Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
SMcCandlish
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning SMcCandlish
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 13:15, 22 February 2024
But thanks for making it clear that your goal is to try to abuse process to censor someone who disagreed with you on some trivial style matter.
said as a reply to Hey man im josh. - 13:15, 22 February 2024
Jessintime simply try to reflexively censor every word of that
andJessintime has done nothing but attempt to suppress, only abused WP:AN process to make false accusations and try to get an admin corps to help them "win" a content dispute they refuse to substantively engage in resolving.
said in a reply to another editor, about Jessintime. - 13:15, 22 February 2024
you sure display a complete disregard for process when it suits your partisan preferences
said as a reply to Hey man im josh - 21:54, 22 February 2024
Hipocrisy doesn't suit you.
said as a reply to Hey man im josh. - 03:10, 23 February 2024
But various people love to drag out any argument if style, titles, MoS, AT, or RM are involved in any way, for some damned reason.
general comment about editors who get into disputes at MOS and AT. - 03:34, 23 February 2024
That said, "questioning the MoS" is tellingly battlegroundy wording.
said as a reply to Hey man im josh. - 03:34, 23 February 2024
Imagine people engaging in these sorts of defy-until-I-die antics, complete with blatant canvassing at firehose levels, sourcing denial and falsification, a putsch to try to prevent the community being able to examine the underlying question via RfC
genera comment about editors who get into disputes at MOS.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- Prohibition from making bad faith assumptions about any editor or identifiable group of editors, and strong advise to avoid commenting on contributor and avoid making personal attacks or engaging in incivility, with regards to pages or discussions related to WP:MOS.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Under active sanction in the topic area, see above
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
There's some pretty textbook violations of WP:AGF here, both at individual editors (Hey man im josh and Jessintime), as well as identifiable groups of editors (those who edit the MOS and get into disputes). Not sure what sanctions are appropriate here, but at minimum I'd suggest SMcCandlish strike these comments and apologise to the named editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also, this isn't the only recent examples of SMcCandlish assuming bad faith in discussions relating to parts of the MOS.
- At 00:33, 13 January 2024 he said
We have two extremely entrenched camps demanding the deadnames either be entirely suppressed, or that they always be included if sourceable. Neither camp is going to shut up and go away, and will do everything in their power to wikilawyer their way to victory.
in the current RfC on MOS:GENDERID - At 10:39, 24 July 2023 he said
a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anyway
in a discussion about neopronouns in MOS:GENDERID. Multiple editors asked him to strike the comments as derisive about fellow editors, he refused to do so. - At 23:38, 24 July 2023 he said
I'm not responsible for how other people bend over backwards to misinterpret things and then to cast people they disagree with on something as ideological "enemies". I will not be browbeaten into self-censoring on a matter like this.
which one editor described as afull-throttle descent into assumptions of bad faith
. Which he then responded with a personal attackI'm just concerned about more than one editor doing it in more than one direction, while you're only apparently concerned with a single editor doing it in a direction that doesn't agree with your position.
- At 00:33, 13 January 2024 he said
- I'm concerned that SMcCandlish's ongoing contributions to MOS related discussions simply brings more heat than light. The repeated accusations and implications of bad faith about other editors do not help when discussing guidelines that crossover between two CTOP areas (GENSEX and CT/MOS). Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Re Johnuniq: SMcCandlish's conduct in that discussion is emblematic of a much broader long term issue of incivility and accusations of bad faith from him, sometimes directed at individual editors and sometimes directed at identifiable groups. He has been under active sanction for this issue, in this specific CTOP area, for the last decade. Sooner or later, something has to give. Either he needs to address his conduct when engaging in these discussions, or he needs to not participate in them. I would prefer the former, as his institutional knowledge and insight into the guidelines can be helpful. For me, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm loathe to get into a back and forth with the person I'm filing a request about, however. SMcCandlish you said
Observing that PoV pushers on both sides of an issue exist and will push their PoV is an observation lots of us make, all the time. ... there is no fault in saying so.
Ordinarily you are correct, people make remarks on POV pushers and wikilayers all the time, however for since March 2013 you have been under a sanction preventing you from making this sort of bad faith accusation on pages or discussions related to WP:MOS. Other people might be able to say it, you are certainly allowed to think it, but you cannot by the plain reading of the sanction actually say it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm loathe to get into a back and forth with the person I'm filing a request about, however. SMcCandlish you said
- BilledMammal Regardless of whether it should or should not be split off into its own guideline, or be merged into another one, for the moment it is part of the MOS. Unless and until it is moved elsewhere, discussions about the wording of it are in scope of ARBATC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Re Johnuniq: SMcCandlish's conduct in that discussion is emblematic of a much broader long term issue of incivility and accusations of bad faith from him, sometimes directed at individual editors and sometimes directed at identifiable groups. He has been under active sanction for this issue, in this specific CTOP area, for the last decade. Sooner or later, something has to give. Either he needs to address his conduct when engaging in these discussions, or he needs to not participate in them. I would prefer the former, as his institutional knowledge and insight into the guidelines can be helpful. For me, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a few more diffs that demonstrate the same issue from other discussions, unrelated to the one at AN:
- 08:05, 8 January 2024
you clearly should not be editing material on WP about historical subjects because you fundamentally misunderstand how to do encyclopedic writing in that topic area.
andRandomly firehosing a stream of mutually exclusive "reasons" in a Gish gallop manner to try wear out the opposition is not going to work.
directed towards Andrew Lancaster - 09:38, 8 January 2024
You do not appear to have a firm grasp on the subject and seem to be just opininating for the sake of opinionating, based on incorrect assumptions
directed towards Andrew Lancaster - 07:38, 2 December 2023
specifically because activists will use it to editwar against inclusion of them anywhere on the basis that it "is not required"
said a discussion about the deadnames of deceased trans and non-binary people, about an identifiable group of editors. - 02:06, 3 August 2023
a separate page on this would be highly likely to develop WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problems, including the probable formation of a WP:OWN-attempting WP:FACTION.
about editors who have an interest in shaping and enforcing MOS:GENDERID.
- 08:05, 8 January 2024
- The first two are direct comments about an individual editor, the last two are about identifiable groups of editors. All are assuming bad faith about their respective targets, and the first two are bordering on incivility and personal attacks. I also want to re-emphasise, the current discussion at AN is just the straw that broke the camel's back, and emblematic of a broader problem stretching for years across the whole MOS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- To the admins who are suggesting postponing this until the conclusion of the AN thread, respectfully that thread is about a different issue. While I have provided diffs from it, they are there to illustrate a deeper, longstanding behavioural problem, that SMcCandlish has been under active sanction for for the last decade. The diffs I have provided are there to demonstrate instances where SMcCandlish has violated the terms of the sanction he is under. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- If SMcCandlish continues following with what he's said on my talk page, about re-evaluating and changing his approach so that this type of misunderstanding stops happening, I would be content with a reminder. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- To the admins who are suggesting postponing this until the conclusion of the AN thread, respectfully that thread is about a different issue. While I have provided diffs from it, they are there to illustrate a deeper, longstanding behavioural problem, that SMcCandlish has been under active sanction for for the last decade. The diffs I have provided are there to demonstrate instances where SMcCandlish has violated the terms of the sanction he is under. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning SMcCandlish
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by SMcCandlish
Background: I'd made observations at an essay I wrote. Jessintime reverted it all with grandstanding, subjective rationale of "inappropriate", with evidenceless bad-faith-assumptive accusation of GAMING. I un-reverted (with curt comment). Instead of normal discussion, Jessintime went to AN with same accusation: "attempt to game the system in light of the threads like the close review above". WP:GAMING is specifically defined as bad-faith activity. Jessintime's partisan in said review.
I was unnecessarily testy to Jessintime, my tone poor and flippant. I should've been the one to open talk-page discussion, though BRD's a rather conventionalized essay, not required. At AN, I offered to userspace the essay. Also suggested people're welcome to MfD it to that end (just not misuse AN as "pseudo-MfD"). Repeatedly welcomed editors to raise issues in talk toward wording changes. Any such solution is fine. Tempest in a teapot. It's not AN/AE material, just routine, temporary content-dispute. Apologized to Jessintime for flippancy and venty response at AN (common there, but nevertheless more heat than light) [7]. Did major tone edit to the entire essay; should address Jessintime's concern.
[SMcCandlish] needs to address his conduct when engaging in these discussions
: Fair enough. I can veer from brusque to wordy, argue forcefully. But there's assumption I'm "angry". Not sure what to do about that, what approach/discourse adjustments to make. Made many over the years, so I am open to such advice. There must be a better way to go about it than I have been, since I've clearly upset some people.
Colin's first law of holes advice is right; no one'll be impressed by me acting butthurt about a finger being pointed or a concern raised. Not angry about anything, just weary. Having a momentary "everyone just STFU about style stuff and go do something else!" reaction, instead of taking a breath, reapproaching from a chill position, wasn't the cool head Colin advises.
Sideswipe9th's initial diffs:
- It's process-abusive to try to turn AN into psudo-MfD, especially when involved in a content dispute (RfC, subject of close review) with author of esssay HMIJ would suppress (more content dispute). Especially unproductive, since discussion at essay and productive content revision are happening – proper process, working like normal.
- All correct; Jessintime did no discussion, AGF, WP:PRESERVE, or clear rationale; just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, evidenceless accusation.
- HMIJ (among others) "questioned the legitimacy of" the RfC. (Theory: community barred from addressing article-titles questions except via RM, a view the close rejected). Yet HMIJ wanted to bypass MfD process to get desired result. There's a marked difference here (aside from opposition-silencing): The VPPOL RfC opened (per WP:CONSENUS#By_soliciting_outside_opinions) after RM/MR consensus failure then new dispute flareup. Contrast: no attempt by Jessintime to discuss, just rushed to AN, them HMIJ dogpiled to misuse AN to suppress entire essay, not just material Jessintime criticized. (Seemed vindictive, excessive.) AN is late- not first-stage DR. WP:Process is important not only when it suits personal interest.
- "Hypocrisy" isn't the sweetest word, but not verboten. Replaced it anyway, as unnessarily testy.
- Correct observation; community has a bad habit of tolerating, even encouraging, protracted style battlegrounding; drain on editorial productivity and goodwill. Not aspersion-casting, just noting it happens, for unclear reasons (though there are hypotheses). None of this was about HMIJ. It's about a wiki-social issue.
- Post-RfC actions nothwithstanding, I was observing strong partisanship during RfC – dubious "questioning the MoS" and "legitimacy" of community even being able to have the RfC, then providing pro-capitals sourcing (start here), which didn't stand up to examination. Criticizing "questioning the MoS" as battlegroundy tone seemed reasonable given this history. And the whole comment is wry (HIMJ: "my reply was a bit tongue in cheek"; okay for HMIJ but not me?). Still, I don't like being misinterpreted and don't want to misinterpret; moderated that material.
- Unnecessary adjectives, but demonstrated factual at RfC page: Canvassing diffed. Incorrect claims about sources disproven by multiple editors. Top 1/3 of page is the canvassed parties trying to derail RfC.
Later diffs from Sideswipe9th (in lengthy content dispute with me elsewhere):
- Observing PoV pushing exists and likely to continue on both sides of an issue is an observation everyone makes. We craft policy to thwart this behavior (it's why WP:WIKILAWYER exists). No fault in saying so.
- Correct observation; trans/enby community, broadly, committed to defying imposed categorization/labeling of others' identities. If some particular neopronouns became something of a doctrinaire set, then many would avoid them because they became assumptive labels. Someone didn't like the word "delight", and accused of being derisive, when it was lighthearted approval of resistance. Also was't "about fellow editors". If say "Lots of Scots (and diaspora) don't like being called 'Scotch'", that's not "about editors"; some may turn out to fall into that category, but that'll be entirely incidental.
- Saying how something appears to me isn't a claim about reality of someone's viewpoint, motivations. Yes, I object to blind assumption that if there could possibly be a negative interpretation, that the intended or objective meaning must be that negative. By its nature, it leans bad-faith-assumptive. (Don't think it's consciously intended. Probably also some subculture clash.)
On more HMIJ comments: Yes, I bludgeoned as did several on both sides. Not an ideal discussion. I'll endeavor to do better. But mixing "bludgeon" into "bad faith" sentence makes for a claim that posting too often is bad-faith (i.e., HMIJ ABFs while accusing me of ABFing). Elephant in HMIJ's (and Sideswipe9th's) room: consistently mislabeling criticism of actions/statements as ABF. It's not. It's disagreement with action/statement. Not judgment as a person, expression of defaulting to distrust, etc. AN[I] consists of little but such inter-editor kvetching. "[C]ompletely irrelevant discussions": nope, deeply intertwined in a causal chain. The irrelevant ones were things like Sideswipe9th diffing me using a word she doesn't like months ago in unrelated subject. No room to address HMIJ's closing invective; its punitive heat didn't assuage the "silence opponent in content disagreement" feel.
Peace is better. Update: Being sensitive to negative interpretations, false accusations, I tone-revised the statements HMIJ objected to [8]; can go further or strike something if needed. I may defend my rationale for writing something, and it not being ABF, but have no interest in retaining material felt hurtful. HMIJ, please do read the above, try to understand my perspective as I have yours. E.g., why I found some of your statements alarming or antagonistic (not just toward me but to consensus formation/process, which matters more).
Sideswipe9th's hypothesis, that "Observing that PoV pushers on both sides of an issue exist and will push their PoV" = ABF, isn't sustainable. ABF about an editor (or group thereof) isn't equivalent to observing bare fact that PoV pushers exist and will (by definition) push PoVs. Observation and assumption aren't synonyms. Discussed in detail in usertalk.
The Wordsmith: "AGF/ABF" don't get to mean whatever someone chooses. Definition at WP:AGF: Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful.
I've not assumed, implied, or stated anyone's "trying to hurt Wikipedia", or even were inadvertently harmful. Offense at criticism doesn't equate to being ABFed. Criticizing action, statement, or rationale isn't ABF. Could be misinterpretation, wrong logically, uncivil, or otherwise unhelpful in some instance, but that doesn't transmutate into ABF. Reality: I don't believe anyone has actual bad faith in style disputes. Always appear to have good-faith but often prescriptive notions that their preference is correct and necessary based on what they've internalised about English (from "authorities" who conflict), or on sociopolitical language-reform or memetics grounds. While often problematic for WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY reasons, it doesn't mean bad-faith. Our behavioral jargon – "good/bad faith", "neutral/PoV", "civil[ity]", "personal attack", "advocacy/soapbox", etc. – has very distinct definitions and cannot be randomly mix-and-matched to win/punish. WP:AOBF's important here: Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack.
Repeatedly asserting something one objects to is ABF assumes, insists on, a motivation antithetical to the community, yet is evidence-free and a pretense at mindreading.
Update, after extensive HMIJ and Sideswipe9th usertalk discussion (as Drmies advised), Sideswipe9th posted (quoting me at start):
The gist of my point at your own talk page is that your insistence that such observations by me are "assuming bad faith" is off-base; they come nowhere near the definition of that.Sure, but as I've said just a few moments ago on my own talk page, this sort of misinterpretation of your observations as being one of bad faith seem to keep happening to you, from all manner of unconnected editors. Perhaps there is a reason for that?
Reason[s] are under discussion, reflection. The AE opener appears to have accepted that while I wasn't as civil as I needed to be (some of that in rather old diffs), it wasn't bad-faith assumption. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC) (revised a bunch of times to address incoming comments and developments, but keep under 1500 words without an extension)
Statement by Colin
I think the opening diffs of this complaint are unfair in that they don't supply context for the hostile remarks. The context is that SMcCandlish got his ass dragged to ANI by Jessintime and explicitly accused of "an attempt to game the system in light of the threads like the close review above". The disputed addition to the so-called "Manual of Style extended FAQ" is indeed highly problematic, inflammatory and verging on rant (e.g. "If you are going around looking for potential exceptions to push against any MoS rule, please find something more productive to do."), but dealing with that by going straight to ANI would I think understandably have got any editor angry and hostile in their response.
The context is necessary as comments about other editors are made all the time at AN/I. While some comments may indeed be uncivil and nasty and so on, making a comment about another editor and one's perceptions about their behaviour is expected there (as seen by Jessintime's accusation of SMcCandlish gaming the system). Hostile negative comments about another editor are absolutely typical in the case where the community is about to sanction that editor at ANI. So context is needed.
Reading many of the hostile remarks, I'm struck by the phrase "When you are in a hole, stop digging". That, if SMcCandlish is still angry, then perhaps best to leave things with "I concede my tone in response was poor", etc, and leave others to examine the behaviour of all users in that ANI discussion.
Augmenting a so called MOS FAQ with rants about other editors behaviour, which one has only just witnessed and vocally publicly disapproved of, was not wise IMO. SMcCandlish has written useful essays and has first class knowledge of how MoS works. But a cool head is needed to write a good essay. The general feeling of that ANI dispute was that the MOS FAQ has too much personal moan and note enough of a succinct frequently-asked-questions-with-pithy-answers help page. Can this be better avoided in future? One thought would be that any page that appears to be a general advice (like a MoS FAQ essay would be viewed as) should be up-front collaboratively written. That SMcCandlish find a partner to write it, who would maybe help spot when it is getting too personal-viewpointy and too angry? -- Colin°Talk 11:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Jessintime
I would like to clarify my statement at AN in regards to "gaming." My belief upon seeing the edit summary used "New section based on various talk-page discussions (user talk, RfCs, RM disputes, etc.)" [9] and the actual content added (which almost everyone at AN has since taken issue with) was that SMcCandlish was effectively attempting to amend a purported part of the MOS amid an article title dispute currently being reviewed at AN. This seemed to run afoul of Wikipedia:FORCEDINTERPRET or "Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose your own novel view of 'standards to apply' rather than those of the community" by amending the MOS to suggest it is inviolable or/and discouraging other editors from questioning it. As for why I went straight to AN, I felt that any discussion at either the FAQ's talk page or the MOS talk page would have been met with the same bludgeoning that occurs regularly at WT:MOS (or has been seen in the ongoing title dispute). I also considered MFD but felt it would be WP:POINTY to nominate it myself given my prior revert. Jessintime (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Hey man im josh
Just taking a moment to note that I'm writing something up to respond with. I know it's unlikely this gets closed before then, but I have an unreasonable fear it will be, so I'm just putting this placeholder here. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble fitting my reply in under 500 words. Is there any chance an admin could approve me for more than 500? I'll keep working on cutting this down in the mean time. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Geez, 5 of the 7 diffs are directed at me… guess I’m involved whether I like it or not. Responding to SMcCandlish’s reply about the diffs:
- Diff 1 – You’ve skirted around the actual diff and made a statement about the general AN, not about the fact that you made a pointed bad faith accusatory comment directed at me. What I don’t understand, and what makes this that much more inappropriate, is that we’re not in any content dispute! Your unsubstantiated statement about me remains unstricken.
- Diff 3 – Your reply is a bad faith accusation on top of a previous bad faith accusation. I did not try to derail a conversation. I questioned the legitimacy of the venue for the discussion, the exact same thing you’re doing in your reply, and I accepted the outcome of the RfC.
- Diff 4 – I was, generally, not participating in the RfC thread referenced, so this reply felt inappropriate given that, ironically, you were trying to argue against that venue for the discussion, similar to what I did at the RfC. I admit that my reply was a bit tongue in cheek.
- Diff 5 – Again, you fail to recognize what you’re writing as bad faith, including accusing me of trying to go after you. I find it strange that you accuse others of having a battleground mentality when you’ve benefited grateful from the community’s tolerance towards your frequent bludgeoning of discussions. I had never felt the need to take a Wikibreak until I dealt with that MOS discussion in which you responded to every single person who did not agree with you. That discussion drained me more than anything else on Wiki ever has. Not because of the outcome, but because it felt ridiculous that there were 3 people who wrote 50+ comments each who drowned out any possibility of constructive discussion.
- Diff 6 –
Also correct, especially as to that editor's protracted pro-capitalization activities in the topic in question.
– Continued bad faith and unsubstantiated accusations. You’re dragging up completely irrelevant discussions and deflecting from the matter at hand in this response. I want to dispel your misguided notion that you continue to repeat. I moved nearly 400 pages to downcase “Draft” to draft”, I proposed all of the appropriate categories for renaming, and I’m working on an AWB configuration to deal with the 40,000+ pages that need to have draft downcased now. I have NOT made any type of argument or attempt to or overturn the close and I’ve been pushing hard for people to move on. I also told you roughly the same thing yesterday. Despite this, you continue to cast aspersions in my direction. Wordsmith (here) and Cbl62 (here) have both praised my post-close behaviour in enacting the changes. - Diff 7 – An irrelevant to discussion to bring up, but people had valid concerns. I myself have said I had a false belief that the RfC was not going to be binding and that I personally feel a weight of responsibility for it how it turned out because I parroted this belief.
What I’m seeing in this AE is further doubling down by SMC. There are very clear pattern of long-term issues in how they approach discussions and handle their temper, and I fear that without a formal warning or punishment this type of behavior will only continue until addressed. I understand these methods may have “won” discussions but they're not healthy. It's literally a meme that people would rather deal with Israel–Palestine discussions as opposed to MOS, and I think SMC’s conduct in said discussions is a key reason why people are not involved in that area. They’re a large part of it and their behaviour needs to be addressed in some way, otherwise we’re sending a message that this type of behaviour is allowed. They clearly care about Wikipedia, but the damage they’re doing may have gotten to the point that it’s outweighing the positives. We need them to take some time to To be clear, I do not want SMC blocked indefinitely. It's clear they care about the quality of Wikipedia but the way they go about things has been causing harm for a while. The funny thing is it's not even them being wrong, they’re usually right, it's the approach, badgering, and instant bad faith assumptions I've witnessed constantly over the last couple months. They need to be told the way they conduct themselves is not appropriate, spend some time self reflecting on how their behaviour and words come across, and then hopefully come back as a productive editor.
Also, it'd be appreciated if they could strike several of their comments directed at me and acknowledge how their behaviour has come across. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: I did say that a month ago. In response, SMC repeated that it was appropriate. I disagreed until the close, when Wordsmith determined it was. I wrongly parroted the belief it wasn't and I believe that negatively affected participation, which I regret. My POV isn't the same as it was back then because I've spent a lot of time chatting with a few other admins who helped me to see things differently. That's why my comment said we should focus on the validity and content of the discussion, with a tongue in cheek twist. I figure it's better to let a closer determine whether it's appropriate instead of replying with that to everybody, derailing the conversation. Never the less, a tongue in cheek response against someone who views you as an adversary is not a good way to be productive. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Requesting a word extension so that I may continue to respond tomorrow when I get time to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BilledMammal
I just wanted to comment to first point out that whether MOS:DEADNAME is really part of the MOS or is instead mislabeled is a matter of a debate; Sideswipe, for example, has argued that it should be seen as, and given the weight of, BLP policy. I would be very hesitant to group alleged misbehavior related to that policy with alleged misbehavior related to the MOS.
I have little opinion on the broader topic, but I do want to comment on Hipocrisy doesn't suit you
. Editors switching their position based solely on their POV is an issue, and it is appropriate to call it out in an appropriate forum when it is obvious. In this case, SMcCandlish made that response to the comment RFCs are also not the standard place for move discussions, but sometimes the validity and content of a discussion outweighs the venue it's at
, exactly one month after Hey man im josh said A rm discussion needs to take place and nothing in this discussion is binding in any sense
- arguing that an RfC is not suitable to move an a page to the extent that it is not and cannot be binding.
It was appropriate, and not an assumption of bad faith, for SMcCandlish to call out the double standards, although they could have been less blunt about it. 22:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by North8000
I have just two narrow comments because I haven't taken a deep dive to learn the overall situation. On is on accusations of violating wp:AGF. WP:AGF is (rightly so) just a guideline and not a policy because is more of a general principle, and thus is broad and vague enough to be interpret-able to say that some common, logical and correct behaviors are wrong. Second, the complaint really doesn't make any case, it just relies on extracted out-of-context quotes to establish the complaint, which they don't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Drmies
SMcCandlish, Hey Man, Sidewsipe--you all are among some of the most helpful and positive editors here. Please try to find a way to work this out. Acroterion and I would host you in our NYC parlor with coffee and pastries, but we have commitments elsewhere--please think of how much you all have meant to this project, and how much it has meant to you, and talk it over. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Apaugasma
I did not know about the AE restriction prohibiting SMcCandlish from making bad faith assumptions in MOS-related discussions, but exactly this happened to me back in September.
After previously having raised a concern in a MOS discussion that my approach to sources might be cherry-picking, SMcCandlish posted notifications to VPP and NPOVN which flatly stated involves [...] WP:CHERRYPICKING
. I asked on their talk page to remove the reference to cherry-picking from the notifications (full discussion). Despite the fact that on the MOS talk page I had already come up with a new approach to sources that explicitly addressed the cherry-picking concerns, SMcCandlish declined to remove the reference to cherry-picking from the notifications, commenting If someone individually chooses to identify with the term CHERRYPICKING and be offended by mention of that rule, that probably says much more about what they've been writing than about what I wrote.
[10] The discussion only went downhill from there, with remarks like you are not the only person making "do it because sources I like do it" arguments
,[11] and I don't think you understand what "cherry-picking" even means
.[12]
Meanwhile on the MOS talk page, SMcCandlish misinterpreted a Workshop proposal I made and concluded from this that This "workshop" subsection is simply an excuse to ignore all the concerns raised in the main section of this discussion
.[13] When I pointed out that they had misread the proposal with an explicit invitation to discuss at my talk,[14] they doubled down insisting they did not misread, and repeated once more that I was just Digging up examples that specifically support your viewpoint
.[15] The type of misinterpretation here (assuming I want the MOS to recommend writing about Muhammad as "holy", while of course the text under discussion is about restricting such expressions) speaks a lot to the underlying ABF issues.
Next, when I criticized a different, ngrams-based type of evidence SMcCandlish had presented for their position, they replied I suspect you did not actually look at the ngrams at all, and have just blindly assumed they are searches for "Muhammad"
[16] After some further attempts at explaining why the evidence doesn't work, they replied that my explanations are mere meaningless hand-waving
and that everyone here understands that. I strongly suspect that you do as well, since the alternative is that simply have no understanding at all of what aggregate data is and how basic statistics works.
[17] I explicitly asked SMcCandlish to take a break, which seems to have worked, but I'm sure that if they had not assumed some kind of intentional obfuscation (or ignorance) on my part they would have much sooner understood what I was trying to say.
Since this incident I have removed all MOS pages from my watch list, because I simply do not want be confronted with such behavior. In general I have decided to spend a lot less time on WP, and this incident has been a catalyst in that decision. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Courcelles: "shut this down"? I may be misunderstanding, but this really feels dismissive of the issues I raised, as if they were merely piling-on in some free-for-all. I would have raised this in its own report if I had known about the restriction (i.e. that it's not just me, that the ABF is a long-term issue). I get that AE can be a bit of a drag, but at least some comment on what happened here would be welcome. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Bookku
Following edit tool stats indicated prominent influence of User:SMcCandlish
1) WP:VPP tops in number of edits 958 (14.9%); tops in added text 752,054 (19.6%) Ref tool
2) WP:MOS Tops in Edit; Tops in number of Edit 1,005 (24.3%) In added text 3rd position 97,646 (13.5%) Ref tool
3) WT:MOS Tops in number of edits 5,276 (36.9%); Tops in added text 4,790,959 (53.4%) Ref tool
I have had some small experience of conversing with the User (but not recent one). Since then I prefer to learn from the experienced users. If experienced influential users show good faith towards other well meaning users and show a little more accommodation can be more helpful in achieving the Wikipedia's goals. Bookku (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Elinruby
Interesting that this thread is still open even as SMcCandlish has been assuming bad faith at my user page. (User talk:Elinruby#And on and on and on).
TL;DR I pinged him in an ANI thread looking for confirmation of an Arbcom request he filed. The ANI involved a mistaken new user who found out they were mistaken and retracted the whole thing. SMcCandlish posted some discussion to my talk page about the need for civility. I responded at some length to his mistaken assumptions about the thread and pointing out that he had made the same Arbcom request also based on an assumption of bad faith (about someone else) but that I had supported it anyway because the e-e CT needs more sourcing restrictions in my opinion.
He doubled down a couple of hours ago, still apparently without reading the thread, and said I wasn't going to dig into it, and my only purpose here was to recommend a more verbally chilled-out and focus-on-content approach
. At the risk of repeating myself, the entire complaint that this comment is about was retracted once the new editor learned that contentious topic alerts and 3RR notifications do not constitute personal attacks.
I have no opinion about the MoS dispute except that I fervently wish editors would pick something and move on.
that is all Elinruby (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Red-tailed hawk: I would just like to point out that the behaviour I discuss above has happened since The Wordsmith and Seraphimblade suggested a reminder, which indicates to me that an informal reminder may not be effective. It stopped once I posted here but the next time it occurs the target may not have an open AE thread to post to. Unless of course you all don't think that lecturing an editor on civility after they were dragged to an ANI thread that explicitly found no evidence of such a problem is not an assumption of bad faith in a CT area. If that is the case, huh, I think I disagree but I bow to your judgement. I realize that he is considered a valuable editor in the MoS topic area, and this is not MoS, but nonetheless. While I approve of his Arbcom request, it was made on the basis of imaginary anti-Semitism and created a situation where editors in the topic area of the Lithuanian Holocaust are forced to explain that no really, the topic really does fall under the Anti-Semitism in Poland Arbcom decision, so apart from the editor who felt a need to change his name, there is a long-lasting problem that was created along with the motion. (Does this Arbcom motion make me sound crazy?)
- I am not suggesting we burn him at the stake. My suggestion would be a logged warning, to help him remember. Elinruby (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- May I please have a short word extension to agree with Apaugasma? I will be succinct. I am right at 50O words right now. And don't see much to cut. Courcelles' response raises some questions that I would like to speak to. 'While this case was open: SMcCandlish has been blundering around making accusations in a Holocaust topic, and his previous unfounded accusations of bad faith in the topic were within the past three months. Hardly the stuff of misty legend. Perhaps we need some diffs rather than a post that summarizes another post that summarizes two ANI and one misquoted AE proceedings. Elinruby (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not advocating an EE sanction but it's an additional reason to have taken more care. I still suggest a logged warning, and oppose dismissing a decade of behaviour. It has also occurred outside MoS, so I ask that we not add a "in the MoS topic area" scope.
- Talk page summary
SM:"Focus on content (in the article, and in claims in the talk page) not on the editor who wrote it."19:50, 3 March
- Everyone involved says he misunderstood
- me: "Massive kudos... to Star Mississippi and P-Makoto for actually clicking the freaking links ... required notifications and ...we are supposed to use academic sources, why are you reverting?"
- Closing admin: "I read the complaint (and the revised one) x 3 and I still have no idea what they perceived your wrong action to be"
- ANI OP: "Elinruby is basically right! I was too defensive"
- SM: "recommend a more verbally chilled-out and focus-on-content approach" 08:44, 4 March
Noticeboard background: an AE complaint of "removal or concealment of the history of Lithuanian collaboration" ended in a warning for getting angry at the accusation. ("inappropriate remarks"). A later ANI complaint omits the outcome and says the editor "returned to his practices".
- At 09:35, 6 December 2023 SMcCandlish says "We put a stop to whitewashing and related disruption about the Nazis in one country, so the PoV pushers have simply jumped ship to a neighboring country instead."
- Many refutations later at 04:30, 16 December 2023 he says "disruption has simply moved one country over but is essentially the same Nazi-whitewashing issue."
Not a listener.Elinruby (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- 12:04 March 11 Still making remarks about editors, thinks issue is that others lack a sense of humor. (I am uninvolved.) Elinruby (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
I've only just become aware this request was open, so apologies for the late response but based on the evidence presented, especially by Apaugasma and Elinruby (and evidence I would have presented if I'd known about this earlier) that this is an ongoing problem that has not stopped since this AE thread was opened I do not thing a simple reminder is sufficient. It is plausible that they forgot about their restriction at first (although nobody should require a reminder to not assume bad faith, especially when doing so has been called out by multiple people in multiple discussions), but it is not plausible they forgot it again since it was brought here. In my view a logged warning is the minimum appropriate level of sanction. A block would be excessive, but adding something enforceable to the restriction would not be - perhaps allowing uninvolved administrators to ban them from any discussion which they assume bad faith and/or mischaracterise the arguments of others (in any manner which is not clearly a genuine misunderstanding)? Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- This should not be allowed to just idle out without a formal closure. Do uninvolved admins want more diffs or is there enough to demonstrate the pattern of behaviour? Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning SMcCandlish
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Isn't Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Manual of Style extended FAQ enough? I understand that MOS is a bit of a WP:BIKESHED issue but things would have to be quite extreme before opening a request here while an admin noticeboard discussion was ongoing. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Sideswipe9th — this is a false equivalency. El_C 16:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Considering that SMcCandlish has acknowledged his poor reaction and that the ANI discussion is ongoing, I'm not sure action is needed here. However, SMcCandlish is at roughly 2100 words in his statement. @SMcCandlish: Please trim your statement to under 1500 words. Considering how much of the text is discussing Hey man im josh, an extension for him to 1000 is granted. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Noting here that Sideswipe9th has requested and been granted a 500 word extension to respond to recent updates.[18] In the future, please try to keep all requests on this page for the sake of transparency. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: 500 word extension granted, but I'll say that we're careening towards absurdity with these word counts for what doesn't seem like a very complex issue. Let's all try to keep it brief from this point. I also agree with Seraphimblade that we probably don't need this parallel discussion unless the ANI thread goes pear shaped. However, I'm concerned by the implications of the 2013 editing restriction that seems to still be active. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Noting here that Sideswipe9th has requested and been granted a 500 word extension to respond to recent updates.[18] In the future, please try to keep all requests on this page for the sake of transparency. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't love the same thing being discussed at the same time in multiple venues. I would favor closing this since there was already an ongoing AN discussion, and then if someone thinks there's something still unresolved after the AN thread is closed to discuss here, we can do that afterwards. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade's suggestion seems reasonable to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be fine putting this request on hold until the ANI thread resolves. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you mean the AN thread? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Right, that's the thread. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you mean the AN thread? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be fine putting this request on hold until the ANI thread resolves. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- We've now had a few days, and the AN thread has died down. SMCCandlish has acknowledged his conduct issue. Do we still need this open? It seems like the editing restriction is still active, so there could be a violation here. It was long ago and I can accept on good faith that it was forgotten, so I don't think anything stricter than a reminder is warranted here. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think that serves as well as anything. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be OK closing this with a reminder about that restriction. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Concur. Someone please shut this down unless an uninvolved admin comes by soon arguing differently. (I might do it later this afternoon if no one else does.) Courcelles (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think we may need a little more time. Valereee (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Concur. Someone please shut this down unless an uninvolved admin comes by soon arguing differently. (I might do it later this afternoon if no one else does.) Courcelles (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Given the new diffs presented, I would have been supportive of upgrading the reminder to a logged warning. However, the discussion at User talk:Elinruby seems to be exclusively about the WP:ARBEE, and SMCCandlish's 2013 editing restriction specifically says it applies to
pages or discussions related to WP:MOS
, where these edits would seem out of scope. I'm not seeing enough here to warrant a sanction or logged warning for Eastern Europe. Adding a sentence to the "reminder" that civility applies everywhere on Wikipedia should be enough there. @Elinruby: 300 word extension granted, since it doesn't seem like you've had one already. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)- That seems fair to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sennalen
Appeal declined. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by SennalenThe block violated WP:Blocking policy.
Some well-meaning but misplaced concerns were raised about the WP:CLEANSTART policy. It is not required to notify anyone when making a clean start. The policy page's advice about not editing in controversial topics pertained to avoiding past misdeeds, which was not a circumstance that pertained to me. Bradv confirmed that I was not under any prior sanctions and that I have a legitimate reason not to disclose my former account name. Disruption was alleged in multiple CTOPs, but all of the actions attributed to me either did not take place or do not constitute disruptions according to Wikipedia policy. There is no cause to believe I will cause disruption at a later time.
To recap, with reference to the criteria at WP:BLOCKP:
Statement by GalobtterI give a couple examples of the evidence for the block re the cultural marxism and covid issues here. I also want to point out that Sennalen believes that Covid stems from a bioengineered lab leak ([28], [29]), which probably explains why like I said she used a news source to undercut a scientific source that said otherwise. For the race and intelligence topic area, Generalrelative gives a good summary of the issues at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 180#Essay on fringe guidelines. For clarity the Eyferth study RfC mentioned there is at here and is about this content which is very much about race and intelligence, despite what Sennalen says at that discussion. Galobtter (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by Bon courageI was one of the named editors in Sennalen's AE filing which boomeranged into their block. One only needs to look at the various unblock request(s) to get an idea of what would likely follow in the case of an unblock: arguments at length rooted in a premise of "I am right and everybody else is wrong". This would be a big time sink for the community and a negative for the Project. Bon courage (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by KoA (Sennalen)The link wasn't directly included, so here is the AE where Sennalen was sanctioned. I commented as someone uninvolved back then, and the overall discussion among editors was not whether or not to sanction them, but rather how wide the scope needed to be due to disruption in multiple topics. I'm still not seeing any recognition of the problems with their behavior in WP:FRINGE topics and elsewhere in this filing, but rather WP:IDHT. The block came across pretty clear as that behavior butting up against WP:NOTHERE when many topic-bans would be needed to try to allow them to edit at this point. KoA (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by XMcanMy question is procedural: How does someone transition abruptly from being a senior editor, essentially a hero with no prior blocks, to a perceived villain warranting a complete editing ban? Has this user done one thing that was so egregiously disruptive as to earn this measure, or is this deemed a “straw that broke the camel's back” type of situation? If it's the latter, why haven't there been any prior warnings, pblocks, or tbans, as is typical in other cases? The best way for the appellant to demonstrate that they are not disruptive is to let them edit something unrelated to the problematic areas. I vote to change the siteban to a tban, or tbans if necessary. XMcan (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC). Edited 12:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SennalenStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Sennalen
|
Salmoonlight
Salmoonlight (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from making edits anywhere on Wikipedia regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This topic ban is per consensus of uninvolved administrators in this arbitration enforcement thread.Participants are also generally reminded that accusations of gaming the system require evidence and should not be made lightly; they are reminded to not cast aspersions when making such accusations.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Salmoonlight
Multiple WP:1RR/edit warring violations. They have been requested to self revert the violations at Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident, but have neither replied to the request nor done so, despite having continued editing including on the articles talk page. At Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident, they violated 1RR with edits to different content:
At Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, they violated 1RR and 3RR while edit warring with Alpoin117 over the same content.
Discussion concerning SalmoonlightStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SalmoonlightThe Alpoin117 reverts are irrelevant as Alpoin was being purposefully disruptive and vandalizing articles. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by LegalSmeagolianI'd highlight this is an additional case of BilledMammal trying to use AE to WP:GAME a victory in I-P content disputes - this is evidenced by BilledMammal including reverts of Alpoin117's, which were obvious instances of vandalism and not subject to the 1RR. Inclusion of these diffs is groundless and vexatious. BilledMammal has been warned to not use AE in this way yet has done so twice this week. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I request the uninvolved administrators look at WP:VANDALISM prior to a topic ban decision. "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." - Alpoin's edits, adding POV through an unsourced claim that the statements were "Misleading polarizing" was clearly WP:OR and violated WP:NPOV, therefore was vandalism as described above. Any argument that Alpoin was making such edits in good faith (to improve the encyclopedia) does not apply as he kept editing disruptively and his response to his ban shows the intent of the edits were not good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia rather were to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I've said my piece. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Sameboat (about Salmoonlight)WP:3RRNO lists "3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users" in one of the exemptions of 3RR/1RR. Alpoin117 (talk · contribs) clearly satisfies the exemption of counting towards 1RR. Newsweek may not be the best source to support the statement which cites it, the statement itself is rather harmless and didn't justify the removal by Alpoin117. Apart from sockpuppetry, Alpoin117 was clearly not here to make constructive contribution by adding this defamatory statement about Bushnell without citing any reliable source.[30] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @BilledMammal: Alpoin117 was blocked on 28 Feb 2024 for "Personal attacks on another editor in violation of previous unblock conditions, POV pushing, edit warring" (read the user's contributions page) when the only article they edited was self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. There was a discussion on ANI on 28 Feb exactly about disruptive edits by Alpoin117 regarding the self-immolation article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @BilledMammal: 3RRNO is not only about sockpuppetry but "banned users in violation of a ban" who violated their "previous unblock conditions" for edits on the self-immolation article. I am not going to argue about Alpoin117 with you anymore. It's getting unfruitful. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers: As long as Salmoonlight vows to never violate 1RR again, they would not face any form of topic ban this time. Am I right? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC) @LegalSmeagolian: If all the admins don't see the "misleading polarizing" edit by Alpoin problematic at all, there is no hope to convince them. I think it's time to let it go. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers: Just for clarification: Violation of OR or NPOV does not necessarily constitute vandalism. Is that right? 14:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by FirefangledfeathersCharges of gaming against BM depend on a finding that Alpoin117's edits were either vandalistic or in violation of a ban. Neither is true. I am much less worried that BM might be gaming than that the other participants might continue to edit in ARBPIA with a mistaken sense of what counts as vandalism or ban evasion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by NableezyThe edit war with Alpoin would have been better handled by coming here to report that user, as their edits were both 1RR violations and unquestionably tendentious, as in this one making a personal judgment, ditto for this one, and that they were edit-warring against multiple users and had blown past the 1RR. Alpoin117 reverted five users six times there, but the portrayal of that edit war here is Salmoonlight vs Alpoin117, and that just isnt true. Should Salmoonlight have reverted as many times as they had? No, of course not, but the complete picture doesnt really support the idea that Salmoonlight should be sanctioned for it. And going back to a 5 days stale edit-war does indeed strike me as one of those things people who are trying to remove the competition do. The other violation has already been self-reverted, something I thought it was standard practice to ask for before coming here, that is if somebody is not just trying to remove the competition. nableezy - 01:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Cullen328I am commenting here at this time only because I was pinged by Salmoonlight. Yes, I blocked Alpoin117 and my reasoning can be found at User talk:Alpoin117. Any editor could have found that quite easily. That does not at all imply that I think that Salmoonlight is blameless. I have some concerns about this editor's behavior but I have not yet investigated closely enough to say anything definitive at this time. So, I may (or may not) comment in the future. I am working on many other things. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (Ad Orientem)I can confirm that I was the original blocking admin for Alpoin117. The block was broadly speaking for disruptive editing, which in this instance also included personal attacks on other editors. Subsequently I unblocked them subject to conditions laid out on their talk page which included a one year TBan from any involvement in AfD discussions and related editing. I also explicitly warned them that they would be on a very short rope with regards to any future disruptive behavior including NPA. They affirmed their understanding and acceptance of those conditions. Unfortunately they failed to keep their end of the agreement. I was pinged to an ANI discussion, but Cullen328 got there first and reblocked them indefinitely. I took a look at the issues and fully endorsed Cullen's block. I am not familiar with the broader issues being discussed here and so respectfully decline to comment further at this time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by MakeandtossThis is the fourth or seventh (I lost count) attempt by BilledMammal to get users they don't agree with banned in less than two months, usually based on implausible claims of 1RR violations. I don't think it's a sign of constructive WP editing to spend more time trying to get users banned than constructively contributing to WP articles as their user contributions log reveals.
Statement by Zero0000Misunderstanding the boundaries between "disruptive edit", "policy-violating edit" and "vandalism" is a very common problem even for more experienced editors. It seems to me that a topic-ban would be excessive. Zerotalk 05:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by AquillionThe accusations of trying to "remove the competition" strike me as themselves dangerous. The fact is, in a controversial topic area, the people who notice and take the time to report misconduct are going to be those in dispute with a user - most people who edit controversial topics have at least some opinion on them; and few people closely examine the edits of those they agree with. If a report is valid (and clearly there was at least a 1RR violation here), any disputes the reporter had with the reportee don't matter; they're not required to be WP:UNINVOLVED, obviously. Otherwise there would be a chilling effect on people's willingness to report genuine problems, which would make enforcing AE restrictions extremely difficult. Likewise, "lots of people misunderstand what obvious vandalism is" can't possibly be a justification for 1RR / 3RR violations or those restrictions would have no meaning. Anyone who genuinely, truly believes that Alpoin117's edits were obvious vandalism should not be editing controversial topic areas at all; the idea that anyone could go "I feel that that edit maliciously violates NPOV, therefore it is vandalism and the 1RR/3RR doesn't apply" is obviously unworkable. --Aquillion (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Salmoonlight
|
KronosAlight
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning KronosAlight
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- KronosAlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBPS
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [31] 10 March 2024—violating WP:PSCI
- [32] and [33] 11 March 2024—ad nauseam advocacy for violating WP:PSCI, WP:ASPERSIONS; see also their previous edits at that talk page wherein they accuse me of violating WP:NPOV.
- [34] 10 March 2024—accusing me you're on the wrong side of Wikipedia's rules on NPOV
- [35] 10 March 2024—accept that you are violating Wikipedia rules
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [36] 10 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- I do not seek a formal sanction, but someone needs to tell them they need to take a break from WP:Advocacy for WP:FRINGE science.
- the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity—this is not part of WP:RULES, they are inventing rules of their own making. In fact, citing Boslough (2023) is more than enough WP:V for the YDIH being pseudoscience.
- So, Boslough (2023) is sufficient for WP:V my view, and Holliday c.s. (2023) is an extra bonus.
- If you want an example: K.R. Popper admitted that Marx's predictions were scientific, but these predictions failed in the real world. So, it suffices to quote Popper in order to show that Marx was mistaken.
- @Aquillion: Wikipedia already has the article Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. There it is presented in full detail. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [37] 11 March 2024
Discussion concerning KronosAlight
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by KronosAlight
I don't support the theory under discussion. It's at best an amusing science fiction narrative, but doesn't have (at least yet) any serious scientific backing.
As a simple statement of principle, a single academic research paper claiming to have debunked a theory propounded by multiple other authors with their own peer-reviewed academic research papers cannot be the basis for a claim in the 'voice' of Wikipedia that a theory has been "refuted" (which is the wording apparently desired) of neutrality vis-a-vis NPOV. This wouldn't hold in any other field or area of discussion, otherwise every paper claiming to have refuted Karl Marx for example would have been considered definitive, rather than a field of open and intense contestation. We would, at minimum (and I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 11 years now), take a passive voice of 'Critics claim that ...' for example, or some variation thereof.
There is nothing wrong with saying something alone the lines of, 'The theory has been considered pseudoscientific by critics' followed by the citation. There *is* a problem with the line "The theory has been refuted" followed by a single citation to a single paper. That is very, very rarely how research papers work.
Tgeorgescu was invited repeatedly to provide further citations - because, of course, multiple papers over a sustained period by peer-reviewed journals is a legitimate basis upon which a Wikipedia article can verify the verdict of falsity or pseudo-scientificity.
He has not done so, when it would have been much easier than endlessly arguing with me for simply enforcing NPOV.
I invite him yet again to do so - if a scientific theory has in fact been *refuted* (i.e. conclusively demonstrated to be false), it should not be difficult to find citations to reputable peer-reviewed scienific journals demonstrating so. In fact I suspect he would not find it difficult to find multiple papers seeking to debunk the claims made in this context, which might make such a cumulative case.
The easiest resolution would be for Tgeorgescu to simply cite the papers he claims (and I think do) exist in a new edit in order to justify the original wording of the article. I have no problem with him doing so and the wording then remaining the same. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis is not considered mainstream science, and this too would be fair to note in the article in question, but the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity.
- I'm not endorsing the theory – I think it's basically science fiction, a mad mixture of Ancient Astronaut Theory and Young Earth Creationism. But you need more than just one paper which has received little coverage and, last time I checked, basically no citations of its own, in order to justify the claim that it has been "refuted", which is a conclusive and final claim, not a provisional one.
- If the citation of a single academic paper (and I of course do not doubt that the paper itself was subject to entirely valid crutiny via a rigorous peer-review process) is "more than enough" to declare a niche scientific theory "debunked", then I do wonder what the minimal Wikipedia requirements might be to make such a claim. What’s the ‘low bar’, compared to this ‘high bar’?
- That isn't how the scientific process works, which necessarily involves back-and-forth disputes in which multiple researchers and schools of thought claim to have 'debunked' the other, nor is it how Wikipedia adjudicates the truth or falsity of the claims to pseudoscientificity, which has a higher threshold of proof.
- You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that. KronosAlight (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion
Regardless of what decision is reached here regarding WP:ASPERSIONs and the like, it would probably be best to take this to WP:FRINGEN. I think theory is obviously fringe, but how to best describe that and what sources to use for it still requires some thought; people at WP:FRINGEN are more likely to be able to answer that question. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning KronosAlight
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I might otherwise see this as a content dispute, but I'm quite concerned by the type of attitude displayed even at this very request:
You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that.
If you know about more sources for the claim, and think it needs more, you ought to be adding them, not removing the claim even though you apparently know it's verified. That's textbook tendentious editing, and if that's how this KronosAlight intends to handle situations like this, I rather wonder if they should be editing in this area (or indeed, any area) at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Jarek19800
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Jarek19800
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Rosguill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Jarek19800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Contentious_topic_designation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 12 March outright WP:OR ("left", let alone "far left" is mentioned nowhere in the article and no new source is provided), and expresses a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality vis-a-vis Polish media
- 8 March edit warring and claiming support from the talk page discussion, when the state of Talk:Mikhail_Kalinin does not support it
- 6 March Personal attacks against The Kip (albeit before being warned of CTOPS)
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 6 March.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- In addition to the above diffs displaying tendentious editing behavior, in general, Jarek19800's conduct in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#oko_press_Poland-_propaganda_can_be_reliable_source? exhibits a WP:RGW and battleground mentality. If I weren't involved in that discussion, or else I would have likely imposed sanctions myself. A block is likely most appropriate here, as their sole edit outside the Eastern Europe topic is a transphobic comment at Talk:Death of Nex Benedict. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Jarek19800
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Jarek19800
I explained it in note when editing. It was done because in article for Visegrad 24 in header we have information that it is far right media. if Visegrad 24 is far right than it is obvious that oko press is far left. it is stright and direct logic. Moreover Visegrad 24 is protected from editing which does not allow correcting the fact.Still I left message in talk page of Visegrad 24 to correct the absurd part where body note writes that the evidence for right wing is that such might said Hungarian ambassador and some lady unknown to anybody. it looks like vandalism and has to be corrected asap. btw: it seems that I was personally attacked for mentioning that. It is not ethical and wikipedia standard to chase any user through whole Wikipedia and fighting fiercely editings which are not connected in any way, it means communist genocide maker and some media. How anyone can have experience in both? so it is clear personal attack.
I have no "battleground mentality" . My remarks are logical and based on evidence. if not it should be not a problem to overturn them. instead there are only personal attacks and trying to make me panicked because of mentioning Wikipedia policies. As far as i red them such behaviour is forbidden. I am also attacked for transphobic note. Simple question cannot be transphobic. I request that discussion to be finished on base that there is no evidence of incrimed behaviour and to ban involved ones from editing my post in future as they proved to be not neutral is forbidden. Just to say I never made an attack of editing again redone changes 3 times in 24 hours which clearly proves that I do not vandalize anything. Last but not least report for transphobic comment because I requested a simple fact of who is someone by birth certificate without any additional comment??? in this logic asking Obama where he was born is racist??(i am not mentioning this because I am racist, do not try this). Wikipedia is encyklopedia and shall focus on facts not on misinterpretation. if one is able to make evidence the facts are not true,ok but not if someone tries to write that I am not ok because it is ones idea. Jarek19800 (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- i can see that clearly there are technical problems with wikipedia. The dorm of text is not correct than. still the meaning is clear I hope Jarek19800 (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- (to RTH): ok. I noticed Visegrad 24 is blamed in header ro ve far right wing media without any link or evidence of it. I tried to edit/delete this error but the site is protected. I left note in talk section. No reaction again. It makes me to think that it is normal common policy of Wikipedia to call in header any media far right or far left so I checked it on oko press. But there was a surprise like double standard. It was deleted. May I ask to be deleted far right from Visegrad 24 as it is not documented in any way? I am whole time seek for consensus but only thing I receive are constant attacks Jarek19800 (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- (to FFF): thank you . it was helpful. I am here as I was asked to prepare some lecture about standards of English Wikipedia for auditorium of students in Poland and you seem to be first person who is helpful. Jarek19800 (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by WeatherWriter
Just had a comment relevant to this. This may be a case of a CTOPS COI. Visegrád 24 was recently protected due to double CTOPS (PIA and Russia-Ukraine), but the reason for this was brought up at AN, due to the subject of the article, Visegrád 24, posting on Twitter (March 2) to have editors "fix" the article from propaganda. On March 3, Jarek19800, as well as maybe a dozen newer accounts on March 2-4, became heavily involved in the article and its content with mass editing (see article history on 2 March prior to protection) and talk page discussions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by The Kip
In a hurry at the moment so my full statement will come later, but just wanted to note I support a topic ban at the very least if not an indef. The Kip 22:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Joy, my first AE case. Jarek’s conduct over the last week has been misguided at best and disruptive at worst:
- Ideologically-driven editing: This RSN discussion of Oko.press; Jarek has insisted OKO.press is unreliable “propaganda” because they (supposedly) haven't criticized the current Polish government, while also claiming without sources that most Polish media is controlled by leftists.
- Failure to understand WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:DUE: Both the discussion and Mikhail Kalinin. Jarek repeatedly added to the latter’s lead that he was responsible for the Katyn massacre, attributing this claim to a primary source; however, it only backs the claim that Kalinin co-signed the order, not that he held significant responsibility. I explained on the talk page how this claim violated WP:OR and WP:V due to the lack of a proper source, and WP:DUE as a result; however, I never received a response, although an attempt seems to have been caught in an edit filter. At the Oko discussion, Jarek repeatedly asserted claims without any reliable sources in support, such as the above claims, that there's an anti-PiS “media monopoly” in Poland, or generally claiming Oko to be unreliable propaganda simply because “it is." On the two occasions he did provide “sources,” they were a single article from a right-wing newspaper and his own interpretation(s) of Oko statements.
- Failure to understand consensus: Stated that the discussion should be closed as WP:GUNREL based on his own opinion, despite four WP:GREL votes at the time. After WeatherWriter explained WP:V and consensus to him, Jarek insisted that because “nobody questioned his links,” we should simply agree it’s GUNREL.
- Battleground editing, PAs, and aspersions: Said I should be deleted from the Oko discussion for "hiding the facts concerning Soviet murderers,” implied I opposed his edits in order to defend “left-wing elements” , and claimed via edit summary that my Kalinin claim removal was "defending the communist mass murderer.”
In short, Jarek has shown at best a lack of understanding and at worst a complete disregard for Wikipedia policy on numerous occasions, in addition to casting plenty of aspersions about those opposed to him. Barring a massive behavioral shift (which his statement doesn’t indicate), I don’t see him becoming a constructive contributor to either the topic area or Wikipedia as a whole, and I’m supportive of either a TBAN or indef. The Kip 07:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Result concerning Jarek19800
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Jarek19800: Our behavioral guidelines call upon us to not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Would you please explain your rationale for making this edit, as well as the extent to which your rationale is (in-)consistent with that guideline? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Clerking
- @Jarek19800: you need to keep your comments in your own section, and please be aware of the 500-word limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarek19800: thank you for the kind words. You need to keep your comments here in the Statement by Jarek19800 section. You're now over the word limit, so you may want to trim. I've removed your 18:37 comment, since it was made after the word limit breach. Please do not add further comments unless you've trimmed below 500 or are requesting an extension. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)