Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:05, 22 May 2019 editThryduulf (talk | contribs)Oversighters, Administrators99,039 edits →Result concerning SMcCandlish: thoughts← Previous edit Revision as of 12:04, 22 May 2019 edit undoGoldenRing (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,924 edits →SMcCandlish: closed - six month IBANNext edit →
Line 213: Line 213:


==SMcCandlish== ==SMcCandlish==
{{hat|{{u|SMcCandlish}} and {{u|Roy McCoy}} are ] for six months. This ban is ]. ] (]) 12:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


Line 301: Line 302:
*I've had a crack at reading the discussion at WT:MOS. Frankly, I think the ] is an excellent one and one which might possibly be imposed as a sanction on both SMcCandlish and Roy McCoy. The exact form of such a sanction might, perhaps, need to be somewhat more formal than the rather ''casual'' statement in the diff. The behaviour there is not egregious but it's not good and it's not one-sided. I could support, say, a six-month IBAN between SMcCandlish and Roy McCoy in the scope of MOS discussions. Thoughts? ] (]) 14:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC) *I've had a crack at reading the discussion at WT:MOS. Frankly, I think the ] is an excellent one and one which might possibly be imposed as a sanction on both SMcCandlish and Roy McCoy. The exact form of such a sanction might, perhaps, need to be somewhat more formal than the rather ''casual'' statement in the diff. The behaviour there is not egregious but it's not good and it's not one-sided. I could support, say, a six-month IBAN between SMcCandlish and Roy McCoy in the scope of MOS discussions. Thoughts? ] (]) 14:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
*I too find a lot of merit in EEng's recommendation, and a six month mutual iban between SMcCandlish and Roy McCoy would seem to be a more diplomatic way of phrasing it. I would also very strongly encourage study the art of brevity - perhaps even going as far as recommending a 24 hour block for every 100 words over the word limit they are in any future dispute resolution forum. ] (]) 11:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC) *I too find a lot of merit in EEng's recommendation, and a six month mutual iban between SMcCandlish and Roy McCoy would seem to be a more diplomatic way of phrasing it. I would also very strongly encourage study the art of brevity - perhaps even going as far as recommending a 24 hour block for every 100 words over the word limit they are in any future dispute resolution forum. ] (]) 11:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

{{hab}}

Revision as of 12:04, 22 May 2019

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    Click here to add a new enforcement request
    For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
    See also: Logged AE sanctions

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted an editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    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 fewer 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.

    Reports are limited to two individuals: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

    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}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347

    SashiRolls

    Both SashiRolls and Tryptofish are subject to an indefinite IBAN. El_C 01:58, 20 May 2019 (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.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning SashiRolls

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    SashiRolls (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
    • Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed.
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 18:31, May 14, 2019 Removes "from documents..." (original edit)
    2. 13:19, May 15, 2019 Removes "lawyers litigating..." (original edit)
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Sept 2016 Topic-banned under GMO/pesticide DS from Jill Stein for six months
    2. Dec 2016 Banned from AE cases where they are not a party.
    3. Dec 2016 6-month block for disruptive editing and wiki-hounding.
    4. June 2017 1-year indefinite block.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    The diffs above show a straightforward 1RR violation in Séralini affair, (1RR was partly why SashiRolls was topic-banned in this area before). However, they are still personalizing disputes over at the related glyphosate page too creating a disruptive undercurrent in the most controversial area of the GMO/pesticide topic currently.

    Background

    I suggest reading the 2016 AE where Sashirolls was topic-banned for behavior related to GMOs as we're essentially having a repeat of that behavior all over again. They are already extremely short on WP:ROPE already being topic-banned in this area, but this is best described by Dennis Brown's closing of the Dec 2016 block this is a last chance for SashiRolls to be a member of the community. . .. Sashirolls' long block log is pretty telling of this behavior, and their 2018 block appeal was barely accepted it seems by RL0919.

    Battleground behavior

    Article talk page comments are often personalizing disputes fitting tendentious editing's definition of problematic as a whole rather than in isolation:

    • after Trypto insisted on rewriting the facts to paint Séralini as evil
    • When discussing a tag for finding a medical source, Kingofaces43 wants to go farther, adding a tag of shame to that sentence for maximal rhetorical effect.
    • Creates a chart on talk page to single out editors with no bearing on content, Look, everyone: data-driven analysis of who leaves the most K here in the glyposhate talkpage letterbox.
    • Reaction to DS notification:I figured that you wouldn't be able to resist templating a regular if I edited your "Roundup" page. (my bolding) and I assume you just wanted to make a fairly vague threat without saying anything groundless.
    • There also appears to be some wiki-hounding of Tryptofish (a regular in this topic) based on this ANI (another repeat from SashiRoll's topic ban) that's leaching into the GMO/pesticide topic now as SashiRolls hadn't really been around much in these articles before that ANI. I don't know the details of those interactions being outside my editing area, but it does show the community is plenty tired of this from SashiRolls in other areas..

    I for one want to focus on content in this area, but it's already very difficult content to try to craft as it is even without the pot-stirring behavior Sashirolls is interjecting since they jumped in recently. Given past sanctions, I'd at least suggest a full topic ban this time around so the rest of us can get back to work. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

    Replies to admins

    El C, the DS notification Sashirolls got is explicit it covers all areas dealing with GMOs and pesticides, and ArbCom has reiterated the DS scope since it is often gamed for "ignorance". 3RRBLP doesn't apply to any living person-specific material here, but do read Sashiroll's first edit summary showing they knew the information was true (and sourced elsewhere they've been working). That's still WP:POINTy reverting against the intent of 1RR.
    Add in Sashirolls outright misrepresenting me in their above response claiming I had two reverts (they were two edits in a series), the battleground projection still continues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Vanamonde quick reply since I'm at the word limit. Tryptofish already primarily answered your question, but at the time I was going by the AE filing that was under both GMO/pesticide and politics DS. There's no question GMOs were the locus. Admins could have flipped a coin for which DS to use for formal logging without excluding the other (can an action even be "double-logged"?), but that's getting into the weeds for this conversation since the end result is the same that the behavior heavily involved this DS area. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Despite El C's caution to Sashirolls below, they are still doubling down on pot-stirring behavior at glyphosate even today. I'm not sure what admins expect when an editor is repeatedly sanctioned for battleground behavior, gets warned again at this AE, and just does it again, but it's disrupted this topic enough. The battleground behavior is the key problem here regardless of edit warring. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • El C, if it helps, it's the battleground behavior that's the center of the dispute, and I highlighted that section of my initial comments better. The 1RR question is only part of the problem, so you can technically set that aside and look at the other diffs I provided outside the direct 1RR remedy (and some people are ignoring that battleground problem and only focusing on 1RR). In short, do you see battleground behavior in those comments of Sashirolls I highlighted, and what should be done about that given they've been sanctioned for that so many times already? A one-way interaction ban for Sashirolls might help since the problems appear to be one way, but that also leaves some of the comments being directed at me too. That's why I mentioned they already had a topic ban related to GMOs in the Jill Stein topic, so it's probably better to just expand it to the full topic instead (see the DS language for scope). Basically, focus on my Diffs of previous relevant sanctions and Battleground behavior section if anything. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning SashiRolls

    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 SashiRolls

    I will make a statement Saturday now that the goalposts have shifted:

    Trypto agrees 1RR claim is wrong
    1. clicking on the text you can see that the text I reverted was not the same in the two instances (in the first case it was unsourced and in the second case it was overdone and contained errors: the date of the supposed release was inaccurate the second time)
    2. I didn't notice a 1-RR DS template on the Talk Page. (going back I see it's because there isn't one). Since the text under contention is about a herbicide, and not in any way associated with genetically modified organisms, I did not think about the unrelated GMO case Kingofaces & Tryptofish were involved in.
    3. the page is an attack on Séralini's reputation. Both edits I fixed contained demonstrably wrong information. The first time the info was unsourced; the second time the dates were wrong. The lawyers did not release the info on 1 August 2017. I did not revert the new text exclusively because of this error but because the text was undue.
    4. Tryptofish & Kingofaces have been contributing to a negative atmosphere on glyphosate for quite some time now. See further KoF's 2RR (different text, as above) on glyphosate (1, 2) and Trypto's reversion against a 5-2 talk page consensus. SashiRolls 07:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    El C: There is no notification in the TP header about 1RR. Nor do I see a template on the article page?? Please compare to the TP of genetically modified crops where the {{GMORFC notice}} template is on the page. On the other hand, I was mistaken about the actual study which -- rushing before work -- I mistakenly suggested was exclusively focused on glyphosate. In fact, my interest in the case was aroused by Kingofaces repeatedly saying how disreputable he thought Séralini was on the TP of glyphosate. This is the BLP problem. SashiRolls 10:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Ah, I see what you are talking about now.. it only appears if you edit the page, it is not on the talk page itself. I did not see that pop-up notice, but would not have thought it applied in any case because I was not reverting the same text. I did not realize I had fallen into a clever trap (first the info was added in a completely unjustified manner since it was sourced to text which said nothing at all about lawyers, then it was readded with completely different (and quite excessive) language the next day (but earlier)). Very clever. SashiRolls 12:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

    Tryptofish states he has not followed me around. This is blatantly false. On the colorful Strategic Wikisuit Against Public Participation page RHaworth cleaned off for me, I've listed a few of the examples of this, citing him at length to avoid accusations of cherry-picking (which clearly apply to the choice mid-sentence cuttings Kingofaces43 provided above). The details of Trypto's long history of following me to drama boards to try and have me disciplined is available here. I think you will agree that the truth-o-meter is in imminent peril of exploding it's so cold... 🎃 SWAPP 🎃 SashiRolls 22:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

    Trypto, it was your evidence of GMO wrongdoing that was categorically rejected. Since you brought the first strategic suit against me the day the schoolyear began, you caused me to freak a little after 1 September. Please don't smile when you read that. SashiRolls 22:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    El C: I assume you are not forbidding me to work on the glyphosate page or from objecting when Mr. K deletes the work of other contributors. Mr. K says that the talk page is a battleground. I have never used that metaphor, possibly because I was not involved in digging the 17 pages of "trenches"... I would suggest considering topic banning the trench diggers. SashiRolls 19:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Trypto has falsely claimed below that I edited no pages related to GMO / herbicides until March 2019. This is especially odd as he massaged my 16 January 2019 edit to the Roundup page as you can see by clicking next (§). Why does Trypto continue to say things that are false, deliberately ending his search 6 days before the news of Roundup360's ban was front page news in France? Saying that I am following him around because I added something that was front-page news in my region of the world is a very twisted and self-important way of misrepresenting my volunteer participation. -- SashiRolls 19:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    1. There is no template visible on the talk page saying 1RR. The fact that the 1RR template is hidden in a pop-up is strange. Why is the public not informed of this 1RR restriction?
    2. I agree that translated into en.wp formalism, I was defending the BLP rights of Séralini against being written up as a bad guy because he hired lawyers that got results.
    3. I did not directly revert Trypto and was engaged in trying to find a compromise text, which granted is usually not easy in the GMO area, but I was doing so in good faith. I have not been further involved on that page and am satisfied that my bold edit has been almost completely accepted.
    4. The larger issues concerning this shoot-first-ask-questions-later filing are serious, and I have laid them out above and in my statement, which is as short as I could make it, while still citing TF completely. The fact that both KoA & TF have been demonstrated to be making up novel interpretations of old cases, cherry-picking quotes, posting misleading diffs, getting caught in howlers about harassment, and for long-term advocacy in the subject area is probably not entirely necessary to decide the 1RR question, which I had thought was already resolved in the negative as "no violation". ~~ SashiRolls 00:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

    El C... I was the only one (of the two of us) to have edited it in 2019 on 14 May 2019. However, I do believe he wrote on the subject much earlier (apparently his last edit was a little over 12 months earlier). This may explain the reaction, I don't know. For the record, the first time I wrote about the Séralini affair on Misplaced Pages was back in 2016. (on a TP) a few days before Trypto decided to take me to AE. ~~ SashiRolls 01:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

    Also, I do hope whoever decides this will set a solid precedent concerning the appropriate "contempt of wikicourt" penalties for TH and KoA telling transparently tall tales (TH: multiple, the most glaringly evident = January edits to Roundup, stalking my edits to post a link to my statement before I'd finished it, misrepresentation of previous decisions, failure to report their own past blocks, KoA = misrepresentation of Jill Stein topic ban as being related to GMO, reporting a 1RR violation that wasn't one, cherry-picking from sentences that almost invariably express a great deal of modulation around the cherry-picked items, etc...). ~~ SashiRolls 01:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by Levivich

    The article is a BLP, and although the edit summaries don't explicitly cite WP:3RRBLP, they explain that the edits are removing unsourced material (which is obviously contentious, as the entire article is about a controversy involving a living person). Leviv ich 05:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

    @El C: No doubt you're right about that.

    While Sashi may have passed 1RR without citing an exception in their edit summary, it would seem that so, too, did Tryptofish (and I don't believe any exception would apply to his edits). I know I'm not an admin but in my view, if you look at the article history for May 14–15 in its entirety, neither of these editors are really "edit warring" in the sense of repeatedly replacing the same text. Rather, they're just editing: going back and forth, using edit summaries, making tweaks and changes that respond to the others' edit summaries, using {tags} at various points rather than re-inserting/removing text, etc. I think it's just good faith editing.

    I have a hard time taking Tryp's complaints about Sashi's conduct seriously because he himself posts things like this (posting this picture with the edit summary "Yes, I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but this is just too good to pass up.") directed at Sashi. I said as much at the ANI thread Tryp opened against Sashi, which went nowhere (it was quickly closed, then Tryp unclosed it and later re-closed it himself). Like the 1RR thing, it seems like a mutual or two-sided problem. My personal opinion is that both editors should take a break from each other. Leviv ich 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

    @El C: The section of this report titled "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" lists diffs of an alleged 1RR violation. Perhaps admin can rule on that and close this. Anyone who thinks there's another issue that needs to be looked at could file a new report (although Sashi and Tryp both opened ANI threads proposing sanctions against the other, which were closed without action, and neither editor brought the issue up again at any noticeboard, so maybe there are no issues). – Levivich 00:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    @El C: Tryp edited from 2013–May 2018; then no activity for a year; then Sashi edits in May 2019. – Levivich 01:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

    Cmt by SN54129

    Séralini affair/edit window/mobile web
    @El C:, re. the appearance of DS notices, it's a known bug that they don't, though, appear on the mobile view-------------->——SerialNumber54129 11:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by Tryptofish

    We are far past the point where WP:ROPE would have reached its end. I can see both sides of the issue of 1RR, in that the second edit by SashiRolls did not purely revert me, but instead partly reverted me and partly created new wording in its place. I've been wavering over the last few days over whether I should come to AE over this, myself, and the 1RR issue did not seem to me to be sufficiently unambiguous to be a reason by itself. But that is largely beside the point. There has been an immense amount of disruption lately. I want to focus on how, in recent weeks, SashiRolls has been violating WP:BLP on GMO pages, and on what Kingofaces correctly describes as WP:HOUNDing of me.

    Here: , SashiRolls has been quite blatantly posting BLP-violating content about a scientific journal editor, at Séralini affair, a page within the GMO topic area. I alerted WP:BLPN, , and editors who responded quickly came to the conclusion that material SashiRolls added needed to be removed: . This was in service of battlegroundy editing to push an anti-GMO POV.

    I've been editing the GMO topic area for years, and I was the filing party in the GMO ArbCom case. In recent weeks, SashiRolls has followed me there in a very hound-y way. He recently created a now-deleted attack page about me: . (See also: .) A great deal of what he has been doing at GMO pages has been intended to mock me. After I said this at Talk:Glyphosate: , he posted: , clearly mimicking my "Look, everyone" wording while adding meaningless information, and then edit warred to keep that there over objections by other editors: , . He had similarly mimicked me here: , . He posts sarcastic comments about me and others with sarcastic edit summaries: , , . Notice how he says antagonistic things, then disingenuously excuses them ("an offer of pie or cake").

    His statement above that he did not know that herbicides like glyphosate are part of the GMO topic area ("agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them") lack credibility in light of his earlier comments to me: . He describes above this edit of mine: , as "Trypto's reversion against a 5-2 talk page consensus", when that is nothing like the reality. He is single-handedly making the GMO topic area a very unpleasant place, especially for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

    About this: , I did not say the 1RR claim was wrong, but rather that it was ambiguous. And Kingofaces' opening post was about a lot more than that, anyway. As for me being all those things, well, no, I'm not. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Levivich didn't know what he was talking about at the ANI thread, and he doesn't now: . The ANI thread led to the administrative decision to delete an attack page; it just didn't lead to any further sanctions beyond that. And the logical outcome would have been for SashiRolls to leave me alone after that. Instead, he followed me to the GMO pages, where I've edited for years (and at WP:GMORFC, crafted the language that the community ended up adopting). I sure didn't follow him anywhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93: Thank you for the kind words. You asked a question to Kingofaces, but I want to answer it myself, because I think there is a misunderstanding. In this prior AE sanction: , I was the filing editor, and the topic areas were both AmPol and GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93: I see what you mean about the logging. However, Jill Stein#GMOs and pesticides was the specific locus of the dispute, and I don't want to see anyone criticized for not having parsed the logging history. It is perfectly understandable for anyone to view that sanction as having been GMO-related; I would have thought that, myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

    SashiRolls has said above that he is going to respond here once his work week is over. I have User:SashiRolls/SWAPP on my watchlist because it was the page that was previously CSDed as an attack page, and it just popped up on my watchlist again, recreated with different content: . I'm fine with editors making userspace drafts for dispute resolution, so that's not a problem. But I see that he has taken my comments above, in which I said that he followed me to GMO pages after the recent ANI discussion about the attack page, and he should not have done so, followed by my saying that I, in turn, did not follow him anywhere, as an invitation to compile a list of "Tryptofish is mean to me", going back to 2016. It's a massively revisionist history, so let me make it simple. SashiRolls starts with an AE diff dated September 2, 2016, and says that I made an AE report about him that was rejected. Here is the permalink to that AE: . Not rejected, was it? It's the same one that I discuss with Vanamonde just above. I'm pretty sure that that does go back to my first interaction with SashiRolls, and it's the origin of his antagonism against me. In any case, "Tryptofish is bad", even if it were true, would not be a refutation of the evidence from Kingofaces and me, and seems to argue that two wrongs make a right.

    Earlier, we had and , at Talk:Glyphosate. Today, he found time for and . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

    Additional background information about the history of interactions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

    Because SashiRolls indicates that he disagrees with my description of who has been "following" whom, here is a more detailed background.

    I began editing in the GMO topic area in 2013: . I was the filing party in the ArbCom case, and I crafted the community-chosen language at WP:GMORFC. In 2016, I observed that an editor who had been a named party at ArbCom and was later topic-banned from GMOs at AE had added content at Jill Stein that directly contradicted the community consensus from WP:GMORFC. That is how I ended up there. That, in turn, led to the first AE sanction against SashiRolls: . SashiRolls was indeffed in June 2017: , and the community lifted the block in November 2018: . From that time through March January of this year, he made no GMO-related edits that I can find: . Throughout that time, I never went to any pages where he edited, full stop.

    In late March, he showed up again for the first time at some GMO pages, to revert an edit by Kingofaces: . Seeing that and a few subsequent edits, I gave him the DS alert, and he commented about it at the article talk page, my first GMO interaction with him since before the indef: . A little after that, he opened an ANI complaint against another editor: , and I was unaware of the ANI discussion until the other editor pinged me there: . This is how I responded to the ping: . While that ANI discussion was still ongoing, there was this: , and over the last several weeks SashiRolls has almost exclusively edited GMO pages, culminating in the filing here.

    As I said above, he should have tried to avoid conflict with me after that last ANI complaint, about the attack page, but he did not, and I never edited the topics that he edited between the lifting of the indef and the recent GMO disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

    Correction: There were also some GMO edits on January 16, that I missed when reviewing the edit history. Let's not distort what I originally and consistently said here at AE: that he should have steered clear of me after the last ANI complaint. That also doesn't change anything about what happened over the past few weeks, and doesn't change anything about my not having followed him to the topics he edits and I do not. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

    TFD is simply wrong about that:

    • The first supposed "revert": On May 14, SashiRolls made this edit, after no edits to the page since a bot in February: . I then made this edit: and this edit: , the second of which TFD calls a "revert". Those are not reverts; I simply added more information.
    • The second supposed "revert": In the next edit, SashiRolls made this: , which is a revert of what I had just added. But that was him, not me. Please note that his stated concern in the edit summary was that I needed a source for the lawyers revealing the documents. In the following three edits: , , , which TFD calls my second "revert", I sequentially added a "ref name" to a source that was already cited on the page, then used that source to respond to SashiRolll's request, and then revised some of the wording and the order of the sentences to make the text better correspond to the source. None of that was a "revert", unless someone thinks that when an editor removes something due to "citation needed" and another editor adds it back with the requested sourcing is somehow a revert.
    • The third supposed "revert": SashiRolls then makes a series of revisions: . I do not revert any of that. Instead, I tag some of the material for POV problems: . That is not a revert.
    • The fourth supposed "revert": SashiRolls then makes this edit: , in which he accidentally introduces some stray text at the top of the page, and reverts one of my tags without addressing the concern underlying the tag (although perhaps he believed that he had addressed it). I then make this edit: , in which I fix the stray text, put back the removed POV tag – so arguably that part was a partial revert, but it was also restoring a dispute tag that had been unilaterally removed without first getting consensus – and, most importantly, added another tag in which I indicated that SashiRoll's intended fix did not reflect the cited source. My edit summary was poor, but it's a stretch to call that a revert.
    • The fifth supposed "revert": SashiRolls then provides a source that addresses my "failed verification" tag, but also removes the POV tag yet again: . Once again, I restore the POV tag that had not been addressed: . TFD calls that a "revert". In context, and with the clear edit summary I provided, I don't really think that it is. I think that there is a well-established community consensus that such templates should not be removed unilaterally without consensus. And, very importantly, I did this tagging while also carefully explaining why, on the article talk page. And also very importantly, I explained on the talk page that my edits grew out of WP:BLP concerns: , an assessment that was endorsed by uninvolved editors when I notified WP:BLPN about it: .

    For an experienced editor like TFD, who should understand what is and what is not a revert, this seems to me to be a frivolous accusation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by Kolya Butternut

    I don't know anything about the GMO topic area, but SashiRolls has brought my name into the discussion on User:SashiRolls/SWAPP. My experience speaks to SashiRolls' lack of credibility and his battleground mentality. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by The Four Deuces

    By my count Tryptofish has made five reverts in a hr. period, although Kingofaces43 has not not brought a complaint against him.:

    1. 23:14, 14 May 2019
    2. 16:28, 15 May 2019
    3. 21:17, 15 May 2019
    4. 21:23, 15 May 2019
    5. 21:48, 15 May 2019

    I note also that Kingofaces43 did not ask SashiRolls to reverse their reversion before reporting the to AE.

    While SashiRolls has a block history, I think their level of editing has improved since. I notice that Tryptofish also has a block history.

    If this were Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, an administrator would either block both editors for 24 hours or provide temporary protection for the article. I recommend the same approach be taken here.

    TFD (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning SashiRolls

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I'll await their response before making up my mind, but from what I read from the opening statement, it doesn't look good. A new topic ban is probably due. El_C 04:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This report has become too lengthy. It's difficult to tell what's going on anymore. I'm not sure other admins would feel motivated to look into this. El_C 00:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Is SashiRolls even arguing for WP:3RRNO? They seem to be saying that the text in the reverts was not the same, which would still be a 1RR violation, if there are two reverts. But it's been four days already, I'm not sure a block would be appropriate at this time. Maybe an interaction ban with Tryptofish? I don't know. If they could just make an effort to condense and get to the crux of it. El_C 00:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    • TFD, if this was AN3, I would close those violations as stale. Anyway, can someone please answer me this: the article under contention, who started editing it first? Maybe this was already mentioned? You would forgive me if I missed it. El_C 01:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This is a lengthy complaint, and I'm still working through it. At first glance, SashiRolls's conduct has been below par in several circumstances. However, I'm also unimpressed with some of the others editing the pages where this conflict seems to have localized at this time; Tryptofish is one of the few whose conduct I have no complaints about. For instance; Kingofaces43, why are you claiming that SashiRolls has been sanctioned under the GMO DS before, when that's patently untrue? All of this users DS sanctions have come under American Politics discretionary sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Kingofaces43 (fixing malformed ping) Vanamonde (Talk) 21:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
      @Tryptofish: I did see that. You (understandably) filed the case linking to all the DS regimes you thought were relevant. However, the sanction was only logged under AmPol2, implying that that is the topic where misbehavior seemed localized. See the log here. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
      @Tryptofish: That is fair, and I don't mean to make a big deal of it unless there's a pattern; it's just that there's been a long history at AE of editors weaponizing DS and doing so by trying to make a situation look as bad as it possibly can; and I'm somewhat allergic to that (see, for instance, the most recent request about Philip Cross). Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

    SMcCandlish

    SMcCandlish and Roy McCoy are banned from interacting with each other for six months. This ban is subject to the usual exceptions. GoldenRing (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2019 (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.
    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
    Roy McCoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:48, 21 May 2019 (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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#All_parties_reminded Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Discretionary_sanctions Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Notifications


    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 17:47, 30 April 2019 SM dismisses the University of Oxford style guide, cited by Number 57 and not by me, as an unreliable source in contrast to more reliable OUP reference works.
    2. 17:53, 30 April 2019 Accuses me of straw-man argumentation and of misquoting him in my defense of Number 57.
    3. 05:54, 1 May 2019 I reply, informing that I have discovered another style guide, the OUP Academic Division's Guide for authors and editors, which is incontestably published by OUP and also proscribes the comma he is attempting to impose.
    4. 13:42, 1 May 2019 SM writes of "comma-averse news style guides (and unreliable-source blogs)", though without direct reference to me. This doesn't yet misrepresent me; it does, however, ignore the previously cited and less-easily-dismissable OUP guide, as he will repeatedly do thereafter.
    5. 22:45, 3 May 2019 SM ignores the incontestably found and cited OUP guide, misrepresentingly asserting that I am citing "internal house style sheets". This is the beginning of his repeated misstatements in this regard.
    6. 22:19, 7 May 2019 He continues, writing of "the fact that Oxford's in-house 'marketing about the university' stylesheet is irrelevant to encyclopedia writing and has no connection to Oxford U. Press style".
    7. 04:06, 8 May 2019 I protest that the Guide for authors and editors is indeed an OUP publication and provide a citation from it proving this.
    8. 05:00, 8 May 2019 SM writes "Let's take a vote: Who else here can't tell the difference " and again repeats his misstatement regarding the OUP manual.
    9. 05:13, 8 May 2019 Cites WP:IDHT, prompting my interest in consensus and and my ensuing question in that regard.
    10. 07:03, 8 May 2019 Continuing to assume good faith (i.e. that SM has sincerely failed to understand), I again place the link to the guide and the quote.
    11. 02:15, 10 May 2019 SM repeats the misstatement. "McCoy's own source list keeps mistaking such sources (e.g. Oxford internal marketing stuff) for academic ones anyway".
    12. 04:49, 10 May 2019 As SM is still giving the appearance of not understanding, I explain about the Oxford style guides again and ask him to (1) acknowledge that the guide I've been talking about isn't the one he's been saying it is, and (2) respond to the question of whether or not he thinks a consensus on the comma issue exists.
    13. 11:51, 11 May 2019 SM refuses to respond; edit summary: "Meh".
    14. 13:23, 11 May 2019 I repeat the requests.
    15. 17:23, 12 May 2019 SM replies at length but still without responding to the request, adding a new misstatement without retracting the old one.
    16. 17:27, 12 May 2019 SM asserts that I'm proving his point for him, "trying to rely on an internal memo of a publisher as if it is one of their public-facing works. It isn't."
    17. 17:27, 12 May 2019 Continues to ignore the requests; accuses me of "having (or faking) reading comprehension problems".

    A sequence of alternating repeated requests and repeated nonresponses leads to EEng's putting an end to the exchange (and to the discussion) by politely requesting both SM and myself to refrain from further comment. I apologize for having inadvertently bothered anyone.


    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 21:17, 1 March 2013 "With regard to pages or discussions related to WP:MOS, SMcCandlish is prohibited from making bad faith assumptions about other participants; strongly advised to avoid commenting on contributor, particularly with regard to WP:NPA and WP:CIV; and encouraged to keep his contributions to a reasonable length."
    2. 8 November 2014 " drowning follow-up discussion with aggressive and overly wordy postings; and the continued general display of battleground attitude that has been characteristic of your conduct in this field for long. This is unacceptable: if you get a community sanction, n matter whether it has run out or not, it means the community expects you to actually modify your behaviour. You clearly didn't."
    3. 12:06, 6 September 2015 "I have topic-banned User:SMcCandlish for two months under DS procedures, as this filing and related discussions display recurrent issues of battleground attitude over style issues."


    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
    • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 21:17 1 March 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 04:51, 4 May 2019.


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    SMcCandlish has repeatedly violated expected standards of civil behavior stipulated by the discretionary sanctions notice at the MoS talk page. My primary complaint here relates to the two WP:CIV provisions, that one should not intentionally make misrepresentations and that one should not ignore reasonable questions. McCandlish's refusal to observe these principles, documented above, has led to a disruption at the MoS talk page. I have attempted several times to resolve this problem at McClandish's talk page (), but was brusquely dismissed and instructed not to respond there further. In not proposing a specific sanction I was following the advice at WP:TINJ, that "it is best not to request or demand specific solutions", to "eek solutions, not justice", and to "ask for practical solutions". If Robert McClenon is suggesting that a topic ban or block would be the most appropriate sanction in this case then that is what I request, though noting that the idea did not originate with me and that I would want such a ban be of minimum length, as I want neither to exclude McCandlish from further discussion of the topic nor to appear to be trying to do so for whatever motive. If his uncivil behavior continues, however, then it might presumably be found that the ban should be extended. I did propose "an actual sanction of some sort" in my previous comment (the present comment having been shortened as requested), though I did not suggest a specific one and indeed have no experience in matters such as this qualifying me to determine a specific measure. I was in the process of abbreviating the diff explanations when I noticed the comments that have now come in from administrators, and hastily post this now in consequence of that. Is it desired that I shorten the explanations? I didn't realize they had gotten so long and apologize for not doing a word count on them before I posted. I can prioritize this over a response to the IBAN proposal if desired.


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    06:13, 21 May 2019

    Responses by Roy McCoy

    I reply to the posted comments.
    @Robert McClenon: I don't understand who you are, where you have come from, or why you said it didn't appear that I had tried to discuss the problem on McCandlish's talk page when I had indicated in my statement that I had. Nonetheless, the revised version of my original statement again adresses this, and I hope you are now satisfied that I did indeed try as best I could to resolve the matter without proceeding to dispute resolution here. I have also complied with your assertion that I needed to request a sanction, reluctantly adding one and explaining my not having specified one before – though, again, I did recommend an unspecified sanction. "A topic ban or block" does not represent my final proposal on this; I have other ideas that I will present if afforded the opportunity.
    @El C: I have shortened the report per your request, I hope adequately.
    @Sandstein: I have deleted three of the diffs and revised the explanations of others to exclude failures to observe other aspects of the WP:CIV directives than the two indicated in both versions of my statement. I was within the twenty-diff limit, am more so now, and do not feel that I should be obliged to trim the list further, thus suggesting that the number of violations (or quantity of violation) was less than it was. I observe also that there is no clear violation – no matter how many diffs are listed – unless the untruth of what I am asserting to be the misstatement is determined. This might in another case be difficult, but not in this one.
    @GoldenRing: I don't know that El_C hasn't already had a look at the discussion, but in any event the part of it most germane to the immediate discussion is the repeated back-and-forth that occurred when I repeated the requests and McCandlish continued not to respond. This is not mere arbitrary squabbling with both parties equally guilty, as one might tend to judge at first glance. Either the repeated statement was accurate, in which case I was at fault and should be sanctioned with no consideration of any sanction for McCandlish; or it was inaccurate, in which case I was justified in continuing to request a retraction, he was in violation of the cited WP:CIV directive, and any sanction should be placed on him rather than me. I can't stop the administrators from slapping a quick one-size-fits-all IBAN or whatever if that's what you want to do, and I can't complain about justice having digested WP:TINJ; but I'm sure a more appropriate result is possible, also from the viewpoint of simple effectiveness and success regarding the stated DR goals.
    I'm approaching the 500-word limit. May I reply to Ealdgyth, and may we perhaps go to a somewhat higher word limit on this case, also for McCandlish? Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

    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

    Statement by Robert McClenon

    It appears that the filing party has not tried to discuss the disruptive editing on the talk page of SMcCandlish. The use of a conduct forum such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement without requesting a sanction (and while saying that one is not requesting a sanction) adds heat and no light. Either ask for a topic-ban or a block, or go back to the user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

    Result concerning SMcCandlish

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I agree that this should not be processed until it is substantially more concise. Identify the few edits that are, in your view, the clearest violations of the sanction at issue, and briefly explain why. That will suffice. Sandstein 14:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @El C: If you think the complaint is lengthy, try reading the discussion on which it is based. GoldenRing (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The irony of the filer mentioning that SMC was "encouraged to keep his contributions to a reasonable length" is withering. From watching this blow up, it basically boils down to the filer wanting SMC to apologize/retract/acknowledge something that the filer feels SMC wrongly said. Frankly, I don't blame SMC for eventually getting a bit curt in his replies, as the filer has gone on endlessly about ... something... and continued to do so even after SMC asked the filer to stop posting. At some point, you just have to stop, and this filing is ill advised. I recommend no action, although if this sort of continued posting keeps happening, the filer might find a boomerang in their future. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I've had a crack at reading the discussion at WT:MOS. Frankly, I think the suggestion made by EEng is an excellent one and one which might possibly be imposed as a sanction on both SMcCandlish and Roy McCoy. The exact form of such a sanction might, perhaps, need to be somewhat more formal than the rather casual statement in the diff. The behaviour there is not egregious but it's not good and it's not one-sided. I could support, say, a six-month IBAN between SMcCandlish and Roy McCoy in the scope of MOS discussions. Thoughts? GoldenRing (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I too find a lot of merit in EEng's recommendation, and a six month mutual iban between SMcCandlish and Roy McCoy would seem to be a more diplomatic way of phrasing it. I would also very strongly encourage study the art of brevity - perhaps even going as far as recommending a 24 hour block for every 100 words over the word limit they are in any future dispute resolution forum. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions Add topic