User talk:Awoma

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! ... richi (hello) 20:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GirthSummit (blether) 13:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should not label other editors transphobes - that's a personal attack. Comment on content, not contributor - this area is contentious enough already without people throwing labels around. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What should they be called? Awoma (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awoma, editors? Colleagues? For you to ascribe transphobic sentiments to them, because you take a different point of view on how an article should be written, is a failure to assume good faith. GirthSummit (blether) 13:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transphobes don't act in good faith. Awoma (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awoma, that's exactly my point. To say that someone is acting in bad faith is a personal attack, unless supported by evidence. You can not do that on article talk pages - make a report though the proper channels, or stay quiet - casting aspersions without evidence isn't permitted. GirthSummit (blether) 13:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever been so liberal. Calling a transphobe a transphobe is not a personal attack. Awoma (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awoma, I don't know what your first question means. I have tried to explain an important area of policy to you, which is that calling someone a transphobe (or a racist, or a sexist, or any similar label) is a personal attack unless you support the accusation with evidence. I can't require you to like that, but you need to abide by it if you want to edit here. GirthSummit (blether) 13:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for "gender critical" positions is transphobic matey. It's obvious what you're trying to do, and it stinks. Awoma (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what it is you think I'm doing, but whatever it is, it doesn't exampt you from the policies that I have outlined. The subject is contentious, which is why it is covered by discretionary sanctions, which I've notified you of. My interest in these pages is to try to maintain a constructive working environment for everyone.
As an aside, please don't call me 'matey' - I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but where I come from that comes across as sarcastic and derisory. You can address me as Girth Summit, or just Girth if you like. GirthSummit (blether) 14:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you put "male feminist" on your profile. You act like every other self-proclaimed male feminist I've met, trying to get women to shut up about things that affect us. Nasty stuff. Awoma (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I didn't know you were a woman until your last post, I don't really see how you can have come to the conclusion that I'm trying to do anything like that. This response really underlines the problem though, and serves as a useful example of what I've been trying to tell you.
I see you've had this account for a few years, but haven't edited here much and so are probably unaccustomed to the environment. I don't know what online platforms you are used to using, but what I've been trying to tell you is that this mode of communication, where you personalise the issues and cast aspersions about other people's intentions, simply isn't tolerated here. I don't make these rules - the community does - but I have a mandate to enforce them. If you keep making comments like that about people, your account will be blocked from editing - it's that simple.
Article talk pages are there for discussing the content of the article. You are expected to stick to that subject - they aren't there to discuss the conduct or motivations of other editors. If you have suspicions about others, and evidence that supports those suspicions, you are invited to raise a report at an administrative noticeboard. There are several, depending on the particular concern - WP:COIN is for conflicts of interest, WP:ANEW is for edit warring, WP:AIV is for out-and-out vandals - but WP:ANI is the right location for more complex cases. You can't just rock up and say 'this editor is a transphobe/homophobe/racist, just look at their editing' however, you need to provide concrete evidence. (WP:ASPERSIONS is worth reading on this point.)
I hope you read the above, and take time to consider it. Best GirthSummit (blether) 16:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sealioning. Cool. Check yourself. Awoma (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what 'check yourself' means.
Sealioning might be appropriate if I were trying to persuade you of something, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm a site administrator telling you the rules you're expected to abide by. If you don't want my advice, that's fine - I've told you what you need to know, and what will happen if you make unsupported accusations of bad faith against other editors. What you do from here is entirely down to you. Best GirthSummit (blether) 18:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Well, your defensive reaction to discussion of wikipedia's transphobia problem led to you trying to steer me down a path where you have never once successfully challenged any transphobia. But the reason why you did this, even though it's obvious to absolutely anyone (and you in your heart know what you are), I will say is a complete mystery :) Awoma (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether you're not reading what I'm writing, whether I'm not explaining it well enough, or if you're willfully ignoring it. I'll try again: article talk pages are not the place to talk about fundamental problems in Wikipedia. If there are problems with specific editors, the various admin noticeboards are the right venue. More general underlying problems are more difficult, but the relevant Wikiproject might be a good place to start, and there's always WP:CENT.
As for your assertion that I have never taken action against transphobia, that is demonstrably untrue, and rather underlines the point that you are unfamiliar with this platform. My block log is a public record, and most of the edits of the accounts and IPs I have blocked are still visible. Feel free to peruse them to satisfy yourself on that point. GirthSummit (blether) 18:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. When have you blocked an account for "gender critical" edits? If you have done this, I stand corrected. Awoma (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Making 'gender critical' edits isn't something the community has empowered me to block people for. Transphobic trolling, on the other hand, is, and it's something I've done many times, as you can see for yourself. GirthSummit (blether) 20:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much what I expected. Male feminism clearly the best feminism. Awoma (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awoma, I don't really know what that means either, but I think it a sad situation when someone who claims to have an interest in gender equality mocks another person for their choice to display a userbox in support of feminism. I have at some points in the past considered removing that box from my user page because it attracts so much attention from trolls - you are adding to that toxicity with your continued commentary. GirthSummit (blether) 21:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actions speak louder than userboxes. Awoma (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Izzard[edit]

Hi there, I have reverted recent edits you made to Eddie Izzard because they did not follow the consensus on the talk page. Please discuss before making additional changes.

Cheers, AussieWikiDan (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You re-reverted instead of using the talk page, which is edit-war nonsense, and there is no consensus on misrepresenting the sources like this. Awoma (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As explained on the talk page/edit history I was reverting the pronoun changes throughout the article. Nobody, until now, has discussed retaining this sentence. I was trying to do the right thing and be civil by leaving a message.

Cheers,

AussieWikiDan (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring while claiming a non-existent consensus is not civil, matey. Awoma (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to re-iterate the need for you to seek consensus on talk before reverting other editors, Awoma. You have been pinged on talk about your last revert, which you did without seeking consensus or adding any additional sourcing or rationale. Your edit also removed sourced content. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BRD. I don't need to seek consensus to revert something which was added without consensus. Awoma (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal interpretations of BRD do not override the prohibition on edit-warring, or MOS:GENDERID. The 2020 sources override the 2019 sources, which you clearly recognize as you've also reverted to put the she/her pronouns in the article. What needs to be there is the clarification on the change as not everyone knows Izzard has stated the change. I'm not sure why this is unclear to you. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You made a change, in good faith, and I reverted it, in good faith. If you still think the change should happen then you need to build consensus on the talk page. If you try and get around that fact then your change is just going to be reverted again. That's it. Awoma (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

A ridiculous cat

Information icon Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all! Thank you for the cat. Awoma (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Awoma,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Jmill1806 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Hello[edit]

Hi. Don't know why I'm saying hi to you particularly. Just met you on the discussion page of Eddie Izzard's article, which is a place I came to because I heard a programme on a Radio station and was curious to discover Eddie being referred to as "she" on the electronic programme guide. I got curious about why you'd been around for a few years before recently becoming more active. I mean, I've been pretty much inactive since 2010 myself except for a few casual minor edits mostly about old pop music because I'd been listening to some old editions of Top of the Pops which they broadcast on BBC Four most Fridays. I'm a British cis-male, and when I was around here more regularly I used to edit articles about Doctor Who and Baha'is. PaulHammond (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul. Awoma (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GirthSummit (blether) 13:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction[edit]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic-banned from any pages or discussions relating to the WP:ARBGG topic area (likely to soon be re-named "Gender and sexuality"), broadly construed

Look, you may well be right on the content (I don't know), but the aggressive and derisive conduct you've been exhibiting with respect to this subject matter is not one which I find compatible with such a fraught topic area (permanent link to AN complaint). Engaging in productive editing elsewhere without incident is recommended and encouraged. Any chances of a successful appeal of this sanction are likely to increase considerably if you were to do so for a prolonged period of time.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final_decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 16:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you can't even post a single example of "aggressive behaviour" says it all. I can post several examples of another user being abusive towards me ([1] [2] [3]) but nothing. Awoma (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awoma, my view was that the AN report spoke for itself. I will attach a permanent link to it in the notice above for the sakes of good recordkeeping. El_C 16:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AN report concerned this other editor's abusive comments, and failure of an admin to act on it. You have subsequently also ignored the abusive comments, and accused me of aggressive behaviour. Awoma (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awoma, that was my evaluation of the matter nonetheless. If you have actual diff evidence of abuse toward yourself, I am happy to review it, as well. El_C 17:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove sanction[edit]

You have placed a sanction on me for "aggressive behaviour" without discussing any of this supposed behaviour with me, or giving any examples of it. Meanwhile, I have given several examples of another editor making abusive comments (for example [4] [5] [6]) and you have simply ignored them. Awoma (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awoma, I am declining your request at this time. I'll stress that this was an WP:ACDS action (the d stands for discretionary), so I was authorized to act with whatever expediency I saw fit. Regards, El_C 16:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you could give any justification for sanction, that would be great. Awoma (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awoma, I'm not sure what you mean. In my mind, the AN complaint and my sanction notice sufficiently explains it. El_C 17:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have said that I have been aggressive with respect to articles concerning gender and sexuality. The AN complaint doesn't show any such thing - it actually shows the direct opposite. Several examples are linked in which another editor is abusive to me on those very articles, and I remain civil regardless. So I am asking, can you provide an example of me being aggressive? On what basis did you decide to give this sanction? Awoma (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, many examples were given of the other editor being abusive to various other members, not just me. All of this has been ignored also, as it always is. Awoma (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awoma, even your last sentence at the AN thread alone, where you had said, in part, comments like this with mistruths and smearing, come across as aggressive to me, especially when you fail to substantiate these with a sounds evidentiary basis. El_C 17:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. I literally demonstrated three mistruths in that very post. You feel that pointing out mistruths, or defending myself against false accusations, is aggressive? Then how could I possibly win? Awoma (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awoma, without pointed evidence (i.e. diffs), I'm afraid it simply serves as an WP:ASPERSION on your part. El_C 17:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[said] I called it a personal attack that Lilipo had called a discussion exhausting. [pointed out] that this is false. Lilipo had called me exhausting, not the discussion. I called it a mistruth, because it is. It's not true. You then sanctioned me, because pointing out falsehoods like this you considered aggressive. It would be funny if it wasn't disgraceful. The evidence is right there for anybody to look at and verify that my account is correct. There are no aspersions here, just terrible admin decisions. Awoma (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Awoma, I truly am sorry you feel that way. But those diffs don't actually directly show anything of note that I was able to immediately discern (mis-linking?). Would you prefer to just quote directly? El_C 17:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sealioning is real. Lilipo said "You are exhausting and I give up." Serial said "having been told that discussion with Awoma was "exhausting", called this a personal attack". I said "The claim that "having been told that discussion with Awoma was "exhausting" (Awoma) called this a personal attack" is again just not true. Lilipo didn't call the discussion exhausting. They called me exhausting. It's there on the page - anyone can read it." I then called this a mistruth. Based on this, you sanctioned me, calling my response to Serial aggressive. I don't think it can be much clearer. Further, the addition of sexist "I'm sorry you feel this way" lines are very unwelcome. Awoma (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awoma, do not accuse me of sexism. I take the strongest possible exception to that accusation. That is a gross violation of Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Just the fact that you would say that to me reaffirms my stance ever more so. And, if you do so again, expect additional sanctions to be impending. As for "exhausting," it may be a bit uncivil, but a personal attack it is not. El_C 17:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse you of sexism. "I'm sorry you feel this way" is a sexist trope, and I called it as such and told you that it is very unwelcome. It is not a personal attack to point this out, just like it's not aggression to point out that something is untrue. Do you stand by the idea that my response to Serial was aggressive? Even though, as I've just shown, it was entirely true. Awoma (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to play with semantics with you over this, Awoma. It isn't a sexist trope by even the loosest possible interpretation. And, again, further such accusations will be responded to with an especial severity. El_C 17:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a sexist trope. "I'm sorry you feel that way" is the textbook example of a fauxpology. The wikipedia article on non-apologies even has a redirect from it! I'm not allowed to call out mistruths because that's aggressive and I get sanctioned, and I'm not allowed to call out tropes because then I'll face "especial severity." What would you do if I called the sky blue I fear. Awoma (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-block note. I strongly maintain that invoking WP:BLUESKY to defend this egregious charge is grossly out-of-step with any conventions that I am familiar with. For example, I said to a male editor yesterday in connection with another matter (WP:ARBPIA): I'm sorry that this is proving difficult for you, I really am, but I gotta ration my time wisely (diff). So, again, not sure what that would-be "sexist trope" is all about, but I am having none of it. El_C 18:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd note AFAICT, nothing in Non-apology apology says anything about sexism. While some of the examples given relate to men offering non-apology apologies in part to women, many others are men offering such apologies in part to men. If our article is wrong, hopefully someone else will fix it I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the "exhausting" thing, again? How about that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not only has Lilipo called me exhausting, they also repeatedly accused me of being biased, suggested I was being insincere and had some ulterior political motive, began interrogating me about being a "single purpose account", gave blanket opposition to "whatever my proposal is", talked about a "pink news mob" and so on and so on. And nobody cares. Instead I get sanctioned for wanting the abuse to end, and being utterly fed up with the inaction of administrators. Awoma (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs[edit]

Since I'm not certain if this was clear I'll offer some feedback. Do note that this is not a diff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGB_Alliance#Lead_opening. It's a link to a discussion sub-section and isn't really any different from Talk:LGB Alliance#Lead opening. It's often poor evidence especially with a long discussion as that one is since it's hard for anyone to know what comment you are referring to. A time stamp and username or direct quote helps but you're still making more work for someone else reducing the chance people will check it out. This is a diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALGB_Alliance&type=revision&diff=1007751072&oldid=1007745381 . It what you should provide in most cases when querying an editor's behaviour or proposing sanction. Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People have been asking for diffs from a relatively inexperienced user (Awoma has been here a while, but has a low edit count) as if they should know what that means, so fair play to Nil Einne for pointing out the difference between a link and a diff. Awoma, to create a "diff", you need to find the actual edit made by the person you wish to point to, via the history tab for either an article page, or it's talk page. So, for instance, to provide a diff for Nil Einne's comment above, you would note the timestamp and date, open the 'history' tab, and scroll down the list of edits. You would then need to click on the left radio button immediately prior to the one you want (so in this case it would be the 19:31 edit by El C), then click on the right-side radio button for the 19:35 edit. You have two radio buttons selected, so now click on the 'Compare selected revisions' button. You will be shown the actual edit made by the person at that time. Now copy the full URL from the address bar - that is the "diff" you are looking for. To quote it or provide it elsewhere, you can just paste it into a talk page, surrounded by square brackets. That will look like this: [7]. Alternatively, you can add some text after the URL, to provide a description, like this: Nil Einne explained what a diff is here. Hope this helps. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, and thank you to NewImpartial for similarly helpful comments. It is also worth thanking Nil Einne, as despite making his dislike for me immediately clear ([8]) he also posted what was to that point the only helpful comment I had ever seen from an admin. I'm done with wikipedia though - my experience of the behaviour of admins has been dreadful. It is this: There is one editor who consistently and repeatedly abuses other editors. In the past week they have made loads of personal attacks against me and tried to paint me and others as acting in bad faith at every turn: "you are obfuscating facts", "they're only 'unnotable' to you because you disagree with their opinion.", "don't try to paint this as a concern about "standards'", "you, frankly, have no other user contributions to Wikipedia except on this one topic", "your edits are concerned with branding organizations and people you disagree with as anti-transgender.", "do you deny that you are a single-purpose account", "you are exhausting and I give up", "whatever you think your proposal was, I oppose it", "an effort to egg other people into biasing the article", "It is not here for groups of activists to work together to attack organisations", "the same group of editors crying "Assume good faith!" repeatedly when they won't even attempt to look like they're acting in good faith.", "the Pink News mob", "group of mostly-male editors who consider Pink News hit pieces on women and lesbians and their allies to be the height of reliability.", "group of activists with Wikipedia editing accounts behind it", "that exist for no other reason than to insert the word 'transphobia' into every article". Many other editors have experienced and brought up similar, and Girth Summit's response is to do nothing about it, every single time. Again, this is just my experience - other editors have said the exact same thing (for instance on this page), including two editors I found who have left the website because of their treatment, and even in going to find these diffs I saw that this was posted just yesterday, containing further aspersions against various editors. We know what the response will be: nothing. We know what the response will be next time too: nothing. Girth Summit opens an AN review and I shortly get a comment from Nil Einne saying it's not surprising that people are frustrated with me and I am posting "stuff that makes no sense." The thing I posted was "looks like you've accidentally missed a few things", which makes complete sense. Incidentally, the very first line of my UTRS appeal, presumably from an admin considered in high standing, reads "You may have accidentally omitted some details", because this does make sense and is perfectly normal English. When Serial made a comment with several mistruths and smearing and I responded clearly explaining why the various claims were wrong this was deemed "aggressive" by El C, who then closed the AN and placed an indefinite sanction on me. Read the comment, there is nothing aggressive whatsoever. Considering, especially, that this was in response to Serial posting several untrue things (read the two comments to be assured that yes, the claims were indeed untrue) about me, one might have expected a great deal less composure than I show there. I don't, for instance, respond with any tit-for-tat mistruths about Serial, or aspersions against him. I just address the facts of the matter, and boom, that's "aggressive." Just like how me using the exact same expression as an admin is "nonsensical" in Nil Einne's view. Whenever the general mood of admins is against you, you can't win, you're out. No matter how innocuous something is, anything can become a reason to rebuke or punish, receiving the least charitable interpretation at every turn. With that in mind, El C shortly after issued a one week block for "egregious personal attacks", the "egregious personal attack" being that I called something he had said to me sexist and unwelcome. This is clearly not an egregious personal attack, by any stretch, but this just didn't matter. He includes in the block a boast about how infrequently his blocks are overturned - a kind of "you can try and fight back, but I wouldn't bother", and made several allegation reiterations about me on my own talk page knowing that I couldn't respond. When eventually unblocking, he adds an insinuation that I was "crying wolf". That comment, of course, would never be considered an "egregious personal attack", and it is ridiculous to suggest as such, even though if it came from me you can be sure it would be. Then there is the fruitless "diffs carousel" that El C put me on twice. I make a comment including the relevant diff (though I now see I formatted the diff incorrectly), El C just says "that's false" without explaining and says he will only respond if there are diffs. I point out that I posted the relevant diff and he asks me to post it again, so I post it again and he now posts "why are you quoting me? To what end? I already know what I said". If you read through this exchange, it's hard to see it as anything but bullying, though I know we have to assume that is not the case. Repeatedly asking for something which has already been posted, only to reveal the punchline of "why did you post the thing I asked you to post?" to make me look ridiculous. It even comes with mocking edit summaries "diffs of note remain elusive (Awoma)". Treating an editor like this causes needless distress. The second time this happened I requested an explanation of how my response to Serial was wrong, and El C requests diffs then repeats the same act. I give the diffs and he responds "those diffs don't actually directly show anything of note", complete with the mocking edit summary "new evidence falling short Awoma". This is a repeat of the "ask for diffs then say the diffs are meritless, while taunting" of the first time. If you look at the diffs, you'll see that they just confirm what I was saying, and I generally included direct quotations so you can just ctrl+f the relevant part anyway. If an admin does read to this point, I suspect the internal response will be one of defensiveness, and a motivation to reinterpret everything I've presented above to cast the admins in a better light, which is understandable, but if they can spend a few moments to understand what my experience was on the website that would be very welcome and can only improve their admin skills in future. Thanks, and bye! Awoma (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining how and what a diff is Nil Einne and Bastun. I hope I did not overuse this power. Awoma (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

My sense at present is that neither Girth Summit nor El C is uninvolved in the gender and sexuality subject matter area (although I am sure both of them intend to be). As prima faciae evidence of this both of them have, to my knowledge, only sanctioned editors on "one side" of the gender and sexuality disputes, which does not correspond to the degree of CIVILity infractions by various parties concerning these issues. Discussions such as this one and El C's premature AN close suggest taking one side in these disputes and also tag teaming, considering that El C had previously deferred to Girth Summit on matters concerning the same Talk page conflicts.

The appropriate place to raise this question would be Arbitration enforcement requests, and it might be necessary procedurally for Awoma to invoke this issue explicitly as a rationale for an appeal of their TBAN, under WP:BANEX point 2 (at AE) in order to be able to discuss this admin behaviour at all, since most of it is in areas covered by their TBAN (appeals of a TBAN are explicitly covered by BANEX 2, but if the scope of the appeal discussion is to cover the tag teaming / involved conduct by these two admins, it would be necessary to frame the appeal clearly to invoke these issues and to include them within the BANEX 2-mandated discussion).

For this approach to have any hope whatsoever of being treated appropriately by the admin community, the appeal would have to be formulated as dispassionately as possible, commenting on the issues and related admin conduct without sarcasm or innuendo, and only making statements that can be directly supported by diffs. This would not be easy, and might not be worth anyone's time and energy, but I did want to lay out what I take to be the procedurally correct (and optimally suited) venue in case there were an eventual decision to take this (very real) issue on. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, I think you may be blinded by your own focused interest in this topic area. The fact is that this AE subject matter isn't any different to me from all the many other ones I often attend to (one example, another example). Still, if you think I have exceeded my mandate in this matter, you are free to seek any clarifications you see fit from the Committee, under whose authority I operate, at WP:ARCA (including requests to have me admonished or censured outright). El_C 17:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid El_C has literally acknowledged that I was sanctioned [pointing out mistruths in a comment]. That's just how rotten the administration is, there's not even a semblance of reasonable justification for sanctions. I just can't hold on to any faith in the system given that. Awoma (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I take exception to that interpretation as patently false, but you are entitled to your view, of course. El_C 17:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which bit is false? You have called my response to Serial aggressive. All I did in that response was directly quote things Serial said, explain why they're wrong, and call them untrue. Awoma (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are entitled to think that, but from this point on, I will only respond to pointed complaints (diffs or failing that, direct quotes). El_C 17:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the diff! It's right there! Anyone can click it and see. Awoma (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not seeing any diffs of particular note. Maybe copy it again below this space...? El_C 17:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[9] Awoma (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so not a mis-link, after all. Awoma, why are you quoting me? To what end? I already know what I said. El_C 17:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, I hadn't intended to comment here, and I have no complaint about you setting out the proper method of appealing any decision, I think that's fine. I would like to make a couple of comments in relation to your note above, however.
  • First, I do not recall ever sanctioning anyone involved in gender and sexuality disputes, unless you include in that my blocking throwaway vandalism accounts who add homophobic/transphobic comments to our BLPs. I do not accept that I am involved, but even if I were to be so, I have done nothing that would violate WP:INVOLVED.
  • Second, you above seem to be invoking WP:Tag team, which implies improper coordination. I can assure you that I have never communicated with El C off-wiki in any manner whatsoever, including IRC (which I occasionally use, but have never seen him on, unless he does so under a different handle), e-mail, social media or real life. The entirety of our interactions can be seen on-wiki, and they are pretty limited outside of regular public noticeboards. I would ask you to be careful about what you insinuate about us.
  • Third, I remain entirely happy for anyone to review my actions in all of the threads I posted to AN, and all of the threads that were later added by Awoma. I stand by all of them, but am always open to hearing different people's interpretations.
You may wish to amend your prior statement, or post a clarification, if I have misunderstood what you are saying above. Best GirthSummit (blether) 17:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And 'for the record', there is a missing comment in the archive of the discussion above at the Graham Linehan article, which you assert demonstrates my taking sides. This comment by Awoma, which I reverted, is what drew my attention, and caused me to notify Awoma of the discretionary sanctions in this topic area. It's one thing saying 'Wikipedia has a transphobia problem', which is a reasonable opinion to hold; it's another thing to label editors as a 'handful of transphobes' without specificity or evidence. GirthSummit (blether) 17:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming of there having been no off-wiki contact with Girth Summit (to the best of my recollection, ever). And I haven't used IRC since the mid-2000s, truth be told. El_C 17:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to El C - this is a reply to El C's original comment above, and nothing else, so I am placing it here. As I tried to write this reply, I have had not one but two mobile device batteries fail on me, not to mention the flurry of additional commentary above. I wanted to reproduce my thoughts in reply to this reply with the maximum clarity I can attain.

First of all, El C, I do not know what you mean by you may be blinded by your own focused interest in this topic area. I have recently engaged in, among other things, drafting language for WP:N that recently passed at RfC, giving advice to a new editor about content development in an unrelated subject area and making an AfD nomination that was fruitfully closed. I am scarcely a POV warrior or an editor with a single interest.

Second, I do not believe that you, El C, are intending to promote any particular POV in the gender and sexuality area; the most I would say is that you and Girth Summit both clearly (and probably unconsciously) sympathize more with some editors than others. But what I am actually talking about re: WP:INVOLVED is actions, rather than intentions: you for example have chosen to sanction editors on "one side" of these talk page discussions (though given my early interactions with Awoma, the idea that we are on the same "side" is ridiculous), when other editors have suggested that edits on the other "side" were equally problematic. Girth Summit has likewise responded to comparable behaviour by removing diffs in one direction and leaving the other direction alone, in spite of what other editors (besides myself and Awoma) has suggested to be the appropriate course. Then you, El C, responded to the AN discussion that Girth Summit opened to invite scrutiny on his own behaviour by ending the scrutiny and topic-banning the other editor most involved in the conflict. Given the previous Talk page interactions between the two of you concerning myself in this very same topic area, my sense is that the close was not only premature but showed clear indications of bias and side-taking.

As an added clarification, I have never believed that the two of you were engaging in any off-wiki coordination about the gender and sexuality topic (or anything else). I was referring to "tag teaming" in the ordinary, wiktionary sense of Two or more people acting alternately to accomplish some task, and I thought this was clear from context. I am certainly not accusing anyone of collusion. I was - and still am - talking about actions and results, not intentions or conspiracies. Newimpartial (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. to Girth Summit - I accept that you have not engaged in any administrative actions, that I have seen, that violate WP:INVOLVED. I would however submit that El C's INVOLVED administrative actions, including the most recent one, cannot be construed correctly without also noting the opinions you have given and your redactions (and choices not to redact) in Talk page discussions, given that at a higher level these discussions have seen you forming opinions and expressing judgements and then EL C backing them up with administrative action. If you were to take an ARBGG administrative action in the near future, Girth Summit, it would be difficult for me to construe that as UNINVOLVED, which was the actual point I was making in my first sentence above, not that you have violated policy to date. Another missing sig Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC) - replace every ZIG[reply]

Newimpartial, I have nothing further to add at this time, except to reiterate that this an WP:ACDS matter (again, the d stands for discretionary). So, again, if you feel I've exceeded my mandate in this case, you are free to seek additional review by the Committee at WP:ARCA. El_C 18:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C - if you do not see your one-week block of Awoma as WP:INVOLVED, I would have difficulty knowing how to begin to change your mind. This seems pretty much self-evident.
Sorry! Missing sig Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll simply to respond to Newimpartial's newly-added postscript above by stating that I will continue to act as an uninvolved admin in any and all manner of DS and GS matters (including but not limited to WP:ARBGG), where I maintain my record is quite decent as well as rather extensive. And further to another comment (unsigned): no, I deem myself uninvolved and continue to do so. Awoma attacking me does not magically turn me INVOLVED. El_C 18:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph of WP:INVOLVED reads, In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. (Emphasis added)
If you don't recognize yourself as being engaged in a dispute with Awoma and having strong feelings about said dispute, again, I wouldn't know how to change your mind. Awoma attacking you certainly did make you INVOLVED in the sense that you should not have placed the escalating sanction yourself. Again, this seems obvious. Newimpartial (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, this is feeling too circular to me at this point. The fact is clear: I am not involved in this or any other ARBGG content disputes at this time (and to the best of my recollection, never have been). I was unaware of the editor Awoma up until a few hours ago. I investigated the matter and applied WP:ACDS as I saw fit, which was duly logged. After egregious attacks, I have also blocked Awoma. That they are grossly out-of-step with normal "sexist tropes" (or however we phrase it) conventions isn't on me, but I feel justified in acting to curtail that misconduct with the one-week block. As always, I welcome Committee review for any and all of my administrative actions (AE and otherwise). I don't really have much more to say, I'm afraid, for real this time. El_C 18:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: my claim that you are INVOLVED in the ARBGG area is based on who you choose to sanction and not to sanction (along with some of your explanations that would provide context). My claim that you were INVOLVED in your second sanction of Awoma is different: you did that because you interpreted her attacks on you as egregious. Per WP:INVOLVED, you should have left it to another admin to make that determination. That is all. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Newimpartial, that is not involved. You mistake an uninvolved admin being attacked by a sanctioned user to magically turning them involved. For umpthteen time, I am telling that this is not the case. Also, Awoma is free to survey such highly-esteemed female editors and admins as Gerda Arendt, Valereee, Atsme, GorillaWarfare, Liz, SlimVirgin, MelanieN (and I'm sure quite a few that I am forgetting) about whether I engage in sexism or "sexist tropes" or anything remotely of that nature (no pings attached out of courtesy). Enough, please. El_C 19:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote I would add here is that your need to defend your honor in the preceding comment suggests to me that perhaps you were affected more by your strong feelings than you were aware of when you made the second block, which does not make for the best decisions IME. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, I'll defend my reputation as I see fit by invoking friends and close colleagues of high repute who know me well, and who may be consulted on this matter from a female perspective, if that is of interest. The repeated accusation is one which I found objectively egregious, and if you are unwilling or unable to see that, then that puzzles me, but it is what it is. And now, I will leave you to it. El_C 19:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I have not been questioning whether or not the accusation was egregious; I have questioned whether you were able to evaluate it objectively. That I have questioned your decision-making process in this and prior matters does not mean that I am against you, that I believe bad things about you or that I question your motivations. Human beings make mistakes, and good humans try to find appropriate times to point out mistakes to others (while making a prior effort to acknowledge their own mistakes as well). I try to be a good human. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, sigh x2. I feel like I have already addressed your objections at some length. Obviously, we are in a diametric opposition over this, so I'm not sure what else you expect me to say at this point, truly. El_C 19:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection, I can see that I am still more affected than I thought by your taking your own "reputation" more seriously than you take stronger CIVIL violations directed at other editors, including but not limited to myself. This doesn't make you a bad person, but it does interfere with my ability to fully sympathize with your actions in this situation. Newimpartial (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Multiple EC) IIRC, last time I saw this discussed I think at AN, there was general agreement that an editor attacking an admin doesn't automatically make an admin involved on all future matters relating to said editor. Most of the time, they shouldn't block the editor over the attacks and it'll often be better to let another admin deal with this editor in the future just so the editor doesn't feel it's unfair (rather than as a community issue which is what involved implies), but the general agreement is editors aren't allowed to chose which admins can deal with them by attacking admins they dislike. Of course taken to an extreme someone could just attack every admin and become unblockable as a result. I'm sure someone would be willing to spend hours coming up with a personal attack for each admin if that was a possible result. Of course if an admin is strongly personally offended by something an editor said they often shouldn't take action, but that's different from an attack automatically making an admin involved. Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about the ECs (I assume they were mostly from me). But I wasn't implying that no editor should be sanctioned by any Admin they had had a conflict in the past (which would give rise to the exploit you mention, Nil). I was saying that no editor should be blocked by an Admin as an escalation of a conflict between the two of them - at least that is how I read the sentiment of the community. Which is why I see the lay of the land as a stronger prohibition against retaliation than just Most of the time. But, as always, I am here to learn. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nil, this isn't most of the time. Again, I feel justified in escalating further sanctions when the violation is that egregious. Yes, even if it is directed at me as the originally-sanctioning admin. El_C 19:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Am I wrong in thinking a one-week block - and removal of own talk=page access - is an extremely harsh penalty for what is a first block; especially when the admin applying the block appears to be involved in a dispute with the person blocked? I mean, it's quite possible standards have changed over time, but I'm looking at one block log here from a then notorious user who only got a one-week block on their seventh block. And they still had talk page access! How does one contribute to a "UTRS" discussion, anyway? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that DeepFriedOkra has made a decision. There would be ways for this or related issues to be discussed at WP:AE or at WP:ARCA, but the only way the block could be discussed while it is in effect would be for the blocked user to begin the ARCA process by email (as described here). I gather that the ARCA filing is distinct from the UTRS process; as I understand it, the latter is a solo review. Newimpartial (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made no decision. I'm leaving it open for other admins to review. UTRS is just for block reviews where TPA has been removed. The issues for this one are too complex for me to take unilateral action. The other alphabet soup stuff have their own processes, which I do not take part in. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, Deepfriedokra as I had misunderstood. All of the email-initiated processes are entirely unfamiliar and rather opaque to me, so I'm glad to hear from someone in the know. Newimpartial (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for engaging in egregious personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

Awoma, upon the expiry of this block, you may appeal this sanction to other uninvolved admins at WP:AE or to the Arbitration Committee directly at WP:ARCA (noting in passing that I've had something like 5 such appeals entertained during the past month alone, all of which having been declined). El_C 18:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking someone you're in a dispute with, for an entire week, and then making sure to brag about how your blocks don't get overturned in the explanation of their appeal rights seems at best unprofessional. Parabolist (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking someone you're in a dispute with, for an entire week, and then making sure to brag about how your blocks don't get overturned in the explanation of their appeal rights seems at best unprofessional. But revoking their talk page access and then immediately coming and posting on their talk page seems to be deliberately provocative, and, frankly, is fairly shocking behaviour for an admin. Especially when the same admin removes legitimate comment from their own talk page. Last I checked, getting adminship was being handed the mop and bucket to help clean up, not getting to sit in a private admin's Star Chamber. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 40691[edit]

Unblocked[edit]

Per advise at UTRS, I have unblocked you, Awoma. But please don't cry wolf about "sexist tropes" in the future, even unwittingly, until at least you are able to confirm these are of a genuine nature, whenever ambiguous or contested (3rd opinion, etc.). Thanks. El_C 00:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awoma, as El C has already mentioned, I commented on the appeal at UTRS. My comment was: While it's true that "I'm sorry you feel that way" can be a non-apology, and I've certainly seen the phrase used in response to accusations that a person is sexist, I don't think I've ever seen someone argue that the phrase itself is a sexist trope. I tried googling for "'i'm sorry you feel that way' sexist" in case I'm just behind the times, but it's all discussions of someone being called out for saying something sexist and then using the phrase as a non-apology. While Awoma may well personally believe that the phrase is sexist, I wouldn't say it's widely considered to be. That said, I do think a better response would have been to ask why they felt that way about the phrase or just move on. It also seems to me that if El C thought a block was appropriate, it probably should've been handled by another admin.
That's all advice for El C, given that you have no access to UTRS and so leaving advice to you there would've been pointless. But I would add that pointing to something being a sexist trope (that is, suggesting it is widely considered to be sexist) is the kind of thing we would normally expect to be supported with some kind of evidence. Though I understand there is a distinction between saying "that thing you said is sexist" and "you are a sexist", it feels terrible to most people to hear that they have said something sexist, and perhaps more so when it is not clear how what they've said can be interpreted that way. I am certainly not going to advise you not to point out when someone has said something sexist to you—I have done it in the past myself, and think it ought to be done—but if it is not immediately clear, a link to something goes a long way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited advice[edit]

My unsolicited advice to Awoma would be to take a long, deep breath (actually hours or days) before any giving any consideration to appealing the TBAN at AE. I do think there would be grounds for appeal, but I don't think it will be an easy one, and the only way it would have any hope IMO is if the initial filing is dispassionate and considered to a fault, and if conduct during the appeal is equally exemplary. None of which is really feasible for anyone within 48 hours of being unblocked, IME. So there is the unsolicited advice, but I do welcome you back. Newimpartial (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice, and likewise, welcome back. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Even though I did not really agree with either on you on a fairly large number of RfCs, you are both reasonable and also (more importantly) friendly, and I hope the culture improves to the point where others act similarly towards you both. Awoma (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Awoma&oldid=1048369999"