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.

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:MOS, SMcCandlish is prohibited from making bad faith assumptions about other participants; strongly advised to avoid commenting on contributor, particularly with regard to WP:NPA and 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 discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• 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 WP:CIV provisions, that one should not intentionally make misrepresentations and that one should not ignore reasonable questions. McCandlish's refusal to observe these principles, documented above, has led to a disruption at the MoS talk page. I have attempted several times to resolve this problem at McClandish's talk page ([1]), but was brusquely dismissed and instructed not to respond there further. In not proposing a specific sanction I was following the advice at WP:TINJ, that "it is best not to request or demand specific solutions", to "[s]eek solutions, not justice", and to "ask for practical solutions". If Robert McClenon is suggesting that a topic ban or block would be the most appropriate sanction in this case then that is what I request, though noting that the idea did not originate with me and that I would want such a ban be of minimum length, as I want neither to exclude McCandlish from further discussion of the topic nor to appear to be trying to do so for whatever motive. If his uncivil behavior continues, however, then it might presumably be found that the ban should be extended. I did propose "an actual sanction of some sort" in my previous comment (the present comment having been shortened as requested), though I did not suggest a specific one and indeed have no experience in matters such as this qualifying me to determine a specific measure. I was in the process of abbreviating the diff explanations when I noticed the comments that have now come in from administrators, and hastily post this now in consequence of that. Is it desired that I shorten the explanations? I didn't realize they had gotten so long and apologize for not doing a word count on them before I posted. I can prioritize this over a response to the IBAN proposal if desired.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

06:13, 21 May 2019

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]

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.

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 WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement without requesting a sanction (and while saying that one is not requesting a sanction) adds heat and no light. Either ask for a topic-ban or a block, or go back to the user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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.

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 Jingiby this was 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 discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see 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 North Macedonian presidential election be renamed to 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 WP:NOTHERE. They likely are simply an SPA used to push a POV. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done.

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

This 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.

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Snooganssnoogans is an experienced editor who frequently edits on pages relating to American politics. has also been involved in several arbitration matters (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=snooganssnoogans&prefix=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

• This is 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). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snoogans is correct; there was no violation here. According to WP:EW, A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. It is understandable that the reporting party here did not realize that, since the 1RR statement posted at the article does not make it clear. IMO the wording of that statement should be clarified to "one edit or series of edits", or perhaps "one edit or uninterrupted series of edits".

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]
  • @MelanieN: I don't think it's the job of a discretionary sanctions template to explain the definition of a revert. The "consecutive edits" thing applies to all reverts everywhere, including 3RR. Putting it in 1RR templates could educate some people, yes, but it would also be 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.

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

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 Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard/Archive_1#Russian Propaganda and I was not even aware of it until after I posted this request. Since February, the issue underlying the content has resurfaced in the media. What is odd is that, if SashiRolls is relying on the three month old three person consensus, why he both removed and added material about the disputed content.[9]. By my count, there are three people who currently support this material in the article, and it is being actively discussed on the talk page and 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]

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

This 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 WP:HARASSMENT: Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 SashiRolls subsequently removed the accusations, in accordance with the talk-page consensus (diff), and referenced the talk page consensus in the edit summary: "removed opinion piece following TP consensus". Snooganssnoogans reinserted the material (diff), without engaging on the talk page. This was a violation of 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).

A couple of comments:

1. The first clear violation of Wikipedia rules in this sequence was the reinsertion by Snooganssnoogans of material that there had been a consensus to remove. Snooganssnoogans should have gone to the talk page to seek consensus for reinstating that material.
2. While on the one hand, SashiRolls reverted more than once, Snooganssnoogans and MrX were ignoring consensus. They should have gone to the talk page if they wished to establish a new consensus, rather than putting the material back in right away.
3. The material in question is highly questionable, both from the perspective of WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLPBALANCE. MrX accuses SashiRolls of battleground mentality, but it is difficult to look at the content that MrX and Snooganssnoogans are trying to reinsert into the article and not see some sort of POV pushing going on. If this material is reinserted, fully half of the article's section on Tulsi Gabbard's campaign would be about accusations that she has received favorable coverage from Russian media. This is clearly disproportionate, and MrX and Snooganssnoogans should not be rushing to reinsert this material without first obtaining consensus.

The principle of "clean hands" is at work here. The editor bringing this complaint, MrX, has themselves ignored the consensus at the article. The material that MrX was attempting to reinstate was problematic from both BLP and weight perspectives. Note that MrX did not decide to bring a case against Snooganssnoogans for violating WP:CONSENSUS, but instead brought a case against SashiRolls for supposedly violating WP:1RR - the obvious difference being that Snooganssnoogans and MrX agree on the content issue. That leaves me with the impression that AE is being used in service of a content dispute. A neutral complaint would at least have mentioned Snooganssnoogans' and MrX' violation of WP:CONSENSUS - or better yet, AE would have been entirely avoided. The admins evaluating this case should take a close look at MrX's edits at Tulsi Gabbard, and judge not only SashiRolls' behavior, but also that of MrX. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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 Julian Assange. This is far more weight than is given to anything else Julian Assange has done - the founding of WikiLeaks, the US diplomatic cables, the Iraq and Afghanistan War logs, etc., and it clearly can't be in line with 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]

@Sandstein: Do you have a judgment on the issue of MrX and Snooganssnoogans ignoring consensus to reinsert material with problematic consequences for BLP? This sort of issue is a wider problem with the group of editors identified by Awilley, and can be seen, for example, at Julian Assange, where the lede has also been loaded up with Russiagate-related material, in a way that violates WP:BLPBALANCE. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: WP:DUE is a question of weight. One sentence about Russiagate in the lede of Julian Assange might be due, but an entire paragraph, complete with details of exactly how many Russian intelligence officers were indicted by Mueller, is way out of proportion. All of WikiLeaks' many publications together receive less space in the lede than Russiagate. This is a serious BLP problem: see 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]

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]

@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]

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.

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 AGF, and personalizes nearly every dispute. He often literally taunts the (unspecified) editors who disagree with him; in fact, for the last week his user page included a taunt of his political opponents. Specific edits include:

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 discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see 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

• El_C, I don’t know if you’re American so perhaps you’re unaware that it’s a national holiday in the U.S. It seems fair to give Batvette until tomorrow (Tuesday) to respond. R2 (bleep) 00:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [21]

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

I 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]

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]

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.

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 discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see 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

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.

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:COI and 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]

• 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 Awilley believes (or at least believed) that the IP editor Sinuthius is proxying for has been site banned. No comment on the merits. R2 (bleep) 19:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my comment about possible block evasion. The IP is correct, the one whom Awilley accused of block evasion was someone from Los Angeles, while this one is from the Knoxville, Tennessee area. Sorry for the mix-up. R2 (bleep) 23:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the IP editor who requested for this report to be made. (Note that the IP mentioned by R2, who was accused of being a banned editor, was a different IP editor located several hundred miles from me.) There is an important reason I think this issue goes beyond a content dispute. Even in cases where Grayfell's views about sourcing are opposed by almost everyone else (as they have been on the Woodley article), his practice of restoring his changes whenever they're undone makes it extremely difficult to undo them permanently.

On the Gerhard Meisenberg article, Grayfell restored his material after it was removed by six different users: User:GB_fan, User:Narssarssuaq, user:WalterNeumann, user:Ermaneric, user:Yucahu, and user:Evangw29114. In his response above, Grayfell justified his actions by linking to an investigation where one of these users, Yucahu, was eventually blocked as a sockpuppet. None of the others appear to have been sockpuppets.

Above Grayfell stated, "several of the people you mention did not revert me, and were not reverted by me", so here's a summary with diffs. Ermaneric removes material, Grayfell restores it. WalterNeumann removes material, Grayfell restores it. GB fan removes material, Grayfell restores it. Narssarssuaq removes material, Grayfell restores it. Yucahu removes material, Grayfell restores it, Yucahu removes material, Grayfell restores it, Yucahu removes material, Grayfell restores it. Evangw29114 removes material, Grayfell restores it, Evangw29114 removes material, Grayfell restores it.

Based on my discussions about this article with Dr. Meisenberg, I think I know why so many new users showed up on the article during that period. After Meisenberg lost his job because of the material Grayfell added to that article, the effects that this article had on him in real life became widely-known among Meisenberg's colleagues and former students, and several of them made attempts at bringing the article into compliance with BLP policy. However, all of those attempts were foiled by Grayfell, until I finally accomplished it earlier this month.

One of the arbitration rulings linked to by Sinuthius [42] says: Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

What happened on the Meisenberg article seems to be exactly the situation that this ruling was designed to prevent. Grayfell has not acknowledged any problem with his actions on that article, and has continued to make similar edits to other BLP articles over the past month, so it's almost inevitable that another living person will eventually be harmed in a similar way. It will be a major failure on Wikipedia's part if nothing is done to prevent that. 2600:1004:B11D:8156:8834:1B10:BB88:F00E (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are suspicions that the POV-pushing Grayfell is engaging in coordinated off-site. Check this WMF Labs editor interaction tool comparing Grayfell with a self-identified Gamergate SPA who wants to put other editors "to the wall". These articles are the same "cultural war" topics that the GamerGate ArbCom Case was about. --Pudeo (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the completely unusupported WP:ASPERSIONS in the above statement by Pudeo, obviously meant to muddy the waters and poison the well, Pudeo should be sanctioned, or, at the very least, warned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I note that in filing this report, the OP is essentially acting as a proxy for the IP user 2600:1004:B166:CA1D:B902:B86:4B74:256A, as can be seen in this thread on User talk:DGG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that Pudeo refers to purported "suspicions" of off-site coordination as if they are some known quantity, without providing a link to any on-wiki discussions of these purported "suspicions." Is Pudeo's post itself an off-site-coordinated attempt to smear Grayfell? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Report is a bit long for my liking, but at a glance, seems worth looking into. I await other respondents. El_C 20:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Beyond My Ken is right. Pudeo, please refrain from casting aspersions. That isn't gonna be tolerated. El_C 01:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "At the suggestion of" is not exactly acting as a proxy, but it is disconcerting. El_C 01:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Swarm, this is the notification, is it not? Oh an alert. El_C 03:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've not read the "Additional comments" because they exceed the character limit. Based on the reported diffs, this looks primarily like a content dispute to me, which is not for AE to resolve. Sandstein 21:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Without reviewing the merits of the complaint, this is not a valid notification, and Grayfell was not issued a formal notification. Unless there's something else that satisfies the awareness criteria, this will not be actionable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Due to the lack of notice, I agree with closing this complaint with no action. This appears to be a dispute about race and intelligence. None of the participants have so far been notified of that case in the manner required by WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 30 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.

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

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:TENDENTIOUS edits". - WP:NPA,WP:ASPERSIONS
2. 15:06, 18 May 2019 - "Not even gonna take that extremist nonsense form you seriously" - WP:V,WP:NPA

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:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS, misunderstanding 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.

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:ASPERSIONS,WP:NPA,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 Talk:Albert Forster#Poles and Jews extermination (no response when I reverted tag). WP:ASPERSIONS,WP:WNTRMT.
3. 08:34, 28 May 2019 "Sure. When they stop making shit up and derailing discussions"" - WP:CIVIL,WP:NPA

1. 03:22, 25 May 2019 - tags clarify on "they are popular", edit summary - "what does "popular" mean? They're actually pretty rare". WP:V/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.

Per WP:PROXYING - "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.". Removal stated sock addition (Loosmark):

1. 05:43, 30 May 2019. By Matalea. Material not in cited source. WP:V/WP:OR. 07:47, 30 May 2019 - "It's not "OR" it's just "knowing what the fuck one is talking about when trying to write an article rather than just making obnoxious POV edits". - 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 communist official of Jewish background trained by Comintern..... MOS:ETHNICITY WP:NPOV.
3. 06:43, 30 May 2019 By Matalea. Removal of anti-Jewish violence connection. Reinstated allegedly from ref:^[1] SYNTH (no CKZP), fails V. "created opportunities for ... special privileges for the immigrants" is contradicted by ref itself on page 72 (PM rejected proposal).^[2] WP:OR/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 Talk:Poles in Belarus#Ellman & Montefiore. WP:CIR / WP:V / WP:BLP

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

alerted 03:44, 23 May 2019 AE appeal 3 March 2019

Trimmed.Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Diffs above are all actionable at AE - they are mostly simple and very recent conduct violations. This is not an ARBCOM filing (which would focus, perhaps, on very non-mainstream sources VM has introduced/backed over a long period) - this should be actionable here. My interactions vs. VM have been civil and within policy - despite the abuse reported above. All interactions occurred at VM's initiative - showing up at an article I had edited.
2. VM's diff at AE, coupled with 07:00, 30 May 2019 (reported above) - is deeply concerning, and shows VM does not understand MOS:ETHNICITY. Marking a Polish citizen, a communist government official whose Jewish family background is not relevant to his notability (pre-war communist, fought for Soviets in WWII, post-war government official), as Jewish in the first sentence of the lede (sourced to a deadlink - mbp_x.republika.pl/html/romkowski.htm - which on the basis of the URL/text description does NOT seem to be a high quality source) - is a flagrant MOS:ETHNICITY violation - "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.. Citizenship and religion/ethnic-background are not equivalent on English Wikipedia. This sort of conduct has gotten editors blocked/TBANed very swiftly.

Icewhiz (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VM reverted content introduced by a sockuppet. The revert clearly stated the concerns - diff - "mostly added by blocked sock. A number of NPOV, MOS, V, and SYNTH issues.". In restoring this content - per WP:PROXYING VM is responsible for it (and should check it carefully for any issues - meaning verifying every source (given he left un-archived deadlinks as sources - including the source for ethnic background, it seems unlikely this happened). The same sockfarm introduced very questionable content elsewhere - describing an anti-Jewish pogrom as something entirely else (lots of sources there too - the text just didn't match the sources) - this content discussed at this AE leading to indef TBAN (reported editor not relevant - solely bringing up to show what Loosmark had been up to in the topic). VM's response here that citizenship is the same as ethnic-background/religion - is a big problem.Icewhiz (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: - under "sockpuppets" the first diff next to each numeral is VM's. Full sequence for diff #2 (Jew marking) - Sockpuppet (Stawiski) expands article from 1246 bytes to 9230 bytes, content sits unchanged for years (gnomish edits, bots, the text essentially unchanged) (a typical situation for some of the articles in this topic area), challenged by Icewhiz, noting sock origin, VM reverts - per WP:PROXYING he takes "complete responsibility for the content". I will note there are additional issues there beyond just "Jew Marking" - they are more complex to explain (and require examining sources, including some in Polish - most of Loosmark's additions have multiple properly formatted references - some of which are far from RSes, and some others do not support the text next to them (or even contradict the text - e.g. diff #3, which is an English language ref)) - I pointed out "Jew marking here" as this is a glaring red-line conduct issue that is also very easy to see in the diff, and doesn't require content examination. Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admin exercise: How fast do you indef-block a user who modifies Chuck Schumer's lede to read (bolded addition "of Jewish background") - "Charles Ellis Schumer (/ˈʃuːmər/; born November 23, 1950) is an American politician of Jewish background serving as the senior United States Senator from New York...." ? (But one of many conduct issues in VM's edits in the last two weeks - there are 14 other diffs up there on other issues)Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note - VM's revert at 07:00, 30 May 2019 - was preceded by 06:59, 30 May 2019 on Lozisht (probably responding to ping in Talk:Lozisht#Russian Empire, Second Polish Republic) - 1 minute apart (do we have a timestamp in seconds?). It is exceedingly unlikely that VM vetted the content he was restoring (in relation to "mostly added by blocked sock. A number of NPOV, MOS, V, and SYNTH issues") in the space of 1 minute. (a pattern repeated elsewhere in his recent contributions). Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: - long period in time - but very short in edit count (no real change to added text by sock). I removed the content after finding multiple problems - half the article was SYNTH. Various bits I checked failed V. POV. The edit summary clearly said "mostly added by blocked sock. A number of NPOV, MOS, V, and SYNTH issues") - WP:PROXYING clearly applies given the sock comment. Regardless even if this was just "failed V" - whomever reverts is asserting they verified the content. I am not supposed to anticipate in advance which articles (over 40 since 15 May, often article VM never edited before) VM will choose to show up in right after I edit. Note also WP:REVERTBAN - "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason ... the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." which indicates suspect content by banned editorsmshould be removed.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

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.

It's going to take me some time to properly respond. There's a lot here and I can't respond to it without providing proper context, diffs and examples of Icewhiz's own behavior that my comments are responding too. This dispute has been ongoing for sometime now - it basically started when Icewhiz began editing the topic area. This has been at WP:AE before and Icewhiz recently made an effort at WP:ARBCOM which was soundly rejected. You'll have to give me a bit of time here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really quick, even a cursory look at some diffs shows that it's nonsense and that Icewhiz is blatantly misrepresenting the situation. For example, second diff by Icewhiz [43], Icewhiz claims that my statement "Not even gonna take that extremist nonsense form you seriously" is directed at Dr. Jolanta Ambrosewicz-Jacobs. This is nonsense. The statement is directed at Icewhiz as the word "you" clearly indicates and his repeated derisive characterization of a professional historian and reliable source, P Gontarczyk, as a "radio historian" because... the guy gave an interview on radio [44] (there are more examples of this). That's right, Icewhiz is trying to claim that because a historian gave a radio interview, that makes them unreliable. That itself is a BLP vio - denigrating living people, and Icewhiz has been repeatedly warned about using Wikipedia to attack scholars he disagrees with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: - before I respond in detail, I would like to make a general note that at this point an ArbCom case might very well be necessary. I actually have a very large number of diffs which document extremely problematic behavior from Icewhiz, particularly in regard to BLPs, use of sources, and misleading invocations of policy that spans the last two years which show a clear pattern of conduct. The diffs themselves might go well beyond the word limit at WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: - thanks. With regard to the word limit - There's fifteen diffs here. Icewhiz's request is itself almost 1000 words (about double the allowed limit). It takes a lot more words to respond to an accusation than to make an accusation. It's simple to say "VM accused me of extremism". To respond to that I have to explain WHY I made that accusation, provide supporting evidence, and diffs. There's no way that I can adequately respond with under 500 words. It's unrealistic to ask me to do that. This is part of the reason why I think this might very well belong at ArbCom where a sufficient detail can be provided.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz: " *you* are the one violating BLP..", 05:36, 28 May 2019 - he was here (attacking a scholar he disagrees with) ditto

"You created a whole section dedicated to attacking OTHER living people" - WP:ASPERSIONS - false, created in 2012 by other editors. - the original section may have not been created by Icewhiz but its current shape (at the time of the diff) was constructed by Icewhiz in edits on May 8th [45] (and subsequent) and given its BLP vio title by Icewhiz [46] and here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:MJL thanks. But I'm still at a loss as to what that has to do with this WP:AE report and why Sir Joseph is bringing it up here. He seems to be insinuating some kind of "bad" on my part in that ANI (come on man, if you think I did something wrong, have the guts to come out and say it) but there I made only one comment, in which I actually agreed with Jayjg. I guess if you want to be more precise, in that situation you got one WP:SPA tagging certain "controversial" Polish-Jewish individuals as "Jewish", while Icewhiz on the other hand is running around and trying to tag the same/similar Polish-Jewish individuals as "Polish". My point there was, that in both cases it's kind of ridiculous and WP:TEND, since both individuals ethnicity and citizenship can easily be inferred from the context. The WP:SPA got rightly blocked/banned for this. Why Icewhiz was allowed to get away with the same kind of behavior is a good question indeed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: @Black Kite: This addition right here (I see that after cutting down his statement Icewhiz couldn't resist but to come back and expand it back again) IS EXACTLY WHY it's impossible to have a constructive interaction with Icewhiz and why my comments often exhibit frustration. It is classic, textbook, quintessential, dictionary definition of WP:CPUSH. He says stuff like "the edit is deeply concerning", even bolds it. This "deeply concerning" language insinuates some nefarious bad action on more part, like, you know, Icewhiz, just can't believe that someone would make such an edit. He is deeply concerned. Very very very deeply. Come on! Does anyone seriously believe that he is "deeply concerned" here? Or is he just trying to pretend that a legitimate edit is problematic? What is suppose to be so "deeply concerning"? Icewhiz pretends that in that edit I "marked" a person as Jewish. Nonsense. What I did is undo a blanket revert by Icewhiz of well sourced text. There's six freakin' paragraphs that Icewhiz tried to remove under spurious pretenses. With sources. THAT IS WHY I UNDID IT. But Icewhiz pretends that my edit was something else, that it was all about labeling a person as "Jewish" (in fact I couldn't give a toss). Note that in the edit summary, I specifically requested Icewhiz to address specific concerns on talk. If he really was so "deeply concerned", then he could've said on talk "I don't think the person's ethnicity is relevant here", and I would have agreed. Instead he brought it up here. I'm sorry but there is no other way to describe this kind of misrepresentation except as dishonest. And the whole "deeply concerning" language is a weaselly insinuation which, if I understand correctly what he is trying to imply here, I take very serious offense at. If you want me to state bluntly what I think Icewhiz is trying to accuse-me-while-pretending-not-to-accuse-me off I can be explicit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content was legit and sourced. The only reason for Icewhiz to blank most of the article is... I don't know. Again, if his issue was with the fact that the article mentioned the subject was Jewish then, as I said, he could've 1) explained that on talk or 2) removed JUST THAT PART. He did neither. Instead he came here and falsely pretended that my edit's sole purpose was to violate WP:MOSETHNICITY. Now he's inventing new excuses (there were deadlinks!) but these excuses only highlight the fact that his original accusation was false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I also have no idea why Icewhiz is bringing up (third sentence, his last comment) edits made by someone else which were made somewhere else and eight freaking years ago, in fact on an article that I have never edited (afaik) and pretending that I had something to do with that. This is more baseless insinuation of some sort, trying to pretend that I'm responsible for something ... or other.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"VM's revert at 07:00, 30 May 2019 - was preceded by 06:59, 30 May 2019 on Lozisht (...) - 1 minute apart (...) It is exceedingly unlikely that VM vetted the content he was restoring " - oh ffs, there is such a thing as having more than one browser tab open. As I type this I have 48 tabs open in three windows, with 22 of them being Wikipedia, and 4 of them being edits-in-process, which I have open while I am "vetting" the edit/sources. Is it not obvious how inane and bad faithed these kinds of accusations are? Like this is suppose to sanctionable? And to be sure - ALL of Icewhiz diffs in this request consist of absurd stuff like this. But hey, at least Icewhiz is "civil" when he makes these ridiculous accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry, but wtf is this??? Did I edit the article on Chuck Schumer or something? Icewhiz's sentence appears to imply that I did. I didn't. What the hell does this have to do with anything here? User:Black Kite? User:El_C? Can someone explain this to me? No? Then please rein him the hey in because this is getting into straight up smears territory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We see VM here often enough, in several different subject areas, but in this case we see several diffs that are clearly actionable that are either blockable or are at the very least worthy of a TBAN and I don't think we need to wait for a full on ARBCOM case to settle this. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:If you don't want to read the whole thing, you can start with the first couple of diffs, and they are clearly actionable, calling people extremist and personal attacks is not allowed and is typical of VM's behavior. It should not be allowed to continue, especially in this topic area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:I understand that, but neither are allowed here, further, people have been blocked here for saying someone has a "nationalist POV." Further, that is just the tip of the iceberg with regards to VM's edits, and for some reason at AE he seems to always get away with things, so he continues with his ways. Whether he is blocked or not, a TBAN is in order.

As for the ANI thread, as it points out, there seems to be this disturbing fascination with a specific topic. And I do urge some admin to visit that ANI thread and start using a fishing net and throw out TBANs. While one person was oversight blocked, that is not enough. There is a resurgence of a POV that is making its way into Wikipedia that we need to stop fast. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is something about Zero's comment that just rubs me the wrong way. I just can't put my finger on it. It's also ironic I think considering the topic. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• VM, I mentioned the ANI thread because it was brought up in the OP, which is now edited to save word limit space. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question to admins: Is WP:NPA policy? If so, why is it consistently ignored?

• "Very clearly someone went through the internet and tried to drudge up anything negative to add here" [47] - no, I didn't. It was actually a fairly harsh criticism of the subject's theoretical approach, that I think went well with the (many) other criticisms of his ideological involvement. Instead of a proper criticism (eg. on relevance or clarity), VM went for a personal attack.
• "f no. Enough of these BLP vios and using Wikipedia articles as smear pages. I've tried to keep all the legitimate and well sourced criticism in the article to the extent it was possible but the over the top nasty and gleeful attacks DO violate BLP" [48] - about a completely RS and DUE criticism by Joanna Michlic, project director at Brandeis and a fellow at Harvard and UCL. Like most critiques in that article, this too was eventually accepted into the consensus.
• "Stop making shit up" [49] - an oft-repeated phrase. It may sounds like an off-hand comment, but it's actually a serious accusation: that an editor falsified information. I don't understand why admins take it so lightly.

François Robere (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just looking at VM's statements to Icewhiz, one should consider whether VM's charges of bias have a solid basis. The fact is that VM is the only editor with the energy to counter Icewhiz's dedicated moulding of the entire Polish/Jewish area. Zero^talk 22:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An arbcom case for this would be appropriate, but it should be presented as an examination of the behavior of all the main editors in the Polish/Jewish area, not as a case by one of them against another of them. For that reason I think it would be best if an uninvolved administrator opened it. Zero^talk 02:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: For your convenience: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MOS:ETHNICITY on articles about Polish Jews (permalink). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) The peanut gallery concern expressed in the admin section below is certainly an issue, as some comments here (yes, including mine) are clearly from editors 'with a side'. But it is worth nothing that some of those sides are not about the Polish-Jewish topics, ex. the comment by editor above me comes from someone who to the best of my knowledge never edited PJ topics, and probably has sparred with VM over another topic area, hence their suggestion to escalate the proposed remedy (topic ban) more widely. Peanut gallery indeed. There is some merit in trying to get an ArbCom that would look into what's been going in with this topic area, because there is also merit in saying that the Polish Jewish topic area was stable for many years (with occasional edits from VM) until a ~year ago when two editors (Ice and FR) made their appearance. Which was, to some degree, helpful (I do find some articles have been improved, through I have mixed feelings about a few) - but, for better or worse, did upset this topic area, which was not a WP:BATTLEGROUND until that point.

2) I've been always supportive of WP:NPA, and as much as I often tend to agree with VM POV I also can't say I always agree with the way he words things. Nonetheless, although I doubt that many admins will care of something that's more targeted rather then a nuke-level remedy, I've found in the past (~10 years) ago that interaction bans (WP:IBAN) are a good solution. I don't think there are any problems with VM content edit (outside an occasional edit summary); they all fit in the realm of regular content dispute and general 1RR and BDR. His talk contributions are, however, less constructive; to what degree there is baiting involved (and any boomerang issues), I don't feel competent to judge (as I am also a party in some of those discussions). But IF there is anything actionable in this, I'd think an IBAN would be more appropriate than a TBAN, since the issue is not about content, but about discussion attitude.

3) It is important to review diffs. Ex. the accusation of racism and such in [50] made by the op seems IMHO rather spurious. Yes, VM did say in his edit summary "rmv POV, rmv gratuitous stereotyping and ethnic generalizations" but clearly, he did not say this about an editor, but about content - he just removed the text " the stereotyping of Jews in Poland is widespread, particularly so in the church" which can, indeed, be argued to meet the description in his diff. I don't have time (and likely, word limit) to review other diffs here, but if this is one of the best (and the OR/V sections are pure content dispute, not fit for AE), then there's not that much here to see. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm not that familiar with the dispute/s, even though I'm the one who applied DS to History of the Jews in Poland (WP:AEL#2019#Eastern_Europe — yes, I realize it's in Central Europe!). There's a lot of evidence to review here, which is difficult to do (for me, at least) without additional context. At any rate, although, at a glance, this report seems worth looking into, it may actually be better suited for a separate Arbitration case. I'm a bit undecided about that. But in light of the ANI (which I have not had a chance to review) having been oversignted, that perhaps should be the course of action here. I await other respondents (including VM, himself, of course), who are perhaps better informed than myself, before I make up my mind. El_C 18:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll await to hear what VM has to say first — hopefully, it will be expressed with more civility and good faith than the manner in which those diffs depict — but, if we are to take action, I am leaning toward a topic ban. And perhaps also something along the lines of the no personal comments sanction that Awilley applied to SashiRolls. El_C 18:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• VM, take your time. No one is going to close this report before you get a chance to respond in detail. As mentioned, I still haven't decided whether this should be brought before the Committee, or settled here. Please do try to observe the word/diff limit, though. Thanks. El_C 19:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• VM, the length of Icewhiz's request work to their detriment. I suggest they shorten it to the accepted limit, focusing on just the most egregious examples (and that would be my suggestion to you, also) — it's not unlikely that less lenient admins than myself would prefer taking no action on that basis alone. El_C 19:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SirJoseph, it's one thing to call someone an extremist, and it's another to call someone's point of view extremist. Because a point of view can suffer from misconceptions, whereas extremist people tend to do extremist things. Calling someone an extremist would be straight out personal attack. Not that calling someone's point of view extremist is a particularly civil way to engage with another editor — I'm not saying that, either. El_C 20:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• VM, if this assistant professor is not considered notable (failing WP:PROF), and the source in question is, indeed, an open access journal, then I don't see a BLP issue that's preventing us from stating this is so (in an edit summary, as the basis for its removal). El_C 20:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Icewhiz, VM is claiming that he was not Jew marking but that that was just a by-product of reverting multiple paragraphs removed by you. He even says that he does not object to the subject's Jewish background being removed. El_C 04:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Icewhiz, regarding your item that begins with "VM reverted content introduced by a sockuppet" — I'm not seeing any edits by VM listed in that item. El_C 04:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Icewhiz, VM is not obliged to check whether longstanding material that had been in the article for 8 years is somehow in question for one reason or another. Your edit summary hints at the problem, but it is just too terse. So, I do think such a massive removal on your part should have been prefaced by an article talk page explanation to that effect. That would have saved everyone a lot of trouble and rendered all of the highly problematic accusations as to Jew marking redundant. This isn't to say that VM's revert was the right call, either. They, too, should to have gone to the article talk page rather than immediately revert, even if only to ask "what gives?" El_C 17:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Icewhiz, if the edit removes longstanding text (8 yrs), then a talk page notice was, in fact, due. El_C 17:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind continuing to respond to queries here, but as mentioned in my opener, this may be more suited for Arbitration (as much as we may want to lighten the Committee's workload). Three other admins appear even more conclusive about that, so it looks like this is what's gonna end up happening. El_C 17:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest this needs to go to ArbCom now, otherwise we will be back here again soon, and the environment of AE with its associated peanut gallery is probably not conducive to such a complicated issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There is very likely something actionable here, at least on the part of Volunteer Marek. But the (perhaps quite legitimate) scope of the complaint exceeds what can reasonably be reviewed and decided at AE by a single admin. We are best suited to dealing with cases involving one or two diffs of clear misconduct. I support a referral to ArbCom. Of course, if anybody else wants to spend half a day looking through all of this and coming to a decision, feel free... Sandstein 08:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend to agree with Sandstein and Black Kite. This is rather complex to be handled by the action of a single admin here. An actual arbitration request would have structured presentation of evidence and a longer period of time to review and sort it out, and I think that's going to be required here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

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]

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 IBAN (which includes some important ABAN components) was issued by El_C as the result of an AE filing by Kingofaces43, which was not about my conduct. Admins can get a good, quick tl;dr of the issues underlying my request by reading the discussion at El_C's talk page, here: [54]. El_C says that he has no objection to this request, without further consultation with him, if the consensus here is to grant it: [55], [56].

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]

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]

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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Kingofaces43 (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]

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 S edits 3-28-19, reverting 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]

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 Jill Stein page, and given that I'm familiar with the history of the page, I can tell you that the content disputes on that page were advertised on relevant noticeboards to get more community input, so it's reasonable to assume that Tryptofish was brought to the page that way. For example, Tryptofish's first edit was on 20 Aug 2016[72], a few days after editors had raised the issue of vaccine-related content (an issue that Tryptofish edits a lot on) on the RS noticeboard[73] and the NPOV noticeboard[74]. I'm sure the two remaining examples of Sashirolls being first to a page can also be explained away (at least, no evidence has been presented to indicate that Tryptofish went there to revert Sashirolls). The assertion that Tryptofish is following Sashirolls around is therefore unsubstantiated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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.

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• 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

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.

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 WP:ANI report I just filed about Slugger's long-term tendentious editing on this topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.

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 WP:BLPVIO.

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 User:MSGJ in the topic area, with talk page access subsequently revoked [75] by User:TonyBallioni, note also the relevant discussion at WP:3RR [76] with User:NeilN making note of FR's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see 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 WP:BLP and precisely why we have a BPL policy. Francois Robere asserts without evidence that a BLP subject was fired from their academic job, and insinuates that this was because the subject has some sketchy political views. EVEN IF all of this was true, this is an instance where evidence and sources need to be immediately provided. BUT it appears that the subject left his position at UoV of his own accord, basically to follow an endowed chair for which the money ran out at the original institution.

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

@DannyS712: I appreciate that.

So, yeah... VM posted on WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence criticizing the word limit there and perceived BLP violations by the editors in question. [84]
One of those editors in question was François Robere. [85] [86] [87]

Shortly before this request, a clerk replied to VM, [88] and that really should've been the end of this matter in my newbie opinion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is not actionable. The edits at issue were made on a noticeboard that, to my knowledge, is not indexed by search engines. Who is right or wrong in this content dispute is not for AE to decide. BLP sanctions are not intended to be wielded as a weapon in good faith discussions about content. I invite comments by other admins about whether Volunteer Marek should be sanctioned for trying to misuse AE to win a content dispute. Sandstein 09:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sandstein: I haven't read through this yet so I haven't got an opinion one way or the other, but my immediate reaction is "why does it matter where the edits were made?". If a BLP-violating statement is made on any Wikipedia page, it's a BLP violation [89]. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We do not normally treat reasonable disagreements in a discussion about a biography outside of article space as BLP violations. Otherwise, we'd need to sanction most of our editors. Sandstein 14:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In a discussion, yes, but if people are writing "$NAMED-LIVING-PERSON did $BAD-THING" (with no sources) on any page, they should be strongly discouraged from doing so. Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't take any action here. Someone was appointed to a not-terribly-well-funded chair at a university. A couple of years later, he left that post. Some say it was because his views were politically unacceptable, others that the funding didn't really work out. The dispute is about whether summing this up by saying the university "let him go" is a BLP violation. I'm having trouble seeing it as anything more than an off-hand, colloquial description of the situation. It's particularly hard to get too outraged on the grounds that "this kind of attack, if untrue, can be potentially damaging to someone's career" when that is what the subject himself says about it; if that damages his career, it's his own look-out. I don't think a boomerang is appropriate here, either; if someone really feels this request is vexatious, go and enter it as evidence. GoldenRing (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's not that it said "he was let go", it was that "he was let go because they may lose funding" with the insinuation that his political views were the reason (with, it appears, little actual sourcing to back up that fact). However, I agree - this should be closed without any action (either way) and any useful information entered at the current ArbCom case. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Because nobody is interested in taking action, I am closing this request accordingly. Sandstein 10:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]