User talk:Austinlewis87

April 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Pinchme123. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Pinchme123 (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO CITATION to a reliable source for her claim to be Native American whatsoever. Her father shows up on NO Tribal Rolls (and neither does she).

So, you're basically allowing her to make a claim about her ethnicity that has no veracity and not applying this standard to her claim. Austinlewis87 (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Sacheen Littlefeather, you may be blocked from editing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<snip> Austinlewis87 (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Sacheen-Littlefeather-oscar-Native-pretendian-17520648.php

Wow. Were you guys wrong the whole time?

Weird. 2603:6011:4602:B4D4:9814:1097:8D7A:2CAF (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:08, 21 August 2022 (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).

Austinlewis87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

censorious mods have abused their authority to repeatedly remove even the TALK about Sacheen Littlefeather not actually being Native American. This comes despite the fact that neither she, nor her father, nor HIS father, show up on any tribal roll for the the tribes she claims to be descended from, nor any other tribe. Wikipedia goons are oddly enslaved to pushing the falsehood that Littlefeather is a Native American based on nothing but her words, much the same way that Wikipedia pushed the lie that Elizabeth Warren was a Native American. The conduct of mods in consistently censoring a conversation they didn't want to have is appalling, especially for a service pretending to be a depository of knowledge. Of course, Wikipedia has become well known for this kind of informational abuse in the past, so it's not a shock. Austinlewis87 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:GAB explains how to craft an appropriate unblock request, unlike what you've done here. Yamla (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2022 (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.

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).

Austinlewis87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not much point in citing this organization's nonsensical policies when the organization itself adheres to so few, is there, 'Yamla.' Austinlewis87 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2022 (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. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:42, 21 August 2022 (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.

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).

Austinlewis87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Nothing screams that Wikipedia is a joke like the fact that pointing out that Sacheen Littlefeather is not Native American, and neither her father nor his father (nor his mother, at that) show up on the rolls of either tribe she claimed he was part of, is 'disruptive.' I'm truly enjoying the parallels to Wikipedia protecting Elizabeth Warren's claim of being 'Native American' and refusing to allow edits that even mentioned her claims had no sourcing other than herself. I will not be 'providing a reason' listed, because none are applicable. Users on the Sacheen Littlefeather page (who I suspect, unlike myself, are not Natives, given the nonsense written therein) decided that because they were happy with their claim that she's a Native American, that was to be the end of it. Pointing out that she is not is not 'disruptive,' nor is it 'not a useful contribution' unless the whole point of Wikipedia is just to tell people what they want to hear. Austinlewis87 (talk) 5:03 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Please describe how your edits merited a block, what you would do instead, and what constructive edits you would make. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2022 (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.

@Deepfriedokra:, it's quite simple. I pointed out that there's no evidence that she's Native American other than her own word, and that her father shows up on no tribal roll (which, as a man who was allegedly 100 percent Native, a mixture of two tribes, is almost unheard of), nor does his father or mother (both of whom, of course, would have to be 100 percent Native in their respective tribes). If you know much about Native Americans, it's exceedingly unlikely that her dad wouldn't show up on ANY tribal roll, and damned near statistically impossible that neither of his parents would. To put this into perspective, my great grandfather was a full-blooded member of the Sac and Fox Nation of Stroud, Oklahoma, and his wife a full-blooded member of another tribe, and they BOTH show up on the tribal roll, as does my grandmother, who was born on the reservation and was, for purposes of the tribe and tribal membership, considered 100 percent Sac and Fox. My edits merited no block; the 'admin' who warned me simply didn't want to hear it, and consistently deleted my mention of the fact on the Talk page, declaring it 'settled' to his satisfaction based on 'news articles' that cite her Native heritage based on 'Littlefeather's' statements. As I said, it seems very similar to the cultish devotion Wikipedia showed to upholding another similarly political person, Elizabeth Warren, when she made multiple nonsensical claims of Native heritage. I would direct you to how that ended; literally no proof of her claimed Cherokee heritage, and evidence that she may have had some unknown tribal ancestor up to ten generations back, ignoring the fact that the sample they used was different than the membership she claimed, from a different region. The truth is that of everyone you will meet who tells you they're Native American, roughly 10 percent are telling the truth; the other 90 percent or so are either lying or repeating unfounded family claims, and the likelihood of such heritage being false seems to be statistically much higher for the notable tribes (Navajo, Apache, Cherokee being pretty over-represented, while I've yet to meet a phony member of the Sac and Fox Nations). It seems almost certain that 'Sacheen Littlefeather' is not Native, but @Morbidthoughts has decided that no such discussion can be had, based on his assumed expertise in Native American matters, I presume. Whatever the case, she should not be declared as being Native American 'because she says so,' a lesson Wikipedia probably should've learned from the Liz Warren debacle. Austinlewis87 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rant, not an explanation. And paragraphs are a good thing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this before but it sounds like you misunderstand the point of Wikipedia. We are an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. We report what WP:reliable secondary sources have said about subjects. It's not our role to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with the world. It's quite likely a significant amount of information on Wikipedia is wrong or misleading. Some of this is something we can do about. A lot of it is not. If most or all reliable secondary sources are wrong, then we will be too. It's a feature and not a bug of Wikipedia. If you can't accept this, then wikipedia is not the place for you.

We don't always include information covered in reliable secondary sources, what we include is an editorial decision based on the level of coverage, especially the level of coverage over time; and where we can't know about that given something being recent or the number of sources on a subject being fairly low perceived important based on our policies and guidelines.

However we cannot include information if it isn't covered in reliable sources. In the particular case of anything about living persons, we have stringent standards which means it's very rare we can use primary sources. Tribal rolls are definitely not something we can use. If reliable secondary sources have looked at tribal rolls and described what they found, this is something we can likely mention but not based on editors looking at the rolls. This applies to all living persons so it will apply to both Littlefeather and her parents in the absence of confirmation of their deaths in reliable secondary sources. Even if there is confirmation of their deaths, it would still apply since we do not have articles on her parents so the only reason it's of any relevance is in reporting something to do with Littlefeather.

Further the purpose of article talk pages is solely on how we can improve articles. Editors personal opinions and any unsourced information on subjects are not something which should be posted on talk pages. While we generally allow some leeway on inactive talk pages if comments are not too disruptive, we allow very little in the case of living persons especially when the people are relatively low profile. Despite the attention Littlefeather has received over the years, she's no Trump or Biden, or for that matter Brando or Wayne when they were alive. Note also although BLP applies to any information negative opinions and information people may regard as private or embarrassing tends to cause the most concern so this also affects our tolerance.

Note that given our sourcing requirements, any information which does not come from sources which meets our requirements is considered unsourced, and this would include stuff editors found from tribal rolls. While this can make searching for sources harder since knowing the information found can sometimes make it easier to search for sources, BLP means we generally have to do this. But also, i's unlikely that an editor saying they did not find something on a tribal roll will actually help finding sources which have discussed tribal rolls. (You can ask if anyone has found sources discussing what's present in tribal rolls without discussing what you found.)

If any editor feels that sources have failed to properly investigate something, they can do the WP:original research and try to get a reliable secondary source to publish their research. If this happens, then other editors will likely add this published source and information into the article. (The editor who wrote it should not generally add it, although they can mention it on the talk page while disclosing the WP:COI that they are the author.) But we cannot publish their original research or research based on unsuitable sources on wikipedia. Again it's a feature not a bug, and if you can't accept this, Wikipedia isn't the place for you.

Finally, while this isn't something I know a great deal about, if you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities you'll see we do recognise that sources we generally regard as reliable can be fairly slack with properly checking self-reported claims of indigenous identity. And we also recognise that a lot of such claims are untrue. However this cannot override our BLP policy. So while we can give priority to sources like tribal newspapers which generally do a better job of checking claims, and we can carefully limit what we say or word it in a way to reflect what we know about this information, we cannot allow editors to carry out original research on tribal rolls or anything of that sort.

I note you mentioned Elizabeth Warren. Not being an American and it not being something that interests me a great deal, it's not something I've sought out. I have read enough news reports in the past to have some idea of the details but I have almost no idea what went on at Wikipedia. However as per my earlier comments, it's easily possible your assumption we have something to learn over that is simply wrong. Again, we can only mention what reliable secondary sources have discussed so sometimes we will be wrong but it isn't something we could have done anything about.

Getting back to your case, multiple editors including me and not just Morbidthoughts have come to the conclusion that many of your comments crossed the BLP line. If you felt editors had not properly evaluated available secondary sources or given appropriate weight to the differing sources, you were welcome to express this but not your own personal opinions based on unsuitable sources. If you felt that editors were not properly taking your concerns on board, you were welcome to seek help e.g. at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, again without continuing to make comments which do not belong on Wikipedia. You're welcome to start a blog or post somewhere which allows you express your own personal opinion, just don't try and do it on Wikipedia.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Sacheen-Littlefeather-oscar-Native-pretendian-17520648.php

The entire pack of you morons can feel free to eat crow. 2603:6011:4602:B4D4:9814:1097:8D7A:2CAF (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dying of laughter, there are few times that Wikipedians get to be shown their place like this but imagine them banning you for being 100% right and trying to claim "you don't want to build an encyclopedia" 98.218.148.77 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're really butthurt about it, too.

This website is a dumpster fire. 2603:6011:4602:B4D4:11A:57C8:26AC:589 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to appeal your block, you may do so by logging back in to this account. As blocks apply to the person, not the account, I have blocked your IP range. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]