Sennalen

User talk:Sennalen/Archive1

Ask me what I think

Here's your chance. Sennalen (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Some obvious ones to get the ball rolling:

What do I think is the origin of Covid-19?

I've changed my mind several times as evidence has emerged. In the process of writing [Covid-19 zoonosis theories], I convinced myself that the most likely scenario is a bat with a BANAL-cluster virus was eaten by someone in Wuhan. They then experienced a persistent enteric infection slowly adapting to a human host, until the random gain of a furin cleavage site allowed it to go airborne from sewage below Huanan market. The fact that EcoHealth planned to synthesize a virus with a furin cleavage site however means there's a suspicion there that will never go away. Premature efforts to label things as conspiracy theories only hardened everyone's distrust. Sennalen (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Calling the attention of Bon courage to this - I have changed my mind a number of times. Immediately after learning some revelations about EcoHealth, those seemed like a smoking gun. I still think they are suspicious, but I have tempered my views. I think this is the right fundamental attitude to have about scientific questions. Sennalen (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

What do I think of Falun Gong?

I don't think anything of Falun Gong. It's something like Tai Chi but with a cult of personality. They have a touring song and dance troupe. It's sad that they get persecuted in China. Epoch Times is a useless propaganda rag. Sennalen (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

What do I think of the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory?

It's stupid. No one in the Frankfurt school had a plan to take over the country, or do radio mind control, or anything of the sort. They had useful observations on prejudice and new forms of mass media which were ahead of their time. The conspiracy theorists however did not invent the phrase "cultural Marxism" and there's not any evidence they borrowed it from nazis. The phrase was all over the place in late 80's academe. We shouldn't have to pretend Rudi Dutschke or Trent Schroyer aren't real just because some conspiracy theorists were stupid. Sennalen (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's good of you to invite questions Sennalen! You're a most interesting person, and I was wondering why someone of your oustanding ability would make the editorial choices you have. Even a simple yes/no answer would be much appreaciated, and if you chose to use the question as a springboard for any discursion, that would be even more interesting. The question is, Do you think Elliot meant it literally when he said "humankind can not bear very much reality" ? FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  @FeydHuxtable: A delightful question outside the scope of anything I expected here. I'll confess I am not so familiar with T.S. Eliot, knowing his works mainly vicariously through a friend who wrote a term paper on J. Alfred Prufrock, in the course of which he came to loathe it. I can say I enjoy Burnt Norton quite a lot. The prosody brings to mind e.e. cummings, only there is capitalization. My favorite bit is "for the roses; Had the look of flowers that are looked at". Anyway, the bird whose views Eliot reports on is clearly explicating Eternalism (philosophy of time), with "humankind can not bear very much reality" explaining why humans don't see it that way. Sennalen (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Too perfect! Un million merci. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Tamzin said that you are "pushing racist pseudoscience." Are you?

XMcan (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but it would be better if questions came from editors with their own concerns rather than lobbing softballs, but since it's been asked, no - I am not pushing racist pseudoscience. The reason for this thread of course is people are taking the fact that I have edited various CTOPs to insinuate I have the worst possible views on all of them. The evidence doesn't support a link between race and intelligence. My involvement in that CTOP is just one RfC in which my position was only that Wikipedia should use WP:BESTSOURCES. Here's my conclusion at the time:

If any RfC or interpretation of an RfC leads to removals of sources like [7] [8] [9] it is time to pause and reflect on whether something has gone wrong. These are the kinds of sources that should be used in the first place to determine what is or isn't fringe. The fact that WP:FRINGE guidelines are being used to remove them points to deep dysfunction in the policy.

Sennalen (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not "lobbing softballs"; it's a serious allegation that needed to be addressed, especially considering you are facing a site ban. XMcan (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I meant only that when it's asked by you it's not coming from someone genuinely airing their own suspicions. Sennalen (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I genuinely felt concerned about the allegations. While I've only gotten to know you a little bit, Sennalen, and I can't claim to know you that well, I'm committed to refraining from assuming any bad faith on your part until you've had a proper and fair hearing. Let's refrain from quibbling further on this subject.

I don't want to take up too much space with my comments, but I want to express that having this section is a good idea. Hopefully, more people will participate. XMcan (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There is another sort of dimension to it that I don't want to seem like I'm burying. I arrived at the topic purely through this RfC, not any particular plan to edit about intelligence. The RfC went on to a dispute about whether it was closed properly, and then some ANI threads on top of that. One of the main participants seemed good faith on a cursory look, but it became clearer over time that they really overtly wanted articles to support a link between race and intelligence. They ended up banned, naturally, and then there were more threads about whether the ban was proper. It was a big mess. I was one of the few who to the end continued to say it was not a good block. There were some procedural irregularities, and the guy never really did anything disruptive on Wikipedia regardless of his views. People are welcome to think I got it wrong, but that's entirely different from thinking I myself have an agenda to push with race and intelligence. Sennalen (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sennalen,

Thanks for inviting questions in this way.

You wrote to me,

The cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is based on lies and distortions about the Frankfurt School. There are some who have chosen to counter this with lies and distortions in the opposite direction, rather than simply the truth. Ultimately, that plays into the hands of the greater proto-fascist threat, MAGA. Nothing helps the apparent credibility of right-wing disinformation more than easily debunked disinformation from the left. That includes the continual insistence, against evidence, that the phrase "cultural Marxism" is a special shibboleth only of the right. I know that that alone has helped radicalized some people.

It sounds like you are here speaking from anecdotal personal observations, which, if the case, is 100% okay. There was no need or expectation of sourcing in the context of this remark.

If, however, you can point to sources supporting this, that would be most welcome information. If they are further up to Wikipedia standards of reliability, their addition to our coverage of the conspiracy theory could help to improve the article.

Regards, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a few different but related things.

The first is in media - there's the "deplorables" framing and an occassional "15 minutes of hate" in media towards targets like the Covington kids or "Bicycle Karen". These kinds of things feed Infowars-style persecution complexes that facilitate the authoritarian mindset, and it only gets worse when media doubles down before correcting. I don't know what the best sourcing about this dynamic would be, but Martin Jay touched on it in the postscript to the phyiscal book form of "Splinters in Your Eye".

Second is a pattern of gaslighting that follows when conservatives call a progressive political project by name. Freddie deBoer wrote the definitive statement of this problem, although he hates when people link it.[10]. (Definitely not RS). If anyone thinks they occupy a defensible point of view, they should be willing to articulate it and defend it, rather than pretend it never happened.

Finally there's on Wikipedia. There are articles where WP:IMPARTIAL is a dead letter, and I've seen plenty of people cite particular instances that made them lose faith in the encyclopedia as a whole because of it. (Though no one I particularly knew or specifically recall.) The older cultural Marxsim RfCs have even been mentioned as a breaking point by randos I've seen on Twitter. In the words of the great Dr. Doofenshmirtz, "That's not a lot, but it's funny that it happened twice." Sennalen (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: also, This sums it all up Sennalen (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that characterizing objections to conservative caricatures and conspiracy theories - in which Conservatives essentially make up nonexistent political projects and engage freely in smear tactics as they do so - as "gaslighting" is itself pretty much the purest form of gaslighting I can imagine. The crypto-Nietzschean imperative to say, essentially, that "your words mean whatever I say they mean" doesn't belong exclusively to the Right, but that is certainly the place it currently finds itself most at home. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There are conservative caricatures and conspiracy theories that are just plain made up. The whole grooming thing for instance is just made up. I think what Freddie deBoer observes with "woke" and "CRT" starts as a kind of citogenesis - some conservative cranks use "woke" in invalid ways, then that becomes the archetypal pattern of "conservative saying woke". They are lumped in with the bad actors regardless of what any individual one actually meant. The endpoint is "woke" means something real as long as you think that thing is a good thing. Sennalen (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

But "woke", like "politically correct", originated as a term of self-mockery on the left that is presented on the right as though it had been an actual political project. I am unaware of any naîve uses of either term by progressives as though either were a good thing.

CRT of course is different - it is a university-based offshoot of Critical Theory turned by Conservatives into an equivalent to the "Cultural Marxism" canard, with the educated elite now conspiring to undermine the self-esteem of young white folks by exposing them to the concept of "privilege". The caricature differs from actual CRT in every way that matters, from scope of application to key ideas to intended outcomes. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There was probably a self-deprecating ironic phase to it's trajectory. I'm pretty sure it started as a very sincere word in AAVE, and a lot of people were non-ironically identifying with it around 2010 maybe? Just going by personal recollection. Not that it meant something specific at the point conservatives started to say it vituperatively. Sennalen (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I was only referring to usage of "woke" outside AAVE. And in that context, I'm pretty sure the people in wider speech communities identifying with it around 2010 were using the term with an element of self-deprecation, though probably not irony. At least that is the way I remember how those intersectional speech communities were functioning at the time. Newimpartial (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's a definition for the academic usage of "cultural Marxism" - "the application of historical materialism to cultural analysis". Unfortunately for you, these aren't Schroyer or Dutschke's words, but my own. I of course wouldn't try to squeeze my own WP:OR opinion on this matter into the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, or into any other page. So I have to use reliable sources, which are relevant and WP:DUE (and hopefully where possible agree with my petty opinions).

This is not just your burden alone. You are not fighting tirelessly against the they/them, those others who "pretend Schroyer and Dutschke don't exist" or ignore the term cultural Marxism in academic texts prior to the conspiracy theory. No in actuality - we ALL work tirelessly against each other, and in that work, the burden of feeling persecuted is shared.

The point is, we all seek resolution, and policy based consensus. I've seen you do this, I've seen others do this, on occasion I've even done it. That's just called being a Wikipedian. So we fight, and we bitch, and we quibble, and we argue... and somehow the library of sand continues to grow. Welcome to our shared persecution complex. If only we could make those who disagree with us understand just how right we are! We all need to stop pretending that I, in particular, am wrong. 14.202.188.111 (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I was starting to think you wouldn't show up to the party. You're my favorite frenemy. Sennalen (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll add that you seem to have matured in your views since you first arrived full of WP:OUTRAGE. You actually seem to care about Marxism and cultural analysis, which is sadly not so universal in Wikipedians as your lyrical allocution here suggests. Sennalen (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump

Hello. I had to revert your additions to the Donald Trump page, as I didn't think there was a consensus for it. At the moment, an editor is planning an RFC for the topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Thanks for the note. My proposal to add it seems to have been ignored on the talk page, while everyone is more interested in discussing the 2023 "vermin" comments. The RfC is also planned to be about the latter. If anything, putting something on the real page for a moment should get more people to take a focused position. Sennalen (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Another editor has re-added your addition, though (IMHO) without a consensus to do so. Oh well, each editor (I believe) is resticted to 1-revert/24hrs, so we'll see how it all turns out. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned you at ANI, sorry

This is just to let you know that you are mentioned in the ANI report here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#XMcan_stirring_up_trouble. I apologise if this creates any additional unwanted drama for you but I think this might be the only way to put a stop to the disruption. Please feel free to comment, or not, as you see fit. DanielRigal (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Muppet Theory

Hello! Your submission of Muppet Theory at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Valereee (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for disruption across multiple CTOP areas, per Special:PermaLink/1189167307#ජපස_and_Bon_courage, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Galobtter (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify 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" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Troppo ultraterreno

Sorry to see how the AE played out. You're the most graceful person I've ever noticed in all my 15 years on Wikipedia, I doubt you'd have learnt or grown much from being on here, so it may be for the best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article

Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Awesome Aasim 19:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that the thesis of that one has not been understandable to most readers, I don't take issue with user draftification. Sennalen (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Prefer truth

Wikipedia:Prefer truth, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Prefer truth and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Prefer truth during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Many people would agree with the claim that the virtue of honesty is incompatible with Wikipedia policy, but that is too cynical for my tastes.

WP:YESTRUTH is even more compatible with policy than similar established essays like WP:VAT or WP:NOTFALSE. Of these three, YESTRUTH is the only one that makes detailed wikilinks to back up everything it says with references to core policies. As a collation of thematically related but widely dispersed policy clauses, its existence is a useful community resource.

Editors who are concerned about single-author essays in general are invited to contribute to improving YESTRUTH in the spirit in which it was written. There is no basis on which to consider the essay "problematic" in a way that would justify draftification. Sennalen (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate if someone would copy the above comment to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Prefer_truth Sennalen (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's allowed per WP:PROXYING. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's good to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Implementing a requested edit is not proxying, as long as the implementing editor with independent judgement considers it to be an improvement in good faith. Sennalen (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sennalen, if you ever need comments copied over to an unblock discussion at either AN or AE, I'd be happy to help, and you should feel free to ping me. I think that's the totality of what editors should be copying for you. Your participation by proxy is not permitted at deletion discussions, and I would not suggest that anybody take you up on your request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone went for it. Offer stands on appeal comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I copied it as a one-off statement making it clear where it came from. I won't be copying any additional messages. DanielRigal (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Big of you Sennalen (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

As ze german saying goes: Zing! 😉 XMcan (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

If someone doesn't get that joke, I suggest they take a look at this and this ;) XMcan (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Typo

While people are here, let me call attention to Brown_dwarf#Iron,_silicate_and_sulfide_clouds where zinc sulfide is misspelled as "zink sulfide". Sennalen (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

More WP:PROXYING. I'd encourage an uninvolved admin to revoke talk page access if this continues. Talk pages of blocked users are for requesting unblocks only. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? I don't read any such stipulation at WP:BLOCK or WP:OWNTALK. Sennalen (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

And yet, WP:PROXYING states it explicitly. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

PROXYING says nothing about what a blocked editor is allowed to do. It also says that editors who make edits at the direction of a blocked editor must be able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors must be able to make and receive requests in order for such a burden of proof to ever come into play. Sennalen (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor - if you are telling people on your talk page to do something, you are "directing" them to do so. That is the stipulation you are looking for in your reply to Novem. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm allowed to ask for it, and people are allowed to implement it if they do so using their independent judgement. In the case of the typo in this thread, I'm not even directing anyone in particular to do anything in particular. Sennalen (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they're trying to tell you that you're not allowed to do anything on this talk page except request an unblock. 🤔  Tewdar  16:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what Novem said and what I would like to see justification for. Sennalen (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It says In most cases, a site-wide blocked user will only be able to edit their own user talk page, with no mention of any restriction, and editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations, or attempts at outing that must be prevented from re-occurring, which seems to suggest that anything goes apart from that. Doesn't sound like you are limited to requesting unblocking to me.  Tewdar  16:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Unless of course pointing out spelling errors is interpreted as abuse of your user talk page...  Tewdar  16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Easy enough to solve this by revoking TPA. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm genuinely inquiring about the bounds of acceptable behavior so that I can stay inside them. Sennalen (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a reasonable concern, and there is ambiguity in the policies. That being said, until it is resolved I would err on the side of keeping your head down until you get unblocked; the gunslinging admins might decide on a different interpretation than yours. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac Agreed, and @Sennalen we have been discussing this at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Proxying while blocked Doug Weller talk 17:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I have seen a fairly widespread belief among admins that any use of a talk page by indef-blocked editors that is not a step along the way to formulating the kind of appeal that could meet with success is, essentially, abuse of their user talk page. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is clearly believed by many. Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That's kind of what I mean - we don't allow banned users to utilise their talk pages for non-unblock requests, and I think over the years this has become defacto true for blocked editors as well. The issue will need clarification, likely with an RFC if it updates WP:BLOCK. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the consensus at the linked page tends towards allowing constructive talk page uses other than unban requests. Without directing anyone to make any particular edit, I would like to make people aware there is a shameful unsourced claim at George_Mosse#Emigration, implying that his father fled Germany to evade creditors rather than nazis. Sennalen (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The same allegation is made at the Hans Lachmann-Mosse article, where (possibly) the citation is 'Elisabeth Kraus: Die Familie Mosse: deutsch-jüdisches Bürgertum im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. C.H.Beck, 1999. p. 719'. Unfortunately I do not have access to this source at the moment. And anyway, this request is obviously part of your secret plan to, urhm, prove that Cultural Marxists made Covid in a lab and, uh, racist pseudoscience... or something 🤔? You should've gone with my option number three, I think.  Tewdar  19:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The source is online at https://archive.org/details/diefamiliemossed0000krau - and a good thing too, since physical copies seem exceptionally scarce. Page 719 contains a footnote that verifies the quote that immediately precedes it at Hans Lachmann-Mosse, but not the claim that Lachmann-Mosse fled to Paris because of creditors. I did a search on "Paris" and found on page 527 the likely source of the claim, which would in my estimation be a misreading of what's on the page. The author speculates that Lachmann-Mosse's financial problems might have made him his family members leave the country if other reasons hadn't first. Sennalen (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look later. Are you sure it's alright for me to independently verify this claim and change it if necessary, though? Some of the admins around here seem to have a bit of an 'I am the law' approach to enforcing the rules.  Tewdar  07:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, my German is certainly capable of improvement, but I translate the relevant part of p. 527 as Just as the OHG ('partnership') was already facing ruin before the National Socialist seizure of power and was only formally the sole shareholder, but actually belonged to banks and other creditors, also the family of Hans Lachmann-Mosse had already broken up even before political, and perhaps partly too —especially in view of the 8,000 creditors— economic reasons necessitated the flight and emigration of its members.  Tewdar  15:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What Krause is mainly trying to say here is that Lachmann-Mosse's business and marriage were in shambles before he had problems caused by nazis. It's a meandering passage that says things that superficially resemble but do not verify the claim in April 1933 [Lachman-Mosse] had left for Paris seeking refuge, not only from the Nazis but also from business creditors. It only claims that unspecified members of the family "perhaps partly" emigrated at for economic reasons at unspecified times.

The timeline is that the 8000 creditors registered themselves at a bankruptcy hearing in September 1932. A payment schedule was arranged to reimburse them from sales of art and real estate assessed to have a a value greater than the debt. The Sturmabteilung seized physical and editorial control of the Mosse publishing house on March 21, 1933, and Lachmann-Mosse took up residence in a Paris hotel on April 1. He declined an offer by Goebbels to come back and be declared an "honorary aryan". The idea he was in Paris to avoid creditors is WP:REDFLAG. Sennalen (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The second ref at Pragmatic Programmer now links to malware. A good archive link is https://archive.is/bzgbO Sennalen (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Block appeal

I was content to leave it alone for awhile, but since it looks like a wave of gravedancing has commenced, it is high time to clear my name. It would be best if the admin who implemented the block puts things right, so at this time this is a request directed to Galobtter only. (She asked in reply to my email that the request be posted publicly here.)

The issue that seemed to be the tipping point for Galobtter was the allegation that this edit[11] was malign source misrepresentation. As was pointed out by several others at AE, it was a totally accurate representation of the source. I did not have the opportunity in December to further demonstrate that it was also a good faith improvement to the encyclopedia. I wrote the edit summary "counterpoint" since it was reacting to[12] which introduced the claim that Marcuse was "not widely remembered" outside niche contexts. I knew that to be patently false, at a minimum because of the conservative hullaballoo around political correctness. Since the dubious assertion that Marcuse was not remembered was from Stanley Aronowitz, a notable figure in a reliable source, I did not seek to remove it, but added contrasting reliable information, as is recommended by WP:NPOVHOW. I could have used Kors and Silverglade directly as a source, given that they are independently notable and reliably published, but I sought an appropriate secondary source, as one should. I had many to choose from, but deliberately selected one not friendly to Kors and Silverglade's position. It fully corroborates that Kors and Silverglade (who are not niche Marxist scholars) placed great emphasis on Marcuse's influence in the culture wars, QED. The opinions of Kors and Silverglade are the primary topic of the review, so that was by no means cherrypicked. Furthermore, Reitz does not at any point contradict the idea that Marcuse had a formative influence on campus speech codes. Rather, Reitz argues simply that Marcuse was right about campus speech codes, which is tangential in this circumstance. I went over the source with a fine-toothed comb for anything that looked like an essential counter-weight to Kors and Silverglade, but Reitz' opinions were simply off-topic in the context of whether Marcuse was remembered. To say more would have been coatracking. It could probably be used somewhere else, like the article for Repressive Tolerance, but at that particular moment I was paying attention only to the question of Marcuse's enduring relevance, since I had expanded that section a few months prior.[13] The overall pattern of editing does not support the notion I was pushing the views of Kors and Silverglade any more than the idea I was pushing views of say, Myriam Malinovich[14] around that time. My use of sources and holistic consideration of competing policy considerations should not be judged as merely acceptable but as a model for emulation.

Rather than asking me about the careful research and nuanced, multilayered policy analyses which inform each of my edits, the audience at AE made assumptions about my motives and went on a fishing expedition for evidence to justify what appeared to be a pre-determined outcome that I must be banned for something, anything. It's cliche for an unblock appeal to say that I didn't do anything wrong, but in that hearing I begged for anyone to actually identify something I did wrong, and no one delivered. My involvement with the Falun Gong was limited to pushing back at the nakedly hostile religious bias that Bloodofox rightly got warned for. When I asked what the allegations against me were in the Falun Gong topic area, instead of an answer I just got hit with new allegations saying I had done something in the Race and IQ area. What had I done wrong with Race and IQ? Also totally unspecified. Much ado was made of the fact that I had simply made edits in various areas, without regard to the quality of those edits. So what? Every watcher at the FRINGE noticeboard has edited in a variety of CTOPs. It is rare that any of them matches my commitments to science, sources, civility, and Wikipedia policy while doing so. Any concern about CLEANSTART policy is a red herring when there was no problematic behavior from the past to avoid repeating, and no problematic behavior in the present either.

That brings us to the actual topic I originally brought to AE myself, Covid origins. I can't say it loud enough: I was the defender of science in that question. I wrote a substantial and thoroughly researched article on zoonotic theories of Covid's origin.[15] It was scoped smaller than the Origin of Covid-19 parent topic, but was of drastically greater relevance, sourcing, and organization than anything already existing. A couple of editors immediately set about trying to decimate it on the false pretense that the sources were inadequate, while the real point of contention was that I do not equivocate between what is "likely" with what is known. That kind of epistemic humility is crucial to legitimate, unpoliticized scientific inquiry. The most serious and concrete allegation against me was Bon courage saying that I improperly used a weak or primary sources to undermine a strong secondary source (Pekar, Magee, Parker, et al.) Well, since then he also scrubbed Pekar from the article on the basis that it was supposedly a primary source too.[16][17] You know what reliable secondary sources could have contextualized it? The very ones he removed earlier. Meanwhile, Pekar is still used in the lede of the parent Origin of Covid-19 article. Not just Pekar (which is fine), but truly excrable sources like blogs, newswires, Frontiers journals, discredited political commissions, RSOPINION, and non-peer-reviewed correspondences. In. The. Lede. The hypocrisy is appalling. Wikipedia needs much more of the kind of knowledge and integrity I bring to the table.

The idea I have pushed pseudo-science across multiple CTOPs can't hold water when there is absolutely no instance in which I have pushed pseudo-science in even one topic, ever. I deserve unblocking and an amendedment to the block log defending my name. Furthermore, the grievances I naively came to AE seeking relief for, and which are still damaging the project, are in want of redress. Sennalen (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You have to use the "unblock" template. Instructions for this are in the block notice above. It is up to you what points you choose to make in any unblock request but if it is anything like the above then I can't see it having any chance of success. DanielRigal (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Since the appeal is directed to me Sennalen doesn't have to use the unblock template. And since this is an AE block the other avenue of appeal would be AE/AN not {{unblock}}. Acknowledging I have seen this I will respond later today. Galobtter (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to accept an appeal where you not only don't admit any fault, but in fact spend the entirety praising your own editing as an exemplar of policy and conduct. That certainly is not the case. Galobtter (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Okay. I am always interested in improving. In what way has my conduct been less than exemplary? Sennalen (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, a couple examples, as the evidence for the basis of your block, if it wasn't clear to you somehow:

1. Don't cherry-pick/WP:OR sources to push for an addition, then argue against at least 5 different editors who spent the time to check the sources and explained in detail why those sources don't support the addition. Aquillion's comment near the bottom is particularly good. (Talk:Western Marxism#Removal of pertinent cited information)

2. Don't write a POV fork against the scientific consensus, where you use a news article to undercut a scientific source, and make statements that basically say you have your own standard of proof rather than the scientific consensus ("There is particular evidence that most people would accept as conclusive proof - namely, an ancestral sequence and/or an infected animal." from Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#First sentences)

Now I know you disagree with this analysis of your conduct; I'm not going to argue against any comments you make in response, as I don't think such a back and forth will be productive. Galobtter (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Thanks for providing something to go on. I know I'm not entitled to any more of your time at this juncture.

You've raised criticisms that I would sustain, but if you work from the assumption that someone is operating in bad faith, it's not hard to use some imperfect edits to confirm that bias. If you start from an assumption of good faith, it's just as easy to theorize why someone had good reasons to do whatever they did.

• I agree completely that overciting was a bad move, and not just from a tactical standpoint. I should have stayed focused on 1-3 sources that provided strong support. Regardless, I was persuaded by the Australian IP that it was not the right framing or right place on the page to add that claim, so I withdrew to reconsider.
• The Anderson paper was a tricky matter. On the one hand, it was a view with a lot of attention in RS - hard to justify passing over in silence. On the other hand, there were legitimate reasons to doubt its scientific integrity. It's not a BESTSOURCE for the main article content. In the end, I went with an exterior view of the author controversy, which is not biomedical information, and relegated it to the opinion section of the page. Reasonable minds can disagree that this was the right course of action, but it was done in good faith with a lot of deliberation. Of all the things jps deleted, that one I do not strenuously object to.
• The article was not against scientific consensus that "Covid-19 is likely of zoonotic origin." It's completely consistent with that and elaborates on that in great detail. The talk page philosophical digression about what I personally consider to be convincing evidence is irrelevant to the article construction. The whole conversation stemmed from jps rejecting the framing found in the sources.

Anyway, all of these things were normal content disputes that reached acceptable resolutions before I was blocked. Assuming you are still not convinced, your responsibility for the formal block appeal will not only be to make the case that my editing is less than exemplary, but that it continues to present an imminent threat of disruption. Is that something you could testify to? Sennalen (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I do know I am capable of making mistakes. Some that come to mind:

• I should not have invoked Bloodofox's name in discussion at RSN, since it allowed my position to be misconstrued as a personal attack rather than a criticism of his line of argumentation.
• When the first reliable source I used regarding the connection between "cultural Marxism" and "Western Marxism" got stonewalled, I should have put the onus on those who doubted an apparently reliable source to justify their objections. Cite stacking in a fit of pique did not help break the impasse.
• I considered withdrawing my Covid complaint after jps returned to discussing in good faith on the article talk page again, since his refusal to discuss had been my reason to escalate in the first place. I should have gone ahead and done that to lower the temperature.

I apologize for these actions (or inaction) and promise to avoid their like in the future. Sennalen (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

That's in addition to already having reconsidered the whole line of editing on Western Marxism as of Nov 21.[18] Sennalen (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Block appeal procedure questions

• I have the choice between AE or AN? Is there any reason to favor one or the other?
• Template:Arbitration_enforcement_appeal is just for AE? For AN is it unstructured?
• Are there word limits?
• How many roads must a man walk down, before they call him a man?

Sennalen (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• AE is decided by uninvolved administrators, AN is decided by uninvolved editors. Both require a clear and substantial consensus to overturn or appeal.
• WP:ARCA just had a thread that resulted in a template that works at AN too.
• There is a limit of 500 words for editors taking part. For the appeal itself that's kinda a grey area. Succinct is better. If you find yourself getting to 1000 words your appeal is probably going to fail.
• Why do you drive on a parkway but park in a driveway?

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's really hard to be concise with such a gish gallop of accusations against me, but I'll do my best. Sennalen (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sennalen Statements like this won't help you. Nor will claims of gravedancing. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow, not a luminary I expected to drop in unannounced! I'm allowed to be a little miffed about the whole situation, right? I promise the formal appeal will be more, well... formal. Sennalen (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're innocent, choose trial by judge.

If you're guilty, choose trial by jury.

If one of the judges has put a huge portrait of Vladimir Lenin in the courtroom, you're probably better off just fleeing to somewhere that doesn't have an extradition treaty.  Tewdar  08:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tewdar:, glad you're back! Sennalen (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Western Marxism after-action review

The following pertains to my impending unblock appeal.

1. Edits on Western Marxism were cited as a main cause of the block, but I had no opportunity to present evidence about that at AE, since I was already over my word limit by the time the issue was raised.
2. This includes self-reflection on my own mistakes, which is desired in the unblocking process.
3. It is far too much history to include directly in the formal appeal, but will be linked to from that appeal (which is already drafted and to be posted imminently.)

Criticisms about my edits at Western Marxism come in medias res of a long-running conversation among Newimpartial, Tewdar, an Australian IP, and myself. Besides being a post-1990 conspiracy theory, "cultural Marxism" is a term in scholarship dating to 1973. Editors who do not want to pull on that thread at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory often say the content should go at Marxist cultural analysis or Western Marxism.[19][20][21][22] My initial decision to go to Western Marxism was thus based on community feedback.

The source[23] and claim[24] that I added were based on a prior discussion that reached a rough consensus that the source was usable at least for the exact phrasing that Western Marxism is "also known as" cultural Marxism.[25]

It was reverted first by MrOllie with the edit summary, "not accurate, and not a good source for such a claim".[26] At that point what I should have done was go to the talk page, link the prior discussion, and ask MrOllie explain why he believed the source was inadequate. However, I made a snap judgement that in retrospect was an assumption of bad faith, that Mr. Ollie did not have substantive reasoning and would object to any similar claim from any source. Everything that follows can be considered an object lesson in the kinds of disruption that can follow when editors assume bad faith. What I did was to restore the claim, the original source, and a further six sources.

Details

Bottomore, Tom (ed.) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, 2nd edition (1983) p. 130 The importance attached in Western Marxism to issues of culture and ideology is of course by no means just a matter of theory. What Trent Shroyer (1973) called 'cultural Marxism' was an important element, though more in Europe than in North America, in the 'counter-culture' of the 1960s Larsen, Neil. "Negation of the Abnegation: Dialectical Criticism in the 1990s" in Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture, & Society (1992) I would like to propose here, firstly by way of a general hypothesis, is that our now familiarized "Western," or perhaps more aptly, cultural Marxism, despite the apparent theoretical and political gulf that doubly separates it from the so-called orthodoxy of the now rapidly disintegrating or already defunct socialist institutions in the East, (...) from this standpoint, in which the relation of the political, ideological existence of class conflict to its economic basis is conceived as strictly mechanical and unilateral, "Western" or cultural Marxism in fact converges on its "Eastern" counterpart. Macdonald, John. "Marxism and Education: a brief survey" in The Journal of Educational Thought (1982). The attempt to solve this problem has created 'Western Marxism', and an extraordinary intellectual stew with something to suit every taste - a Hegelianized Marx, a de-Hegelianized Marx; Marx-with-Kant, Marx-with-Spinoza, Marx-with-Freud; Marx romanticized ('the young Marx'), Marx de-mystified, Marx re-mystified; emancipatory Marxism, cultural Marxism, Marxism as 'method'. Beibei, Guan and Cristaudo, Wayne. Baudelaire Contra Benjamin: A Critique of Politicized Ethics and Cultural Marxism (2019). It came to our attention that the term 'cultural Marxism,' which for decades had been commonly used as more or less synonymous with critical Theory, Western Marxism, and cultural studies, when focused upon class, is now widely said to be a figment of the imagination Freeman, Alan. "Marxism without Marx: A note towards a critique" in Capital & Class (2010). (...) western Marxists were drawn to dissident ideas on philosophy, politics, sociology, or aesthetics from Gramsci, Lukacs, or Korsch, ignoring equally challenging economic ideas from the likes of Grossman or Rosdolsky. 'Cultural Marxism' took this to extremes, freeing aesthetic criticism from its allegedly mechanical materialist trappings. Tuters, Marc. "Cultural Marxism" in Krisis: Journal for Contemporary Philosophy (2018). The concept of Cultural Marxism seeks to introduce readers unfamiliar with – and presumably completely uninterested in – Western Marxist thought to its key thinkers, as well as some of their ideas, as part of an insidious story of secret operations of mind-control

Most of these are not sources for the interpretive claim that Western Marxism can be known as cultural Marxism so much as it is examples of Marxism being "caught in the act" of being known as. Taken together they lend support to "known as", but not in the most concise or unambiguous way. The main exception is Beibei and Cristaudo, which does directly buttress the claim. I should have dispensed with the rest and raised Beibei and Cristaudo in discussion.

After I hit two counter-reverts, Generalrelative went for the 3rd revert[27] with the interpretation that WP:ONUS excused them from any obligation to discuss. Lacking any specific objections from MrOllie or GeneralRelative that I could respond to, I started the talk page discussion with a scattershot of points in favor of the content.[28] Discussion by MrOllie and later by PatrickJWelsh critiqued only the single Tuters source and the fact that it discusses the conspiracy theory. I had included Tuters in the list of sources in order to ensure the collection was well-rounded and did not bury the role of the phrase in the conspiracy theory; however, I should have anticipated that including any source about the conspiracy theory would instead redirect all discussion towards the conspiracy theory. That was especially since it was the only one of the six new sources that was online without a paywall. This hearkens back to the theme of assuming bad faith - yet knowing that there was a controversy, it was a mistake on my part not to provide text quotes of all of them off the bat.

To help the room articulate their objections about the non-conspiracy Trent Schroyer theory and the other six of seven sources, I composed a list of ready-made disagreements other editors might want to have.[29] That was successful in propelling the discussion forward, especially towards some good points raised by the Australian IP. My perspective had gotten too much inside the box of trying to prove things to other editors, when I should have been thinking about the readers of the article. Since certain RSOPINIONs had denied the history of the phrase "cultural Marxism" before 1990, the question of the phrase's origin has taken on undue importance in talk page discussions. I had implicitly adopted that orientation. Although MOS:ALTNAME provided a nominal reason for the "also known as" claim to go in the lede, just inserting that was glossing over a great deal of intellectual history in who used what terms and why. After sketching an outline of a better approach, I withdrew to reconsider.[30] I was then done with the thread, though Newimpartial and the Australian IP continued to parse some finer points.

To recap, it was a mistake to overcite and a mistake not to provide quotes preemptively. Moreoever, the overall concept of the edit was not as good as it could have been. That said, the episode does not reflect any systematic deficiency in my editing. It was intended as an improvement to the encyclopedia and supported by policy, reliable sourcing, and prior consensus. I was sensitive to feedback and consensus both before and throughout the process, even going so far as to moderate my own debate and elicit actionable feedback from editors who were reluctant to provide it initially. Despite the errors, the thread overall was a positive example of how to WP:NEGOTIATE. Sennalen (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

References

AE unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sennalen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal below to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Sennalen (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Appeal declined at AE. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sennalen

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Sennalen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sennalen (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

This concerns an indefinite site block as an AE action by Galobtter at [31]. Another matter at AE was called a "related action" [32].

Administrator imposing the sanction

Galobtter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Sennalen

The block violated WP:Blocking policy.

• Blocking for any amount of time was not a neccessary measure to prevent disruption.
• An indefinite site block was punitive and grossly disproportionate.

Some well-meaning but misplaced concerns were raised about the WP:CLEANSTART policy. It is not required to notify anyone when making a clean start. The policy page's advice about not editing in controversial topics pertained to avoiding past misdeeds, which was not a circumstance that pertained to me. Bradv confirmed that I was not under any prior sanctions and that I have a legitimate reason not to disclose my former account name.

Disruption was alleged in multiple CTOPs, but all of the actions attributed to me either did not take place or do not constitute disruptions according to Wikipedia policy. There is no cause to believe I will cause disruption at a later time.

• My involvement with the Falun Gong topic began with observing what looked to me like religious bias on a noticeboard, and it ended with posting my evidence at AE. The AE closure agreed there was a problem and warned Bloodofox about it. I had served a 31-hour block for a comment interpreted as a personal attack on Bloodofox, but the matter was cold by the time of the indef. There's no grounds to think I might be disruptive about Falun Gong.

In the course of that filing, Tamzin alleged I had "pushed racist pseudoscience" in March 2023 at [33]. That's me being an outside respondent to an RfC in a CTOP I had no involvement in before or since. I reject any connection between race and IQ. There was nothing either racist or pseudoscientific in my responses. I argued for following best sources and Wikipedia policies. There has been no explanation of what I'm supposed to be answering for, or how I might supposedly be disruptive regarding it in the future.

• I brought an AE request about editors who had refused to discuss their content deletions about Covid-19. It was a plea for help on my part. I tried to be clear that there were off-ramps that could be followed back to discussion and compromise, if others were willing. It was an appropriate and constructive use of the venue.

The matter stemmed from an article I created.[34] The new article was built around high-quality peer-reviewed journals and WP:MEDRS adherence that was superior to any related article. It was in concordance with the community/scientific consensus[35] that COVID-19 is "likely of zoonotic origin". Creating articles with good sourcing and neutral point of view is the purpose of the encyclopedia. The only way this can appear disruptive is by uncritically accepting unfounded aspersions about my motivations.

My motives for creating the article were questioned. The exact moment I decided to write it[36] was in a discussion about claims that were out of scope for the lab leak page and too technical for the general Origin page. There was no WP:DETAIL page for those kinds of theories, so I made one.

Whether it should be merged into another page is a content question on which reasonable minds can differ, but it was not created to advance a point of view. Sticking to sources saying the pandemic origin is unknown in no way reflects an agenda to promote any particular theory. In any case, there was no Wikipedia consensus that that the lab leak theory is pseudoscience either,[37] so administrative actions should not act as if there were such a consensus.

In deference to admins' time, in the future I will avoid making a new AE request while still a party to an active one.

• Some of my edits about Herbert Marcuse and Western Marxism were also criticized. I could have done some things better with those edits,[38] which I am happy to discuss further in appropriate venues. What matters for now is that it concerned cold good-faith edits unrelated to any CTOP. The very reason the block was so disproportionate appears to be that it was otherwise not procedurally possible to punish me for those edits as an AE action.[39] That seems like an abuse of process above and beyond the fact it was a non-preventative block.

To recap, with reference to the criteria at WP:BLOCKP:

1. There was no imminent or continuing damage to Wikipedia.
2. There was no present disruptive behavior to deter.
3. My editing was productive, congenial, and within community norms.

---

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sennalen

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.

Result of the appeal by Sennalen

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

Sennalen (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Now copied over to AE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Firefangledfeathers. Don't forget to fill out the part for a diff notifying Galobtter that there is an unblock request, if that actually matters. I think she will get several pings anyway. Sennalen (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't get a ping before but I've seen this. Galobtter (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Assuming I'm allowed to respond in brief at AE:

I did believe in April 2023 that a lab leak was the best explanation. Expressing that belief violated no rule at the time, and it still doesn't. I later changed my mind while examining the evidence. I also said in those diffs that we would have to wait and see what reliable publishers did with the evidence before Wikipedia could be updated. A few months later, I wrote an article reflecting what reliable sources did with it. That happens to include a paragraph in the article's opinion corner about the "Proximal Origin" controversy, which is WP:GNG on its own. The only reason to think I did anything in bad faith is to assume that I did. Sennalen (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The point of the appeal is I'm not seeing anything that demonstrates that anyone understands how my edits were disruptive. I'm willing to work on it, but at least one admin has to meet me halfway and point to something that was actually a disruption, and not just a motivation they imagined I had. Sennalen (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I copied this and your 3 March comment over to AE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated Sennalen (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TarnishedPath^talk 09:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Every page created by Sennalen

The article Every page created by Sennalen has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 😂  Tewdar  15:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just a coincidence Sennalen (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely. Funnily enough, and probably also coincidentally, the people voting 'keep' include Graham Beards, who according to their user page is a National Health Service microbiologist, and Jared Roach, who according to their article was involved in a project to map out the molecular phylogenetics of Washington state's initial SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Hmm. I'd put a sarcastic comment here, but I'm 1–0 at ANI, and I'd like to keep my perfect record intact.  Tewdar  16:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It could be a fortuitous development after all. No need to put too fine a point on it. Sennalen (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Somehow I suspect the microbiologists will be out!voted by the, uh, people with other kinds of expertise.  Tewdar  08:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tewdar There are no votes on a PROD, why are you saying there are? And Sennalen's contributions show no deleted or suppressed edits. So why this claim? Doug Weller talk 07:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:This is not a !vote? Certainly looks like a lot like one to me. I'm not sure if you understand, or what it is you think I am supposed to be claiming - I was using the template to make a joke that all Sennalen's articles and essays are being nominated for deletion. And at the Zoonotic origins article deletion discussion, two microbiologists voted (?) to keep the article, unlike the people who appear to have other specialties, which I find slightly amusing. Hopefully this explains it but if not feel free to ask for further clarification. To be honest though, I'd rather forget about this.  Tewdar  09:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PROD. You meant WP:AfD which uses !votes. No one has !voted delete, just merge. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't care.  Tewdar  09:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Here, hopefully this will prevent this sort of misunderstanding in the future. But I'll be sure to use the AfD template should I make any similar jokes in the future, just to make sure.  Tewdar  10:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

How long have you lived here, Doug?  Tewdar  10:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

50 years, but as they (don't) say, you can get the man out of America, but you can't get America out of the man. But I guess I should have known it was a joke. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I find that a lack of humor is a common thing that is lacking today. XMcan (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

And you dropped into this conversation why? Ii find there’s a lot of humor around, but that could just be me and watching a lot of comedies. Oh, also there’s a lot here on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The meaning of fringe

@Seraphimblade:, I was surprised by your comment at AE that I did not seem capable of recognizing what is a fringe topic. I don't know if that means you were unaware of my writings on exactly that subject, or if you read them and weren't a fan. Either way, the definition of a fringe topic can be contextual and has several informal meanings that emerged over time. Revisiting the basics could be a learning experience for editors, new and old.

Initially FRINGE was guidance about WP:NOTABILITY only, focused on the question of whether pseudoscience topics should have stand-alone articles. However, even at that point it actually owed a lot to the within-article principle of WP:WEIGHT. The circumstance that motivated the guidance to be written was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aetherometry_(2nd_nomination), a kind of pseudoscience that had some dubious sources in support but had never come to the attention of any legitimate scientific publication. A naive approach would have had an article singing this pseudoscience's praises, since that was the tenor of sources that paid any attention to it, but the community consensus was that the very silence of the mainstream actually spoke volumes. The reasoning at AfD was that in such a case where the mainstream is silent, it's impossible to write an article with due weight; for that reason, the article should not exist. FRINGE in its early form served to retrospectively document this "dark matter" theory of invisible WP:WEIGHT.

Revisions up to the end of 2006[40] did not actually define "fringe theory" and only used the phrase in the title and other offhand ways. The actual guidance rather was about how to handle "non-mainstream" theories, with "mainstream" defined as ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed scientific publications. Assuming that "fringe" and "non-mainstream" were supposed to be equivalent, that would make a fringe theory an idea that is not considered plausible by any large-circulation newspaper, magazine, or scientific publication. I think the yardstick now ought to be largely the same as the simple formulation from 2006 - that an idea is fringe if it's not mainstream, and it's mainstream if it has support from mainstream sources (with preference to quality academic journals if they exist in the field).

In 2007-2009, WP:FRINGE went through a lot of churn and sometimes outright edit warring on the guidance page, during which time it began to speak a lot more on internal article content. There is some useful guidance in the expanded scope, unfortunately it has regressed in terms of clarity on this fundamental definition of what a fringe theory is. With phrasing that has been fairly stable since 2008, WP:FRINGE now says sweepingly, fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. It does not give as much concrete guidance about the definition of "mainstream" as the earlier form of the page did, nor does it give a rule on how much of a departure from the mainstream is "significant". The lack of explicit bright lines in the current FRINGE guidance is unfortunate. It leaves a lot of latitude for reasonable interpretations about whether new developments in areas such as unconventional superconductor or Modified Newtonian dynamics qualify as "fringe" or not. Sometimes a consensus on these things emerges easily, but contentious topics have a way of inviting motivated reasoning.

Arguments about fringe theories have been escalated to ArbCom a few times. ArbCom in 2009[41] defined "fringe science" (at least for its own ruling) as matters which purport to be science, or use its trappings and terminology but are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community; and to matters which do not claim to be scientific but nevertheless make claims that are normally considered within the purview of science. That perspective makes a distinction not so much about sources or level of acceptance but about adherence to the scientific method. ArbCom had earlier in 2006[42] made reference both to scientfic method and to support among scientists in the definition, Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Increasingly, a new interpretation of "fringe theory" has gained ground on Wikipedia, which has no basis in either the older or newer wording of WP:FRINGE, the ArbCom rulings, or any of the policies that these things derived from. This interpretation relies on forming a community consensus that an idea is so false, ridiculous, or dangerous that it must always be rejected, regardless of sources. Rather than using sources to identify the mainstream, it pre-ordains what the mainstream is supposed to be and judges sources accordingly. This violates the basic requirement of WP:NPOV, to describe disputes, but not engage in them as well as the 2009 Fringe ArbCom ruling that, The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual. Despite these bright line violations, this sort of perspective is a common meaning of "fringe" on talk pages now, and the current regulatory environment is friendly to it.

Although that rogue perspective is wrong on the balance, it's still true that FRINGE guidelines do apply to significant minorities and alternative theoretical formulations. That's because FRINGE remains, as always, an explanatory supplement to more fundamental policies. The page bears the caveat, The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence. Inasmuch as NPOV, NOR, and V apply everywhere and to every point of view, FRINGE equally applies everywhere and to every point of view, majority and minority alike.

To recap, "fringe theory" from the mouths of different editors at different times may mean:

1. It does not appear in any reliable source, so shouldn't appear anywhere on the encyclopedia. (WP:V)
2. It's an obscure detail or an idea that hasn't been properly judged yet, so it should not be given attention in a broad overview article. (WP:MINORASPECT)
3. It has been widely rejected or criticized, so when it is presented, the criticisms should be presented alongside. (WP:YESPOV)
4. It is pseudoscience that contradicts known laws of reality or doesn't follow the scientific method, so it not be presented on equal footing with actual science. (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE)
5. It is from a religious/cultural point of view so should be distinguished from accepted science or history. (WP:RNPOV)
6. It is a significant minority view, so it should be given considerable attention, just not as prominently as a majority view. (WP:DUE)
7. It undermines everything a good Wikipedian ought to believe in, so Wikipedia articles must omit any information that might support it. (N)
8. The guidance at WP:FRINGE applies to it. (A tautology, because FRINGE echoes core policy that applies to everything.)

I hope you found this review entertaining and edifying. Sennalen (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access blocked

You can still use Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System to appeal, but it makes little sense for an indefinitely blocked editor to be discussing anything with other editors, let alone articles. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Doug, the Committee's attention has been brought to utrs:90893 (FYI JJMC89), where Sennalen asked for her talk page access to be restored so that an appeal can be carried over to the noticeboards. I think that it would be good to do so (easier to write follow-ups etc to be copied over), so would you object to that? Please note that I'm asking in an individual capacity. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz Done. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz Although maybe there would have been a clearer way to do it. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean clearer in terms of what I wrote or clearer in terms of arbitration appeal procedures? If you meant the second, I hope to propose a clarification of procedures soon. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I meant the block notice. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #86485

is declined. --Yamla (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"Chaos muppet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chaos muppet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Chaos muppet until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"Order muppet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Order muppet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Order muppet until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Sennalen’s talk page block

There is a Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding Doug Weller’s decision to indefinitely block Sennalen from commenting here, on her talk page. XMcan (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 15:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, as this looks like a new block, which it isn't, I've restored talk page access. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Sennalen (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024 Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sennalen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please reproduce the appeal below at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Sennalen (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Appeal declined (permalink). El_C 13:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sennalen

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Sennalen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sennalen (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Indefinite site block made by Galobtter as an AE action.[43] An appeal was declined at AE.[44] Administrator imposing the sanction Galobtter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. Statement by Sennalen Since the original closing only alleges "disruption" without identifying specific acts, I look to Galobtter's comment[45] on the appeal as the definitive statement of what I am supposed to answer for. I did not use a news source to undercut a scientific source. I wrote the entire Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 to give priority to peer-reviewed journal articles over news and opinion. By design, only the final 6 KB "Views" section[46] of this 61KB article included news sources at all. Part of that was a neutral summary about congress calling a paper into question. The paper itself was outdated for the purpose of presenting current scientific understanding regardless. I used the news source in an appropriate way, and furthermore, the choice to pick this minor aspect of the article to characterize my overall attitude towards the topic is highly misleading. I did not push a lab leak point of view. In the article, I wrote that scientists consider a natural origin more likely than a lab origin. I also presented several new lines of evidence, which had never been cited on Wikipedia before, against lab theories. Galobtter cited some isolated Talk comments seven months older than my article edits.[47][48] I did express belief in a lab origin at that time, but also principally argued for following sources. My beliefs evolve over time to account for new evidence. Having a belief is not a behavioral infraction. Every edit I made to article space was verifiable from peer-reviewed journals and given balanced weight. There was no violation. In the months since I was blocked, proposals to delete[49] or merge[50] closed with no consensus. In particular, there was no consensus that my article was a PoV fork of Origin of SARS-CoV-2. Several editors noted that I wrote mainly about science whereas the existing article was mainly about political inquiries. In short, I wrote a good article in a valuable unfilled niche. In a matter Galobtter raised after the block, I agreed that I should not have WP:OVERCITEed seven reliable sources to support a contested claim on Western Marxism. Nevertheless, the wording of the claim and the choice of which page to present it on were based on prior consensus.[51][52] When new arguments were made, I withdrew voluntarily to work on better edits incorporating on that feedback.[53] The situation resolved positively on its own. Nothing about these events explains why I was indef site blocked. Finally, Galobtter made some statements about race and intelligence that continue to be of unclear relevance. It is a fact that I was an uninvolved commenter on an RfC and then in some related ANI threads about the RfC. Old threads keep being linked without any indication why they are supposed to be a problem in relation to me. This, more than any other part of this ordeal, feels like a WP:SMEAR. To address Seraphimblade's concern about whether I understand WP:FRINGE, I wrote an overview of the history and meaning of the guideline [54]. Hopefully that puts those concerns to rest. I have never promoted any kind of pseudoscience or conspiracy theory on Wikipedia. Though I have edited in some contested topics, I have always done so while using appropriate sources and writing from the perspective of the scientific and/or historical establishment. Policy says, Editors may present active public disputes or controversies documented by reliable sources; citing a viewpoint stated in a mainstream scholarly journal, textbook, or monograph is not per se disruptive editing.[55] The case against me was based on routine edits that are of no significance without a context of already assuming bad faith. I have observed all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and as ever remain committed to observing all policies and guidelines in the future. It's not necessary to like me personally or agree with all my content positions. All that matters per WP:Blocking policy is that blocking me does not prevent any disruption; therefore the block is against policy. I look forward to writing many more quality articles on diverse subjects in the future. Sennalen (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by Galobtter Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sennalen 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 (uninvolved editor 1) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2) Result of the appeal by Sennalen This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Much thanks to JJMC89 for copying the appeal. I would also appreciate if someone would append this response from me:

I'm sorry if anyone finds my tone too defensive or not apologetic enough. There is an appropriate order to things: an act is alleged, evidence for it is presented, a rule or principle the act violated is identified, and only then is it possible to reflect on the error of my ways. I can't just skip to the end without the previous steps. If I have made a pseudoscientific edit, I really want to know what it is. If there is one, I will be deeply embarrassed and disappointed in myself. As a matter of WP:ADMINACCT it shouldn't be a guessing game for me.

I'm glad people are starting to notice some other editors have avoided scrutiny, but I disagree with saying they are on the opposite side of a conspiracy theory from me. We are all on the same side against the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. It's a false, dangerous, and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. I was the first person on Wikipedia to try to systematically explain why the conspiracy theory is factually wrong[56] (rather than just asserting that it's a moral outrage.) This follows WP:EVALFRINGE, describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. There is a timesink, and it comes from editors whose feelings about the topic are too strong to treat it objectively. That's especially damaging when they export their feelings about the conspiracy theory to ordinary articles in history and sociology. That's what I have been up against.

Replacing the existing sanction with something less severe sounds like an idea worth exploring, but there is no reason to split the difference between truth and falsehood. The truth is that I have no problematic agenda. The value of a sanction is what it prevents. A topic ban from covid would stop me from supplying requested sources. For cultural Marxism (broadly construed) it would stop me from planned expansions on the theory of communicative action or the aestheticization of politics. That's not serving the community's interests. Sennalen (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Pasted over. Schazjmd (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Sennalen (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Would a watcher please copy this, likely last, statement.

Thank you to XOR'easter for taking the time to investigate my comments. I only tried to document the evolution of the policy over time, not to argue that it was better or worse at any stage of that evolution, so I'm sorry if I gave that impression. There is no "editor cabal", but some editors mis-apply the policy, as recognized for example by DGG.[57] My behavior when unblocked will be as always to follow the policy as written.

To reiterate to @S Marshall:, I don't cast doubt on academic consensus about any of the topics. I have presented the academic consensus in every CTOP I have been involved in. All content I added was accurate, verifiable, and neutral. When challenged, I listened and built consensus. It's not that I'm treated more harshly for breaking the rules than my opponents. I'm treated more harshly for following the rules than they are for breaking them. I don't doubt that it takes a lot of time to generate novel reasons to cast doubt on reliable sources. Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTMANDATORY, no one actually has to spend time doing that.

Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks says that showing evidence no violation took place is a valid form of appeal. I have demonstrated that Galobtter's accusations were false, and she says she has nothing more to add. The timesink here is persisting with disproven allegations. Sennalen (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have copied the third statement. Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Sennalen (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Hello. I have closed your appeal (permalink) as having been declined (consensus not met). Thank you. El_C 13:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)