Roscelese
No action taken. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:02, 24 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 Roscelese
As far as I know, Roscelese has three restrictions placed upon her, including only making one revert per page per day. She is also prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes. Only July 16th she made one large edit that contained three reverts. For the record, some of these changes I agreed with and others I did not. For this edit she started a new section on the talk page entitled "Reverts" and includes three bullet points. I leave it up to the judgement of administrators as to whether one edit with three reverts counts as one revert or three. However, just three minutes later, she made another edit in which she reverted another contribution. This, I submit, is clearly a violation of the one revert per page per day restriction. Roughly 23 hours later, after her initial edit was reverted, she made a similar edit. I don't know if "per day" in this context means calendar day or 24 hour period but, judging by WP:3RR, I assume it is the later. About 90 minutes later, she made another revert to the same article. To her credit, she self reverted this but gave as an explanation that she "didn't notice intervening edit," and not that she wasn't allowed to make two reverts page per day. Lest she claim that this was just an edit, and not a reversion, please note her edit summary and her comments on the talk page where she discusses (the five week old addition) as an " extremely recent" addition and suggests I employ BRD if I want to keep the material. She clearly considered it a reversion. To her credit, she did discuss these edits on the talk page. However, in so doing, I suggest she ran afoul of her prohibition on personalizing disputes. See said that I was "intentionally" misrepresenting a source, then again said I was "aware that [my] addition misrepresents the source, but wish to add it anyway." This was despite my good faith efforts to show her why I thought my interpretation was correct and hers was mistaken. She then accused me of "intentionally keeping [content] in the wrong section." Her next comment again impugned my motives by asking "Is there some sort of opposite-day game going on that no one tipped me off about?... You are not a new user and I shouldn't need to explain this to you." If giving the benefit of the doubt, one could read these more charitably and say that these are not personalizing disputes. However, when her edit summaries simply and continually read "sigh," I don't think this more charitable reading is warranted.
Since filing this complaint, Roscelese has unreverted her self revert by claiming that the initial "edit wasn't a revert." That is to say, some material which she initially removed with an edit summary that said "reverts", and which she described on talk as being a "Revert," she is now claiming in her most recent edit summary is not a revert. As explained on talk I disagree with this removal, but don't plan to take any other action until this is resolved. This is, I note, her second revert in three hours. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
To make things clear, my understanding of the restrictions placed against Rosclese are based, in part, upon the discussions in previous AE incidents. When she appealed her most recent block she made that argument that "As I explained at AE, I complied with my restriction in ... making only one revert per day, since consecutive edits are universally understood to constitute one edit." Her appeal was not successful. I took from this that consecutive edits were not to be considered a single edit. If I am mistaken then I apologize and would ask for clarification from @Sandstein:, the original admin who imposed the block, and @RegentsPark:, the admin who rejected the appeal. Regardless, there are still other instances of multiple reverts in a 24 hour period. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC) @Awilley:, I think you are mistaken. The edit which she says was not a revert talks about culpability. The edit you reference moves a line about discrimination from one section to another. They are different. Could you check again? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning RosceleseStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by RosceleseObviously this is not in violation of my restriction; I didn't violate my RR, and I think it's clear that I'm extending extremely good faith to Slugger (click the diffs rather than accepting his inaccurate paraphrases). AE is not a block dispenser for "winning" BRD by forfeit, and Slugger seems to be reading malice in my comments where I certainly intend none; I'm sure that this misunderstanding of the situation and of Wikipedia policy will be resolved with a quickness. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by PeterTheFourthWP:3RR says " Statement by (username)Result concerning Roscelese
|
Wumbolo
Wumbolo is topic-banned from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. They may appeal the sanction after six months of producive editing in other topic areas. Sandstein 06:47, 24 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
Both of these edits are to Carlos Maza, a biography of a person in conflict with Andy Ngo — the edits themselves are objectionable, and they also appear to be a clear-cut violation of Wumbolo's topic ban from Andy Ngo-related pages. Utilizing Russia Today as a source for negative material about a living person demonstrates that Wumbolo does not understand Wikipedia sourcing requirements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:14, 21 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 WumboloThis is an inaccurate report. I added a "June 6, 2019" cite for assault that Maza had encouraged way back in March 2019. wumbolo ^^^ 15:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I will now delete this entire report because NorthBySouthBaranof is illegitimately connecting claims that Maza has encouraged antifa violence to actual incidents of antifa violence. Extreme BLP violation. wumbolo ^^^ 15:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC) I thank NorthBySouthBaranof for striking what would have been the crucial evidence here. Now there is no violation. wumbolo ^^^ 15:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC) Above NorthBySouthBaranof is violating WP:GSNR, i.e. they are citing a Google search, which includes hard-right outlets such as Daily Caller, Twitchy, The Resurgent, Big League Politics, The Federalist etc. wumbolo ^^^ 15:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC) I do not have a Wall Street Journal subscription. I apologize for not knowing the contents of all paywalled articles ever. wumbolo ^^^ 15:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC) I suggest Objective3000 not WP:HOUND me, or at least come up with something of value. wumbolo ^^^ 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC) I can't reply to everyone because of the word limit. If anyone wants to topic ban me from AP2, open a new report so I can reply with 500 words and not 250 minus those about unrelated matters. TonyBallioni has twice called my behavior in this case "disturbing", but what I will call disturbing is my around-a-dozen encounters with TB in which he has a consistently extreme anti-BLP stance. My very moderately pro-BLP stance has amassed me more enemies than friends on wiki (this is not WP:BATTLEGROUND, it is following BLP). Perhaps the resistance is strongest in AP2, where my moderate-BLP-defending-everyone offends snowflake POV pushers on both sides (LOL Swarm said I'm the one in "full-meltdown"). I will now comment on three matters only. First, it is shameful that at least three admins (including Swarm) are convinced by Swarm's BLP violating contention. @Awilley: I apologize for not being specific enough; I was not specific in order not to make the same BLP violation as everyone else in this discussion. So the BLP violation is Swarm trying to connect Maza's March 2019 tweet condoning milkshaking/assault/you-name-it to a June 2019 single instance of a severe beating that included milkshaking, using extreme-right sources which Swarm admits are worse than RT. I never (until now) even remotely connected Maza's tweet to political violence (only hinted at NorthBySouthBaranof doing that), and the RT article is from weeks before the attack on Andy Ngo. I merely used RT because it quoted (and commented slightly upon it) a tweet saying "Milkshake them all." If that tweet is not a call for assault, I do not know what is. While I used RT for a mere quotation and a simple observation, Swarm and company are using hard-right outlets to prove a link between a tweet and vicious violence. Secondly, the BLP violation that this whole report is based on is what I just explained – a "connection" between the tweet (by Maza) and violence (against Ngo) cited to sources much less reliable than RT. Thirdly, NorthBySouthBaranof violated BLP in this heading change [4] - WP:BOOMERANG. wumbolo ^^^ 11:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000Wumbolo used Russia Today as a source for negative characterizations about a living person in the political arena and is now arguing at BLPN that RT is like the BBC for such sourcing.[5] Also today, they added information to Ilhan Omar about a resolution related to BDS, a highly controversial area in which Omar is being criticized cited to Haaretz. Haaretz is an acceptable source, but should not be used for highly controversial areas related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.[6] OTOH, also today, they deleted an addition to Donal Trump [7] questioning the sourcing at [8]. The sources were The New York Times, NPR, and CNN. I suggest that Wumbolo be more careful with sourcing at DS articles. O3000 (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Question by Beyond My Ken@TonyBallioni: Other then the topic ban from Andy Ngo, the rest of your sanction on Wumbolo reads: "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." Do his actions here, in using a non-reliable propaganda source to make a controversial possibly-BLP-violating edits about someone who seems to fall into the AP2 subject area qualify for that, even if they are not related to Andy Ngo? I'm really not sure if they do or don't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@GoldenRing: Just checking - did you really mean to write about Wumbolo: "Overall, I think this editor is likely to be a force for good in the AP2 topic..." (emphasis added)? If so, I suggest that you look a bit more closely at the editor's contributions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Simonm223While the difs provided don't appear to constitute a technical violation of Wumbolo's topic ban from Andy Ngo, I'd suggest that a discussion of their increasingly erratic and disruptive conduct might be appropriate at WP:AN/I instead. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICOWumbolo has been disrupting American Politics for quite a while. He typically misrepresents policy or guidelines [9] or he falsely cites BLP to remove well-sourced content [10]. I have not been active the past year, so I don't have any other recent examples to offer. I'd support a TBAN from American Politics. The AP area has lost the participation of good editors who choose not to interact with this kind of disruption. Unfortunately, the patterns of Wumbolo's behavior are longstanding and unlikely to change with a last warning. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by un-involved Masem
Result concerning Wumbolo
|