Stonkaments (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 470: | Line 470: | ||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
* I'm not sure about the initial complaint - e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_United_States_racial_unrest&diff=988282268&oldid=988264048 this] is grouchy but hardly a severe personal attack. But the strident charges on this page ("brazenly and blatantly racist ... extremely disgusting") seem to call for some response. As far as I can see, these accusations against Crossroads are without merit. Having looked through the diffs it seems to me that just about everything in the original content disputes is something reasonable people can disagree on. The idea that lowering the bar for accusations of racism will make Wikipedia "a friendlier space" seems misguided. The principle that enables us to work together is [[WP:AGF]] and editors should be held to that. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] ([[User talk:Haukurth|talk]]) 10:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
* I'm not sure about the initial complaint - e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_United_States_racial_unrest&diff=988282268&oldid=988264048 this] is grouchy but hardly a severe personal attack. But the strident charges on this page ("brazenly and blatantly racist ... extremely disgusting") seem to call for some response. As far as I can see, these accusations against Crossroads are without merit. Having looked through the diffs it seems to me that just about everything in the original content disputes is something reasonable people can disagree on. The idea that lowering the bar for accusations of racism will make Wikipedia "a friendlier space" seems misguided. The principle that enables us to work together is [[WP:AGF]] and editors should be held to that. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] ([[User talk:Haukurth|talk]]) 10:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
==Zarcademan123456== |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning Zarcademan123456=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Huldra}} 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Zarcademan123456}}<p>{{ds/log|Zarcademan123456}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:A/I/PIA]] |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Jiftlik&diff=prev&oldid=986816289 4:52, 3 November 2020] Topic-ban-violation on [[Al-Jiftlik]]: After that, I told him [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZarcademan123456&type=revision&diff=986927746&oldid=976231809 20:22, 3 November 2020] "AFAIK, you are still topic-banned from the I/P-area, so how come you thinks it is ok to do edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Jiftlik&diff=prev&oldid=986816289 this]? Please undo, or risk a report to [[WP:AE]]". He never answered me, nor did he undo his edit. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Givat_HaMatos&diff=prev&oldid=988863952 18:34, 15 November 2020]: Changed "Israeli-occupied [[Jerusalem]]" to " [[East Jerusalem]]" on [[Givat HaMatos]]-article. |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZarcademan123456&type=revision&diff=975284908&oldid=974247182 19:03, 27 August 2020 ] topic-ban (from Palestine-Israel articles) was extended to indefinitely, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=975283973 this discussion] |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
Diffs says it all, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Zarcademan123456==== |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Zarcademan123456=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
* |
Revision as of 21:29, 15 November 2020
Beshogur
Nothing required at this time.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Beshogur
Warned about AA2 sanctions:
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.
Discussion concerning BeshogurStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BeshogurAbout 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:
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) References @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) 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)
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) 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: --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
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 56 7 8 9 Most of his edits are reverts on other users edits, by the way. He uses minor errors on edits to revert the whole content, only because "He dont like" 1. He have a very particular POV when editing Armenian related articles and Armenian Genocide (I.E "Nothing to do with Turkey") 1 2 Calls Amnesty International reports on Right abuses by Turkish forces "Propaganda". 1 He canvasses Admins when there is no need to 1. When his wrongdoing is discovered or faced with diff, he just use the "racism card". Something he have done times before. August 2016 October 2020.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC) Statement by Konli17This 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) Result concerning Beshogur
|
Requesting page restrictions for Margot (activist)
Semi-protected till October 30, 2021. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Margot (activist)
Margot (activist) is the article for The question of whether deadnaming should occur in the rest of the article was left unresolved at the closure of the recent RfC, but several editors expressed criticism of the article section Margot (activist) § Naming controversies, with Gleeanon409 remarking, 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 Discussion concerning Margot (activist)Statement by complainerAs 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) Statement by Gleeanon409The 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. Gleeanon 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
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 isonly 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.
Juliett Tango PapaThe 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) GizzyCatBellaPlease note [8] - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Statement by Genericusername57Gleeanon409 has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi. gnu57 17:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Result concerning Margot (activist)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Atsme
Close as declined per the consensus of uninvolved admins. Atsme, Liz makes a good point in their note (not much of a consolation but .....!)--RegentsPark (comment) 22:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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).
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
Statement by AtsmeMy 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)
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.
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.
Jimbo responded to the first:
Bandersnatch may have been referencing the thread, Interviews with the British Prime Minister relative to The Daily Mail:
More confusion stemming from Awilley's comments:
Statement by AwilleyMy 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)
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) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by MastCellAtsme's topic ban was placed because of her habit of bludgeoning article talkpages with partisan rhetoric, despite previous promises to avoid such behavior ([21]). 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)
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...she put forward
plausible but currently unaccepted theories... legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarshipas 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 disruptionwhich Levivich advances. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AtsmeStatement by PackMecEngI 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) 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) There is an old essay that might be helpful here as well WP:Grovel. PackMecEng (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC) 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) @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)
@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) Statement by LevivichThe 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 sentence you to a lifetime of holding an umbrella, to protect us all from the rain," the admin said. "But it's not raining anymore!" the editor exclaimed. "That's because you're holding an umbrella," the wise admin replied. Lev!vich 17:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Statement by TryptofishBased 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 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)
Statement by BD2412Having 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)
Statement by SpringeeI'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)
Statement by Sir JosephI 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) Statement by FloqEver 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) Statement by Beyond My KenPer 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)
Statement by MONGOI 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) Mastcell referring to a certain admin above as "uninvolved" is truly comical, but is easily surpassed by his insinuation that Atsme is a racist. Atsme...I recommend you shut this request down. Let them have their petty penalties.--MONGO (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Statement by DarouetCaveat lector: I have a high regard for Atsme as an editor, but I also disagree with most of what they were arguing at Antifa [29], 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. [30][31]. As Atsme points out, it doesn't seem that the discussion tenor was unsalvageable [32], and frankly, looking at the talk page [33], 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) Statement by ValereeeI'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)
Statement by (uninvolved editor)Result of the appeal by Atsme
|
Struthious Bandersnatch
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 Struthious Bandersnatch
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Crossroads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Struthious Bandersnatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 02:20, 6 November 2020 WP:POV, WP:OR: Refers to a single activist's comment as "many commentators", against WP:WEASEL, and inserted a POV claim (not in the source) that the "motivating characteristic of policing as it is known" is "a disparate number of lethal encounters with unarmed citizens of color".
- 06:37, 6 November 2020 POV: Removed sourced material about how a "number of community groups" opposed police abolition in Minneapolis.
- 07:32, 6 November 2020 POV, OR: Adds material not in the source ("black liberation", etc.), replacing the source's description of the group, with a misleading edit summary ("missing words").
- 10:52, 6 November 2020 WP:PA, failure to WP:AGF: In the article on the group I noticed that same unusual phrase with no article or clear definition on Google, "black liberation". I tagged this as vague in the hope that the article's recent creator would make it more understandable. Here, Struthious Bandersnatch scolds me for it.
- 05:08, 7 November 2020 (2nd half) I dropped the matter at the group's article, but the editor continues scolding me at the unrest article about that phrase, making bizarre unfounded accusations.
- 06:12, 12 November 2020 (last part) Yet more scolding, including the severe PA
you have a really low bar for what constitutes an education, by the way
. - 21:19, 12 November 2020 Doubles down on that PA, then rants.
- 03:05, 13 November 2020 After another editor criticizes their behavior, Struthious Bandersnatch continues attacking me.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
N/A
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
- diff
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I don't have a real history with this editor; I've only directly interacted with them about this topic and in the last 7 or 8 days. Yet, it has been entirely negative. Diffs 4 through 8 came about simply because I thought the term "black liberation" was confusing to readers, being vague and politically-charged jargon. I had never heard it all summer, and I keep up with the news a lot. "Liberation" is a political buzzword, not encyclopedic language. And editors shouldn't have to put up with this sort of POV pushing, self-righteous grandstanding, and attacks. Crossroads -talk- 06:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
So, to emphasize, I am now being called "brazenly and blatantly racist" and my behavior "extremely disgusting" because I thought a two-word phrase was poor wording, and because I replied a few times about it on a talk page. Really, the diffs and now the latest comment speak for themselves. With BRD, I didn't give that as the reason to revert; I gave other reasons and said that in addition because the editor had tried twice (edit warred) to insert this group's view in an odd place: [37][38] Crossroads -talk- 09:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Frankly I can hardly believe this user is still doubling down on this. This is against basically every user conduct policy, going way beyond even casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Their vision of Wikipedia is a totalitarian rule of fear, under which any honest critique of wording could mean being denounced for racism. They reveal an attitude of righting great wrongs and advocacy rather than building an encyclopedia. Of course, we don't give any weight to fringe views that racism doesn't exist, nor do we tolerate expressions of racism. To actually educate readers on the specifics of how these social issues work and how people propose to combat them, editors have to be able to debate and critique one another's text without being denounced, e.g. if such text was using platitudes that most readers will find unfamiliar. Honestly, I'm a bit worried that admins might be tempted to downplay this, because the editor claims to be fighting racism, and fighting racism is good. But this is not the way. No one editor has all the answers, is this righteous and perfect, or has the right to dictate things like this. Wikipedia cannot operate like that. Crossroads -talk- 03:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Struthious Bandersnatch
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Struthious Bandersnatch
Responding to diffs, same order as above:
- As I said in my subsequent edit summary 06:37, 6 November 2020
obviously “a disparate number of lethal encounters with unarmed citizens of color” was a characteristic of policing which the “end policing as we know it” resolution was motivated to address
- I thought the valid parts of your phrasing,
It had been rejected by a plurality of residents in public opinion polls and an increasing number of community groups, and incremental reforms took its place
were adequately captured, with more fidelity to the source, in my rewriteA newspaper poll showed that a plurality of residents opposed decreasing the size of the police force and city councilors cited alarm from business owners and residents in more affluent areas of their wards who feared for their safety, as beliefs anticipating an immediate end to the police department proliferated.
If you would like to add something along the lines of "In September 2020 The New York Times stated that an increasing number of community groups rejected the pledge" feel free. (Or of course, proceed with normal editing of the article—I don't have any say over that other than the prerogatives of a rank-and-file editor.) - This was discussed at length at Talk:2020 United States racial unrest § Minneapolis-related content in section "Defund the police" and Crossroads is writing here as if he did not read any of my comments in regards to this edit, and has forgotten himself tagging the source of my description of the group in question, Wikipedia's own article on the Black Visions Collective of Minneapolis. (Though he addresses that in the next list item.)
- I did, in fact, assume good faith here, and offered Crossroads links to Wikipedia articles and books available at the Internet Archive about black liberation. But he has failed to demonstrate good faith and has continued to make absurd claims about the phrase “black liberation”, which as I have pointed out repeatedly in the aforementioned talk page thread is so straightforward in meaning that
it's what Wiktionary policy would call a “sum of parts”, simply a combination of “black” and “liberation” so that it's not even eligible for its own entry in the dictionary.
(full disclosure: I added the “Demonstrate good faith” section of WP:AGF more than a dozen years ago.) - This is actually the diff in which I acceded to the phrase “black liberation” being removed from the unrest article—if you look at the above talk page thread, despite the term being deleted, it's actually Crossroads who continues discussing it and keeps insisting it's somehow an aberrant phrase. My criticism of his rhetoric is entirely well-founded and it is his fixation with finding some way to indict the term that is bizarre.
- I was responding to a comment in which Crossroads literally said he was
not bothering with that other article
—the four-paragraph-long article about the organization which we'd been in the process of writing about—in the talk page of which I'd written one sentence and a handful of links, and he was protesting at the evidently dreadful eventuality that a reader might have to “educate [them]self” on the meaning of “black liberation”—again, a non-idiomatic two-word phrase. “Low bar” is an extremely apt description. - Not even worth responding to, really.
- It is incontrovertibly true that “Rhetorical sophistry and misleading claims after being presented with copious quantities of reliably-sourced material about a topic are definitely the sort of thing that needs to be commented on, rather than ignored as if it isn't happening.” And the essay at meta I linked to is quite apropos for someone acting as if they didn't notice.
I'd note that this whole thing started with him, in the course of reverting an edit of mine, patronizingly telling me to “Follow WP:BRD”—BRD being a policy supplement which explicitly states, BRD is never a reason for reverting.
This is the context in which his honor and pride has been so grievously wounded by my subsequent “scolding”, so aggrieved that he feels the need to take up the time of everyone reading this with a tale of woes.
Crossroads, I've been holding back in criticizing you. Your obsession with finding something dismissive to say about the term “black liberation”, even once it was no longer in the article, has been brazenly and blatantly racist and watching it play out has been extremely disgusting. Picking up negativity towards you was quite an accurate perception. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 08:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- A new objective of mine during the last month or so has been to persuade the community that Wikipedia policy should proscribe non-insult, non-vandalism expressions of racism and other forms of bigotry. (A goal I arrived at when I realized we don't even use the word "racism" in written policy anywhere, when I previously assumed we did.)Crossroads's display at the article talk page and here exemplifies my motivation, because this isn't just general and omnidirectional expression of racism in talk space: this is racism about encyclopedia content itself. Note that he still is refusing to concede, even here and now, that “black liberation” is a legitimate or descriptive term for the goals of the Black Visions Collective or all of the other things he has been informed that it describes.If, as a community, we are actually committed to eliminating racial bias on Wikipedia and being a friendly space, we cannot set the expectation that editors have to be demur and non-confrontational in the face of racism for the sake of etiquette. Etiquette being paramount above all else is not compatible with those other goals.Hyperenforcement of etiquette rules while giving a free pass to pedestrian racism is par for the course for an establishment web property of the early twenty-first-century but I would like to think that Wikipedia can do better than the rest. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- All the pro forma denunciation of racist insults and vandalism, and you still just can't bring yourself to admit that “black liberation” is a completely straightforward term that has even appeared as a theme in pop music for somewhere between half a century and ~150 years or even earlier. This does not require righteous perfection.The section of the WP:NONAZIS essay you link to talks about accusations of “racist trolling and vandalism”—but that's not what I'm saying: you are articulating a racist attitude towards what our encyclopedia should say, an attitude of the type that is quite obviously the cause of racial bias on Wikipedia.Earlier on I might've said your racist attitude could quite possibly be a matter of unconscious racism, but that possibility grows slimmer by the moment.Despite your fears of a terrifying totalitarian future where everyday racism is called out on Wikipedia, I don't personally think it should be a zero tolerance kind of thing most cases, like insults and vandalism should be. (Funny how the prohibitions on insults and vandalism don't make for a totalitarian dystopia, just the possibility of all racism being frowned upon to make this a friendlier space.)I'll close by pointing out that the NONAZIS section you linked to ends with,
Editors making reports for extremist racism or edits with more subtle expressions of racism that can be substantiated with diffs should bring them forward to administrators without fear of sanctions or blocks.
(emphasis mine) But I wasn't even the one who brought all of these diffs into a forum for discussing user conduct—you did. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 10:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)- @Haukurth: I obviously don't believe this is merely a matter of differing opinions. To me, for Crossroads to seek to characterize the term “black liberation” as too-specific technical “WP:JARGON” and at the same time as “vague” and “meaningless” and “WP:PEACOCK language” or as a mere “platitude”, or as an “apparent neologism” all after it's been pointed out to him that there are half-century-old books with “black liberation” in their title, and to persist in seeking some way to invalidate the term well after it was removed from the article in question—I mean “platitude” is from here, earlier today, a week afterwards—is not just being intellectually quirky or something. To me, it's clearly the same thing as the repeated insistence that the Benin Bronzes just don't seem to fit in the surroundings they were found in, for example.But, maybe it's all just me. Perhaps what's out of place is me, expressing disgust at racism in a Wikipedia forum for discussing user conduct if AGF demands that such things not be done. Again, IMO, it comes down to whether etiquette or effectively dealing with racial bias on Wikipedia takes precedence. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- All the pro forma denunciation of racist insults and vandalism, and you still just can't bring yourself to admit that “black liberation” is a completely straightforward term that has even appeared as a theme in pop music for somewhere between half a century and ~150 years or even earlier. This does not require righteous perfection.The section of the WP:NONAZIS essay you link to talks about accusations of “racist trolling and vandalism”—but that's not what I'm saying: you are articulating a racist attitude towards what our encyclopedia should say, an attitude of the type that is quite obviously the cause of racial bias on Wikipedia.Earlier on I might've said your racist attitude could quite possibly be a matter of unconscious racism, but that possibility grows slimmer by the moment.Despite your fears of a terrifying totalitarian future where everyday racism is called out on Wikipedia, I don't personally think it should be a zero tolerance kind of thing most cases, like insults and vandalism should be. (Funny how the prohibitions on insults and vandalism don't make for a totalitarian dystopia, just the possibility of all racism being frowned upon to make this a friendlier space.)I'll close by pointing out that the NONAZIS section you linked to ends with,
Statement by Stonkaments
I have also been the target of recent hostility from Struthious Bandersnatch. They are continuing to make accusations that I have acted dishonestly and deceptively and in poor faith[39][40][41], even after I refuted their claims. I'm a relatively new editor, and I'm sure there are many ways in which I can improve my editing, but this sort of hostility is very off-putting. Struthious Bandersnatch seems to have a very hard time with WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY on polarizing issues. Stonkaments (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Struthious Bandersnatch continues to make poor faith assumptions and accusations of intentional deception[42] even after being told by an admin to cut it out. Stonkaments (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Struthious Bandersnatch
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I'm not sure about the initial complaint - e.g. this is grouchy but hardly a severe personal attack. But the strident charges on this page ("brazenly and blatantly racist ... extremely disgusting") seem to call for some response. As far as I can see, these accusations against Crossroads are without merit. Having looked through the diffs it seems to me that just about everything in the original content disputes is something reasonable people can disagree on. The idea that lowering the bar for accusations of racism will make Wikipedia "a friendlier space" seems misguided. The principle that enables us to work together is WP:AGF and editors should be held to that. Haukur (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Zarcademan123456
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Zarcademan123456
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Zarcademan123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:A/I/PIA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 4:52, 3 November 2020 Topic-ban-violation on Al-Jiftlik: After that, I told him 20:22, 3 November 2020 "AFAIK, you are still topic-banned from the I/P-area, so how come you thinks it is ok to do edits like this? Please undo, or risk a report to WP:AE". He never answered me, nor did he undo his edit.
- 18:34, 15 November 2020: Changed "Israeli-occupied Jerusalem" to " East Jerusalem" on Givat HaMatos-article.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 19:03, 27 August 2020 topic-ban (from Palestine-Israel articles) was extended to indefinitely, after this discussion
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Diffs says it all, Huldra (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Zarcademan123456
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Zarcademan123456
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.