User talk:SilentExplorer: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
←Blanked the page Tag: Blanking |
|||
(23 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== ANI Notice == |
|||
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User talk:Bestagon#top|Bestagon]] ⬡ 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Traitors == |
|||
Your "gallant dead" '''were''' traitors and your maimed veterans '''were''' fit subjects of derision. Pick evil causes, pay evil prices, says this proud heir of West Tennessee patriots who fought against the seceshes as part of the [[:6th Tennessee Cavalry Regiment (Union)]]. [[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:#F80">Orange Mike</span>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:#FA0">Talk</span>]] 05:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== July 2024 == |
|||
<div class="user-block uw-uhblock" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|left|40px|alt=|link=]]<p>Your account has been '''blocked indefinitely''' because '''your username is a clear violation of Wikipedia's [[WP:Username policy|username policy]]''' – it is obviously offensive and disruptive, potentially violent and threatening, and suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Please see our [[WP:Blocking policy|blocking]] and [[WP:Username policy|username]] policies for more information.</p><p>We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as [[m:What is a troll?|trolling]] or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to [[WP:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] – read our [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code> </p></div>[[Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy|{{PAGENAME}}]]<!-- Template:uw-uhblock --> [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 05:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=Nothing in my username suggests hate or disruption. Cullen328's *permanent* ban and block is an egregious reaction to nothing of evidence which would suggest, in his following remarks, "it is obviously offensive and disruptive, potentially violent and threatening, and suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia." There is nothing "obvious" in my username to suggest anything offensive and disruptive. If "Confederate" is considered to be just that, I highly doubt that in its historical context, Confederates would not have integrated seamlessly into the Union, such as those as James Longstreet who worked to help protect the civil rights of freedmen in Louisiana against white supremacists, Joe Johnston serving as pallbearer for Gen. Sherman's funeral (without a hat in freezing rain), or various other Confederate figures befriending their Union counterparts to heal the nation. I disown, however, any Confederates who mistreated slaves and freedmen, or advocated for a society based on racial supremacy. I also disown secession and the reasons for it, which included slavery. I do not disown Confederates who simply fought in defense of their native homes. As for being potentially violent and threatening, it really just shows how immature and emotionally charged Cullen328's reaction is. It's enough sorry that I even had to explain why the first part of the ban statement is dubious, but the second part of that statement has clear hostile ideological undertones which I'm afraid permeates the culture of this site. At best, I could see a legitimate argument made for violation of the second point here before anything could be said, but even then, I have already clarified that and there would need to be further details: |
|||
''On Wikipedia, we try to avoid sanctioning people more harshly than necessary. An editor who edits productively about Roman history, but disrupts in the area of American politics, will usually be topic-banned from the latter rather than site-blocked. The same principle holds true with hate speech, but one should take caution to consider what disruption exactly has occurred. |
|||
-For a potentially innocent mistake where the editor plausibly does not know the connotations of what they are saying, a warning or temporary block may be appropriate. |
|||
-If an editor has shown inability to distinguish between hateful and non-hateful sentiments regarding a particular group, while not clearly intending to hurt anyone, a topic ban or partial block may be appropriate. |
|||
-However, in most cases of hate speech, these remedies will not be enough. A temporary block is unlikely to dissuade someone of deeply-held views. And a topic ban may help with content disruption, but will not make editors from the affected group comfortable around the editor in question. (After all, the average person from some targeted group does not only edit articles about that group.) So if someone is engaged in concerted hate speech, the proper remedy will usually be an indefinite block or siteban. |
|||
-Granted user rights are removed as a matter of course with sitebans. With topic bans and non-siteban indefinite blocks, it will often be appropriate to remove particularly trusted rights, such as adminship. |
|||
'' |
|||
I have quite literally done nothing to warrant a permanent ban. There is no evidence on my part for any concerted hate-speech on my part, or that any of my speech has suggested any deep-held negative beliefs about a group of people. As stated in Wikipedia's blocking policy, |
|||
''Blocks should not be used: |
|||
-to retaliate; |
|||
-to disparage; |
|||
-to punish; or |
|||
-if there is no current conduct issue of concern. |
|||
Blocks should be preventative |
|||
Shortcuts |
|||
WP:BLOCKP |
|||
WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE |
|||
WP:BLOCKDETERRENT |
|||
Blocks should be used to: |
|||
-prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; |
|||
-deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and |
|||
-encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.'' |
|||
In a neutral academic environment, I would suggest user:Orange Mike be banned for a nasty and disruptive comment he left on my talk page right before I was banned, which was both childish and unprofessional. Interestingly, the Unionist regiment in the article he linked to, the [[:6th Tennessee Cavalry Regiment (Union)]], was led by a controversial figure who owned several slaves families on a plantation and committed atrocities. Albeit, I wouldn't assign the same judgement to solders under his command. I think it's quite "disruptive" to consider him an American patriot. I digress. It also suggests that the admin(s) who pushed for this ban (coincidently a few minutes after that remark) did it precisely to either retaliate, disparage, or punish.|decline=The [[WP:USERNAME|username policy]] specifically states "Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors or cause disruption to productive Wikipedia processes or discussions, or make harmonious editing difficult or impossible to achieve; e.g. by containing profanities, or referencing highly contentious events or controversies". It's quite clear that your username does that. I think that the reason for the block is correct, so I am declining your request. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
That's incorrect per Wikipedia guidelines and practices. That same article also states: ''"If you see a username that is problematic but was not obviously created in bad faith, politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username. '' There's no evidence I created this username in bad faith. I'm simply taking pride in my heritage, just like a number of U.S. military veterans from the South, who flew a Confederate flag in every war since the Civil War. I'd be happy to provide images of the men, who put their life on the line for the Stars and Stripes for the freedoms you enjoy, while also being prideful of the region they are from. You can disagree with this all you want, but you calling it "bad faith" is incorrect. I'd be happy to change my username. I've made good contributions to Wikipedia in the past, including work on [[Indiana in the American Civil War]] , [[Tennessee in the American Civil War]] , [[5th Indiana Cavalry Regiment]] , and [[154th Tennessee Infantry Regiment]] . You're conflating cultural heritage pride with an ideology. I see that it's contentious, but an immediate block, a permanent one at that, without even asking me what my intentions were or suggesting I change my user, is an egregious overstep. [[User:WestTNConfederate|WestTNConfederate]] ([[User talk:WestTNConfederate#top|talk]]) 21:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Regardless of your rationalizations, you're arguing in support of a "heritage" of slavery, white supremacy, and treason. And the bottom line is that those things are what the southern Civil War dead were fighting for. It's nothing to be proud of. But if you want to edit again, at the very least you should request a name change, away from the traitorous Confederacy and toward something truly patriotic. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 00:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::That's simply false and a misinformed oversimplification of my heritage. I'm not going to argue that because it will go no where. I've addressed what parts of my heritage I'm proud of in my appeal. If you're proud to be an American, then I could say the same in that the founders owned slaves, that Americans committed genocide against natives, and that white supremacists relished in the pretense of American patriotism. Many prominent Unionists were white supremacists and slave owners, and personally committed atrocities against natives. Yet, you can be proud to be American and disown those aspects. But the point still stands that I have done nothing in bad faith and this whole debacle is over an emotionally-charged response from certain people who have an ideological stance. This talk page thus far, looking from the outside in, to the average person who enjoys encyclopedias and furthering the cause of knowledge, would be deeply disturbed at the impulsivity from those who preach open deep-though discussions, and inclusivity and diversity. But, seeing how my username unintentionally provokes emotional harm, I would be glad to change it. It's quite disheartening considering that I was excited to (hopefully) do some more encyclopedic work on [[Agua Prieta]], [[Mexico]] in my coming travels through there. I can't possibly see a good reason for this ban to be upheld. If it is, after my explanation and offer, then I would not want to contribute anymore precious time or contribute money to this organization anyway... Nor would I suggest others of good, non-partisan character either. [[User:WestTNConfederate|WestTNConfederate]] ([[User talk:WestTNConfederate#top|talk]]) 03:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Let's hear your proposed new username. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 03:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |