Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive254

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Buffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Buffs (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 :

I think, but this is an appeal, so I'm asking for UNenforcement.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

N/A; an appeal

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A; an appeal

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Not me
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Nope
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Nope
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Nothing in my log, nothing in my talk page history ,Nothing in the Arbitration enforcement log at the time
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date. I've never given an alert to anyone; didn’t know I could
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date. Nope
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date. Nope

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Details/links

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.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Well, it's about me...so, yes, as the filer, I'm aware. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

See above. Buffs (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: There's a lot of instructions and I guess I missed that one. It was not my intention to skip any required notifications. #Suggestion Update the requirements in this edit box to include "Ensure all sanctioning Admin(s) are notified"? Thanks to NewYorkBrad for notifying (sent message on talk page too)! Buffs (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: The fact that the AE block even occurred is a related matter, even if undone; the fact that it isn't logged is also an issue. Buffs (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any ArbCom issues; not sure how that pertains to my ban. Buffs (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 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)[reply]

Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I advise against lifting restrictions at this time. It's probably better for the Committee to be done with this first before that should happen. El_C 21:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Pinging El C and requesting input. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Buffs: for the next time (hopefully never), there is a template for appeals, {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. It's in the instructions. Sandstein 18:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• At first glance, issues of awareness aside, the page ban of 10 July 2019 appears invalid because Order of the Arrow, the article at issue, has nothing to do with US politics. It's about scouting. Perhaps El_C can explain why they think it is in scope of the sanctions, in addition to how the awareness criteria were met. As to the (unlogged) AE block of 01:47, 10 July 2019, it's been lifted, so technically we can't review it. Sandstein 18:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would lift the ban as out of scope. Cultural appropriation is an issue of American culture and society, not politics. I have not examined whether the conduct at issue would even merit sanction if it were not out of scope. I encourage El_C to be more careful in taking account of the procedural requirements of discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 06:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to say that "Order of the Arrow" is a step too far from American Politics to fall under AP2. (I don't think cultural appropriation is uniquely American either.) I would vacate the ban on those grounds as well as for failing to meet the awareness criteria. I don't think we can do anything about the block/unblock, though like El_C I can also take Buff's explanation at face value (starting a post before the ban, eating dinner, then finishing the post and hitting Publish before visiting their talk page). I looked at Buffs's user talk page and there seemed to be some "talking past each other" going on there. Hopefully resetting this won't interfere with whatever private Arbcom dealings El_C alluded to above. ~Awilley (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize that was what you were saying earlier...it struck me as a bit cryptic. ~Awilley (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the Order of the Arrow article falls under the post-1932 politics of the United States, the controversy surrounding the claims of cultural appropriation doesn't seem to be particularly political. I suggest lifting the ban on those grounds. Hut 8.5 10:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreeing with Awilley and Hut 8.5's take here. Don't think this falls under the post-1932 scope. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Obviously out of scope. El_C's response to the user's inquiry as to how it could be construed as being in scope is extremely dismissive and disingenuous. His attempt to argue that the AP sanctions extend to the topic of cultural appropriation is seriously unconvincing. Additionally, that the awareness criteria were not satisfied, and the actions not logged, are all cause for serious concern. De-tag the page and lift the ban. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:ARBAPDS :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 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
2. 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

1. 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 discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 11 July by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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)[reply]

Whoa whoa whoa, I'm pretty sure Wumbolo is not allowed to unilaterally remove AE requests against them. This is moving into the realm of the bizarre. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's a violation - Andy Ngo has publicly attacked Carlos Maza. The articles are clearly related - a cursory search finds dozens of articles alleging a link between Ngo's attack and a tweet by Maza. Moreover, the edits themselves are sanctionable, as in one case they use a patently-unreliable source to make negative claims about Maza, and in the other case wholly misrepresent and falsify a "consensus" which actually exists against their edit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

This 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)[reply]

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". wumbolo ^^^ 15:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I suggest Objective3000 not WP:HOUND me, or at least come up with something of value. wumbolo ^^^ 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1] - WP:BOOMERANG. wumbolo ^^^ 11:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wumbolo 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.[2] 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.[3] OTOH, also today, they deleted an addition to Donal Trump [4] questioning the sourcing at [5]. 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)[reply]

Wumbolo, I suggest that this is not a good place to make false accusations like hounding. O3000 (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the heart of all articles under DS is the ability to identify reliable sources. Yes, NPOV is of paramount importance. But, without an understanding of RS, how can one begin to discern NPOV? If you think RT is akin to the BBC in the political arena, or have disdain for respected sources; empirical evidence suggests that you will not last long in DS arena and will waste a great deal of editor time/effort before your inevitable sanction. Just an observation from my limited experience. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Add to that the removal of information from Donald Trump sourced to major news outlets, which might be more clearly seen as AP2 disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, for what it's worth, a Goggle search on "'Andy Ngo' 'Carlos Maza'" brings up this result. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

While 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)[reply]

Wumbolo has been disrupting American Politics for quite a while. He typically misrepresents policy or guidelines [6] or he falsely cites BLP to remove well-sourced content [7]. 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)[reply]

• Re RT as a reliable source for BLP: I would definitely say any RT article that involves anything tied to the question of possible Russian influence on US politics as being unreliable if they are making claims that are from any other source beyond Russia's own gov't, due to being effectively a state paper. --Masem (t) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not at all involved in any of this specific dispute, but I am going to make comments that I feel take me out of being an uninvolved admin here. I have stressed long term issues across WP about NOT#NEWS, RECENTISM, etc. and being very careful about how WP treats these topics, particularly in AP2. Having being on the "wrong" side of a media-driven situation before within Gamergate (when in essence I was trying to keep to a more NPOV stance on our article), I'm finding that the charges against Wumbolo are very similar here. For example, the two diffs Specifico provide are, to me, are not misreprentations of policy nor misues of them; they are not 100% clear-cut correct, but they are also not absolutely wrong. The specific situation there is something that editors should be using caution on which does not exist in the mainstream media covering the situation, and no one should be chided out for trying to caution that as Wumbolo seems to be. I see people calling for AP2 bans, but that seems to be a way to silence a voice that is trying to keep articles on WP policy track than as mouthpieces for the mass media. I'm not saying all Wumbolo's edits and arguments are correct or in that realm of being within policy, but I'm not seeing a voice that is "disrupting" the AP2 in the wrong way. I absolutely do not condone Wumbolo removing this AE report themselves; that was a fair block. --Masem (t) 17:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• I don’t see this as a violation of the Ngo ban, but I’ll let others comment/close. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer Sandstein's question, I do consider using RT to be a non-RS, and I think O3000's characterization of it is correct (i.e. yes, it is a propaganda arm of the Russian government.) I find Wumbolo's conduct in the BLPN discussion that O3000 has linked to about RT to be fairly disturbing as well: equating respected news sources to the state media of a totalitarian regime. This all seems to be focused around antifa, and in the last AE report Wumbolo accused other editors of supporting political violence in an antifa related article. I do think this is sanctionable conduct, especially after the last warning. I will not personally be taking any action here as I closed the last discussion, and I think sometimes it is best for multiple administrators to review conduct. That being said, I would support further sanctions, especially given the conduct here where they inappropriately used the BLP policy as an excuse to avoid having their conduct scrutinized. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I am blocking Wumbolo for 24 hours for disrupting the AE process by removing this request. Any BLP issues with the request are at least not so evident as to warrant wholesale deletion by a party. On the merits, I don't think that this is a violation of the Ngo topic ban. The connection between the two men, if it exists, is at least not apparent from their articles.

  I invite comment by admins about whether sourcing US politics BLP content to RT (TV network), an organ of the Russian state, which is itself an actor in US politics, violates WP:BLPRS and is sanctionable. I can see the argument for it, but I'd like to have consensus among AE admins for such a decision. Sandstein 17:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • (my comment moved out of here to my section for proper organization --Masem (t) 17:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • I'm uneasy about sanctioning for this. Writing "X is a hypocrite because he has called for assault..." in Wikipedia's voice and sourcing it to RT would be sanctionable, IMO; writing "X has been accused of hypocrisy because he has called for assault..." and citing to the RT article that makes that accusation is not the same thing. I also agree with others that the edits cited are not a TBAN violation; the usual interpretation of such bans is that they apply to pages related to the ban topic but not centrally about the ban topic to the extent that the edits are about the banned topic. Since this page does not mention the subject of the topic ban at all, the only violation I can imagine would be if Wumbolo started discussing or inserting material about the subject of the ban. At the same time, I think Sandstein was remarkably restrained in only blocking for 24 hours for a party to an AE request deleting the request. When we said, "any further disruption..." did we mean it? GoldenRing (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swarm, below, convinces me that this is in fact a Ngo topic ban violation. Considering this and the other disruptive and intemperate conduct of Wumbolo in relation to this AE request, I think that we should escalate the sanctions as provided for in the last AE, and impose an American politics topic ban, reviewable after six months of good conduct. Sandstein 07:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I think Swarm has convinced me, too. Is an escalating ban the right thing here? Aren't TBAN violations usually met with escalating blocks, to prevent further ban violations? What does an escalating ban help prevent? A block might help cool down the general meltdown Swarm refers to below (or it might not, of course). GoldenRing (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A few things:
  1. I also don't see the two articles close enough to be a topic ban violation.
  2. Wumbolo alleges diffcorrected diff that this AE report contains a BLP violation serious enough to warrant the desysop of Sandstein. The only thing in the report I can find that even comes close to a BLP vio is the statement that Carlos Maza is "in conflict" with Andy Ngo. (The other candidate was "Adds claim that the article subject is a hypocrite and supports violence, based upon an article..." but that is just a description of Wumbolo's actual edit.)
  3. I see this edit as a clear BLP violation in the sense that it is poorly sourced negative information. I'm going to disagree slightly with GoldenRing on this. The edit reads: "Maza has been accused of hypocrisy because he has called for assault against conservative individuals." The second clause is in Wikipedia's voice. The way to write that sentence and not have it be a BLP vio would be something like: Russia Today has accused Mazda of hypocrisy, saying that Mazda has called for assault against conservative individuals. (Disclaimer, I don't actually know if Mazda has called for assault because I don't know what "milkshaking" is and the Urban dictionary didn't help on this one. It all smacks of the type of hyper-partisan bickering that makes me sick, so I won't be looking into it further.)
  4. At BLP/N Wumbolo defended Russia Today as a source, equating it with the BBC (in the sense of being a state-sponsored propaganda outlet).

I think what bugs me most is the double standard on BLP...that it's a BLP violation to talk here about Wumbolo making the claim that Mazda incited violence, but it's not a BLP violation for Wumbolo to write that claim into the actual biography of Maza. I'm not very familiar with Wumbolo's work outside the "Antifa" topic area, but I'm concerned enough about this to support extending the current Andy Ngo topic ban to include anything related to Antifa, and I wouldn't oppose extending it to all of either BLP or AP2. ~Awilley (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: Fair enough, I guess you could read the sentence that way, but it could be read the other way, too. FYI, at least one person has been convicted of assault in the UK after "milkshaking" a politician (it's what it sounds like - throwing a milkshake at them). Overall, I think this editor is likely to be a force for good in the AP2 topic but I'm struggling to see something specific to pin a sanction on right now, especially since the "violation" reported here is generally agreed not to be one. GoldenRing (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC) Thanks, Beyond My Ken. Fixed. GoldenRing (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I think you have the wrong diff with your "Wumbolo alleges..." above. GoldenRing (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing, Awilley, and Sandstein: Hmmm, interesting, I see them as a net-negative for AP2 for the battleground behaviour. I don’t really care what “side” they’re on, but this screed which bans admins from editing his talk page until we take BLP seriously at AE is concerning, as is the implicit threat to file an arbitration case against Sandstein for what was an obviously good block. I’m not particularly big on judging people in their worst moment, but it furthers my concerns that they’re selectively using the BLP policy as a cudgel to justify actions that are outside of community norms. I have no clue what the BLP violation on this page was, but I don’t think it’s as bad as sourcing criticism to RT and then pushing RT as a reliable source for BLPs equivalent to the BBC. Anyway, as I said, I’m not going to do anything here, but I find the increased battleground mentality since even the last AE disturbing. Also, on Awilley’s point, giving a final chance in AP2 by making it an antifa related sanction might work. That’s where the worst of the issue seems to be focused. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, so Maza infamously tweeted an advocacy for pouring milkshakes on far-right-wing activists (i.e. "milkshaking"), because it's humiliating, and they want to be taken seriously in the public eye. He did not actually advocate for violence whatsoever, yet RT described this as "inciting violence", which...seems like the inflammatory propaganda that you would expect from an RT take on American political divisions. RT is a Russian propaganda outlet that should absolutely not be treated as a reliable source when it comes to American political division. However, their take here seems to be in line with the conservative interpretation: that Maza's Tweet is responsible for inciting violence. And that brings us to the TBAN. Yes, this is a TBAN violation, clearly. Maza advocated for milkshaking attacks, Ngo was a victim of such a milkshaking attack shortly thereafter. This would perhaps not be such a big deal if Ngo's milkshaking was not accompanied by a brutal mob beating which left him brain damaged. A quick Google of the two names makes it clear that conservative media, social media, and Ngo himself have certainly made the connection between Maza's tweet and Ngo's beating. Ngo himself described the counterprotest that savaged him as "milkshake-themed" and states that he was assaulted in this manner several times, and directly references Maza's encouragement of the movement.[8] He has also Tweeted his condemnation of Maza's Tweet.[9] Other articles have directly referenced Maza's Tweet when discussing Ngo's beating.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] These results can be found amongst a wealth of social media commentary in which conservatives are directly blaming Maza for Ngo's beating. Perhaps they're not wrong, but that's irrelevant. This is a TBAN vio. Enforce it as one. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention the fact that Wumbolo is apparently self-destructing and in full-meltdown right now, blanking this AE report and talk page messages, threatening the blocking admin with desysopping, and banning all admins from his talk page. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure trying to pin down the exact nature of political actions is relevant on this page. I think Wumbolo is blockable on several different grounds at present, and I agree with that the suggestion to do a block on the basis of the existing t-ban is simplest and should be done quickly, as disruption seems to be ongoing. If there continue to be AP2 related problems in a broader sense after that, we can go further. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wumbolo is topic-banned from the US politics topic area. They may appeal the sanction after six months of producive editing in other topic areas. I am imposing this sanction based on the totality of Wumbolo's conduct here, including their topic ban violation, their disruption of AE, their use of state propaganda outlets such as RT as BLP sources in contentious topic areas, and their generally intemperate and confrontative attitude exhibited here, which does not address their own conduct, e.g. in statements such as "my moderate-BLP-defending-everyone offends snowflake POV pushers". Wumbolo complains in their response about the character limit, but this complaint is unfounded, as they have not made a request to have the limit extended. What's more, since their reply in large parts does not address the issue of their own conduct, but concerns the supposed misconduct of others, a character limit extension would not have been granted because it is likely that any additional statements would have been more of the same. Sandstein 06:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

1. June 10, 2019 Roscelese was recently blocked for one month for violating the same restrictions.
2. April 26, 2019 Two week block
3. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [17] [18] [19]. 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)[reply]

Slugger, I just checked again, and I'm still satisfied that when R referenced a "previous edit" she was referring to this (moving the line about discrimination). That's the only way the whole thing makes sense. If she hadn't mistakenly thought that edit was a revert she wouldn't have immediately self-reverted her actual revert an hour later when she noticed that you had made an intervening edit. ~Awilley (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the previous three reports all resulted in sanctions, the last for four weeks. But I support closing this without action. Consecutive edits only constitute one revert, and reverting multiple editors in one edit only constitutes one revert. GoldenRing (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ponyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Srithikdatta (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 :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. August 14 Removal of reliably sourced content
2. August 15 Reverting to again remove reliably sourced content
3. August 15 Another revert
4. August 15 Another revert (contemporaneous with the previous)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Provided DS Alert and notification of WP:1RR here
• Requested they self-revert here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• I've probably botched this completely as it's my first AR report. Note that the editor has ignored the DS Alert as well as the request to self-revert and continues to edit the article. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Diff of notification

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.

I will admit that my first edit had improper notation to support it and should have been reverted. The user that reported me insisted that a source was reputable. I have a career in this subject matter. Many of the sources were not appropriated used. They were misquoted, not used, and in one case were factually incorrect. A British newspaper speaking on the specifics of the US Army personnel is not a reputable in my opinion.

In my second edit, I created small edits, that were all explained, had new sources, or comments on use of source. Therefore they could be reverted individually or en masse as required. The user that reported me noted that I had deleted a reputable source, therefore I added to a new one. I felt this was very different reverting my first edit. Instead I was reported. I had already responded to their criticism by adding a new source. I was given notice of the report and asked to self revert, but doing use would have reintroduced factual errors into the article that I believe most editors on wikipedia would had have the technical expertise to correct. By the time, I saw the revert, I had like 8 different edits and compliant didnt specify their new issue with the new edits. So I just waited.--Srithikdatta (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mendaliv: I understand that I can't just rerevert things. But based on the compliant's comment, I replaced the source. And I had created 10 new edits, so I wasn't sure what the proper way to respond was, except to explain myself. --Srithikdatta (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mendaliv: I accept your criticism regarding the manner about how I made the edits. Onto the facts of the matter. There is no mechanism or exception for politicians deploying. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove that a policy does not exist. There is no "volunteering" for a deployment, outside of members from the Inactive Ready Reserve, of which Gabbard and Buttigieg are not members. It may be the case that higher ranking officers allow politicians to transfer out a unit before a deployment, however this is a command decision made by higher ranking officer. The reason you do not normally see politicians deploy is that they are high ranking and typically assigned to non deploying headquarters units. This circumstance applies to all higher ranking officers in the National Guard and Reserve, and is not specific to politicians. No service member has the right to be exempt for deployment. The only exception is that service member are allowed 12 months between deployments. This may have been the case with Buttigieg if he recently was redeployed. In a related matter, no one can volunteer for a deployment. They can request a transfer to a unit with the hope that unit will deploy soon, but what they are a requesting is a transfer to the unit. If the deployment is cancelled, they will remain in that unit. All deployments orders for members of National Guard and Reserve are involuntary in a matter of law. This is done so that they qualify for USERRA protections. --Srithikdatta (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde: I accept the correction and will adhere to it going forward.

• @GoldenRing: Regarding: "first" vs "among first". One source states A primary trainer for the Kuwait National Guard, she was the first woman to ever set foot inside a Kuwait military facility[20]. However, other source in the article states that Tulsi was one of the first women to set foot inside a Kuwait military facility[21]. The latter article is from her official Senate biography was already cited in the military service section. --Srithikdatta (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like diffs 1-2 are before the DS notice, diff 3 at the same moment, and diff 4 was a few minutes later. But diffs 3 and 4 were sequential edits; if we were on 3RR, they would be considered a single revert. So in some sense I think we need to consider the subsequent edits all part of one revert taking place after the DS notice.

I’m not sure what standard practice is with AP2 and 1RR, but I feel like aspects of this are very technical and a formal sanction or block might be overkill. I’d like to hear Srithikdatta‘s explanation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @MJL: My understanding of WP:AC/DS#aware.aware is that the formal alert is required. Of course, the policy doesn't talk about whether pre-notice edits are counted. I think they normally should be. So if Srithikdatta had been reverted, notified, and then made another revert, it should count as a 1RR violation. But here, there was no revert, so the edits/reverts that took place after the notification were connected to the pre-notification revert chain. As to the "enforced BRD" sanction listed on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard, I think that should be considered, though I also think the same issue of requiring the formal alert applies. My feeling is that, if we get a reasonable statement out of Srithikdatta here, a formal warning should be enough, with the understanding that the edits being made are not exempt from the DS regime. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Srithikdatta: Do you understand that going forward you are not permitted to make more than one revert/undo in 24 hours to the Gabbard article? And that you are required to discuss matters at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard rather than continuing to revert/undo if someone reverts/undoes your edits? Articles on post-1932 politics and political figures in the USA are subject to special restrictions that you may have violated with the contributions under discussion here. I understand your position about the correctness of the source and that as a person with subject-matter knowledge, this incongruence is probably annoying. Nonetheless, it is necessary going forward that you discuss things on the talk page rather than revert. Even if I happen to agree with you that the specific newspaper is probably not a reliable source for things dealing with military careers, the errors allegedly introduced are not so severe as to bypass the WP:1RR limitation on that article. If you understand that and agree to abide by the restrictions going forward I believe the admins can be convinced to close this case with no further action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The response to this complaint from Srithikdatta, in light of the edits themselves, doesn't fill me with confidence. One thing I noticed was this diff, including the edit summary the source does not state whether she volunteer. There is no mechanism for soldiers to volunteer for deployments so for soldiers to ask for a reassignment of unit. and in the phrase, "In July 2004 she volunteered for a 12-month tour in Iraq", replaced the word "volunteered" with "was deployed", and in these diffs replaced the Guardian source with Gabbard's House "about" page. Now, this explanation makes sense, and I could see this sort of thing getting confused. But then I looked at the source, which itself says Gabbard volunteered for her deployment. How could this be? It appears that Gabbard, being someone who held public office at that time, would have been exempt from deploying. But as some other politicians have done (I believe this happened with Pete Buttigieg), she volunteered to deploy anyway. So while there's some logic behind the edit summary rationale, the source provided proves it incorrect, at least in a way. My conclusion is that this is something that should have been discussed at the talk page rather than in edit summaries implementing changes. I think it might be better if Srithikdatta contributed to the Gabbard page via the talk page rather than making reverts going forward. Whether that should be implemented as a formal sanction, or whether we should see what happens first, I'm not sure and I'd defer to those with more experience in sanctions in this content area. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dang it. Mendaliv beat me to being the first to to comment!

@Ponyo: This doesn't seem like a violation of the sanction. This is on enforced BRD; so basically as long as diff 1 is substantively different from diff 2, this user is in the clear. They sort of did that, but not really? I don't know. It's up to any uninvolved admin not folks like me. I guess then it's good you're asking for feedback on it.
Either way, it's not entirely necessary to warn this user of 1RR per the instructions on {{American politics AE}} on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. A 24hr block on their first offense would've been maybe the thing to do here, but I leave that to the admins. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious to see how this played out, and I am rather pleasantly surprised by Srithikdatta's ability to already so quickly navigate AE. Of all the processes to go through, this one has to be least newbie friendly. I really think we should cut them some slack here. After taking a look at their edit count, I see some interesting statistics: 94.7% mainspace edits, a clear interest in military history, received extended only as of this year, and has never had to use a talk page before.
@Srithikdatta: you clearly do good work. This was a misstep, but I don't think this experience should define your time here. Check out those last two links for good resources to get started. Also, Help:Notifications and Wikipedia:Civility are really helpful as well!
Happy editing! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• @Srithikdatta: please proofread your response. It is difficult to read due to idiosyncratic prose. El_C 02:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Srithikdatta: please sign each one of your comments and avoid refactoring. El_C 02:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am less concerned about the specifics of the enforced BRD sanction, and more with the aggressive nature of the edits. I'm only willing to excuse complete newbies for using the peremptory tone employed here. It's particularly inappropriate to order all other editors to not revert without discussion, when you yourself have removed content without discussing the matter first. Srithikdatta, you need to commit not just to not edit-warring, but to discuss matters when your edits are challenged. Your approach to this article is not one that I want to encourage in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• While not impressed with the editing going on here, I think we'd be on shaky ground imposing a sanction for edits made in the 15 minutes following the DS alert. Technically they meet the awareness requirement but I'd be uncomfortable with it still. At the same time, edits like this (made about ten minutes after those in the complaint) should be sanctioned if they are repeated; the edit summary says citation states that she was "among the first" not the first but the source says A primary trainer for the Kuwait National Guard, she was the first woman to ever set foot inside a Kuwait military facility[22] and as far as I can tell, this is the only source used there that makes the claim; I'm struggling to see this as anything other than blatant source misrepresentation. Srithikdatta, this sort of thing is not acceptable. You need to edit collaboratively and with care, especially in this topic, or you will be restricted from it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend to agree with the above. I don't think I would sanction this time, but I think Srithikdatta should be well aware that this type of conduct is not acceptable, and if repeated will lead to removal from the area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]