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
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 Wumbolo
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Wumbolo (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/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 8th July First revert within 24 hours
- 9th July Second revert within 24 hours, no consensus on talk page for edit
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 11th May 1 week ban for edit warring at Stefan Molyneux, also within the American Politics 2 area
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Asks an admin whether or not an edit violates the 1RR/consensus required restrictions on the page here.
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
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)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Wumbolo
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 Wumbolo
I have self-reverted the edit. wumbolo ^^^ 07:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- NorthBySouthBaranof is misrepresenting sources; I will provide diffs shortly. wumbolo ^^^ 17:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: consider this edit, made today, attempting to recklessly revert an edit of mine without any regard to Wikipedia policies and the encyclopedia, plus calling the edit "POV edit by notorious POV editr [sic]" which is a pattern combined with previous reckless BLP-violating reverts [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] in which they call it "POV edit" without any actual rationale while I provided an explanation for all of them but one. And you accuse me of edit warring, while BMK has been blocked 11 times for EW and recently also edit warred which I reported at both AN3 and ANI but was closed as no action (I'm still thinking whether to go to AN or RFAR). wumbolo ^^^ 17:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
#diff | Ref | NorthBySouthBaranof claims the ref verifies... | What the ref actually says. (& notes) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Guardian | (ESUM) "backed up by nothing more than a tweet." | not given |
2 | Ibid. | (ESUM) "highly-dubious claim" ; "random tweet" ; "no evidence has been produced" | not given ; not given (& police tweet not "random") ; "without offering evidence" |
3 | Independent, Fox | (ESUM) "That is not the same as 'the police said it happened.'" | “One subject was arrested for throwing a substance during the incident.” |
4 | Independent, Fox | "No evidence for this claim has been found." | not given |
5 | All above | The entire added content | see #3 plus not given |
6 | Guardian | (ESUM) "entirely-unverified claim made without evidence, as the source notes" | "police claimed without offering evidence" |
7 | Many | (ESUM) "a hoax" [antifa's narrative] | not given |
8 | Unreliable clickbait | "and the claim has been generally treated as a hoax." | "Social media reactions to the hoax ranged from amused to appalled." (& social media > police?) |
Also #8 | Willamette Week | "This claim was labeled 'dubious' by media sources." | (Headline) "Portland Police Made a Dubious Claim About Protesters’ Milkshakes on Twitter. What’s the Evidence?" |
9 | Snopes | "and the claim has been generally treated as a hoax." & refname "snopesHoax" | "False [...] Alex Zielinkski, news editor for the Portland Mercury, told us the claim that any of the milkshakes contained cement appeared to be nothing more than a likely hoax." |
10 | Snopes | "though this was later described as a hoax and debunked as "false" by Snopes" | see #9 (Zielinkski's "hoax" label not Snopes's) ; "debunked" not given |
11 | Several | (ESUM) "no evidence that any milkshake thrown at Ngo contained concrete." | "evidence [...] observation of a police lieutenant [...] a “recipe” sent anonymously to police after the tweet was published" (from Snopes) |
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)
- @TonyBallioni: personally no, but you have the authority to impose "consensus required". wumbolo ^^^ 20:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by GMG
Using 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)
- @PeterTheFourth: You would be wrong on both counts. GMGtalk 23:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: BLP covers 1) all content on articles where the subject is a living person (or recently deceased), and 2) all content which concerns living (or recently deceased) persons regardless of the subject of the article. Is there reason to believe that the subject of the article or the person who authored this tweet are both dead and not recently deceased? GMGtalk 00:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: Is there reason to believe that the subject of the article or the person who authored this tweet are both dead and not recently deceased? GMGtalk 00:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: BLP covers 1) all content on articles where the subject is a living person (or recently deceased), and 2) all content which concerns living (or recently deceased) persons regardless of the subject of the article. Is there reason to believe that the subject of the article or the person who authored this tweet are both dead and not recently deceased? GMGtalk 00:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- @ST47: It's not entirely clear here what is ambiguous about
unless written or published by the subject of the article
. Is there some confusion about whether Robby Soave is the subject of the article? GMGtalk 10:41, 9 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)
- @GreenMeansGo: Feel free to explain, Mr. Intellectual Dark Web. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- @GreenMeansGo: I'll explain in detail.
- WP:BLPSPS states that "
Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person
" - The removed material was "
Robby Soave, who wrote about the incident for Reason, reported on Twitter that a doctored screenshot of his article was in circulation.
" - To support this material, Robby Soave was cited.
- We could conceivably say that we are using a self-published source as a source of material about a living person, but only if we were talking about using it a source of material about Robby Soave - and WP:BLPSPS has a specific exception for this in
unless written or published by the subject of the article.
- I would say the spirit of this would be that using a source published by Robby Soave is okay to use for material about Robby Soave.
- We're not using it as a source of information about Andy Ngo, per reading the text I quoted.
- Do you follow? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by EdChem
I 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 NorthBySouthBaranof
Relatedly, 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 debunked "hoax" allegations spread by antifa members
, rejected the clear conclusion of Snopes that the claim is "false" and removed DailyDot claiming that it is an "unreliable clickbait company" contrary to WP:RSN consensus. They are doing this because they apparently disagree with or reject the conclusions of these sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Dumuzid
I 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 insignis
Both 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 Pudeo
Certainly 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 Snooganssnoogans
I 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
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @ST47: this is your sanction, could you take a look? Sandstein 21:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sure.
Never use self-published sources...as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.
The statement wasRobby Soave...reported on Twitter that a doctored screenshot of his article was in circulation.
Who is the living person on whose behalf BLP is being claimed? It can't be Andy Ngo, as this statement isn't "material about [him]". It might be Robby Soave, in that our article said that "Robby Soave reported...", but in this case BLPSPS would allow this sourcing. We're saying "Robby Soave reported X" and citing Robby Soave's self-published tweet in which he reports X. WP:BLPSELFPUB would seem to expressly allow that. It feels like a long walk to claim BLP on this. - There was a prior discussion on the talk page regarding whether this statement was relevant to Andy Ngo or not, but that's not in the scope of BLP and that discussion was still ongoing. ST47 (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sure.
- I haven't looked at this too deeply, and I'd like to wait for more comments, but edit summaries like this make me think we should be looking closer at Wumbolo's behaviour in this area and that a topic ban may be needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I've had more time to look at his conduct on this article right now, and honestly, it is pretty concerning. In addition to the diff above we have the following:
- Restoring claims of assault to the article claiming that punching someone wasn't a crime (ironic giving the edit summary above...)
- Appears to think that not using the word assault to describe an assault means it isn't a crime
- Long-term edit warring over the involvment of Antifia
- Misleading use of edit summaries that introduced a NPOV violation
- Fighting over Ngo in other articles:
- At the very least an article ban is required here with a warning that if the disruption exists in other parts of the AP2 topic area, an indefinite topic ban from AP2 will be next. The only reason I'm not fully on board a topic ban at this point is that he doesn't appear to have been sanctioned before in the topic area, but if he continues to act like this on other articles, a topic ban would be needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wumbolo, thanks for responding. I appreciate it. If there are concerns with the conduct of another editor, you should file a new AE. This is about your behaviour. I think you mean well on that article, but it looks to me like you're displaying WP:OWN type behaviour on it, which is understandable since you are it's primary author. At the same time, I don't really think the way you've acted is acceptable there. I'd be fine closing this as a logged warning if you agree to take disputes to the talk page, and come to consensus there rather than reverting over the same topic repeatedly. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, bringing up the bad conduct of others is not a defense for one's own bad conduct. This thread is about Wumbolo's actions, not BMK's, which aren't particularly relevant to an AE thread that's examining conduct on an article that BMK has never edited, so I don't think looking at them here would do anything other than muddy the water. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wumbolo, I'm not interested in the content dispute. Just a yes or no: are you willing to contain any disputes to the talk page and not the main space article? TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- @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. GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)