Hi Chris,

It's Logan! Logantpowell (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logan! My man. Welcome!

Could you email me? (option is on the right side) Cmsmith93 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While your alert to hobgoblin is alright, normally, when telling a user that they are subject to an ANI, you would use (({subst:ANI-notice))} (just without the extra {}). Thanks, that's all. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 13:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. It says at the top of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, "When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page" Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly, with a link to the template right under it. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 13:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for WP:CIR, WP:DEADHORSE, and WP:IDHT

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cmsmith93, I have a serious question for you. Why are you editing Wikipedia, and what do you hope to achieve here? We all have our reasons, and it's not the same for everybody, and I just wondered what your reasons are, because I can't make it out. Looking at your 105 contributions thus far, I see that 77% of them are in Talk spaces, and none are improvements to articles. At the same time, in a single discussion at WP:AN, you name three admins who have called out your behavior previously. If we extrapolated that to 1,000 edits, 30 admins annoyed with you, and no article edits, and someone proposed to indefinitely block you at WP:ANI because you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, how would you respond? Actually, I don't think you have anywhere near that long, and you should respond now: Why are you here? Because currently, trouble seems to follow you around everywhere you go, and it's of your own doing. I think you have only a very short period to turn this around, before the decision will be taken out of your hands. So if you want to remain here and achieve something, time to do that is right now. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came here to make you saw Valjean's similar comment at WP:AN, in case you missed it before the section was archived. I share this question: what are your goals here? It's unclear to me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May as well copy it here: Cmsmith, why are you at Wikipedia? Are you here to battle, to find fault with others, to get them in trouble, and basically create more heat than light? Are you here to escalate or de-escalate problems? I get the feeling your focus is detrimental to the project, and I implore you to change your way of thinking. Stay as far away from drama boards as possible. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have many goals here...

I'm here to learn and understand the workings, operations, and functions of this platform as a whole. I have a special thanks on my page to one editor/admin who has been extremely helpful to me. And of course many others have been.

Have good faith discussions. The Bureaucrat 28bytes and Admin such as Firefangledfeathers and Black Kite, to name a few I've interacted with, can all confirm I can have more disagreements than not, yet conduct myself in a manner suitable for future discussions. I may be a pain in the ass who is stumbling quite a bit as I learn my way around, but nobody can quote me being rude or condescending or anything like that. Because it's just not me.

Due to limited time I'm primarily focused on improving the RFK Jr article, but eventually I'd like to expand my focus to other articles and topics such as informal logic, physics, math, IT, ethics, symbolism.

I wish to improve some of the procedures, processes, and policies here. I reported a bad faith user (the wrong way?) and then when I try to improve that system by having a discussion so we can set the next guy up for success, the response is to have 5+ Admin think I'm in bad faith. Your system calls for consensus. The parameters simply are not clear enough, as I pointed out, in the header of ANI. And so I took the discussion to the Talk tab in AN with the relevant Admin's. There should be nothing wrong with that. Nobody who has a good faith report like that should feel discouraged and unwelcome to report such behavior. (Because of how bad this response to my post has been, I definitely feel I need to strive for Admin on this site). RfC's might need work -- I haven't looked at enough of them yet, but they may be votes only disguised as consensus. I am currently topic banned and the admin who did that hasn't provided me with quotes of me committing CIR, DEADHORSE, or the other one. I think that should be mandatory. These are all problems and I hope to get them all addressed and improve things for the next new user.

You make it seem like one of my goals here should be to please every Admin. I don't have a reason to believe this should be a goal of mine. From everything I've gathered, policies, the 5 pillars, and consensus rule here, not the Admin.

Valjean, you can see I had a very heated discussion with Zaathras very recently where I de-escalated it.

Gentlemen, I welcome disagreement, constructive feedback, and/or calling me out when I really am in bad faith. But this really isn't one of those times. So respectfully, I ask that if you're going to continue talking to me here you at least give me the respect of assuming good faith. Having disagreements with editors, admin's, and even bureaucrat's is encouraged on any platform that aims for the best form of the truth. If agreeing with most is the only path forward, then that is a bandwagon fallacy, and a fallacy I'm not willing to commit in search of the truth. Cmsmith93 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hardly know where to begin. Maybe point by point:

• learn and understand the workings...of this platform

  good;

• improving the RFK Jr article

  to be frank, this is a rotten choice for a new user. I've never even seen an article that was listed as a contentious topic in *three separate areas*, namely pseudoscience, living people, and Covid. This is really a hopeless place for you to try to get started. And because it is under extended confirmed protection, you can't even edit it. I would strongly advise spending your time elsewhere, and avoid contentious topics entirely for now.

• You make it seem like one of my goals here should be to please every Admin

  while admins are human, they will not take action on your account because you have displeased them, but because you have violated one or another Wikipedia policy or guideline. So, nobody is saying that should be a goal.

• policies, the 5 pillars, and consensus rule here, not the Admin

  correct; the admins have special privileges to enforce policies and guidelines.

• I welcome disagreement, constructive feedback, and/or calling me out when I really am in bad faith. But this really isn't one of those times.

  "Officer, I welcome a speeding ticket from you anytime I am speeding. But this isn't one of those times." Do you see the problem here, or do I need to explain?

• if you're going to continue talking to me here you at least give me the respect of assuming good faith

  I see no one here failing to assume good faith. Please do not mistake criticism or laying out the way you have violated policy or guidelines as failing AGF; they are in no way related.

• If agreeing with most is the only path forward...

  It is not. The path forward is to decide on a goal that is compatible with the goals of Wikipedia, which is primarily to build an online encyclopedia.

Left out above is my reaction to your largest paragraph in the middle of your post, which deserves a more detailed response, and maybe I'll get back to you. But in summary, while many processes and procedures could no doubt be improved (and many volunteer editors give their time to do just that) you simply have nowhere near the kind of experience yet which would enable you to help with such things. You don't have a single edit in article space, and you want to discuss how we should improve building articles? A thousand analogies come to mind, but laying one out would sound snarky, because it would be so ridiculous in the real world. At best, it makes you sound like an enthusiastic, well-meaning soul who doesn't know how much he doesn't know, and is merely trying everyone's patience explaining your misunderstanding of Thing One, when they urgently need to discuss actual, ongoing issues; and at worst, like a sealioning troll just trying to muck up the works while staying just this side of getting the heave-ho. And tbh, your words and actions thus far fit both scenarios equally well. An important corollary being that it doesn't matter what your intent is, if that is the effect; and that's partly where CIR comes into play.

In my opinion, your efforts so far are not a net positive to the encyclopedia, and if someone proposed an indefinite block right now, I'm honestly not sure how I would vote. I feel you are definitely going in the wrong direction, and it's late, and high time to change direction before you drive the car off the cliff. If I were you, I'd drop the RFK issue immediately, go pick three articles related to logic, physics, math, IT, ethics, or symbolism, and improve them. I would demonstrate in your edits that you know the importance of citing sources and how to do it. And I would do it *very* soon.

I'm sorry if this seems harsh to you, but you answered my question in detail (thank you for that), and I wanted to give you an honest answer, not a sugar-coated one. I think you are in peril, and need to act now to right the situation. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Do you see the problem here, or do I need to explain?"

I do need this explained, honestly. I've never interacted with you before. Your initial question is vague, loaded, and arbitrary. This response too is a bit arbitrary. Obviously I can tell you're a bit frustrated, but why -- what did I say, or do, that brought you here? If it was something I did then let me know the action. If it was something I said, please quote me so I know exactly what we're talking about. Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My initial question was to determine how your goals align with those of Wikipedia, as I didn't see you actually improving any articles so far. As to what brought me here, I saw your situation in the discussion at AN, and as a long-time editor, I can usually tell when an editor is in trouble and at risk for an indefinite block, so I came here to try to help you avoid that. Your responses here lead me to believe the risk is now higher than before, but I believe you can still avoid it, if you act now; I've already given you specific pointers about that. I think at this point, it really depends on what you want; that is, if you wish to keep editing here and are willing to comply with the community-developed policies and guidelines. I've already responded in detail point by point to your previous comment, and I don't wish to repeat myself. Additionally, if I've been ineffective in helping you thus far, my going into more detail now isn't likely to be any more so. Perhaps you will have better luck with another volunteer who is willing to give you better advice than I have been able to. I wish you the very best, Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only started the discussion in AN, but when I tried to go back to it a couple of days later I didn't see it there. Yeah this was all too vague unfortunately. Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to add drop contentious topics for a while. I my self have had 1 of these moments . I recommend taking a step back sleep, read articles, think. Then silently resume editing and fixing issues •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please follow the instructions about substituting the template for the appeal? It's difficult for editors participating in the appeals process to follow along if the instructions for constructing the appeal aren't followed. Thanks! Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hear ya Philip. There was instructions on one page, then you have to open up like two sub-sets of instructions. It's not easy to follow. I'll try again tomorrow or something. Cmsmith93 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And hey I did just copy/paste everything I said into a google doc so I can try to throw that into a correct format. You can delete if you'd like :) Cmsmith93 (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've formatted the appeal for you, but this is a very bad idea. You would be wise to remove the appeal, make some strong contributions to articlespace in non-controversial topics, and try appealing again in a minimum of six months. You've been given good advice above about rectifying the impression you've given thus far, which is that you're not here to actually improve the encyclopedia but instead to disrupt the project and waste time. Attempting to appeal this restriction now, without having made any effort in articlespace nor demonstrated any awareness of why you're being met with suspicion, is likely going to fast-track you to not being allowed to edit the project at all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~)).

This is a project to build an encyclopedia and you have not made a single edit to improve an encycledia article. And yet you have time to argue with other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cullen, it says on that 'not here to build an encyclopedia' page, "Focusing on niche topic areas" is "What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not". I've been talking in the RFK Jr Talk tab, an extended-protected page. Please check, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth/Cmsmith93 and you will see that I cannot edit the RFK Jr article due to a lack of 500+ edits.

Can you undo this now? Cmsmith93 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]