Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Struthious Bandersnatch

I have reviewed the diffs and see nothing sanctionable against Sturthious Bandersnatch. Mere grouchiness or content disagreements are not sanctionable. I concur with Haukurth's opinion below. As for the excessively strident rhetoric Haukurth highlights from this thread, let's cut the editor some slack because they were hauled here with an unproven complaint -- but please do not consider this a license to call others "racist" or "disgusting" or cast aspersions without clear evidence. Take this result as guidance not to do that. Jehochman Talk 13:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Struthious Bandersnatch 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) 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 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". 06:37, 6 November 2020 POV: Removed sourced material about how a "number of community groups" opposed police abolition in Minneapolis. 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"). 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. 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. 06:12, 12 November 2020 (last part) Yet more scolding, including the severe PA you have a really low bar for what constitutes an education, by the way. 21:19, 12 November 2020 Doubles down on that PA, then rants. 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) 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: [1][2] Crossroads -talk- 09:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC) 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) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested diff Discussion concerning Struthious Bandersnatch Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Struthious Bandersnatch Responding to diffs, same order as above: As I said in my subsequent edit summary 06:37, 6 November 2020 obviously “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 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 rewrite A 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.) 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.) 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 that it'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.) 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. I was responding to a comment in which Crossroads literally said he was not 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. Not even worth responding to, really. 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) 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) 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) @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) 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 as a 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) 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 summary That'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) Statement by Stonkaments 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[3][4][5], 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) Struthious Bandersnatch continues to make poor faith assumptions and accusations of intentional deception[6] even after being told by an admin to cut it out. Stonkaments (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Struthious Bandersnatch 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)

Zarcademan123456

Zarcademan123456 blocked for the maximum one year. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Request concerning Zarcademan123456 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) 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 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. 18:34, 15 November 2020: Changed "Israeli-occupied Jerusalem" to " East Jerusalem" on Givat HaMatos-article. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 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) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Zarcademan123456 Statement by (username) Result concerning Zarcademan123456 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) 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) I blocked for 1 year --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Bus stop

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.

Statement by Bus stop

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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"[7]. What? You should be banned before I am banned. Bus stop (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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"[8] 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)

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)

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)

The words Did 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)

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)

Statement by GorillaWarfare

(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)

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)

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)

Statement by JzG

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)

Statement by Objective3000

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)

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)

Statement by SPECIFICO

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)

Statement by Floq

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

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Bus stop

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

• Criticizing the administrator that said we 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)
• Q.E.D.. I've never seen anything like this... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Good sanction - appeal should be no sooner than 6 months, not 6 days. — Ched (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Bus stop

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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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

• @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)
• 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)
• 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 ([9], [10], [11]) 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)

  If you're seriously claiming—as you appear to be in your reply to me—that Did 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)

• 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)
• 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)