S
Snow Rise
Guest
Suggest upgrading Slacker13's TBan to CBan: Reply
ROPTHESTICK]]. {{pb}}And in continuing to advocate for this moral crusade, they once again were pushing blanket accusations against their rhetorical opposition: {{tq|"and as far as the community, if they were neutral parties, I guess I would feel differently -- but most if not all of the people historically editing his page, come from the RPG space where there is a history of harassing the subject."}} And can we take a beat to appreciate just how extreme an example of [[Conspiracy_theory#Rhetoric|conspiratorial thinking]] moon talk these accusations are? If their go-to reaction to opposition to their position is to see a massive on-project conspiracy, that's a fundamental [[WP:CIR]] issue. Nor is their pre-occupation with such accusations as Zak Smith faced a one-off: one of the very few contributions they made this year before prosecuting this push to remove the sexual abuse allegations from the Smith article was engagement on [[Talk:Russell_Brand]] for substantially the same purpose. And there too, they quickly fell into attacking their opposition as a "sockpuppet" created for some sort of secret ulterior motive, despite the fact that said account was older than their own. {{pb}} This is a user who gives every impression of being fundamentally unable to comply with [[WP:FOC]] and [[WP:AGF]], no matter how many times they are explained to them. Anyone who opposes their perspective (at least when it comes ot men accused of sexual abuse) is perceived as, at absolute best, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slacker13&diff=1308516416&oldid=1308516149 someone who lacks their ethical clarity and is willing to promote harm out of reflexive indifference], or, much more likely, a secret foe of the subject operating in bad faith as part of a clandestine take-down campaign. And it's pretty clear from their response to the community at every stage of the attempted intervention here that the narrow page ban is not going to be sufficient to contain their disruption on the over-arching topic of sexual abuse allegations next time they take an interest in such. {{pb}}Look, I'm very much one for second (and often third, and fourth) chances when we are given indications that the contributor understands where they have departed from this project's basic behavioural expectations and is actively trying to converge their views with said rules. But sometimes you have to call a spade for a spade. And this user clearly just does not get it, and when it comes to the community's concerns, they can only conceive that they have fun afoul of them by positing that they are the victim of a conspiracy rather than considering that any of that criticism is legitimate. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]::::::I certainly did not get the sense from the filing or their other commentary that the digging was confined to Wikipedia, but let's put the outing issue to the side for the moment. There's still just ''so much'' going on here that thwarts any reasonable hope that this user is about to do an about-face and start respecting community behavioural norms such as to make them capable of contributing non-disruptively here. I tend towards the optimistic side on such questions myself (I think there are posts on this very board right now that demonstrate as much), but here we are talking about an editor who, just days ago (and days after their TBAN) was [[User_talk:Slacker13#Some_advice|still demonstrating that in their view, their ideological objectives trump any and all considerations of process or consensus on this project]], and still showing no signs of being able to [[WPROPTHESTICK]]. {{pb}}And in continuing to advocate for this moral crusade, they once again were pushing blanket accusations against their rhetorical opposition: {{tq|"and as far as the community, if they were neutral parties, I guess I would feel differently -- but most if not all of the people historically editing his page, come from the RPG space where there is a history of harassing the subject."}} And can we take a beat to appreciate just how extreme an example of [[Conspiracy_theory#Rhetoric|conspiratorial thinking]] moon talk these accusations are? If their go-to reaction to opposition to their position is to see a massive on-project conspiracy, that's a fundamental [[WP:CIR]] issue. Nor is their pre-occupation with such accusations as Zak Smith faced a one-off: one of the very few contributions they made this year before prosecuting this push to remove the sexual abuse allegations from the Smith article was engagement on [[Talk:Russell_Brand]] for substantially the same purpose. And there too, they quickly fell into attacking their opposition as a "sockpuppet" created for some sort of secret ulterior motive, despite the fact that said account was older than their own. {{pb}} This is a user who gives every impression of being fundamentally unable to comply with [[WP:FOC]] and [[WP:AGF]], no matter how many times they are explained to them. Anyone who opposes their perspective (at least when it comes ot men accused of sexual abuse) is perceived as, at absolute best, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slacker13&diff=1308516416&oldid=1308516149 someone who lacks their ethical clarity and is willing to promote harm out of reflexive indifference], or, much more likely, a secret foe of the subject operating in bad faith as part of a clandestine take-down campaign. And it's pretty clear from their response to the community at every stage of the attempted intervention here that the narrow page ban is not going to be sufficient to contain their disruption on the over-arching topic of sexual abuse allegations next time they take an interest in such. {{pb}}Look, I'm very much one for second (and often third, and fourth) chances when we are given indications that the contributor understands where they have departed from this project's basic behavioural expectations and is actively trying to converge their views with said rules. But sometimes you have to call a spade for a spade. And this user clearly just does not get it, and when it comes to the community's concerns, they can only conceive that they have fun afoul of them by positing that they are the victim of a conspiracy rather than considering that any of that criticism is legitimate. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]:'''Oppose''' - moot given Slacker13 got indeffed. [[User:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: blue; color:white; padding:3px">'''''MiasmaEternal'''''</span>]][[User_talk:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: black; color: white; padding:3px">β</span>]] 03:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]:'''Oppose''' - moot given Slacker13 got indeffed. [[User:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: blue; color:white; padding:3px">'''''MiasmaEternal'''''</span>]][[User_talk:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: black; color: white; padding:3px">β</span>]] 03:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]::I think the matter is likely to be closed as non consensus at this juncture, given the degree to which engagement has slowed, but it's important to understand that in no way does an indef 'moot' consideration of a [[WP:CBAN]]. Administrative actions and community bans are separate processes with different criteria for enforcement and reversal. A CBAN would indicate broad community consensus that this user is not capable of comporting with the project's basic behavioural guidelines at this time, and would only be appealable through another community discussion. An indef can be reversed merely at the discretion of one mop. So it would be better if your !vote reflected your position on the merit of the proposal, even though I grant you that a close without further action is the most likely outcome at this point. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 07:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]===Possible Close?===[/td]
[td]===Possible Close?===[/td] [td]The filing editor has been topic-banned and indefinitely blocked. They have been requesting unblock, and that seems to be going nowhere. I personally see no need to upgrade the indefinite block to a community ban. Can this thread be closed with the conclusion that the filing editor has been indefinitely blocked? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]The filing editor has been topic-banned and indefinitely blocked. They have been requesting unblock, and that seems to be going nowhere. I personally see no need to upgrade the indefinite block to a community ban. Can this thread be closed with the conclusion that the filing editor has been indefinitely blocked? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
Continue reading...
| Line 305: | Line 305: |
[td]
β Previous revision
[/td][td]
[td]::::::I certainly did not get the sense from the filing or their other commentary that the digging was confined to Wikipedia, but let's put the outing issue to the side for the moment. There's still just ''so much'' going on here that thwarts any reasonable hope that this user is about to do an about-face and start respecting community behavioural norms such as to make them capable of contributing non-disruptively here. I tend towards the optimistic side on such questions myself (I think there are posts on this very board right now that demonstrate as much), but here we are talking about an editor who, just days ago (and days after their TBAN) was [[User_talk:Slacker13#Some_advice|still demonstrating that in their view, their ideological objectives trump any and all considerations of process or consensus on this project]], and still showing no signs of being able to [[WPRevision as of 07:22, 3 September 2025
[/td]ROPTHESTICK]]. {{pb}}And in continuing to advocate for this moral crusade, they once again were pushing blanket accusations against their rhetorical opposition: {{tq|"and as far as the community, if they were neutral parties, I guess I would feel differently -- but most if not all of the people historically editing his page, come from the RPG space where there is a history of harassing the subject."}} And can we take a beat to appreciate just how extreme an example of [[Conspiracy_theory#Rhetoric|conspiratorial thinking]] moon talk these accusations are? If their go-to reaction to opposition to their position is to see a massive on-project conspiracy, that's a fundamental [[WP:CIR]] issue. Nor is their pre-occupation with such accusations as Zak Smith faced a one-off: one of the very few contributions they made this year before prosecuting this push to remove the sexual abuse allegations from the Smith article was engagement on [[Talk:Russell_Brand]] for substantially the same purpose. And there too, they quickly fell into attacking their opposition as a "sockpuppet" created for some sort of secret ulterior motive, despite the fact that said account was older than their own. {{pb}} This is a user who gives every impression of being fundamentally unable to comply with [[WP:FOC]] and [[WP:AGF]], no matter how many times they are explained to them. Anyone who opposes their perspective (at least when it comes ot men accused of sexual abuse) is perceived as, at absolute best, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slacker13&diff=1308516416&oldid=1308516149 someone who lacks their ethical clarity and is willing to promote harm out of reflexive indifference], or, much more likely, a secret foe of the subject operating in bad faith as part of a clandestine take-down campaign. And it's pretty clear from their response to the community at every stage of the attempted intervention here that the narrow page ban is not going to be sufficient to contain their disruption on the over-arching topic of sexual abuse allegations next time they take an interest in such. {{pb}}Look, I'm very much one for second (and often third, and fourth) chances when we are given indications that the contributor understands where they have departed from this project's basic behavioural expectations and is actively trying to converge their views with said rules. But sometimes you have to call a spade for a spade. And this user clearly just does not get it, and when it comes to the community's concerns, they can only conceive that they have fun afoul of them by positing that they are the victim of a conspiracy rather than considering that any of that criticism is legitimate. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td][td]::::::I certainly did not get the sense from the filing or their other commentary that the digging was confined to Wikipedia, but let's put the outing issue to the side for the moment. There's still just ''so much'' going on here that thwarts any reasonable hope that this user is about to do an about-face and start respecting community behavioural norms such as to make them capable of contributing non-disruptively here. I tend towards the optimistic side on such questions myself (I think there are posts on this very board right now that demonstrate as much), but here we are talking about an editor who, just days ago (and days after their TBAN) was [[User_talk:Slacker13#Some_advice|still demonstrating that in their view, their ideological objectives trump any and all considerations of process or consensus on this project]], and still showing no signs of being able to [[WP
ROPTHESTICK]]. {{pb}}And in continuing to advocate for this moral crusade, they once again were pushing blanket accusations against their rhetorical opposition: {{tq|"and as far as the community, if they were neutral parties, I guess I would feel differently -- but most if not all of the people historically editing his page, come from the RPG space where there is a history of harassing the subject."}} And can we take a beat to appreciate just how extreme an example of [[Conspiracy_theory#Rhetoric|conspiratorial thinking]] moon talk these accusations are? If their go-to reaction to opposition to their position is to see a massive on-project conspiracy, that's a fundamental [[WP:CIR]] issue. Nor is their pre-occupation with such accusations as Zak Smith faced a one-off: one of the very few contributions they made this year before prosecuting this push to remove the sexual abuse allegations from the Smith article was engagement on [[Talk:Russell_Brand]] for substantially the same purpose. And there too, they quickly fell into attacking their opposition as a "sockpuppet" created for some sort of secret ulterior motive, despite the fact that said account was older than their own. {{pb}} This is a user who gives every impression of being fundamentally unable to comply with [[WP:FOC]] and [[WP:AGF]], no matter how many times they are explained to them. Anyone who opposes their perspective (at least when it comes ot men accused of sexual abuse) is perceived as, at absolute best, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slacker13&diff=1308516416&oldid=1308516149 someone who lacks their ethical clarity and is willing to promote harm out of reflexive indifference], or, much more likely, a secret foe of the subject operating in bad faith as part of a clandestine take-down campaign. And it's pretty clear from their response to the community at every stage of the attempted intervention here that the narrow page ban is not going to be sufficient to contain their disruption on the over-arching topic of sexual abuse allegations next time they take an interest in such. {{pb}}Look, I'm very much one for second (and often third, and fourth) chances when we are given indications that the contributor understands where they have departed from this project's basic behavioural expectations and is actively trying to converge their views with said rules. But sometimes you have to call a spade for a spade. And this user clearly just does not get it, and when it comes to the community's concerns, they can only conceive that they have fun afoul of them by positing that they are the victim of a conspiracy rather than considering that any of that criticism is legitimate. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]:'''Oppose''' - moot given Slacker13 got indeffed. [[User:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: blue; color:white; padding:3px">'''''MiasmaEternal'''''</span>]][[User_talk:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: black; color: white; padding:3px">β</span>]] 03:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td][td]:'''Oppose''' - moot given Slacker13 got indeffed. [[User:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: blue; color:white; padding:3px">'''''MiasmaEternal'''''</span>]][[User_talk:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: black; color: white; padding:3px">β</span>]] 03:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]::I think the matter is likely to be closed as non consensus at this juncture, given the degree to which engagement has slowed, but it's important to understand that in no way does an indef 'moot' consideration of a [[WP:CBAN]]. Administrative actions and community bans are separate processes with different criteria for enforcement and reversal. A CBAN would indicate broad community consensus that this user is not capable of comporting with the project's basic behavioural guidelines at this time, and would only be appealable through another community discussion. An indef can be reversed merely at the discretion of one mop. So it would be better if your !vote reflected your position on the merit of the proposal, even though I grant you that a close without further action is the most likely outcome at this point. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 07:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]===Possible Close?===[/td]
[td]===Possible Close?===[/td] [td]The filing editor has been topic-banned and indefinitely blocked. They have been requesting unblock, and that seems to be going nowhere. I personally see no need to upgrade the indefinite block to a community ban. Can this thread be closed with the conclusion that the filing editor has been indefinitely blocked? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]The filing editor has been topic-banned and indefinitely blocked. They have been requesting unblock, and that seems to be going nowhere. I personally see no need to upgrade the indefinite block to a community ban. Can this thread be closed with the conclusion that the filing editor has been indefinitely blocked? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
Continue reading...
