User talk:Buddylovely


 * Three more points relating to your block.


 * 1) Your IP address is currently blocked for 3 years. An edit you made with that IP address indicates that you think that means that it will be acceptable for you to return to editing after 3 years. That is not so. This account is blocked, and unless and until an administrator agrees to unblock you, you do not have permission to edit English Wikipedia, and any account or IP address used for doing so will be blocked.
 * 2) Now that I know of your disruptive editing history, I shall watch out for any future block evasion from you, and if I see any I shall be willing to edit-protect any and all pages that you edit. Please don't make that necessary, as doing so will be likely to cause inconvenience for legitimate editors wishing to make constructive edits, as well as stopping you.
 * 3) Since your various unblock requests, here and on the IP talk page, have achieved nothing other than taking up time of administrators who could have been doing more constructive work, and since there is no indication whatever that you are likely to start posting unblock requests that have any remote chance of success, I shall remove your talk page access. You have already been told how to use the unblock ticket request system, but I hope you won't, as there is a considerable backlog of requests there, and taking up the time of people who review those requests by posting the kinds of request you post will further delay reviews for other editors who have already had to wait for a considerable time. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

UTRS
The reason your UTRS request wasn't answered is that the email address wasn't verified. Without a verified email address such requests will not be acted upon - there's a good chance that you wouldn't even receive an answer. Huon (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I am responding here because the IRC Help has banned by IP because I asked them to look into this. I don't know how I am supposed to respond if the UTRS does not send me a verification email and the administrators ban me for asking about it. Do you have any suggestions? Also, while I'm here, I want to say that it feels a lot like before. The stated reason for me being banned is this one edit:. That edit occurred over 6 months ago and I served my time for it. This guy gave this as a reason, then banned me from my talk page, so I couldn't respond. Without the irc or the utrs, how am I supposed to respond?19:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have spoken to this editor on IRC. For some strange reason they cannot get past the email verification step of UTRS. I had considered granting talk page access, but they left with a comment that shows that, despite the lengthy explanations on various talk pages, they still do not understand why their editing was disruptive. It thus seems likely that restoring talk page access would merely lead to a resumption of what we had before. Huon (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Contents, and I quote, "ffsdsfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf". -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 20:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have replied via UTRS, "You can explain how your editing was was non constructive and how you will edit constructively, via UTRS or on your talk.". Looking forward to any constructive reply. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 20:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
 UTRS decline I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here " . Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please see

' -- Deep fried okra  ( talk )''' 14:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

So that sounds like a "yes" to me. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If I believe that you are appointed and not elected by editors and are unaccountable to editors, what does it matter? Do you ban ppl for thinking something you don't want them to think? Or do you ban ppl for their edits and comments? Regardless of what I believe about the administrators, I will not name-call. What more is needed from me to be unblocked besides agreeing to follow the rules?Buddylovely (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I just want an honest answer. I think I got it. Administratorship is not a position; it is a toolset. One is not elected to a toolset. Administrators have no more authority than any other editor. They have tools that would be irresponsible for everyone to have, given after community vetting. Admins can be and have been stripped of the tools. Are there always ways to improve processes and accountability? Sure. But saying there is none is factually incorrect and comparing that to fascism is offensive. You may be agreeing to not state your views but since we know you feel this way it is going to be difficult for you to work with us since we know you feel this way. I don't often do this but I oppose unblocking you. The admin that reviews this is free to disregard my views if they otherwise want to unblock you. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but administrators are not elected by editors to "a toolset"; instead they are appointed by some other group. If "Administrators have no more authority than any other editor" as you say, why do administrators have authority over banning me, which other editors do not have? It seems to me that ppl were not elected but have authority over me. In terms of accountability, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that administrators are not accountable to editors. If I'm wrong, please let me know. If my personal beliefs that administrators are (1) not elected by editors and (2) not accountable to editors are a reason to ban me forever, please tell me where to find this in the rules. If it is not in the rules, then on what basis are you banning me?Buddylovely (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want this matter taken to a community discussion, you can request that, but I don't think that would give you a better result(it would be worse if the community endorsed the block instead, making it even harder to get it removed, as now you only have to convince an admin). As I said, admins can be and actually have been stripped of their tools, as well as lesser sanctions. If you have ideas on increasing accountability, you can offer them once you are unblocked(keeping in mind that you are hardly the first person to want to do that). As I said, if you can convince someone to unblock you, they are free to disregard me. I do not think it benefits the community and a collaborative environment to have someone who thinks any members of it are fascists, but keeping that to themselves, participating. I don't have a specific rule to cite in front of me, so feel free to ignore me. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If the administrators are in fact accountable to editors, I stand corrected. I would need more information, but I am open to that possibility. I do NOT think that editors are appointed and unaccountable, so I'm not sure who you refer to as "members." I also do not intend to work with anyone except editors, even someone is also an administrator, I would work with them as an editor. To be clear: I do not believe that I would work with anyone but editors, who I do not view as appointed and unaccountable. Buddylovely (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't avoid dealing with administrators in all circumstances. Everyone on Wikipedia is a "member" of this community. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's true, you may need to "deal with me" as an administrator-"member' in an authoritative role. But you will not work with me in editing articles as an administrator. Rather you will work with me as an editor-"member". If I keep my word and do not disruptively edit, etc., you will actually not need to "deal with me" in an administrator-member role.
 * If I understand your words, you want to ban me for life on the chance you may have to discipline me, because you don't feel you can "deal with me" if I view the administrators as not elected by editors and unaccountable to editors. Do I have it right or is that statement incorrect regarding you pov?Buddylovely (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. Perhaps you are not aware of the highly negative connotation that the word "fascist" has, where I come from, it is not much different from being called a Nazi. No, I don't want to work with someone who considers me a fascist, even if you keep it to yourself. This isn't just about me, though, I can take some hits, but I think your presence in these circumstances does not benefit the community at large. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nazi is a type of fascism, but not the definition of fascism. That is your personal definition. I did not call anyone a Nazi nor do I believe anyone is a Nazi. I explained exactly what I meant by the term. Again, you will not be "working with me" as an administrator, but rather as an editor. Buddylovely (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI Here is a dictionary definition of fascism: "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic (i.e., authoritarian) or dictatorial control." Notice that where is no reference to Nazis and it describes many institutions. I would suggest that Wikipedia editors are held under strong authoritarian control by administrators who are not elected by and unaccountable to those who they control. This definition appears to me to fit how Wikipedia is administered, but I am probably missing something. What am I missing; what is incorrect?Buddylovely (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have said that we are held accountable but you seem to ignore this. There is always room for improvement, but it does happen. I've said and you seem to dismiss that administrator is not an elected position or authoritative position and not intended to be, it is a toolset. You may review how the community determines who has the admin tools at WP:RFA. I have nothing else to say. You will either be unblocked, or not. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not ignore what you said and in fact responded with "If the administrators are in fact accountable to editors, I stand corrected. I would need more information, but I am open to that possibility." If looks from what you posted that administrators are in fact elected by editors, so I stand corrected. Thank you. If you have any information on accountability, I would like that too. If administrators are also accountable to editors, I obviously had it wrong.Buddylovely (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * From this study https://snap.stanford.edu/data/wiki-Elec.html, it seems that 1/2 of the voters were administrators, which does not seem very democratic. In the USA, we have a "flawed democracy" determined by money. I would feel less inclined to call administrators "appointed" if more editors voted relative to administrators, which could easily be accomplished by communicating the option to vote to editors. I hope you understand that importance of a true democratic system to avoid accusations of authoritarian control. Also, please understand, I am not disagreeing to disagree and simply want to be factual.Buddylovely (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can say that Wikipedia is not a democracy. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We agree. So what your you call the basis for authority at Wikipedia if not a democracy?Buddylovely (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

is closed. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 18:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

is closed. User may want to consider appeal to WP:AN six months from now. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 12:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom email
address is  Best,  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 00:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)