Requests for Comment/ApexAgunomu global ban appeal

Following an appeal sent to Stewards, this appeal for ApexAgunomu's global ban is now forwarded to the community. The following is her appeal:

"I am writing to request that my account ApexAgunomu be unlocked globally so I can edit on Miraheze again. I realize that I have had multiple issues with my behavior in terms of spamming, saying bad words, and creating extra accounts to get around local blocks on some wikis. I realize that none of that behavior was acceptable in any way, especially after receiving multiple warnings, and I apologize for disregarding the warnings and advice I received. I understand that if this appeal is granted it will be my last chance to be a part of the Miraheze community, and I am willing to adhere to any unlock conditions that may be given. I also promise to obey all the rules on all wikis from now on and will not make any extra accounts for any reason.Thank you for your consideration."

Now before the community is the chance to either support or oppose this appeal. For reference, ApexAgunomu was globally banned by the community following this Request for Comments. She was upgraded to long-term abuser status by Raidarr for evading her lock plus abusive behavior after her ban so should this proposal succeed, she would also need to appeal her LTA lock to Stewards. Agent Isai Talk to me! 02:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Accept appeal)
The appeal sent by ApexAgunomu is accepted and her account is unlocked and her global ban rescinded.

Support

 * 1) There's a good chance I'll be alone here. I admit that ApexAgunomu made me do some hard work to proverbially stand here. I did not participate in the original RfC imposing the ban, and I cannot say how I would have argued if I had. The first thing that became apparent to me about this user was the presentation of several conflicts among various Miraheze communities. Namely Test Wiki, Qualitipedia, Miraheze Developers, and Polandball Wiki. I want to note the vast contrast in the behaviors on these projects to others where Apex was acting apparently as a distinguished WikiGnome as is the case on Pokémon Wiki, PolCompBall Wiki, and even the Polandball Wiki outside of discussion threads. It would appear that this user is specifically influenced by communities with demonstrable levels of toxicity or "memeity", especially considering that the more formalized and process oriented projects receive her most constructive contributions. It appears that the blocks from Miraheze projects which have been imposed upon Apex are not all entirely due to actions on a relevant project. I would safely disregard the blocks on Awesome Games Wiki, Terrible TV Shows Wiki, Crappy Games Wiki, and Qualitipedia central as largely unjustified and apparently borne either of the actions of others (blocks on other Miraheze projects) or impatience, and I question how much a Miraheze project may be allowed to police a user's own userspace. Miraheze Developers Wiki and Test Wiki were the most appropriately administered blocks, with clear reasoning, consensus, and a reasonable expiry. The remaining blocks, including Meta and Polandball Wiki can be partially justified, and should probably be applied specifically to the user's problem areas until she can be guided into proper contribution patterns. I also believe that there is a good chance that the departure of Qualitipedia will mean improvement for many of the users who struggle to positively contribute on Miraheze. Ultimately, I would like to see every community ban appealed. Simply, I do not believe that we are a community to exile members, nor do I believe that is the most constructive and growth oriented experience for problem users. In addition to this, off-Miraheze activity is important information to alert the community of potential problems with particular users, though is not a very strong argument for restricting participation. So, here I will  the acceptance of the appeal of ApexAgunomu, only with local autonomy. I would advise that local action be reevaluated and specified—projects where the problem area was discussions should block discussions and try to make ApexAgunomu a constructive contributor in other areas. The repeal of this community ban should not result in the automatic removal of individual local sanctions, which should be left to local process. This includes IRC, Discord servers, and local Miraheze projects. I believe it is best to guide problem users to the proper outlet and skills for being a proper community member.  dross  (t • c • g) 10:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Some notes. The final breaking point in the stewardship of Dmehus was attempting to maintain chance after chance for Apex, which was successively blown on Meta without the help of any other community including the reception wikis (though Apex mucked about on them independent of any other posting that took place which may have encouraged her). Most of the record actually exists on communities outside of QP, which is a false positive given blocks on there were unnecessarily extended to other wikis (although I argue the block was sincerely valid on QP central, and was accompanied by multiple chances and warnings on the wiki itself and the attached discord at the time). This would be more persuasive to the unlock of users who were negative specifically because of QP, while Apex's record is born and raised on Wikipedia and then Miraheze central communities with only tangential intervention on QP itself. I'm skeptical that Apex was a particularly successful Gnome of any sort in her time, but I may concede a bias after having been on the front line of reports and cleanup from a diverse array of communities. Off platform wise the spam, nonsense and insincerity was continuous in any discord, irc or email she was involved in. Miraheze should not be a place to exile without good reason but it should not subject itself to violation time and again out of a sense of misguided mercy for one who systemically exploits the mercy. I hope voters will recall just how nasty and frequent this was, and not be so quick to forget. --Raidarr (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input here. I am not particularly strong in my support for this repeal, and actually quite weak, largely for these reasons. I would note that this is a prime example of the hazards of not maintaining proper documentation, especially when it comes to conduct warnings. Logs are permanent for a reason, and manually maintained logs are essential for this kind of record keeping. There is no evidence of the interactions on other Qualitipedia platforms because they were never recorded on wiki. My comments regarding gnomish behavior were solely via the diffs found on contributions pages on Miraheze communities, as derived from her CentralAuth. I will note that the Apex only acted in extremes, never contributing with any middle ground, and the behaviors were always well-defined periods of either troll-like behavior or gnome-like behavior. Once again, I specifically advise that the participation of Apex in discussion spaces continue to be blocked until it becomes clear either that she can contribute positively in discussion spaces, or makes it clear that she also cannot positively contribute to content spaces so should be banned. dross  (t • c • g) 02:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just would like to add that since the community ban by Miraheze, Apex has continued to evade locks with numerous other accounts, enough to attain LTA status. She has shown little to no remorse for her actions and I haven't seen anything to suggest that if she were to return to the platform, she wouldn't be disruptive and hateful again. I see your point as to why we shouldn't exile users, but this is just another LTA. Objectively, Apex isn't anything special when it comes to this situation. We shouldn't treat her any differently than any other troll we've encountered. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 04:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree in whole if Apex had failed to make any positive contributions. This is not so clear cut as we would like. Ban evasion is an important consideration, and one that certainly counts against Apex. As I mention, it is worth considering whether removing discussions from her participation would be beneficial. dross  (t • c • g) 04:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  per above
 * 2)  Per above but I'm worry for her comments. AlPaD (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  MoistyPorky.jpeg Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) MoistyPorky.jpeg 22:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * I am willing to give them a second chance, however, considering their actions on QP and Polandball wiki, plus the usage of LTA's, has made me hesitant. LovingHaydeL (talk to me uwu!)
 * Per above ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  I have had personal experience with Apex and have found them to be increasingly disruptive to Miraheze and its projects. The fact that Apex is appealing this global ban after such a short period of time is concerning to me, and as such I have no intention of supporting this appeal at this time. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 04:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I probably would've supported this if requested in a few more months and/or they had not been trying to evade the lock with LTA behavior, but because of that behavior I can not support this at this time. I believe in second chances, which is why I am weak opposing, but such a behavior as demonstrated by them, and the fact that they request an unlock so soon, makes me think they have not actually learned anything from this. Universal Omega (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The essential piece to understand is that this is so far beyond a second chance in the broader picture of the user in question. --Raidarr (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Raidarr. They've already had a second chance, and a third chance, and a fourth chance..... global bans are generally supposed to be permanent. Naleksuh (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I am unable to support due to the minimal amount of time between ban and appeal, and the usage of sockpuppets to evade said block. I suggest that Apex appeals again in a few more months, preferably next year (not necessarily mid/late 2023) in order for me to support (albeit weakly) an appeal. I’d also like to note behavior off-wiki (Fortestwiki, to be exact) she has made a category (forgot exact name) along the lines of “Hi r****ds” a few months ago, which is the same behavior that Apex had here, which makes me believe that she hasn’t learned anything from the past (although, again, it’s off-wiki); but I mostly agree with UO, mainly on the last part. TL;DR: Wait a few months. --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 07:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I'm sorry, but I absolutely cannot support this under any circumstances. She's been given too many chances by a former Steward, but she constantly kept breaking her promises, making her statements absolutely worthless. If she was ACTUALLY sorry for what she has done, then she needs to prove that, without a doubt in my mind. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) per all of the above. LovingHaydeL (talk to me uwu!) 6:55, 29 September 2022 (PST)
 * 4)  They have clearly not learned anything. They have repeatedly evaded their bans on wiki and on IRC. When on IRC they have used inappropriate language. This user needs to stay banned. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 15:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm not sure why this RFC is even open. A global ban's purpose is to prevent harm to [Miraheze] projects when a problem cannot be addressed by the community through less restrictive means, and consequently is usually permanent. There's no need for this appeal and it never should have been opened. Naleksuh (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would point out that there is a procedure for appeals and Stewards may forward them to the community. If this appeal fails I doubt Stewards will forward any others to the community in the near future but I think it's fair for the community to be consulted and in case this appeals failed for ApexAgonumu to have a confirmation that the community doesn't want them to return. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 16:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) per above The Goose Named Zeus  (talk) (contribs) (CentralAuth) (uploads) (sandbox) 22:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) In fact,she kept breaking the block and made community tired.I don't think she feels sorry. by Buel ·Talk·Wikimail 08:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Two points that makes me unable to support this request: (1) during the community ban they keep attempting to create sockpuppets; (2) the time between ban and appeal is too short.  -Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 11:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Of course, everyone can make a mistake, you can give a second chance, but he should also know that he should not do it again. Looking at the comments above, he doesn't think he's upset. I am against this section by agreeing with the above comments.  Hey Türkiye  message?  18:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  per above. LisafBia (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments
I'm the founder of the Pokemon Wiki. I'm not voting on this proposal as I still don't have a full grasp of the situation (and I abstained in the global ban vote), but I will say that I remember being very happy that someone was helping out on the Pokemon Wiki. She was a proper contributor, like I remember collaborating with her on finding the origin of the "Generation" term because it started out as fanmade word for grouping core series Pokemon titles. She made some articles on some legendaries like Azelf as well. Anyway I was very shocked when I learned that she had a long history of doing bad things around Miraheze, as she seemed like a decent person & was one of the few to help out on the encyclopedic wikis that me and DMM run (mainly just Pokemon Wiki, though she made a few Mariopedia edits prior to her permaban across the entire network). Not sure what else to say other than that I'm very sad to have lost a valued contributor because of her recurring bad behavior. Bawitdaba (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Decline appeal)
The appeal sent by ApexAgunomu is declined and her global ban remains.

Support

 * 1)  Per rationale above. I wouldn't consider an unlock appeal for at least another 6 months. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 04:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per what I said above in proposal one. Universal Omega (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Apex has sockpuppeted consistently every month or so in the time I was Steward - as far as I'm concerned the timer has hardly even begun. Apex has sent absolutely vile emails in that time and then followed up with bullshit sincere emails pretending nothing happened. Apex asked countless stupid questions that Apex already knew about the appeal process and the consequences of doing stupid things just after doing them. Apex hasn't changed a bit and while I understand the comedy in putting this out to vote to see it snowballed to death I still find it somewhat absurd to even put this to vote when the Steward context alone has volumes of evidence that Apex is a bad-faith actor who hasn't changed a bit since the day of the initial ban. I can quote some gems if necessary. For efficiency's sake it was odd to split this RfC in such a way that people would be making functionally the same vote twice (oppose one and support the other) but I digress. Apex realizes nothing, apologizes for nothing, makes up last chances like the US government prints money and is wasting our time even now. Unless you see a link with a concrete background on something credible like wikipedia 100% approving an about-face, it would be irresponsible for the Miraheze community to ever appeal an unblock. In 22, 23, or indeed 24. Some things never change. Get evidence to fine comb through before you ever consider supporting this. Apex has been trolling the time of Miraheze for years and of other platforms for years before. In this respect Apex is one of the best trolls Miraheze has ever seen. Don't be fooled. --Raidarr (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would certainly like to know some of these quotes. I think that is important information for this process. dross  (t • c • g) 10:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is unfortunately the last minute before a two-day downtime; afterwards I can sift through the emails. If they desire, current stewards will also have forwarded copies of some of these emails available (with digging). --Raidarr (talk)
 * 1)  Considering she's recently been evading her global locks numerous times, she needs to be away from the wikis for a while, and maybe reflect on her horrible behavior. Consider this a warning, . If you are truly sorry for what you did, then I would've gladly given you another chance. Unfortunately, you've been giving us nothing but empty promises to stop the repeated disruption ever since you've been unlocked 6 months ago. This is like explaining physics to a toddler. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per everyone above. It's clear that this is her being insincere yet again, and taking into account her frequent sockpuppetry I don't see any reason to trust this appeal. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per all of the above. Please appeal again in 3 months (December) LovingHaydeL (talk to me uwu!) 6:57, 29 September, 2022 (PST)
 * 4)  per my oppose above. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 15:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) The Goose Named Zeus  (talk) (contribs) (CentralAuth) (uploads) (sandbox) 22:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) - I can't trust her. by Buel ·Talk·Wikimail 04:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  Because of what I wrote above, I'm voting support for this section. If everyone says they can't trust that user, they may be deceiving us.  Hey Türkiye  message?  18:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Per my support above. AlPaD (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * per above

RFC comments

 * She was upgraded to long-term abuser status by Raidarr for evading her lock plus abusive behavior after her ban so should this proposal succeed, she would also need to appeal her LTA lock to Stewards. Does the locking policy work like this? At a local level, community bans supercede blocks and removal of a ban would also result in removal of the locks. I don't see any reason why it would be different here. I also don't think there's any such thing as being "upgraded to long-term abuser status"....it's just a term. Not any part of policy. Naleksuh (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also not even sure if this RFC is valid. The global ban was meant to be permanent and there is nothing saying users are entitled to any sort of appeal. Unless this is an RFC to *overturn* the global ban, in which case it's three months late. Naleksuh (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention I don't think you can make an appeal after getting globally blue balled before 6 months. LovingHaydeL (talk to me uwu!) 19:34, 29 September 2022 (PST)
 * Procedurally, this was a decision by Stewards to seek community input. There is no precedent or specification for reversing a community ban. That said, if the community has the power to impose a ban, it can be lifted by consensus. Every ban is capable of being appealed through proper avenue (SRE, T&S, or Stewards), and this RfC was a case of Steward discretion to seek community input on an appeal to a community action. Stewards are absolutely empowered to pass judgement on the appeal alone if they so decided. dross  (t • c • g) 02:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They most certainly are not. If community consensus is to ban a user it would not be appropriate for a steward to unilaterally reverse it, and this would likely result in removal of steward permissions for the offending user. The same goes for local bans. Naleksuh (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is policy here which discusses appeals to such bans and when they are applicable. John (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That page seems to support what I was saying. It says they can choose to not start an appeal if they believe it is invalid. It doesn't say they can lift the ban themselves without consulting the community, which is what Dross was implying. Also, my global ban proposal was before all of that was decided and should not be retroactively changed without consensus to do so for that specific case. My global ban proposal did not have any "appeal" form and was intended to be permanent, because that is how I believe global bans are to be in nature. A global ban's purpose is to prevent harm to [Miraheze] projects when a problem cannot be addressed by the community through less restrictive means, and consequently is usually permanent. A global ban is not [...] meant to provide a “cool down” period. I did this because the user has already received far too many chances already and having exhausted them all, having done this for over two years while clearly in bad faith, and having already been locked and unlocked and on that. They've already "appealed" other sanctions and their previously global lock and immediately gone right back to intentional disruption and vandalism. The global ban was the "alright, we're done here, no more chances". That's why there was never any sort of "appeal" mentioned, and why unless there is consensus to apply it retroactively I believe this appeal RFC is procedurally invalid. Naleksuh (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So, I think there's a bit of confusion - the steward added condition of being an LTA is a steward problem which they can decide whether or not an unlock is appropriate there. Personally I disagree - if the community vote to overturn a ban, that should stand, so the comment of "the lock must further be appealed to stewards" I think is unfair. From a procedural point of view, there was a proposal about whether to retrospectively apply these appeal conditions onto all pre-existing bans which passed. As in the past, there was nothing preventing a ban - this is not procedurally invalid as it's a fair restriction to back date. John (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is precisely my point. Stewards are not accountable to policy, only community approval. While it is true that it would be inappropriate for a steward to act contrary to consensus and that it is extremely likely that a steward would be revoked for doing so, it is not guaranteed as it is with policy. Stewards are empowered to do so, with the responsibility of honoring and being checked by community approval and consensus. dross  (t • c • g) 21:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add that if indeed this resolution passes, even though I've voted against it, there should be severe, community-imposed restrictions upon ApexAgunomu's reentry to the community. I'm strongly opposed to the idea of Apex back on Miraheze, let alone without any restrictions. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 04:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)