User talk:Buffs

Procedural/Bureaucratic Clarifications

Naturally, I disagree with the decision, but agreement with the decision isn't necessary to abide by the outcome. I will do so.

However, taking you up on your offer for some of your time (which is most kind of you, thank you), please understand I'm a little wary of "help" as the last time I engaged in things I thought were directed/suggested were then used as evidence of more malfeasance. That said, and assuming good faith, here it goes.

Could you provide some procedural clarification?

First, how did this pass the Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Awareness_of_contentious_topics requirement?

The evidence of this alert cited was (not in order):

• He’s been editing since 2007.

Based on WP:CTOP, being a longtime editor does not appear to establish awareness.

• Here he is reading through an arbcom case where his name and conduct are mentioned and where GENSEX is listed as a partial factor.

I thanked Tamzin for her actions/remarks, not someone else. This single remark in Tamzin's reply mentioning AE was a very vague reference of something that didn't get logged under AE (no specific topic mentioned). I don't understand how that is a notification or indication that I was aware AE:GENSEX WP:CT/GENSEX applied to 2 paragraphs in the Texas A&M article

• He’s taken part across multiple comments in the RFC on Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration where the CTOP warning is shown in bold text at the top.

These interactions were a) regarding a different subject, b) no notice was ever placed on the article/subject matter at hand, c) no such notice was ever placed on my user talk page, and d) (most importantly) this input was after the actions at hand.

As such, CTOP specifies what the action should be:

If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing a designated contentious topic when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) should be imposed

That seems to me to be what should have happened and some clarification would be appreciated as to why it didn't.

Second, where would I appeal this decision should I choose to do so (rest assured, it won't be for a while)? Buffs (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying you were not aware of the BLP contentious topic area? While I felt that provided the clearest place to log this sanction, it can - as the close indicated - also be applied to American Politics of which there is ample evidence you are aware based on past AE participation. So if you would prefer I file it under that Contentious Topic I am happy to do so if that's important to you. As for appeal the procedures are here; you would first appeal to me, then you could appeal to the community at either AE or AN, then you could appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I was absolutely aware of WP:BLP policy, and I am not going to deny that. In fact, I strongly support that policy. What I was unaware of was that BLP itself was being treated as a contentious-topic basis capable of leading directly to an indefinite block under AE. I don't feel that the points of WP:INDEF were appropriately applied. Now, I am being told that a third topic — American politics — which was never substantively raised during this AE discussion, could also have served as the underlying basis. At this point, it genuinely feels as though there was no meaningful way for me to defend myself, because each attempted defense simply results in being told the issue properly belongs under some other framework or venue.

While I believe you closed the discussion in good faith and in accordance with your understanding of consensus, I nevertheless believe the underlying arguments are fundamentally flawed to the point that the accusations for which I am blocked would not independently justify such a sanction absent those mischaracterizations. From my perspective, this situation escalated far beyond the underlying conduct itself was substantially drive by mischaracterizations of intent and inappropriately framing disputes as misconduct.

I would like to take some additional time to reflect and compose a more complete response before commenting further. I would prefer to do that in private rather than face additional unwarranted comments and unsought advice. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Please take your time. You being unaware of BLP as a contentious topic is fair enough and what I gathered from your first reply; it's why I continue to offer to switch it to American Politics, of which the edits that led to the sanction fell (in addition to Gender & Sexuality which is the topic listed). I admit to being a bit surprised we are talking about AWARENESS now given the length of your replies at AE. I would have expected it to be raised in your initial replies at AE rather than as something after the fact, but here we are. For appeals there are 3 criteria: 1) that things are procedurally wrong, 2) that it was not necessary to stop disruption, or 3) that it is no longer needed to stop disruption. If after thinking it over, you feel that the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process) your best bet is to appeal to ArbCom. The downside to that has been historically once you appealed to ArbCom all future appeals have to go there too. However, this committee has expressed some willingness to rethink that and may be willing to give you permission to go back to the sanctioning administrator and/or community for an appeal on criteria 3. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought more about this as I was walking my dog and realized I had more to explain. I get your point about the multiple different topics seemingly being used to retroactively justify the sanction. That is not at all how I see it. The concept behind WP:AWARE is make sure an editor knows that their edits are subject to more scrutiny and misconduct can be handled differently than the normal processes. The procedures limit what I can do if I don't think an editor understood this; this is a change from the previous discretionary sanctions regime where I instead needed to prove you understood it. Regardless, I believe you understood that Contentious topic procedures applied to the edits that led to this sanction. I choose to label it as a BLP sanction because that seemed to best fit what I saw as the strongest case against you and, thinking ahead to an appeal, because a BLP restriction of some kind seemed like the easiest way to a restriction as part of a successful unblock appeal. However, I can prove in the previous DS sense of things that you know American Politics post-1992 was a contentious topic (as indicated above) and that was clearly listed in the initial filing under "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" so it isn't some new surprising thing but rather a part of this discussion from the getgo. Which is why if you say to me "I didn't know about BLP being a contentious topic and think it unjust to be sanctioned for it" I am willing to switch it. Not to retroactively justify but because I did a minor invocation of IAR - for the reasons expressed here. Since I'm being challenged on that am happy to follow the rules because your statement means I can no longer say ignoring them benefits the project. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

BLUF: This is a REALLY long reply.

I would respectfully request that we leave this as-is until I can understand what I'm even going to be appealing. Regardless of my disagreement with this outcome, focusing my efforts here to understand the procedures, the depth/breadth of the situation, and understanding mechanics is far more important than any edits I may or may not have made or would make in the future. Changing it to another topic is somewhat immaterial as the effect remains, especially if you feel an appeal under BLP would be easier.

As to the meat of this discussion, I'm only just now realizing that GENSEX, Post-1992 politics was in reference to two different WP:CT sanctions. I thought that was just a further description of GENSEX and the politics surrounding it as people sometimes refer to cases under several different names (i.e. WP:ARBPIA, WP:CT/PIA, etc) . I'm not all that familiar with GENSEX and generally do not dabble in any topic around it. I do not see a consensus in any form to support that position as only one person even mentioned "American Politics". The focus seemed to be under WP:CT/BLP and/or WP:CT/GENSEX. In fact, the comment from Bishonen alone makes way more sense now: (A topic ban from American politics seems over-broad...). I sincerely didn't understand that's one of the things this was about.

Broadly, here's the way I see it procedurally:

• WP:BLP I'm well aware of this policy as it applies to contributions, but I was completely unaware this was under WP:CT/BLP. Of prime note, in WP:BLP the reference to it is listed under WP:BLP#Role of administrators which appears to be quite procedural for other people (Since I'm not an admin, I'd never given it much consideration). Moreover, the reference there goes to WP:NEWBLPBAN. It's not in the main body of the policy nor is the official page referenced (WP:CT/BLP). Regardless of the outcome here, at a bare minimum, I think it should be prominently mentioned in the main body in a section referencing the general public + users should be directed to WP:CT/BLP. Currently, I feel it is buried. I know I missed it.
• WP:CT/GENSEX I understood the case to be filed under this sanction and that's what I defended my actions against and feel that's the standard I should have been held to. While I was generally aware this topic was contentious (in the general sense), under the general awareness CTOP definitions, that didn't happen until after my contentious actions at Texas A&M. No one has provided evidence that I was prior to that and I do not recall such notice being given. As such, procedurally, this shouldn't have been accepted under WP:CTOP requirements.
• WP:CT/AP Now, I am well aware of this topic and that it's contentious. And regardless of whether I've received a formal notice I will not pretend otherwise and do not wish to send anyone on a wild goose chase to try and find justification there. I was aware of it. But at the same time, no one seemed to advocate for any adverse actions under it. In fact the only person who did so expressed doubt that it would be upheld under that topic as such an application would be "over-broad"). I don't see a consensus for an indef ban there, so moving it there doesn't make sense.

So, with all that said, I feel this is a simplified but accurate synopsis of your actions: "Well, violations occurred under A, B, and C. Ok, so maybe A doesn't apply because he didn't know about that one, B applies in spades but proper notice wasn't given, and C definitely had prior notice, but there was no consensus for that. So, I'm gonna IAR and file it under A...no, let's maybe do C?" is kinda where we are.

An aside:

I think it's warranted that, if people are referring to a contentious topic in AE as something they are wanting action for, they should be required to clearly annotate what it is with a link to the topic. Perhaps numerated lines/bullets would reduce confusion. Example:

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• GENSEX, Post-1992 politics WP:CT/GENSEX
• WP:CT/AP

I admit to being a bit surprised we are talking about AWARENESS now given the length of your replies at AE I felt replying to the meat of the discussion was more important rather than quibbling over "proper notice". None of the admins weighing in mentioned it and I didn't want to waste my precious words on that when it seemed like reviewing admins didn't see anything wrong with it. Likewise, it's not like I didn't try: request for an edit: attempt

Again, please don't change anything. I'm not appealing anything (yet). I want to understand WAY more than I do now before requesting anything because clearly I'm missing some important pieces (I think others may be too). Likewise, people have advised me to take it slow, so let's do that. Buffs (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Not really sure how else to get your attention and I don't even know if this works Buffs (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I've read what you wrote and interpreted it as you sandboxing your appeal, which is totally your prerogative and as you requested just let it be. So apologies but I didn't and don't understand what you were hoping for from me. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess a few more questions...how soon should I generally expect a reply? I don't want to unnecessarily pester you. Personally, I think 72 hours is a fine response time if you're generally offline (I edit sporadically...at least I did...). If online, I'd expect a reply in 24 hours even if it's "I'll get you an answer later". But I realize that sort of expectation for me may not be what you expect. Clarification would be appreciated. Buffs (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Heh...yeah, wow...that's on me...I didn't ask a question, at least not clearly.

Could you please assess what I wrote above? Specifically, that's how I see the situation, but if I am in error, where am I in error? If you disagree with my assessment, telling me why would be greatly appreciated. Buffs (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Please don't sugarcoat it. I'll accept bluntness in the interests of clarity. My intent was that I'm not yet appealing anything until I understand better. Buffs (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it was definitely not my intention to leave you hanging. I'm glad sorted that out.

I made a decision that of the three possible topic areas the ban could have been placed under, BLP was most to your advantage and most reflected the concerns of the discussion. In truth none of the three CT areas were directly discussed by the uninvolved administrators, but the substance most closely tied in to BLP as you seem to desire at moments in the text above. However, if you want to challenge that on procedural grounds, I'm not terribly interested in hashing out that procedural disagreement with you and hence my offer to instead change it to the place where your procedural argument over AWARENESS is at the weakest. Because ultimately it was and is my belief that you understood that the edits discussed at AE would be assessed through the Contentious topic procedures. One reason I think this is your awareness of the AMPOL element of things, another reason I think this is that you didn't contest AWARENESS at AE, even when it was clear a sanction would be forthcoming. In the interest of the bluntness that you've asked for: I want to be respectful and fair to you, but based on my experience I expect that both the community and the arbitration committee would see this Gender/BLP/American Politics issue as closer to wikilawyering than a procedural fault that merited overturning the sanction. Further being blunt, ultimately I think this sanction was fair to you procedurally, was proportionate to the the policy and behavior guideline violations shown by evidence presented, and was supported by a rough consensus of the uninvolved administrators who weighed in at AE and so your best chance of an appeal is by demonstrating it's no longer necessary. But I could be wrong. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the directness. I'm going to take some time to let that sink in.

From what I see here, the path forward is addressing the following:

• this sanction was fair to you procedurally

  If we are lumping everything together into Gender/BLP/American Politics, then I can see your point there. But defending yourself against all of that in 500 words...man I'm not sure how to respond to that exactly. It really seems as though the deck is heavily stacked there against anyone who is accused in this forum. Within the given constraints, this really feels more like a kangaroo court where, no matter which tack I chose to address, another certainly wouldn't be addressed to satisfaction. I feel it certainly isn't reasonable or just. I think it's noteworthy to point this out as a procedural problem with this forum. But even if it's a "just" a technical point, I think it's worth making. People should be made aware of the specific CT topic before AE is an option, not just a CT topic and then all the rest are fair game. CTOP (above) mentions specificity more than once and I don't think that was followed. You seem to think there is some merit to the argument, but that it isn't a "fatal flaw". I disagree and think that CTOP awareness is there for a reason. I think that if you can't make that part of the case clearly, then I don't think the rest deserves to be heard in AE.

But the block was enacted anyway. And regardless of how I feel about it and how I think it should be handled in the future, what's done is done. At this point, I think the best thing I can do regarding this subject is to let it go for now. I think it's worth fighting for in the future and changing our guidance, but I can't do that if I'm stuck here, so, I'll let that go.

• was supported by a rough consensus of the uninvolved administrators who weighed in at AE

  I think at least 1 of the 6 who expressed an opinion was involved. 2 others directly expressed an opinion and 2 more didn't really weigh in beyond procedural commentary. 1 argued for something less than what you ultimately chose. So, I don't disagree with you on the "rough consensus" assessment, but I don't think it was unanimous or that strong. Again, whether or not I agree is somewhat immaterial except...

  was proportionate to the the policy and behavior guideline violations shown by evidence presented

  I guess this is the point I disagree most strongly with. I think that's the fatal flaw. If Person A says "XYZ" and person B says "yeah, what Person A said", it's unanimous. But if that point is based on faulty logic, the unanimity collapses. If I can demonstrate that what was claimed was false and/or inaccurate, the established consensus falls apart. Several conclusive statements by TLC were demonstrably false. Likewise, I don't think the alleged BLP violations were in fact violations. Is it worth attempting to demonstrate that?

  your best chance of an appeal is by demonstrating it's no longer necessary

  ultimately, I point to the fact that I effectively disengaged with edits in the article before this case was even filed and I attempted to use the talk page and I attempted to make small changes. Are you looking for a pledge? Are you looking for some sort of mea culpa? Are you looking for a struggle session? I think some are looking for groveling and others want me to just beg before they voice opposition. A little more guidance here as to what you're looking for would be appreciated.

Reactions to the bold would be appreciated. Buffs (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Going in order of your breaks:

• I don't think there's merit to the argument, I just don't particularly want to have it with you. You were aware of American Politics. It was listed as a topic area when the AE was filed. I'm sorry you didn't realize it.
• Who was the involved administrator?
• If you could demonstrate that TLC's statements were false, that would be important. However, I don't think you've been successful in making this argument so far and it did seem like it was the focus of many of your words at AE.
• I am suggesting something closer to a WP:ROPE appeal.

Barkeep49 (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Reasonable people can disagree. I will abide by the decision and will not bring it up further.
• I feel Black Kite made prior dismissive comments about my conduct in a noticeboard discussion ("Apparently this is a serious encyclopedia. Except when some little groups of people decide it isn't.") before any clear consensus had been established, reflecting participation beyond a purely administrative role. Under WP:INVOLVED, such prior commentary in a dispute involving me creates at least the appearance of non-neutrality, and subsequent administrative action should therefore have been left to other (uninvolved) administrators. I also feel some prior comments were unreasonably dismissive of conservative points of view and Wikipedia policies (of which I am a proponent and appears he is against). But if Black Kite didn't "carry the day" in the discussion, then any WP:INVOLVED conduct is somewhat immaterial. If this had been a courtroom (and it wasn't...just an illustrative comparison), a judge would have recused themselves.
• I'll try to make that point better. I'm not interested in re-litigating it per se, but I would like to take a second crack at explaining it. If you find I'm incorrect, then I need to better understand your points before moving on.
• I'm glad you said that. I think we can agree on that standard; it's reasonable. However, I think it's prudent to better to understand point #3 AND then wait some time before I request point #4 (that's my plan anyway). There's no need to add more rope to the problem and just end back up in the same place. That wastes everyone's time and increases frustration.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your time and inputs. Buffs (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Will need time to think this over further and writer a longer response, but I think there are a couple different rough consensuses formed in that discussion. The first is whether or not the edits were a problem. Here Black Kite did weigh in. However there wasn't any dissension among uninvolved adminisrators about that. So whether or not he's INVOLVED - and this is a matter of some dispute which ArbCom may need to ultimately decide - it doesn't change the rough consensus about that. The 4 uninvolved administrators who discussed a sanction were Bish, TLC, Newslinger, and I. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, after taking some more time, I think I just have a question for now. How many words do you think you'll need to give your best effort last chance to try and explain why TLC's analysis was incorrect? I'm asking because I anticipate pinging some of the other admin in that discussion for thoughts when you do it and so some level of conciseness matters more than when it's just the two of us talking. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I will do everything I can to cap it under 2001 words. My goal is 1000, but that might not be enough. I promise to be as concise as I can. IRL stuff will have me busy for a couple of weeks, so I'll get it sooner if I can squeeze it in before then. Otherwise it'll definitely be later. I would rather take time to do this correctly and include everything I think is pertinent. Buffs (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

1000 words seems reasonable. We're not at AE but I'd encourage you to think of that as a cap. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Buffs (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

relevant A&M edit history

AG202 04:01, 10 September 2025 → University era : WP:SYNTHESIS , WP:NPOV , WP:RS : None of the sources describe her work as "leftist" nor do they talk about what she teaches. TexasScoreCard is likely not a reliable source in this instance and was not cited correctly to begin with. The sentence also had incorrect syntax, and her published opinion piece is irrelevant to this article.

Snokalok 04:39, 10 September 2025 → University era : Added Trump era section

Snokalok 04:39, 10 September 2025 → Trump era : caps

AG202 05:53, 10 September 2025 → Trump era : "Trump era" -> 2025, more clear title. WP:SYNTHESIS : Only one professor was fired, the dean and English dep. head were solely removed from their admin positions. What the student said and the professor's specific reaction is not relevant to a general article about A&M: WP:NOTWHOSWHO . "Serious" is a qualifier not added by the sources. Added sentence about President Welsh's actions.

Snokalok 06:16, 10 September 2025 A. I didn't say "fired", I said "removed". Please read more carefully before throwing around false accusations. B. I'll take out the "serious" Undid revision 1310541142 by AG202 ( talk

Snokalok 06:17, 10 September 2025 → Trump era : Removed serious

Snokalok 06:19, 10 September 2025 → Trump era : Cut out some of the who's who, but the "indoctrination" part is rather important and I'm not convinced that the "course content not matching description" bit is DUE given how obviously trumped up it is

AG202 13:10, 10 September 2025 "Trump era" is still unclear, as there have been two Trump administrations, and "2025" is clearer. "Several professors" is not clear as "several" implies a decent amount, but only 3 faculty were impacted. It is important to be clear that 1 faculty was actually fired, while the other two were solely removed from their admin roles as that's what the sources say. WP:SYNTHESIS . Stating that the professor was removed for course reasons is stating what the RSs said, otherwise it'd be WP:OR .

AG202 13:39, 10 September 2025 → 2025 : Readded indoctrination comment, as it is important, but instead I've added the full quote as he did not explicitly call said lesson indoctrination.

Snokalok 13:54, 10 September 2025 Okay we’re not going to agree on a wording within three reverts, so let’s blank the entire thing until we have a consensus wording

Citation bot 20:19, 11 September 2025 Added date. | Use this bot . Report bugs . | Suggested by Jay8g | #UCB_toolbar

38.13.161.168 03:38, 12 September 2025 No edit summary

ClueBot NG 03:38, 12 September 2025 Reverting possible vandalism by 38.13.161.168 to version by Citation bot. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG . (4419611) (Bot

38.13.161.168 03:39, 12 September 2025 No edit summary

38.13.161.168 03:40, 12 September 2025 No edit summary

38.13.161.168 03:45, 12 September 2025 No edit summary

Rht bd 03:47, 12 September 2025 Reverted edits by 38.13.161.168 ( talk ) to last version by ClueBot NG

38.13.138.220 03:53, 12 September 2025 No edit summary

Tymewalk 04:29, 12 September 2025 Reverting edit(s) by 38.13.138.220 ( talk ) to rev. 1310884155 by Rht bd: Vandalism ( UV 0.1.6

GreenC bot 15:36, 15 September 2025 Move 1 url. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#bbc.co.uk misc

Mohammadrajabwali 17:14, 15 September 2025 No edit summary

165.91.1.130 16:29, 17 September 2025 Updated the Texas A&M Foundation endowment number from $2.6 billion as of 2021 to $3.4 billion as of 2024. Source from before stays unchanged and is the TAMF public financial statement

165.91.1.130 16:30, 17 September 2025 → Endowment

Noahprtlnd 23:09, 19 September 2025 updated

AG202 01:00, 20 September 2025 Acting not interim

Kdammers 21:39, 22 September 2025 → University era : Welsh is gone.

Cfls 20:16, 24 September 2025 Campuses

Cfls 20:18, 24 September 2025 History

Cfls 20:20, 24 September 2025 sentence clarity

Cfls 20:22, 24 September 2025 Lede

Nehushtani 07:28, 30 September 2025 I added information.

Cfls 22:45, 30 September 2025 add hatnote

Cfls 22:50, 30 September 2025 hatnote

Frosty-kilogram 17:17, 6 October 2025 Infobox new president

ElKevbo 21:56, 6 October 2025 → top

Wbm1058 02:02, 7 October 2025 remove overlink

38.186.121.91 20:20, 7 October 2025 No edit summary

Lynch44 20:21, 7 October 2025 Reverted edit by 38.186.121.91 ( talk ) to last version by Wbm1058

Mushroom875 05:18, 16 October 2025 Update Texas A&M Men's Basketball Head Coach to Bucky McMillan.

Mushroom875 05:20, 16 October 2025 Small changes to football section

Mushroom875 17:12, 23 October 2025 → Activities : Added section about Student Engineers' Council

KarakoramManul 00:09, 13 November 2025 No edit summary

ElKevbo 01:51, 13 November 2025 → top : copy edit

ElKevbo 01:53, 13 November 2025 → top

ElKevbo 01:54, 13 November 2025 → top

Baekemm 13:02, 19 November 2025 → 21st century : aded details about firing of President Welsh

Snokalok 14:26, 19 November 2025 “Turmoil” is a nasty word here. It makes it sound like an impossible and inevitable situation attached to anything LGBT, instead of what this clearly was as highlighted in sources

636Buster 17:29, 25 November 2025 increase image upright, MOS:GEOLINK

~2025-37213-33 Temporary account has expired 05:24, 29 November 2025 No edit summary

C.Fred 05:25, 29 November 2025 Reverted edit by ~2025-37213-33 ( talk ) to last version by 636Buster

~2025-37357-31 Temporary account has expired 01:33, 30 November 2025 Added content

Snokalok 01:45, 30 November 2025 That may be so but it should be supported by the article, and ctrl+F "brother" turned up nothing Undid revision 1324879634 by ~2025-37357-31 ( talk

InfernoHues 05:26, 1 December 2025 Implementing edit requested by The_Other_Karma on the talk page - copy edits

Vns08121721 03:22, 2 December 2025 Infobox updates

Vns08121721 03:23, 2 December 2025 No edit summary

636Buster 00:08, 5 December 2025 MOS:GEOLINK

BD2412 01:44, 28 December 2025 House style for spacing of initials., replaced: George H.W. Bush → George H. W. Bush

Glardenc 17:09, 3 January 2026 edited the ill- and over-used word "that", replaced with more descriptive conjunctions "which", "who", "the", etc - making the text more concise, compact, and polished.

Mike Christie 13:29, 4 January 2026 Undid revision 1330964345 by Glardenc ( talk ) per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=1331010305 this comment]

Mike Christie 13:30, 4 January 2026 → Rankings : Re-apply one of the reverted edits

Redraiderengineer 17:36, 6 January 2026 Updated Texas A&M only endowment for FY2024. Updated rankings infobox.

Secarctangent 22:39, 7 January 2026 → 21st century : ban of teaching of plato

ElKevbo 00:16, 8 January 2026 a) not what the cited source says and (b) it's a pretty crappy source anyway

Secarctangent 04:16, 8 January 2026 Undid revision 1331750091 by ElKevbo ( talk ) that is absolutely what the source says, what are you talking about

ElKevbo 04:31, 8 January 2026 you need a much better source to make this kind of claim - it's clearly hyperpartisan exaggeration that doesn't even pass the sniff test

Secarctangent 05:21, 8 January 2026 Undid revision 1331784330 by ElKevbo ( talk ) -- next edit will have new source

Secarctangent 05:23, 8 January 2026 → Ban on teaching of Plato : new sourcing per other editor request

AC9016 10:33, 14 January 2026 → External links

Snokalok 20:12, 14 January 2026 → Ban on teaching of Plato : I don't think I've ever read a section that goes so far out of its way to avoid actually saying anything. Waste of article text. We're not diffusing a bomb here, people, it's not our job to sanewash the Trump admin

Snokalok 20:14, 14 January 2026 → Trump Era : WL

Snokalok 20:16, 14 January 2026 → Trump Era : typo fragment

Snokalok 20:19, 14 January 2026 → Trump Era : move wikilink higher

Snokalok 20:32, 14 January 2026 → Trump Era : WL

~2026-30760-6 Temporary account has expired 05:27, 15 January 2026 RV a load ov POVery - perfectly adequately covered without the NPOV issues and easter egg links before.

Secarctangent 05:31, 15 January 2026 Undid revision 1333016663 by ~2026-30760-6 ( talk

~2026-30760-6 Temporary account has expired 05:40, 15 January 2026 Update this section to what actually happened - there isn't a blanket ban on Plato as suggested here.

~2026-30760-6 Temporary account has expired 05:42, 15 January 2026 → Restricitions on teaching of Plato : fix typo

~2026-30760-6 Temporary account has expired 05:42, 15 January 2026 → Restrictions on teaching of Plato : actually not clear why this has it's own section

~2026-31050-8 Temporary account has expired 05:48, 15 January 2026 → 21st century

~2026-31014-6 Temporary account has expired 06:14, 15 January 2026 → 21st century : typo fix

~2026-31014-6 Temporary account has expired 06:15, 15 January 2026 → 21st century

Snokalok 11:42, 15 January 2026 You have been previously banned several times for hounding, vandalism, socking, refactoring, sexual harassment, and using slurs in personal attacks. Reverting your continued socking. See ANI#Disruptive Temp

~2026-31196-7 Temporary account has expired 12:09, 15 January 2026 restore LGV before POV edits, and a load of claims about Plato bans that fail verification

Snokalok 12:25, 15 January 2026 You have been previously banned several times for hounding, vandalism, socking, refactoring, sexual harassment, and using slurs in personal attacks. Reverting your continued socking. See ANI#Disruptive Temp Undid revision 1333053110 by ~2026-31196-7 ( talk

~2026-31858-9 Temporary account has expired 12:30, 15 January 2026 restore LGV before POV edits, and a load of claims about Plato bans that fail verification

Snokalok 12:31, 15 January 2026 You have been previously banned several times for hounding, vandalism, socking, refactoring, sexual harassment, and using slurs in personal attacks. Reverting your continued socking. See ANI#Disruptive Temp Undid revision 1333054848 by ~2026-31858-9 ( talk

~2026-31858-9 Temporary account has expired 12:32, 15 January 2026 RVV - restore LGV before POV edits, and a load of claims about Plato bans that fail verification

Snokalok 12:34, 15 January 2026 You have been previously banned several times for hounding, vandalism, socking, refactoring, sexual harassment, and using slurs in personal attacks. Reverting your continued socking. See ANI#Disruptive Temp Undid revision 1333054966 by ~2026-31858-9 ( talk

~2026-31858-9 Temporary account has expired 12:36, 15 January 2026 RVV - restore LGV before POV edits, and a load of claims about Plato bans that fail verification

Snokalok 12:37, 15 January 2026 You have been previously banned several times for hounding, vandalism, socking, refactoring, sexual harassment, and using slurs in personal attacks. Reverting your continued socking per WP:3RRNO. See ANI#Disruptive Temp Undid revision 1333055262 by ~2026-31858-9 ( talk

~2026-31858-9 Temporary account has expired 12:43, 15 January 2026 RVV - estore LGV before POV edits, and a load of claims about Plato bans that fail verification

Snokalok 12:44, 15 January 2026 You have been previously banned several times for hounding, vandalism, socking, refactoring, sexual harassment, and using slurs in personal attacks. Reverting your continued socking per WP:3RRNO. See ANI#Disruptive Temp Undid revision 1333055915 by ~2026-31858-9 ( talk

~2026-31858-9 Temporary account has expired 12:44, 15 January 2026 RVV - estore LGV before POV edits, and a load of claims about Plato bans that fail verification

Snokalok 12:45, 15 January 2026 You have been previously banned several times for hounding, vandalism, socking, refactoring, sexual harassment, and using slurs in personal attacks. Reverting your continued socking per WP:3RRNO. See ANI#Disruptive Temp Undid revision 1333056031 by ~2026-31858-9 ( talk

~2026-31966-9 Temporary account has expired 13:30, 15 January 2026 Restore LGV before POV pushing by Snokalok

Snokalok 13:50, 15 January 2026 You have been previously banned several times for hounding, vandalism, socking, refactoring, sexual harassment, and using slurs in personal attacks. Reverting your continued socking per WP:3RRNO. See ANI#Disruptive Temp Undid revision 1333060645 by ~2026-31966-9 ( talk

PhilKnight 13:55, 15 January 2026 Protected " Texas A&M University " ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access (expires 13:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 13:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC]

MusikBot II 14:10, 15 January 2026 Adding missing protection template ( more info

Jay8g 08:16, 16 January 2026 → Notable alumni and faculty : add links

Citation bot 08:21, 16 January 2026 Alter: title, template type. Add: magazine, work. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot . Report bugs . | Suggested by Jay8g | #UCB_toolbar

Snokalok 13:21, 31 January 2026 Update

Snokalok 13:21, 31 January 2026 Freudian slip

Seamlessly 07:37, 3 February 2026 → Trump Era

WikiCleanerBot 01:48, 11 February 2026 v2.05b - Bot T12 CW#548 - Fix errors for CW project (Punctuation in link

GreenC bot 11:42, 11 February 2026 Reformat 4 URLs ( Wayback Medic 2.5 ). Notice: RFC Eliminate or Deprecate Archive.today from Wikipedia

MusikBot II 08:01, 24 February 2026 Removing protection templates from unprotected page ( more info

~2026-13855-63 21:32, 3 March 2026 → Notable former students and faculty : Texas A&M graduates do not call themselves “alumni,” the call themselves “former students” as it is a tradition

ElKevbo 02:14, 4 March 2026 we're not going to use the university's idiosyncratic language

Snokalok 21:34, 20 March 2026 → Trump Era : typo, grammar

Wamalotpark 07:50, 23 March 2026 MOS

TheEyres 01:11, 3 April 2026 No edit summary

~2026-23049-06 17:34, 15 April 2026 No edit summary

Staticspector 17:35, 15 April 2026 Undid revision 1349081026 by ~2026-23049-06 ( talk

Jessicapierce 19:22, 23 April 2026 minor copy edits

• Buffs 17:48, 1 May 2026 → Trump Era : rm per WP:Recentism /unnecessary bashing associating the President of the United States (who has no affiliation with the University

• Snokalok 20:41, 1 May 2026 Restored heavily sourced consensus material that exists as a direct result of Trump executive orders. This removal reads very much as IDONTLIKEIT Undid revision 1352043405 by Buffs ( talk

• Buffs 21:08, 1 May 2026 Undid revision 1352067718 by Snokalok ( talk ); there is literally NO consensus anywhere for this addition. Everything in there is phrased in such a manner that it fails WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE ) and WP:SUMMARY (among others

• Snokalok 21:21, 1 May 2026 Longterm inclusion, built on and refined by multiple editors, becomes implicit consensus, and nothing about this fails NPOV. The Trump admin published these orders, this was the result, it was heavily publicized and covered by reliable sources. If you find its inclusion to be derogatory to the president, then I suggest building a time machine. Undid revision 1352071849 by Buffs ( talk

• Buffs 22:21, 1 May 2026 → Trump Era : no reliable source calls A&M's current "age" the "Trump era"

• Buffs 22:28, 1 May 2026 → 21st century : summarize

ElKevbo 22:34, 1 May 2026 no, this is not an accurate summary

• Buffs 22:37, 1 May 2026 Undid revision 1352082177 by ElKevbo ( talk ); the names of the professors are irrelevant for this summary, Libs of Tik Tok doesn't need to be mentioned nor does TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP at every instance. You asked for me to edit here and all your doing is invoking a heckler's veto

• Buffs 22:39, 1 May 2026 → 21st century : more

• Buffs 22:40, 1 May 2026 → 21st century : doesn't need to be a separate paragraph

• Buffs 22:46, 1 May 2026 → 21st century : adfing information omitted

• Buffs 22:51, 1 May 2026 → 21st century : summarize

• Buffs 22:58, 1 May 2026 → 21st century : update + refs

• Buffs 22:58, 1 May 2026 → 21st century : typo

• Buffs 23:01, 1 May 2026 → 21st century : summarized a 9 month span down to a single paragraph. Literally no other section in this has as much detail for a sub-1 year period. I would advocate further summary

LunaHasArrived 23:06, 1 May 2026 → 21st century : Removing highly biased language not found in sources, afaict no source used here mentions collusion to remove the student.

AnomieBOT 23:27, 1 May 2026 Dating maintenance tags: {{Cn}}

• Buffs 23:28, 1 May 2026 Undid revision 1352085146 by LunaHasArrived ( talk ) added ref again here to support the assertions. Other sources in there include links to video clips but do not mention in text the entire series of clips and their audio which support this assertion

LunaHasArrived 23:40, 1 May 2026 This language is not used by the sources in article voice and is highly biased, it shouldn't be repeated here in wikivoice

LunaHasArrived 23:53, 1 May 2026 The best sources don't put this language into article voice, we shouldn't either

Snokalok 00:51, 2 May 2026 Rvv. You’ve been reverted by multiple editors, and “gender ideology” is not neutral language anymore than “the gay agenda” or “degeneracy”

• Buffs 15:49, 4 May 2026 Undid revision 1352096137 by Snokalok ( talk ); I've made numerous improvements to the article. Wholesale reversion based on "'gender ideology' is not neutral language..." is not appropriate. Neither is the removal of sources germane to the topic at hand

• Buffs 15:52, 4 May 2026 → 21st century : better phrasing

• Buffs 16:28, 4 May 2026 → 21st century : there is no quote in which the phrase "race and gender ideology" is included, so quotes are inappropriate. However, a wikilink may be more helpful to put it within political context

• Buffs 16:29, 4 May 2026 → 21st century : WP:MOS capitalization fix

• Buffs 19:47, 4 May 2026 → 21st century : add another bare ref + rephrase. See talk page

ElKevbo 23:14, 4 May 2026 continue edit warring and I'll ask that you be blocked

GuardianH 20:46, 5 May 2026 → Trump Era : in a 150-year-old school, much of these details, including these two quoteblocks, likely won't pass the WP:10YEARTEST ; these ought to be summarized far more concisely so as to avoid recentism

GuardianH 21:21, 5 May 2026 → Trump Era : ce

Snokalok 21:26, 5 May 2026 I don't actually disagree with all of these shortenings, but wikipedia is really terrible at letting you partially revert and the whole thing where if you try to copy deleted text it pastes with an unremovable strikethrough is just kind of a prickish thing so I'm reverting the entire thing but like, cutting the full names and whatnot was fine, I really disagree with removing libs of tiktok, "What it termed", and the part about disposal of books. Also the block quotes

GuardianH 21:46, 5 May 2026 Our partial-reverting system is painful on this interface, but consider selective rather than wholesale reverts. We also have a detailed guide on what should be documented for a 150-year-old institution like Texas A&M University - a TikTok account and a professor's email don't really meet long-term significance and i would concur that it bends towards recentism - we can work out what to trim or not on the talk page

Snokalok 21:49, 5 May 2026 Okay so let's work it out on the talk page, I agree, but if the latest omnibus edit does more bad than good (Which I would argue cutting book disposal and the involvement of LoTT vs simply shortening the paragraph does), then we especially shouldn't default to it before deciding what to cut. I'm ready on talk when you are. Undid revision 1352720678 by GuardianH ( talk

GuardianH 21:53, 5 May 2026 → Trump Era : given that there is agreement over the shortening of names, these can be removeda

Snokalok 22:00, 5 May 2026 → Trump Era : but not agreement on softening "disposed of"

• Buffs 22:03, 5 May 2026 it was copies of a single book; let's be specific

• Buffs 22:04, 5 May 2026 Undid revision 1352722768 by Buffs ( talk ); I'm just gonna stay out of this for right now.

Chess enjoyer 06:46, 6 May 2026 Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5

~2026-17455-38 16:00, 7 May 2026 Removal of extraneous information added to disparage the topic of the article.

TonySt 16:02, 7 May 2026 Interceptor : Reverting unexplained deletion by ~2026-17455-38

~2026-17455-38 16:02, 7 May 2026 Undid revision 1353006901 by TonySt ( talk

UpTheOctave! 16:03, 7 May 2026 Reverted edits by ~2026-17455-38 ( talk ): unexplained content removal ( HG ) (3.4.14

~2026-17455-38 16:06, 7 May 2026 Undid revision 1353007126 by UpTheOctave! ( talk ) Reverting unexplained revision

Snokalok 16:07, 7 May 2026 rvv coi Undid revision 1353007422 by ~2026-17455-38 ( talk

Speedy1893 17:23, 7 May 2026 Removed irrelevant info

Snokalok 20:54, 7 May 2026 rv sockpuppetry Undid revision 1353016874 by Speedy1893 ( talk

SarekOfVulcan 21:04, 7 May 2026 Protected " Texas A&M University "

SarekOfVulcan 21:04, 7 May 2026 Adding {{pp-protected}}

SarekOfVulcan 21:21, 7 May 2026 reduce precision per WP:OPCOORD

MusikBot II 01:24, 10 May 2026 Removing protection templates from unprotected page ( more info

Perasano 22:42, 11 May 2026 Updated university president

Action Analysis

<placeholder>

Draft response

<placeholder>