Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:26, 11 November 2020

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Beshogur

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 Beshogur

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

25 October "keep your bias to yourself"
25 October Doubles down at Diyarbakir but this time removes native names in a form of a note. Disingenouous edit-summary: "pure aesthetic purpose".
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.
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 [3]. 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.
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.
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.
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

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:

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: [4]

Discussion concerning Beshogur

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 Beshogur

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;"^[1]

About the status of Madagiz. AJ report about Azerbaijan building road to Madagiz.^[2] Another by Euronews from inside of Madagiz.^[3] Beshogur (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "A/RES/62/243". undocs.org. 14 March 2008. Retrieved 2020-09-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ [1]
^ [2]

@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]

Statement by (Wikaviani)

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]

Statement by (HistoryofIran)

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]

The "source", published by a country without freedom of press, cites Wikipedia and Tourism. Az amongst others. Before I get accused of racism (again) by someone, people might wanna google what freedom of press means. --HistoryofIran

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)

Statement by (Mr.User200)

(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 5 6 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 1 2 even he does not have a civil attitude toward other editors ("You really need to be blocked" at edit summary).3.

Statement by Konli17

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: [5] [6] [7] Konli17 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Beshogur

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]

Requesting page restrictions for Margot (activist)

Semi-protected till October 30, 2021. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Margot (activist)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBGG

Margot (activist) is the article for a Polish non-binary LGBTQIA activist and co-founder of the Stop Bzdurom collective. An RfC recently concluded on the article's talk page arrived at the consensus that, absent direct communication from Margot specifying her wishes, Wikipedia should refrain from deadnaming her in the article's lead and infobox.

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 to any gender-related dispute or controversy. Cheers, ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Margot (activist)

Statement by complainer

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]

Statement by Gleeanon409

The article needs long-term semi protection, and likely ongoing vigilance for confirmed accounts misgendering Margot. The controversy section, the only place the deadnaming was still done, had the name removed by me. There was still a lot of questionable sources used there. Subsequently the entire section was removed and summarized in one sentence elsewhere in the article which I fully support.

The consensus on the page has been that her birth name, although prominent in right-wing sources, was a deadname to Margot, and never notable on its own. Glee^anon 16:32, 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]

Statement by Struthious Bandersnatch

@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.

An operative part of MOS:DEADNAME which you quote is only if the person was notable under that name; the most salient part which was updated since the RfC began says, If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article,^[ⅆ] even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.

^
ⅆ A "deadname" from a pre-notability period of the subject's life should not appear in that person's bio, in other articles (including lists and disambiguation pages), category names, templates, etc.

One of the conclusions arrived at by the RfC in the article's talk page was that Margot was not notable under her birth name. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juliett Tango Papa

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]

GizzyCatBella

Please note [8] - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Genericusername57

Gleeanon409 has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi. gnu 57 17:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Margot (activist)

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]

Jenos450

Jenos450 is indefinitely topic banned from all ~~Indian subjects~~ subjects connected with India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. Bishonen | tålk 18:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC). (Changed per closing note Bishonen | tålk 22:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC).)[reply]

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 Jenos450

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

Special:Diff/985874277 & Special:Diff/986013855 Fringe POV pushing, see Special:Diff/986013855 for context. Also see, Talk:OpIndia#Neutrality?
Special:Diff/985170326 & Special:Diff/985871196 Similar conduct on Slavery in India followed by edit warring over the same, see article history.
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)

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,^[1] 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]

References

^ Scott C. Levi (2002). "Hindus Beyond the Hindu Kush: Indians in the Central Asian Slave Trade". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 12 (3). Cambridge University Press: 277–288. doi:10.1017/S1356186302000329. JSTOR 25188289. Sources such as the Arthasastra, the Manusmriti and the Mahabharata demonstrate that institutionalized slavery was well established in India by beginning of the common era. Earlier sources suggest that it was likely to have been equally widespread by the lifetime of the Buddha (sixth century BC), and perhaps even as far back as the Vedic period. [footnote 2: (...) While it is likely that the institution of slavery existed in India during the Vedic period, the association of the Vedic 'Dasa' with 'slaves' is problematic and likely to have been a later development.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/986678708

Discussion concerning Jenos450

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 Jenos450

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^[1]. 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,

All you need to do is to find a source that says that he is popularly known as that or whatever combination is in a source. It doesn't need to satisfy HISTRS because that popularity is not historical

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)

References

^ "Talk:OpIndia", Wikipedia, 2020-11-02, retrieved 2020-11-02

Statement by Vanamonde

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 [9], [10], [11]. The third one, in particular, is concerning; BLP applies to talk pages also. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

Diff for the HISTRS referred to by Jenos: [12]. 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]

Statement by Newslinger

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.^[1]"

References

^ Vij Aurora, Bhavna (2014-04-07). "Spreading the Hindutva agenda: BJP's Amit Shah unlikely to lower his 'revenge' tenor". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2020-06-20.

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]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jenos450

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".[13] 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,[14] 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]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Atsme

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]

Statement by Atsme

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]

Statement by Awilley

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]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by MastCell

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]

Statement by Struthious Bandersnatch

(consolidated down below 500 words, minus sigs and quotes; see page history for responses to accusations against me)

At JIMBOTALK a thread was begun last month discussing the WP:NONAZIS essay, which Atsme participated in; I think she has left out a significant diff from the preceding thread, though, in which while arguing against ...the improper labeling of racism under the pretense that, per JzG, "most racists are right-wing". That is just plain misinformation, and it wrongfully implies that the left has clean hands, which couldn't be further from the truth... you put forward

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 an approach [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.
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.
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.

This seems extremely pertinent to this AE issue: it appears to be intentional misuse of sources in a discussion of WP:NONAZIS to portray a WP:FALSEBALANCE of RS analysis of the prevalence of racist tendencies and ideologies. Even if it was a matter of inattention to detail while presenting sources in a discussion of Nazism, however, an accidental elevation of plausible but currently unaccepted theories... legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship as NPOV says, that kind of behavior also argues strongly against lifting this t-ban.

Tryptofish's proposal of a linkable anti-gotcha seems appropriate for the expressed concerns, but this kind of behavior with respect to this topic—covering not just right-wing extremism in the context of the U.S., but Australia and Germany as well—seems disruptive, on the standard of is the sanction necessary to prevent disruption which Levivich advances. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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 forthrightly see 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]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Atsme

Statement by PackMecEng

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]

Statement by Levivich

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 say I try to avoid it when I can, she said I 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. Le v!v ich 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.) Le v!v ich 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. Le v!v ich 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. Le v!v ich 21:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

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: [28], and I reacted briefly with anger. For convenience, here is the link within that link: [29]. 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: [30]. 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: [31] and [32].) 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]

Statement by BD2412

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]

Statement by Springee

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]

Statement by Sir Joseph

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]

Statement by Floq

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]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

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 -- just for the record -- I'm 6' 8" and a great athlete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

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]

Statement by Darouet

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 [33], 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. [34][35]. As Atsme points out, it doesn't seem that the discussion tenor was unsalvageable [36], and frankly, looking at the talk page [37], 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]

Statement by Valereee

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]

Statement by (uninvolved editor)

Result of the appeal by Atsme

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,[38] 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.[39] 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 [40] 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]
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]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[3] "A/RES/62/243". undocs.org. 14 March 2008. Retrieved 2020-09-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[4] [1]

[5] [2]

[cnote_ⅆ] 
ⅆ A "deadname" from a pre-notability period of the subject's life should not appear in that person's bio, in other articles (including lists and disambiguation pages), category names, templates, etc.

[6] Scott C. Levi (2002). "Hindus Beyond the Hindu Kush: Indians in the Central Asian Slave Trade". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 12 (3). Cambridge University Press: 277–288. doi:10.1017/S1356186302000329. JSTOR 25188289. Sources such as the Arthasastra, the Manusmriti and the Mahabharata demonstrate that institutionalized slavery was well established in India by beginning of the common era. Earlier sources suggest that it was likely to have been equally widespread by the lifetime of the Buddha (sixth century BC), and perhaps even as far back as the Vedic period. [footnote 2: (...) While it is likely that the institution of slavery existed in India during the Vedic period, the association of the Vedic 'Dasa' with 'slaves' is problematic and likely to have been a later development.

[7] "Talk:OpIndia", Wikipedia, 2020-11-02, retrieved 2020-11-02

[8] Vij Aurora, Bhavna (2014-04-07). "Spreading the Hindutva agenda: BJP's Amit Shah unlikely to lower his 'revenge' tenor". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2020-06-20.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[ⅆ]

[1]

[1]

[1]

@@ Line 357: / Line 357: @@
 *#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme&diff=974910901&oldid=974910822 Another diff] she used was my response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme&diff=974907756&oldid=974906974 Soibangla's derogatory comment] about me in a discussion on '''my UTP''' that did not involve him. I supported my comment with [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#Proposal for 6 mos. t-ban|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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Awilley#Request - May 12, 2020 #3] {{xt|"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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=848028088 9 minutes] after I started adding evidence in my defense at the start of that newly opened ARCA case where there were [[Special:Diff/847938824|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. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 18:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 *{{u|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)
 *{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, your statement about me, {{u|Springee}}, {{u|Sir Joseph}}, {{u|Levivich}} and {{u|PackMecEng}} having the same ideology is a [[WP:PA]]: {{xt|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)
 *{{u|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 [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 19:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
+*{{u|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 {{u|MastCell}}, who you've had to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MastCell#Note warn] in the past for making personal comments. It is a longterm, patterned behavior of his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=965991299&oldid=965982487], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MastCell&oldid=903098194&diff=prev], especially his relentless allegations & attempts to discredit me relative to RS, which was officially reputiated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=885459117&oldid=885455987], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=884477178], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=884534120], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=885274637&oldid=885268777], and reluctantly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=885463367 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". [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 16:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 ===Statement by Awilley===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards