User talk:SilentExplorer: Difference between revisions

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Nothing in my username suggests hate or disruption. Cullen328's *permanent* ban and block is an egregious reaction to nothing of evidence which would suggest, in his following remarks, "it is obviously offensive and disruptive, potentially violent and threatening, and suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia." There is nothing "obvious" in my username to suggest anything offensive and disruptive. If "Confederate" is considered to be just that, I highly doubt that in its historical context, Confederates would not have integrated seamlessly into the Union, such as those as James Longstreet who worked to help protect the civil rights of freedmen in Louisiana against white supremacists, Joe Johnston serving as pallbearer for Gen. Sherman's funeral (without a hat in freezing rain), or various other Confederate figures befriending their Union counterparts to heal the nation. I disown, however, any Confederates who mistreated slaves and freedmen, or advocated for a society based on racial supremacy. I also disown secession and the reasons for it, which included slavery. I do not disown Confederates who simply fought in defense of their native homes. As for being potentially violent and threatening, it really just shows how immature and emotionally charged Cullen328's reaction is. It's enough sorry that I even had to explain why the first part of the ban statement is dubious, but the second part of that statement has clear hostile ideological undertones which I'm afraid permeates the culture of this site. At best, I could see a legitimate argument made for violation of the second point here before anything could be said, but even then, I have already clarified that and there would need to be further details: ''On Wikipedia, we try to avoid sanctioning people more harshly than necessary. An editor who edits productively about Roman history, but disrupts in the area of American politics, will usually be topic-banned from the latter rather than site-blocked. The same principle holds true with hate speech, but one should take caution to consider what disruption exactly has occurred. -For a potentially innocent mistake where the editor plausibly does not know the connotations of what they are saying, a warning or temporary block may be appropriate. -If an editor has shown inability to distinguish between hateful and non-hateful sentiments regarding a particular group, while not clearly intending to hurt anyone, a topic ban or partial block may be appropriate. -However, in most cases of hate speech, these remedies will not be enough. A temporary block is unlikely to dissuade someone of deeply-held views. And a topic ban may help with content disruption, but will not make editors from the affected group comfortable around the editor in question. (After all, the average person from some targeted group does not only edit articles about that group.) So if someone is engaged in concerted hate speech, the proper remedy will usually be an indefinite block or siteban. -Granted user rights are removed as a matter of course with sitebans. With topic bans and non-siteban indefinite blocks, it will often be appropriate to remove particularly trusted rights, such as adminship. '' I have quite literally done nothing to warrant a permanent ban. There is no evidence on my part for any concerted hate-speech on my part, or that any of my speech has suggested any deep-held negative beliefs about a group of people. As stated in Wikipedia's blocking policy, ''Blocks should not be used: -to retaliate; -to disparage; -to punish; or -if there is no current conduct issue of concern. Blocks should be preventative Shortcuts WP:BLOCKP WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE WP:BLOCKDETERRENT Blocks should be used to: -prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; -deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and -encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.'' In a neutral academic environment, I would suggest user:Orange Mike be banned for a nasty and disruptive comment he left on my talk page right before I was banned, which was both childish and unprofessional. Interestingly, the Unionist regiment in the article he linked to, the [[:6th Tennessee Cavalry Regiment (Union)]], was led by a controversial figure who owned several slaves families on a plantation and committed atrocities. Albeit, I wouldn't assign the same judgement to solders under his command. I think it's quite "disruptive" to consider him an American patriot. I digress. It also suggests that the admin(s) who pushed for this ban (coincidently a few minutes after that remark) did it precisely to either retaliate, disparage, or punish. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Nothing in my username suggests hate or disruption. Cullen328's *permanent* ban and block is an egregious reaction to nothing of evidence which would suggest, in his following remarks, "it is obviously offensive and disruptive, potentially violent and threatening, and suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia." There is nothing "obvious" in my username to suggest anything offensive and disruptive. If "Confederate" is considered to be just that, I highly doubt that in its historical context, Confederates would not have integrated seamlessly into the Union, such as those as James Longstreet who worked to help protect the civil rights of freedmen in Louisiana against white supremacists, Joe Johnston serving as pallbearer for Gen. Sherman's funeral (without a hat in freezing rain), or various other Confederate figures befriending their Union counterparts to heal the nation. I disown, however, any Confederates who mistreated slaves and freedmen, or advocated for a society based on racial supremacy. I also disown secession and the reasons for it, which included slavery. I do not disown Confederates who simply fought in defense of their native homes. As for being potentially violent and threatening, it really just shows how immature and emotionally charged Cullen328's reaction is. It's enough sorry that I even had to explain why the first part of the ban statement is dubious, but the second part of that statement has clear hostile ideological undertones which I'm afraid permeates the culture of this site. At best, I could see a legitimate argument made for violation of the second point here before anything could be said, but even then, I have already clarified that and there would need to be further details: ''On Wikipedia, we try to avoid sanctioning people more harshly than necessary. An editor who edits productively about Roman history, but disrupts in the area of American politics, will usually be topic-banned from the latter rather than site-blocked. The same principle holds true with hate speech, but one should take caution to consider what disruption exactly has occurred. -For a potentially innocent mistake where the editor plausibly does not know the connotations of what they are saying, a warning or temporary block may be appropriate. -If an editor has shown inability to distinguish between hateful and non-hateful sentiments regarding a particular group, while not clearly intending to hurt anyone, a topic ban or partial block may be appropriate. -However, in most cases of hate speech, these remedies will not be enough. A temporary block is unlikely to dissuade someone of deeply-held views. And a topic ban may help with content disruption, but will not make editors from the affected group comfortable around the editor in question. (After all, the average person from some targeted group does not only edit articles about that group.) So if someone is engaged in concerted hate speech, the proper remedy will usually be an indefinite block or siteban. -Granted user rights are removed as a matter of course with sitebans. With topic bans and non-siteban indefinite blocks, it will often be appropriate to remove particularly trusted rights, such as adminship. '' I have quite literally done nothing to warrant a permanent ban. There is no evidence on my part for any concerted hate-speech on my part, or that any of my speech has suggested any deep-held negative beliefs about a group of people. As stated in Wikipedia's blocking policy, ''Blocks should not be used: -to retaliate; -to disparage; -to punish; or -if there is no current conduct issue of concern. Blocks should be preventative Shortcuts WP:BLOCKP WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE WP:BLOCKDETERRENT Blocks should be used to: -prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; -deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and -encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.'' In a neutral academic environment, I would suggest user:Orange Mike be banned for a nasty and disruptive comment he left on my talk page right before I was banned, which was both childish and unprofessional. Interestingly, the Unionist regiment in the article he linked to, the [[:6th Tennessee Cavalry Regiment (Union)]], was led by a controversial figure who owned several slaves families on a plantation and committed atrocities. Albeit, I wouldn't assign the same judgement to solders under his command. I think it's quite "disruptive" to consider him an American patriot. I digress. It also suggests that the admin(s) who pushed for this ban (coincidently a few minutes after that remark) did it precisely to either retaliate, disparage, or punish. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Nothing in my username suggests hate or disruption. Cullen328's *permanent* ban and block is an egregious reaction to nothing of evidence which would suggest, in his following remarks, "it is obviously offensive and disruptive, potentially violent and threatening, and suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia." There is nothing "obvious" in my username to suggest anything offensive and disruptive. If "Confederate" is considered to be just that, I highly doubt that in its historical context, Confederates would not have integrated seamlessly into the Union, such as those as James Longstreet who worked to help protect the civil rights of freedmen in Louisiana against white supremacists, Joe Johnston serving as pallbearer for Gen. Sherman's funeral (without a hat in freezing rain), or various other Confederate figures befriending their Union counterparts to heal the nation. I disown, however, any Confederates who mistreated slaves and freedmen, or advocated for a society based on racial supremacy. I also disown secession and the reasons for it, which included slavery. I do not disown Confederates who simply fought in defense of their native homes. As for being potentially violent and threatening, it really just shows how immature and emotionally charged Cullen328's reaction is. It's enough sorry that I even had to explain why the first part of the ban statement is dubious, but the second part of that statement has clear hostile ideological undertones which I'm afraid permeates the culture of this site. At best, I could see a legitimate argument made for violation of the second point here before anything could be said, but even then, I have already clarified that and there would need to be further details: ''On Wikipedia, we try to avoid sanctioning people more harshly than necessary. An editor who edits productively about Roman history, but disrupts in the area of American politics, will usually be topic-banned from the latter rather than site-blocked. The same principle holds true with hate speech, but one should take caution to consider what disruption exactly has occurred. -For a potentially innocent mistake where the editor plausibly does not know the connotations of what they are saying, a warning or temporary block may be appropriate. -If an editor has shown inability to distinguish between hateful and non-hateful sentiments regarding a particular group, while not clearly intending to hurt anyone, a topic ban or partial block may be appropriate. -However, in most cases of hate speech, these remedies will not be enough. A temporary block is unlikely to dissuade someone of deeply-held views. And a topic ban may help with content disruption, but will not make editors from the affected group comfortable around the editor in question. (After all, the average person from some targeted group does not only edit articles about that group.) So if someone is engaged in concerted hate speech, the proper remedy will usually be an indefinite block or siteban. -Granted user rights are removed as a matter of course with sitebans. With topic bans and non-siteban indefinite blocks, it will often be appropriate to remove particularly trusted rights, such as adminship. '' I have quite literally done nothing to warrant a permanent ban. There is no evidence on my part for any concerted hate-speech on my part, or that any of my speech has suggested any deep-held negative beliefs about a group of people. As stated in Wikipedia's blocking policy, ''Blocks should not be used: -to retaliate; -to disparage; -to punish; or -if there is no current conduct issue of concern. Blocks should be preventative Shortcuts WP:BLOCKP WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE WP:BLOCKDETERRENT Blocks should be used to: -prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; -deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and -encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.'' In a neutral academic environment, I would suggest user:Orange Mike be banned for a nasty and disruptive comment he left on my talk page right before I was banned, which was both childish and unprofessional. Interestingly, the Unionist regiment in the article he linked to, the [[:6th Tennessee Cavalry Regiment (Union)]], was led by a controversial figure who owned several slaves families on a plantation and committed atrocities. Albeit, I wouldn't assign the same judgement to solders under his command. I think it's quite "disruptive" to consider him an American patriot. I digress. It also suggests that the admin(s) who pushed for this ban (coincidently a few minutes after that remark) did it precisely to either retaliate, disparage, or punish. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}