Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive275

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jenos450 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA  :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. Special:Diff/985874277 & Special:Diff/986013855 Fringe POV pushing, see Special:Diff/986013855 for context. Also see, Talk:OpIndia#Neutrality?
2. Special:Diff/985170326 & Special:Diff/985871196 Similar conduct on Slavery in India followed by edit warring over the same, see article history.
3. Special:Diff/986653841 & Special:Diff/986655556 Addition of the word descriptor "the great" to Chanakya and Shivaji with either the use of self-publishing sources, fake citations or obvious questionable sources. (see Postcard.news for additional context)

1. Special:Diff/986162872 Introduction of of the word "Marxist" to the biographical article of Prabhat Patnaik with a cite that doesn't verify the descriptor followed by edit warring over the same, see article history.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Special:Diff/974602904

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note that their edit summaries are also highly misleading, with improper use of minor edits and inappropiate referal to guidelines.

No technical error can cause one to misrepresent a citation to "unintentionally promote a fringe theory" as was done on Love Jihad. Pinging, Newslinger, if you could shed some light on this.

On the other hand the claim on Slavery in India that the citation, which is a recent high quality scholarly work, had a quote within the cite and was even attributed to the author in-text, doesn't meet WP:BESTSOURCE, WP:VERIFYOR and WP:UNDUE is frankly ridiculous. It also appears suspicious that after an hour of the removal of the citation by an IP, the text was removed by the editor. Not to mention it was removed 6 times more by the editor after the restoration of the citation.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest. Just going to point out that the promotion of Love Jihad, favorability towards OpIndia, Postcard.news and glorification or negation in Indian history all coming from the same user do point towards Hindutva POV pushing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/986678708

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.

• Special:Diff/985874277 The original statement in the article Love Jihad was added through The Independent (RSP entry) by me only. Further, due to some technical error which was completely unintentional, It seems unwarranted promotion of a fringe theory was narrated. For that, I had an discussion with another mod Newslinger on his talk page, admitting this mistake was made.

• Talk:OpIndia#Neutrality? Regarding OpIndia, I raised an RfC which only included asking them to rephrase the page as it seems little too negative. Later I asked them what do they think of improving the format of the page. That's all. I did not vandalize the page or anything similar, rather, I took on the talk page to get comments and views regarding OpIndia. That's it.

• Special:Diff/985170326 This edit was missing citations and it seems like the research was removed from the source itself.

• Special:Diff/985871196 The conduct was actually performed by another user called Aaallman, who in the later edits accused me by "to sypport hindutva.... that is yout opinion" when asked to discuss the issue on talk and to see WP:DUE WP:VERIFYOR as per the policy.

In various summaries I tried to explain to him that the meaning of dassa/dassie changes with the usage and it doesn't appropriately mean Slavery. I would have suggested him to include this statement as a note than on the introduction part as it was looking odd. Instead he never took this to the talk page even though, regardless of me asking him to take this to the page's talk page.

• Special:Diff/986653841 & Special:Diff/986655556 Addition of the word "the great" to Chanakya and Shivaji was done after I acknowledged and discussed it with another mod RegentsPark that adding name doesn't have to satisfy HISTRS,

The conversation could be found here.

• Special:Diff/986162872 I think Tayi Arajakate is little mistaken here. I was not the one who originally used "Marxist" to the biographical article of Prabhat Patnaik. Through History, one can find that Prabhat Patnaik was being called a "Marxist-economist" as back as 11 February 2010‎ by a user called Chhoton and it stayed like this for 10 years before being vandalized by the user Aaallman. Many economist/researchers are cited as Marxist-Economist, so this is nothing new either.

• So, one thing to note is that, I was protecting Prabhat Patnaik & Slavery in India from possible vandalism by the user called Aaallman, who repeatedly reverted the edits than discussing on the talk page. WP:WARNVAND

I gave him warning twice and suggested him to discuss the issues on the page's talk page but he kept on vandalizing. Further, I was about to report him to an admin today. Jenos450 (talk)

I have been concerned for some time by Jenos450's propensity to stray from what reliable sources say into speculation and original research. In addition to the evidence above, there's these discussions [3], [4], [5]. The third one, in particular, is concerning; BLP applies to talk pages also. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Diff for the HISTRS referred to by Jenos: [6]. While I stand by the general comment, the context was specific to the use of Chattrapati and Maharaj for Shivaji (using it for "the great" is a bit dubious, imo). I suspect Jenos has a few axes to grind, as the three links provided by Vanamonde show, and sanctions are probably warranted. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenos450's edit to the Amit Shah article in Special:Diff/981172473 removed the text "Shah has been a key present-day proponent of Hindutva."

The source, The Economic Times, states: "Amit Shah, the party’s general secretary in charge of Uttar Pradesh, is working towards a Hindu consolidation, say BJP leaders, familiar with the unfolding strategy. [...] The plan is to spread the Hindutva agenda and encourage Hindus to vote against alleged 'protectors of minorities' or parties such as the ruling Samajwadi Party and the Congress." If Jenos450 wanted to comply with WP:BLPSTYLE, as claimed in the edit summary, the correct action would have been to replace the word "key" with something more precise. Instead, the edit removed the only sourced text linking Shah to Hindutva from the article, effectively whitewashing the article. — Newslinger talk 01:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I've just been looking at this and am not at all happy. C Scott Levi is a very respectable source, his CV shows him as author of" The Bukharan Crisis: A Connected History of 18th-Century Central Asia (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2020); The Rise and Fall of Khoqand, 1709–1876: Central Asia in the Global Age (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2017); Caravans: Indian Merchants on the Silk Road (Penguin, 2015); and The Indian Diaspora in Central Asia and its Trade, 1550–1900 (E. J. Brill, 2002). He has also edited India and Central Asia: Commerce and Culture, 1500–1800 (Oxford University Press, 2007) and co-edited (with Ron Sela) Islamic Central Asia: An Anthology of Sources (Indiana University Press, 2010). He is currently serving as editor-in-chief of the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian Commercial History".[7] Although I know that Scottywong blocked Aaallman I'm not at all convinced that Aaalman is a vandal or not here to improve the encyclopedia and I've told Scottywong that. At the moment I'm leaning towards a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I too think a topic ban of Jenos450 is warranted. Besides the Scott Levi issue at Slavery in India which Doug analyzes, Jenos450's editing of Love Jihad has been shockingly tendentious. Notice that after they added a supposed example of love jihad, which did no justice to the source,[8] another editor added "conspiracy theory", as was proper according to the source. This led Jenos450 to change their own source to another, less reliable, one, clearly in order to be able to remove the words "conspiracy theory" and to push the islamophobic "love jihad" conspiracy theory into Wikipedia as if it was a reality. Hindutva POV-pushing has no place here. I intend to topic ban Jenos from Indian subjects unless new information surfaces or other uninvolved admins object within the next couple of days. Bishonen | tålk 21:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC). P. S., with the diff Newslinger has adduced above, I'm even more convinced. Bishonen | tålk 10:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• I would favor an appropriate topic ban for source misrepresentation and tendentious editing. Neutrality^talk 23:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: I have changed my close to a ban from subjects connected with India, Pakistan or Afghanistan, in view of the important Love Jihad matter, plus the fact that my colleagues may well have been thinking of a topic ban from the whole area. Bishonen | tålk 22:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBGG

​Margot (activist) is the article for

The question of whether deadnaming should occur in the rest of the article was left unresolved at the closure of the recent RfC, but several editors expressed criticism of the article section Margot (activist)‎ § Naming controversies, with Gleeanon409 remarking,The naming controversy section should also be removed as it’s a magnet for misgendering trolling.

Today an editor has been repeatedly inserting Margot's deadname into the article, diffs: 1, 2, 3. It seems that MOS:DEADNAME has recently been updated to support complete exclusion of the deadname from the article as usual practice; but if I understand how everything works properly with Arbitration Enforcement, it seems like this combination of circumstances may still warrant placing page restrictions on the Margot (activist)‎ article under WP:ARBGG as a person related toany gender-related dispute or controversy. Cheers, ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the infamous author of the three edits, I have now read MOS:DEADNAME five times without finding any "has recently been updated to support complete exclusion of the deadname from the article as usual practice". In fact, it says "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead, and may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate." As the use of her deadname is the subject of a whole paragraph of the article, I would say it is contextually appropriate; the only argument that could be put forward from MOS:DEADNAME is one of privacy, which is preposterous here, as the information is present several times in the talk page as well as in multiple quoted sources. The RfC clearly concluded that the deadname should be removed from the lead and infobox (which is not in the article), with a single commenter asking for it to be removed from the "Naming controversy" section. I edited the first and second time without reading any of the material, as no man knows all wikipedia policies, including me. The third time, I had; while my edits are being used to ask for protection of the article, and I am being subtly threatened with disciplinary action, my understanding of the RfC and MOS:DEADNAME is that my second edit was correctly reverted, while the first and third were reverted without merit. I will furthermore add that I have no political agenda in the matter and that, if I had one, it would be to annoy Polish conservatives in general, and Catholics, in particular, as much as possible, and that I would wholeheartedly support a bill to only allow attendance to the Sejm in drags. complainer 16:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, the Updated MOS section that Truthious 𝔹andersnatch refers was in process of being worded on the MOS page, during the Margot RfC. And was done expressly for situations like this which are, I think, particularly stressful and draining particularly to LGBTQ editors and readers. These battles are toxic and poisonous to collegial editing.
  I’m not sure what would help the project as a whole but addressing casual hate speech, specifically against LGBTQ people, but maybe incorporating all minorities, could ease things for everyone. Glee^anon 03:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Complainer: I apologize if you feel threatened that I pinged you, but I don't think you should. I brought your edits up in this request because you essentially acted out the behavior described by Gleeanon409 in the RfC; then, since I was mentioning you in passing, I felt it appropriate that you at least be notified of this discussion by ping.

The deadnaming and misgendering by User:Niemajużnazwy, 5.184.34.193, 85.222.96.146, User:GizzyCatBella, and User:Complainer is awful. Deadnaming makes people die inside, please just make it stop. Juliett Tango Papa (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note [9] - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeanon409 has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi. gnu57 17:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Seems reasonable. I semied the page for a year and I am waiting for more comments about what we need to do --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Guerillero: I'd recommend just leaving it with the semi for now and monitoring to see what happens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Beshogur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:AA2 :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 25 October "keep your bias to yourself"
2. 25 October Doubles down at Diyarbakir but this time removes native names in a form of a note. Disingenouous edit-summary: "pure aesthetic purpose".
3. 24 October Removes Kurdish, Armenian, Assyrian, and other native names from the Diyarbakir article. Diyarbakir has historically and continues to be a multi-cultural city. Such removals have gotten various users banned before.
4. 22 October. Insists on using Azeri names instead of the much more common Armenian names of villages in Karabakh. He then slow edit-wars to maintain this over the course of this month: 20 October, 20 October, 10 October. Even goes so far as to remove the fact that there's an Armenian school in the village [10]. It is still questionable whether Azeri forces are in control of this part of NK. Nevertheless, this is against WP:COMMONNAME and the user has been told several times already to stop doing this, let alone edit-war for it.
5. 20 October Blanket removal of loads of reliably sourced information pertaining to Azerbaijani nationalism and the Armenian Genocide on Pan-Turkism article with an edit-summary that is entirely false and misleading.
6. 20 October Consistenly refers to Artsakh forces as occupiers, the official language of the Azeri government. The long-standing consensus in AA2 articles has always been to use more netural terms like control and/or more legal terms like de facto. Beshogur has been on a spree to call the Armenian forces occupiers in many instances since the flareup of the conflict. Some other examples: 24 October, 24 October, 24 October, 22 October, 22 October.
7. 2 October Uses very questionable sources to justify military changes on the battlefield. The NK war is very fluid and to rush to judgement on the capturing of one village is disruptive, let alone edit-warring to maintain it is doubly so. Edit-warring diffs: October 3, October 3, October 3 (WP:GAME with this one as it's only 8 minutes over the 24 hour mark of the initial revert). Beshogur's edit-warring lead to him getting immediately blocked. Even after the block and another reminder of AA2, the user continues to disrupt the project and it appears that is not willing to revise his approach towards it.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 3 October blocked for disruptive edit-warring by admin Rosguill (talk · contribs)

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Warned about AA2 sanctions:

1. 25 October
2. 1 October

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Wikipedia is not a venue to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The removal of native names and the insistence with calling Armenians occupiers coupled with the edit-warring and a disruptive pattern of editing should raise alarm bells. The user has a history of edit-warring and was just recently blocked a couple of weeks ago for it.

Beshogur (talk · contribs) makes several claims in his rebuttal that must be answered. For one, he refuses to acknowledge the importance of WP:NCGN by removing anything pertaining to Armenia or Armenians in these villages as the war continues. He goes so far as to point to an ongoing discussion that he started (might I add, the WP:VOTESTACKING is quite obvious there) to which no consensus has been reached. Yet, even as the discussion continues and no consensus has been reached, he continues using the term occupation. Another fallacy in his argument is that not only did he do this before he opened that discussion, he did it after. In other words, gaining consensus does not phase him in this regard.

He then states that he only calls these villages occupied if they're outside of the NK Republic. This is false. In the 20 October diff, for example, he added this phrase to the article: "When it was under Armenian occupation, Hadrut was twinned with:" Hadrut lies plainly in NK boundaries. With that said, the term occupation is still used by him whether or not these territories are in NK boundaries.

His response for the Madagiz issue is misleading. The issue with Madagiz is not the infobox, but rather the first sentence of the article to which he changed the first sentence to the official name rather than the WP:COMMONNAME even as he was told several times to avoid doing so. The slow edit-warring of this is also a recurring problem given that he has been blocked several times for edit-warring. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[11]

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.

About occupation. Literally every international source, including OSCE minsk group mentions this as an occupation. Both Zengilan and Fuzuli cities were outside the former NKAO, and those cities had predominantly Azerbaijani majority. If you knew it, both cities' Armenian names are not its native names, but had been renamed after the Armenian occupation. (discussion about the term)

Additional note:

• Füzuli (city)'s old names: Qarabulak, Karyagin, and Varanda, named after 1993 when the city actually became a ghost town after NK war, and outside NKAO.

• Zəngilan: Pirchivan, Zengilan, and later renamed to Kovsakan after Armenian occupation, another place outside NKAO.

• Jabrayil: renamed to Jrakan after NKR war, another ghost town, and outside NKAO.

These are not traditional names used by Armenians but later renamed by an occupying state.

To clarify Madagiz yet again, I am not against that name, the problem is, you are changing "official_name=" into Madagiz. @Rosguill:, an admin, even realized that he was also wrong about that. See talk of that page. And I didn't move that page at the first place, stop putting the blame on my.

About Diyarbakir, I found a note better for an excessive name section. For the first edit, I removed it because it was already on the name section below. That's the main reason. If that was wrong, my apologizes, that was not my intention. Also I noticed that I did the same thing for Sultanate of Rum and Anatolia articles. I really don't understand how this is equal to removing the names.

For Iranian Azerbaijan. That article had been under scope of WP Azerbaijan. Removing is ok, but restoring it not?

Also I don't think it's ok to judge me of my block which is already passed. Regards.

For his second statement: Before accusing me of Votestacking, administrators are free to check my editing or mail history. I did not sent any user, nor did notify about that requested move. Beside that, I do not call only places outside NKAO occupied, I call them all. I was clarifying the name issues, these cities not being majority Armenian at the first place, and the names being changed after Armenian occupation. To clarify Madagiz yet again. I didn't move the article at the first place. I thought that it was looking weird when you had two different names. As I explained, I am not against its old name, and that had been solved on the talk page, why do you bring this up every time?

Additional note: UN: "Demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan;"

About the status of Madagiz. AJ report about Azerbaijan building road to Madagiz. Another by Euronews from inside of Madagiz. Beshogur (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: what's the reason of topic ban? Rosguill seems to agree with me on the term occupied. I have never seen those users discussing this term on the talk page. Reporting is an easy way of course. Also I am keeping my good faith, apologising if I did something wrong, but topic ban wouldn't be fair. I explained my edits. Beshogur (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beshogur is not assuming good faith when they interact with fellow Wikipedians and the compelling evidences provided by EtienneDolet make me wonder if Beshogur is here to build an encyclopedia, or rather, to be on a mission of Turkification.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How could you explain your edit. Mine is not disruptive, you're is. And what kind of conspiracy is that?

I explained my edit thoroughly in my edit-summary, just take the time to read it instead of attacking fellow Wikipedians. Your above answer alone is enough to show that you are not assuming good faith when you interact with others, and judging by EtienneDolet and HistoryofIran's comments, you have been behaving like that for a while here, on Wikipedia ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well your edit was wrong then. Again I apologize for my text. Beshogur (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it's not up to you to decide what is wrong or right, it's a matter of reliable sources and consensus.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You alone, isn't a "consensus", removing WP Azerbaijan from that page. You do not have any reliable source that shows Azerbaijan Republic isn't related to Iranian Azerbaijan. Pure original research. Beshogur (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that i alone am a consensus, again, you better read what people say instead of attacking them. Also, i would be interested to understand how a 102 years old country (Republic of Azerbaijan) can be related to a historic region that predates the Republic by centuries ? I suggest you to answer this question on the Azerbaijan (Iran) talk page.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because R of Azerbaijan is populated by same people, speaking the same tongue? Beshogur (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer on the article talk page, but your argument is clearly irrelevant.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Topic ban sounds ok, since Beshogur's editing profile appears to be biased when it comes to Turkey and surrounding areas ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beshogur has a tendency to not assume WP:GF of his fellow editors. These are two of my recent experiences with him:

1. I was removing information from Turkestan which was not WP:RS, which then led to him create a whole section just to say this:

you will almost claim that such a region does not even exist.

2. Because I was arguing that the President "Library" of Azerbaijan was not RS, because it is a country without freedom of press, (I did also say that the source cited Wikipedia and Tourism Az amongst others, which was ignored), clearly without any bad intention, my own background for some reason became involved in his following comment:

Ah throwing bait and saying that you are going to be accused of racism. And again(?) But Iran does not have freedom of press either. Considering, a lot of Iranian sources are used here. Do you have anything where it states you can not use state sources? Plus the source only states that Khankendi means City of Khan, do you really oppose that? Or didn't you like it?

--HistoryofIran (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, don't play the victim. And you do not have any proof that source is not reliable and the info being wrong. I did not further edit to avoid any dispute. Since it's usual people reporting eachother from such small things. Beshogur (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. HistoryofIran (talk)

(Beshogur) editing behaviour adjoins disruptive editing in many issues (All regarding Turkey). He likes edit warring 1 2 3 4 5 6Especially those regarding modern historical events related to Turkey. Most editors that have experienced editing disputes with him cannot asumme good faith because of their particular POV editing and peculiar way of expressing.

He also reverts other users edits calling them jokes and making non civil edit summaries that turn WP into a Battleground.1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9

Most of his edits are reverts on other users edits, by the way.

He uses minor errors on edits to revert the whole content, only because "He dont like" 1.

He have a very particular POV when editing Armenian related articles and Armenian Genocide (I.E "Nothing to do with Turkey") 1 2

Calls Amnesty International reports on Right abuses by Turkish forces "Propaganda". 1

He canvasses Admins when there is no need to 1.

When his wrongdoing is discovered or faced with diff, he just use the "racism card". Something he have done times before. August 2016 October 2020.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that reported User, keeps with his reverting behaviour 12 even he does not have a civil attitude toward other editors ("You really need to be blocked" at edit summary).3.

This user does great work with some historical and cultural articles, but I have to agree about the Turkish nationalist POV I've also seen, e.g. rewriting history, and refusing to allow the placenames of the enemy, in defiance of WP:COMMONNAME: [12] [13] [14] Konli17 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Looks like the only solution here is a topic ban from the area. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaving a comment here just to keep the case from archiving prematurely. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doug Weller: Looks like this has cooled down. Does it still require a topic ban?--RegentsPark (comment) 21:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @RegentsPark: probably not. There were some problems at one article but between Ymblanter and myself it now has 1RR. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active 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

Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Atsme 💬 📧 17:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

indef t-ban from Antifacism (United States) imposed July 22, 2019

 Nov 14, 2019 - asked Awilley's advice 
 Nov 18, 2019 - needed more clarity at ARCA
 Nov 23, 2019 - AWilley's further response to my request for advice
 May 2020, my appeal on Awilley's TP
 Awilley's denial

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

No need, I got the pings. ~Awilley (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My t-ban was imposed a year & 3 months ago. I have stayed away from the topic throughout my t-ban, but am concerned that I might inadvertently mention the words in a discussion where the topic might be raised, such as discussions at WP:RSN, WP:BLP, or WP:NPOV not to mention potential hinderances of my work at WP:NPP & AfC. I've created a few articles during the past year such as Robert H. Boyle,Christopher Demos-Brown, & Don Stewart (Bonaire activist) which quickly come to mind, reviewed/promoted a few GAs, worked a little in NPP & AfC, worked a bit in WikiProject Dogs, and tried to fix a few things in AP2, participate in some RfCs, but I don't have to convince anyone here that AP is much too controversial a topic area to spend very much time there so I try to avoid it when I can, and try to help when I can. Atsme 💬 📧 17:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a bit more for clarity

I agree for the most part that I probably should not have gotten involved in those 3 very brief instances that led to my t-ban, but then that begs the question, why did I become the target? considering I was simply trying to reach consensus by calling an RfC at Antifa (United States), and doing my job as an editor by trying to make the template on Talk: Fascism align with the lead in the article itself, and for my 2 responses to the questions of an editor who was behaving aggressively at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Willem_van_Spronsen?

I do hope editors are reading the diffs in context, and are aware of the apology I received by one of the editors I asked to DROPTHESTICK and stop gaslighting me - which is the primary reason I was t-banned.

• Editor1 apology, just before Awilley's t-ban.diff
• Editor2, who I asked to stop his disruption, and from whom I picked-up the terminology "couldn't care less" that he first used against me, and why I went to Awilley for help to stop the disruption. Why is my response to that behavior actionable but not the behavior that led to my response? diff
• Awilley redacted a BLP vio by that same editor, and took no action against him - not even a warning, right after he t-banned me. diff

Of course it saddens me to read the misrepresentations below, but it doesn't surprise me. Who wouldn't be sad and discouraged? Also troubling is the fact that some of the diffs used against me are their own comments rather than evidence of my actual behavior - just their opinions of it.

• Struthious Bandersnatch misrepresentated me in his statement below, but it actually addresses Awilley's concern re:state your case and move on. My participation on Jimbo's UTP in the section “Your thoughts on this please” re: WP:NONAZIS comprised 2 comments from me as evidenced by the following diffs in that thread:
• Oct 10, 2020 - I asked Jimmy to clarify his statement
• Oct 11, 2020 - I posted a link to an article in The Atlantic titled Anti-racist Arguments Are Tearing People Apart

Jimbo responded to the first:

• Oct 11, 2020 - Jimbo's clarification
• Newyorkbrad showed up at that thread, and asked a highly relevant question about the thread in general, Oct 13, 2020, “Is this a useful discussion?”

Bandersnatch may have been referencing the thread, Interviews with the British Prime Minister relative to The Daily Mail:

• Daily Mail discussion
• Oct 16 2020 - Jimbo's response
• Oct 16 2020 - Jimbo's conclusion which aligns with my thinking as well.
• Oct 16 2020 - my first comment
• Oct 16 2020 - my second comment further proving my behavior about stating my case and moving on. But what do UTP discussions have to do with my work on articles and article TPs relative to my T-ban? My t-ban was for Antifascism (United States), it was not a global t-ban.

More confusion stemming from Awilley's comments:

• Nov 23, 2019, wherein Awilley stated "I guess I'm a bit confused why this is all such a big deal. Anti-Fascism is an extremely small and relatively ugly part of the encyclopedia. Why is it so important that you want to spend time there? You said yourself that you'd only made 30 or so edits there. What exactly comprises the "backroom deals" he mentioned?
• May 2020, I accepted what Awilley advised me to do, and appealed to Awilley directly only to receive...
• his refusal based on a conclusion that was rather disconcerting. Read it for yourselves. From my perspective, his comment about wanting me to "rethink my approach generally", is what I see as cognitive restructuring, which goes beyond the duties of adminship. I'm really trying to do the right thing, and not get anyone in trouble. I just want to edit peacefully without being attacked, or having to defend myself, or being overly cautious about expressing my views - is that too much to ask? I'm naturally careful, but I'm feeling pressured that it's never going to be enough. Atsme 💬 📧 13:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Struthious Bandersnatch, I think it's important for uninvolved admins who may be reviewing my case to know about your behavior at Jimbo's TP, which far surpasses anything I've done in nearly 10 years of editing WP. You received a warning just a few weeks ago by admin Acroterion about your disruptive behavior at Jimbo's TP, and that you were "veering into personal attacks, which are very much an administrative concern." That behavior appears to have returned in your wall of text below relative to me. You may not realize that we are all subject to the same scrutiny while at this noticeboard. I just made you aware, so please keep that in mind. Atsme 💬 📧 18:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanamonde93, please be specific - what do you see went wrong with what I did? Please show me the diffs - I explained above that one of the editors admitted his bad behavior and apologized to ME. What are you seeing? I will be happy to fix what's broke if I know what is broke. Atsme 💬 📧 22:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreasonable? Vanamonde are you saying it is unreasonable for me to know what "backsliding into past behavior" means when the behavior was never defined? Keep in mind that "backsliding" refers to diffs dating back to 2017-2018 presented as evidence during my initial AP2 t-ban, so please help me understand how far back "backsliding" goes. Unlike the generalizations and aspersions being cast against me in some of the statements below, I need specifics as an editor who has been editing WP for nearly a decade - don't I deserve that much? My appeal was granted in early 2019 for a t-ban that was issued in 2018 based on a unilateral action by a single admin that I never got a chance to defend. It was my first t-ban but I'm not about to relitigate it - I'm just putting dates in perspective. We're closing in on 2021 and you expect me to know what backsliding behavior I'm guilty of without any diffs? Me asking editors to DROPTHESTICK and stop gaslighting me - which is exactly what they were doing - is not an actionable offense, especially when I received an apology from one of the editors. Should I not have accepted his apology? Are you talking about my 2 comments at the AfD where Editor 2 was bludgeoning and wanting answers from me so I responded to him twice - is that backsliding? Was twice considered bludgeoning? What about Editor 3 who was edit warring over the template he created that sits in the header of the article TP, and I simply pointed out that the TP template was in conflict with the article lead, and asked him to stop his disruptive behavior (edit warring) and to stop gaslighting me - is that backsliding? That article will never be stable because of that conflict. Awilley even asked him, after he t-banned me, about that template - here is the diff, see for yourself. Is that what you're referring to? C'mon, Vanamonde - year-old diffs are not even considered at the drama boards as evidence, yet the diffs used against me for "backsliding behavior" are 3 to 4 years old, and are what still hang heavily around my neck. It's a travesty. Atsme 💬 📧 01:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand why I am not allowed to participate in discussions or debates under the same conditions as other editors who are given much greater leniency, and even impunity as evidenced right here at AE. But I am not allowed to defend myself or respond to pings. Bishonen accused me of not keeping a New Year's Resolution that I made 1 yr. and 8 mos ago, and again, we see the general term "backsliding". The diffs she provided do not support her allegations. They are unrelated to my appeal, and should be dismissed. I'll explain further below but first, here are some diffs that disprove the aspersions against me relative to the Hunter Biden article. It's amazing how differently things appear when diffs are reviewed in context, and not prepended by aspersions:
  1. [15] (→‎You're at the wrong article.....: reply to ping & add supporting RS, briefly explain sitch)
  2. [16] (→‎You're at the wrong article.....: not forum, wrong venue)
  3. [17] (→‎You're at the wrong article.....: consider whether Atsme’s baseless assertion that Hunter Biden had “dealings with a communist country“ and suggestion he could pose a national security threat constitutes a malicious smear and BLP violation) - misrepresentation & PA against me, with no action against him;
  4. [18] (→‎You're at the wrong article.....: replying to the 4th ping by Soibangla - now muted) <-- hounding, perhaps his hostility toward me was because of this, which I will address further below.
  5. [19] (→‎You're at the wrong article.....: reply to ping - will not engage in off-topic discussion) <-- upholding my promise.
  6. [20] (→‎You're at the wrong article.....: reply to ping, and unkind comment to another editor by IHA, muted his pings)<-- which led to this, & this by Valereee.
• For the sake of uninvolved admins who might show up here, I think it's important to review the diffs Bishonen provided because of their irrelevance to my t-ban appeal, and further demonstrate her prejudice against me. I want full transparency without the aspersions and PAs as I prove the allegations are either fallacious, unsupported and/or unrelated to this appeal. It has been suggested that I should just leave a discussion, and not respond to pings or questions; that is walk-away behavior that speaks to "the hegemony of the asshole consensus", the paragraph that begins "It's more serious when you realize this is the basic dynamic for Wikipedia decision making and control." It's worth the read. I've demonstrated repeatedly that the diffs used against me more closely favor my appeal than repudiate it when reviewed in context, so let's look at the diff's by Bish:
  1. Bish's warning - she provided a diff to my 2019 New Year's resolution (1 yr. 8 mos ago), then mentions my participation at FoxNews which Springee & Levivich already explained well enough below, so I won't belabor it. FoxNews is irrelevant to this appeal - not even the same topic.
  2. Another diff she used was my response to Soibangla's derogatory comment about me in a discussion on my UTP that did not involve him. I supported my comment with this diff, a t-ban proposal against him that was closed as NC. Again, absolutely -0- relevance to this appeal, not to mention the fact that those diffs are poor evidence when taken in context relative to any bad behavior on my part. They are false allegations.

• What does matter here is the fact that Awilley received an email from an editor who complained about me, and Awilley took that editor's complaint at face value without saying a word to me, much less properly investigate the situation. He investigated after he t-banned me, as supported by the diffs I've already provided above. He even acknowledged that he didn't conduct proper research regarding my concerns over the disruption that provoked my response to stop gaslighting and DROPTHESTICK which is why I initially sought Awilley's help. In his words: - May 12, 2020 #3 "If you had said you thought someone was bullying you I would have looked deeper." Let that soak in as it has for me. I've grown weary of the PAs, bullying and fallacious allegations against me. I don't have anymore cheeks to turn - my detractors have already bludgeoned all 4. I've exposed the bullies, as well as the prejudiced behavior against me. I have defended my actions with supporting diffs considering I never got that chance in 2018 when Bish t-banned me from AP2 9 minutes after I started adding evidence in my defense at the start of that newly opened ARCA case where there were no smoking guns. The fact that my accusers refuse to be specific about any behavior relative to this t-ban and keep using irrelevant diffs out of context, speaks volumes. Just look at the walls of text by Struthious Bandersnatch and his attacks against other editors here. Something needs to be done about maintaining some sense of decorum, but I also know nothing will happen. I even know first-hand what WP:POV railroad looks like after nearly a decade of watching it happen right under my nose. Let the chips fall where they may. I have better things to do with my time. Atsme 💬 📧 18:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Thryduulf, so it was the apology - I shouldn't have accepted it? Now I have a much better understanding of the Gender gap at Wikipedia.18:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Beyond My Ken, your statement about me, Springee, Sir Joseph, Levivich and PackMecEng having the same ideology is a WP:PA: Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions. 18:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Tryptofish - I'll just add this: User talk:Atsme#New lesson - never assume - see the truth for yourselves. BTW, Tryptofish has retired, so I don't know why he showed up here. We used to joke all the time about Trump - I didn't see any harm in joking with the winning side for a change - on a UTP, nonetheless Atsme 💬 📧 19:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Awilley, thank you for taking notice of my concerns re: the walls of text, and the PA by BMK. For the record, I am also concerned over the aspersions by MastCell, who you've had to warn in the past for making personal comments. It is a longterm, patterned behavior of his [21], [22], especially his relentless allegations & attempts to discredit me relative to RS, which was officially reputiated [23], [24], [25], [26], and reluctantly acknowledged: "It's pretty clear to me that a) Atsme has done this and b) that she doesn't have any insight into this issue at all. But if no one else is seeing that, then hey." He refuses to accept that consensus, further demonstrating his prejudice against me. He needs to strike the following aspersions: (1) "She has continued this pattern of bludgeoning and partisan rhetoric" (2) "...using low-quality sources to push dubious or discredited partisan insinuations about a living person", (3)"Her follow-up statements are garden-variety WP:NOTTHEM stuff, blaming everyone else..."; (4) "and to instead cast herself as a victim of persecution". Atsme 💬 📧 16:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My main criteria for appeals are that 1. the editor show some amount of recognition of what the problem was that led to the ban, and 2. they make some kind of commitment to avoid the problem in the future. I haven't seen that here, otherwise the ban would be lifted by now. In this case a good appeal (IMO) might look something like the following: "I recognize that 'bludgeoning' and accusing people of gaslighting on talk pages isn't helpful. In the future if I find myself in similar stressful situations where I feel like people aren't listening or are ganging up on me I will..." (multiple choice)

• ...state my case and move on
• ...edit something else for a while and come back to it later
• ...take a break from the computer and do something I enjoy
• ...ask a trusted friend for advice
• ...put a sticky note on my monitor reminding me to assume good faith

I haven't had time to review Atsme's recent contributions other than skimming Talk:Hunter_Biden#Hunter_Biden's_alleged_laptop,_Post_Story,_and_related_topics a few days ago where things were pretty heated and she seemed to come down on the wrong side of BLPCRIME. To her credit she did ask me for advice and backed off as I suggested, so there's that. Anyway I'd feel much better about this appeal if my points 1 & 2 were addressed. @Atsme: ~Awilley (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme's topic ban was placed because of her habit of bludgeoning article talkpages with partisan rhetoric, despite previous promises to avoid such behavior ([27]).

She has continued this pattern of bludgeoning and partisan rhetoric, leading to a pointed warning from an uninvolved admin in August ("you have gone all the way back to inappropriate persistence and 'overzealousness to win'... Please go back and re-read your own appeal, Atsme, and start living up to your promises, or I will consider reinstating the topic ban.")

As recently as a week ago, she was deluging Talk:Hunter Biden, using low-quality sources to push dubious or discredited partisan insinuations about a living person, resulting in another caution from a different uninvolved admin ("It might be a good idea to step away from the Hunter Biden article for a few days... from a brief skim it looks like you're wanting to use lower quality sources to say negative things about a living person.")

Atsme summarizes this acitivty by saying she "tried to fix a few things in AP2", which seems a bit incomplete, if not misleading. To the extent that the topic ban was less about the narrow topic area (antifa) and more about a pattern of behavior, I'd like to understand why we should expect the behavior in question to have changed. Atsme, what is your understanding of why the topic ban was placed, and why the problems identified in Awilley's topic-ban notice won't recur? MastCell ^Talk 21:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks and bans are intended to prevent disruption. Admins have a responsibility to determine whether disruption is likely to recur if a topic ban is lifted. If the editor in question expresses no real insight into why the topic ban was placed or into how their behavior was disruptive, then it's irresponsible—and unfair to other constructive editors in the topic area—to lift the topic ban.

Atsme's initial statement is vague and misleading (for instance, in her representation of her contributions to American politics). Her follow-up statements are garden-variety WP:NOTTHEM stuff, blaming everyone else and accepting little or no personal responsibility—these sorts of rationales are typically speedily declined.

The disruptive behavior in question has continued outside the narrow scope of her antifa topic ban, as evidenced here and below, to the point that there was recent consideration of re-imposing her prior broad ban from American politics. While we can't read minds, we shouldn't pretend complete ignorance, either.

As for Levivich's suggestion that Atsme's topic ban hinged in part on her personal political views, that is both demonstrably false (the ban rationale was quite detailed and had nothing to do with her personal ideology) and highly irresponsible (since it enables Atsme's tendency to disclaim personal responsibility for her disruptive behavior and to instead cast herself as a victim of persecution). In my view, one of the major impediments to constructive editing on Atsme's part is the legion of enablers who turn up with arguments like these. MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, it's ironic to demand that I retract my concerns about WP:NOTTHEM in the midst of a diatribe that exemplifies those concerns. I'm happy to discuss questions about my editing, but not when they're weaponized as a diversion tactic.

From your list of demanded retractions, items #1 and #2 are supported by links immediately above to specific concerns raised by uninvolved admins about your editing, and items #3 and #4 are evaluations of your conduct in this thread, which are shared by uninvolved admins below. These are neither "personal attacks" nor unfounded aspersions and I therefore decline to retract them.

As an aside, you cite a discussion from Jimbo's talk page about comments by Ronald Reagan, in which he mocked African diplomats as "monkeys" ("damn them, they are still uncomfortable wearing shoes!"). You opined that there was nothing racist about such a comparison, and likened it to a mother lovingly scolding her children ([28]), while adding an image of an ape ([29]). It was offensive then; it's offensive now; and I don't understand why you think that those comments reflect well on you. More generally, I don't understand how you think this scattershot vituperation helps your case to have the topic ban lifted, which ultimately hinges on your ability to refrain from the behavior that led to its imposition. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1984 paper arguing that the 1950 F-scale (personality test) is "paranoid and misanthropic", comparing it unfavorably to the "Ray A scale" and an "Australian Ethnocentrism scale" (apparently the previous work of the 1984 paper's author, who our right-wing authoritarianism article mentions as a proponent of anapproach [that] is a minority position among researchers. Google Scholar lists a few dozen citations of this paper but more than half of them appear to be web pages on the author's own Tripod.com web site.
2. 2018 Slate interview with Robin DiAngelo, an academic who coined the term "white fragility"; the interviewer asks her about several right-wing figures, whom DiAngelo distinguishes as being "avowed racist[s]". She pretty obviously sees ridding oneself of racism as a life's work which is never done IMO, but still considers herself someone qualified to educate others about racism and white supremacy.
3. 2017 article by Ahmad Mansour (author) [de], an Israeli Arab German-national psychologist who specializes in de-radicalization of extremists and in opposing anti-Semitism in Islamic communities—while he says, "right-wing German groups are indiscriminately racist towards all newcomers", his reason for calling German liberals racist is that they aren't critical enough of anti-Semitism and anti-democratic attitudes among Muslims or the role of Islam in those phenomena.

@Springee: You say no one is arguing for a broad t-ban but I, for one, am definitely saying that I think the lifting of the previous AP2 t-ban merits re-consideration in the context of subsequent conduct.

@PackMecEng: I am unimpressed with the WP:Grovel essay and don't think it's helpful here; I've commented on the talk page, though with expanded content not entirely relevant to this AE case. I don't think Atsme is being asked to grovel here; some may regard insistence that one genuinely and forthrightlysee oneself objectively as a demand for groveling but I don't think that's what it is. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen the Ronald Reagan conversation which MastCell points out before, but even without the diffs to deleted content it presents a plethora of further examples of misuse of sources of the type I document above; in some instances called out there and then in the thread, again in a discussion of racism—which, even without the explicit involvement of Nazism, is a significant facet of both Fascism and anti-Fascism in Australia, the U.S. (broadly construed anyways, let's remember), and Europe. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really seeing anything presented as a reason to keep a topic ban on Antifa. Honestly the arguments against lifting the topic ban are weak, even if they were actually related to the topic at hand. From what I can tell Atsme has done very well sticking to the issues and has taken feedback whenever offered and greatly improved overall. At the end of the day it has been over a year with no infractions and with her being an overall positive contributor to the encyclopedia. I see nothing to be gained by keeping a topic ban on Antifa in place. PackMecEng (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add, after continued responses from others I think Levivich really nails the key issues here. The doubling down on old grudges and things unrelated to the topic ban at hand is a little disappointing. I am almost starting to wonder if an interaction ban might be necessary. PackMecEng (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an old essay that might be helpful here as well WP:Grovel. PackMecEng (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I have yet to see anyone actually give a reason why keeping the topic ban in place is necessary. I see some "explain what you did wrong child" kind of questions and some "well in this other area you did a thing, that while not bad, is still a thing that I do not personally like". Neither of which are actual reasons to keep a sanction in place when they have demonstrated, for well over a year mind you, that it is not needed. It is pretty much the definition of punitive not preventative, since you know, it does not appear to be preventing anything. Small end note to BMK, same argument could be made the other way. That is a stupid argument. PackMecEng (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: Lowering the temperature usually does not involve baseless attacks against a fellow editor. I mean seriously, you are equating hashtags on a YouTube video presented as a joke on a user talk page to how sources are used in articles. Even then common sense comes into play here if you think over the situation. I personally watched that Biden speech on CNN and remember laughing at that very line. If someone search for that line the one she posted is one of the first results. In the end I suppose the question is do you honestly believe your comment was helpful and if so how? PackMecEng (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm 6' 8", Etruscan, and in great health. BMK I just want to say on behalf of everyone here no, Wikipedia as a whole, that's great man. PackMecEng (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I would be surprised if her edits were not already under a microscope since the AP topic ban was lifted. I think that is especially evident with how quickly people came running with diffs on unrelated things to dump on her. PackMecEng (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The principles of "preventative not punitive" and WP:ROPE suggest lifting the TBAN. I have crossed paths with Atsme many times in AP2 and elsewhere; sometimes we agree, more often we disagree, especially about content, but I can't say I can think of an instance of Atsme being disruptive, at least not in the last couple years since I've been here. Sure, I'm part of the Left-of-Center-is-the-New-Center Coalition, so I perceive Atsme's politics as being right-of-center, but that is not a reason to tban someone from Antifa (or any other topic). Sure, Atsme was an active participant at the Fox News RSN, but there's a lot that can be said about that (in no particular order): (1) that was almost six months ago; (2) she was by far not the only editor who was that active at that thread, (3) the end result of the RFC (no consensus re: politics/science, otherwise generally reliable) was not far from what she was arguing, so it's not like she was bludgeoning at WP:1AM, her viewpoint had plenty of support; (3) multiple editors !voted "per Atsme", so at least some of our colleagues found at least some of her contributions there useful; (4) the vast majority of her contributions were properly in the discussion section and not the survey section; (5) here are Atsme's last 200 RSN edits (going back about 12 months), which prove that the Fox News RSN was an outlier, and that she has participated in other RSNs with only one or a very few comments – in fact, she didn't just sayI try to avoid it when I can, she saidI try to avoid it when I can, and try to help when I can, and her RSN contribs prove that out: she generally avoids AP2 RSN threads, and when she does participate, her participation is minimal – Fox News being the only apparent exception to that rule for at least a year if not longer; (6) She changed her vote on the NYPost RFC so it's not like she's some kind of hardcore partisan shill; and, (7) the Fox News RSN has nothing whatsoever to do with Antifa: it might be relevant to whether she should be tbanned from Fox News RSNs (no), but it's totally irrelevant to antifa. Additionally, we should not tban someone for life: compliance with the tban for six months should basically be enough to lift any tban. We should never tban someone for the political beliefs they express, or for how they !vote in RFCs, for reasons well explained at WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE. Lev!vich 19:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I wish we could get away from is the too-commonly-imposed standard,expressed and demonstrated understanding of why the topic ban was put in place. Nobody is in a position to evaluate anyone else's understanding of anything from across a computer screen. What that really is, is a request for Atsme to write a personal reflective essay that personally convinces the admin(s) evaluating the appeal. This is not a fair thing to ask somebody; it tests people on their writing ability, which is irrelevant to the question at hand. The only thing that's relevant is is the sanction necessary to prevent disruption, and so we can look at whether there are signs of disruption in the topic area or elsewhere, or signs of non-disruptive productive editing elsewhere, but not at how well an editor can write a mea culpa. Also, admin shouldn't position themselves as a parole board or as judges of editors' understanding or state of mind. No admin was elected because of how well they can peer into an editor's soul. Admin are not therapists or behavioral specialists or in any way qualified to determine if someone is "sorry enough" or if they "get it". Admin should respond to actions, they shouldn't judge people. (This applies to unblock requests as well as sanctions appeals.) Lev!vich 07:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I sentence you to a lifetime of holding an umbrella, to protect us all from the rain," the admin said.

"But it's not raining anymore!" the editor exclaimed.

"That's because you're holding an umbrella," the wise admin replied. Lev!vich 17:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I'm progressive a totalitarian gay leftist who oppresses and silences conservatives; so much for BMK's theory. Lev!vich 21:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Atsme's request, she is not so much requesting (at lest not explicitly) permission to resume active editing about Antifa, but rather, she does not want to risk falling victim to a "gotcha" situation while engaging on the periphery of the topic area:[I] am concerned that I might inadvertently mention the words in a discussion where the topic might be raised, such as discussions at WP:RSN, WP:BLP, or WP:NPOV not to mention potential hinderances of my work at WP:NPP & AfC. I can see two sides to this issue. On the one hand, there is no question that Atsme is, on the whole, a very good contributor, and it is quite understandable that one would worry about falling victim to a "gotcha". It seems to me that AE should endeavor to lower the temperature around American Politics (as should a whole lot of people and institutions beyond the digital walls of Wikipedia these days). I would like the result here to help lower that temperature. On the other hand, it is reasonable to take a hard look at "I might inadvertently mention the words in a discussion where the topic might be raised". Although everyone can make a mistake, no one who is really taking a T-ban seriously is going to "inadvertently" post about that topic, or take part at all in a discussion that may be about it, so long as they think before hitting save.

I think the restriction should be left in place. I mean no disrespect to Atsme when I say that, and I think she can do loads of good while steering clear of the topic. But I would also like to reassure her about the "gotcha" risk. I hope that this AE discussion will be closed with a statement, that can be linked to whenever needed, that specifies that she may self-revert any post that might otherwise run afoul, without facing additional sanctions, so long as she does so before anyone else initiates a formal complaint. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reluctant to add anything more, even with the continued discussion. And I know that Atsme, while asking for relevant examples, wasn't asking me. But, as much as I like you personally Atsme and as much as I continue to insist that, outside of American Politics, you are an excellent member of the editing community, I'm going to give a specific example. Just the other day, Atsme and I had a brief and quickly resolved quarrel at our user talk pages. Atsme posted this: [30], and I reacted briefly with anger. For convenience, here is the link within that link: [31]. It's a brief clip of Biden saying that he supports truth and science over fiction, after which he misspeaks and says "truth over facts". Here is a source describing it as a slip of the tongue: [32]. If you look at Atsme's YouTube link, it was posted by "#triggered#TeamTrump". Here's our page on what that is: Triggered (book). So Atsme linked to something misleading that is found by looking within the "Trump bubble". And that's recent. In fact, after posting her appeal here at AE, so you can't get more recent than that. I'll stipulate that it was in user-space and not main space, and that she was just joking around, not citing it as an RS. (And that I've been saying some strong things in user-space myself recently, including this: [33] and [34].) So I'm not saying that she did that in respect to content. But who is even looking at that stuff? It's the kind of thing that makes other editors uncomfortable with her approach to source material where it does matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's no surprise (alas) that what I just posted here has led to a lot of reaction. This isn't about whether I have particular responsibilities to editors who are my friends as opposed to other editors (per a comment elsewhere). I really don't care what editors think about politics, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it does matter how editors communicate with one another about source material, and whether they appear to be aware of how they are using sources. As I said in my initial post, I want to lower the temperature – but lowering the temperature does not mean telling everyone "yes". We are only dealing here with a very narrow editing restriction, nothing sweeping or devastating and not the ultimate throw-down between Team Biden and Team Trump. If we were considering some broader sanction against Atsme, I'd have been saying something very different, but we aren't. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please post diffs of specific recent examples of what editors are concerned about. Without specifics, it's too difficult to understand what the problem is.

OK, here's a recent diff and an explanation of why it concerned me.

OK, now I understand. Thanks for explaining. Going forward, let's do xyz and see if that makes it better. Those are baseless attacks! Everyone is in their respective bubble, so you can't say there are bubbles!

Well, I guess it is what it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Thanks for that, and thanks for generally being helpful in this discussion. What you point out is exactly why I also said what I did about explicitly allowing for self-reverts to avoid a "gotcha", something I still am in favor of. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I'm a Lophiiformes and very good-looking. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked with this editor on the improvement of a number of articles far removed from current politics, I find them to be a pleasure to collaborate with, and I understand their concern that a loosely-enough worded prohibition can be interpreted to catch innocent activities that are far beyond the scope that an editor might reasonably understand to apply. Since the current votes seem skeptical about lifting the prohibition entirely, I propose a compromise: change it to a substantially narrower prohibition specifically limited to the article in question (Antifa (United States)), or some specified set of articles that are directly of concern, which would probably not be more than a half-dozen. We can then revisit the issue in six months or so to see whether a continued restriction is warranted at all. BD2412 T 06:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: I think it's problematic to characterize another editor as being in any given "bubble". The fact of the matter is that Google and YouTube and the various social media sites employ algorithms that cater to the interests of the individual users. Therefore, people who like either "side" in the political contest will be given content that supports their own view. That's precisely, for example, why Trump supporters are legitimately having a hard time believing he lost the election, but also why Biden supporters are having a hard time believing that it wasn't really the landslide they were led to expect. It's not because anyone is choosing to be in a bubble, but because the algorithms reinforce the bubbles towards which everyone leans. BD2412 T 19:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Levivich. Blocks are meant to protect, not punish. What is Atsme doing that requires Wiki-protection. If the worst thing we can say is that Atsme made a lot of civil comments in a very long discussion of Fox News. We aren't supposed to tban people because they disagree. There is zero evidence that she has disruptively editing the article space since the primary t-ban was lifted. That others don't always find her arguments for/against content convincing shouldn't be a justification for a tban but that is what it looks like. I support Dennis Brown's view that the t-ban should be lifted. However, if others aren't persuaded perhaps the compromise solution suggested above? Reduce the tban to specific articles with an automatic expiration in 6-months if there are no new issues. Springee (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something in particular about the topics in question that is an issue or is expected to be an issue? Do editors who support continuing the Tban think that, assumed lifted, Atsme will go into this topic areas and cause issues that would require later intervention? I'm asking because the arguments for keeping the Tban sound like those that would apply if this were a broad AP2 or similar Tban. I get some editors can't handle the broad topic of contemporary politics or climate change or firearms (etc). However this is a relatively narrow Tban hence why I would ask if there is something about this area in particular vs say AP2 that is the issue here. If an editor is generally disruptive we normally see a board topic block (ie AP2 - broadly construed). No one is arguing such a broad tban would be needed so why is a narrow one preventative vs just punitive at this point? I mean how many years has it been? I would suggest in fairness the admins supporting the continued tban should say what Atsme needs to specifically do to show the ban is no longer needed. It's unfair to an editor to maintain a tban without a clear path forward. Springee (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Levivich. If Atsme has shown that she can participate for several months without incident, then we should re-evaluate the need for a TBAN. I disagree with Awilley that one must acknowledge their wrongdoing before a TBAN is overturned. In many cases, there was no wrongdoing, yet they abided by the TBAN, which is good enough. I have no idea if that is the case here, but someone who abides by the TBAN and is now asking for an evaluation, is what we want from editors. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since I started using this umbrella, I haven't gotten wet once. This is proof that there is no need for this umbrella. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Floq. Noting also that a number of the defenders of Atsme are editors who are of roughly the same political ideology, specifically Springee, Sir Joseph, Levivich and PackMecEng. Their comments seem to me to be pro forma and based on PoV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PackMecEng: It is a commonplace among political scientists that if you put three leftists in a room and wait awhile, they'll create 5 political parties that, in the end, most of them will disavow. It's not that way on the other side of the aisle, unfortunately. It's simply not a symmetrical situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: It's not in any respect a "personal attack", it's merely a description of the relationship between you and the other editors, and would hold no matter what ideology you shared. Their comments are not being "discounted", I am suggesting that they need to be weighed for their value given that relationship, their being part of the "legion" of your "enablers" MastCell described in their comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm 6' 8", Etruscan, and in great health. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support lifting the topic ban per Dennis. I fail to see how Atsme's record is anywhere near as bad as a plethora of bad actors who are currently allowed to regurigate their opinions and force their garbage into BLPs and elsewhere primarily by cherry picking news briefs lacking academic peer review or the test of time. Beyond My Ken's sweeping allegations of bias by named person above should be sticken and he should face sanctions.--MONGO (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mastcell referring to a certain admin above as "uninvolved" is truly comical, but is easily surpassed by his insinuation that Atsme is a racist. Atsme...I recommend you shut this request down. Let them have their petty penalties.--MONGO (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat lector: I have a high regard for Atsme as an editor, but I also disagree with most of what they were arguing at Antifa [35], and if I had been active there, I would have been arguing against Atsme too. That out of the way: going through the diffs leading to Atsme's sanction, I can see that the discussion was a little heated (fascism tends to do that), but it's clear Atsme was frequently responding in kind, e.g. [36][37]. As Atsme points out, it doesn't seem that the discussion tenor was unsalvageable [38], and frankly, looking at the talk page [39], Atsme is the kind of editor you'd hope to have disagreeing with you: she cites sources, quotes from them, and in general is a capable scholar, which is why she's been such a successful editor. I understand the motivation behind Awilley's sanction, but per other comments here, there's just no strong evidence that Atsme is really causing "disruption," unless having someone disagree with you is disruptive (it's not). Based also on the very strong reasoning of Dennis Brown, Springee, Levivich and PackMecEng, I think this sanction should be lifted. -Darouet (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been a little uncomfortable with our requirement that anyone asking for a lifting of a block or ban seems to need to do a complete mea culpa, saying, "Yes, you're right, I was wrong in ways A, B, and C, just as you said." I don't think it's necessary to require that for us to believe that the person in question understands why their editing was considered disruptive and for them to be able to now know how to edit without being disruptive.

It may feel unrelated to some here, but I -- a progressive in the US -- am also very concerned about what seems to me our tendency to treat conservative voices more strictly. I am not saying that's what happened here, and I don't have any diffs to support this feeling. I am saying that maybe we, as an organization that quite likely does have an unconscious liberal bias, should try to err on the side of encouraging conservative voices and maybe even accepting the fact that when someone is in the minority, they might be a bit snappish. I believe we should consider that in the name of encouraging diversity here. I would like us to give Atsme enough rope. —valereee (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, re: no one who is really taking a T-ban seriously is going to "inadvertently" post about that topic; I've seen it happen with an editor who was clearly taking their t-ban seriously and was freaked out when they realized they'd inadvertently broken it. I don't think it's an unreasonable fear. —valereee (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support lifting tban - It's been over a year, didn't see any problems since the tban was put in place, she knows the consequences if she goes back and starts problems in that topic area. It's been plenty long enough to extend a second chance. My confidence is high that this productive editor will be ok. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: After reading the comments and concerns, I'm still of the mindset that we can lift the restriction. Again, she knows the consequences if she reverts to problematic editing. We don't require that editors be saints to have restrictions lifted, just demonstrate that they aren't really needed anymore, and it my opinion, she has demonstrated this. To continue the restrictions when there hasn't been a breach in that topic area, and the editor has shown to be productive in several other areas, begins to appear punitive rather than preventative. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm very dubious about lifting the ban. Atsme's roughly 75 edits to the Fox News RfC this summer contrasts both with her claim above that she tries to avoid AP when she can, and with the promises she made in order to have the larger topic ban, from the whole of AP, lifted in February 2019: "If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas." It seems likely that the comments the RfC closers made about bludgeoning referred principally to Atsme (possibly to others as well): "There was a very large amount of what we considered to be bludgeoning from certain participants of this RFC.". I warned Atsme in August 2020 about this egregious backsliding from her promises,[40] and AFAICS she has been a little more circumspect since then. That would be the last two and a half months only. She says nothing about this in her appeal here, and I frankly think her description of her participation in AP is rather misleading, if only by omission. Well, actually not only by omission. I see her dissing a reliable source here and here in October. And when I saw her input in this thread on Talk:Hunter Biden, suggesting that The Washington Examiner (the publisher of the 'Hunter Biden laptop scandal', if you remember) is just as reliable as NYTimes, WaPo and CNN, I started to consider posting a new warning to her. Her comments in the entire thread are very interesting in relation to her demure claim above to "try to avoid [AP] when I can, and try to help when I can". Is it really the same person talking..? My point is that Awilley's TBAN was well-considered, and needs to stay, lest there is yet more backsliding from Atsme. IMO she is very good at abiding by topic bans, but quite bad at keeping herself from tendentious editing on her own. Bishonen | tålk 22:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Atsme: I notice Atsme refers several times above to her "2019 New Year's resolution" and how I warned her about it, which makes it sound as if I was sticking my nose into her private business. That's not the case. I was warning her about straying from the promise she made to the community when appealing a topic ban from Am Pol.[41] A promise that worked, presumably because it sounded heartfelt; the t-ban was lifted with a warning about backsliding. It's not my business or the community's business if the t-ban appeal was also a personal New Year's resolution. Bishonen | tålk 14:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• I've not interacted much with Atsme, but after reading this appeal and the comments by others I'm strongly leaning towards declining at this point. This is per the lack of expressed and demonstrated understanding of why the topic ban was put in place, the need for multiple reminders about bludgeoning (including rather recently) and the discrepancy between stated intent to avoid the AP area and the observed behaviour of not doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far from convincing me to change my mind, Atsme's comments since mine have actually convinced me of the opposite. There is no attempt to analyse the recent incidents discussed by others with a view to explaining why they might appear to be problematic and how, going forwards, they would do things differently to avoid that impression - instead it's large amounts of text disclaiming any responsibility on the grounds that everything is some other users' fault. Decline. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Atsme: I have literally no idea why you think either accepting an apology and/or the gender of anybody is at all relevant to the reasons for my opinion here? Seriously I am completely baffled. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I get along fine with Atsme, but I'm unconvinced that this tban should be lifted. When granting an appeal of any kind I like to see an editor demonstrate a minimal understanding of what went wrong and explain why it won't go wrong again in the future. Absent such an understanding recidivism is a serious problem, and this is why both lifting a TBAN for time served, and imposing time-limited TBANs, is a bad idea. The statement by Atsme above demonstrates no such understanding and makes no such explanation. And I strongly disagree with Levivich's contention that this is an exercise in persuasive writing, and is therefore a bad thing. You do not need to write deathless prose to convince an admin that you won't repeat a past mistake. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atsme, that's an unreasonable question, unless you're arguing that there was no basis for this TBAN in the first place. Either you're appealing it on the merits, in which case, you need to address why the diffs presented when Awilley placed the sanction [42] are not sanctionable, or your appealing because the ban is no longer necessary, in which case you've to persuade us that it's no longer necessary. I'm not going to go looking for diffs to justify a sanction the validity of which, when imposed, no one has challenged here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, Atsme, I can't give that much weight when there was recent behavior clearly cited by Awilley when applying the TBAN, and when Bishonen (among others) has shown that you struggled to stay away from making numerous posts to an RfC. My position remains unchanged. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the quantity of posts above, I skimmed the Fox News RfC, which occurred five months ago, for Atsme's contributions. Her participation in that RfC alone is replete with bludgeoning, whataboutism, and false equivalence issues. The comment that stood out was the assertion that because academics tend to be "liberal" in their views, scholarly analyses of Fox News were biased, and "don't magically turn opinions into facts", something which runs contrary to how WP:RS and WP:NPOV are written. Which is in addition to the fact that she said she'd move on after casting a !vote in an RfC. And I'm really not interested in hearing more allegations about other editors; if their conduct is in question, we can examine it in a separate discussion. Still a decline from me. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above discussion is quickly getting out of hand. I'm not currently seeing consensus to grant the appeal. @Dennis Brown, Bishonen, Thryduulf, and Liz: Unless one of you has anything more to add, or more uninvolved admins weigh in in the next 24 hours, I'll close this appeal as declined. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it would be a wise move to lift this topic ban which I think serves to protect both the article and Atsme. But if it is lifted, Atsme, I hope you realize that your edits will be subject to a great deal of scrutiny. You might prefer to not to edit under a microscope rather than have this limited topic ban lifted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Crossroads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Struthious Bandersnatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 02:20, 6 November 2020 WP:POV, WP:OR: Refers to a single activist's comment as "many commentators", against WP:WEASEL, and inserted a POV claim (not in the source) that the "motivating characteristic of policing as it is known" is "a disparate number of lethal encounters with unarmed citizens of color".
2. 06:37, 6 November 2020 POV: Removed sourced material about how a "number of community groups" opposed police abolition in Minneapolis.
3. 07:32, 6 November 2020 POV, OR: Adds material not in the source ("black liberation", etc.), replacing the source's description of the group, with a misleading edit summary ("missing words").
4. 10:52, 6 November 2020 WP:PA, failure to WP:AGF: In the article on the group I noticed that same unusual phrase with no article or clear definition on Google, "black liberation". I tagged this as vague in the hope that the article's recent creator would make it more understandable. Here, Struthious Bandersnatch scolds me for it.
5. 05:08, 7 November 2020 (2nd half) I dropped the matter at the group's article, but the editor continues scolding me at the unrest article about that phrase, making bizarre unfounded accusations.
6. 06:12, 12 November 2020 (last part) Yet more scolding, including the severe PAyou have a really low bar for what constitutes an education, by the way.
7. 21:19, 12 November 2020 Doubles down on that PA, then rants.
8. 03:05, 13 November 2020 After another editor criticizes their behavior, Struthious Bandersnatch continues attacking me.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• diff

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't have a real history with this editor; I've only directly interacted with them about this topic and in the last 7 or 8 days. Yet, it has been entirely negative. Diffs 4 through 8 came about simply because I thought the term "black liberation" was confusing to readers, being vague and politically-charged jargon. I had never heard it all summer, and I keep up with the news a lot. "Liberation" is a political buzzword, not encyclopedic language. And editors shouldn't have to put up with this sort of POV pushing, self-righteous grandstanding, and attacks. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, to emphasize, I am now being called "brazenly and blatantly racist" and my behavior "extremely disgusting" because I thought a two-word phrase was poor wording, and because I replied a few times about it on a talk page. Really, the diffs and now the latest comment speak for themselves. With BRD, I didn't give that as the reason to revert; I gave other reasons and said that in addition because the editor had tried twice (edit warred) to insert this group's view in an odd place: [43][44] Crossroads ^-talk- 09:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I can hardly believe this user is still doubling down on this. This is against basically every user conduct policy, going way beyond even casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Their vision of Wikipedia is a totalitarian rule of fear, under which any honest critique of wording could mean being denounced for racism. They reveal an attitude of righting great wrongs and advocacy rather than building an encyclopedia. Of course, we don't give any weight to fringe views that racism doesn't exist, nor do we tolerate expressions of racism. To actually educate readers on the specifics of how these social issues work and how people propose to combat them, editors have to be able to debate and critique one another's text without being denounced, e.g. if such text was using platitudes that most readers will find unfamiliar. Honestly, I'm a bit worried that admins might be tempted to downplay this, because the editor claims to be fighting racism, and fighting racism is good. But this is not the way. No one editor has all the answers, is this righteous and perfect, or has the right to dictate things like this. Wikipedia cannot operate like that. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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.

Responding to diffs, same order as above:

1. As I said in my subsequent edit summary 06:37, 6 November 2020obviously “a disparate number of lethal encounters with unarmed citizens of color” was a characteristic of policing which the “end policing as we know it” resolution was motivated to address
2. I thought the valid parts of your phrasing,It had been rejected by a plurality of residents in public opinion polls and an increasing number of community groups, and incremental reforms took its place were adequately captured, with more fidelity to the source, in my rewriteA newspaper poll showed that a plurality of residents opposed decreasing the size of the police force and city councilors cited alarm from business owners and residents in more affluent areas of their wards who feared for their safety, as beliefs anticipating an immediate end to the police department proliferated. If you would like to add something along the lines of "In September 2020 The New York Times stated that an increasing number of community groups rejected the pledge" feel free. (Or of course, proceed with normal editing of the article—I don't have any say over that other than the prerogatives of a rank-and-file editor.)
3. This was discussed at length at Talk:2020 United States racial unrest § Minneapolis-related content in section "Defund the police" and Crossroads is writing here as if he did not read any of my comments in regards to this edit, and has forgotten himself tagging the source of my description of the group in question, Wikipedia's own article on the Black Visions Collective of Minneapolis. (Though he addresses that in the next list item.)
4. I did, in fact, assume good faith here, and offered Crossroads links to Wikipedia articles and books available at the Internet Archive about black liberation. But he has failed to demonstrate good faith and has continued to make absurd claims about the phrase “black liberation”, which as I have pointed out repeatedly in the aforementioned talk page thread is so straightforward in meaning thatit's what Wiktionary policy would call a “sum of parts”, simply a combination of “black” and “liberation” so that it's not even eligible for its own entry in the dictionary. (full disclosure: I added the “Demonstrate good faith” section of WP:AGF more than a dozen years ago.)
5. This is actually the diff in which I acceded to the phrase “black liberation” being removed from the unrest article—if you look at the above talk page thread, despite the term being deleted, it's actually Crossroads who continues discussing it and keeps insisting it's somehow an aberrant phrase. My criticism of his rhetoric is entirely well-founded and it is his fixation with finding some way to indict the term that is bizarre.
6. I was responding to a comment in which Crossroads literally said he wasnot bothering with that other article—the four-paragraph-long article about the organization which we'd been in the process of writing about—in the talk page of which I'd written one sentence and a handful of links, and he was protesting at the evidently dreadful eventuality that a reader might have to “educate [them]self” on the meaning of “black liberation”—again, a non-idiomatic two-word phrase. “Low bar” is an extremely apt description.
7. Not even worth responding to, really.
8. It is incontrovertibly true that “Rhetorical sophistry and misleading claims after being presented with copious quantities of reliably-sourced material about a topic are definitely the sort of thing that needs to be commented on, rather than ignored as if it isn't happening.” And the essay at meta I linked to is quite apropos for someone acting as if they didn't notice.

I'd note that this whole thing started with him, in the course of reverting an edit of mine, patronizingly telling me to “Follow WP:BRD”—BRD being a policy supplement which explicitly states,BRD is never a reason for reverting. This is the context in which his honor and pride has been so grievously wounded by my subsequent “scolding”, so aggrieved that he feels the need to take up the time of everyone reading this with a tale of woes.

Crossroads, I've been holding back in criticizing you. Your obsession with finding something dismissive to say about the term “black liberation”, even once it was no longer in the article, has been brazenly and blatantly racist and watching it play out has been extremely disgusting. Picking up negativity towards you was quite an accurate perception. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 08:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new objective of mine during the last month or so has been to persuade the community that Wikipedia policy should proscribe non-insult, non-vandalism expressions of racism and other forms of bigotry. (A goal I arrived at when I realized we don't even use the word "racism" in written policy anywhere, when I previously assumed we did.)

Crossroads's display at the article talk page and here exemplifies my motivation, because this isn't just general and omnidirectional expression of racism in talk space: this is racism about encyclopedia content itself. Note that he still is refusing to concede, even here and now, that “black liberation” is a legitimate or descriptive term for the goals of the Black Visions Collective or all of the other things he has been informed that it describes.

If, as a community, we are actually committed to eliminating racial bias on Wikipedia and being a friendly space, we cannot set the expectation that editors have to be demur and non-confrontational in the face of racism for the sake of etiquette. Etiquette being paramount above all else is not compatible with those other goals.

Hyperenforcement of etiquette rules while giving a free pass to pedestrian racism is par for the course for an establishment web property of the early twenty-first-century but I would like to think that Wikipedia can do better than the rest. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the pro forma denunciation of racist insults and vandalism, and you still just can't bring yourself to admit that “black liberation” is a completely straightforward term that has even appeared as a theme in pop music for somewhere between half a century and ~150 years or even earlier. This does not require righteous perfection.

The section of the WP:NONAZIS essay you link to talks about accusations of “racist trolling and vandalism”—but that's not what I'm saying: you are articulating a racist attitude towards what our encyclopedia should say, an attitude of the type that is quite obviously the cause of racial bias on Wikipedia.

Earlier on I might've said your racist attitude could quite possibly be a matter of unconscious racism, but that possibility grows slimmer by the moment.

Despite your fears of a terrifying totalitarian future where everyday racism is called out on Wikipedia, I don't personally think it should be a zero tolerance kind of thing most cases, like insults and vandalism should be. (Funny how the prohibitions on insults and vandalism don't make for a totalitarian dystopia, just the possibility of all racism being frowned upon to make this a friendlier space.)

I'll close by pointing out that the NONAZIS section you linked to ends with,Editors making reports for extremist racism or edits with more subtle expressions of racism that can be substantiated with diffs should bring them forward to administrators without fear of sanctions or blocks. (emphasis mine) But I wasn't even the one who brought all of these diffs into a forum for discussing user conduct—you did. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 10:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: I obviously don't believe this is merely a matter of differing opinions. To me, for Crossroads to seek to characterize the term “black liberation” as too-specific technical “WP:JARGON” and at the same time as “vague” and “meaningless” and “WP:PEACOCK language” or as a mere “platitude”, or as an “apparent neologism” all after it's been pointed out to him that there are half-century-old books with “black liberation” in their title, and to persist in seeking some way to invalidate the term well after it was removed from the article in question—I mean “platitude” is from here, earlier today, a week afterwards—is not just being intellectually quirky or something. To me, it's clearly the same thing as the repeated insistence that the Benin Bronzes just don't seem to fit in the surroundings they were found in, for example.

But, maybe it's all just me. Perhaps what's out of place is me, expressing disgust at racism in a Wikipedia forum for discussing user conduct if AGF demands that such things not be done. Again, IMO, it comes down to whether etiquette or effectively dealing with racial bias on Wikipedia takes precedence. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I like and respect SarahSV, I think she may not have been following along closely in the diff Stonkaments links to (understandably, because that is a sprawling and circuitous issue due to repeated deceptiveness atop deceptiveness) in which she chastised me for using the word “lying” on Stonkaments's talk page: she was writing this at the bottom of an ANI report in which, initially up at the top, I'd already described the same incident as a case of WP:SHAMCONSENSUS and asa matter of lying about a lack of consensus, but did not seem to acknowledge that I was simply repeating this. Nevertheless, I have refrained from using that specific word subsequently. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today Crossroads edited the article Transphobia, deleting the last four words of the initial sentence, “Transphobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes, feelings or actions towards transgender people or transness in general”, claiming in the edit summaryThat's not a word, though, nor is it clear how that differs from the previous phrase. I think I'm sensing a pattern here.

Not only is wikt:transness quite a real word which has had a Wiktionary entry for half a decade, I found and added a quarter-century-old example of its use. A Wikipedia search even shows cited evidence that the English word has inspired vocabulary in other languages. I guess I have to thank Crossroads, though, for inadvertently introducing me to the Digital Transgender Archive, which is an absolutely incredible resource.

Even if Wikipedia's official position is that non-insult, non-vandalism expressions of racism and transphobia are totally fine on this project, for an editor to edit encyclopedia content on the basis that a word, which we ourselves document the existence of, does not exist, is disruptive editing. And it's also a bunch of the P&G violations I was accused of in the initial diffs list above. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been the target of recent hostility from Struthious Bandersnatch. They are continuing to make accusations that I have acted dishonestly and deceptively and in poor faith[45][46][47], even after I refuted their claims. I'm a relatively new editor, and I'm sure there are many ways in which I can improve my editing, but this sort of hostility is very off-putting. Struthious Bandersnatch seems to have a very hard time with WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY on polarizing issues. Stonkaments (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struthious Bandersnatch continues to make poor faith assumptions and accusations of intentional deception[48] even after being told by an admin to cut it out. Stonkaments (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm not sure about the initial complaint - e.g. this is grouchy but hardly a severe personal attack. But the strident charges on this page ("brazenly and blatantly racist ... extremely disgusting") seem to call for some response. As far as I can see, these accusations against Crossroads are without merit. Having looked through the diffs it seems to me that just about everything in the original content disputes is something reasonable people can disagree on. The idea that lowering the bar for accusations of racism will make Wikipedia "a friendlier space" seems misguided. The principle that enables us to work together is WP:AGF and editors should be held to that. Haukur (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Zarcademan123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:A/I/PIA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 4:52, 3 November 2020 Topic-ban-violation on Al-Jiftlik: After that, I told him 20:22, 3 November 2020 "AFAIK, you are still topic-banned from the I/P-area, so how come you thinks it is ok to do edits like this? Please undo, or risk a report to WP:AE". He never answered me, nor did he undo his edit.
2. 18:34, 15 November 2020: Changed "Israeli-occupied Jerusalem" to " East Jerusalem" on Givat HaMatos-article.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 19:03, 27 August 2020 topic-ban (from Palestine-Israel articles) was extended to indefinitely, after this discussion

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Diffs says it all, Huldra (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• This looks like very clear repeated breaches of a topic ban. It could be met either with an AE block for up to one year or with a normal indefinite block. I suggest that the repeated nature of the breaches and the failure to respond to recent warnings would indicate a one-year AE block might be appropriate. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The topic ban notice and 1 September 2020 two-week block for breaching it are as clear as possible. I agree with RexxS that a one-year AE block is required, noting that the indefinite topic ban will still apply. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I blocked for 1 year --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active 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

Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the American politics topic area, imposed at User talk:Bus stop#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#American politics 2

Administrator imposing the sanction

Bishonen (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.

I am requesting a review of my topic ban. Some information on that can be found here. I've already requested a review of my topic ban here. The ANI thread is here. My commitment of course is not to WP:BLUDGEON in the future. If this is the wrong place to be posting this or if I've posted this improperly, please bring this to my attention. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the proper procedure here is. But GorillaWarfare is asking if"they genuinely can't see their own behavior for what it is". I am admitting to the charge of WP:BLUDGEON. Therefore I am seeing the reason for the topic ban for"what it is". There are a multitude of points on a political spectrum represented by the editors here. Disagreement is hardly out of the ordinary. But overaggressiveness is not welcome. I apologize for my repetitiveness and vociferousness and I commit to more moderate speech. Thank you for the adjustment to the way I formatted this, GorillaWarfare, and I am now notifying Bishonen. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss—how am I making myself"seem the aggrieved party"? By admitting wrongdoing? I participated in an overly aggressive way at Talk:Parler and I am committed to not participating in an overly aggressive way in the future at any article's Talk page. This I am stating sincerely. I don't know why you are referring to anything I have said as"boilerplate". I can't state what I am stating more clearly. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to you, Mandruss, as opposed to debating you. I am simply saying I did not present myself as"the aggrieved party". Bus stop (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss—it would not be"obtuse" of me to point out that just because you perceive something as"boilerplate" that it actually is"boilerplate". Bus stop (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG—your input is over the top. It is too much of a bother to track down your offenses. You've said"These are prominent radical right figures whose response to protests over the killing of Black people is to downplay them, the "all lives matter" approach." That is found here. You are an administrator? You wrote""If black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter, they would be protesting outside of Planned Parenthood" casts BLM in the light of the hyper-privileged mindset of anti-abortion activism." Same page."To place anti-abortionism, as Kirk does, above the murder of Black Americans by police, is grotesque. Kirk opposes the death penalty but only because it is more expensive than life in prison. He doesn't seem to care very much about non-privileged lives." Same page. You are not cognizant this is an encyclopedia. You refer to Andy Ngo as a "neo-fascist apologist"[49]. What? You should be banned before I am banned. Bus stop (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint—does it not occur to you that administrators, some of them, are part of the problem? I cannot be trusted but an administrator using this platform, combined with their authority, to launch verbal diarrhea such as references to"the hyper-privileged mindset of anti-abortion activism"[50] can be trusted? I fail to understand that. I am saying"I commit to no more bludgeoning". That is plain English. As Boing! said Zebedee correctly points out, I have said it before. I am saying it now. The English language does not change, at least not in this short amount of time. Is JzG even addressing their association of "anti-abortion activism" with "hyper-privilege", which sounds suspiciously like white privilege? JzG is an administrator who needs their wings clipped. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually was not keenly cognizant of WP:NOTTHEM, Black Kite. I may have seen it before but I'm not sure. I vociferously and repeatedly argued a point at the Parler article. And I am conceding that. Administrators are not above doing the same. Why aren't problematic administrators challenged as to the propriety of their everyday pronouncements? A problem that I am pointing out is problematic administrators. That should not be overlooked. That is too serious a problem to be glossed over. Nor is this an excuse for my everyday pronouncements. I vociferously and repeatedly argued a point at the Parler article. Should I have done that? No. I was wrong. I was wrong. I apologize. I apologize. I'm being repetitive. I'm being repetitive. I'm being vociferous. I'm being vociferous. Mandruss had it right:"boilerplate", but not on my part. I am using English to express points that I genuinely think need expressing, but what I'm reading here and at other venues is "text (copy) that can be reused in new contexts or applications without significant changes to the original". Another way of putting that is I am speaking to you as a human being and you—not you specifically, Black Kite—are speaking to me like a heartless machine. It isn't too early for me to be requesting this un-ban. The timing is entirely appropriate. This is a request to be un-banned. I am articulating a commitment not to WP:BLUDGEON in the future. I am admitting wrongdoing for BLUDGEONING at Talk Parler. I am not admitting wrongdoing for a ton of other things that my detractors have implied are applicable to me. I'm tempted to repeat that but I'll resist the temptation. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent—I'm not"venting" when I say or imply that administrators ought to act like they are above the fray. Too many administrators use their enhanced influence to push politically motivated narratives. These concern the usual array of factors including religion and race and ethnicity. There is always an angle. Unless I am describing the curvature of a vase in an art article, I would be in violation of a "post-1932 American politics" topic ban. Yet on the other hand we commonly have administrators—not all, but some—putting their finger on the scale of myriad articles that ultimately impinge upon subjects like religion and race and ethnicity. Is it germane to my un-block request? Yes, I think it is. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wordsDid you watch the hearings yesterday in which Ted Cruz grills Jack Dorsey? would definitely fall under the heading of "post-1932 American politics". You are right about that, Iridescent, but I wasn't addressing that. I won't reiterate what I was addressing. You go on to say"Despite what some may claim, Wikipedia welcomes people of all political opinions, but what we don't welcome is people of any persuasion who feel that their personal opinions are objective truth and they're justified in using any means necessary to force them everyone else, and I'm starting to get a strong whiff of that here." I can assure you I don't think my"personal opinions are objective truth". Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as a posited"hope everyone else will get tired and let you have your way" that is definitely not the case in fact the opposite is the case—it is I who am"tired" of requesting that I be unblocked. Have it your way. I recognize consensus. Maybe tomorrow if this is still open I will weigh in again. But I have other things to do. You know—in real life? Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam—it is my strongly held opinion that administrators should be held to much higher standards than non-administrator editors. An administrator's role is to inject policy concerns into discussions that non-administrator editors might be having. An administrator's role is not to spearhead change—especially not change of a highly political nature. Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG—your dialogue enters the realm of Gaslighting when you say"Different people can come to different conclusions based on the same facts". You are both an administrator and an activist. That, in my opinion, is very problematic. Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Noting that I am the one who opened the ANI discussion that led to the topic ban.) The reviewing administrator(s) need only to look at Bus stop's contribution history since the ban was imposed at 20:23, 17 November 2020 to see why granting this appeal would be a terrible idea. See these edits to the discussion after the ban was placed for a prime example. Bus stop has done nothing since then but continue to discuss their ban, and they have continued the exact same behavior that led to it, repeating the same arguments they were bludgeoning the Talk:Parler page with while simultaneously claiming they have learned their lesson. Several editors, including myself, suggested they should be given some leeway and not be immediately sanctioned for the immediate violations of the tban on ANI and on their talk page, but they have continued to act as though the topic ban does not exist. I think they were somewhat lucky to fly under the radar of more strict administrators who would have sanctioned them for the immediate breaches of the sanction, so I'm amazed to see them bringing this up at AE. I can't tell if they want to be sanctioned and/or sitebanned, or if they genuinely can't see their own behavior for what it is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Bus stop, I've fixed the format of this appeal, where you'd accidentally used the "request sanction" template. Heads up that you will need to notify Bishonen if you haven't yet. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled to see Bus stop trying to turn this appeal, in which JzG suggested AP topic ban appeals should be considered early (something that appears to be sympathetic towards Bus stop), into some kind of action against JzG. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We live in strange times, and strong feelings are spilling over into Wikipedia disputes. This TBan is well supported and makes obvious sense, but we should IMO be looking at early appeals after the dust has settled for any AP2 bans enacted recently and up to Jan 20. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop neatly displays the source of the problem. Different people can come to different conclusions based on the same facts, the problem comes when you assert, loudly and repeatedly, that there can be no valid interpretation other than your own. In some cases that may be true (there is no world in which being a neo-Nazi is good, for example) but those cases are rare. Wikipedia is mainstream.

If I thought Bus Stop was evil I would have argued for a siteban. I don't. I see him as a passionate individual whose stress levels have probably been escalated by the current timeline. I recognise this feeling: I have PTSD, and 2020 has been the worst year for my symptoms since initial diagnosis and treatment. I think a brief TBan is a good idea. I think an early appeal (after the dust has settled) is also a good idea. It makes sense for us to recognise that we are dealing with unprecedented events and people are reacting to those events in uncharacteristic ways.

We still have to deal with a parallel Truth™-based information ecosystem with which Wikipedia has always struggled, starting with creationism, spreading into climate change denial, and now encompassing pretty much any area where there is a tension between progressive and conservative values. That's independent of the conduct of any individual editor. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop began with a commitment. Good start, albeit early. But within a half day, took the bait and started veering into WP:NOTTHEM territory. Not a good sign about the ability to maintain that commitment. O3000 (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The applicant is informed that this is not the place to talk about x, and then continues to talk about x. First rule of AE: Don’t manifest the problem at AE. O3000 (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the waste of editor and Admin resources just since GW's complaint. This drives good editors away, thwarts article improvement, and weakens the project. To resolve this, I recommend lifting the TBAN with the understanding that there will be a site ban on the first recurrence of the behavior appellant has now acknowledged. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m choosing not to act as an admin in politics-related issues, but I honestly think, after Bus Stop’s latest post, that they need to be blocked for a week or two for repeated violations of their topic ban, here in this very thread, after multiple warnings. “Venting” is one thing, but it’s been a week. I won’t be obnoxious and ping the uninvolved admins. But if we aren’t going to enforce a crystal clear sanction, then there’s no reason to even appeal. —Floquenbeam (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it is far too soon for Bus stop to try to appeal this topic ban. I would expect to see at least six months of unproblematic editing in other topic areas. As I see things, Bus stop has been tendentious in the Judaism topic area and in the contemporary art topic area as well. I am concerned that they will be unable to edit without drama for six months, but I sincerely hope that I am wrong. If this editor could just refrain from making the same argument over and over and over again, and digging in their heels, that would be a wonderful step in the right direction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No way. One need only look at Bus stop's contribution history since the ban was imposed. Knowing that a violation would result in a full ban, Bus Stop went ahead and violated it more than once. Instead of lifting the topic ban, they should be fully banned. -- Valjean (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• From my perspective, BLUDGEON is only a part of the problem. There are serious issues of WP:IDHT, WP:REHASH, WP:SATISFY, and more, issues that have persisted for at least six years (that's only my experience and some say it has gone on much longer than that). Bus stop has a particular talent for pushing one to the end of their rope and then imploring them to calm down and be nice, making himself seem the aggrieved party to those unfamiliar with the history. That is not good faith behavior as I see it. I see no evidence that Bus stop truly understands these issues and is capable of addressing them. Even for BLUDGEON, he has offered the absolute minimum of boilerplate appeal, effectively: "I agree not to violate [insert link to the page cited most often in the ban and discussion]". That doesn't adequately demonstrate understanding in my book. Considering that many at ANI preferred a community ban, I think it takes a considerable amount of chutzpah to show up here with an appeal of the lesser AP ban after a mere five days. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bus stop, I did not come here to debate with you, I've done more of that than I care to think about during the past six years, all of it wasted. I made a statement that arbs may completely ignore if they feel I have not been sufficiently responsive to your comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I am simply saying I did not present myself as "the aggrieved party" - Nor did I say you did here. I was referring to that as part of your long-time pattern of talk page behavior. More IDHT. This is my last comment, no matter what further obtuseness you send in my direction. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Criticizing the administrator that saidwe should IMO be looking at early appeals was certainly a strategic error - and perhaps a "triggered" one. Of all the ways to appeal a sanction, this appeal was one of the worse ones, considering the post-ban behavior. starship.paint (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Q.E.D.. I've never seen anything like this... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Good sanction - appeal should be no sooner than 6 months, not 6 days. — Ched (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that (1) the sanction was justified; (2) this is too early to appeal; (3) six months is an appropriate time for an appeal to be allowed; (4) JzG's suggestion should be kept in mind for the future when other sanctions levied during this period of time are appealed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Bus Stop, I'm generally sympathetic with the article level concerns you have. However, at some point you have to work inside the Wiki process. Yes, that can be frustrating when it looks like you are being blocked by apparent group think. Even when that is how it feels there has to be a limit. It was clear from the previous discussion that even editors sympathetic to your editorial concerns took umbrage with your talk page interactions. The next step is self reflection and curbing that... enthusiasm to persuade at length. As someone who thinks the changes you want are often improvements I don't want to see you kicked out of AP2 for good but if you keep this up that is likely to happen. I strongly suggest withdrawing this request and as others have said, waiting at least 6 months and showing good talk page behavior on other topics (even perhaps controversial topics outside of AP2) then requesting a lift with clear statements statements regarding how you will avoid bludgeoning in the future. I think a declared, self-imposed limit to 1 reply to comments not directed at you/your comments for say 6-12 month after the AP2 block is lifted would make others feel a lot better. Springee (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Since there was a rough consensus at ANI for some sort of sanction, I do not think it is wise for this to be lifted, by us, so soon without community input. I would be willing to entertain an appeal here after 6 months of issue free editing. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If editors have concerns about JzG's behavior, arbcom is thataway and is more than happy to hear those concerns. I would caution editors that unless the arbs give dispensation, topic bans still need to be followed there. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Bus stop, the intent of WP:BANEX is to allow you to appeal the topic ban, and not to enable you to use this page as a forum to attack another editor in the topic area (e.g. Special:Diff/990196648) while the topic ban is in place. I recommend declining this request, and concur with Guerillero that your best course of action is to work in less controversial topic areas for a minimum of six months before submitting another appeal. — Newslinger talk 10:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Since this appeal is being used to attack other editors, I am closing it immediately. Any future topic ban violations will be met with blocks. — Newslinger talk 15:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If ever I've seen a deserved topic ban, this is it. It's a textbook example of disruptive behaviour and is exactly what the sanctions policy is for. I also think that not listening to advice to wait six months, but instead going ahead with a premature appeal here, is yet another IDHT example. I would oppose any appeal before six months of constructive work in other areas. (And to show a bit of HT, Bus stop, I think withdrawing this appeal would be a positive step forward). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and on Bus stop's latest promise to stop bludgeoning, see this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bus stop: Attacking another editor in your ban appeal is certainly an ... interesting ... choice, but I'm sure you've read WP:NOTTHEM at some point and will know that you need to concentrate on arguing why your ban should be lifted, rather than why someone else should be sanctioned. Because that's not going to happen here, and you're not helping yourself by doing so. I'm not sure why you aren't following the advice that's been given to you by multiple experienced editors. Black Kite (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on Bus Stop's repeated and increasingly-long argumentation here, I can only take this promise to stop bludgeoning with a grain of salt. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking as someone not in the US who to the best of my knowledge has never edited an article on American politics other than minor typo fixes, this is absolutely clear cut. The very first link provided by Bus stop, which they presumably feel in some way exonerates them, is a link to them breaking their topic ban in their initial response to being notified of it. (To be clear, I wouldn't recommend taking further action for that—we tend to allow leeway for the fact that sanctioned editors' initial response to the sanctions is often to vent before calming down—but to try to then use it as evidence in an appeal is fairly clear evidence of a disregard for process.) We don't expect every editor to agree with every consensus reached on Wikipedia but we do expect every editor to respect them; if another editor is also causing problems we have mechanisms for reporting that, but "I'm not the only one causing problems" is never going to fly as an appeal. Looking at the three links provided by Bus stop in their appeal ([51], [52], [53]) there's clear evidence that there was a strong consensus in support of an AP2 topic ban at minimum; unless evidence is somehow found that that decision was based on false evidence or that those supporting the topic ban were biased, I don't really see how we could supervote and overturn such a clear consensus. ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're seriously claiming—as you appear to be in your reply to me—thatDid you watch the hearings yesterday in which Ted Cruz grills Jack Dorsey? isn't "a discussion concerning post-1932 American politics", you're either wilfully misrepresenting the facts, deliberately bludgeoning a discussion in the hope everyone else will get tired and let you have your way, or have such a serious competence issue that you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, and I very much doubt it's the last of the three. Your response confirms my initial feeling that the topic ban was extraordinarily lenient and you're extremely lucky not to have been banned altogether. Despite what some may claim, Wikipedia welcomes people of all political opinions, but what we don't welcome is people of any persuasion who feel that their personal opinions are objective truth and they're justified in using any means necessary to force them everyone else, and I'm starting to get a strong whiff of that here. ‑ Iridescent 20:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The recent ANI thread included about a dozen experienced editors calling for, or endorsing, a topic ban (as well as a couple of calls for a site ban). The TB was imposed primarily for wp:bludgeoning, and there was a previous 3-month ban from AN for bludgeoning (followed by "I commit to no more bludgeoning). Without some evidence that Bus stop is able to control the behaviour, I don't see any chance of a successful appeal. I'd advise at least six months of bludgeon-free contributions before considering one. --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:AE gives admin a lot of wiggle room to deal with problems, however, I don't think we really CAN accept an appeal at this time. There was a sanction, ANI allowed the community to opine on it and there was a rough consensus that a sanction was needed, and that was just a few days ago. We could maybe review that process (which seems to be fine) but it is way too soon to be considering an appeal, and the community as a whole might would take it as a slap in the face if we were to grant an appeal with no real evidence that anything has changed since the sanction was imposed. That said, from a cursory look at the events, the sanction was earned. I would suggest closing with instructions that it can be appealed after a minimum of 6 months. Anything less is overriding the established community consensus, which is not what we are here for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active 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

RickyBennison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – RickyBennison (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from pseudoscience, alternative medicine or fringe science for 12 months.

Pseudoscience arbitration case discretionary sanctions, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#Pseudoscience.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Nick (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.

Hi, I would like to appeal for this ban to be lifted on the following grounds. First and foremost it is not valid. The admin, Nick, administering the ban has not given prior warning as per the rules regarding administrator imposed sanctions for perceived disruptive editing. Nick first argued that an alert template delivered by another editor counted as their warning. I pointed out that it explicitly states it should not be interpreted as a warning, to which he seemed to concede but go on to state it was all that was needed. This is not the case. It in no way means standard administrative protocol does not need to be followed. For disruptive editing there is an escalating scale of administrator action ranging from warnings to increasingly long blocks. This scale is in place not just to disarm disruptive editors, but also to protect editors from abuse by admins. A twelve month ban without warning is one such form of abuse. In addition to the ban being invalidated by a lack of warning, it is additionally invalidated by Nick being involved in editing the content of the article in question, Grounding (earthing) culture. This can be viewed on the page log of the article, which has currently been nominated for AfD.

Secondly, my edits in no way amount to disruptive editing and do not come close to doing so. I had attempted to incorporate the concerns of other editors in my edits, and thereby establish a consensus. When editors expressed concerns in regard to advertising, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:MEDRS, I attempted to edit the article in such a way that would alleviate them. These things refute a charge of disruptive editing.

Whilst I do not believe the ban is valid on procedural grounds, and its reasoning flawed, I will acknowledge that there are things I could improve on in my editing. Such as establishing dialogue on the Talk page more if I have reached an apparent impasse with another editor. Understanding why some people have MEDRS concerns and some do not is also something I hope to understand better, especially in regard to specific sources. These are two areas I hope to improve on in the future. Thank you for your time and for hearing this appeal. RickyBennison (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to be sympathetic to RickyBennison and I always remain open to modification or reduction of sanctions, but it's impossible to see how this could be considered currently, given their troubled understanding of the Arbitration Enforcement process and the way in which they believe they've got yellow cards they can accrue before a red card is issued. I've explained the system and referred them to the Discretionary Sanctions page, but there still seems to be a worrisome gap in their understanding. I believe that's also the case when it comes to understanding guidance around MEDRS and what was required of their editing in the general pseudoscience area. Nick (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really my area of expertise (ArbCom) but I don't see any mishandling of the situation and I think if RickyBennison really wants to contribute, they should demonstrate this by participating in other areas that would not violate their topic-ban, which will also help demonstrate their understanding of sourcing requirements. Praxidicae (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It appears that the one-year topic ban was issued by User:Nick following this edit summary by RickyBennison: 'erased aggressive notice from editor with bad reputation'. RickyBennison had been given a timely alert of the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions by User:Praxidicae. The above complaint that the ban was improperly given makes no sense to me. Praxidicae appears to have given the alert following RickyBennison's creation of a new article called Grounding (earthing) culture. Though the mere creation of a possibly-pseudoscientific article might not need any admin response, the edit summary 'erased aggressive notice from editor with bad reputation' certainly does cast an WP:ASPERSION on Praxidicae, the editor who issued the alert. Speedy deletion of the new article under A10 and G11 has been declined, but the page is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grounding (earthing) culture. Normally you would expect that any benefits of grounding for human health would be supported by WP:MEDRS sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The appeal is based on a mistaken assumption that there are "rules" governing regarding administrator imposed sanctions, as if this were a game to be worked around. This is not a game, and the policies governing Arbcom Enforcement sanctions are at WP:ACDS #Placing sanctions and page restrictions. They require awareness on the part of the editor (which the DS alert ensures) and require the editor to adhere to the highest standards of behaviour. There is a considerable amount of wiki-lawyering in RickyBennison's response to the topic ban that simply do not address the issues that lead to the ban. Considering the issues raised about RickyBennison's edits to Grounding (earthing) culture and the talk page edit summary quoted, I don't see that a sanction was beyond the discretion of Nick, who was not involved in any content dispute with RickyBennison (which is the criterion necessary to meet the definition of WP:INVOLVED).
  I recommend to RickyBennison that they reconsider their position. It is quite possible that a clear indication of self-reflection concerning their behaviour, and a better grasp of WP:MEDRS might persuade AE admins that a lesser sanction may be appropriate. --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The attempt to wikilayer this is both incorrect and further hurting the users chances of appeal. Besides echoing my fellow admins above, I don't think one edit reverting Ricky qualifies as involved. Further there is no substantive evidence provided to consider the ban not needed. If there are things that the user says they can improve on, then this would be good for an appeal down the road to show the change. Right now I don't see anything actionable and this should be closed after the standard time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would decline this request per RexxS's comments --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The notion that administrators need to follow a formalized four step process of escalating warnings before taking decisive action to stop disruptive editing is false, and shows poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. The attack on Praxidicae, the editor who delivered the standard DS notification, is quite troubling. Instead of blocking the editor entirely, Nick gave a more limited topic ban, to give RickyBennison the opportunity to edit productively elsewhere. That is what this editor should be doing instead of wikilawyering and complaining. This request should be declined. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]