This is an archive of past discussions with User:SMcCandlish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

→

Archive 80

March 2013

Re: proposed closure

Stale

– Moot point now.

Whether Sandstein's actions have been entirely righteous with regard to me is still an open question - perhaps so, but it's not my job to pass judgement on Sandstein, and unless and until he is censured by the community he is still an admin in good standing who is entitled to have his views taken into consideration at AE. Gatoclass (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You're clearly taking them into consideration (too much consideration, according to more respondents to his participation than just me); there's no need to mention him in the closing statement, which would be kind of unusual anyway. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you still feel this way after Sandstein just personally attacked me and assumed bad faith on two different levels, in a way that itself violates ARBATC (as I detail here)? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to know the wise course of action here. Ordinarily, I would say to take it to the person's talk page. But the last person who brought WP:NPA concerns to Sandstein's talk page got slapped with sanctions. Looks like that talk page is now classified. —Neotarf (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already tried discussing things with Sandstein on his talk page. If issues with him continue, I'll just take the matter to RFAR. I have zero remaining patience for this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Result of AE request

Resolved

– Gameability issue supposedly settled. I remain skeptical.

In accordance with this request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, your editing is hereby subject to the following restrictions and recommendations with regard to pages or discussions related to WP:MOS:

You are prohibited from making bad faith assumptions about any editor or identifiable group of editors. Failure to abide by this restriction is likely to result in the imposition of further sanctions at WP:AE;
You are strongly advised to avoid commenting on contributor and to confine your comments to content; in particular, you should avoid making personal attacks or engaging in incivility. Failure to achieve a requisite standard of discourse may result in further sanctions being imposed at WP:AE;
You are encouraged to keep your statements to a reasonable length. Excessively long responses on talk pages may discourage the participation of other users.

You may appeal this sanction using the process describedat Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Gatoclass (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This version of the editing restrictions notice contradicts the "official" one at AE – it's missing the "With regard to pages or discussions related to WP:MOS..." scope limitation. As written over-broadly here, it appears to be wrongly implying that i have a general and wide-ranging CIVIL/AGF/NPA problem in all my editing here, regardless of topic or context, which was not even alleged in the AE request much less determined to be the case. As for the restriction details, it's against policy to make bad faith assumptions, personal attacks or incivil comments, anyway, so fine. I've already stated (I think three times) at that AE that I got the point. That said, it's unclear to me how this restriction is not going to be ridiculously gameable to prevent me from ever raising any dispute with anyone if a style matter is even tangentially involved, since if I need to take someone to AN/ANI/AE/whatever, for some kind of pattern of policy violation, be it tendentious editing or POV pushing or personal attacks, doing so will pretty much automatically be something that the other party can claim equates to me assuming bad faith about them. Please clarify. As a tertiary matter, I'm rather disappointed that you (nor anyone else) took notice of Sandstein's own AGF/NPA issue in his parting shots at that AE. There are various people who feel that ARBCOM/AE is increasingly being misused to do little but back up other admins and shield them from criticism and restraints while they do whatever they like and drive away productive editors they don't like or agree with. This doesn't exactly help dispel that concern. It's one I think is a bit exaggerated, but I can't even really count the number of times I've heard something like that expressed publicly and privately. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you have misread the above remedy, it clearly states at the top with regard to pages or discussions related to WP:MOS. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Right! I misread it. I still seek clarification on how this is not supposed to be gameable to lock me out of dispute resolution. I'm about to test that, by taking LittleBenW back to ANI. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was about to get to that. The above restrictions/advisements are not intended to apply to dispute resolution venues or other venues dedicated to discussion of user conduct, for obvious reasons, although of course all the normal behavioural policies will apply. Gatoclass (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the same is supposed to be true of the ARBATC restrictions and discretionary sanctions everyone is under, using very similar scope wording, yet Sandstein's accusation/threat/warning to me and 3 others under ARBATC was for comments made at AE in the Apteva vs. Noetica request, in trying to show that Apteva's request was vexatious and frivolous. If people think that AE posts are fair game when Sandstein issues such restrictions (and have aggressively pursued me twice over upon the basis of that assumption), by what eldritch magick will they not make such assumptions regarding the restrictions you've brought? The bogusness of applying such restrictions to dispute resolution forums is one of 2 main reasons I intend to appeal Sandstein's accusation (the other being that I've already proven it false and he simply refuses to retract it for reasons that seem patently obvious to me, but which I cannot now even express questions about except in the privacy of my own skull, thanks to your new restrictions). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, all the normal behavioural policies will apply. That is presumably how you got a warning from Sandstein in the first place. Dispute resolution is a venue for the airing of legitimate issues, but you don't have carte blanche on such pages to say anything you please about other users; any accusations you make must always be proportionate, and supported by credible evidence. So long as you do that, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Followup discussion

"That is presumably how you got a warning from Sandstein in the first place." Did you really miss this? In that case, weren't my comments about Sandstein's atrocious behaviour inexplicable to you? Shouldn't that have caused some cognitive dissonance and prompted you to do further research or ask some questions? Hans Adler 12:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but if your point is that Sandstein's warning was illegitimate because it was only made in relation to conduct at an AE request, then I think you are mistaken, because there is plenty of precedent for taking action under discretionary sanctions for user conduct at AE and even at AN/I, indeed it's probably fair to say that a substantial number of discretionary sanctions have been laid at AE for problematic user conduct at such venues. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

My point was that Sandstein gave a highly controversial warning. If you look at the clarification request, you will see that arbitrators are essentially divided between those who believe that sanctions warnings are no big deal and require no infractions, and those who believe they are a big deal and can only be given after someone has broken the sanction. Sandstein's template claimed that the sanction had been broken, though it had not, and it's clear from Sandstein's behaviour that he was perfectly happy with making that accusation even though in fact he admitted that he hadn't even checked whether it had been broken. As is always the case except in case of obvious error, he was responsible for what the template said. As always when Sandstein makes a mistake, he showed himself completely unreasonable, bossy and utterly vindictive. As usual in these situations, Sandstein is hiding behind the principle that uninvolved admins don't become involved through administrative action. This principle has a valid purpose, but that purpose is not to grant immunity for power trips by toxic admins so long as they start with an 'uninvolved' admin action.

This disagreement among arbitrators about the meaning and function of sanctions warnings has been blocking the appeal of these warnings for weeks. The discussion simply petered out, or the warnings would long have been either successfully appealed or clarified as ultimately meaningless.

In what must be explained by psychological projection, Sandstein even had the gall to accuse his victim of "[not] being able to react positively to advice about his conduct" and of "behavioral problems [that] have to do with reacting to disagreement and a sense of ownership generally", after Sandstein's own sense of ownership of his poor admin decisions and his inability to correct his behaviour has contributed significantly to the current escalation.

There are several levels of hypocrisy here on Sandstein's side, and you are essentially enabling him. There is no chance that any intelligent editor will actually take a lesson on minor behavioural problems so long as they are tainted by the association with Sandstein's vindictiveness. Hans Adler 13:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't look closely at Sandstein's original warning, I still haven't done so, it's not my job to investigate every charge made by users against some administrator or another, we have an AE appeals process or RFC/U or ARBCOM for that. However, I note that Sandstein's warnings were endorsed by both Cailil and KillerChihuahua, are they both "toxic", "vindictive" administrators too?

I am a volunteer here and I help out when and where I'm inclined to do so. In this case, I saw a proposed ban I did not agree with at AE since I had already looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion, I argued for a more lenient response and got some support for it, I then proposed a remedy which attempted to accommodate the range of views expressed by the participating uninvolved admins, that remedy was given assent and I implemented it. Maybe I could have done a better job, but then maybe if I hadn't spoken up at all, SMcCandlish would be sitting out a year-long ban right now.

You are entitled to your view of Sandstein but you are not entitled to demand that I share it, or that I personally conduct an investigation of Sandstein's actions on your behalf. Again, if you think Sandstein is incompetent or "vindictive", it's up to you to persuade the community or ARBCOM of that view, if you are unable to do that, that is your problem not mine, so please take responsibility for it and don't try to shift the blame onto someone else. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

And not on my talk page. Heh. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 15:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing like a little obedience to authority figures. —Neotarf (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I tend to reserve the words "toxic" and "vindictive" for Sandstein, who consistently exhibits this kind of behaviour. The problem is that not everybody is aware of it.

It's blatantly obvious that you didn't look closely at Sandstein's warning. In fact, you made a speculation on it that was obviously false. The main problem with Sandstein's warnings was that he sort of sanctioned four users based on his speculations that the accusations they made at AE were unfounded, when they were in fact based on diffs that had previously been presented at ANI. Now you are handing out another warning based on your speculations of the background.

If you haven't got the time to make the research that is required before admin actions of this nature, then that's perfectly fine. So long as you don't take these actions anyway, based on speculation. That's at least a borderline abuse of your admin privileges even when you are lucky. But it turns out Sandstein's speculation was wrong, and your speculation that Sandstein's speculation was right and that he has been acting impartially is also wrong. You have no business shifting admin consensus in a particular direction and then implementing it if you don't even understand what it's about. That's not helpful volunteer action, it's a selfish hobby.

"but then maybe if I hadn't spoken up at all, SMcCandlish would be sitting out a year-long ban right now" -- WTF? The only scenario under which this is even remotely plausible is if Sandstein had stayed completely unopposed in the admin section and felt he could get away with that. It would not have been the worst outcome. SMcCandlish would have something to appeal against that Arbcom would not have ignored due to their unrelated confusion, and reading between the lines of some arbitrator comments, I expect that the Sandstein problem would have been solved once and for all in the process.

Re your last paragraph: It's not primarily about me and Sandstein. SMcCandlish is entitled that you know why you hand out a warning, and you have made it clear that you don't. Basically you acted as a moderated proxy of Sandstein. You must take responsibility of your admin actions and you must be able to defend them. Once you come up with obviously incorrect speculations in your defence, there is something wrong. And who said I am unable to convince Arbcom or the community that Sandstein is vindictive? Last time I tried, his victim was Ludwigs2, the prototypical mobbing victim. [1] This time he has chosen his victims less wisely, but now Arbcom's confusion about the role of sanctions warnings took out the steam. We have yet to see what happens when the focus is on Sandstein, and Sandstein alone. I have not filed WP:Requests for comment/Sandstein yet. Hans Adler 16:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

@Hans Adler, I have to take exception to your statement that "There is no chance that any intelligent editor will actually take a lesson on minor behavioural problems so long as they are tainted by the association with Sandstein's vindictiveness." This implies that while I'm intelligent (thanks) that I can't or won't agree to abide by Gatoclass's restrictions (which are actually just rewordings of existing policy anyway, not really restrictions), just because he took Sandstein's side. That's certainly not my position! My stance has been that the AE request was vexatious, unclean-handed, frivolous crap, and in point of fact not one single claim that any particular statement of mine was an AGF, NPA or CIVIL policy violation was sustained, there was just a general, vague and over-broad sense that I'd been combative and wordy, which I conceded anyway as a show of good faith and to get the pillorying over with. I don't particularly mind a "restriction" to abide by the same policies everyone else has to.
That said, I have no particular disagreement with your characterization of Sandstein's actions, nor why they've been wrongheaded, nor with your underlying analysis of the problem of Gatoclass essentially rewarding Sandstein for bad action, though I ask again that you not use my talk page to "get into it" in such a combative way. I, too, would like Gatoclass to understand that he is unnecessarily and inappropriately encouraging and rewarding unhelpful, destructive behavior by Sandstein, but that's not going to come about by berating him. What I would suggest is that you begin preparing an RFARB case against Sandstein (and other relevant parties if necessary) and keep me and other obviously affected editors in the loop. The RFC/U route is a waste of time, since nothing in it is binding. I will be glad to participate in an RFARB, as a party with a relevant grievance (several, actually) if it's prepared properly, with a factual and policy basis, not a ranting one, but I just don't have the energy to write it up myself, only jump in. I've just been through almost an entire month of coordinated attacks against me and other MOS regulars. One of the numerous "projections" as you put it, or WP:BOOMERANG effects, here that applies far more to my detractors/accusers/prosecutors/hounds than to me is the "your editing behavior makes for a hostile environment that drives away productive editors and discourages participation" rap. I have about as much enthusiasm for WIkipedia right now as I have for beating myself in the head with a hammer, and Sandstein and a few others are personally responsible for that on one level (Gatoclass will be happy to know I of course recognize my own culpability as well, in being tumid and intemperate). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I'm not sure you want to ask a question like that about perceptions of Cailil and KillerChihuahua in particular, quite frankly. My talk page is not a DR forum except with regard to me personally, and I don't have an issue with either of them at present that rises to that level. I know of several who feel they do and who have been discussing doing something about it, however; it's almost oddly coincidental that they've come up here. But anyway, fishing for commentary about them on my talk page is kind of weird. For my part, I have concerns with several of Cailil's statements in both recent relevant AEs, but as they did not seem to have had any noted effect on the outcomes, I have no real issue to pursue. Hans Adler, through the heat, has some valid points, I feel. Your "I didn't look closely at Sandstein's original warning" admission very closely mirrors Sandstein's admission that he did not actually bother to read the Apteva AN case before he issued his accusations/"warnings" or even before refusing to retract them after I proved them false. It's extremely troubling that admins feel entitled, empowered to issue serious, restrictive remedies that supposedly represent proper and deemed-necessary "last resort" action, made only with full understanding of the relevant facts and context, when they explicitly state they they've simply neglected to do the homework at all. He's also right that the idea that I'd be sitting out a year-long ban is nonsense. Not even Cailil supported that idea. No one did, and Adler is correct that I would have an easy appeal if things had gone that ridiculous route. Countervailingly, you are correct that "if you think Sandstein is incompetent or 'vindictive', it's up to you to persuade the community or ARBCOM of that view", and I encourage Adler start that ball rolling since he's clearly got the energy to do it (the ball will grow rapidly, I assure you). PS: No one needs yet another "I"m a volunteer..." statement. We're all volunteers, and we all know that. It's like beginning a letter to your legislator/parliamentarian with "I'm a taxpayer...". The fact that you like to remind people of it doesn't somehow make your time or energy more valuable anyone else's, it just wastes more of it for everyone. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't got endless time to spend on this debate so hopefully I can make this post my last on this topic. I doubt I am going to change any minds here anyway. However, I feel obliged to at least try to set the record straight on one or two issues.

Firstly, with regard to Sandstein's previous warning: I did not look closely at it because it was virtually irrelevant to the case in hand. The question of whether or not Sandstein's previous warning was justified is entirely separate from the question of whether or not SMcCandlish's recent conduct on MOS-related pages has been problematic. Sandstein's warning was also irrelevant because SMcCandlish had already been notified that standard discretionary sanctions now applied in the topic area in the original case back in March last year, a case which specifically reminded editors to avoid personalizing disputes and to work collegially with others. In short, the requirement for a notification had already been fulfilled and there was no need for further warnings. Indeed, the recommended model at AE is not for applying repeated warnings but for escalating sanctions, while SMcCandlish has now in effect walked away with three warnings in a row (whether or not one considers the second to be justified).

Secondly, I did not take "Sandstein's side" in the case. "Sandstein's side" was to apply a year-long topic ban, a proposal which I opposed. I took the lead in getting the remedy reduced to little more than an advisement, which is the mildest possible outcome short of outright dismissal of a request. And I must emphasize that dismissal was not an option in this case. Almost every contributor to the request, including not only all the uninvolved admins but also virtually all those who spoke up in support of your contributions, acknowledged a problem SMCCandlish with your approach to talk pages, namely your tendency to personalize disputes, or if you prefer, comment on contributor. So the only question was whether another warning/advisement would be justified or whether we should proceed to immediate sanctions. I argued for and succeeded in achieving consensus for the former, against the recommendation of Sandstein which was for a long topic ban.

If I have any regrets regarding this case, it is the fact that my closing statement has apparently led to the misperception that I was somehow following Sandstein's lead or adopting his recommendations. As noted above, this is clearly not the case. I mentioned Sandstein in my closing remarks because I felt his last comment summarized the issues most succinctly. Let me be clear about this, the remedy I formulated was not based on what Sandstein alone thought appropriate, but on my own judgement about the matter, coupled with my interpretation of the consensus view emerging from the admins' discussion. I then proposed a remedy which received assent from the other admins. So yes, I do take responsibility for my administrative actions here. I'm sorry that those actions have not received the unqualified approval of every interested party, but unfortunately it's not always possible to please everyone. Gatoclass (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I know you were not following Sandstein's lead, and that's a good thing. I wasn't trying to imply you weren't using your own judgement. What furrowed my brow was your seeming to pat him on the back for a good job, when he was in fact clearly overreacting and overreaching. But, no big deal I guess. As for the rest: Mostly fair enough, but not everyone at all agreed on what the alleged problem(s) with my talk page edits were, and some explicitly recognized what I'd been saying the whole time, that I was going out of my way to no longer personalize, but address only anonymized patterns of disruption. Of those who were critical, they were all over the map, from "he's too wordy" to "he makes me feel unwelcome" to "he makes me feel like he's lumping me in with some kind of faceless group" to "he seems too sure he is right". Few of them were even vaguely related criticisms. Some, including admins, were mix-and-matching relevant criticism of my MOS edits with nit-picking about my AE responses being too long or too irritable or whatever (despite the fact that we know full well that AE's format itself is what leads to a "wall of text" problem there; there's a whole ArbCom talk page proposal about fixing this, and every single participant there agrees it's a problem). The fact that I'm a outspoken, debatory personality automatically means I'm going to rub some people the wrong way. Have all my life. I get more things done and get things done faster as a result of my approach, however. It also made me a fantastic political activist back when that was my profession. But some people don't like me and wish I were quieter or would go away completely, or only use my "debate voice" when I'm on their side. The fact that most of the respondents were debate opponents of mine and did not present a consistent, much less actually policy-based rationale for censuring me, but various vague dissatisfactions, was both predictable and important. The fact that the uninvolved admins (the only ones who really should have been commenting there, judging from the aforementioned ArtCom thread that Sandstein's perceptively started – see, I can praise him, too – about reforming AE posting rules) did not come to a conclusion to escalate was also predicable and important. The overall nature of the thing was "hmm, something's wrong, and we need to do/say something", but what either of those "somethings" were differed widely between respondents. The negative effect of not looking into Sandstein's original "warning" (accusation) is that you don't seem to be perceiving the pattern at play on the larger canvas. Anyway, the actual result of this AE request (yes, thanks to you being more reasonable and uninvolved than Sandstein was) is essentially an admonition to work more collegially with an inherent warning that failure to do so will surely lead to sanctions, and I can live with that, and repeatedly acknowledged that I need to do so myself. Peace? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

A little of that would not be unwelcome after the last few days. Gatoclass (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It shall be so! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)