NorthBySouthBaranof is illegitimately connecting claims that Maza has encouraged antifa violence to actual incidents of antifa violence. Extreme BLP violation. |
|||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*Just noting that PeterTheFourth is correct. One edit that reverts 3 edits counts as one revert. As for Roscelese taking things personally...I begin to wonder if she might have a reason for that. This is the 4th AE report Slugger O'Toole has initiated against Roscelese in as many months. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive249#Roscelese] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive250#Roscelese] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive252#Roscelese]. Also it's pretty obvious when looking at the whole picture, when Roscelese reverted her self-revert with the edit summary "as previous edit wasn't a revert..." she was referencing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality&diff=906739270&oldid=906614913 this] edit, which as far as I can see is indeed not a revert. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 15:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC) |
*Just noting that PeterTheFourth is correct. One edit that reverts 3 edits counts as one revert. As for Roscelese taking things personally...I begin to wonder if she might have a reason for that. This is the 4th AE report Slugger O'Toole has initiated against Roscelese in as many months. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive249#Roscelese] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive250#Roscelese] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive252#Roscelese]. Also it's pretty obvious when looking at the whole picture, when Roscelese reverted her self-revert with the edit summary "as previous edit wasn't a revert..." she was referencing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality&diff=906739270&oldid=906614913 this] edit, which as far as I can see is indeed not a revert. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 15:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
==Wumbolo== |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning Wumbolo=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NorthBySouthBaranof}} 15:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Wumbolo}}<p>{{ds/log|Wumbolo}} |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:ARBAPDS]] : |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Maza&diff=907241545&oldid=907046508 21 July] Makes undiscussed revert to [[Carlos Maza]] (a page clearly related to [[Andy Ngo]]) declaring a nonexistent consensus, when a cursory examination of the talk page shows a clear consensus for the prior version |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Maza&diff=next&oldid=907241545 21 July] Adds claim that the article subject is a hypocrite and supports violence, based upon an article about the Maza-[[Andy Ngo]] conflict published by the Russian propaganda outlet ''[[Russia Today]]'' |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wumbolo&diff=905845372&oldid=905461429 11 July] Topic-banned from [[Andy Ngo]] and related pages, and warned that further disruption in the American Politics area will likely result in further sanctions. |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wumbolo&diff=905845372&oldid=905461429 11 July] by {{admin|TonyBallioni}}. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
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. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 15:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Wumbolo=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Wumbolo==== |
|||
This is an inaccurate report. I added a "June 6, 2019" cite for assault that Maza had encouraged way back in March 2019. <span style="background-color:#cee">[[User:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#066;font-family:Symbol">w</span><span style="color:#066;font-family:Segoe Script">umbolo</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#37C;font-family:webdings">^^^</span>]] 15:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{tq|article about the Maza-Andy Ngo conflict published by the Russian propaganda outlet Russia Today}} This is a lie. The article is from "June 6, 2019". <span style="background-color:#cee">[[User:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#066;font-family:Symbol">w</span><span style="color:#066;font-family:Segoe Script">umbolo</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#37C;font-family:webdings">^^^</span>]] 15:28, 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. <span style="background-color:#cee">[[User:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#066;font-family:Symbol">w</span><span style="color:#066;font-family:Segoe Script">umbolo</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#37C;font-family:webdings">^^^</span>]] 15:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Wumbolo=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
* |
Revision as of 15:30, 21 July 2019
Buffs
Clear consensus that Order of the Arrow does not fall under the scope of ARBAP2. The ban is therefore overturned. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 15 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 Buffs
I think, but this is an appeal, so I'm asking for UNenforcement.
N/A; an appeal
N/A; an appeal
Part of the problem is that none of these apply...I think... On the Order of the Arrow talk page I saw and asked how it fell under these sanctions and was told "On the earth side of the United States and around that aforementioned timeline." This interpretation basically means anything that has existed in the US since 1932 or involves discussion since 1932. I don't think that was the intent of the original sanctions. Given that the locus of the primary dispute is regarding language used in 1915 (and earlier), I don't think it should apply. Even if it did, the length of ban is highly disproportionate.
Admin El C put Order of the Arrow under discretionary sanctions without logging it. He put also put me under a TBAN as a discretionary sanction without logging it either. He then blocked me without checking to see if I'd had the required notification. I’m asking for the ban/block to be vacated. Details and diffs below as needed. Side note: I'm not familiar with this process, so if I missed something or I've filed it incorrectly, please...be gentle, but you are free to correct any problems
An admin warned me not to use a collapse field on a talk page (It’s worth noting El C endorsed such actions just a few days prior, had been done to my remarks in the past with no complaint, and it was already undone/moved with no additional discussion/problems...i felt it'd been resolved). Another admin posted a warning to my talk page, but before I even saw the warning, under AE, El_C decided to increase that warning to a 6-month ban on the article for "underhanded conduct". And before I'd even had a chance to see the ban, El_C blocked me for a week for evading the ban (he later reverted it as he realized I hadn't seen it). These sanctions were not logged until after I was banned and blocked, as required. As such, actions taken under them should be invalidated.
Well, it's about me...so, yes, as the filer, I'm aware. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Discussion concerning BuffsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BuffsSee above. Buffs (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by El_CThe matter is now before the Arbitration Committee (privately). Due to issues pertaining to privacy, I am unable to comment further at this time. Sorry. But briefly, in regards to the discretionary sanctions encompassing the article: most of the dispute seem to revolve around modern claims of "cultural appropriation," which is why I felt AP2 applied. I continue to stand by that evaluation. Again, sorry for taking up the board's time, but I was only pinged (which currently just happens to be not good enough). A notice on my user talk page was due. El_C 20:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Buffs
|
Roscelese
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Roscelese
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality#Motion:_Roscelese_restricted_.28September_2015.29 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
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.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- June 10, 2019 Roscelese was recently blocked for one month for violating the same restrictions.
- April 26, 2019 Two week block
- April 4, 2019 One week block
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on June 10, 2019 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
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)
- Roselese, I don't intend to get into a back in forth with you but the record is clear. I added material. You removed it. You described it as a revert. Twice. If that isn't a revert, I don't know what is. This wasn't just a run of the mill edit. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:51, 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)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Roscelese
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Roscelese
Obviously 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)
- Slugger, I'm going to gently remind you again that not every edit is a revert. An edit that removes text is the opposite of an edit that keeps that text word-for-word and integrates it more fully into its appropriate section. The person who's making multiple reverts in the space of less than an hour here is you. If you believe that my restriction should bar me from making more than one edit to an article per day, I strongly recommend that you propose this as a change, instead of trying to enforce it before it exists. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by PeterTheFourth
WP:3RR says "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.
", which would mean that 'one large edit that contained three reverts' is just one revert, and the subsequent edit is contained within this revert. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Roscelese
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Just noting that PeterTheFourth is correct. One edit that reverts 3 edits counts as one revert. As for Roscelese taking things personally...I begin to wonder if she might have a reason for that. This is the 4th AE report Slugger O'Toole has initiated against Roscelese in as many months. [1] [2] [3]. Also it's pretty obvious when looking at the whole picture, when Roscelese reverted her self-revert with the edit summary "as previous edit wasn't a revert..." she was referencing this edit, which as far as I can see is indeed not a revert. ~Awilley (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)