User talk:Buffs/Archive 12

Kraft Talk page, history of edits by people with conflicts

Hey there, I was wondering if I could ask you about your removal of this from the Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noah_Kraft&oldid=914584953#History_of_sockpuppeting,_contributions_by_people_with_financial_ties_to_Kraft,_and_contributions_by_brand_new_editors_with_disclosed_but_unspecified_personal_ties_to_Kraft).

Regardless of what you think of BC1278's involvement (and I would even be fine with omitting him from the section), there's a long history of edits from single-purpose IP addresses and brand new accounts. As well as an editor with extensive undisclosed conflict who later admitted his conflict and recused himself. This history indicates a high likelihood of future vandalism, which is why I think it's important to include this section in the Talk page, at least for the time being. Your thoughts? DaRonPayne (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, it's not your place to put a list of problem editors on the talk page. Such grievances belong on their talk pages or WP:AN. To categorize edits that have not even happened as "vandalism" is inherently hostile/unnecessary/prejudicial. Let them make the case they wish. Other editors can take their input accordingly and make their own independent assessment (like me). As stated on the talk page, even if they have a WP:COI, they are allowed to edit and it isn't your place to be the arbiter on this page.

Lastly, looking at your edit history, you seem to be solely interested in this article. Assessing the actions of others as "a long history of edits from single-purpose IP addresses" is a big disingenuous considering you're doing the same thing. Even if there are multiple accounts involved, they are not using them to claim consensus. In short, back off. Plenty of people have eyes on it and there's no need to be this aggressive toward other editors. Buffs (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it belongs somewhere else, that's fine. I wasn't familiar with what the protocol is here, so that was partly why I was asking.

And just to be very clear, 3/5ths of the editors referred to in that section made actual, substantial edits to the page. In some cases they authored the majority of it. In others they reverted things without comment. And at least one of those editors had multiple, serious **undisclosed** FINANCIAL conflicts that he later admitted to before recusing himself.

I do have several edits on other topics, and if not for this pattern and my disgust with how easy it apparently is to game Wikipedia or buy favorable coverage, I hardly would have touched the page. DaRonPayne (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be direct. Your point's been made. It no longer needs to be there.

No one seems to be hiding any COI at this point. The ease of editing these is inversely proportional to the popularity of the person; the more famous you are, the more difficult it is to game (more people are watching). Whether they made substantive edits or not is irrelevant. Their COI is known and we simply acknowledge it and treat their edits accordingly. That doesn't mean that the edits are automatically wrong. Please read WP:COI. If you want it changed, you need to go there to change it. But you cannot go around badmouthing people on an article talk page: Wikipedia:Civility#Different_places,_different_atmospheres. Their personal talk page is the place to discuss such behavior and the various notice boards. Posting a perpetual warning that certain people have reasons they shouldn't be trusted flies in the face of WP:NPA and the guidance at COI. Buffs (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Civility Barnstar
		For your continued civility and good humor, despite us having different perspectives about RHowarth. I greatly appreciate it. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AP2 notice.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I'm notifying you of this SPI because you had noted 6Years's DUCK like profile [[1]]. Springee (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet...I'm shocked...shocked... Buffs (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfD for List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia

Hi, Buffs. I think that you left out the word "not" in your comment to the above-referenced RfD (I listed the reasons why every reasonable assessment is that Palestine is *not* a generally recognized sovereign state.)

Cheeres, AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops...fixed. Also, it's "Cheers"... lol Buffs (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do'h! That's what I get for editing from my iPhone (and without my glasses). : ) AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Keeper

Unfortunately I accidentally hit the enter key in the process of trying to type an edit summary, and if there's a way to go back and alter an edit summary after it's been saved I've never been told how it works. So the only thing I can do is provide an explanation now.

The issue is that the subject herself has a persistent habit, literally throughout the entire past decade, of repeatedly trying to rewrite the article so that it serves purely as an advertorialized résumé about her current work as a film producer, and almost completely blows out any content about her time in politics beyond basic acknowledgement of the fact itself: she deems the electoral results tables "not pertinent", she considers it "not pertinent" for the infobox to list her predecessor and successor as MP for Churchill, she considers it "not pertinent" for the article to actually say anything about her time as an MP, and on and so forth. This is the last version of the article that she tried to impose before I finally indeffed it back in March — as you can see, it's clearly not a properly written encyclopedia article by any stretch of the imagination, and fails to even demonstrate her notability as a film producer.

But because she's surpassed autoconfirmed status, the autoconfirmed and pending-changes levels of article protection wouldn't stop her at all — and because the first time she tried to do this was in 2010, yet she was still trying to do it as recently as this March, I'm not convinced that she won't try again if she can. So I don't know what other options there are: it can't stay indeffed forever, but she's been too persistent about this for far too long to trust that the problem won't recur; even if she were blocked, she would likely just register a new username so she could keep doing it. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I'm not an admin, so I don't know 100% of the tools or their functionality. However, it seems to me that you can apply ECP again and provide a rationale (it's been done by others. It is my humble opinion that if an individual user is causing problems, we should block that problem user rather than protect. If they are circumventing blocks, then ECP would apply due to persistent disruptive editing. ECP has a VERY specific role in Wikipedia ("The encyclopedia that anyone can edit"). When we start restricting articles editing access, we fall short of that goal. While it's sometimes necessary, a de minimis perspective should apply. Buffs (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Sir Joseph ANI

I see you've left a comment on my participation at ANI. Please review and consider what I said. I said "nobody's here to ban you". Less tersely, nobody came to that thread, with its abundant evidence and discussion, with the predetermined purpose of banning Sir Joseph. In the course of the discussion, it evidently has become clear to many of us that a ban is the only way to put a stop to his corrosive behavior. Your comment really didn't help advance that discussion at ANI. You can always come to my talk page and disagree or present constructive criticism. Most of the editors who support a ban seem to have long knowledge or experience of Sir Joseph's behavior. In my opinion, after all the warnings and civil disagreements that have been presented to him over the years, and after all the sanctions he's earned, it is not a good bet that he would change his longstanding style of editing WP. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and I guess that's it. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I suppose I don't know that none of the many participants there came predisposed to banning him, so fair enough as to my words. But by the same token, your "demonstrably false" as to editors' intentions is also unproved, only in your case it's an insinuation of malicious intent. Mine was an assumption of good faith. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I bid you good day/night Buffs (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

The primary scope of the case is: Evaluating the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. More information can be found here.
Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence. The evidence phase will be open until 18 October 2019 (subject to change).
You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop. The workshop phase will be open until 25 October 2019 (subject to change).
For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
If you do not wish to receive case updates, please remove your name from the notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi, Your additions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence seem to have nothing to do with the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case. Zero^talk 23:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: explanation added in case it wasn't clear. Buffs (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discussion

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the Finns party over whether or not the party should be listed as “ultranationalist” in the ideology section. I have been asked to invite users to come on and comment on the issue. Please come and join the talk and give your opinions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finns_Party#/talk/13 Victor Salvini (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline Per my 4th grade soccer coach about a fight at the field next to ours: "not my circus...not my monkeys..." Buffs (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case proposal

Regarding this edit: you should create a subsection under section 4 for your proposals, and put the proposed remedy there. Hope that helps! isaacl (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl:I'm new to this process, so thanks for being gentle. Done! Buffs (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to self

User talk:Ks0stm (likely absent) Not done

User talk:Plastikspork (likely absent) Not done

User talk:Noyster (likely absent) Not done

Template:Campaignbox Sheeba Farms conflict‎

User talk:Fish and karate Done

Template:Merging‎

User talk:Mifter (likely absent) Not done

User talk:Xaosflux

Template:GeoTemplate‎ Not done WP:IAR...should just be ECP'd due to disruptive editing
Template:Taxonomy/Asparagaceae‎ Done
Template:Christian-denomination-stub‎ Done
Template:Cleanup bare URLs/bot Not done WP:IAR...not sure why this template is so special when no others have this protection for this reason
Template:Public holidays in the United States‎ Done

User talk:Primefac Not done

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I consider your effort to enforce widely-broken rules to be deserving of a barnstar, given that I've been engaging in similar behavior myself for months. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*tips his hat* Buffs (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Taku/Hasteur thing

I thought your summary of the Taku/Hasteur situation over at AN was very nice. I've been on the periphery of that for a couple years now — it seems to sputter up occasionally, generating more heat than light — and I'd say you struck a good tone. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended

The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. To unsubscribe from future case updates, please remove your name from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ECP

Hi, I see you're commenting on ECP of admins. Just as a point of clarification, administrators do not have to log every ECP. The policy says: Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic.. I see you incorrectly pointed out on Risker and Muboshgu's talk pages that they needed to log any ECP of a BLP. Policy allows usage of ECP outside of the DS system, and not all BLP protections are DS protections. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never said that admins have to log EVERY ECP. Likewise, if they are citing BLP (without DE), then the only viable rationale would be DS under an ARBCOM ruling.

If you’ll notice, I haven’t made such requests where the summary is clear. Buffs (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. We cite BLP as a reason for actions (both blocks and protections) all the time without DS. It’s a standardized twinkle reason. DS is actually fairly rarely used in the area. You’ll know an administrator intends it as discretionary sanctions if they include the phrase “Arbitration Emforcement” or “DS” in the summary. Otherwise it’s just a standard protection under the existing protection policy, which does allow for ECP for BLP vios since they are disruptive. Please stop asking anyone who makes an ECP protection under BLP to log it. They don’t have to in the overwhelming majority of cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked them to be clear in their summaries. Look at what was actually written. I said that IF they did so due to WP:DE, then please annotate it so it's clearer. If it is due to WP:ARBCOM rulings, then to please annotate it in the logs. That's all and it falls well within the policies of WP. Buffs (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they don’t say AE in their protection log, it is not a DS protection and it does not need to be logged or clarified. You are wrong here. We’ve never required admins to say something isn’t AE. It’s assumed not to be unless it is explicitly claimed as such. Please stop requesting clarification over it since no clarification is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's spell this out:

In the first instance you cited, Risker gave no reason whatsoever. I asked him to clarify so it was clear. I also reminded him that if it was under DS/ArbCom reasons, then it should be logged. I never said it was under any DS rationale.
In the second, it was done so due to WP:BLP. So, let's look at BLP. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Role_of_administrators states: "Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that inappropriate material may be added or restored, may protect or semi-protect pages." It does not mention anything about ECP. Likewise, it does mention WP:DS: "Editors are also subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions pursuant to WP:NEWBLPBAN, which in May 2014 authorized the application of discretionary sanctions to 'any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace.' The discretionary sanctions allow administrators to apply topic bans and other measures that may not be reverted without community consensus or the agreement of the enforcing administrator." Therefore, it you are citing WP:BLP as your rationale for WP:ECP, it seems to me that you're applying it due to DS, not DE. Accordingly, I asked for clarification and appropriate documentation. Not only did Muboshgu not object, he apparently agreed and documented his actions in accordance with WP:DS policy.

In summary, it isn't as clear-cut as you're making it out to be, DS rationales WERE apparently applied without due notice (as was required). Now, if you want to change that policy, fine with me. I won't even object. Let's make it clear what's really meant when applying ECP. Buffs (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policy allows for application in disruption in any topic area if semi-protection has failed. I'm opposing you on this because your recent contributions make it appear that you've taken it upon yourself to be the ECP police. I don't necessarily object to that, I think ECP is overapplied. I do object to you making up rules that don't exist. I'm going to take this to ARCA, so please stop on the BLP front until they agree with you, which I suspect is highly unlikely. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) "Policy allows for application in disruption in any topic area if semi-protection has failed." I completely concur. If so, the rationale should state as such. Buffs (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss for less than a day and then take it to AFCA? This is ridiculous. We could have come to some sort of arrangement before resulting in the semi-nuclear option with misleading summaries. Buffs (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Editing of Biographies of Living Persons and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't take long. Disagree with someone and right on to AFCA? Wow. Buffs (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re saying that people have to either directly cite WP:DE or log it as a DS. I tried to resolve it with you above, and you made your position clear. The only option is to get the committee to clarify whether or not they intended the requirements of logging to apply as you think they apply. There’s really no where else to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything of the kind. I've asked for clarification because I find the rationales to be unclear (in most cases because they are blank) or unwarranted (such as to templates where the community has decided ECP should NOT apply). If (and only if) such a ruling falls under ArbCom rulings, then I've asked them to document the logs appropriately. That this is even contentious at all is perplexing. Buffs (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While that certainly would be preferred and make such summaries MUCH clearer, in the vast majority of instances, I've asked for ECP to either be unapplied or a rationale of ANY kind to be provided. The reason for this is that if it is ECP'd for DS, that's going to go to WP:AE. Otherwise, it needs to be appealed at WP:AN/WP:ANI via community consensus. Both have separate rationales for protection. Buffs (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni Damn, dude. You’re saying that people have to either directly cite WP:DE or log it as a DS. I never said that nor have I advocated specifically for that. I have asked for SOME edit summaries to be clearer, but you've taken a LOT of what I said WAY out of context. Buffs (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

Thank you for the closure request; as you have noticed I have been trying not to edit the ANI thread. As we all know any response will be counterproductive. (I have long been happy with the consensus to move old drafts out of the draftspace as you suggested. I have even begun implementing the consensus). I am just lost what I should do. — Taku (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of Texas A&M University page edits

I have referred our disagreement whether original source documents are appropriate for historical discussions to Wikipedia arbitration(arbcom-en@wikimedia.org). Please cease any revisions to my original source citations or my edits until the matter has been addressed by Wikipedia arbitration. Randolph Duke (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Duke that's not how this works in the slightest. You are the one making changes and controversial ones at that. As such, you need to have better citations to THIRD party sources, not your interpretation of original sources as multiple people have pointed out to you on both the talk page and your user talk page. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeffed Randolph Duke per your AN3 request, Buffs, but then I noticed that twitter link, which may count as WP:OUTING, so I have redacted and revdeleted it out of an abundance of caution. Please don't do this again, even for obviously problematic users. Best to communicate such discoveries via private means. Thanks and sorry for the intrusion. I realize I may not be particularly welcomed on this page. El_C 17:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with the policy. When someone openly admits they are posting online under a certain name AND it's published that's their name in the Wall Street Journal, that's hardly WP:OUTING. Still, point noted. Buffs (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for your contributions here, that's a required notice and I take no issue with it. It was neutrally worded. Buffs (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop reopened

Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite public comment and workshopping on the proposed decision, which will be posted soon. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. To opt out of further announcements, please remove yourself from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request archived

Hi Buffs, the BLP clarification request which you were a party to has been closed and archived to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (December 2019).

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 14:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Nofulton.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Nofulton.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 23:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear.

Clearly, I think the purpose of our rules and regs is to obfuscate and confuse. Your mileage may vary.-- Deep fried okra 18:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. IMHO, the rules should be a framework within which we can constructively build. It should only be a proverbial sledgehammer when it needs to be. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices is officially open, in case you want to comment there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

using common terms

Regarding your commented-out commentary on GorillaWarfare's statement, "I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men": as she explained in her evidence submission, she meant when she is included in a list of user names that has male editors, she'd prefer to also be referred to by her username, rather than her real-world name. As far as I can tell, Kudpung's responses in that discussion don't seem to based on your interpretation. isaacl (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed—my issue was being the only one referred to by my first name when included in a list of male administrators referred to by their usernames. I have no problem with people of any gender using my first name, but I prefer it to be used consistently with how one is referring to others in the same statement, for the reasons I outlined in my evidence. I realized soon after leaving the note that "among" was unclear in that context and the statement could be construed the way you interpreted it, and so I clarified, but it did not change Kudpung's reaction.

BTW, should I be responding to your workshop proposals that are commented out or should I hold off? I'm not sure if the commenting means you are considering withdrawing the proposals, or what. I would like to respond to some of them if you intend to leave them, but I don't want to interrupt your drafting or spend the time if they are possibly going to be removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GW, I’m not done with these and I may or may not submit them for consideration. If you wish to pre-reply, you are welcome to do so, but please realize these are drafts and are not compete Buffs (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you! #2

	The Original Barnstar
	I want you to know that despite disagreeing with you on the Kudpung workshop, I appreciate you standing up for Kudpung, for fearlessly expressing your views and for your overall civility. I hope it is clear that you have my respect. Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Tips his hat* likewise. Reasonable people can disagree...I think we've forgotten that as a society in a pursuit of "the truth". The fact is that there are a bunch of ways to look at things and impacts of decisions can have massive 2nd-order, 3rd-order, 4th-order, etc effects that can be just as damaging (if not moreso) than the problems they purport to fix. Likewise, just because there is a solution that has such effects doesn't necessarily mean it isn't the best solution (by which I mean the least-worst solution). I appreciate your candor and civility, Chris.sherlock. Buffs (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For defending a trusted and valued admin against those with a particular axe to grind against Kudpung and the admin corps in general. Slatneck (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, I'm not defending anyone for being a trusted or valued admin. But I hate to see someone get railroaded via misleading summaries of events or slanted takes on their own experience. Kudpung needs to control himself better than this, but it doesn't rise to the level of desysopping either. Seeing as you're blocked for being a sockpuppet, I'll take the compliment. For anyone who's decided to "review" my actions off-site, no, this sockpuppet isn't me...I don't do that; the fact that you assume the worst of me and Hammer me for it is part of the problem. Buffs (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Apologize for my rudeness

I want to apologize for my rudeness earlier. It was unbecoming of me, and uncalled for. You did nothing wrong, and certainly nothing to deserve what I did. I unequivocally apologize for my actions. --Jayron 32 17:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 Hey man, if I came across as snippy, me too. Just want to make sure we log everything so it's clear. No harm. No foul. Buffs (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Yell Leaders doing pushups.JPG

The file File:Yell Leaders doing pushups.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

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. Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yell Leaders doing pushups.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yell Leaders doing pushups.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Careen/career

What do you have against the verb "career"? --Jtle515 (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of the usage of the word is incorrect. The use of careen is FAR more common in this context than career. Likewise, it is describing an accident in North America; such word choice is preferred. Buffs (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly pointless re-opening of edit request at Talk:Texas A&M Aggies football

Just wanna tell you I just re-closed the edit request at Talk:Texas A&M Aggies football you had reopened yesterday after seeing it in Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests because I saw no reason why it should be reopened. If I missed something, feel free to revert me. Rummskartoffel (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rummskartoffel: POINTLESS?!?! <reviews the edit...what was I thinking?...> I COMPLETELY missed that request's date. My fault. Thanks for the catch. Buffs (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Thank you

for your statement. Whatever the outcome, it needed to be said. I am reminded of what I said to you here. At least this time round the committee has a slightly different composition, but I'm not holding my breath. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me.

Also, if you email me to get around this ban, I will assume that you are agreeing in advance that the entire contents of the e-mail can be released to anyone I wish to.

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I;m pretty sure I've already banned you from my talk page in the past, but just in case you squeaked by, you're banned now. I have no interest whatsoever in anything you have to say. Your blatant lack of objectivity concerning me hasn't stopped you from commenting on my work. I can't stop you from doing that, but I can certainly shut the door to you on my talk page. Take a hike. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have no authority to "ban" me from anything (see WP:BAN). The fact that you misuse the term as a form of bullying is absurd. That said, I'll respect your wishes. If you requested it in the past, that's a mistake on my part and it won't be repeated.
My "blatant lack of objectivity"? You're no where close to being impartial here. I pointed out where the other party was incorrect. I tried point out alternatives to moderate what's clearly a dispute over you inserting your photos over long-established lead photos. The fact that you can't even see that your own photos are blurry or that you're exerting WP:OWNership is indeed the problem. Buffs (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delmar. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Featured Article Review

I have nominated Texas A&M University for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~ HAL333 23:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apoligies for delay

Hi Buffs, sorry I delayed responding to your comments in the RfC at University of Mississippi, and initially only responded to Hal. I didn't see your additional comments until later, and then had to think about how I wanted to explain my thoughts. I hope you didn't think I was ignoring your response. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 Not at all. Have a good one! :-) Buffs (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page block

This attack, this revert where you prevent Valjean from fixing their own typo, and this revert + baseless claim of an insult, repeated here, all here on your own talkpage, are unbelievably petty, separately and together. Please note that Wikipedia including this very page are supposed to be for collaboration, not an opportunity for frustrating and abusing others. You have been blocked from this talkpage for 12 hours. If you wish to request unblock, I suggest either WP:ANI or WP:UTRS or appealing directly to me. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Per my comment at ANI permalink, I've restored your access to this talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Being blocked from removing insults from my own talk page seems quite ridiculous.

WP:REMOVED: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages...If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so."

Buffs (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To quote PrimeFac: WP:BANEX allows for asking clarifying questions. The fact that such questions have gone unanswered is part of the problem. Buffs (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious Userpage

Hello! I know that you are currently blocked from your talk page (and as such if you want to reply to me you can do so on my talk page) however I just wanted to let you know that I find your userpage pretty funny. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze The Wolf I do my best. Buffs (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

Through the discussion at ANI, I learned that you have been using the Daily Wire and the New York Post as references. Please be aware that community consensus is that neither of these sources is reliable so you should not be using these sources anywhere except possibly in the articles about those publications. Please look over Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and familiarize yourself with community consensus about which sources are unreliable and refrain from using them. The assertion that Donald Trump unconditionally pardoned Scooter Libby is uncontested and therefore needs only a single highly reliable source which could be the conservative Wall Street Journal or the liberal New York Times or any other reliable source. Multiple sources for an assertion that everyone agrees is true are not necessary, and when you try to add unreliable sources as references, you are in effect asking for conflict. So, please be aware if you aren't already that persistently adding poorly sourced content could lead to a block if you do not stop it. Of course, you have the option of going to the Reliable sources noticeboard to try to change the consensus by presenting evidence that any given source is actually reliable, but until you gain that consensus, do not use any such source. I hope that this is clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Greetings Cullen, I appreciate your well meaning intentions but I respectfully disagree with the premise a few of your statements depend upon (namely, that the The Daily Wire and the New York Post are unreliable). In fact, by the link you provided, both of these sources are considered generally unreliable which does leave some room for editorial discretion. And certainly does not mean that consensus has deprecated their use.

They clearly should not be used to support the inclusion of contentious material or for the purpose of establishing a subject's notability. But with non-contentious content where notability is well established, I'm not convinced that an editor should be told "you should not be using these sources anywhere. Or that consensus to use them can only come through the reliable sources noticeboard.

Perhaps I'm beholden to some yesteryear ways but what happened to "consensus through editing", and why must content that has stood the scrutiny of successive editors be summarily removed simply because its source for verification is considered less than reliable?

Non-contentious content should be challenged with a citation needed template and when an editor feels it should be removed instead, they should challenge the content itself, and remove it on that basis.

If sources truly should not be used, wouldn't our "reference blacklist" prevent the page from publishing when any of them are included?--John Cline (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a fun little lecture, Cullen. You're only partially correct as John pointed out. Likewise, when you are quoting someone directly, you can cite where that came from even if it is deemed a generally "unreliable source". For example, if a celebrity publishes a bombshell announcement on Facebook, it is both reasonable and acceptable to cite Facebook as the primary source: "On March 4, 2017, John Smith posted a video on Facebook where he claimed <outrageous claim>."<facebook link/citation> This doesn't lend truth or cast doubt as to the accuracy of John Smith's claim, but indeed it happened and this is the evidence it did. Like EVERY primary source, reasonable caution must be taken.

Specifically in the case of these on Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant, it wasn't just the source that was removed, but the underlying facts as well (3 whole sentences were removed because the source was something they didn't like, not that the statement was inaccurate in any way AND they admitted/knew it). Note that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. You don't like the citation? Fine. There are other citations available (or should be). A ^{[citation needed]} tag would be much more appropriate.

There are many on WP who openly admit their leftist biases in many cases. Their opinion, like mine (which is conservative-libertarian), should be taken with a grain of salt. Theirs however, may need extra salt... too many hold political views that appear to cloud and inappropriately influence their editing decisions. I'm attempting to remove bias or at least give a balanced set of references. It's inappropriate to include only a primary reference, though it is certainly MUCH better to include them with secondary references as people can view see happened for themselves. A secondary reference from FoxNews that's critical of Behar would be inappropriate alone. The same is true for a CNN reference praising her remarks. A strictly professional view is also incomplete as it does not show the outrage/support of either political persuasion. Ergo, 4 references is appropriate in this instance for a controversial remark. Through discussion, other sources were indeed removed, including DailyWire. Oddly enough, that one was probably the most neutral and touched on all of the aforementioned points of view...but it's the "unreliable" one... Buffs (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be successful in trying to be neutral, but at least I'm trying. Buffs (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent call-out to me and others. Please note that Icewhiz and E.M.Gregory, for all the valuable work they did on Wikipedia, appear both to have committed infractions which resulted in their terminations. Though missed, they cannot be invoked anymore. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tips his hat Buffs (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling
There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship
Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say my faith in this process is "skeptical". Buffs (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar Award!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Great job on your efforts improving the Texas A&M University page. This FAR has lasted over 4 months. The least I could do is recognize your hard work. Oldag07 (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

appreciated Buffs (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.

Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure

["not nice" comment deleted]

That's not nice. Fortunately Drmies has closed this again. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: This is the kind of stuff I've been dealing with for months. More taunting. No warnings, just blocks for me. WP:CIVIL? WP:BEFOREBLOCK? WP:WIKIHOUND? Are these really policies or are we just going to treat them as suggestions? When will someone hold users and admins accountable for failing to abide by policies? And Wikipedia wonders why we don't have more participation... Buffs (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, it is not up to you to close a discussion an ANI. If you really want me to make you accountable for failing to abide by a basic rule ("don't close discussions you're involved in"), I will be happy to warn you, or maybe block you for ongoing disruption. Seriously, this needs to stop. You're wasting everyone's time, and this is one of those little things that in the end can add up to "net negative". Drmies (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: YOUR actions are a net negative. Fine, let's go down that road. Which "basic rule" is "don't close discussions you're involved in" quote from? I don't see that policy anywhere. The closest I can find are:

Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure which indeed states "Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins", but JayBeeEll decided to omit the rest of it...it also has a footnote which states "In uncontentious circumstances, even an involved editor may close a discussion. For example, if you propose something, and it's obvious to you that nobody agrees with you, then you can close the discussion, even though you're obviously an "involved" editor."
Wikipedia:Closure requests which states "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion."
Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Writing_a_summary goes so far as to specifically cite an example where someone withdrew their request.

I was blocked for a month for (allegedly) misquoting a webpage and without a warning of any kind. Are we going to see a block of you for a month for quoting something out of thin air as if it is policy (it isn't)? Of course not! You're just paraphrasing something you think you read somewhere! It would be serious overkill to do that! It's nothing more than a mistake!

You don't get to make up policies to hammer others over. Buffs (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized you deleted the warning on JayBeeEll's page. What the hell? Not only are you going to actively tolerate this kind of taunting without a warning of any kind, you're actually going to stop me from warning him?! WTF? Buffs (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Admins are here. Anyone want to bother to warn User:JayBeeEll? Or is cussing out "opponents" considered fair game now? Or is it just for the friends of Admins? Buffs (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The martyr act has never gotten anyone anywhere on Wikipedia. My advice: try to say more in fewer words, focus on specific (proposed) edits in article-talk comments, and leave the procedural complaints to others. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: You don't get it. This isn't an "act". I'm quite serious. Policies on WP apparently mean literally nothing anymore. Admins can do whatever they want and us mere peons have to just sit here and take it (unless admins like them, then they get a pass).

Above is a clear WP:CIVIL violation. Any warning for behavior? Nope. The admin here doesn't admonish such behavior. He goes so far as to delete the warning for incivility
WP:WIKIHOUND/WP:TE A user is blocked for taunting me/uncivil behavior (hey, got ONE right!), promises to avoid interacting with me in the future to get the block lifted, stalks me to the very next page I edit, and acts as an obstructionist to any suggestion I make. The same ideas I propose but from another person? Oh, those are ok. Any warnings for lying to the community or Wikihounding? Nope.
Blocked without a warning of any kind for a month? Does this follow WP:BEFOREBLOCK? Nope. Any warnings? Nope.

The problem IS procedural! Until someone says "You know what, our policies have to mean something. That's part of what's driving away editors! They don't know what to do. We're just hitting them with a sledgehammer and wondering why they don't stick around." Admins acting like this (making up policies to punish their opponents and defending those that agree with them politically) are why we have problems. Buffs (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBL, literally cusses me out and I get warned not to talk to him or face a block. This kind of garbage is exactly why Wikipedia contributors are leaving in droves. If someone supports your political position, the rules don't apply to them. The Admin Corps is full of people who want to push a political agenda and let all kinds of stuff slide if you're the right political persuasion. Step out of lock step with them and they'll make up a reason to block you...and they won't even explain why...they'll just make it up. This is a kangaroo court with Judge Dredd lurking around every bend. Buffs (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, in my opinion, I think that you may not fully understand WP:BEFOREBLOCK when the entire text is taken into consideration, in the context of this specific situation. Yes, that policy says that new good faith editors need to be given warnings before being blocked, but you have already been blocked several times going back to 2007, and unblocked in some cases after providing assurances to administrators that you would refrain from disruptive editing. In other words, your block record shows that you are already informed and expected to know that disruptive editing is not allowed and blockable, and that no warning is required when fully informed editors engage in that type of poor behavior. That same policy language says with regards to new bad faith editors, that they do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately which indicates that your claim that advance warnings are required in all cases is incorrect. I have blocked many editors without any advance warning when I concluded that their misconduct was egregious and obvious. There has never been any serious criticism of my blocks because it is clear that the disruptive behavior was real. So, my advice to you is to refrain from disruptive editing going forward. Your block expires soon. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a lot to respond to. First of all, no, it doesn't say that only new good faith editors need to be given warnings. It states "Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these." If this only applied to new users, shouldn't it state that? Bishonen has never once engaged with me prior to a block. I have asked repeatedly for clarification as to what I actually did/what rules I allegedly violated ("Failure to come up to the minimum level of decency and honesty for talkpages" isn't a standard that's defined anywhere) and I don't see a clear answer. I'm not saying I don't know WP:DE. I'm saying I don't see this as WP:DE to insist that people stand by required policies just like me (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc). As shown below, I have not been blocked for disruptive editing in a manner that was not later overturned by either consensus, so to say "I'm aware of exactly what I did" (paraphrased) is completely incorrect:

05:28, 11 September 2007: blocked for 12 hours for 3RR violation on Fightin' Texas Aggie Band
This was the Featured article of the day. In 2007, there was no exception for 3RR for vandalism. Now, there is and my block was part of the impetus to change that rule.
22:22, 22 August 2011: blocked for Disruptive editing
This block was later overturned via community consensus. At the time, there was no rule about being able to control your own talk page in any way. It belonged to everyone. Because of this, the rules indeed have changed. If someone asks for you to stay off their talk page, they have a reasonable expectation you do so. Likewise, this was a block without any warning and with two edits in 6 months...hardly anything broaching "Disruptive Editing".
21:31, 2 July 2019: blocked for 24 hours for "personal attacks"
01:47, 10 July 2019: blocked for a week for Arbitration Enforcement; this also involved a 6-month ban from a certain topic. This was later reverted when he realized I hadn't seen the ban.
The first block wasn't for "personal attacks", but for "WP:FOLLOWING". I made the mistake of telling people what I was going to do with a series of articles. That individual edited one of the articles I said I was going to edit and, once I made the changes, claimed I was stalking her. These two are both completely related where an admin decided to just apply discretionary sanctions at will for articles he wanted to protect. You can read more about how ArbCom overruled him here. Overall, it was a wash and everything was overturned as El_C overstepped his authority. FWIW, we've largely reached detente.
16 September 2021 blocked for removing snarky comments from my own talk page.
I still disagree with this one even being implemented at all. I should not be required to keep snarky comments on my talk page. Removing them would have been ok, but commenting on them was apparently a step too far as was stopping him from editing his title. This still isn't spelled out anywhere. This block was later undone.
7 November 2021 "Failure to come up to the minimum level of decency and honesty for talkpages"
Another instance of an admin making up their own reasons for a block. I've explained this all above. Buffs (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came to offer you my sincere assessment of your situation. I will simply take note of your unresponsiveness to the points I tried to make, and your lack of self-reflection. I will just file that away in my memory bank in case you return to the behavior that led to your block. I hope that you will refrain, but time will tell. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you started with " I think that you may not fully understand WP:BEFOREBLOCK..." You're reading what you want to read with regard to that policy, not the text that's actually there. Then you said my block record shows I should know better about disruptive editing. Only ONE block was for DE and it was completely overturned. No, I'm not going to "self-reflect" (this stroll down memory lane/nightmare alley is enough). Unless you read at an amazing speed (I'm 700 words/min) You clearly didn't have time to actually read all I linked, so let's just say I doubt your sincerity in this matter, especially when you describe 25ish lines of text as "unresponsive". You've read what you want to read without looking at any of the context of my history. Perhaps you should reflect on that. Buffs (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can claim an advanced degree in wikilawyering since you have been studying since 2007. I have been here only since 2009 and have never been blocked or credibly threatened with a block. That is because of the way that I have conducted myself. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're never accused of something you didn't do. You can take your I'm-superior-to-you/holier-than-thou attitude elsewhere. Buffs (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Buffs. Since you mentioned me above, I hope you'd permit me some corrections and clarifications. Firstly, RE: just apply discretionary sanctions at will — error or not, that's actually how DS is usually applied, with admin discretion. Secondly, RE: You can read more about how ArbCom overruled him here — that wasn't ArbCom (the Committee) over-ruling me, it was a quorum of uninvolved admins at WP:AE. I thought that this dispute over Native Americans was covered by the American politics DS (WP:AP2), a view that was obviously overwhelmingly rejected.

Finally, FWIW, we've largely — hopefully, this sentence which got cut off, continued with... something nice! ;) Some final thoughts (about our thing). Though my recollection of this 2019 dispute is admittedly a bit hazy, I think we both made mistakes throughout it. But while I contend that you are by no means blameless, I do feel that as an admin, my mistakes deserve greater scrutiny. For my part, I've tried to learn from that experience by trying to do better, hopefully to some effect. Anyway, just thought I'd clear the air, less as a passing comment this time. Hope there aren't any hard feelings. Sorry again for my fuck ups then. Cheers! El_C 15:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was "something nice", just forgot to finish it.

The full quote was "...apply discretionary sanctions at will for articles he wanted to protect". You were applying it to Scouting in 1915; nothing of that falls under AP2 and your take of "anything in the US after 1932" is absurd. "Overwhelmingly rejected" is accurate. However, my assessment of that situation was as it happened at that time, not as you personally are now.

AE is Arbitration Enforcement which is, effectively, under the auspices of ArbCom. The equivalent, IMHO, is stating "The justice department visited me today" and then you saying "no, it was the FBI". They fall under the justice department and it's a distinction without a functional difference.

Sorry again for my fuck ups then is probably the nicest thing an Admin has ever said to me...seriously, I literally have a tear in my eye. Thank you.

I'm trying my damndest to learn from it, but it's exceptionally difficult when I still don't know why. While I still think we don't agree on a lot of points, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what I did that was so egregious. Perhaps an apology on my part is indeed in order. I do not plan to edit DW or its talk page after this partial block ends until I know what I did. As it stands, I don't see what I did wrong. Buffs (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, thanks, man.

For sure, try to chill, past me. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I just don't have the time atm to go back so as to detail the issues of that month (months?) -long dispute; a bit overwhelmed presently by an influx of RL tasks. Again, my recollection of the dispute isn't that firm. Still, that's my impression, FWIW. But I didn't apply DS to Scouting in 1915, I applied it (as your link above shows) to Order of the Arrow, a topic which goes beyond that more narrow subject matter/era.

Also, the point I made about ArbCom was only that it wasn't them who over-ruled me, though I tend to think they'd have responded similarly. Anyway, I just meant that as a point of clarification about who did what. Finally, yes, I wanted to apply DS to that page, since as an uninvolved admin who was looking into the dispute, I felt the toolset that DS provides would have been useful in resolving the dispute. Granted, it wasn't useful (quite the opposite), but again, that is often how DS is applied, irrespective of whether done correctly or, as in this case, an overreach.

As for the latest incident (partial block), sorry, I only managed to skim it (pressed for time), so I gotta plead ignorance about it right now. Thanks again for the kind words! Hope the latest gets resolved amicably (or amicably'ish, at least). El_C 16:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree to disagree on the specifics (the issue at hand was what Order of the Arrow did in 1915 [part of Scouting]). I'm fine with it being in the past (the only reason I bring it up is because others are citing that as a reason for blocking me now at will...which feels unseemly)... I'm pretty busy IRL now too and am going to take some time off (in general). Buffs (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Wire

Buffs, despite your repetitive arguing at Talk:The Daily Wire with four other editors,[2] you are nowhere near getting any consensus for your views of what the article should say about TDW's climate change stance. Indeed, I don't see you successfully persuading anybody at all to adopt your position or anything close to it, and you are now veering into discussion of editors rather than edits. Please stop bludgeoning the process.

Your accusation against Valjean, that he is wikistalking you after promising to leave you alone as a condition of being unblocked,[3] is of interest to me, however. If he's doing that, it's definitely unacceptable, and I'll do something about it. Please let me know what stalking you're referring to. If there's nothing beyond his input at The Daily Wire and its talkpage, it's ridiculous, but I assume you have more than that. Please respond to this query, or I will consider your accusation itself inappropriate. Bishonen | tålk 09:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Valjean never edited DW or its talk page prior to following me there to undo my edits/comment.

Saying "I won't be engaging in such behavior again and have already disengaged from dealing with Buffs" and then undoing my edits and further engaging with me shows that this was simply a lie to get unblocked/get space and then continue the exact same behavior. His "apology" was clearly insincere. I asked you to step in 2 months ago to get it to stop. You did nothing.

By definition, this is harassment: "Harassment of an editor on the basis of race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. is not allowed."

Valjean has an axe to grind and a political agenda he is actively pushing. Seeing as no one is confronting his hostility, it appears it's endorsed and behavioral expectations are only significantly imposed on those who are political opposition. The percentage of left-leaning Wikipedians is well beyond the statistical norm and it's only getting worse. WP used to have a balanced approach. It no longer does and is rapidly moving to the extreme left as users impose "by consensus" their political beliefs (get 2-3 people together and you can overrule by consensus just about anywhere on WP) .

The idea that "If there's nothing beyond his input at The Daily Wire and its talkpage, it's ridiculous" is absurd. It's the nexus of the argument! ...but it's also not the only place:

Buffs (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[removed remarks of user I've asked to stay off my talk page]

Sorry, Platonk, that's interesting but too long for me, and also I suspect it'll be blanked next time Buffs returns to the page. I won't engage with it, but only respond directly to Buffs' answer to me.

Buffs, you asked me to step in 2 months ago to get what to stop? When was this, exactly, and to get what to stop? What hostility are you referring to when you say "no one is confronting his hostility"? Do you have some examples of hostile comments from Valjean?

I don't understand your timeline links. The one from Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant is very long, with almost every edit on it earlier than 16 September, the day Valjean said he has "already disengaged from dealing with Buffs". What point is it supposed to make? I think I understand the other three timelines; they show Valjean reverted various uses of The Daily Wire as a source on 15 September — reverts that I see as proof that he was already interested in The Daily Wire before the block/unblock you mention, and long before the current discussion, though he hadn't edited it or its talkpage. The Daily Wire was already very much on Valjean's radar when he started editing it and posting in discussion with you on the talkpage — a point which Platonk makes more fully above. I do not consider him to be "stalking" you in that editing/posting. It's a discussion you started, yes, but it's not like he addresses you in a personal way. Saying in September that he has "already disengaged from dealing with Buffs" is not like saying he can never again edit an article you're editing. It's more like saying it's important he doesn't get personal with you, and also IMO that he shouldn't post on your page. He hasn't done any of these things. But you seem to be offering these timelines as showing harassment in themselves because they were reverts of your use of The Daily Wire as a source. Have I got that right? If I have, I honestly don't see it. Those reverts, as well as the this discussion on your page, are from 15 September. Removing a source considered unreliable is hardly harassment in itself, and in any case Valjean undertook to disengage from you after these edits. So, no, I don't think he can be said to be stalking you or failing to "leave you alone", as you suggest.[8] (Nor did he "swear to leave you alone", nor was it set out as a condition for lifting his block — I'm not sure the blocking/unblocking admin would recognize your version of what happened here. Feel free to ping them if you'd like to know.) Frankly, I think it's you who're personalizing this. Bishonen | tålk 22:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

[removed remarks of user I've asked to stay off my talk page]

Platonk, if I wanted your opinion, I would have asked for it. I do not desire to hear your opinion or twisted series of facts, period. Kindly leave me the hell alone and do not post on my talk page again. Buffs (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It's more like saying it's important he doesn't get personal with you"

Hounding is harassment and the remarks have indeed been personal/gravestomping. Nothing in the source in any of the context is unreliable; look at what is published. This isn't about the reliability of the source; the facts are not in question. This is about punishing political opposition and mainstream conservative thought. Look at the sources deleted and the facts they support. They are not even controversial facts. Likewise, in some instances, the facts themselves were removed. The assumption is that if political opposition says it, it must be false (Valjean openly advocates blacklisting anything that disagrees with his political views, especially Trump). Any source that supports his political opinions is gold. Anything that opposes it should be blacklisted.

"Nor did he 'swear to leave you alone"

No, but that was certainly part of the rationale for undoing the block in the first place. Tell you what. Let's just forget all of this, but assume you blocked me from editing the DW page. I say, I don't plan on touching the Daily Wire page ever again (but just a few days later, I re-engage again anyway). Are you really going to sit here and say, "Well, he didn't promise...he just planned to avoid it, so that's ok!"? Or, would you block again? I sincerely doubt it would be the former.

I've been a Wikipedian for 10+ years, but this leftist tilt/bias and open hostility to any dissent (with backing of multiple admins) has me reconsidering my contributions of any kind. The fact that others are probably cheering right now should give you a massive pause and force you to re-look at this situation, but I genuinely doubt it will.

Wikipedia has become a leftist cesspool categorized by groupthink and punishing any dissent, basically as corrupt as academia or mainstream press. People are taking pride in tearing down others rather than building anything productive. Claim NPOV all you want, but it isn't when you declare all media that doesn't toe the party line as "unreliable". No, I'm not talking about InfoWars or any other right wing extremist garbage, I'm talking about anything that's right of left of center.

It sure is easy to be "correct" when no opposition is allowed. Buffs (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for directly assessing your reply, here's gravestomping. Everything else falls under WP:BLUDGEON which, as described above, apparently applies only one way. My edits of the article are not of an uncontroversial nature. Valjean and others are clearly attempting to push an anti-NPOV narrative to discredit DW. Quotes from an article are used to disparage DW, but quotes from the exact same article that are positive for DW are removed and summarized in a manner that downplays their significance.

This isn't a matter of WP:RS. It's a matter of smearing political opponents by using half-truths and distortions. It's being abetted by Admins. At this point, WP:NPOV is a joke. Buffs (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some warnings arising from the above

I had put a number of questions, such as "Buffs, you asked me to step in 2 months ago to get what to stop? When was this, exactly, and to get what to stop? What hostility are you referring to when you say "no one is confronting his hostility"? which it seems you prefer not to answer. Fine. I wasted my time, that's all. I often do. But this is not fine: When I said "Do you have some examples of hostile comments from Valjean?", you simply continued your complaint ("the remarks have indeed been personal/gravestomping", "open hostility"), offering as example only this single diff, where Valjean says "It appears they have received a partial block". That's the whole of his post, which is in response to another user saying "I politely suggest that maybe it’s time for Buffs to take a short break away from editing." Is that the whole of what you call Valjean's "hostility" and "gravestomping"? I am not impressed. In an ideal world, it would be better if he didn't mention you at all, ever, but I can see the temptation to inform other editors in the thread, and specifically the user who said it might be good if you took a break, that you wouldn't be taking part for a while. Also he did it in a brief, neutral way, and you on your side have now made an amazing amount of hay from that simple post. Valjean has not been "gravestomping", fgs. You need to stop talking bout him. Of course I don't blame you for talking about him here, in response to my question about what "stalking" from him you were claiming at Talk:The Daily Wire, but you have now, I hope, told me your whole reasoning, adorned with phrasing such as "leftist cesspool", "open hostility", and "as corrupt as academia" [sic], so it's past time to let it lie. I hope that's clear. Stop talking about Valjean, and altogether, quoting one of our best-known policies, talk about content, not contributors.

You are extremely careless in the statements you make. You have not received a discretionary sanctions alert for climate change before; Valjean has not been following you around; and you have never before asked Platonk not to post on your page. And yet you have claimed all these things just in the past couple of days, here on this page.[9][10][11] Such a cavalier attitude to the truth makes a poor impression. Please check the facts before making random attacks.

You removed Platonk's well-reasoned and well-diffed argument, but of course I and others can still read it. IMO it showed that rather than Valjean following you around, you have been following Platonk around. Please stop doing that.

And finally, the next time you accuse editors of "smearing political opponents" and admins of "abetting" them, or similar bad-faith-assuming aspersions, you will be blocked for personal attacks. The context makes it perfectly clear which individuals you're referring to. This is a warning. Indeed, let me summarize; I'm warning you against:

Talking about Valjean and/or others in demeaning ways.
Saying attack-y things which are not true. While I realize anyone can make an occasional factual error, you need to try harder with this.
Following Platonk around.

Bishonen | tålk 17:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Gotcha. They do it, it's ok. I do anything remotely close and it's "following" 3 months after the fact. No one else is warned. No one else has any lectures, but I get multi-paragraph "warnings" that you never bothered to give anyone else.

I removed the inputs of Platonk because I never asked for his opinion. If I'd wanted it. I would have asked. Instead, he's following me here to interject where he wasn't part of the discussion. I've clearly outlined where that falls under Wikihounding...any warning? Nope. You call that "well-reasoned"? What a joke! He's butting in where he wasn't addressed or asked to opine. "but of course I and others can still read it." Well thanks for that remark. Was that really necessary? It's condescending. I've completely disengaged from literally everyone in that thread two days ago, but they keep following me here. How is THAT not wikihounding?

"You have not received a discretionary sanctions alert for climate change before"

HOW MANY "WARNINGS" DO I NEED?!?! Dear God, literally everyone keeps bringing it up!!! I GET IT! YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPEATEDLY BRING IT UP! I DON'T NEED A WARNING DISPLAYED ON MY TALK PAGE AD INFINITUM AND I RESENT THESE REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO PLASTER IT EVERYWHERE! Buffs (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[12]
[13]
[14]
And now your 2nd "reminder"

At this point, it isn't a warning. It's a Scarlet Letter or badge of shame designed to indicate my opinion should be discounted.

At this point, I'm done...completely...not with these individuals, but everyone on WP. Good bye. Buffs (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]