Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329

    SMcCandlish[edit]

    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[edit]

    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)Reply[reply]
    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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:CT/MOS, WP:ARBATC
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 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.
    2. 13:15, 22 February 2024 Jessintime simply try to reflexively censor every word of that and Jessintime 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.
    3. 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
    4. 21:54, 22 February 2024 Hipocrisy doesn't suit you. said as a reply to Hey man im josh.
    5. 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.
    6. 03:34, 23 February 2024 That said, "questioning the MoS" is tellingly battlegroundy wording. said as a reply to Hey man im josh.
    7. 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
    1. 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)Reply[reply]

    Also, this isn't the only recent examples of SMcCandlish assuming bad faith in discussions relating to parts of the MOS.
    1. 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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 a full-throttle descent into assumptions of bad faith. Which he then responded with a personal attack I'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.
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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. and Randomly 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.
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning SMcCandlish[edit]

    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[edit]

    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) [1]. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. All correct; Jessintime did no discussion, AGF, WP:PRESERVE, or clear rationale; just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, evidenceless accusation.
    3. 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.
    4. "Hypocrisy" isn't the sweetest word, but not verboten. Replaced it anyway, as unnessarily testy.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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):

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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 [2]; 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)Reply[reply]

    Statement by Colin[edit]

    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)Reply[reply]

    Statement by Jessintime[edit]

    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.)" [3] 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)Reply[reply]

    Statement by Hey man im josh[edit]

    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)Reply[reply]

    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)Reply[reply]

    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)Reply[reply]

    @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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]

    Statement by BilledMammal[edit]

    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[edit]

    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)Reply[reply]


    Statement by Drmies[edit]

    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)Reply[reply]

    Statement by (username)[edit]

    Result concerning SMcCandlish[edit]

    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)Reply[reply]
    • I agree with Sideswipe9th — this is a false equivalency. El_C 16:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
      Noting here that Sideswipe9th has requested and been granted a 500 word extension to respond to recent updates.[4] 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)Reply[reply]
      @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)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
    • Seraphimblade's suggestion seems reasonable to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I'd be fine putting this request on hold until the ANI thread resolves. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I'm assuming you mean the AN thread? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Right, that's the thread. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    R2dra[edit]

    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 R2dra[edit]

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    R2dra (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/India-Pakistan

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 11:17-11:25, February 19, 2024‎ Restores an article at Battle of Dewair (1582) that was redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dewair (1582). This restoration includes spectacularly bad references, footnotes #1-6 are a self-published book on Notion Press, and worse still footnote #10 is a self-published fictional book aimed at children! (see Kobo link). Infobox contains fake reference for the 5,000, as the Google Books link provided contains no mention of a strength of 5,000.
    2. 10:57, February 25, 2024 Restores their terribly referenced version again without any attempt at overturning the AfD, and completely ignoring my message on their talk page at 13:28, February 22, 2024
    3. 06:20, February 27, 2024 After Battle of Dewair (1582) was protected due to the disruptive restorations by R2dra and another editor (to name but two of several), they attempt to recreate the article at the redirect target, using the same bad references as before. Further, it turns out the addition is a copyright violation from either a series of tweeets or a random blog. This demonstrates that in addition to using wholly unreliable self-published books, they aren't even citing the references they are using but copying text from a totally different place and tacking the books on to the end of the sentence(s). Further to the 5,000 figure they have consistently used for the strength of one side, the tweets say 16,000 and the blog says 40,000. Not that I'm advocating the use of either of those as a reference, but it shows the deliberate distortion going on.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 22:03, February 25, 2024 Blocked 31 hours for edit warring
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

    Notified at 13:10, February 26, 2024

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I don't believe my user talk page post here could have been any clearer when I said the recently self-published "THE LION OF HIND: Power, Passion, Patriotism. One Man's Guts Sends Shivers Down the Mughal Spine!". Are you seriously citing a self-published fictional book for children? I further note that footnotes #1-6 are all citing a different self-published book. That R2dra chose to repeatedly ignore that and continue "citing" (even though it's unclear what, if anything, they are supposed to actually reference) the offending books shows a serious lack of competence, and suggests to me that they really have no place editing in a contentious topic area. When feedback is given with specific objections, it isn't acceptable to just ignore that feedback and blindly carry on.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified

    Discussion concerning R2dra[edit]

    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 R2dra[edit]

    Statement by (username)[edit]

    Statement by Star Mississippi[edit]

    • Apologies if I'm doing this wrong, I'm not frequently here. Just noting that I blocked 31 hours to stop the immediate edit warring following a noticeboard report and did not look at the larger issue. If my block should be superseded or otherwise modified, feel free. Star Mississippi 00:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Result concerning R2dra[edit]

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

    Jm33746[edit]

    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 Jm33746[edit]

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Jm33746 (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
    1. [5] 27 February 2024 — whitewashing, violates WP:PSCI
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. [6] 20 April 2023 — caught WP:SOCKing
    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 [7] 1 March 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Also, various IPs who advertise Dr. Trish Leigh porn addiction therapy are likely to be them.

    Gary Wilson is famous for reiterating the debunked medical theory "masturbation makes you insane". tgeorgescu (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    • [8] 27 February 2024

    Discussion concerning Jm33746[edit]

    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 Jm33746[edit]

    I only removed the section because it was a single source by a single author

    Statement by (username)[edit]

    Result concerning Jm33746[edit]

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Checkuserblocked. Can't really link to why, but the POV pushing was not limited to this account. Courcelles (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Academicskeptic9[edit]

    Indeffed as NOTHERE by Moneytrees as a regular admin action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Academicskeptic9[edit]

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Lizthegrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Academicskeptic9 (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 17 Jan 2024 misgendering subject of a BLP on a talk page
    2. 12 Feb 2024 misgendering subject of a BLP on a talk page
    3. 22 Feb 2024 misgendering subject of a BLP on a talk page
    4. 28 Feb 2024 personal attacks when warned not to misgender
    5. 28 Feb 2024 reinstating misgendering even when asked not to
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

    April 2023 CTOP alert and response indicating full awareness and refusal to comply.

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Possibly WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND editing.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    notification on talk page

    Discussion concerning Academicskeptic9[edit]

    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 Academicskeptic9[edit]

    Statement by (username)[edit]

    Result concerning Academicskeptic9[edit]

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • More edits to talk than mainspace, and not much constructive to those discussions-- mostly opposing they/them pronouns. I dropped a generic NOTHERE block; I'll leave this for review, any admin is free to reverse/close this section. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]