ScottishFinnishRadish goes on a Tban rampage

[Midsize Jake]

andre, how much have you had to drink?

Like my good friend Zaphod I much prefer the 100% legal tetrohydrocannabinoids and associated terpenoids

Its a fair question, though — if you're posting while drunk, or (to a lesser extent) stoned, you're just wasting everyone else's time, really. Remember, this is the internet and we can't actually smell you.

[andre]

andre, how much have you had to drink?

Like my good friend Zaphod I much prefer the 100% legal tetrohydrocannabinoids and associated terpenoids

Its a fair question, though — if you're posting while drunk, or (to a lesser extent) stoned, you're just wasting everyone else's time, really. Remember, this is the internet and we can't actually smell you.

Hey Jake, if you don't like my posts, you can delete them like you already have been. If it's against the rule to post while stoned, I would not have been able to use the internet for over a decade

[Vigilant]

andre, how much have you had to drink?

Like my good friend Zaphod I much prefer the 100% legal tetrohydrocannabinoids and associated terpenoids

Its a fair question, though — if you're posting while drunk, or (to a lesser extent) stoned, you're just wasting everyone else's time, really. Remember, this is the internet and we can't actually smell you.

Hey Jake, if you don't like my posts, you can delete them like you already have been. If it's against the rule to post while stoned, I would not have been able to use the internet for over a decade

You're being boring.

Do better.

[andre]

andre, how much have you had to drink?

Like my good friend Zaphod I much prefer the 100% legal tetrohydrocannabinoids and associated terpenoids

Its a fair question, though — if you're posting while drunk, or (to a lesser extent) stoned, you're just wasting everyone else's time, really. Remember, this is the internet and we can't actually smell you.

Hey Jake, if you don't like my posts, you can delete them like you already have been. If it's against the rule to post while stoned, I would not have been able to use the internet for over a decade

You're being boring.

Do better.

What did you like better that I was doing before. I haven't mentioned antisemitism in a good long string of posts. That didn't go over well with the crowd.

[Midsize Jake]

Hey Jake, if you don't like my posts, you can delete them like you already have been.

That might seem like a reasonable solution to you, but in real-world terms, any forum moderator has quite a lot to consider before taking such a step, and that consideration takes time. And if you're still posting stuff during that time, and you're also completely wasted (and making comparatively little sense), well... I hope you can see the problem in that scenario.

[Vigilant]

You're being boring.

Do better.

What did you like better that I was doing before. I haven't mentioned antisemitism in a good long string of posts. That didn't go over well with the crowd.

You're coming across as illucid.

[andre]

Hey Jake, if you don't like my posts, you can delete them like you already have been.

That might seem like a reasonable solution to you, but in real-world terms, any forum moderator has quite a lot to consider before taking such a step, and that consideration takes time. And if you're still posting stuff during that time, and you're also completely wasted (and making comparatively little sense), well... I hope you can see the problem in that scenario.

Did you have a question, or a point, Jake?

Vigilant, this is the guy you said is ineresting?

I haven't been "wasted" since 2011.

[Mojito]

[Zoll]

Given that ScottishFinishRadish probably started investigating the topic area following an AE request that Nableezy filed against Andrevan does the former's tban technically qualify as a boomerang?

But Andrevan also got Tbanned

[rnu]

Given that ScottishFinishRadish probably started investigating the topic area following an AE request that Nableezy filed against Andrevan does the former's tban technically qualify as a boomerang?

But Andrevan also got Tbanned

Yes, but I think it still counts as a boomerang if a request ends in both the person making the request and the person the request is about get sanctioned. I'm just not sure it still counts if the request only indirectly has this effect. Maybe we have to think of something more complex here. Like a boomerang that hits the timer of a bomb the person is holding, Or a boomerang time bomb.

[rnu]

Here comes the asshole brigade fighting for the right to incivility:

Statement by Drmies
I don't wish to speak/act like an administrator here, but I do have two cents' worth. First, I understand SFR's verdict, but second, I believe that Nableezy was by no means the worst in these exchanges, and their tone was more of exasperation than of a battleground mentality. Both sides were not totally equal here, and I think the project would benefit from having Nableezy back in the game. It would be very nice if we had more uninvolved editors and admins active in these areas who could speak words of warning before things get out of hand between editors. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
Ah yes. “pattern of editing”. It’s one of those amorphous, ethereal, vague pretexts that are actually an admission of “I don’t really have any real diffs but I need to manufacture a reason here”. Especially when the diffs that are provided are such weak milquetoast as this. Some people see patterns - dragons, turtles, Jesus himself - in the clouds, others just see white fluff. Usually the “white fluff” people are right.

The above applies to not just Nableezy but a few others that caught a sanction here. All of these, with one possible exception, should be rescinded. Volunteer Marek 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Sluzzelin
I wouldn't word it the way Volunteer Marek did, and I don't think ScottishFinnishRadish is seeing Jesus in the clouds ... yet I agree with Volunteer Marek that these topic bans should be rescinded. Everyone's exasperated regarding the war, and it's impossible not to feel exasperated when reading the talk pages of most articles about the war. These are editors, however, who do try very hard to follow reliable sources, policies, and to avoid personalizing their comments or making forum-type contributions. I think en.wp needs to endure the possibility of occasional over-the-top escalations in this heated area, and manage them case by case. I certainly find the duration of the topic bans far too long. In my view, there also appears to be an intention of even-handedness in the making of these bans, and therefore I ask for all of them to be cancelled. Peace. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

[rnu]

BTW, having a two admin requirement for (non-vandalism) blocks and bans would also take some of the pressure off the admin in situations like this. It's easier for serial assholes editors in good standing to paint the picture of a single admin going rogue than of two admins going rogue.
I am disgusted but not the least bit surprised to see that so far the only admin commenting is on the anti-civility side.

[nableezy]

BTW, having a two admin requirement for (non-vandalism) blocks and bans would also take some of the pressure off the admin in situations like this. It's easier for serial assholes editors in good standing to paint the picture of a single admin going rogue than of two admins going rogue.
I am disgusted but not the least bit surprised to see that so far the only admin commenting is on the anti-civility side.

I haven’t attempted to paint such a picture. Nor do I think anybody is claiming there’s a right to incivility. I think, and have always thought, that if you’re a serious source then saying "you’re making shit up" is way less problematic than, to take a totally random example, making shit up. SFR gave me a warning for calling bullshit on Andre’s bullshit. He didn’t really look to see if Andre was full of shit, and by now I think Andre has proven that well enough himself, but if you’d like further explanation I’d be happy to give it.

[rnu]

BTW, having a two admin requirement for (non-vandalism) blocks and bans would also take some of the pressure off the admin in situations like this. It's easier for serial assholes editors in good standing to paint the picture of a single admin going rogue than of two admins going rogue.
I am disgusted but not the least bit surprised to see that so far the only admin commenting is on the anti-civility side.

I haven’t attempted to paint such a picture. Nor do I think anybody is claiming there’s a right to incivility. I think, and have always thought, that if you’re a serious source then saying "you’re making shit up" is way less problematic than, to take a totally random example, making shit up. SFR gave me a warning for calling bullshit on Andre’s bullshit. He didn’t really look to see if Andre was full of shit, and by now I think Andre has proven that well enough himself, but if you’d like further explanation I’d be happy to give it.

I didn't say that you're trying to paint that picture. I don't think you are. It was more a general point. I think it would be better for both sides in this case if there had been a two admin requirement in place. Right now for good and bad everything hangs on the judgement of one admin. I think that is too much power (pretty much always) and too much responsibility (in cases like this) at the same time.

[nableezy]

I didn't say that you're trying to paint that picture. I don't think you are. It was more a general point.

But you did pretty clearly demarcate the dividing line between the anti-civility group and pro-civility one. And I dont think thats accurate, I think lying with a straight face is way more uncivil than saying "youre making things up", I think insulting my intelligence is more uncivil than saying "bullshit".

I think it would be better for both sides in this case if there had been a two admin requirement in place. Right now for good and bad everything hangs on the judgement of one admin. I think that is too much power (pretty much always) and too much responsibility (in cases like this) at the same time.

I dont really have a problem with the current set up. The way things got as strict as they did for AE was once upon a time Sandstein made an AE block that was lifted with about a half a day left, and Sandstein being Sandstein opened an arbitration case asking the block be reinstated. That didnt happen, but the unblocking admin was desyssoped and the rules for AE action reversals were made explicit. Sandstein, feeling he did not have an ArbCom that would support the work of enforcing their decisions, did not participate at AE for the rest of the year, coming back when he felt a new ArbCom would provide the support he thought necessary to participate. Incidentally, his first action was to topic ban me on January 1 as a result of a request that had no traction and no comment since December 18 (I appealed and it was rescinded). And while I think Sandstein was a bit overly dramatic in their reaction to a block being lifted, I get why this system of a single admin can impose sanctions without consensus and only a consensus can overturn it is necessary. Theres a reason there are what 4 or 5 Arab-Israeli conflict arbitration cases. The conflict, on Wikipedia, is so contentious that anybody who wants to enjoy their day is not going to get involved, they arent going to deal with the level of blowback you can get for making any decision, especially if that decision can just be overturned so as to make their efforts completely wasted. So you either have a system where any single admin can make a decision or you have a system where no decision is ever made.

My problem, and this has been true for me from the start, is I have a hard time not calling bullshit. And there is just so much bullshit being thrown at these articles and talk pages. You have things like an editor saying something like "Those people are Islamists and in favor of forcing women to wear hijabs, because they believe that men cannot be held responsible for their behaviour when they see unveiled women. It would be very inconsistent of them to abduct unveiled women and not rape them, so the accusations are obviously true." And the response? You get our dear Andre saying "You should strike your !vote and write one that Marokwitz would write - channel your inner Marokwitz. Not because your original !vote is wrong. It's your truth, and I hear where you're coming from". No, his vote *is* wrong, it is racist and Islamophobic, and if one wanted to even pretend they gave a shit about bigotry except when it is directed at their own people they wouldnt say "it's your truth". I find that to be way more uncivil than thanks for that bit of wisdom said sarcastically to somebody spouting bullshit they dont have the faintest understanding of.

[charliemouse]

Here comes the asshole brigade fighting for the right to incivility:

Statement by Drmies
I don't wish to speak/act like an administrator here, but I do have two cents' worth. First, I understand SFR's verdict, but second, I believe that Nableezy was by no means the worst in these exchanges, and their tone was more of exasperation than of a battleground mentality. Both sides were not totally equal here, and I think the project would benefit from having Nableezy back in the game. It would be very nice if we had more uninvolved editors and admins active in these areas who could speak words of warning before things get out of hand between editors. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This apologia is rich coming from Drmies, the most thin-skinned administrator in history. If he was at the receiving end of even mild "exasperation" he'd hit the ceiling and plead for help.

[rnu]

I didn't say that you're trying to paint that picture. I don't think you are. It was more a general point.

But you did pretty clearly demarcate the dividing line between the anti-civility group and pro-civility one. And I dont think thats accurate, I think lying with a straight face is way more uncivil than saying "youre making things up", I think insulting my intelligence is more uncivil than saying "bullshit".

I think it would be better for both sides in this case if there had been a two admin requirement in place. Right now for good and bad everything hangs on the judgement of one admin. I think that is too much power (pretty much always) and too much responsibility (in cases like this) at the same time.

I dont really have a problem with the current set up. The way things got as strict as they did for AE was once upon a time Sandstein made an AE block that was lifted with about a half a day left, and Sandstein being Sandstein opened an arbitration case asking the block be reinstated. That didnt happen, but the unblocking admin was desyssoped and the rules for AE action reversals were made explicit. Sandstein, feeling he did not have an ArbCom that would support the work of enforcing their decisions, did not participate at AE for the rest of the year, coming back when he felt a new ArbCom would provide the support he thought necessary to participate. Incidentally, his first action was to topic ban me on January 1 as a result of a request that had no traction and no comment since December 18 (I appealed and it was rescinded). And while I think Sandstein was a bit overly dramatic in their reaction to a block being lifted, I get why this system of a single admin can impose sanctions without consensus and only a consensus can overturn it is necessary. Theres a reason there are what 4 or 5 Arab-Israeli conflict arbitration cases. The conflict, on Wikipedia, is so contentious that anybody who wants to enjoy their day is not going to get involved, they arent going to deal with the level of blowback you can get for making any decision, especially if that decision can just be overturned so as to make their efforts completely wasted. So you either have a system where any single admin can make a decision or you have a system where no decision is ever made.

My problem, and this has been true for me from the start, is I have a hard time not calling bullshit. And there is just so much bullshit being thrown at these articles and talk pages. You have things like an editor saying something like "Those people are Islamists and in favor of forcing women to wear hijabs, because they believe that men cannot be held responsible for their behaviour when they see unveiled women. It would be very inconsistent of them to abduct unveiled women and not rape them, so the accusations are obviously true." And the response? You get our dear Andre saying "You should strike your !vote and write one that Marokwitz would write - channel your inner Marokwitz. Not because your original !vote is wrong. It's your truth, and I hear where you're coming from". No, his vote *is* wrong, it is racist and Islamophobic, and if one wanted to even pretend they gave a shit about bigotry except when it is directed at their own people they wouldnt say "it's your truth". I find that to be way more uncivil than thanks for that bit of wisdom said sarcastically to somebody spouting bullshit they dont have the faintest understanding of.

The reason why I said that the three editors in question (Drmies, Volunteer Marek, Sluzzeli) are anti-civility is that they aren't really saying that you weren't uncivil, but (most explicitly in the case of Sluzzeli) that incivility is fine.
I do agree with you - to a point. If there had been adequate enforcement of rules earlier we would not have ended up here. And when I see an admin saying "their tone was more of exasperation" then I wonder why said admin could not be bothered to do something earlier. I blame admins far more for the situation than the editors involved. If toxicity by established editors wasn't accepted as a matter of course the situation couldn't have escalated to the point where multiple editors had to be tbanned. And if the topic area wasn't as toxic there would be more good faith editors willing to work on the articles to ensure a neutral point of view. As it is only people who either thrive in a toxic environment or are willing to sacrifice their mental health for Wikipedia will even go near the topic area.
And while I have not followed all of this and am not willing to read up enough to check which tbans are justified and which aren't (2023 Israel–Hamas war (T-H-L) alone currently has 31 archive pages), no, in my general experience you are not the one who is the source of problems.

[Zoll]

Here comes the asshole brigade fighting for the right to incivility:

Statement by Volunteer Marek
Ah yes. “pattern of editing”. It’s one of those amorphous, ethereal, vague pretexts that are actually an admission of “I don’t really have any real diffs but I need to manufacture a reason here”. Especially when the diffs that are provided are such weak milquetoast as this. Some people see patterns - dragons, turtles, Jesus himself - in the clouds, others just see white fluff. Usually the “white fluff” people are right.

The above applies to not just Nableezy but a few others that caught a sanction here. All of these, with one possible exception, should be rescinded. Volunteer Marek 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Nableezys' edits are indeed milquetoast when compared to Volunteer Mareks rich history.

[rnu]

The statement by Objective3000 (T-C-L) is in my opinion far more constructive:

Statement by Objective3000
AMPOL is a picnic on a perfect, spring day compared to A-I. Nableezy has 52,000 edits, many in CTOP areas, without a block in a dozen years. It’s difficult to see a recurring pattern here. The constant influx of POV editors, many SPA, in the most C of CTOPs is going to result in moments of exasperation. From a purely technical POV, I don’t think SFR was out of line and I am delighted that some admins spend some time where angels fear to tread. But Nableezy is not the cause of the problems in A-I and his presence is valuable in keeping these articles within the boundaries of Wikipedia guidelines. This will always ruffle feathers as many editors in such topics put their personal beliefs over our guidelines. Nableezy’s responses here may sound defensive and defensive sounding appeals don’t go over well on this page. But I would sound defensive in this case also. In my mind, the best result is quick termination of the sanction. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

He doesn't really go into the current situation, but he makes valid long time observations. On their own they are far from enough to justify lifting the sanction, for that we would need something that takes the current situation into account. But it is a helpful contribution to the discussion.

[MrErnie]

Part of being on a team is that you support your teammates.

[nableezy]

Part of being on a team is that you support your teammates.

Ive only encountered O3000 a few times, but Ive been very clear that I dont want involved editors to come to my defense at AE or anywhere else over years and years. Nobody else is responsible for my actions, and Im the person best suited to explain them. I cant do anything about the opposing group of editors popping off obviously, but Ive told my supposed friends to kindly stfu in requests about me. Example.

[orangepi]

If you're on a word-limit, you should not mention the word limit *twice* in your response.

[Hemiauchenia]

I think Homere is considerably better than Marokwitz, it was just the borderline WP:GAME stuff that bothered me.

I take this back. Look at his comments at Talk:Indigenous_peoples#Indigenous_Palestinians_section_deleted_by_user_DovidRoth (T-H-L), the same old tired spiel about how Jews are really "indigenous people", despite this ignoring how the term "indigenous people" is actually used, which is really "native people marginalised by colonialism", which Israeli Jews really don't qualify for in any way. (for the record, I don't think Palestinians qualify as "indigenous people" either, even though I think it has been convincingly argued by some scholars that Israel can be described as a settler colonial state).

[Vigilant]

Put every article in the I/P area under pending changes.
Limit who can approve the pending changes.

Most of this silly thrashing can happen without affecting the article content.

Without the immediate endorphin hit of 'winning', this topic area would fade as a hotspot.

[Volunteer Marek]

Here comes the asshole brigade fighting for the right to incivility:

Your definition of "incivility" is that of a marmish 1st grade teacher. Grow the fuck up.

[Volunteer Marek]

Nableezys' edits are indeed milquetoast when compared to Volunteer Mareks rich history.

Hey there Kaiser/Tommy/etc. Still trying to carry water for Icewhiz I see.

[Volunteer Marek]

People are over thinking this. SFR just likes banning people. That's it.

And if you like banning people you go to where the bans are cheapest - "contentious topics" - where it's easy to manufacture a pretext to indulge your hall-monitor fantasies. It's not like the guy does anything actually useful on Wikipedia, like ... nevermind *writing* articles, but even editing them for grammar or spelling or something. Almost 70% of their edits are Talk and User:Talk basically wagging their finger at people. Another 10% are Wikipedia-space, or more of the same. What few edits on articles he has are vanilla vandal-reversion that honestly the usual bots do better, when they get around to it. An uninformed observer checking in on a supposed "encyclopedia" would come to the conclusion that the guy is confused about the kind of website he's on, since it appears he thinks he's moderating a facebook group or something.

And this isn't just "only since he got the tools", he always was like this and IIRC this came up at his RfA. Before RfA also didn't actually do anything "encyclopedic" although back then since he didn't have the button yet, instead of banning people he would leave warnings on new users' pages and mix that up with some shrewd ass-kissing on established users pages, to build up that support for the RfA.

Basically Sandstein with less personality.

(and yes I know he posts here to ingratiate himself with "the critics", doesn't change what he does and is though)

[Midsize Jake]

Basically Sandstein with less personality.

So... you're basically saying he has less than zero personality?

Seems harsh.

[nableezy]

People are over thinking this. SFR just likes banning people. That's it.

And if you like banning people you go to where the bans are cheapest - "contentious topics" - where it's easy to manufacture a pretext to indulge your hall-monitor fantasies. It's not like the guy does anything actually useful on Wikipedia, like ... nevermind *writing* articles, but even editing them for grammar or spelling or something. Almost 70% of their edits are Talk and User:Talk basically wagging their finger at people. Another 10% are Wikipedia-space, or more of the same. What few edits on articles he has are vanilla vandal-reversion that honestly the usual bots do better, when they get around to it. An uninformed observer checking in on a supposed "encyclopedia" would come to the conclusion that the guy is confused about the kind of website he's on, since it appears he thinks he's moderating a facebook group or something.

And this isn't just "only since he got the tools", he always was like this and IIRC this came up at his RfA. Before RfA also didn't actually do anything "encyclopedic" although back then since he didn't have the button yet, instead of banning people he would leave warnings on new users' pages and mix that up with some shrewd ass-kissing on established users pages, to build up that support for the RfA.

Basically Sandstein with less personality.

(and yes I know he posts here to ingratiate himself with "the critics", doesn't change what he does and is though)

I dont really think thats fair (especially the personality part, cmon man lol). I think I even got a "but hes right" allowance in some respects, he could have issued a warning earlier instead of suggestions, but I think he just did what he thought would keep a lid on some of the more heated debates. I just think he focused on two things that arent the same. You can say Ive been more heated than I should be, but you did that with your warning and I have tried to drop the temperature. But basically I think he saw three people adding too much heat (and a fourth adding nothing but), I just dont think he measured the light part in the heat to light ratio correctly.

[Disgruntled haddock]

People are over thinking this. SFR just likes banning people. That's it.

And if you like banning people you go to where the bans are cheapest - "contentious topics" - where it's easy to manufacture a pretext to indulge your hall-monitor fantasies. It's not like the guy does anything actually useful on Wikipedia, like ... nevermind *writing* articles, but even editing them for grammar or spelling or something. Almost 70% of their edits are Talk and User:Talk basically wagging their finger at people. Another 10% are Wikipedia-space, or more of the same. What few edits on articles he has are vanilla vandal-reversion that honestly the usual bots do better, when they get around to it. An uninformed observer checking in on a supposed "encyclopedia" would come to the conclusion that the guy is confused about the kind of website he's on, since it appears he thinks he's moderating a facebook group or something.

And this isn't just "only since he got the tools", he always was like this and IIRC this came up at his RfA. Before RfA also didn't actually do anything "encyclopedic" although back then since he didn't have the button yet, instead of banning people he would leave warnings on new users' pages and mix that up with some shrewd ass-kissing on established users pages, to build up that support for the RfA.

Basically Sandstein with less personality.

(and yes I know he posts here to ingratiate himself with "the critics", doesn't change what he does and is though)

SFR has recall conditions posted on his user page. Why don't you go do something about it?

[Zoll]

People are over thinking this. SFR just likes banning people. That's it.

And if you like banning people you go to where the bans are cheapest - "contentious topics" - where it's easy to manufacture a pretext to indulge your hall-monitor fantasies. It's not like the guy does anything actually useful on Wikipedia, like ... nevermind *writing* articles, but even editing them for grammar or spelling or something. Almost 70% of their edits are Talk and User:Talk basically wagging their finger at people. Another 10% are Wikipedia-space, or more of the same. What few edits on articles he has are vanilla vandal-reversion that honestly the usual bots do better, when they get around to it. An uninformed observer checking in on a supposed "encyclopedia" would come to the conclusion that the guy is confused about the kind of website he's on, since it appears he thinks he's moderating a facebook group or something.

And this isn't just "only since he got the tools", he always was like this and IIRC this came up at his RfA. Before RfA also didn't actually do anything "encyclopedic" although back then since he didn't have the button yet, instead of banning people he would leave warnings on new users' pages and mix that up with some shrewd ass-kissing on established users pages, to build up that support for the RfA.

Basically Sandstein with less personality.

(and yes I know he posts here to ingratiate himself with "the critics", doesn't change what he does and is though)

SFR has recall conditions posted on his user page. Why don't you go do something about it?

If three editors I respect ask me to resign my tools because of an admin action, my judgement in an administrative capacity, or a pattern of poor behavior, I will resign my tools.

[Disgruntled haddock]

People are over thinking this. SFR just likes banning people. That's it.

And if you like banning people you go to where the bans are cheapest - "contentious topics" - where it's easy to manufacture a pretext to indulge your hall-monitor fantasies. It's not like the guy does anything actually useful on Wikipedia, like ... nevermind *writing* articles, but even editing them for grammar or spelling or something. Almost 70% of their edits are Talk and User:Talk basically wagging their finger at people. Another 10% are Wikipedia-space, or more of the same. What few edits on articles he has are vanilla vandal-reversion that honestly the usual bots do better, when they get around to it. An uninformed observer checking in on a supposed "encyclopedia" would come to the conclusion that the guy is confused about the kind of website he's on, since it appears he thinks he's moderating a facebook group or something.

And this isn't just "only since he got the tools", he always was like this and IIRC this came up at his RfA. Before RfA also didn't actually do anything "encyclopedic" although back then since he didn't have the button yet, instead of banning people he would leave warnings on new users' pages and mix that up with some shrewd ass-kissing on established users pages, to build up that support for the RfA.

Basically Sandstein with less personality.

(and yes I know he posts here to ingratiate himself with "the critics", doesn't change what he does and is though)

SFR has recall conditions posted on his user page. Why don't you go do something about it?

If three editors I respect ask me to resign my tools because of an admin action, my judgement in an administrative capacity, or a pattern of poor behavior, I will resign my tools.

I'm well aware, having read the page before you quoted it to me. If it is really as obvious as VM is saying, then it should be trivially easy for him to find three respected-by-SFR editors to cosign it.

[orangepi]

People are over thinking this. SFR just likes banning people. That's it.

There is one admin willing to touch Israel-Palestine AE, he issues one set of bans, and you jump all the way to "SFR just likes banning people"???

[Volunteer Marek]

SFR has recall conditions posted on his user page. Why don't you go do something about it?

Name three admins who made themselves available for recall that actually followed through on that promise. I actually can't think of single one, all I can ... recall, is several that were called to recall who then proceeded to make up bullshit excuses about why the recall conditions didn't apply in the specific case - what do you think that whole "whom I respect" clause is"? It's just an indirect way of admitting that it's all for show and completely meaningless since he can always claim "well, I don't respect that particular editor" and how would we know?

It's meaningless, we know it's meaningless, he knows it's meaningless, he knows we know it's meaningless and we know (well, not you haddock I guess) that he knows that we know it's meaningless. Etc. It's Kabuki theater.

"He has recall conditions posted on his user page"... fucking a', why are you people trying to waste my time with such nonsense?

[Bezdomni]

three respected-by-SFR editors

Does Patrick Drahi (T-H-L) have an en.wiki account?

[Volunteer Marek]

People are over thinking this. SFR just likes banning people. That's it.

And if you like banning people you go to where the bans are cheapest - "contentious topics" - where it's easy to manufacture a pretext to indulge your hall-monitor fantasies. It's not like the guy does anything actually useful on Wikipedia, like ... nevermind *writing* articles, but even editing them for grammar or spelling or something. Almost 70% of their edits are Talk and User:Talk basically wagging their finger at people. Another 10% are Wikipedia-space, or more of the same. What few edits on articles he has are vanilla vandal-reversion that honestly the usual bots do better, when they get around to it. An uninformed observer checking in on a supposed "encyclopedia" would come to the conclusion that the guy is confused about the kind of website he's on, since it appears he thinks he's moderating a facebook group or something.

And this isn't just "only since he got the tools", he always was like this and IIRC this came up at his RfA. Before RfA also didn't actually do anything "encyclopedic" although back then since he didn't have the button yet, instead of banning people he would leave warnings on new users' pages and mix that up with some shrewd ass-kissing on established users pages, to build up that support for the RfA.

Basically Sandstein with less personality.

(and yes I know he posts here to ingratiate himself with "the critics", doesn't change what he does and is though)

There is one admin willing to touch Israel-Palestine AE, he issues one set of bans, and you jump all the way to "SFR just likes banning people"???

Going by history of I/P at WP:AE (which I happen to know thoroughly as a side effect of, you know, Icewhiz) this isn't true at all - there's a bunch of admins, many of them far more qualified, that are willing to "touch" the issue. And as to second part - yes, cuz it's true.

[orangepi]

People are over thinking this. SFR just likes banning people. That's it.

And if you like banning people you go to where the bans are cheapest - "contentious topics" - where it's easy to manufacture a pretext to indulge your hall-monitor fantasies. It's not like the guy does anything actually useful on Wikipedia, like ... nevermind *writing* articles, but even editing them for grammar or spelling or something. Almost 70% of their edits are Talk and User:Talk basically wagging their finger at people. Another 10% are Wikipedia-space, or more of the same. What few edits on articles he has are vanilla vandal-reversion that honestly the usual bots do better, when they get around to it. An uninformed observer checking in on a supposed "encyclopedia" would come to the conclusion that the guy is confused about the kind of website he's on, since it appears he thinks he's moderating a facebook group or something.

And this isn't just "only since he got the tools", he always was like this and IIRC this came up at his RfA. Before RfA also didn't actually do anything "encyclopedic" although back then since he didn't have the button yet, instead of banning people he would leave warnings on new users' pages and mix that up with some shrewd ass-kissing on established users pages, to build up that support for the RfA.

Basically Sandstein with less personality.

(and yes I know he posts here to ingratiate himself with "the critics", doesn't change what he does and is though)

There is one admin willing to touch Israel-Palestine AE, he issues one set of bans, and you jump all the way to "SFR just likes banning people"???

Going by history of I/P at WP:AE (which I happen to know thoroughly as a side effect of, you know, Icewhiz) this isn't true at all - there's a bunch of admins, many of them far more qualified, that are willing to "touch" the issue. And as to second part - yes, cuz it's true.

You are factually incorrect. No less than 2 weeks ago a Nableezy/Andrevan thread was at [[WP:AE]] for five and a half days, and nobody other than SFR commented on the substance.

[Volunteer Marek]

You are factually incorrect. No less than 2 weeks ago a Nableezy/Andrevan thread was at [[WP:AE]] for five and a half days, and nobody other than SFR commented on the substance.

And currently there's an I/P request that has one other (one of those I think is more qualified) admin participating. And right after Nableezy thread there was another I/P request that had three other admins. And the one right before that had another. And... oh damn, Bloodofox is up to some shit and their comments are way more "incivil" than anything the people getting sanctioned here made but nevermind ... where were we... oh yes, and before that the previous I/P request had yet two other admins. And before that yet others...

I/P at AE has a long and, um, glorious (probably most AE reports ever, also, THE FIRST AE report ever) history and there always has and always will be dozens of admins willing to administrate in it. SFR has only recently inserted himself into the area at AE. I don't know why you think a single AE report is representative of anything.

[rnu]

Here comes the asshole brigade fighting for the right to incivility:

Your definition of "incivility" is that of a marmish 1st grade teacher. Grow the fuck up.

So you're saying that calling you a member of the asshole brigade is indicative of a marmish 1st grade teacher's definition of "incivility"? Then what do you think less restrained people would call you?

[Vigilant]

SFR did nothing wrong here.

Ban them all.

[Volunteer Marek]

Basically Sandstein with less personality.

So... you're basically saying he has less than zero personality?

Seems harsh.

I said what I said

[iii]

SFR did nothing wrong here.

Ban them all.

What I find funny about this are the histrionics over (checks notes) a Topic Ban. Y'all shoulda seen back in the bad ol' days when admins would hardblock your IP address for speaking ill of their dog.

Topic bans are really funny things. They are basically magical incantations spells that are cast with an aim toward future software enforcement. It's amazing to me how many of y'all just accept them as though they are actually doing anything.

I generally think they should be done away with, but recognize that they're so popular an enforcement action we just gotta live with them. I would much prefer the too rarely used system of blocking users from specific pages. But it seems to me that no one wants to actually do the hard work of figuring out how to do that properly in more complicated cases.

If only they'd made me wikipope, eh?

[iii]

Basically Sandstein with less personality.

So... you're basically saying he has less than zero personality?

Seems harsh.

I said what I said

To be sure, he does identify as a radish.

[rnu]

SFR did nothing wrong here.

Ban them all.

What I find funny about this are the histrionics over (checks notes) a Topic Ban. Y'all shoulda seen back in the bad ol' days when admins would hardblock your IP address for speaking ill of their dog.

Topic bans are really funny things. They are basically magical incantations spells that are cast with an aim toward future software enforcement. It's amazing to me how many of y'all just accept them as though they are actually doing anything.

I generally think they should be done away with, but recognize that they're so popular an enforcement action we just gotta live with them. I would much prefer the too rarely used system of blocking users from specific pages. But it seems to me that no one wants to actually do the hard work of figuring out how to do that properly in more complicated cases.

If only they'd made me wikipope, eh?

Well, if the topic ban was actually enforced via software then how would people stumble into indefs? You don't put guardrails around a minefield.

[AndyTheGrump]

SFR did nothing wrong here.

Ban them all.

What I find funny about this are the histrionics over (checks notes) a Topic Ban. Y'all shoulda seen back in the bad ol' days when admins would hardblock your IP address for speaking ill of their dog.

Topic bans are really funny things. They are basically magical incantations spells that are cast with an aim toward future software enforcement. It's amazing to me how many of y'all just accept them as though they are actually doing anything.

I generally think they should be done away with, but recognize that they're so popular an enforcement action we just gotta live with them. I would much prefer the too rarely used system of blocking users from specific pages. But it seems to me that no one wants to actually do the hard work of figuring out how to do that properly in more complicated cases.

If only they'd made me wikipope, eh?

Well, if the topic ban was actually enforced via software then how would people stumble into indefs? You don't put guardrails around a minefield.

The day they make software that can reliably enforce a topic ban will be the day they can let the bots write articles too.

[rnu]

Oh, I see I was part of a group as a "equal representative" of "my side" to make it fair. But I'd still like to know how the diffs above show what you're saying. I appreciate the attempt to be even-handed. But my diffs above show an attempt to be conciliatory, not battlegrounding. So, I would appeal it, but I do want to know if I appeal it and it's overturned does that overturn the other topic bans? 'Cause obviously I find those more fair, which I guess was your point, and I applaud that point. But there's no need to sanction me to make it "fair." Andre 18:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be of a mind to NOT appeal and NOT need your response right now if it will help the other topic bans stick, so go deal with that first. I'll take a break for a while. Is there a statue of limitations on the appeal? Andre 18:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

That's some weird ass reverse prisoner dilemma shit.

[utbc]

SFR has recall conditions posted on his user page. Why don't you go do something about it?

Name three admins who made themselves available for recall that actually followed through on that promise. I actually can't think of single one, all I can ... recall, is several that were called to recall who then proceeded to make up bullshit excuses about why the recall conditions didn't apply in the specific case

Herostratus

[Hemiauchenia]

SFR has recall conditions posted on his user page. Why don't you go do something about it?

Name three admins who made themselves available for recall that actually followed through on that promise. I actually can't think of single one, all I can ... recall, is several that were called to recall who then proceeded to make up bullshit excuses about why the recall conditions didn't apply in the specific case

Herostratus

Indeed, that was over a decade ago: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2 (T-H-L)

[GizzyCatBella]

Folks, please cross your fingers and pray that some of the brilliant minds at ARBCOM are preoccupied with something else and remain unaware of MVBW's comment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1192298122
They might decide to topic-ban him for expressing his thoughts and add an interaction ban between Nableezy and MVBW.

[MrErnie]

I hate seeing people I like and respect, like VM and Nableezy, saying things I disagree with. This conflict is disastrous.