User talk:Randolph Duke

Welcome Randolph Duke

Hello, Randolph Duke, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! NtheP (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12th man

Hi, the reference you trying to add is incomplete - that's why is come out looking wrong. It looks like you trying to use one of the {{cite}} templates but not specifying the full details. If you are going to use a url in the citation (not mandatory for a paper source then it's best to use the fullest view of the document possible. As it turns out the entire series of The Iowa Alumnus is available in full on the Iowa university website - I changed the reference to that url instead. NtheP (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.44.241 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing with relation to Texas A&M

ok, let's chat about this here,

This whole "10 years" stuff really needs to go because it was really much closer to 9 (9 years and ~3 months). It's simply inaccurate and misleading. "Nearly a decade" would be more accurate, yet vague enough to allow people to draw their own conclusions.
Realize that Iowa's phrasing refers to the fans in 1912. Texas A&M's referred to an individual student, E King Gill. So there is at least a difference between the events and it should be annotated.
Iowa rightly used the term first (at least in US college football), and I think we've captured that essence. But it specifically mentioned the "12th" man, not the "twelfth" man. I realize this is a minor distinction, but worth noting.
Lastly, you're source was never widely quoted or circulated. While I'm sure others made a passing reference to the "twelfth man" earlier than that (via word-of-mouth such as between two patrons at a football game) or any other forebearers of the moniker, Texas A&M was the first to have it widely publicized and actively use it.
Adding "it's never been ruled on in a court of law" is not notable as the vast majority of copyright infringement/trademark violations occur and are settled out of court.

Accordingly, I've changed the article again (as have others). If you have any additional changes to make that fall under the aforementioned categories, could we please discuss them first? Buffs (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to email me unless you really want to, you can just respond here. This is a collaborative effort, so public discussion is encouraged. I won't hide anything I've done here on WP.

In response to your changed (and I'm assuming you did them as the IP, you're spot on. Those claims are not backed up by sources and you were correct in removing them. Excellent work.

In any case, welcome to Wikipedia. Buffs (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More

The problem with what you've cited is synthesis with respect to what you've stated. This is explicitly prohibited.

Sure, the DMN referred to the longhorns fans as the 12th man in 1935, but that does not mean "the term was frequently used to describe football fan bases in the 1920s and 1930s." or "Thus, the phrase was so common, sports writers were not only using the term 12th Man to refer to the fan base of Texas A&M but also to that of the University of Texas, the hated rival of the Aggies." You are drawing a conclusion based on a single source, that doesn't mean the phrase was "so common", merely that it was used in this instance. There is also a strong undertone here where you seem to be digging at the Aggies at every turn. It isn't necessary or appropriate.

Accordingly, I've removed the synthesis paragraph, though the source is certainly useful and has been kept.

The other section was removed because it was an article written in 1992, not 1918. It gives the impression that the terminology was applied in 1918...which it most certainly was not. This section is about the origins of the term, not every instance where it was used. Accordingly, I've removed it. Buffs (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional 12th Man history

It is important when writing of history of a tradition or custom to speak of how it evolved over time. In the instance of the 12th Man, most of what has been written is reflective accounts, not contemporaneous accounts. For example, the Dallas Morning News doesn't even mention E. King Gill until an article in 1942. The sportswriters covering the game do not mention anything about the Aggie team being down to 11 men or Gill coming from the stands. Lacking a 3rd party account of the events prior to the DMN article in 1942, we must accept the events as set forth in the article as the historical record.

With respect to how the phrase was used over time, ignoring reflective accounts is intellectually dishonest. If an article was written in 2012 using interviews with individuals having first hand knowledge of past events, the accounts of those having first hand knowledge have to be accepted as historical record unless further research is discovered that indicates the events happened otherwise. Again, there are no rd party accounts to support any of the E.King Gill story prior to 1942. The reflective story of the 1918 football game (titled "12th Man") is illustrative, if for no other reason, to show how people who have been associated with various football teams have been referred to as their team's 12th Man. If necessary, I can change the section to mention a 1926 use of the term to refer to an individual connected with the Vanderbilt football team, but I found the story of the 1918 game more historically interesting.

For the record, I am not trying to take a dig at TAMU. I am merely trying to update an encyclopedic reference which, prior to my efforts, was factually incorrect in many aspects. Nothing I have presented has lacked reputable 3rd party support. What we seem to be differing on is how the information should be presented. Any assertion the information have added should not be presented must be rejected as failing to include various aspects of the historical record in an encyclopedic reference is intellectually dishonest. It is historical fact that the DMN referred to the fan bases of TAMU and UT as "12th Men" in 1938 needs to be included to show the historical record of how the term was used. The fact that an individual who played in the 1918 football game was called the 12th Man must be included.

The problem with the page when I first found it was that it was historically inaccurate and created a false impression that the term 12th Man was both originated by Texas A&M in 1922 and that it has been predominantly applied to Texas A&M from 1922 until today. Updating the historical record with respect to the origination of the phrase and the background/ actions of E. King Gill seem to have been settled by addition of earliest 3rd party accounts from reputable sources. The information on how the phrase has been applied over time is what seems to be in question. Any suggestions as to how the 1938 DMN article showing the term was applied to both Texas A&m and University of Texas are welcome, as are suggestions how the use of the "12th Man" article to describe the 1918 football game.

A point-by point response (This will take some time)

"It is important when writing of history of a tradition or custom to speak of how it evolved over time."
I concur
"In the instance of the 12th Man, most of what has been written is reflective accounts, not contemporaneous accounts. For example, the Dallas Morning News doesn't even mention E. King Gill until an article in 1942."
That's not exactly relevant regarding newspapers.
"The sportswriters covering the game do not mention anything about the Aggie team being down to 11 men or Gill coming from the stands."
play-by-play coverage basically didn't exist in the day. Just because it wasn't mentioned in the articles you found doesn't mean it didn't happen. Christine Michael was ejected from the last A&M football game, but that didn't make most of the coverage because it wasn't deemed notable at the time.
"It is historical fact that the DMN referred to the fan bases of TAMU and UT as "12th Men" in 1938 needs to be included to show the historical record of how the term was used."
It is indeed a fact, but if the use of the term was as ubiquitous as you claim, then it isn't notable.
"The fact that an individual who played in the 1918 football game was called the 12th Man must be included."
No, it doesn't "need" to be included. I see nothing that was even used to describe the person included here until 1992, so it doesn't seem to be part of the formative history of the term. We aren't going to include every utterance of the term over the years.

more to follow Buffs (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is very important that the DMN did not mention E. King Gill until 1942 because this is the first known 3rd party account of the events surrounding his actions on Jan 2, 1922. While other versions of what transpired that day have been presented, there is no historical record earlier than 1942 that has been presented, so the versions such as he was a member of the team who had left to play basketball and was in the press box spotting for the announcer must be rejected until a reputable third party account is presented for discussion. the 1942 third party account I have used is that of the DMN, the paper of record of the State of Texas in both 1922 and 1938 and is recognized as credible.

That no contemporaneous account exists of the team being down to 11 players, that Gill was in the press box spotting players and that at the end of the game only Gill was left standing on the sideline as an available substitute is highly important. Considering the importance of the game, one would reasonably believe if the outcome was in the balance and the game would have been lost with a single additional injury (without Gill's presence) these rather momentus circumstances would have been noted by at least one sportswriter in attendance. Also, Gill was supposedly in the press box, sitting amongst the sportwriters when supposedly he was summoned to the field. Again, sitting within eyesight of he sportswriters and being called to save the day would reasonably have been mentioned by one of the sportwriters if indeed it happened. Lacking any citation whatsoever for this version of the events having the 1942 version of the events that Gill had tried out for the team but hadn't made the varsity team and that he was in the stands, not the pressbox, we have no other historical record to rely on so the pressbox/ last man standing version has to be set aside for the version as set for in the 1942 article. Also, as the 1942 article sets forth that Bible called Gill down because an additional injury would leave the team without a substitute backfield player, without a reputable third party account of just how many players were in fact on the sideline, we cannot extrapolate the lack of replacements at one position meant no other players were available to substitute for any other position.

As things stand, we have no contemporaneous third party account of the actions of E. king Gill on January 2, 1922. We have to assume the stories of his activities were created sometime after January 3, 1922 when contemporaneous reports of the game were entered into the historical record. It would be helpful if someone at TAMU would provide what they believe to be the earliest known reputable third party account of the actions of E. King Gill from which the version of events originally on this page when I found it were gleaned. My understanding is that someone has contacted Jason Cook at TAMU requesting a citation to the version used by the university to establish the version on their website but Mr. Cook simply has ignored all such requests.

The fact that the DMN used the term to refer to the fan bases of both Texas A&M and University of Texas is important as it provides evidence to the assertion that the phrase "12th Man" was not predominantly used to refer to one particular institution throughout the history of the phrase. Remember where we started the edits of this page. Before the inaccuracies were addressed the impression was created that the phrase was originated by one institution and the discussion focused on the use of the term by one particular institution. To provide the historical record of the use of the phrase, it is important to accurately show where the historical record shows the phrase was originated, how it was used over time and how it is used currently. Failing to include information showing how it was used over time when that evidence is available would be intellectually dishonest. At the very least, it must be pointed out that in the 1920s and 1930s the phrase was not applied exclusively to any one school's fan base. If this is established as historical record (which it has been) then it is necessary to support the statement with a reputable third party account, which O have done.

I fully understand that there is a version of events in circulation where Texas A&M originated the phrase, that E. King Gill was the last man standing on the sideline and thenceforth the student body of Texas A&M was known as the 12th Man. However, the historical record that we are working from in this reference page does not support such a version of events. If Jason Cook, or anyone at Texas A&M can provide reputable third party accounts of events that add to the historical record available to us, those accounts would be more than helpful. Absent additional information, we are obligated to rely on the historical record we have available at the moment.

As for inclusion of the 1992 article discussing the 1918 game, it contains reflective first person accounts of an game where the events that occurred lead to an individual being referred to as the !2th Man. No such reflective first person account of the Jan 2, 1922 Dixie Classic is offered to corroborate any of the events of E. King Gill. What standard should be used here? We don't know when the Texas A&M version of events was first written and we do not know if it contained any first person accounts of the game or if the "facts" used to create that version of the story were as historically incorrect as those used to first write this wiki page. When did Texas A&M create its version of the 12th Man of their team 1925? 1937? We simply do not know.

I will re-insert the detail that while A&M has had a strong tradition of using the term 12th Man to refer to its fan base, in the 1920s and 1930s the term was not exclusively used to refer to the fan base of any one school. I will include the comment that the term was also used to refer to the fan base of University of Texas in 1938 and simply that Texas A&M and University of Texas were then rivals.

As the story of the 1918 game has first person accounts of the events and the named individual claimed he was the individual considered the 12th Man the inclusion of the story is similar to the inclusion of the comments of E. King Gill, an individual who was called the twelfth man of his team. The inclusion of the part about Mike Mesco gives proper support to the fact that many teams had individuals they considered to be their 12th Man and the term was in no way only applied to E. King Gill. Any first first person accounts of the events E. King gill you can provide to match those of Mike Mesco or Billy Sounders would be most helpful.

Randolph Duke (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Randolph Duke[reply]

One thing I may not have made clear. In developing the historic record, we have cited the first known use of the term by Univ of Iowa in 1912. In setting forth the history of the phrase it is significant the phrase was not applied exclusively to E. King Gill or to the fan base of Texas A&M during the 1920s and 1930s. The wiki page established the phrase was exclusive to Texas A&M in 1990 because the phrase was trademarked by Texas A&M in 1990. To fully set forth the history of the phrase, we need first fully establish the phrase was not exclusively applied to Texas A&M as late as 1938. Next we need to research the period between 1938 and 1990 and set forth the history of how and when after 1938 the phrase became exclusive to Texas A&M in 1990. Any information you have on that would be helpful and probably save me a lot of time doing research.

Randolph Duke (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Randolph Duke[reply]

WP:TLDR. See article talk page. Buffs (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccrex (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

An identical note has been posted on the other party's talk page. Please work to resolve on the article's talk page. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TAMU endowment

Why it's even remotely necessary to argue whether it's appropriate to attribute the endowment of an entire university system to an individual member university is frankly beyond me, but you should register your opinion on the matter here as soon as you're allowed to post again: Talk:Texas_A&M_University#Use_of_a_primary_source_for_endowment. João Do Rio (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message

I sent you a message at another place; click it. --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at History of Texas A&M University, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to History of Texas A&M University. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Oldag07 (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of Texas A&M University; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You've been blocked before for this behavior. Further disruption will result in longer blocks than last time. Please stop. Discuss on the talk page and gain consensus for these changes before continuing. Buffs (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. Buffs (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Buffs (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and edit warring.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have offered good faith edits to a Wikipedia page on the History of Texas A&M University. My edits have been cited and were offered to correct erroneous information offered by other editors who could not cite their claims. When disputes arose, I tried to resolve them in the "Talk" section of the page. When individuals would not respond on the "Talk" page, I referred the matter to Wikipedia arbitration. Somehow, I have been blocked because an individual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buffs) is complaining my sources are not acceptable. I have offered original source citations. I have offered third party citations to substantiate my edits. None of these seem acceptable to the complainant who seems to have an extreme bias against good faith edits that are supported by numerous references.

I am trying to resolve the dispute in good faith, yet the complainant is claiming a Twitter account makes my good faith edits unacceptable. I merely wish my good faith edits be taken at face value and the complainant's objections be dismissed as unfounded.

How do I get past the complainant who seeks to have his individual bad faith biases negate a good faith addition with multiple references? If Wikipedia will not allow good faith edits supported by numerous references, what faith are we to have in Wikipedia?

It should be noted the complainant has, in the past, clashed with my edits that were offered in good faith and have been supported by numerous references. I believe the complainant has an extreme bias against factual information being introduced to Wikipedia pages involving a subject he seems have an extreme bias toward. Yes, some of my edits have been to clarify the history of Texas A&M University, but none of my edits have been offered without references, usually those produced from the archives of Texas A&M University.

I believe the complainant is the one who is out of line in this instance. The complainant has an extreme bias in favor of Texas A&M University and is seeking to have factual information not to his liking prevented from being presented. Again, this dispute is also before Wikipedia arbitration. The matter should be decided by independent third parties, not be the complainant who has a demonstrated personal bias.

It should also be noted that only 18 minutes after the block was instituted, it was boasted about on a social media site of Texas A&M University. (https://texags.com/forums/6/topics/2647727/replies/55373369) That the block was instituted on Wikipedia and boasted about on a social media site with an extreme bias to the subject matter within minutes should indicate to any objective party that the complainant is not only biased on the subject matter in question, but seeking personal glory for ensuring only biased information is presented on Wikipedia.

Let's not kid ourselves, the individual who complained did so because he wants biased information presented on the Wikipedia page in question and he is publicly boasting about his efforts to ensure this Wikipedia page promotes his personal biases.

No random individual follows my personal "Talk" page to the point that any addition makes it to any social media site within minutes. The complainant has an extreme bias against the truthful information I posted and cited. He should be admonished for his bad faith insistence that I be blocked and for his boastful actions on a social media page where he sought glorification for his bad faith actions.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

unjustified block due to edits made in good faith Randolph Duke (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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

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

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No. You've been blocked because multiple people (not just me) are complaining of your behavior on Wikipedia. Whether you or I are "biased" or not is immaterial when we are referring to your actions on WP. You've been repeatedly warned about edit warring and that it may lead to further blocks...and you choose to continue this pattern of behavior. Sending an email to ArbCom doesn't mean you just get to do whatever you want just because you think you're "right". Buffs (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit I have offered has been substantiated by multiple citations, none of which were based on "original research." They were offered in place of incorrect information that was not cited because no reputable citations for the edited claims exist. Your individual bias is without question.

If bias is immaterial, as you claim, why did you offer your research into my supposed college degree, the Twitter account you referenced, and other claimed instances of "bias" in your complaint? Just admit your biases. You claimed mine, you are ethically obligated to disclose your own. But you won't. Because you know, if disclosed, your biases will reveal your motivations to requesting I be banned. Your actions are unethical, and you know it.

Your complaint against my edits focused on your "original research" and unsubstantiated claims such as my supposed college degree, yet you avoided the substance of my edits. And, "magically" within minutes of my having been blocked on Wikipedia, the information from my "Talk" page showed up on a Texas A&M social media site. Who, other than you, would be in such a position to do such a thing? Who, other than you, was watching my "Talk" page or knew within minutes of my being blocked other than the individual who insisted on the block?

You would also not have information about complaints from "multiple people." How did you supposedly come into possession of "complaints from multiple people?" Who are the individuals and how do I review those supposed complaints?

Let's just admit you have an extreme bias toward Texas A&M and you are refusing to allow relevant information about the history of Texas A&M to be presented on Wikipedia. Your admitting the obvious will help get to the core of the controversy.

A while back, you fought just as hard against my factual edits to the "12th Man (football)" Wiki page. If I remember correctly, you tried to have been banned from editing Wiki then, also. Unfortunately for you and your biases, the factual nature of those edits of mine stood the test of time and remain to this day. Now, you seek to bastardize Wikipedia yet again by insisting fraudulent and unsubstantiated information be presented and factual information, supported by valid citations, be hidden.

Try being honest about your biases and your motivation against having factually correct information presented on Wikipedia.

You are the one in the wrong here, not me.Randolph Duke (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both Magnolia677 and Oldag07 have attempted to talk with you and have placed warnings on your talk page (as well as myself). Anyone can see when you were blocked. As for relevant material, I've discussed items with you before and some were indeed included, but within appropriate context. Your over-reliance on your interpretation of first-party sources is a separate issue. Buffs (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the citations I offered for the History of Texas A&M University was the Texas A&M University school newspaper. Another was a page created by the archivist of the State of Texas. A third citation was a compilation of acts of the Texas legislature edited by a third party (Gammel). All these you claim constitute "original research" because of your bias against having factual information presented that you wish to remain hidden.

In reality, you claim "multiple parties complained" about my edits was based on the fact TWO highly biased individuals shared your desire to not have factual information presented on Wikipedia. Your claim of "multiple people" when you knew it was two highly biased individuals shows your underlying bias. You wanted to create the perception that two biased individuals constituted a multitude of opinion.

Let's be honest here. You refuse to reveal your bias. You are claiming the high ground, yet you are acting unethically and in bad faith. Your intentions are to prevent factual information to be presented because having it presented would create a more accurate account of the subject matter and you intent is to create a distorted impression of the subject matter. You acted to have me blocked before a neutral third party could arbitrate the matter because you wanted to create the impression I was acting wrongly.

Our difference at this point is that I believe a neutral third party should review the dispute and you want to do everything within your power to prevent a third party from deciding, because you know my information and my citations are valid and your biases will not allow you to act ethically in this dispute. Randolph Duke (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As clearly noted above, this situation has already been presented to neutral third parties via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. One neutral third party decided that you have repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy to the point that you should be indefinitely blocked (Of note: it was an individual with whom I vehemently disagree on a myriad of issues and have a strong distaste for). Another third party reviewed the block and concurred with that decision. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to fix every perceived flaw in the world. Buffs (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not looking for a soapbox to fix any perceived flaws. My intentions are to present factual information in place of incorrect and unsubstantiated claims. The question still remains why, if the information itself was in question, you decided to offer research into my supposed college degree and a Twitter account unrelated to the dispute. But we know why. Because you wanted to interject bias into the dispute. The ban you insisted on has nothing to do with the factual nature of the information I presented. We both know that. Which, again, is why you presented your supposed research into where I supposedly obtained by degree and the Twitter account you attribute to me.

At the end of the day, the facts are what they are, even if the information presented on Wikipedia is horribly biased and incorrect. The page in question may well stand as is and, if so, will stand as testament to why Wikipedia should not be relied upon for factual information. We both know professional fact checkers do not use Wikipedia because of the biases you harbor and are trying so ardently to maintain. (And yes, I know a number of professional fact checkers for major publishers. And the laugh when people cite Wikipedia as a 'reputable source")

At the end of the day, I will have tried to offer factual information to Wikipedia readers and will have offered reputable references for my information. If the powers that be at Wikipedia insist on maintaining erroneous and unsubstantiated claims, then it is what it is. But just as when I worked to edit the "12th Man (football)" page and those edits stood the test of time (if you remember the last time we clashed), my edits in this instance are just as substantive and just as accurate.

Our debate is whether accurate and substantiated information can be presented on Wikipedia. In all candor, I am working on an article for a major publication in which both the information contained in my edits and the difficulty of having the verified historical record presented on Wikipedia are discussed at length. The edits I offered have been a exercise to show just how ardently people stick to lore and fiction when presented with historical facts. Your individual insistence that I be banned from presenting factual information on Wikipedia, and that incorrect information must be maintained at all costs, will be mentioned. The readers of Wikipedia deserve better.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have been trying to offer good faith edits on a Wikipedia page in place of incorrect and uncited information. The problem is that there are highly passionate and highly biased individuals who insist that the original incorrect and uncited information be presented. I have attempted to resolve the dispute in the Talk section. The other parties have offered nothing other than to insist the information I am offering (and the citations) are "wrong." I have explained repeatedly that unless the other party can offer some evidentiary support for their claims, I would revert to my original edits. In response the other party offered nothing. At some point, there needs to be a third party review of the information, or Wikipedia need to admit its information is often wrong and highly biased. Banning me for offering information supported by numerous citations in place of unsubstantiated claims is not the answer here. I have tried to discuss the questionable material to no avail. I wish the block be removed as I have done nothing other than to offer historically accurate information, supported by reputable references, in place of unsubstantiated claims that two individuals are militant about keeping in place. Randolph Duke (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request does not convince me that the behavior that led to the block would not recur. As such, I am declining this request. In my personal opinion you would need to agree to find some other subject area to edit in as well. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.