User talk:Elisa.rolle/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Elisa.rolle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

TonyBallioni

TonyBallioni has decided to block me because I was trying to preserve an article Wee Curry Monster is disrupting. Instead of asking for explanation TonyBallioni has decided to block me. This is the definitive prove that that Wikipedia is not a place where people can collaborate. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

An article I am trying to improve, an article which originally contained direct quotes from works of fiction rather than reliable sources, and an article in which you insisted an WP:SPS was "good enough". I have tried to co-operate, including directing you to where sources can be found. That much is easily verified from the article talk page. W C M_email 17:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"direct quotes from works of fiction" was not done by me; but if your removing all info about Author, Title and Year of two books, and writing, "there are two historical novels about this woman" is improving the article, then I have a different concept of "improving". Now the details are at least in the references, I do not like it, but if I was not to intervene, neither that info would be available. I'm not sure it is worth my block, but I suppose someone was just waiting for a chance. You gave that chance. As I said, I'm tired to be judged, therefore, goodbye also to you. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I was actually in the process of formatting two references from google books, in case you haven't noticed I've asked the blocking admin to reconsider. You need to stop lashing out at people. W C M_email 17:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Should anyone wish to see my explanation for why this block is needed, it can be found here. I'm not going to repeat myself since Elisa apparently wants to have her talk page confined to a discussion of my actions. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

And as I said, I had already decided to let you do what you wanted with the article, but TonyBallioni has decided to block me, and yes, he did it cause you decided to "warn" me on my page. If now you are sorry and you are asking to TonyBallioni to undo it, as he has replied, it's too late. Goodbye to you and TonyBallioni as well. I'm tired of this all. TonyBallioni in three months I haven't had any issue at all, I was just improving article, not writing anything new. Please let me know where in the last three months there were issue from me? your accuse is wrong and I resent it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest you review your block log and everything that you have blanked from this talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, again, please, list me what I did in the last three months that is worth of a block. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, after the Dorothy Caruso's event (in May) and after you asked me to remove the reason why I retired from Wikipedia, which I did, and for that you thanked me, what did I do? other than today, and again, it was not just me that was edit warring and the other user even say so, for which reason you are blocking me? where is the continue disruptive editing you are using as reason for the blocking? Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Today you edit warred with multiple users, kept making changes that you knew other editors disagreed with, and when one of them reached out to you, gave every indication that you had no intent on listening to the concerns of others about your behavior. For an editor who has previously been indefinitely blocked three times, and who simply blanks any attempt to interact with them on their talk page that they do not like, there really isn't much else to do other than an indef block. This would have been blockable on its own, but your history on this project is what led to it being indefinite. This does not have to be since May, as you seem to be claiming, but takes into account your behavior as a whole. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, then again you "continuous disruptive editing" in the last months is just about today; and again, the fact that the other user is asking you to unblock me should give you the hint that probably it was not only on my side. Sorry, you misjudged today events and you took a decision without asking before to me or even the other side if the block was necessary. And your justification is I was blocked three times. The fact for the last months I was behaving according to what you asked me is not worth anything, according to your explanation. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, and the multiple users are just two working together with the same purpose. Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop twisting people's words. Wee Curry Monster did not ask me to unblock you. They said they wouldn't mind if I did so long as you engaged and were willing to work with them (which given your last reply, the answer is pretty clearly "no" on that.) Additionally, you were not blocked because of the warning, you were blocked because of edit warring, which you still don't seem to think is an issue. I also never said it was in the "last months", I was discussing your pattern of behavior here over your entire tenure, which dating back to your first indefinite block (which was lifted after a day), basically can be summed up as you not thinking the rules apply to you and complaining that you are the victim anytime someone points out that you are making mistakes.

Also, this is your fourth indefinite block. By this point, we assume that you know how Wikipedia works. You've been given many more chances than most other editors would have ever had. You still have the chance to appeal this block and explain how you are going to change how you interact with the community and do it in a way that is convincing.

Finally, your last comment makes it clear that this block is justified: two editors object to your edits, and rather than engage with them in good faith, you assume that they are working together to undermine you and continue to revert them, and blame them for your disruptive behavior. This is not something that a time-limited block is going to fix. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, "I've asked the blocking admin to reconsider", these is not twisting words. And if you had looked to the AfD of the articles, yes, you would have seen the two users have the same purpose. Deleting the article. I was not saying they are working "against" me, I'm not even the author of that article. The purpose is delete the article, nothing to do with me at all. Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've explained this as required under admin accountability, and I do not think further discussion with you will be fruitful, because you don't seem to see any problems with your actions. At this time, I am unwilling to unblock as I think unblocking would increase disruption on this project. You are free to appeal this block using the instructions provided to you in the block template, but I would oppose any unblock unless the underlying issues of your behavior are addressed in the appeal or the unblock conditions. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, Rosiestep, SusunW, Deb, John Cummings, Johnbod, David Eppstein, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Ipigott, Cwmhiraeth, E.M.Gregory, Oakshade, Victuallers, Hawkeye7, you all voted keep in the Afd for María Sáez de Vernet. Today Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster, after the AfD was closed, were removing sourced content. In particular Kahastok removed the Further Reading section, saying it was not interesting. I reinstate it asking to discuss on the talk page if the fact that two historial novel about Maria was worthy of mention or not. Wee Curry Monster continued to revert me without waiting the output of the talk page. They were adding a sentence "Sáez's life was used as the basis of a character in two romantic fiction novels published in Argentina" without giving title, author or year of the books. I managed to have them in the references, but TonyBallioni decided this was "edit war" and blocked me. This is what I achieved trying to preserve a minimum set of info in an article that had already survived the AfD. Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I belong to WP:FALKLAND, our desire so to ensure that all of our articles are well written and reliably sourced. So even if I disagree with the notability of this individual I will do my best to ensure any related article is the best it can be. I have a number of my articles at FA standard, I've had numerous DYK. I'm getting rather tired of you and your friend's failure to assume any good faith in anyone who doesn't share your views. And as I have already explained to you, I was preparing two sources when you reverted me. I'm done here. Please stop pinging me. W C M_email 18:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

And then people wonder why female editors are driven away from Wikipedia. Sigh. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

All this is indeed very unfortunate but hardly surprising. If Elisa really is retiring, we'll be losing one of our most productive editors. I hope very much she'll nevertheless be back.--Ipigott (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page revoked

And with the above mass ping to canvass editors and continue the content dispute you were blocked for, I've revoked your talk page access. You are free to appeal through WP:UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Elisa.rolle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22338 was submitted on Aug 11, 2018 23:10:16. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Unblock conditions

Hi Elisa, I'm posting this here for the purpose of transparency, since you, Ritchie333, and me are discussing this via email. As I said via email, while my inclination is for this to be a standard offer situation, I would be willing to change this to a one month block under the following conditions:

You respond to my last email explaining in your own words how you will deal with disagreements with other users in the future.
You agree to 1RR for 6 months.
You agree to not manually remove posts to your talk page. You may have an archive bot, but it cannot be set for a period shorter than 7 days.

I'm sorry that we are in this situation, but hopefully this will provide a way forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Elisa, per our discussion via email, I've changed your block to 1 month and restored your talk page access based on these conditions. I hope you will come back in a month and keep editing in the areas that you do best. I've also gone ahead and added the ClueBot archive to this page. It is set to archive after 7 days, and will not keep a minimum number of threads. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony, I have a concern about this. Both parties were engaged in complex reverts. It would be too time-consuming to trace it all, but here are the reverts that led to the block, focusing on one sentence for clarity (the number of reverts refers to this sequence only).

16:52, 11 August: Elisa added "in 2012, Silvia Plager and Elsa Fraga Vidal co-authored Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor, published by Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina."
- 16:55, 11 August (1st revert by WCM): WCM removed "in 2012, Silvia Plager and Elsa Fraga Vidal co-authored Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor, published by Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina."
- 16:58, 11 August (1st revert by Elisa): Elisa restored "in 2012, Silvia Plager and Elsa Fraga Vidal wrote an historical novel about María Sáez de Vernet and her husband Luis, Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor, published by Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina."
- 16:59, 11 August (1st revert by Kahastok): Kahastok removed "in 2012, Silvia Plager and Elsa Fraga Vidal wrote an historical novel about María Sáez de Vernet and her husband Luis, Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor, published by Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina."
- 17:00, 11 August (2nd revert by Elisa): Elisa restored (in a different position) "in 2012, Silvia Plager and Elsa Fraga Vidal wrote an historical novel about María Sáez de Vernet and her husband Luis, Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor, published by Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina."
- 17:04, 11 August (2nd revert by WCM): WCM removed "in 2012, Silvia Plager and Elsa Fraga Vidal co-authored Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor, published by Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina."
17:06, 11 August: Tony blocked Elisa indefinitely.

I believe you said that you blocked in part because of Elisa's block log, but that really isn't so extensive. She began editing in March 2017. She was blocked (indefinitely) once that month for disruption (I believe this had to do with poor image placement, then undoing it unnecessarily after others had fixed it); once in July 2017 for copyvio; and again for copyvio in January 2018. To remove talk-page access because she pinged people who might speak up for her is harsh, and it means she was forced to get involved in an email discussion about being unblocked. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I have reduced the block to a month based on the conditions above. I still believe it is needed at this time to prevent disruption, but I think going forward the conditions above will hopefully work. I do not think I was harsh in the slightest here. She has TPA back now, and can begin editing again in a month. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony, when three established editors revert each other five times in nine minutes, and there are no pressing BLP or similar issues, it means they've temporarily lost control, so the best thing is to protect. I would have blocked in that situation only if all three had been known edit warriors, and there were other editors trying to edit but being disrupted by the reverting. But in this case, protection would have achieved calm and would have been fair.

Instead what happened is that (it appears) one editor was singled out, and now has a one-month block for reverting instead of the standard 24 hours, as well 1RR and an unusual condition about how she should archive her talk page. My understanding of WP:OWNTALK is that she can archive/remove her talk-page posts as she sees fit, apart from active block notices and similar. If there has been talk-page disruption that I'm not aware of, can you elaborate, please? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Editors are generally free to blank, but they are not free to ignore concerns, which she has previously. This is why it was a disruptive editing block: communication is required. Also, three indefs in 18 months is an extensive block log. I've already explained this elsewhere, and I know that Elisa does not like the stress that extended conflict on her talk page causes. I've already lessoned the block, but I don't think removing it now is in the best interest of the project: I think removing it now would just lead to a return to this type of anti-collaborative behavior despite the guidelines above, which is why it is still needed to prevent disruption. She was blocked because of her history on this project, including her block log and her interaction with other editors. Her block has already been lowered to a month, and I'm not going to make it any lower than that at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

(watching:) I hate when people speak about me instead of to me on my talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony, you took no action against the other editors who were reverting. Can you explain why not, and why you decided against protection?

In addition, blocks for reverting are usually for 24 hours. To extend this because of previous blocks is unfair, unless there's a history of blocks for reverting. Her first block, on 28 March 2017, was by Laser brain who, judging by his comments at the time and his unblock, applied it reluctantly to force a new editor to slow down (her first edit was on 22 March 2017). The other two blocks are for copyvio and are unrelated to this situation.

As for her talk-page posts, she's entitled to remove comments. If she removes them, it means she has seen them. That's all that's needed.

If you're unwilling to unblock, how do you suggest that we proceed? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I have already explained this extensively elsewhere. The other editors actually showed that they were wanted to engage in discussion and I did not see that from her. Her UTRS appeal made it clear that she did not think she did anything wrong. Her attitude at the time and her history on the project showed that the way she viewed Wikipedia was incompatible with the project's collaborative nature. She was the one who was reverting against two other editors contesting her edits: when two people object to what you are doing, that means you stop. Her behavior as a whole was much more disruptive, and as I have said elsewhere, my impression of her is that she is one of the most disruptive editors I have encountered on this project, which is why I initially suggested the standard offer.

Re: going forward: I consider this resolved. Elisa has agreed to the conditions above, and I have changed the block to a lower time. There is nothing else that needs to be done. If she still thinks this time is too long, she is free to make an unblock appeal like any other user on her talk page using the template that was provided to her. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony, the agreement about 1RR and the talk-page arrangements can't be regarded as valid. She had no choice but to agree, because the alternative was an indefinite block. Because talk-page access had been removed, she was forced to engage in an email discussion that she almost certainly would have preferred to avoid or at least to hold on-wiki.

I know of several long-term editors who remove (without archiving) every talk-page post as soon as it appears. It's very annoying, but they're entitled to do it.

Elisa, Tony posted a block template here. If you want to appeal the block, you can re-post that template to your talk page and someone will look at it. If you do appeal, you should explain what you plan to do in future to avoid edit warring. If you focus on your view that the block was unfair because other editors weren't blocked too, it will look as though you're saying you did nothing wrong. It's better to acknowledge that you edit-warred and explain what steps you'll take in future to avoid it. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you SarahSV, for everything you are doing and for the suggestion. But sincerely I have lost a little bit of faith and enthusiasm. Even in this last post here on Wikipedia I have to read sentences like "my impression of her is that she is one of the most disruptive editors I have encountered on this project", and even if these words are counterparted by official or not official messages of support, they are still hurting ten time more. So, truth be told, at this point, 1 months, 6 months or indef does not really change. I will stick to the unblock condition of Tony, and in one month maybe my mind will be different. If not at least I will have the change to support WiR in case it's necessary to improve some articles. Right now, I really just wish to retire and to try to forget. But please, be aware, I really appreciated everything you did. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Elisa, you're welcome and I completely understand. You can change your mind any time, of course. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The weight of words

Wikipedia is made of words. Words to teach, words to record, words to help. Words are important. Maybe since I'm not an English speaking native, I take more care in the words I use. Words have weight, and this weight makes them important. But also dangerous. I have a thirst of knowledge, yes, I was that crazy child that read an encyclopedia starting from the letter A (yes I did, 33 volumes of it). And more I age, not having my own family, I'm probably scared part of my knowledge will die with me. That is the reason why I try to share it as much as possible. But words hurt. And sometime they hurt too much. I think today I was hurt one time too much. In the past I said I was leaving out of rage. Today I say it out of pain. The sad thing is that now this message will vanish in one week, therefore only who is watching this page will read it. Hope they are more friends. I'm not pinging people. I know who is really intersted is reading. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Indef blocked for yet another copyvio

You posted this, which is a word-for-word copy of this, clearly labeled at the bottom "Copyright 2010 The Louisa Swain Foundation. All rights reserved.". After two previous indefs for copyright violations, and while being blocked for other violations, you really should have known better. Fram (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)