Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive252

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 SMcCandlish

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Roy McCoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SMcCandlish (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/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#All_parties_reminded Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Discretionary_sanctions Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Notifications

Diffs

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

1. 17:47, 30 April 2019 SM dismisses the University of Oxford style guide, cited by Number 57 and not by me, as an unreliable source in contrast to more reliable OUP reference works.
2. 17:53, 30 April 2019 Accuses me of straw-man argumentation and of misquoting him in my defense of Number 57.
3. 05:54, 1 May 2019 I reply, informing that I have discovered another style guide, the OUP Academic Division's Guide for authors and editors, which is incontestably published by OUP and also proscribes the comma he is attempting to impose.
4. 13:42, 1 May 2019 SM writes of "comma-averse news style guides (and unreliable-source blogs)", though without direct reference to me. This doesn't yet misrepresent me; it does, however, ignore the previously cited and less-easily-dismissable OUP guide, as he will repeatedly do thereafter.
5. 22:45, 3 May 2019 SM ignores the incontestably found and cited OUP guide, misrepresentingly asserting that I am citing "internal house style sheets". This is the beginning of his repeated misstatements in this regard.
6. 22:19, 7 May 2019 He continues, writing of "the fact that Oxford's in-house 'marketing about the university' stylesheet is irrelevant to encyclopedia writing and has no connection to Oxford U. Press style".
7. 04:06, 8 May 2019 I protest that the Guide for authors and editors is indeed an OUP publication and provide a citation from it proving this.
8. 05:00, 8 May 2019 SM writes "Let's take a vote: Who else here can't tell the difference [...]" and again repeats his misstatement regarding the OUP manual.
9. 05:13, 8 May 2019 Cites
   WP:IDHT
   , prompting my interest in consensus and and my ensuing question in that regard.
10. 07:03, 8 May 2019 Continuing to assume good faith (i.e. that SM has sincerely failed to understand), I again place the link to the guide and the quote.
11. 02:15, 10 May 2019 SM repeats the misstatement. "McCoy's own source list keeps mistaking such sources (e.g. Oxford internal marketing stuff) for academic ones anyway".
12. 04:49, 10 May 2019 As SM is still giving the appearance of not understanding, I explain about the Oxford style guides again and ask him to (1) acknowledge that the guide I've been talking about isn't the one he's been saying it is, and (2) respond to the question of whether or not he thinks a consensus on the comma issue exists.
13. 11:51, 11 May 2019 SM refuses to respond; edit summary: "Meh".
14. 13:23, 11 May 2019 I repeat the requests.
15. 17:23, 12 May 2019 SM replies at length but still without responding to the request, adding a new misstatement without retracting the old one.
16. 17:27, 12 May 2019 SM asserts that I'm proving his point for him, "trying to rely on an internal memo of a publisher as if it is one of their public-facing works. It isn't."
17. 17:27, 12 May 2019 Continues to ignore the requests; accuses me of "having (or faking) reading comprehension problems".

A sequence of alternating repeated requests and repeated nonresponses leads to EEng's putting an end to the exchange (and to the discussion) by politely requesting both SM and myself to refrain from further comment. I apologize for having inadvertently bothered anyone.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 21:17, 1 March 2013 "With regard to pages or discussions related to
   WP:CIV
   ; and encouraged to keep his contributions to a reasonable length."
2. 8 November 2014 "[...] drowning follow-up discussion with aggressive and overly wordy postings; and the continued general display of battleground attitude that has been characteristic of your conduct in this field for long. This is unacceptable: if you get a community sanction, n[o] matter whether it has run out or not, it means the community expects you to actually modify your behaviour. You clearly didn't."
3. 12:06, 6 September 2015 "I have topic-banned User:SMcCandlish for two months under DS procedures, as this filing and related discussions display recurrent issues of battleground attitude over style issues."

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• 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 21:17 1 March 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 04:51, 4 May 2019.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SMcCandlish has repeatedly violated expected standards of civil behavior stipulated by the discretionary sanctions notice at the MoS talk page. My primary complaint here relates to the two

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

06:13, 21 May 2019

Responses by Roy McCoy

I reply to the posted comments.
@Robert McClenon: I don't understand who you are, where you have come from, or why you said it didn't appear that I had tried to discuss the problem on McCandlish's talk page when I had indicated in my statement that I had. Nonetheless, the revised version of my original statement again adresses this, and I hope you are now satisfied that I did indeed try as best I could to resolve the matter without proceeding to dispute resolution here. I have also complied with your assertion that I needed to request a sanction, reluctantly adding one and explaining my not having specified one before – though, again, I did recommend an unspecified sanction. "A topic ban or block" does not represent my final proposal on this; I have other ideas that I will present if afforded the opportunity.
@El C: I have shortened the report per your request, I hope adequately.
@Sandstein: I have deleted three of the diffs and revised the explanations of others to exclude failures to observe other aspects of the WP:CIV directives than the two indicated in both versions of my statement. I was within the twenty-diff limit, am more so now, and do not feel that I should be obliged to trim the list further, thus suggesting that the number of violations (or quantity of violation) was less than it was. I observe also that there is no clear violation – no matter how many diffs are listed – unless the untruth of what I am asserting to be the misstatement is determined. This might in another case be difficult, but not in this one.
@GoldenRing: I don't know that El_C hasn't already had a look at the discussion, but in any event the part of it most germane to the immediate discussion is the repeated back-and-forth that occurred when I repeated the requests and McCandlish continued not to respond. This is not mere arbitrary squabbling with both parties equally guilty, as one might tend to judge at first glance. Either the repeated statement was accurate, in which case I was at fault and should be sanctioned with no consideration of any sanction for McCandlish; or it was inaccurate, in which case I was justified in continuing to request a retraction, he was in violation of the cited WP:CIV directive, and any sanction should be placed on him rather than me. I can't stop the administrators from slapping a quick one-size-fits-all IBAN or whatever if that's what you want to do, and I can't complain about justice having digested WP:TINJ; but I'm sure a more appropriate result is possible, also from the viewpoint of simple effectiveness and success regarding the stated DR goals.
I'm approaching the 500-word limit. May I reply to Ealdgyth, and may we perhaps go to a somewhat higher word limit on this case, also for McCandlish? Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning SMcCandlish

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 SMcCandlish

Statement by Robert McClenon

It appears that the filing party has not tried to discuss the disruptive editing on the talk page of SMcCandlish. The use of a conduct forum such as

• This report is too lengthy. Please condense. El_C 06:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Waiting for SMcCandlish's (brief, hopefully) response. El_C 02:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In the interest of expediency, indeed, perhaps an IBAN would be the way to go here. El_C 02:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that this should not be processed until it is substantially more concise. Identify the few edits that are, in your view, the clearest violations of the sanction at issue, and briefly explain why. That will suffice. Sandstein 14:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @El C: If you think the complaint is lengthy, try reading the discussion on which it is based. GoldenRing (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The irony of the filer mentioning that SMC was "encouraged to keep his contributions to a reasonable length" is withering. From watching this blow up, it basically boils down to the filer wanting SMC to apologize/retract/acknowledge something that the filer feels SMC wrongly said. Frankly, I don't blame SMC for eventually getting a bit curt in his replies, as the filer has gone on endlessly about ... something... and continued to do so even after SMC asked the filer to stop posting. At some point, you just have to stop, and this filing is ill advised. I recommend no action, although if this sort of continued posting keeps happening, the filer might find a boomerang in their future. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've had a crack at reading the discussion at WT:MOS. Frankly, I think the suggestion made by EEng is an excellent one and one which might possibly be imposed as a sanction on both SMcCandlish and Roy McCoy. The exact form of such a sanction might, perhaps, need to be somewhat more formal than the rather casual statement in the diff. The behaviour there is not egregious but it's not good and it's not one-sided. I could support, say, a six-month IBAN between SMcCandlish and Roy McCoy in the scope of MOS discussions. Thoughts? GoldenRing (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I too find a lot of merit in EEng's recommendation, and a six month mutual iban between SMcCandlish and Roy McCoy would seem to be a more diplomatic way of phrasing it. I would also very strongly encourage study the art of brevity - perhaps even going as far as recommending a 24 hour block for every 100 words over the word limit they are in any future dispute resolution forum. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 22 May 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.

Request concerning BorchePetkovski

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MJL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

BorchePetkovski (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:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions :

Diffs

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

1. 14 April 2019 In this edit, they try to replace Greek Macedonians with Macedonians in Greece. This is the first example is on the face of things not too bad, but they do receive a healthy warning for it from Dr.K.. Violation of MOS:MAC (disclaimer: I helped to write that guideline)
2. 21 April 2019 User is reverted for adding unsourced content (
   WP:OR
   ).
3. 21 April 2019 User then changes the population numbers within the infobox and even breaks a source. They were then warned by
   disruptive
4. 29 April 2019 User seeks to change the name of the election within the infobox from 2019 North Macedonian presidential election to 2019 Macedonian presidential election. This is quickly reverted by Teratix with a note to discuss on talk. The user never takes up that offer.
5. 1 May 2019 Same change as preceding diff of previous day. Clearly did not
   listen
   .
6. 6 May 2019 BorchePetkovski violates
   WP:UNCIVIL by telling Number 57
   , "There is only Macedonian... What's wrong with you..."
7. 23 May 2019 User creates a move request on a page that is currently a redirect for no clear reason. User had requested the page in question be renamed
   2019 Macedonian presidential election
   . This was how I became aware of them.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• 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

1. 13 April 2019 User's first edit is to request
   2019 Macedonian presidential election
   .
2. 20 April 2019 claims this is cultural GENOCIDE of Macedonians.
3. 21 April 2019 also makes vague claims of propaganda.

It is my personal opinion that the editor in question is simply

Done.

Discussion concerning BorchePetkovski

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 BorchePetkovski

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BorchePetkovski

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

• Looks fairly straight-forward. Support indefinite topic ban. El_C 23:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm tempted to close now. Was tempted to close yesterday. But I suppose we can give the editor time to respond, though that seems like more of a procedural gesture than anything. El_C 14:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I think we've indulged this for long enough. El_C 20:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with El C, a topic ban from Macedonia and Macedonians, broadly interpreted would seem appropriate here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with El C and Thryduulf. New editor should edit elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:18, 24 May 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.

Request concerning

User:Snooganssnoogans

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SunCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

The article Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS). An administrator has applied the following restrictions to this article: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period); see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez.

Diffs

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

1. 05-27-2019 Partial revert of edit dated 05-27-2019; see [2].
2. Date Partial revert of edit dated 05-27-2019; see [3].
3. 05-27-2019 Partial revert of edit dated 05-27-2019; see [4]. The three partial reverts violate the 1RR rule.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in editing on post-1932 American politics; see [5].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=899054425&oldid=899054338

Discussion concerning

User:Snooganssnoogans

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

User:Snooganssnoogans

• This is a continuous series of edits (i.e. not a violation of 1RR). I could have done them in one large edit, but opted to do them in three uninterrupted edits to show clearly what I was removing and for what reasons (and also leave in recently added content that I didn't have a problem with).
  talk) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Statement by User:MelanieN

Snoogans is correct; there was no violation here. According to

Statement by (username)

Result concerning

User:Snooganssnoogans

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

• Consecutive reverts count as one revert. The three partial reverts are consecutive and don't violate 1RR. ~Awilley (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:CREEP-y and potentially misleading (some people might start thinking it's a special case when they see it in some 1RR templates but not others). ~Awilley (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Closing as not actionable per comments above. Sandstein 17:37, 27 May 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.

Request concerning SashiRolls

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SashiRolls (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

1RR

Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Diffs

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

1RR violation

1. 16:26, May 26, 2019 Revert 1 (Original edit)
2. 19:38, May 26, 2019 Revert 2 (Original edit)

1RR violation

1. 19:21, May 22, 2019 Revert 1 (Original edit)
2. 22:13, May 22, 2019 Revert 2 (Original edit) - Request to self-revert

Assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, and

WP:BATTLEGROUND

editing

1. May 26, 2019 "Of course, everyone knows that the inner cabal doesn't have to follow the rules and can bully folks around to their heart's desire. Are y'all donors? special ops? just lucky?"
2. May 24, 2019 "Cf. wp:tag team 1) I am not your mate. 2) Cf. sources & methods Chapter 1 is gaslighting the opposition."
3. May 25, 2019 "You are giving the appearance of doing everything you can to make Gabbard's biography look bad" ... "I personally hope it because you dislike her candidacy, rather than because you want to play psychological games with people on the internet: but neither is a good excuse for the POV editing."
4. May 24, 2019 "I think I'll just leave AmPol2 to the trolls. Adding big blue-links to Russian media entries is obviously not standard practice, except for folks like Cirt (and others in his cabal). It is rhetoric. Ciao. "
5. February 19, 2019 "I would remind Snoog & MrX that tag-teaming is a well-known strategy that is frowned upon."
6. February 21, 2019 "By reverting me restoring information you removed from the lede, you are subverting the BRD process in your typical gaming style"
7. February 25, 2019 Shortly after the content dispute referenced in the about two diffs, SashiRolls stalked me to a completely unrelated matter at ANI.
8. Repeatedly refers to me as "Snoox" [6][7][8] which is apparently intended to imply that
   Snooganssnoogans
   and I are tag team editing, or the same user.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. September 3, 2016 Topic-banned from Jill Stein for six months
2. December 16, 2016 Indefinitely prohibited from commenting on AE requests to which they are not a party.
3. December 20, 2016 6-month block for disruptive editing and wiki-hounding.
4. June 23, 2017 1-year indefinite block.

If

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Full disclosure: I inadvertently violated 1RR myself on May 19 because I did not realize that the article was under 1RR and did not notice the page notice. Once I became aware, I acknowledged my error here. Most of my edits were undone by SashiRolls and I did a self-revert here. - MrX 🖋 22:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The so called "consensus" was three people more than three months ago at
  WP:NPOVN
  . In other words, consensus is currently being worked out.

• El_C I'm not exactly sure what it means to "further a content dispute", but if you are suggesting that I brought this here to win a content dispute, I guess that is a reasonable suspicion to have and I can only point to my contribution history. I am only asking that admins address the 1RR violations to make sure they don't continue occurring, and that SashiRolls stops berating anyone who disagrees with him. How you get there is your prerogative.

And please tell SashiRolls to stop referring to me as Snoox. It's pure harassment.- MrX 🖋 12:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[10]

Discussion concerning SashiRolls

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 SashiRolls

This toxic bullying and false report to AE timed for the beginning of the work-week should result in MrX being blocked. There is a reason why MrX does not follow the AE instructions (explain HOW the diffs violate 1RR), because they do not. On 22 May, MrX boldly re-introduced an NBC News article which had been rejected by TP consensus back in February (not quite unanimously: the sockpuppet "Dan the Plumber" was the lone voice arguing for its inclusion on her BLP). Both edits MrX incriminates on 25 May 2019 are related to this prior TP consensus as I made clear in my edit summary and are exempt from 1RR: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.

Looking more closely at MrX's claim about my editorial action on the 22 May 2019 it should be noted that the first was a straightforward removal of the undue material and the second was a rewrite adding 2 reactions directly relevant to the affair, but leaving the "info" in place. Even MrX had accepted on the TP that this should be first discussed on the campaign talk page before being added to the BLP. MrX: "I can live with it being in the campaign article for now." (source)

The only other significant edit I've made to the page was to restore the mention of TG's membership on the House Foreign Affairs Committee that an IP had removed with a deceptive edit summary. Therefore, MrX's claim that I have reverted "most of his edits" (9RR) on the 19 May 2019 is patently false. MrX is assuming nobody will look into this pants-on-fire lie. The only edits made by MrX on 19 May 2019 that I touched in any way are related to the bad faith Daily Beast article implying that Gabbard is a Russian stooge. edit: this is not quite right, I also restored the long-standing section titles MrX wanted to change

Snoox: this is a convenient abbreviation for the two people who have been consistently working together to POV-push on Gabbard's BLP since January. As Thucydides mentions below, MrX (and Awilley for that matter) are curiously silent about Snoog's clear violations of NPA Snooganssnoogans: "I think it's time that you stop filling talk pages with your bad faith accusations, feverish unsubstantiated smears and conspiracy theories." source.

Where the problem originates is clear, but will AE do something about it and deal with the Snoox? I predict that much will be made of my abbreviating their names into a harmless portmanteau and the legitimately venomous comments will be ignored. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to proven wrong and see some signs of integrity, but I won't hold my breath based on my experience... MrX's claim that I "followed him to an unrelated ANI" discussion is false: he was prosecuting someone for reverting the "Dan the Plumber" sock who had been hyper-active on the Tulsi Gabbard talk page. Conclusion: MrX wants to make my life complicated by starting a groundless AE case timed to coincide with the beginning of the workweek, because he knows I work for a living. This sort of aggressive behavior is defined at

Sandstein: Leave this open until Thursday and I will provide you with plenty of diffs to show you that the language I used is the most appropriate language to describe MrX's actions. However, during the workweek I do not have time to assemble the proof. Already, you can see that both 1RR claims are wrong and that there is a great deal that is disingenuous in this report. (MrX claims that he never saw the previous talk page consensus until after filing the report, even though it was linked to in the very diff he provided above and it was already alluded to on the talk page; he claims I reverted most of his 9RR on 19 May 2019, which is likewise demonstrably false.) I can dig up plenty... that's why the case was started on Monday: so I wouldn't have time to do so. Interesting how Objective3000 and myverybestwishes have piled onto this without saying a single word about the bogus complaint their friend MrX brought, or about me. Here's their old pal Calton getting blocked for helping out with the bullying: §§ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thucydides411

Let's look at the first series of diffs that MrX gives, because they paint a different picture from the one MrX is presenting:

There was consensus on the talk page that the accusation of Gabbard receiving Russian support should be removed: see this thread. This consensus was not immediately implemented, but

consensus, which, given SashiRolls' edit summary, Snooganssnoogans should have been aware of. SashiRolls then edited the material (diff). MrX then added back in some of the material SashiRolls' edits had removed, with a somewhat deceptive edit summary calling the changes a "CE" (copy-edit): diff. This again goes against the previous consensus, which is that this material was not significant enough to be in the biography of Tulsi Gabbard. A new consensus should be established on the talk page, not edit-warred into the article. SashiRolls then removed this addition (diff

), incorrectly attributing the last addition to "Snoox" (perhaps an oversight, but portrayed as intentional by MrX above).

@Awilley: I agree that there is a problem with editors dividing into two groups, but they're not strictly "left" vs. "right." In this case, the "left" group you identify is trying to insert material that is troubling from a BLP perspective into an article about a left-wing politician (Gabbard), and the "right" editors are trying to remove it. The "right" editors are trying to insert defenses of the left-wing politician by left-wing journalists (Greenwald and Taibbi), while the "left" editors are criticizing the inclusion of those defenses. In other fora, the "left" editors have argued strenuously against citing material by Greenwald and Taibbi. The actual dividing line appears to be one's views on Russiagate, with Gabbard, Greenwald and Taibbi falling on one side of the line, and their critics on the other side.

The BLP issue here should really be addressed, with editors popping in to a BLP to insert critical material (about Russiagate, of course - what else would it be about?) which is very similar to material that was previously removed by consensus. With this material, half of the section on Tulsi Gabbard's Presidential campaign would be devoted to a few sources that allege she's supported by Russia. This sort of behavior - trying to push Russiagate into every article - is a real problem. It's also going on at other BLPs. To give you an example, Russiagate now makes up one quarter of the lede at

WP:BLPBALANCE. I'm sure that if you look more closely, you'll see this pattern repeated across other BLPs tangentially related to Russiagate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BLPBALANCE. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BLPBALANCE. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Awilley: I provided diffs in my initial comment here, showing how MrX and Snooganssnoogans ignored the previous consensus, even after it had been pointed out to them by SashiRolls. The normal procedure when there exists a prior consensus to remove material - especially when that material raises BLP concerns - is to discuss first and edit later. That wasn't followed here. The approach was to add the material back in first, regardless of the previous consensus and the BLP concerns, and to discuss later. The principle of "clean hands" should be addressed here, since the editor raising this enforcement request themselves acted improperly. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I disagree with assessment by Thucydides411 that there is a group of contributors who are "trying to push Russiagate into every article" which "is a real problem". This is Wikipedia:Casting aspersions by Thucydides411. Per WP:NPOV, the coverage in WP must reflect the coverage in RS, and it does, at least on this subject. The "interference" is so significant because it "helped" to effectively disable the entire political system in the US, as a result of electing certain officials and their actions. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

@Thucydides411: I haven’t weighed in on the Assange lead, and don’t wish to start a content discussion here; but I don’t think you are using a good example to make your point that some editors are trying to push Russiagate into every article by claiming problematic BLP behavior related to the Assange article lead. The first sentence of the relevant DOJ announcement is: “A federal grand jury returned an 18-count superseding indictment today charging Julian P. Assange, 47, the founder of WikiLeaks, with offenses that relate to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States.”[11] Seems mighty due. We all know there exist problems in the AP area; but I don’t see editors trying to shove undue material about Russia into every article. O3000 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: Interesting how Objective3000 and myverybestwishes have piled onto this without saying a single word about the bogus complaint their friend MrX brought, or about me. How did I “pile on”? My comment was about Thucydides411’s general claim about political editors. I am otherwise uninvolved. O3000 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SashiRolls

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

• I'm the last person to defend SashiRolles, and once again I am not impressed with their behaviour, but Thucydides411 also brings up some compelling arguments. I, too, am not sure I wish to see AE used to further a content dispute, which may be what is happening here. El_C 11:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That 1RR violation is a bit stale now — why was it not reported at the time? El_C 12:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Awilley, for your eloquence. El_C 13:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had my eye on this dispute for a couple of months now, and despite seeing that SushiRolls is extremely annoying to collaborate with I have refrained from taking any action besides general warnings. My reason is this:
  It's common knowledge that the American Politics topic area has many editors whose editorial positions tend to consistently favor one political ideology or another. Close enough RfCs in the topic area and you'll notice that certain groups of editors almost always end up on the same side with each other. Ask all these people to individually rank all the other editors on a "right" vs. "left" spectrum and the results would be highly correlated with the same editors consistently showing up on the "right" and "left" sides, although with some disagreement about where the "center" is located. Calling these people "civil POV pushers" or "tendentious editors" may be a bit harsh, but for the sake of conciseness let's use the term "tendentious editors". Normally these tendentious editors roughly balance each other out, with content disputes and RfCs being largely settled by the positions and arguments of the "swing voters". However in this case it would seem that the article's subject (Tulsi Gabbard) occupies the unenviable position of being disliked by both Republicans and Democrats, and from what I've seen of the talk page, SashiRolls seems to be the only tendentious editor interested in pushing back against edits that portray Gabbard in a negative light. (I don't see TFD as a tendentious editor.) I know very little about Gabbard, mostly just what I've read in the snippets of various reverts, but somehow I doubt that the question of whether she received support from "Russian Interests" is the most notable aspect of her 2020 campaign (judging by the weight it is given in the 3-paragraph subsection in the edit warring diffs above).
  I don't want this to be misinterpreted as declining to sanction a disruptive editor because they're pushing the right POV. The POV pushing is still a negative, but for me in this particular instance the importance of POV is small compared to the issue of BLP.
  I'm unsure of the best outcome in this particular situation. SR has been annoying and disruptive, but I would weakly oppose a topic ban, for now. Perhaps a warning? I fear I'm going to regret making this comment at all when SashiRolls interprets it as a nod of encouragement, which it is not. ~Awilley (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note I'm not suggesting we turn this into a boomerang. MrX, from what I've seen, is a relative newcomer to this particular conflict, and I'm not surprised that he got fed up with the situation. ~Awilley (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I'm happy to give User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions#No personal comments a whirl and see if that has any effect.

@MrX: I'll warn about "Snoox". Initially I overlooked it because I thought it was just short for Snoogansanoons, whose name I routinely misspell.

@Thucydides411: I'm starting to regret my comment already. I don't think the focus should be on groups of editors, and I'm not willing to start throwing sideways boomerangs based on bare assertions. If you want to call for sanctions against Snoog- or MrX you can dig up diffs and start a new thread. ~Awilley (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and applied the No Personal Comments sanction on my own. That at the very least was warranted. ~Awilley (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not interested in the 1RR issue, but I would support a sanction for the general battleground attitude exhibited in the other diffs, reinforced with the response here: "This toxic bullying and false report to AE timed for the beginning of the work-week ...". We don't need editors with a temper like that in controversial topic areas. Sandstein 17:43, 27 May 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.

Request concerning Batvette

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ahrtoodeetoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Batvette (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

Batvette consistently battlegrounds, ignores

1. describing another editor's comments as lame and not competant [12]
2. suggesting that another editor has not reached a level of education to differentiate adjectives from adverbs (also includes a taunt of Batvette's political opponents) [13]
3. You people will continue to cling to the most specious of arguments to preserve its existence with silly wiki lawyering behind facades of innocent faces.[14]
4. Willful ignorance is hardly a talking point I feel obligated to waste time on [15]
5. And the WaPo RS furnished directly supports this assertion nearly verbatim in its lede paragraphs suggests an intent to troll this discussion. I will not further respond to such nonsense. This discussion appears to be going nowhere but neither am I. These boorish tactics will not serve you well when recorded for posterity on this page. [16]
6. (to another editor:) Trump thanks you for assisting in his 2020 reelection. [17]
7. if your side finally brings around NPOV what have you won? Victory over cretinous dishonesty. [18]
8. We know that neither of you are oblivious to Trumps unpopularity with some in his party so I can only take his persistence in pushing it as an argument of intellectual dishonesty and you both projecting it to my ignorance after stating the fallacious nature of the point to be trolling this discussion. You must have a lot of free time on your hands to want to fill these pages with such unconstructive actions. [19]

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months. [20]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• R2 (bleep) 00:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• [21]

Discussion concerning Batvette

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 Batvette

I just saw this action so I will make my statement. Literally dozens of editors have made comments on the talk page in the last 2 months complaining of its NPOV nature. They have provided sound arguments with RS. A small handful of editors including the one filing the complaint have stonewalled opposing views. Complaintant stated falsely "a couple of editors" disagreed with consensus when I counted 28. ± Note that virtually all of the quotes he has provided, as colorful and admittedly heated as they are, are critical of other users COMMENTS and/or the tactics employed. Wiki policy is clear that youre supposed to comment about content, and users comments are content on a talk page. I apologize for perhaps being too wordy and posting some long rants, but do not mistake my criticism of other users arguments and tactics as attacks on their person. As for battleground that might be true if it were just myself arguing against their alleged consensus, however a review of that discussion does show 28 individual editors, the bulk of whom are experienced, having a problem with that page. Whatever the outcome of this its a point well taken and my comments probably should be shorter and less emotional. They would never have gotten that way had several editors been more open to compromise. Please see my history, Ive been here 13 years with no past disciplinary action. Perhaps this suggests the problem on that page isnt all me. Thank you. Batvette (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

R2 provides a sampling of the barrage of incivility. But, it’s not just the number of edits exhibiting battleground behavior, it’s the percentage. If you look through Batvette’s contributions, you’ll see that most of the edits include divisive, belittling, accusatory language aimed at other editors. And as one would expect, none of this has resulted in any consensus. I’m also bothered by their insistence on pushing the debunked claim that thousands of Muslims celebrated on NJ rooftops after the WTC collapsed on 9/11. [22] [23] [24] O3000 (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

O3000 I have by intent limited criticism not toward your person as you allege but to what you posted in the discussion. Furthermore the issue about Muslims cheering on rooftops was NOT debunked, and a link was provided to you. Here is another. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-references-sept-11-celebrations-jersey-city-n-article-1.2452481?outputType=amp which leaves us with the semantics debate of "swarms" vs. "thousands". Its irrelevant on this page anyway, why would you bring this here?Batvette (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Batvette

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

• I'll wait to make up my mind once the user in question responds, but an AP topic ban is probably due. El_C 11:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Awilley, actually, as I've just been informed via email, the user first edit is from June 2006 . El_C 20:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll give them a few more hours, but that's likely an empty gesture and, unless there's any objections, am otherwise ready to close with an indefinite AP topic ban. El_C 00:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked at the user's talkpage contributions at Spygate. the signal to noise ratio is pretty low with a high volume of unnhelpful and uncollaborative comments. I would support a topic ban. If I were placing it myself I'd do 3 months as kind of a "warning shot" since it's a newer user with few edits. ~Awilley (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would suggest an indefinite AP2 topic ban: anyone who posts this is unlikely to ever be productive in the topic area and a time limited TBAN will only kick the can down the road. Also noting that I've given them the 9/11 DS alert on the off chance they go on to create disruption in that area. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the indefinite topic ban. Sandstein 17:39, 27 May 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.

Request concerning Grayfell

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sinuthius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Grayfell (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/Race_and_intelligence#Editors_reminded_and_discretionary_sanctions_(amended) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Biographies_of_living_persons

Diffs

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

1. 26 April, 29 April - Adding an out-of-place comment in the bibliography of the Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Yr. article, based on a false statement about the identity of the publisher of Woodley's monograph "The Rhythm of the West". Its actual publisher is given at WorldCat.
2. 30 April - The same as the previous two edits, but with the correct publisher. However, there is another problem: the cited SPLC source does not mention Woodley, and no reliable sources have directly criticized Woodley for using a low-quality publisher for this monograph. Note that on a different BLP article, Grayfell had removed positive sources with the justification that the only sources that could be used are those that specifically mention the article's subject.
3. 29 April - Original synthesis, implying that the author of this book used his position on the journal's editorial board to secure a positive review, although no sources make that argument. Grayfell's only source for this statement was the journal's editorial board page on the relevant date at archive.org.
4. 6 March, 24 May, 25 May - Similar to the previous example, on the Heiner Rindermann article.
5. 25 May, 26 May - These edits cite a reliable source, but misrepresent what the source says. Grayfell's edits say that Woodley "helped to organize the London Conference on Intelligence, a conference on eugenics secretly held at University College London", but what the source says is that Woodley attended the London Conference on Intelligence, and helped to organize conferences for the International Society for Intelligence Research. The International Society for Intelligence Research is a much more respectable conference than the London Conference on Intelligence, so claiming that Woodley helped to organize LCI rather than ISIR is a severe misrepresentation.
6. 28 May - After his change to the Woodley article was reverted a second time, Grayfell changed "helped to organize" to "participated in", but it's still inappropriate to state in Wikipedia's voice that eugenics was a focus of the conference. Other sources have mentioned that only two of the conference's 75 presentations were about eugenics, and this was previously pointed out to Grayfell here.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: 4 January

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am making this report following the discussion here, at the suggestion of an editor who can't make a report because he doesn't have an account. Grayfell has a pattern of making edits that violate the strict sourcing requirements for statements about living people, particularly on articles about living people related to the race and intelligence controversy. Aside from the examples given above, a longer-term example of the problem is his pattern of edits to the Gerhard Meisenberg article:

On 25 July, Grayfell heavily modified the article and added several negative statements. The following month, the article was tagged as an attack page. [25] In response to the tag, two editors, user:GB_fan and User:Narssarssuaq, attempted to restore balance to the article. [26] [27] [28] Both of these users' changes were subsequently undone by Grayfell, restoring the article to the version that had been tagged as an attack page. [29] [30] From August 2018 until the end of last year, Grayfell also reverted seven other edits by various users attempting to correct the same issues. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

On 6 May, the article was tagged as an attack page a second time. [38] The second tagging led to the article being raised at the BLP noticeboard, and to an argument on the talk page between Grayfell and an IP editor. Based on the IP's analysis of the article's sources, a large portion of the negative material Grayfell had been restoring was cited to sources that do not mention Meisenberg, despite Grayfell's argument on the Seymour Itzkoff article that sources must mention the article's subject. This discussion led to the material in the Meisenberg article finally being removed without Grayfell restoring it, after having stayed in that article for almost a year.

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources says, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion", but Grayfell is making that policy impossible to follow with his habit of repeatedly restoring this material when other users attempt to remove it. According to the IP's statements here and here, the material added by Grayfell has had real-life consequences for the subject of one of these articles. This situation seems to recur on a different article every few weeks, so I request that admins please find a long-term solution to the problem.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grayfell&diff=899399167&oldid=899384616

Discussion concerning Grayfell

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 Grayfell

Line by line:

• For the first two: One book's own contributors also lists Scott-Townsend Publishers. According to Scott Townsend Publisher's website, it is the publishing division of the "Council for Social and Economic Studies", which is puts out the
  Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies. All of these are part of Roger Pearson's publishing outfit. I maintain that as an encyclopedia, we should indicate to researchers when they are dipping into the fringes. The SPLC documents
  Pearson's activity, if that was an issue. Other editors feel it's sufficient indicate this in links to the articles on these publishers.
• For the frequency of favorable reviews in Intelligence, the otherwise respectable outlet's reputation as a safe-harbor for this is well-documented by sources, specifically regarding Lynn and Meisenberg.[39][etc.]
• I did make an error in saying that Woodley helped organize the London conference, which as mentioned, I corrected. As for the source which mentions that "only two" of the conference's presentations were about eugenics, this is the same letter, written by attendees, which is already mentioned in the article. This letter was organized by Woodley (again published in Intelligence) in response to the multiple reliable sources which discussed the conference's focus on race and intelligence. Calling this conference "controversial" seems confusing and euphemistic to me, and since many sources have discussed its connection to eugenics, or even just called it a "eugenics conference",[40][41](etc) I think it's appropriate to use plain language to explain the issue.
• As for Meisenberg, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gmeisenberg. Using the "additional comments" section as an expansion pack to the 500 char limit makes it tedious for me to respond to any specific issue without giving it more weight than is justified. If there are any questions, I will answer them.

Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to the IP: Your insistence that an account would be too much of a commitment is starting to ring hollow. At this point I think that by avoiding making an account, you are avoiding scrutiny and accountability.

I do not know why Meisenberg stopped working at that school, or at Mankind. Provide sources on the article's talk page, please.

The behavior you are describing from others falls under

WP:MEAT

. Regardless, reliable sources still overrule first-hand knowledge.

While it may be convenient to make me a boogieman, several of the people you mention did not revert me, and were not reverted by me. You have also left-out many of the people who have supported these changes. Notifying sympathetic editors while ignoring unsympathetic ones seems to be part of a pattern, but it's

WP:CANVASSing

regardless.

If you are satisfied with the current status of Meisenberg's article... what, exactly, is the problem here? I recognize that consensus has led to the current wording, even if I do not fully agree with it. I could go into why, but this isn't the place for that, is it?

Regardless, Meisenberg placed his name on the letterheads of these controversial organizations. As an encyclopedia, we must what reflect what sources say about his actions, and the consequences of his actions. In this situation, ignoring sources and favoring euphemistic language would be a form of advocacy. That is no more appropriate than what you are accusing me of doing. Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pudeo: These unsupported aspersions are insulting to everyone here. Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ahrtoodeetoo

• I'm not familiar with all of the policy issues involved, but this request should be closed immediately because it seems inappropriate for one editor to proxy for another here. Among the underlying issues is the fact that
  R2 (bleep) 19:56, 29 May 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.

Request concerning Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (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:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions, specific policy violations listed below

Diffs

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

Accusations of extremism

1. 13:11, 28 May 2019 - "Translation: "the lede does not reflect my extremist POV so I'm gonna claim it's "unbalanced" and make
   WP:ASPERSIONS
2. 15:06, 18 May 2019 - "Not even gonna take that extremist nonsense form you seriously" -
   WP:NPA

Accusations of racism

1. 18:21, 20 May 2019 - "The source does NOT "tie two phenomena together". You do. It's a COATRACK for the whole disgusting and racist "Poles are anti-semities" POV into this article.".
   WP:NPA+ baseless accusation ( Haaretz
   does tie).
2. 05:30, 30 May 2019 - "You have been asked REPEATEDLY to stop evaluating sources on the basis of racist ethnic criteria." -
   WP:NPOV
   . Saying UK/US media have different POV than Polish media, and Polish government stmts/reports - is not "racist".
3. 14:21, 20 May 2019 - "rmv POV, rmv gratuitous stereotyping and ethnic generalizations" - BLP (named) and/or NPA.

NPA/ASPERSIONS

1. 06:14, 28 May 2019 - "another spurious WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT tag, WP:BATTLEGROUND tag. There's no "over reliance" on anything and your previous objection was addressed, so now you're just trying to make any ol' excuse up" -
   WP:WNTRMT
   .
2. 04:49, 28 May 2019 - "spurious tag, appears to be WP:STALK of another user and WP:BATTLEGROUND". False accusations, I tagged 3 March + opened
   WP:WNTRMT
   .
3. 08:34, 28 May 2019 "Sure. When they stop making shit up and derailing discussions"" -
   WP:NPA

OR/V

1. 03:22, 25 May 2019 - tags clarify on "they are popular", edit summary - "what does "popular" mean? They're actually pretty rare".
   WP:CIR vs. cited sources. Also diff, diff
   .

1. 06:32, 26 May 2019 - restoring
   WP:BLPSPS. See Talk:Antony Polonsky#Alleged PDF by Stachura
   .
2. 21:58, 26 May 2019 - "*you* are the one violating BLP.", 05:36, 28 May 2019 - "You created a whole section dedicated to attacking OTHER living people" -
   WP:ASPERSIONS
   - false, others added in 2012.

V/OR/BLP when reinstating content by sockpuppets

Per

1. 05:43, 30 May 2019. By Matalea. Material not in cited source.
   WP:NPA
   after queried.
2. 07:00, 30 May 2019 By Stawiski, multiple issues, glaring one: Jew marking in first lede sentence - "Roman Romkowski born Natan Grünspan-Kikiel, (May 22, 1907 – July 1, 1965) was a Polish
   WP:NPOV
   .
3. 06:43, 30 May 2019 By Matalea. Removal of anti-Jewish violence connection. Reinstated allegedly from ref:
   WP:V
   .
4. 05:24, 29 May 2019. By FoliesTrévise. Removal of academic sources addressing Belarus. Reinstating poor sources: blog, se.pl tabloid, naukowa.pl bookstore, etc. V issues. BLP issues - stating BLPs wrote something they hadn't. See
   WP:BLP

Appealing user

Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

2-way IBAN: [51] (apparently not logged), resulting from this AE: [52]

Administrator imposing the sanction

El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[53]

Statement by Tryptofish

What I'm requesting: A modification of the IBAN that lifts the portion of it applying to me, thus changing it from 2-way to 1-way.

Explanation: The

My initial statement in the case, I believe, clearly and succinctly sets out the problems of the other editor's interactions with me: [57]. The other editor followed me around; I never followed him. The other admin who reviewed the AE case, Vanamonde93, stated that I was actually one of the few [involved editors] whose conduct I have no complaints about: [58], and that he would have preferred a 1-way IBAN instead: [59], [60]. El_C has explained that he did not base his decision on anything in my conduct, and regards the 2-way ban as "no-fault", having done it simply as a way to quickly resolve a dispute where the evidence had become overly complex: [61]. (I apologize for having added some lengthy material to my own initial statement there, but I did so in order to refute some wild accusations against me, and my having done so is obviously not disruptive conduct – nor should I be blamed because other volunteers didn't have enough time to investigate everything.) In short, I did nothing wrong that would justify a restriction on me, and I think I can be trusted not to violate a lifting of the part of it that applies to me.

Recognizing that the 2-way IBAN was no-fault, and that there were good reasons to deal with the dispute promptly, I'm really not unhappy with the restriction, and indeed, I'm very happy to be separated from the other editor and I want to remain separated from them. In that sense, it's no big deal. But I also realize that, like it or not, some other editors are likely to misjudge me by it, and I would prefer not to have it continue hanging over my head. And I think it's clear that I can be trusted. I plan to continue to voluntarily avoid the other editor. I don't want contact with them, and I have zero interest in editing the content areas where they edit, and avoiding them is just the right thing to do. I also understand and agree that if hypothetically I were to abuse the lifting of the restriction, it will be reinstated. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say a few things about the accusations made by Levivich. I was the filing party in the GMO ArbCom case, and I was the editor who crafted the language that got the community's consensus at

WP:GMORFC. I have had pretty much all of the GMO-related pages on my watchlist since 2013 or shortly after (first edit: [62]

). There's nothing "following" about seeing problematic edits by another editor on my watchlist and responding to them.

And – you can believe this or not – but I learned about the other editor's block from reading Levivich's comment here. I took very seriously my responsibility to abide by the IBAN, so I wasn't aware of the block when I filed here. I said at El_C's talk page that I would wait a few days and then file here if nothing happened first, and that's what I did. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

No objection. I just don't have time to investigate this further. This was done in the interest of expediency with no fault explicitly stated. If those who do have time to investigate this find that changing it to one-way is better, that's totally fine with me. El_C 20:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

Just commenting as the original filer of the AE where I was reporting problems with Sashirolls (and absolutely not Tryptofish). They already described the hounding problems they were having with Sashirolls that popped in to the GMO topic as I also described at the original AE, so the only thing I'll say on Sashirolls is that even after the interaction ban, a few weeks later they were also given another sanction and later blocked. I completely understand El C's reasoning for a quick resolution when no one else was acting, but ideally other editors should not get swept up that easily in a sanction when a long-term problematic editor is brought to AE for an nth sanction.

This appeal is about Tryptofish's behavior though, so that's where the focus should be. El C already made it clear it was a no-fault sanction for Tryptofish, and there wasn't really evidence brought to AE of problems with Tryptofish's behavior in dealing with a hounding editor. This is pretty much a clear cut case where a one-way is the better way to go while still preventing further hounding by Sashirolls. I always suggest one-ways with caution where obvious attempts to game the sanction should be met pretty harshly, but that's generally when one party is clearly disruptive, and the other shows some levels of battleground behavior that do not necessarily need a full sanction. Instead, this was one-way harassment/battleground with reasonable responses to it by Tryptofish, so there's no reason to have a sanction in place on them. That's especially since Tryptofish made it clear they didn't want anything to do with Sashirolls anyways until they jumped into the GMO/pesticide topic where Tryptofish frequently edits.

I'll only quickly chime in that I am concerned about how Levivich has been following this interaction and their comments at the ANI Tryptofish mentioned (I hadn't run into Levivich before) dismissing an attack page against Tryptofish, the last AE, and now. Each time they have been deflecting from Sashirolls continuously poor behavior and muddying the waters trying to say Tryptofish was the problem. That isn't ok, and that is beginning to test the line on the

WP:ASPERSIONS principle in this subject

that is supposed to discourage that degree of framing without supporting evidence.

None of those edits show Tryptofish, who frequently edits those articles, following Sashirolls as Levivich incorrectly claims (which they should strike). The actual "following" being done, based on the last AE, was Sashirolls coming into the GMO topics combined with specifically going after Tryptofish in the article talk page battleground comments in a one-way fashion. I wasn't going to comment here further since Tryptofish's appeal is straightforward, but who was hounding who definitely should not be obfuscated at AE like that. Sashirolls' block/sanction list was already long enough we don't go blaming editors because they got slightly frustrated with hounding or showed a tiny amount of snark when dealing with a repeatedly disruptive editor.

talk) 18:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I gave my reasons for supporting this move here; no need to post them twice. I should add, however, that I think it was a very good idea to appeal this sooner rather than later; the community -- even admins and several former and current Arbs -- seem to very easily forget the circumstances under which such sanctions are imposed, which would make appealing on grounds like Tryptofish has somewhat difficult (and near-impossible if the other party is still actively editing). (This is not a reference to any specific IBAN I am aware of, but a commentary on the larger pattern of behaviour displayed by much of the community in relation to two-way IBANs in general.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I'm not sure I agree that the encyclopedia would be better if the two-way IBAN stayed; this assumes that in those cases where the two have conflicted over content neither party has been either right or wrong, which seems like quite a big leap of faith. Also, your final remark about how this was opened after SR was blocked is irrelevant, since Trypt indicated his intention to file this request well over a day before that block; unless you are accusing Trypt of somehow orchestrating SR's block and waiting until this planned block had come to fruition before filing this request, I should think it would be a good idea for you to strike that part of your statement, since it looks like that is what you are implying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

It does not appear to me to be accurate when Tryptofish says "The other editor followed me around; I never followed him." The two editors have edited seven articles together (2019 Interaction Timeline). (Tryp's been editing longer.) Three, Sashi was the first editor (Jill Stein, Pizzagate conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Wikipedia). For the remaining four, Tryp is the first editor, but...

• Roundup (herbicide)
  • It was T who followed S, in January (5 hrs) and May (1.5 hrs).
  • S's first edit: 1-16-19 (all of S's edits)
  • T's previous edit: 10-9-18, 3+ months earlier. T's next edit: five hours after S's edit (all of T's edits)
  • They both edited it on 1-16-19. Then, neither for two months until
    Kingofaces43. S continues to edit 3-29 to 3-31. T only makes one edit on 3-31
    . Neither of them edit again for a month until...
  • May, when Sashi edited it 5-6-19 and then T edited it 1.5 hrs later. S did not edit that article again.
• Glyphosate
  • T followed S on May 10 (9 hrs), otherwise nobody is following anybody.
  • S's first edit: 3-29-19 (all of S's edits)
  • T's previous edit: 3-20-19, nine days prior. T's next edit: 3-31-19, two days later. (all of T's edits)
  • Both edited it on 3-31, 4-1 and 4-2. T edited on 5-4 and 5-6. S next edited four days later on 5-10, followed by T 9 hours later. Both edited it 5-13 to 5-15. S hasn't edited it since 5-15.
• Note: on 30 March 2019, Tryp posted a DS alert on Sashi's talk page [63]. For background, when Sashi was tbanned from Jill Stein in 2016, it was Tryp who filed the complaint. (And Tryp posted "Strongest possible opposition" to Sashi's unblock 2018 appeal [64].)
• Then in April, Sashi posted to ANI about another user [65] and Tryp, responding to the other user's ping [66], brought up Sashi's past and called for a boomerang against Sashi [67] [68], proposed an IBAN against Sashi [69] [70], called Sashi a "crackpot saying obnoxious things", and called Sashi a "troll" (while posting this picture). Tryp opened a new ANI thread against Sashi (archived thread), which also went nowhere. It was closed, Tryp unclosed it and later re-closed it himself. After that...
• Monsanto legal cases
  • Nobody is following anybody here.
  • S's first edit: 5-11-19. This is the only edit S made to this article [71].
  • T's previous edit: 9-17-18, eight months prior. T's next edit: 5-16-19, five days later. (all of T's edits)
• Séralini affair
  • T is following S here (13 minutes), which happens after the above ANI threads were closed.
  • S's first edit: 5-14-19 (all of S's edits)
  • T's previous edit: 5-11-18, one year prior. T's next edit was 13 minutes after S's first edit. (all of T's edits)
• The encyclopedia would be better if these two editors minimized their interaction. The no fault two-way IBAN should stay. Oh, and this appeal was filed one day after Sashi was blocked for a week. – Levivich 05:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hijiri88: I'm not implying anything. The relevance of the timing is that Tryp could have waited until next week to file this appeal, so that Sashi could comment here. I thought when Tryp posted a notification on Sashi's talk page, he would have seen that Sashi was blocked (if he wasn't already aware of it), and he could have at least noted that here so that admin could choose to keep the thread open until Sashi had a chance to comment. I think it's poor form to ask for a no-fault 2-way to be turned into a 1-way while the other editor is blocked. That's why I brought it up, to make sure all reviewing admin are aware of it. I see now that Tryp apparently didn't notify Sashi of this appeal on their talk page. I guess if Sashi isn't required to be notified, it's moot, but I'd think any editor who is party to an IBAN should be able to comment in a discussion about whether that IBAN is lifted or turned from 2-way to 1-way. (Requesting word extension for this reply.) – Levivich 06:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newyorkbrad: Thanks. To be clear, my point isn't that Tryp was following Sashi, it's that Tryp's repeated accusations here at AE that Sashi was following Tryp are not accurate. I wouldn't even bother making that point, except Sashi can't make that point himself, because he wasn't notified of this appeal and is blocked anyway. – Levivich 15:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snooganssnoogans

I just want to point out so it's clear that most of the cases presented by Levivich of Tryptofish "following" Sashirolls are instances where Tryptofish had first edited a page. It's entirely consistent with someone watchlisting a page. Levivich says there are three instances where Levivich was not the first to edit a page. One of those cases is the

• Awaiting any further statements, since this request does not appear to be overly time-sensitive. After reviewing the previous AE thread and the follow-up talkpage discussions, my preliminary reaction is that as far as I can tell, no administrator has found serious or repeated fault with Tryptofish's behavior. If that is the case, it would be difficult to justify keeping him under a sanction. If that is not the case, it would be helpful if someone could point us to the specifics. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levivich's request to extend the word limit is granted to the extent of what he has already posted plus another 150 words for any further replies. That being said, I don't find his evidence of "Tryptofish following SashiRolls" to be persuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to grant the appeal, converting this into a 1-way iban. Levivich seems to be the only one attempting to present any evidence of misconduct by Tyrptofish, but I'm not actually seeing anything in there that demonstrates any wrongdoing. It seems they have a small overlap in edited pages, with T editing first roughly half the time and S first the other half - that is not evidence of following, especially when in at least one case where T edited the article shortly after S the edits were unrelated. Users who are at the unrestricted end of a one-way iban do still need to take care they don't game the restriction (or even give the appearance of doing so), and any evidence of that will be dealt with harshly but based on the evidence here and in the first AE I don't think it likely Tryptofish will engage in that sort of behaviour. I'd rather this not be closed too hastily though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with my colleagues above. As El C doesn't mind changing this to one way, if there are no objections by other admins in the next few hours, I'll close this after it has hit 24 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 6 June 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.

Request concerning Roscelese

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:40, 10 June 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

Roscelese has several restrictions in place. They include making more than one revert per page per day. On Catholic Church and homosexuality she made a number of reverts, including several to the same piece of text, in a 27 hour period. She admitted as much on the talk page where she said "I've reverted a few...". They include

1. 19:10, June 8, 2019 On actions of the Synod
2. 19:11, June 8, 2019 Description of Dignity and Courage
3. 22:14, June 9, 2019 Description of Dignity and Courage
4. 19:15, June 8, 2019 A description of political activity in the lede
5. 22:11, June 9, 2019 A description of political activity in the lede
6. 22:12, June 9, 2019 A description of political activity in the lede
7. 22:53, June 9, 2019 description of marriage activities
8. 22:59, June 9, 2019 Discussion of discrimination

She is also restricted from personalizing disputes or casting aspersions. I put these forth for consideration.

1. She calls my good faith edits "destructive"
2. She calls my efforts destructive again
3. She accuses me of having ulterior motives in organizing an effort to bring the article to GA staus
4. She says I knew a proposed compromise edit was bad before I made it
5. During a previous enforcement action, she tried to deflect blame off of herself by making the issue about me
6. Even after having been found to violate her restrictions, she tries to appeal by saying the filing was "obviously bad-faith"
7. Again, after having been found in violation, she tries to make the issue about me

She is also required to discuss any reversions on the talk page. She did not discuss any reversions related to marriage.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Roscelese blocked for one week per AE report. Sandstein 17:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Roscelese blocked for two weeks per AE report. Sandstein 15:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given two discretionary sanctions for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion concerning Roscelese

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Roscelese

Uh, I went through Slugger's giant stack of edits one by one, walking back the parts that seemed disruptive. As everyone knows, consecutive edits are considered one edit; I could have done it all in one giant revert, but this seemed easier to track, and I didn't notice that he made intervening edits. Moreover, Slugger's own list of diffs clearly shows that not all of my edits in this time-frame were reverts and that I did not, in fact -- unlike Slugger -- repeatedly attempt to edit-war my wording through in a brief period of time.

Last I heard, my restrictions were related to reversions, not to any edit, so Slugger's claim that I've violated my restriction by doing too much editing and by failing to discuss every edit is spurious.

This seems like pretty clear retaliation for the

I agree that the timing of this looks retaliatory. However, I was preparing this last night when I got notification of the ANI report. I did not have time to finish this and respond to that. I thus waited until today. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Roscelese

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

• A look at the talk page and history of Catholic Church and homosexuality shows that Roscelese made multiple non-consecutive reverts on 10 June and did not discuss them on the talk page, in violation of her restriction. I am imposing another block and, as per my usual practice, am doubling the duration, this time to 4 weeks. Sandstein 15:23, 10 June 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.

Request concerning François Robere

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

François Robere (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

Eastern Europe, BLP

Diffs

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

1.8:42 6 June 2019 - fifth bullet point in the list, which begins with "The first editor is Marek Jan Chodakiewicz...". In particular the sentence At risk of losing a $1m endowment earmarked for Chodakiewicz, the University of Virginia opted to "let him go", and he now teaches at a small college in Washington, DC. is a textbook

Francois Robere explicitly asserts, without providing any sources or other evidence that UoV fired the BLP subject from his job. The full paragraph strongly insinuates that this alleged firing was done because of shady political views. You can't make accusations like that without *immediately* providing links and evidence. Getting fired from an academic position is HUGE DEAL (more so than getting fired from "regular" jobs) and this kind of attack, if untrue, can be potentially damaging to someone's career (for example if it shows up in a google search)

2.11:02 9 June 2019 - the comment after the first sentence pretends to provide sources for the BLP attack made in the first diff, and effectively doubles down on that BLP attack. The comment from FR is The story (of Chodakiewicz's alleged firing - VM) is told in bits and pieces by Radziłowski in Glaukopis 19, p. 281; at the chair's website; in a paper by Thomas Anessi; and at the IWP's website.

However, none of the sources provide by Francois Robere actually support his contention that the subject was fired. In the least:

• This source provided by FR... does not even mention Chodakiewicz or University of Virginia. In fact it is completely off-topic so it's strange that FR even pretends that it supports his BLP attack.
• This source describes how the Kosciuszko Chair of Polish Studies came to the Institute of World Politics (IWP). All it does is simply note that originally the chair was established at UoV, then went to American Institute of Polish Culture (AIPC), then back to Uov then back to AIPC which then handed it over to IWP. The BLP subject (Chodakiewicz) is discussed at the end in a short bio. It notes Chodakiewicz held the chair while it was at UoV and that he was "instrumental" in bringing it over to IWP. There's absolutely nothing in this source about UoV firing Chodakiewicz or "letting him go". Indeed, the source suggests that Chodakiewicz voluntarily left UoV rather than being fired, in order to bring the chair to IWP.
• This source describes the history of the Kosciuszko Chair as founded by Blanka Rosenstiel. Regarding Chodakiewicz it only states that he took over the chair at UoV in 2002. It explicitly states that the endowed chair was transferred from UoV to AIPC for financial reasons,^[a] nothing to do with Chodakiewicz, much less his political views.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 22:05 26 Feb 2019 Warned in the topic area
2. 22:21 26 Feb 2019 Blocked in the topic area by User:TonyBallioni
3. 12:45 18 March 2018 Blocked by
   WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
   approach.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

1. 22:05 26 Feb 2019 Warned in the topic area
2. 22:21 26 Feb 2019 Blocked in the topic area by User:TonyBallioni

(also other indications he knows about DS but that's enough)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a textbook violation of

An exacerbating factor is that when challenged on this BLPVIO, Francois Robere attempt to obfuscate the issue by claiming to provide sources to back up his attack. The sources however say nothing of the sort that FR is asserting, one of them is completely off topic, and the other two, tell a completely different story. This appears to be an attempt at purposeful deception since it's unclear how in the world these sources would support the BLP violating assertion. It seems FR was hoping no one would actually check the sources.

More generally, Francois Robere has made 36 edits to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz's BLP [77], all of them either minor copy edits, or attempts to insert as much negative info into the article as possible, effectively turning it into an attack page. Some of the negative additions are simply inane, like this addition that one of the author's book had "errors in the index" (seriously). There's also misrepresentation of sources by FR (for example, the text I removed here, where the source says something else). Taken in sum, most of FR's edits at the MJCh article are problematic and sanction worthy. However, this latest BLP attack crosses a very bright line.

I suggest a topic ban from the area, or barring that at least a topic ban from Poland related BLPs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: "We do not normally treat reasonable disagreements in a discussion about a biography outside of article space as BLP violations <-- This is utterly and completely wrong. As User:Black Kite points out the policy explicitly says "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page". It's the first sentence of the policy. It would help matters if admins who enforce policy actually knew the policy they're suppose to enforce.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments exceeding 500 words removed as an admin action. Sandstein 09:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning François Robere

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 François Robere

1. I find it odd that VM filed this AE less than an hour after, at his request, I specified what each of the sources say and rephrased the statement to which he objected.[78]
2. I find it odder that of the dozen or so editors who commented there, including at least one admin, he's the only one to claim a BLP violation. Clearly, within the context of the discussion no one else thought that statement was out of place.
3. I find it triply odd that he does so just as an ARBCOM case in which he is involved,[79] and in which he asked that I be involved (no luck there),[80] is getting started. Presumably if he has any claims against me he could've laid them there, within the word limit.
4. I find his statement that I should've provided that evidence *immediately* [sic] carefully phrased: by his own admission he had seen the evidence before when it was posted by another editor,[81] so he knows that the basic tenet of
   WP:BLPTALK
   - that the material "is unsourced or poorly sourced" - is irrelevant here. Claiming a sourcing violation when you know the evidence exists is an act of bad faith.
5. What's more, he clearly misrepresents both my words and the sources': he states that I "explicitly asserted... that UoV fired the BLP subject" (I didn't), that two of the sources do not even mention the BLP (they do), and - in a recent comment [82] - that I did not provide a link to the fourth source (I clearly wanted to, but ended up pasting the wrong one [83]. However, as I did give the citation VM could've easily checked it out himself before charging to AE).

Source quotes:

Comments exceeding 500 words removed as an admin action. Sandstein 09:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More comments exceeding 500 words removed as an admin action. Sandstein 14:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Some sources on the topic:

1. book by Chodakiewicz - "he was Assistant Professor of History, Koscuizsko Chair in Polish Studies, at the Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia, from 2001 to 2003".
2. Per VM - "does not even mention Chodakiewicz or University of Virginia" - however -Translation of article in Czas Kultury: mentions both - "The danger of such donations, however, can be seen in the establishment of the Kosciuszko Chair of Polish Studies at the University of Virginia, ... was initially funded by a $1 million matching grant from Blanka Rosenstiel’s American Institute of Polish Culture, but she withdrew her support in 2008 after the university both attempted to appoint Jan Tomasz Gross to the position, and also failed to raise the matching funds needed to fully fund the Chair. It was then moved to the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., and conservative historian and Columbia University graduate Marek Jan Chodakiewicz,18 was appointed to the position, which remained $600,000 short of its full endowment.19. Footnotes: "19 Chodakiewicz’s writing in the magazines The American Spectator and The National Review Online and his publication in Poland of several books published by Fronda is sufficient to label him a conservative
3. Chodakiewicz in tysol (op-ed by Chodakiewicz,
   WP:ABOUTSELF
   would apply): (google translate): "After my publications, the followers of historical neo-Stalinism were mad. They called for the University of Virginia (UVA), where I was poisoned to get me fired. ... And in the US, no publication means professional death: publish or perish. This was described in details a few years ago by John Radziłowski ("The Shame of Polish Historical Studies in America: The Blacklisting of Prof. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Ph.D.," Glaukopis ", No. 19/20 (2010): pp. 278- 285, link)..
4. Radziłowski article referred to by Chodakiewicz: (discussing UVA-2003) (google translate): - "Departure of prof. Roszkowskiego in 2003 became the reason for the next crisis .... Commission looking for the successor of prof. Roszkowski was dominated by representatives of the history department. Professor Chodakiewicz, who held this position for two years, was formally an internal candidate of the university. ... . However, he was not even offered a preliminary interview preceding the employment decision."
5. Chodakiewicz in tysol (op-ed/report by Chodakiewicz,
   WP:ABOUTSELF
   would apply): (google translate): - "For a short period of time, the regressive trend was opposed by Professor Wojciech Roszkowski, who was boldly imported from Poland, whom I assisted. After his departure, the Cathedral functioned a little longer, but soon - after attempting to put it on the tracks incompatible with the founder's intentions, she was put to sleep. After a few years, AIPC announced a competition to find a new home for the cathedral. Fourteen higher education institutions joined him, including Columbia, Harvard and Yale. The Institute of World Politics won because only we can be a guarantee of respecting the will of the Polish donors and only we will not violate the spirit of the mission of the Chair."

Refactored.Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DannyS712

There was an end note created above that was missing a display template - the error at the bottom of the page was bugging me. Feel free to delete my section if it is no longer needed. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

This is weaponising AE to win content disputes. Decline, please. ∯WBG^converse 13:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL

This should not be actioned beyond a recommendation to add François Robere as a party to Antisemitism in Poland. Arbcom should be realistically deciding on the merits of this charge since it's so incredibly tied with that case.

@