Hello, Alistair McBuffio, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Alistair McBuffio/sandbox, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Lord Belbury (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Alistair McBuffio/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as User:Alistair McBuffio/sandbox, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from British Democratic Party (2013) into Far-right politics in the United Kingdom. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:2019 British National Party leadership election a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into 2019 British National Party leadership election. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 2019 British National Party leadership election instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2019 British National Party leadership election and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alistair McBuffio! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jr8825. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to British Democratic Party (2013) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. In particular, please note the guidance at WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.

Also, I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. This is especially important when undoing others' edits – known as reverting – which is discouraged (see our policy on edit-warring). Thanks! Jr8825 • Talk 19:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as User:Alistair McBuffio/sandbox, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Belbury (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a free webhosting service. Wikipedia is not a place to post personal content, host personal websites, or do things that are not directly related to adding to or improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B13A:1FB6:35F3:40A8:CCE5:C1E2 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Thank you. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. User:Namiba 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 12:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. In future I will take care to avoid mentioning my opinion that Talk:Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election is a heavily biased anti-Trump opinion essay that I found to be completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Thank you for letting me know. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here long enough to know that reply is improper and that your deleted comment revealed a failure to check the sources. Be more careful. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How did my deleted comment reveal a failure to check the sources? Alistair McBuffio (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at what you wrote in your edit summary: "This page is essentially a biased anti-Trump and anti-Republican essay and not an appropriate article for an encyclopedia." Does that say anything about bad sourcing? No. It appears to be a personal gripe, and IDONTLIKEIT POV. I can identify at least four things in there you don't like:

1. "biased"
2. "anti-Trump"
3. "anti-Republican"
4. "not an appropriate article for an encyclopedia" (See WP:GNG)
5. "anti-Trump opinion essay" (from a previous comment). It's an article, not an essay.

If any of those alleged issues are based purely on editorial opinion, with no sources in the article, then you'd have a point, but if they are based on RS, then you have no basis for your comment. So which is it? Are you here to follow the RS and Verifiability policies, or are you NOTHERE and just making comments based on your personal POV, in violation of WP:NOTFORUM? We all have them, but to complain about an article without referencing policies is problematic. We usually deal with such comments by deleting them on sight. Look at the "Frequently asked questions" at Talk:Donald Trump. Also look at Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus number 61 and Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Bias is allowed when it's based on RS. Please be more careful in the future and not complain about bias unless it is clearly an editor's bias, and then don't do it on an article talk page. Civilly talk to them about it on their personal talk page. They may actually have sources for their opinion that you aren't aware of, sources that may be in the article in question. We have to AGF.

This is not Conservapedia, which you apparently like. We have far different standards here. This is a mainstream, not a fringe, encyclopedia, and we base our content on RS, unlike at Conservapedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Well it looks like we just might have to agree to disagree on this one. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What part(s)? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "The British National Party (BNP) leadership election of 2011 was triggered on _ 2007 when _. Two candidates stood in the leadership election: Nick Griffin (BNP leader since 1999, and Christian "Chris" Jackson, _. On _ 2007," Which makes no sense. Where does British National Party say anything like that? Doug Weller talk 16:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a sandbox, it was a work-in-progress. Certainly not worth deleting. But the 2007 leadership election did happen. It says so here: "In 2007, a leadership challenge by a Tyndallite faction led by Christian (Chris) Jackson succeeded in forcing an election, which was however lost.". This website has some more evidence as well. Is there no way I can recover my progress on the sandbox? Is it gone forever? Alistair McBuffio (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you stand by leadership election of 2011 was triggered on _ 2007 "? Which makes no sense. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said: being a sandbox, it was a work-in-progress. It was not yet complete. There were gaps in the article for information I had not yet put on there. No "hoaxes" whatsoever. Aren't user sandboxes supposed to be a personal place to test editing skills in our own user spaces? Why did you have to intrude like that on a personal work-in-progress sandbox and delete it over some baseless accusation of a non-existent "hoax"? The 2007 BNP leadership election was a real event, not a hoax! Can I please have back my sandbox that you took from me for no good reason? Alistair McBuffio (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Prcc27 (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. You will be blocked if you continue to edit war on Wikipedia. Prcc27 (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I'm not doing any edit wars then. Especially since I was completely in the right about this whole thing. 😁 Alistair McBuffio (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can never be “in the right” when you violate the 3RR rule, unless you have an exemption, which you didn’t. Even if you edit war to “enforce consensus” you can get banned. Next time you edit war, I will report you to an admin. Prcc27 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, then I guess it's also a good thing that I didn't violate any rules or do anything wrong whatsoever. Had me worried for a second there. Anyways, you have yourself a good day. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Prcc27 (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

k Alistair McBuffio (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's ridiculous is that all the major networks had called the election during the time you did your last revert and yet you still tried to reason your revert with "no consensus". Yeah, sure. You're wrong in this and you know it too. --Minilammas (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John van Reenen. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. It's still edit warring even if you don't break the WP:3RR rule. meamemg (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. meamemg (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Rua Reidh Lighthouse, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 96.82.178.93 (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alistair McBuffio. I was pondering whether a warning to not repeat this kind of edit would suffice, but I decided to go with a sitewide block instead. Your views are incompatible with the project where cooperation is required, and rather than give a warning that will be ignored, as you've ignored all advices you've received so far, I decided on blocking indefinitely. If you want to appeal your block, please read our guide.

Admins need not contact me when considering unblocking the user, though I recommend at least a TBAN from WP:GENSEX and WP:AMPOL as a requirement. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:07, 16 September 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Failure by administrator to communicate cause for indefinite sitewide block (lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions)

Decline reason:

Nonsense. Yamla (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am a bit concerned about the repeated lack of explanation that I have been afforded for my sudden indefinite sitewide block. I log in to my Wikipedia account to find that my own user page has been edited, with large portions of content removed, and the edit reason simply said "Let's not" with no further evaluation. I then see a notification on my talk page from that same user, telling me that my "views are incompatible with the project where cooperation is required", which I was confused by. The user Isabelle Belato appeared to assume that I would ignore any warning I'm given because I have apparently "ignored all advices [I've] received so far" (which I am also confused by because I'm not sure what exactly is being referred to or why that conclusion has been reached). Isabelle Belato also appears to want me to be banned from discussing certain issues even if I am unblocked, and seems to have implied that I was blocked for expressing hateful views, which I also found confusing and concerning. I have read the linked guide thoroughly and hoped that by requesting a block review I would receive some kind of fair look at it that would address my concerns and shed a little more light on what has happened to my account and why. But instead, another user, Yamla, replies almost immediately with one word: "Nonsense". And now I am left even more confused about the situation and what my next course of action should be. It seems that after attempting to follow the block review process in an orderly fashion, I have been denied the only things I have been looking for here yet been denied time and time again: Clarity. Care. Courtesy. Communication. Why was a large segment of my user page deleted with the edit reason "Let's not"? What is that supposed to mean? Why is my own user page being edited by other people in the first place? Can I please undo the edit or will that get me into even more trouble? Which of my views are "incompatible" and why? What have I done wrong? Why will I not be allowed to participate in certain things even if I am unblocked? What about this is "Nonsense"? If the way I have been treated and the reasons for it are what was described as nonsensical then I would be inclined to agree. In all my time on Wikipedia I have done nothing but edit in good faith. I have taken great care to ensure that I obey the rules and avoid getting into arguments, but when that has happened I have gone to great lengths to remain respectful and cordial in my conduct. If unblocked I only intend to continue to provide accurate edits and remain civil and rule-abiding. I have never been hateful towards anyone, and I do not possess any hateful views. In fact, hateful views and conduct are fundamentally contradictory to my core values. But I don't know what I'm supposed to do from here. Is there any administrator out there who can help me? Or if the same users I have interacted with are reading this, could you at least advise me on what I should do next or direct me towards another user who can help me? As opposed to leaving these short, vague, and unhelpful answers as to why I have suddenly been given an indefinite sitewide block and potential further limitations on my account right after my user page was seemingly vandalised (as far as I am aware, which apparently isn't saying much). WP:ADMINEXPECT WP:ADMINCOND WP:ADMINACCT WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE Alistair McBuffio (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You wanted an explanation, here it is. Wikipedia is open to all types of human beings and we strive for a collaborative, civil environment for all. This includes people who view their identity different from their genitalia, regardless of whether one thinks it's their choice or not. You are entitled to your views about gender identity, but you are not entitled to express them on this privately operated website when they go against the collaborative environment. Saying pronouns are "woke nonsense" does not create a collaborative atmosphere. At one point in human history it was considered "woke" to think that one human being should not be able to own another as property. If wanting to treat other human beings with respect and dignity is woke, we're guilty and proud of it. I am not asking you to change your views or debating them with you, but you won't be allowed to contribute unless you stay away from making any edits about gender issues or American politics(both formally designated contentious topic areas). I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you for your reply. 331dot. It was much informative and helpful than the previous interactions I have had. But I must insist that there has been a significant understanding; I am not opposed to treating "other human beings with respect and dignity". In fact, I believe very deeply in treating other human beings with respect and dignity; that fundamental value is deeply embedded within my belief system. Now, I have never made any edits on gender issues before and never really intended to anyway, but if my religion-based personal preference concerning MY OWN PRONOUNS as originally stated on my user page (and NOT the pronouns of other people as you and the other admins seem to have misinterpreted) should restrict me from making any edits concerning American politics as a whole, then that is most concerning and I would like to dispute that further because I believe doing so would go against the very collaborative and civil environment on Wikipedia that you referred to which is "open to all types of human beings". I have made many helpful edits to articles about American politics in the past, but it would seem that I have been given an indefinite sitewide ban without any prior warning and had my user page seemingly vandalised over a misunderstanding of my opinion on my own personal pronouns, and now I may be permanently banned from making any edits to do with the broad topic that is American politics. This is most ironic because it was apparently done in an attempt to protect other people's pronouns, yet infringed on my own stated pronoun preference in the process. I had no intention of offending anyone, and I am perfectly happy to apologise for any offence I may have caused. To show that I am willing to agree to your compromise and be civil, I am willing to accept a temporary ban on editing articles concerning gender issues and American politics and to accept the content deletion carried out on my user page in order to have my prior editing rights fully restored so that I may resume making the accurate edits and displays of civility that I always displayed previously. Thanks again for your help! Alistair McBuffio (talk) 12:08 pm, 30 September 2025, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

The repeated insistence that Isabelle infringed on your pronoun preference by objecting to Special:Diff/1311755658 strikes me as fatuous and is not conducive to persuading me that you're ready to edit constructively. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:37, 3 October 2025 (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.

No one has said the topic bans were permanent without possibility of removal, just to be clear. Typically they can be appealed after a time or a certain number of edits. For fairness, someone else will review your new request. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: For some added context, this user's "preferred pronouns" which were infringed upon were "are woke nonsense". Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's some more added context: No, it was my opinion on my own preferred pronouns. But even if they were my pronouns, is that not allowed or something? The point is I feel like this has all been blown out of proportion. I make a lighthearted comment about what I think of my own personal pronouns on my own user page, and most of the content on my user page gets deleted (including content as innocent as my hair and eye colour) and I'm given an indefinite sitewide ban with no prior warning based on some outlandish (and frankly incorrect) assumptions about how I would have reacted to a warning. And what explanation am I given? The deletion reason on my user page just said "Let's not" and the first response I got from an administrator when I enquired about my ban was just the word "Nonsense". And all of this has been done to a user who has been nothing but respectful in his conduct and rule-abiding in his contributions. Yet despite how ridiculously I have been treated, I am still remaining courteous and apologetic and willing to settle for a temporary ban on what content I'm allowed to edit. Hope that added context helps. :/ Alistair McBuffio (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You say "lighthearted", what we are telling you is that it isn't being viewed that way. It's seen as deeply offensive, even if that's not your intention. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Another thing I said was that "I am perfectly happy to apologise for any offence I may have caused", even if causing offence was not my intention. Although I do hope I can be forgiven for at least questioning the degree to which the popular meme phrase "woke nonsense" would cause offence as "deep" as you are insinuating. It's why I feel as though it's at least debatable enough for a warning to have been more helpful than an immediate indefinite sitewide ban, not to mention a potential further ban on editing anything to do with American politics as a whole (as if pronouns or "gender-related disputes" are somehow a solely American political subject). It's also why I feel that I am being particularly reasonable in being so eager to amicably compromise by accepting what I would have previously assumed to be an enormously disproportionate punishment. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Has it been long enough now? Alistair McBuffio (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2025 (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. CoconutOctopus talk 21:05, 6 November 2025 (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.

Alistair McBuffio (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi, can I please ask you to read WP:SO, especially the last paragraph? If admins are concerned over your ability to edit on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia, this is a great way to build up evidence to show you can do exactly that. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up at this point tbh might just make another alt now Alistair McBuffio (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I think making an alt would make the situation even worse if you want to continue to the site. — the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk and the the 🥭 contributions) 17:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]