TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) →Wumbolo: close |
|||
Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
==Wumbolo== |
==Wumbolo== |
||
{{hat|{{noping|Wumbolo}} is banned from [[Andy Ngo]] and it's talk page, as well as [[WP:TBAN|topic banned]] from Andy Ngo anywhere on Wikipedia. Wumbolo is further warned that future disruption in the American Politics topic area will likely result in further sanctions, up to a topic ban from the entire [[WP:AP2]] topic area. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 20:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)}} |
|||
<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> |
<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> |
||
Line 288: | Line 289: | ||
*{{re|TonyBallioni}} I'd be a bit worried about sanctions on the basis of the diffs you provide. While the argument over whether assault is a crime is a bit bizarre, I'm a lot more concerned about editors who insist on the "allegedly" weasel-word and on replacing "antifa" with "anti-facist" when RS seem pretty unanimous on describing the incident as "assault" and identify "antifa" as the perpetrators (a quick search turned up CNN, the Independent, Vox, WSJ, Fox, Slate, RT, Yahoo News, the Spectator, the Atlantic, NYT...). There appears to be a sustained campaign to downplay the role of antifa in this article and Wumbolo has been on the side of the sources. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 09:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC) |
*{{re|TonyBallioni}} I'd be a bit worried about sanctions on the basis of the diffs you provide. While the argument over whether assault is a crime is a bit bizarre, I'm a lot more concerned about editors who insist on the "allegedly" weasel-word and on replacing "antifa" with "anti-facist" when RS seem pretty unanimous on describing the incident as "assault" and identify "antifa" as the perpetrators (a quick search turned up CNN, the Independent, Vox, WSJ, Fox, Slate, RT, Yahoo News, the Spectator, the Atlantic, NYT...). There appears to be a sustained campaign to downplay the role of antifa in this article and Wumbolo has been on the side of the sources. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 09:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
**{{u|GoldenRing}}, I disagree: you are essentially making a content argument, and it is not our job to do that. It is our job to look at the behaviour and determine if it is compatible with Wikipedia’s behavioural standards, which this certainty isn’t. It’s not a weasel word to insist that an article actually make clear that something is alleged when it is criminal and no court has ruled on it, nor is the edit warring okay, or the fairly blatant POV-pushing, misleading edit summaries, and multi-article disruption on this topic. The question is whether or not an indefinite AP2 ban is needed or if a ban from Ngo would be sufficient. I’m leaning Ngo at this time, but would be open to AP2. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 14:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC) |
**{{u|GoldenRing}}, I disagree: you are essentially making a content argument, and it is not our job to do that. It is our job to look at the behaviour and determine if it is compatible with Wikipedia’s behavioural standards, which this certainty isn’t. It’s not a weasel word to insist that an article actually make clear that something is alleged when it is criminal and no court has ruled on it, nor is the edit warring okay, or the fairly blatant POV-pushing, misleading edit summaries, and multi-article disruption on this topic. The question is whether or not an indefinite AP2 ban is needed or if a ban from Ngo would be sufficient. I’m leaning Ngo at this time, but would be open to AP2. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 14:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
{{hatb}} |
Revision as of 20:33, 11 July 2019
Cinderella157
For a clear violation of the topic ban, a five-day block is appropriate--to be precise, one week, minus two days, since that is how long it's been without any edits to the request here. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2019 (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 Cinderella157
--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Cinderella157Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Cinderella157The edits are not about the Waffen-SS. They are not about the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945. This is really too long a bow to draw to construe that they are. That is my sincere belief (as I responded to KEC).[1] They are about two relatively recent events categorised as "controversies". The first being in the US, where a US congressional candidate offended people by dressing up in costume, and the second, in the UK where two (reported) neo-nazis were filmed running-off at the mouth. The ban imposed was specifically not about WW2 more broadly, as Drmies appears to be construing. There is explicitly not an interaction ban with KEC. I cannot speak to TonyBallioni's intentions (they have not been recorded) but link to this discussion.[2]. I did raise concerns regarding transparency which relate back to statements now being made. I referred to WW2 reenactment at the case request as being contradictions between KEC's actions elsewhere and what they were alleging in the subject case. TonyBallioni has identified their participation in the case. The think the same is true of Drmies. Yes, I used rollback to revert two edits which were essentially the same that had been previously reverted and for which there were comments. I forgot that there were no comments and had intended to comment that previous version (after edits by Hohum and Xx236 were of "better" weight in respect to the tag. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by TonyBallioni@Drmies and Galobtter: the wording of the topic ban that passed was written by me as an uninvolved case participant, IIRC, so commenting up here. In my view, this is a violation of the sanction. I wrote it the way it was to intentionally prevent any editing related to the Nazi-era. It was drafted with this statement in mind, where Cinderella157 had compared K.e.coffman’s work to a Nazi era atrocity. Note that historical re-enactment was also included in that statement by Cinderella157, so I’m not sure how he can’t see the connection. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My KenI would like to point out that in this comment on Cinderella157's talk page in March, Bishonen reminded C157 about their topic ban and its scope, and warns them that comments they made on ANI (in a discussion about me, to be perfectly clear) were a violation of that ban. Thus, C157 has received a prior warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Cinderella157
|
BorchePetkovski
Indef blocked as a normal admin action. Not an AE block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning BorchePetkovski
I was tempted to just issue a 24 hour block after MJL made me aware of the edit, but it is already 2 days old and they only appear to edit sporadically so I'm not sure if something likely to be symbolic is best? Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BorchePetkovskiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BorchePetkovskiStatement by MJL {RE: BorchePetkovski}Thank you for pinging me Thryduulf. Statement by (username)Result concerning BorchePetkovski
|
Wumbolo
Wumbolo is banned from Andy Ngo and it's talk page, as well as topic banned from Andy Ngo anywhere on Wikipedia. Wumbolo is further warned that future disruption in the American Politics topic area will likely result in further sanctions, up to a topic ban from the entire WP:AP2 topic area. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2019 (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 Wumbolo
Page placed under 1RR & consensus required by ST47 here. Wumbolo claimed a WP:BLPSPS exemption for his edit removing this. The removal had been contested in the past. The material removed does not relate to a living person and thus WP:BLPSPS does not apply. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WumboloStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WumboloI have self-reverted the edit. wumbolo ^^^ 07:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The table contains misrepresentations of sources by NorthBySouthBaranof. (emphases in table are mine) wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC) @Dumuzid: I apologize for attacks. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC) @Pudeo: see #9 and #10 in table. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans was always the one misrepresenting sources. I have been consistent. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC) @TonyBallioni: I can't respond fully because of the limit, but the table above should provide sufficient information. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by GMGUsing twitter as a third party source in an article about a living person is a BLP violation. This edit is not subject to reversion restrictions, and is fairly clearly marked as an edit made under BLP. GMGtalk 22:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by PeterTheFourth (filer)@GreenMeansGo: I don't believe WP:BLPSPS applies, as I noted in the initial request, because the material removed does not relate to a living person. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by EdChemI have commented at talk:Andy Ngo. Following from those comments, I recommend trouting both Wumbolo and Pete, and possibly also GMG for the argument above, and then closing this AE report with no action. Added: Full thread is here, including my corrected comments as it was PTF not W who started this AE. EdChem (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranofRelatedly, Wumbolo is repeatedly removing reliably-sourced descriptions of the "concrete milkshake" claim as a hoax, dubious and/or false, from the Milkshaking article. They have ludicrously claimed in edit summaries, without the slightest shred of evidence, that these are Statement by DumuzidI ran in to some of this same behavior from Wumbbolo on the Antifa talk page, specifically with regard to Mr. Ngo and milkshakes. I think this person is a good editor, but needs to find a way to be a bit less WP:POINTY. Everything did seem to be framed as Wumbolo's edits vs. terrorism. They even managed to get under my skin, and I apologize for being a bit brusque in reply. That being said, if they are willing to honestly try to assume good faith and edit in a less overtly political way, I don't think a block is necessary. Then again, I'm an old softie, and often wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by cygnis insignisBoth users, the reporter and reported edit aggressively and exhibit exceptional rudeness in heated to and fros. Both seem to be spoiling for a fight, not contribute positively in my experience of them, bringing it here is just part of a campaign. cygnis insignis 00:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken@TonyBallioni:: Consider this edit, made today, attempting to whitewash the article about Laura Loomer with the removal of sourced information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by PudeoCertainly Wumbolo shouldn't be topic banned for following WP:MOS and removing those WP:CLAIMED and WP:ALLEGED the very least. I don't understand the insistence on WP:BLPCRIME or tip-toeing whether it sounds like an assault or not. It can't be BLPCRIME, for once, because no one has been appherended or even recognized from the masked, unknown protestors. And anyone can be a part of the "Antifa" network, so there's no need to tip-toe that for BLP reasons either. You don't need to secure a conviction when there are no suspects and reliable sources have reported the attack. Wumbolo was right in describing the attack accurately per sources and removing the ALLEGEDs, but he should have left the Snopes piece intact. But all these separate things were modified in the same edits. --Pudeo (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by SnooganssnoogansI don't have to time to get into this particular dispute, but I'd just like to note that this editor is problematic on all Wikipedia pages that relate to right-wing YouTube and Twitter celebrities and fads (Andy Ngo is another example). He repeatedly and often grossly misconstrues what cited sources actually say, and then edit-wars his changes into articles. Most recently, he edit-warred content not supported by the source into Ben Shapiro's article[15][16]. He also removed text that a RfC concluded should be in the Shapiro article.[17] In an attempt to get the RS noticeboard to give Ben Shapiro's website 'Daily Wire' RS status, he blatantly misrepresented how the website was covered by other news outlets[18] (and recently did the same for LifeSiteNews[19]). He also misconstrued sources on the articles for Shadow banning[20], YouTube[21], and South African farm attacks[22](where the editor was falsely claiming that RS did not report that a "white genocide" in South Africa was false[23][24]). In my opinion, this is something that should be considered a cardinal sin on Wikipedia, because it forces other Wikipedia editors to waste their time sifting through his sources, engage in discussions with him and deal with the edit-warring in good faith. It's an enormous time sink. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by PackMecEng@TonyBallioni: Wumbolo does make a good point about BMK's personal attacks here and in edit summaries. I am concerned with your dismissal of that given our communities lack of response to such things. A new AE filing is of course not needed for that given anyone that comments here can have their conduct examined as well. PackMecEng (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Wumbolo
|