
- I continue my edits unaware of #6. Most importantly, I don't touch a thing she edited nor do I change my editing habits. The only way this is hounding is if I'm clairvoyant.
- You block me for hounding based solely on timestamps without considering WP:BLP or the content of my edits. Let me again make this clear, she'd never before edited that page. I could not have known she would edit it as I was approaching it in my list. At absolute best (for her), it was a coincidence. At worst, and far more likely IMNSHO, she set me up.
- You say I'm making it unpleasant? How do you think I feel. You're making this FAR more unpleasant for me and it very much feels like retribution. On the OA page, we're close to resolution. on 2 of the 4 major areas with agreement from IG and myself at least. My next step would have been to ask Corbie and at least half of the problem would have been resolved. Instead, you undid that.
- I've completely abided by the 1RR on the OA page as you mandated without ANY exception.
- Instead, all I get is the assumption of evil intent and malfeasance. IG and Corbie are openly admitting collusion behind the scenes. My remarks are scrutinized and assumed to be filled with evil intent while Corbie and IG's snide remarks and policy violations get a free pass.
- Yeah, it feels very much one-sided and like a punishment. Buffs (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Corbie and IG's snide remarks
— diffs, or it didn't happen. El_C 03:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)- I've pointed out numerous remarks, but if you want an entire list and promise a full review, I'll put it together, but it'll take a while (it's extensive). As a sign of good faith on your part, lift the ban. As a sign of good faith on my part, I won't edit any other pages (to include OA) until it's done AND we discuss it to your satisfaction. Buffs (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Really? A coincidence? Sorry, but assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. Anyway, I don't want a list and I don't want walls of text. I want the most egregious examples — two: one from each, please. And don't forget the diffs, this time. As for your offer, I actually do want you to edit elsewhere, so long as there's no further stalking. As for lifting the ban, I am not inclined to do so at this time. Certainly, if other admins or members of the Arbitration Committee feel like the Arbitration enforcement article ban is excessive, I will reconsider. El_C 05:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- What coincidence are you talking about here? I'm totally confused. Buffs (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've pointed out numerous remarks, but if you want an entire list and promise a full review, I'll put it together, but it'll take a while (it's extensive). As a sign of good faith on your part, lift the ban. As a sign of good faith on my part, I won't edit any other pages (to include OA) until it's done AND we discuss it to your satisfaction. Buffs (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- It still mystifies me why you started editing Scouting in States articles right after she did. Coincidence? El_C 04:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- In this case, the edit between us in Vermont was, but, as stated before, even if it weren't, it would be justified. I told you in advance I'd be finishing what I started. You offered no objection. Blocking me for that feels very underhanded and "gotcha" when you could have said something before. It feels very much like you unblocked me so your previous block wouldn't be reviewed. Buffs (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- In her case, she even admits she was watching my edits and intentionally edited an article she knew I'd get to eventually, but told no one (she easily could have left me a message on my talk page or elsewhere), and allegedly just assumed I'd skip it. I announced what I was going to do, made it clear what I was going to do, WP:AGF with the community, and IG set me up in order to get me blocked by feigning I was following her when in fact she was following me. It doesn't get more intentional than that. There's no longer a need to even assume the possibility of a coincidence. It was a setup. That she told you this on your talk page and you didn't even admonish her...astounding... Buffs (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- This, again, is plainly untrue. You followed her to articles she edited, twice. She did not follow you, period. She started editing the Scouting by State articles, then you started editing those articles, after she did. These tactics are just not going to work. El_C 09:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- She had edited a SINGLE article, not multiples. I was methodically going through all of them and IG intentionally and willfully admitted to following me and making an edit on an article she knew I'd get to. She mentioned this on your talk page.
- At this point, it's obvious you aren't going to listen to reason or evidence. You instantly hammer me with highly disproportionate punishments and don't even address the atrocious actions of others in this discussion until days later (if at all). Your handling of this situation is completely partisan and well below the standards WP should expect for an admin. There's nothing more I wish to say to you. Don't bother to respond unless you are willing to be even-handed. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- The timeline is clear — she edits a Scouting in State article, and suddenly you do, too? No, I don't buy that it was a coincidence, sorry. At any case, so we end it without the diffs of the purported "snide remarks," then (remember, I asked for two, one from each)? El_C 16:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, your take of the timeline ISN'T accurate. Even if I did "follow" her, WP:BLP is a noted exception. AFTER THAT, your take is that I continued to follow her to the Massachusetts article, but I was editing the remainder of those articles BEFORE she chose to edit the Mass article. IG admitted this on your talk page she was both aware of my editing and that she intentionally edited an article I was coming up on (an article with which she'd had no prior edits) and then claimed I was "following" her. Though I immediately suspected it, naturally, she didn't mention it until well after the block...
- As for diffs, you parsed my words. I said "Corbie and IG's snide remarks and policy violations", so here's a diff of insults I've dealt with from Corbie: [18]. Here is one more recent where he implies I'm persecuting IP and that since the community is so small, any objections by anyone in the community are notable and should be included (that's not policy, BTW...by that logic, literally anyone in a minority can claim anything and it should be published on WP)
- As for IG, I've already brought up the WP:BLP and WP:OR/WP:SYN issues ad nauseum. You seem content to ignore them. Ctrl + F on the talk page...take your pick. I don't care which one. If you don't want to do that, here: your warning IG does it anyway...no action taken except blocking me. Buffs (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- The timeline is plenty correct, as established by the facts on record. I don't see any "snide remarks," which is what I asked about — please quote. Nor do I see any policy violations that were not already addressed. If you see BLP violations in the article or its talk page, you still have the option to bring this to the attention of BLPN. El_C 18:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Policy violations are not okay, but these seem to have been addressed with my warning. Anyway, I missed the first diff. Yes, that may be snide, but mentioning "white supremacists" for context was a bit much, also. El_C 18:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- WP:OR still exists on the OA article and within its talk page. You're just letting it slide. Buffs (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- As mentioned by another admin, some border-line original research that would not be allowed on the article outright is permissible on its talk page to further advance clarity into cited material. Also, there's always NORN for outside input — which is not only welcomed, but desperately sought. El_C 18:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:El_C OMG! NORN is a PERFECT place to get outside input. Thanks! If only I'd thought of that sooner! Maybe I could have begged for help there first! Buffs (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sure? My familiarity with this dispute is admittedly limited. El_C 18:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Um...have you looked at the page? Zero help available there. I'm practically the only one who's offered opinions outside their own issues. I've been waiting for over a month for outside input. #SubtleSarcasmWasTooSubtle Buffs (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have not looked at it, obviously. There are other avenues of dispute resolution, at any case. El_C 20:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Like RFC? Yeah, we've had two of those on the page...one is still awaiting input after 3 months. You're acting like we haven't tried these remedies. Buffs (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- If it takes some time to get someone interested in involving themselves with the article, then it takes time. What do you want me to say? El_C 17:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like you to take the time to realize steps have already been taken and stop suggesting things that have already been tried as if we haven't done anything. This isn't a matter of waiting. Eventually these things are getting archived and we will not get additional feedback. Buffs (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- If it takes some time to get someone interested in involving themselves with the article, then it takes time. What do you want me to say? El_C 17:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Like RFC? Yeah, we've had two of those on the page...one is still awaiting input after 3 months. You're acting like we haven't tried these remedies. Buffs (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have not looked at it, obviously. There are other avenues of dispute resolution, at any case. El_C 20:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Um...have you looked at the page? Zero help available there. I'm practically the only one who's offered opinions outside their own issues. I've been waiting for over a month for outside input. #SubtleSarcasmWasTooSubtle Buffs (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sure? My familiarity with this dispute is admittedly limited. El_C 18:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- WP:OR still exists on the OA article and within its talk page. You're just letting it slide. Buffs (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- The timeline is clear — she edits a Scouting in State article, and suddenly you do, too? No, I don't buy that it was a coincidence, sorry. At any case, so we end it without the diffs of the purported "snide remarks," then (remember, I asked for two, one from each)? El_C 16:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- This, again, is plainly untrue. You followed her to articles she edited, twice. She did not follow you, period. She started editing the Scouting by State articles, then you started editing those articles, after she did. These tactics are just not going to work. El_C 09:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- In her case, she even admits she was watching my edits and intentionally edited an article she knew I'd get to eventually, but told no one (she easily could have left me a message on my talk page or elsewhere), and allegedly just assumed I'd skip it. I announced what I was going to do, made it clear what I was going to do, WP:AGF with the community, and IG set me up in order to get me blocked by feigning I was following her when in fact she was following me. It doesn't get more intentional than that. There's no longer a need to even assume the possibility of a coincidence. It was a setup. That she told you this on your talk page and you didn't even admonish her...astounding... Buffs (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- In this case, the edit between us in Vermont was, but, as stated before, even if it weren't, it would be justified. I told you in advance I'd be finishing what I started. You offered no objection. Blocking me for that feels very underhanded and "gotcha" when you could have said something before. It feels very much like you unblocked me so your previous block wouldn't be reviewed. Buffs (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a punishment, this is to prevent you from disrupting Wikipedia with further tactics that are meant to make it unpleasant for your opponents in content disputes to edit in peace. I don't understand why you can't edit normally. Without modifying the comment fields of those whom you are in dispute with, or following them around to other articles. El_C 03:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- (ec) This is absurd, excessive, and capricious (see appeal below). Another admin already warned me. Before I'd even responded, you arbitrarily decided that I should be further punished. Buffs (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- GreenMeansGo, your (vague) objection has been noted. Please feel free to bring this up to review in any forum you see fit. El_C 01:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Arbitrary break...hopefully for clarity
This thread originally fell under Buffs comments of 04:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC), but was VERY unclear where the discussion was going. This is a BRD attempt to clarify. Don't like it? Undo it. PLEASE! Buffs (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's why I asked if you wanted it overturned! It's not possible to win with you. El_C 04:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- You aren't spelling this out very clearly. It would have made WAY more sense to say "Ok, your reasoning makes sense. I'll unblock you if you want, or I can leave it for review by another admin." Instead, what you wrote comes across as gloating/taunting. "Psh, just file an appeal if you disagree with me...hahaha! j/k! You can't!!!" Buffs (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, that was your appeal! I did offer to overturn the block or keep it in place, but it doesn't sound like I had a fighting chance with either option. El_C 05:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- You aren't being as clear as you think you are. I pointed out it was a misunderstanding, how it could be improved, and how I took it. If you'd been more clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion... Buffs (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It feels very much like you unblocked me so your previous block wouldn't be reviewed.
Speaks for itself. There simply was no option you would accept. Keeping the block in place — well, I'm appealing it. Overturning the block — done to avoid scrutiny. El_C 05:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)- sigh* Ok. We're going to go that route... You've forked off about 5 threads and you're using so many pronouns you're being exceptionally unclear, so let's start at the block
- You blocked me.
- I requested an unblock
This is an appeal of the block.
Ok, I gotcha, my response is an appeal of "the block."And you are welcome to bring the ban up to review in any forum you see fit, up to and including the Arbitration Committee.
A rather snarky remark considering that, no, I couldn't do that. You blocked me. Everything from this point on feels like snark.Anyway, you wanted your block extended last time so that it could be properly reviewed.
Yep, I wanted that block extended for a review.Is that still your wish?
God bless. What did you mean by "that"? Given the preface of the previous sentence ("Anyway..." - you're dismissing the previous sentences and starting a new train of thought), I understood that to mean if you were asking for me to have an additional block on top of the one you already gave me. Given the apparent snark of sentence two, that seemed like an additional taunt asking for more blocking.
- I responded to all 4 sentences. You appear to have interpreted them as a single response to the second block when, in fact, they were responses to all 4 sentences. Since you also appear to have misunderstood me, let me be more clear. I would still like your previous block reviewed and reversed (as in the block expunged from my record). Yes, I wanted my current block undone. No, I don't want my block extended. When you used the word "that", it still isn't clear to me what you were asking.
- You then asked what appeared to be a snarky question: do I want the block undone?
- You then didn't wait for an answer and undid the block. (ec) At the same time, I answered your question. Of course I did! That's why I filed the appeal an hour ago.
- You then follow up with what appears to me to be more taunting "an hour is not that long to wait for an unblock appeal" It was a wasted hour that was completely unnecessary and completely of your doing. Yes, wasting an hour of my life (and now more) is unreasonable.
- This whole interaction was a HUGE waste of time and it feels like that was your intent. However, I'm also willing to admit I might be wrong and your intent was otherwise, but your use of pronouns made your entire interaction so vague it could have meant 4-6 different things. Let's chalk this up as a mistaken block + miscommunication and just move on to removing the ill-conceived ban. Buffs (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you're gonna start jumbling the comment order with various walls of text, I'm just not going to respond here anymore. El_C 09:53, 10 July 2019
- Who the hell is jumbling the comment order? What the hell are you talking about? Your comments continue to be cryptic and vague. You are the one making comments about text BELOW where you are typing comments and in 5 different places. I'm trying to keep up, but this appears to be a waste of effort. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Projecting is not going to work with me. And at least I'm making an effort to be concise. Anyway, I still maintain that an hour is not that long to wait for an unblock review. My remark to that effect was not intended as a taunt (I don't taunt), it was simply a statement of fact. El_C 16:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Who the hell is jumbling the comment order? What the hell are you talking about? Your comments continue to be cryptic and vague. You are the one making comments about text BELOW where you are typing comments and in 5 different places. I'm trying to keep up, but this appears to be a waste of effort. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you're gonna start jumbling the comment order with various walls of text, I'm just not going to respond here anymore. El_C 09:53, 10 July 2019
- You aren't being as clear as you think you are. I pointed out it was a misunderstanding, how it could be improved, and how I took it. If you'd been more clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion... Buffs (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, that was your appeal! I did offer to overturn the block or keep it in place, but it doesn't sound like I had a fighting chance with either option. El_C 05:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- You aren't spelling this out very clearly. It would have made WAY more sense to say "Ok, your reasoning makes sense. I'll unblock you if you want, or I can leave it for review by another admin." Instead, what you wrote comes across as gloating/taunting. "Psh, just file an appeal if you disagree with me...hahaha! j/k! You can't!!!" Buffs (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's why I asked if you wanted it overturned! It's not possible to win with you. El_C 04:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Block
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. El_C 01:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. El_C 01:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Buffs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is an absurd block. I didn't even know I was banned when I made my edit. On the page in question, User:Indigenous girl made a comment. I put together a thoughtful and collegial reply and had dinner over the next hour. I finished my thought and placed my comment. That's when I saw I had messages on my page. I looked at it and found I'd been banned. Before I even had a chance to ask "what the hell?" I'd been arbitrarily blocked (for things that have happened to my comments with no objection or punishment) and cannot even appeal the ban, much request a review of this block, the previous block, and the egregious actions that started it. This is absurd. Buffs (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I suppose it's possible you missed my article ban notice, had the window of the article talk page open for hours, then made the ban-violating comment. El_C 04:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is an appeal of the block. And you are welcome to bring the ban up to review in any forum you see fit, up to and including the Arbitration Committee. Anyway, you wanted your block extended last time so that it could be properly reviewed. Is that still your wish? El_C 03:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- What is this? Gloating? YOU BLOCKED ME! I CAN'T! Yes, I still want it reviewed. I was told that the extension would not be granted. Now you're looking for agreement from me to extend my block even further? Fool me once, shame on you... Buffs (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Would you like me to overturn this block or keep it in place for a proper review? El_C 04:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm asking because your explanation of the timeline is within the realm of possibility, so overturning this block is an option. You know what, never mind, I'm just going to overturn it, anyway. This way, you are free to bring the ban up to review outside of your own talk page. El_C 04:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- What is this? Gloating? YOU BLOCKED ME! I CAN'T! Yes, I still want it reviewed. I was told that the extension would not be granted. Now you're looking for agreement from me to extend my block even further? Fool me once, shame on you... Buffs (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Your topic ban appeal
Per the clear consensus at AE, the six-month ban imposed above is overturned.
I want to be clear that the grounds for overturning it were technical and procedural, not that you were not being disruptive. I haven't looked into this dispute much and don't know the rights and the wrongs of it but reading through your talk page above, it seems there are possible problems of hounding and that discussion of administrative actions has got very heated. Please do remain collegial and collaborative. GoldenRing (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)