User talk:Rationalobserver

April 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistent disruptive editing. 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any reviewing administrator: If you are not familiar with this case or this user, please do not unblock this user without consulting with me first. As, there is a huge backstory to what led up to this six month block. (I'll also make note that Rationalobserver was well aware that the block would be 6 months in length, as she was directly told it would be so - by myself back in February.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Further note from blocking administrator: For Rationalobserver to claim she thought some form of "friendship" was beginning, is absolutely ludicrous. This edit, from the very same day, I think proves to anyone with half of a brain that Rationalobserver had no intentions whatsoever of building a "friendship" with Victoria. She may have fooled me once, when she told me she'd focus on content and not deliberately go into contentious areas where she had a bad history with other users, but she's most certainly not fooling me again. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, Victoria followed me to the Irataba review, otherwise I would never have interacted with her ever again. Did you know that? Look at my last 1,000 edits, and tell me I wasn't building content. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And by "followed" I just mean that I was staying away from her as best as I could, but she forced the interaction at the Irataba peer review. In February, Victoria accused me of being ItsLassieTime, who had stalked and harassed her several years ago, so it's quite strange to me that she would stop by the peer review initiated by someone who she believes is her old stalker. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is a misunderstanding. I was tying to reconcile with Victoria, not bother her. Look at her responses and edit summaries. I should be unblocked until Victoria confirms that she considered my comments harassment, because right now I am blocked for harassing someone who hasn't actually said that I was harassing them. I honestly thought it was the beginning of a friendship, and if you look at Victoria's responses and contribs you'll see that she kept saying she'd answer more later. Further she restored some of my comments that I had removed and responded to them. She responded to my comments four times ([1],[2],[3],[4]), and not once was there any hint that I was being inappropriate or that she wanted me to stop. It wasn't harassment, she restored it and responded to it and said "more later". Further, my first behavior block was 2 weeks, so to go from 2 weeks to 6 months for my second behavior block is utterly absurd and spectacularly unfair given what others routinely get away with.

Decline reason:

You unblock request does not indicate that you realize how your behavior was disruptive. Chillum 04:52, 3 April 2015 (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.

Unblock request withdrawn: I made a mistake by posting to Victoria's talk page. I see that now. I shouldn't have reverted her comment at my page then gone to hers with a wall of text. I was honestly trying to work things out with her, but that was absolutely the wrong way to go about it. I should have asked her to have that discussion at my talk only if she wanted to, and if she didn't want to I should have dropped it and never complained about her again. I'm not a bad person, and I have no ill-will towards her, so nothing I did was intentionally hurtful. The learning curve has been difficult for me, and I've made several major mistakes. I see now that I've been personalizing the disagreements about content, and that has clouded my judgment and led to some disruption at talk pages, which I am sincerely regretful about. If you unblock me I promise to never argue with anyone at their talk page again, as I see now how that disrupts the project, which I honestly don't want to do. I'm here to build content, not argue with editors. I know Coffee said the next block would be six months, but I still say that's excessive and not true to the concept of escalating blocks. Rationalobserver (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. All I know is that Rational Observer has done a lot of good work on here. It's a pity that this has been allowed to escalate. I don't think it was a good idea posting to Victoria highlighting her earlier deficiencies in reviewing it, as FA reviewers often ask for things which are contrary to what others ask for. Still, six months is rather extreme in my opinion, at fault here or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalobserver, I'm confused as to why you pinged Victoria on this page asking for her input and then removed her replies (and your ping comments) saying that she couldn't stay away from you. Do you want to talk to her or not? I'm 99% sure you mean well and aren't out to make a mess, but I think you should at least decide on a course of action and stick to it. SlimVirgin, removing comments from one's own talk page is allowed and if admins really need to see something they can check the history, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to restore Victoria's comments. And I just got hit with an edit conflict because RO reverted SlimVirgin; can you two please not fight over this? ekips39 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged Victoria last night before I realized that she wanted me blocked. I honestly thought this was a big misunderstanding, but since she's made it clear that she thinks I'm a sock I have nothing more to say to her ... ever. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ekips39, will you please take a look at the thread in question? Victoria was encouraging me and telling me that she'd reply more later: "Give me a chance to finish up work before getting back on the others - haven't read them yet" and "I'm cooking supper at the moment. I'll be back - but not immediately". Are these the responses of someone who is being harassed? I had no indication that she wanted me to stay away, and had she said that I would have done so immediately. Maunus took it as a genuine attempt to reconcile, and that's what it was. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this all sounds fair. I can't really tell where things went wrong, but it looks as if everything was ok until something blew up. A number of comments from you have ascribed more or less malicious motives to her and I don't see how that was called for; perhaps that was what eventually snagged -- in any case, at this point she does seem to think you are disruptive to her, and were I in your position I would take her most recent comments at face value. ekips39 (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely take her comments at face value, and I promise to never mention her again if I'm unblocked. I'm shocked that she felt this way, really, I had no idea. I made a huge mistake, but I'm not a disruptive editor. More than 60% of my edits are to article space. All I want is to build content related to Native Americans, and I don't want to take part in any drama or disruption. Look at my contribs before the SPI, and you'll see that I was working hard at content creation. Look at my last 1,000 contribs, and you'll see the same thing. I deserve one last chance, as other have been given at least that and more. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I won't officially decline your request, but will suggest that you wait a few months before making any further requests. I've seen repeated requests result in the removal of talk page use. Just a suggestion. — Ched : ? 19:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this on your talk page ([5]): after discussion with admin. Coffee, RO agreed to certain terms in order to be unblocked

That's not accurate. Coffee unblocked me ([6]), then an hour and half later, after significant peer pressure from several editors, warned me about a six month block ([7]). There were no prior negotiations, discussion, or deal. They unilaterally upped the ante from 2 weeks to 6 months an hour and a half after unblocking me. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Victoriaearle: and @Ched: Not commenting on RO's past behaviour, but do you really think her comments to Victoria were harsh enough for a six month block? That's pretty extreme IMO. I did previously tell RO to try to avoid commenting to people like Eric, Victoria and Montana and get on with editing but she ignored my advice. The thing is, can we really afford to lose somebody who produces an article like Chetro Ketl every few weeks? I'd recommend reducing it to a few weeks and then an interaction ban between RO and Victoria and RO given strong words to refrain from commenting on others. In fairness though Victoria you have given RO quite a hard time with her article work, I can see why she might have got frustrated. I do think it's annoying though when you issue a reply here and she deleted your posts. It makes it seem like she's not worth wasting time over. I'm not convinced that an interaction ban on Victoria and RO would solve the situation as RO has a habit of taking things personally and then speaking her mind. But I do think the six month block needs some discussion. I think of it as purely how much decent editing work we'll miss out on in six months from her.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. B, Victoria's replies contained further accusations about socking, and that's why I removed them. She's been accusing me for 6 weeks now, and it's not helping anything. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the block was decided beforehand by Coffee (whom I'm pinging so as to invite him to comment on this) and should probably have been discussed at the time considering the objections it's raised. We couldn't know exactly what would have led to this block before now, but IMHO the length should not be inflexible precisely because we couldn't know, as not all comments/behaviour are equal even if the overall pattern is the same. ekips39 (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell taught me about blocks, and he told me that in no uncertain terms blocks were not to be used solely to punish editors for making mistakes, but only to protect the project. I have pledged to never mention Victoria again and agree to an interaction ban between us. The project is in no danger from me, but I have created several articles in the last month, including Kin Ya'a, Seck-a-hoot, and Cairook. I've also written Chetro Ketl in the last 30 days and been intimately involved in the Irataba peer reviews and FAC nominations. I've been busy building content, and all I'm asking is that you let me do that. I'll never edit her page again or mention her to anyone under any circumstances. I promise. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with your promise and I'd really like to see you able to edit articles again soon -- you do an impressive amount of work on them. Unfortunately (or perhaps not), it's not for me to decide. ekips39 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myth: RO made a deal with Coffee prior to being unblocked

I see that this has been repeated several times around the Wiki, so I want to dispel this here, as that's not accurate. Coffee unblocked me ([8]), then an hour and half later, after significant peer pressure from several editors, warned me about a six month block ([9]). There were no prior negotiations, discussion, or deal. They unilaterally upped the ante from 2 weeks to 6 months an hour and a half after unblocking me, and I did not agree to up the sentence from 2 weeks to 6 months as a condition of being unblocked. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the diff people were using to say you agreed [[10] and the argument can be made you were only promising to avoid Drmies and Eric Corbetts page but I doubt that the admin will listen to the technicalities aspect. They seldom do. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I mean is that people are saying that I was blocked, then before getting unblocked I agreed to put my self at risk of a six month block, but that's not what happened. I agreed to avoid two specific people and was unblocked based on my unblock request. There was no prior discussion with Coffee where I agreed to the put myself in jeopardy of getting a six-month block in exchange for getting unblocked. If that had been the case, I would have just served the two weeks. I was unblocked, then 90 minutes later Coffee warned me that he'd block me for 6 months on the next offense, which, as I as I said, violates the principle of escalating blocks. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

I much appreciated your assistance at difficult times during the Tower House FAC. You made quite an effort to help and plough through some of the massive lists, making the arduous task easier.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, Dr. B! Rationalobserver (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why....

I just want to know why in heavens name would you post on someone's talkpage who tried to get you banned for socking. You cant change everyone Rational, I help a-lot of people online with their issues and have done so in the past and know this all too well. The six month block is a major slap but I hope you can take something from this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That was really poor judgment on my part. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you know too that editors watch other editor's talk-pages, this wasn't just some random run to the admin because RO was causing a disruption thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is that I readily admit that I deserved a block, and I should have known better. All I want to do is build content, so if there is a next time I'll walk away from my keyboard before making any comments about editors. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side, I dusted off my Ramirez and played some Bach today. So I think the break will do me some good, and if I can come back I'll be refocused and reinvigorated to build content sans the drama. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to be me haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well im sorry to see it be this way, I think that 6 months is on the harsh side. You have been editing well in a-lot of articles and feel it is a bit of double jeopardy being blocked by the same admin twice. Also it depends on the editor and the context, there is nothing wrong for example with giving constructive criticism but not to someone you know you have had issues with in the past.- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Bach, a good piece [11] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love me some Bach, especially the Brandenburg Concertos. It's nice to hear from you, BTW; thanks for stopping by! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the reducing/unblock of Rationalobserver

Various users have commented on the extreme six month block of Rationalobserver; and I've witnessed numerous users who agree that a six month is far too excessive for a valuable user who contributes greatly to content creation here. I don't expect her to get unblocked easily but I'm sure a discussion can be made regarding a compromise for the block to be shortened for at least two weeks. Can we resotre our faith in the admin community? Half a year is too intense, Dr. Blofeld and Eric even said so themselves and we know some users have had disagreements with RO. I'm conifident that a compromise can be made. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the block duration should have been made by Coffee as it is biased seeing he was involved. I don't oppose a block if admin feel it is justified but 6 months as said is too much. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 6 months is very extreme I think. I understand that Coffee thinks it displays he is a strong admin who respects other admins, but 6 months is a very long time on wikipedia. I ask for a neutral admin to review this. I don't think anything longer than a month is warranted here. But RO really needs to learn to stop the comments directed at people... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, but as you know editors direct comments towards other people all the time here on Wikipedia either directly or indirectly that just nudges the line. It would be a wonderful place if everyone just stuck to editing and refrained from making snide comments about others on their talk-pages but that sadly isn't reality. Rational's biggest mistake in my opinion as I said above was thinking she could be friends with someone who tried to get her banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned my lesson, and I won't comment about editors when I should be commenting about content. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, per WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools ... Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

Will you please discuss the length of this block with me here? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the length of the blog should depend on what RO's previous account is. If it is an experienced account that has had previous grief with any of the involved editors here, then 6 months may be justified beause that would strongly imply malicious deceit, rather than a clean start. If it is not and RO is truly a newbie trying to learn the FAC ropes then I think 6 months is too much. So RO, I think you should probably let the administrator know your previous account so that fact can figure into any decisions about block length.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, I declared my previous account to the ArbCom in February, and they acknowledged that fact at the SPI that Victoria opened on me (see the bottom of this section). Rationalobserver (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I had previous experience at FAC, would I have made mistakes with sourcing like I have? Look at Irataba before I had any outside input ([12]). Does it really look like the work of an experienced returning editor who had already been to FAC? Using Frank Waters was a noob mistake, and so was over attributing everything and over quoting. But if I was as experienced as some people are claiming there would be no progression in my editing from bad to decent. E.g., compare Chetro Ketl to earlier versions of Irataba, and you will see a natural progression that wouldn't be there if I wasn't new to FAC. If I'm given another chance, I will continue to grow, and that growth will be obvious. I promise to stop taking things personally and stop commenting on editors. I deserve another chance, but I also deserve to move on without the constant baseless accusations. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manus RO has not ever used sock accounts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bond girl

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bond girl. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

	Thanks for creating Irataba
	Hi Rationalobserver, I just wanted to thank you for creating the article on Irataba, which is an immensely important addition to the encyclopedia. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! He was an important person that deserves to be remembered, though I am a little torn as Mohave tradition at the time of his death was to never again mention the dead. So I hope he understands! Thanks for adding so much wonderful context, and for correcting the sourcing bias/mistakes. This has been a team effort that we should all be proud of! I've learned a lot through this process, and hopefully I will be able to create more content like this, as our current coverage of Native America is sorely lacking. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, if you want the Woodward bio I could email it to you in a PDF. Just email me and I'll reply with it. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sitting in the special collections section of the library now looking at it, it is less impressive than I hoped. I thought it was a book, not a short article. I think there are some clear deficiencies with it, especially its reliance on news accounts. The entire idea that Irataba lost standing in the tribe when they thought he lied about what he had seen seems to come from the obituary in the Prescott Miner that says he was considered by his tribe as "the biggest liar on the Colorado". I think we should be cautious not to uncritically circulate this version of events.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until I created the Wikipedia article, Woodward's was the only bio on Irataba in the whole world, so I'm not sure what other sources he could have used, as they didn't exist in 1953. Nevertheless, I agree that it's not great, but it is the first such attempt to write a bio on Irataba, and for that it has value. Regarding the issue of "waning influence", isn't it almost implied by the fact that he was made head chief but later lost that distinction? I.e., to go from being the elected leader of 3,500 people to just 800 is a loss of influence. Isn't it? But I think I understand what you mean, at least in general. Have you looked at Devereux, George (1951). "Mohave Chieftainship in Action: A Narrative of the First Contacts of the Mohave Indians with the United States". Plateau 23 (3): 33–43? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Scrivner is a poor source? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and that is why I thanked you for your creation of the article. By doing so you created a possibility for making a better biography that draws on sources that are newer and a more modern approach to how people and events in the past are represented. Waning influence seems to be simply a meme that appeared due to the fact that Whites did not understand that by forcing half the Mohaves onto the CRIT reservation they had caused a split in the tribe. They did not understand that his influence did not wane but that it was restricted to his followers and he probably never held the kind of political authority over the Mohave that a European President or king holds over their people, and Homoseh quahote was not his "main rival" they were leaders of political factions among the Mohave who had different ideas about how to engage with whites. And nope, I have not used at that Devereux title, that looks promising, though as far as I understand Devereux is considered a somewhat problematic ethnographer because of his penchant for freudian interpretations of Mohave ideas and practices. I will look at the article nonetheless.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great explanation of the issue with Woodward following newspapers, and I agree with what you said about Devereux, but Devereux's article is based on four accounts of one of Irataba's granddaughters, Tcatc, so that's cool and informative. What's the trouble with Scrivner? He's a PhD and a Native American. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, as far as I could see he is a missionary, and the account seems semi-fictionalized. What field was his Phd in?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think anthropology, as Mohave People was his doctoral dissertation. He wrote another book about the Chickasaw that is frequently cited to: ([13]). Rationalobserver (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm that is interesting. Maybe his dissertation has something more to offer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think not. I found a review of the published version of the dissertation which butchers it. "Poorly researched" "often incorrect" are some phrases from the review.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. Are you sure that is a dissertation? His obituary does not describe him as a Phd or academic of any sort[14] and elsewhere he is called a "retired missionary and school superintendent".[15]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found it referenced as a dissertation in a newspaper from newspaper.com, but I don't remember which one unfortunately. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to e-mail

In response to your e-mail I think your best chance is the standard offer. Given that the block expires in 6 months though you might just want to wait it out. Chillum 15:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]