User talk:SilentExplorer

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bestagon ⬡ 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traitors

Your "gallant dead" were traitors and your maimed veterans were fit subjects of derision. Pick evil causes, pay evil prices, says this proud heir of West Tennessee patriots who fought against the seceshes as part of the 6th Tennessee Cavalry Regiment (Union). Orange Mike | Talk 05:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username is a clear violation of Wikipedia's username policy – it is obviously offensive and disruptive, potentially violent and threatening, and suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}}

Cullen328 (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

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 reason:

The username policy specifically states "Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors or cause disruption to productive Wikipedia processes or discussions, or make harmonious editing difficult or impossible to achieve; e.g. by containing profanities, or referencing highly contentious events or controversies". It's quite clear that your username does that. I think that the reason for the block is correct, so I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2024 (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.

  That's incorrect per Wikipedia guidelines and practices. That same article also states: "If you see a username that is problematic but was not obviously created in bad faith, politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username.  There's no evidence I created this username in bad faith. I'm simply taking pride in my heritage, just like a number of U.S. military veterans from the South, who flew a Confederate flag in every war since the Civil War. I'd be happy to provide images of the men, who put their life on the line for the Stars and Stripes for the freedoms you enjoy, while also being prideful of the region they are from. You can disagree with this all you want, but you calling it "bad faith" is incorrect. I'd be happy to change my username. I've made good contributions to Wikipedia in the past, including work on Indiana in the American Civil War , Tennessee in the American Civil War , 5th Indiana Cavalry Regiment , and 154th Tennessee Infantry Regiment . You're conflating cultural heritage pride with an ideology. I see that it's contentious, but an immediate block, a permanent one at that, without even asking me what my intentions were or suggesting I change my user, is an egregious overstep. WestTNConfederate (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your rationalizations, you're arguing in support of a "heritage" of slavery, white supremacy, and treason. And the bottom line is that those things are what the southern Civil War dead were fighting for. It's nothing to be proud of. But if you want to edit again, at the very least you should request a name change, away from the traitorous Confederacy and toward something truly patriotic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply false and a misinformed oversimplification of my heritage. I'm not going to argue that because it will go no where. I've addressed what parts of my heritage I'm proud of in my appeal. If you're proud to be an American, then I could say the same in that the founders owned slaves, that Americans committed genocide against natives, and that white supremacists relished in the pretense of American patriotism. Many prominent Unionists were white supremacists and slave owners, and personally committed atrocities against natives. Yet, you can be proud to be American and disown those aspects. But the point still stands that I have done nothing in bad faith and this whole debacle is over an emotionally-charged response from certain people who have an ideological stance. This talk page thus far, looking from the outside in, to the average person who enjoys encyclopedias and furthering the cause of knowledge, would be deeply disturbed at the impulsivity from those who preach open deep-though discussions, and inclusivity and diversity. But, seeing how my username unintentionally provokes emotional harm, I would be glad to change it. It's quite disheartening considering that I was excited to (hopefully) do some more encyclopedic work on Agua Prieta, Mexico in my coming travels through there. I can't possibly see a good reason for this ban to be upheld. If it is, after my explanation and offer, then I would not want to contribute anymore precious time or contribute money to this organization anyway... Nor would I suggest others of good, non-partisan character either. WestTNConfederate (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hear your proposed new username. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QuietExplorer WestTNConfederate (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds promising. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking administrator, I would like to point out that you were blocked, not banned, and that blocks and bans are very different things, although new editors are frequently confused by the distinction. In general, blocks are imposed by a single administrator and are easier to reverse, while sitewide bans are imposed by the community and are much more difficult to reverse. You were blocked for an obvious username violation and I did use the quote on your userpage to help justify the block, because I continue to believe that my block was correct despite your criticism and of it. Usernames that reference a controversy are not permitted, period, end of story. You are intelligent. You and I both know that your username referenced a major historical controversy, and that your first edit confirmed that. I would also have blocked User: Union UnconditionalSurrenderNow for the same reason.

You have said some thoughtful things here and have said other things that impressed me far less. I am willing to concede that some of our articles about the broad American Civil War topic area can be improved, but cautiously in a collaborative way, not willy nilly. If you can fully commit to the neutral point of view and our other Polices and guidelines, then I will not object to you being unblocked. I will expect you to acknowledIbge that Wikipedia is not the place to push a point of view, and that you need to commit to engaging seriously and productively and collaboratively with editors with a different point of view, and explain your edits without grinding any axes. Ask yourself why you freely chose such a divisive username and chose such a divisive POV pushing edit as your very first edit. Surely you do not expect that highly experienced editors here just fell off a turnip truck. I expect any administrator considering an unblock to ask for my opinion, but if I get hit and killed by a bus or anything similar, this comment is null and void, except on its merits. Cullen328 (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification and I understand how that could be divisive. I've been paying attention to other usernames of late and I see mine indeed stands out for including an obviously contentious topic. My apologies. WestTNConfederate (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you choose that quote for your user page? Does it mean anything with regards to your plans to edit? Are planning to be focused on the legacy of racists, or are you as likely to edit about noodles? 107.116.165.89 (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote was by Patrick Cleburne of the Army of Tennessee. I've seen his uniform, which is preserved from when he was killed at Franklin. I had a relative who served in Cleburne's brigade. I personally found the quote appealing of its defiant nature, added on to his death while leading a charge. It's obviously not applicable today. But again, though it's long ago and in the past, I acknowledge that it has the potential to open up old wounds which is why I concede that I made an error. WestTNConfederate (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the members of my family tree who were in the Civil War fought for the Union, and one of them was killed in the same Tennessee battle that some of your Confederate heroes fought in. Maybe one of them killed my family member. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]