Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Tryptofish

Tryptofish is no longer subject to the previous two-way IBAN. The sanction is modified so that SashiRolls is subject to a one-way IBAN with Tryptofish TonyBallioni (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. 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) Sanction being appealed 2-way IBAN: [1] (apparently not logged), resulting from this AE: [2] Administrator imposing the sanction El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator [3] Statement by Tryptofish What I'm requesting: A modification of the IBAN that lifts the portion of it applying to me, thus changing it from 2-way to 1-way. Explanation: The 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: [4]. El_C says that he has no objection to this request, without further consultation with him, if the consensus here is to grant it: [5], [6]. My initial statement in the case, I believe, clearly and succinctly sets out the problems of the other editor's interactions with me: [7]. 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: [8], and that he would have preferred a 1-way IBAN instead: [9], [10]. 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: [11]. (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) 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: [12]). 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) Statement by El_C No objection. I just don't have time to investigate this further. This was done in the interest of expediency with no fault explicitly stated. If those who do have time to investigate this find that changing it to one-way is better, that's totally fine with me. El_C 20:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43 Just commenting as the original filer of the AE where I was reporting problems with Sashirolls (and absolutely not Tryptofish). They already described the hounding problems they were having with Sashirolls that popped in to the GMO topic as I also described at the original AE, so the only thing I'll say on Sashirolls is that even after the interaction ban, a few weeks later they were also given another sanction and later blocked. I completely understand El C's reasoning for a quick resolution when no one else was acting, but ideally other editors should not get swept up that easily in a sanction when a long-term problematic editor is brought to AE for an nth sanction. This appeal is about Tryptofish's behavior though, so that's where the focus should be. El C already made it clear it was a no-fault sanction for Tryptofish, and there wasn't really evidence brought to AE of problems with Tryptofish's behavior in dealing with a hounding editor. This is pretty much a clear cut case where a one-way is the better way to go while still preventing further hounding by Sashirolls. I always suggest one-ways with caution where obvious attempts to game the sanction should be met pretty harshly, but that's generally when one party is clearly disruptive, and the other shows some levels of battleground behavior that do not necessarily need a full sanction. Instead, this was one-way harassment/battleground with reasonable responses to it by Tryptofish, so there's no reason to have a sanction in place on them. That's especially since Tryptofish made it clear they didn't want anything to do with Sashirolls anyways until they jumped into the GMO/pesticide topic where Tryptofish frequently edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC) 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) Statement by Hijiri88 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) @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) Statement by Levivich It does not appear to me to be accurate when Tryptofish says "The other editor followed me around; I never followed him." The two editors have edited seven articles together (2019 Interaction Timeline). (Tryp's been editing longer.) Three, Sashi was the first editor (Jill Stein, Pizzagate conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Wikipedia). For the remaining four, Tryp is the first editor, but... Roundup (herbicide) It was T who followed S, in January (5 hrs) and May (1.5 hrs). S's first edit: 1-16-19 (all of S's edits) T's previous edit: 10-9-18, 3+ months earlier. T's next edit: five hours after S's edit (all of T's edits) They both edited it on 1-16-19. Then, neither for two months until 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 [13]. 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 [14].) Then in April, Sashi posted to ANI about another user [15] and Tryp, responding to the other user's ping [16], brought up Sashi's past and called for a boomerang against Sashi [17] [18], proposed an IBAN against Sashi [19] [20], 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 [21]. 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) @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) @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) Statement by Snooganssnoogans I just want to point out so it's clear that most of the cases presented by Levivich of Tryptofish "following" Sashirolls are instances where Tryptofish had first edited a page. It's entirely consistent with someone watchlisting a page. Levivich says there are three instances where Levivich was not the first to edit a page. One of those cases is the 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[22], 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[23] and the NPOV noticeboard[24]. 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) Result of the appeal by Tryptofish 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) 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) 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) 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)

François Robere

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning François Robere

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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, 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 [25] by User:TonyBallioni, note also the relevant discussion at WP:3RR [26] 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 [27], 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)

@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)

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning François Robere

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

Statement by François Robere

1. I find it odd that VM filed this AE less than an hour after, at his request, I specified what each of the sources say and rephrased the statement to which he objected.[28]
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,[29] and in which he asked that I be involved (no luck there),[30] 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,[31] 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 [32] - that I did not provide a link to the fourth source (I clearly wanted to, but ended up pasting the wrong one [33]. However, as I did give the citation VM could've easily checked it out himself before charging to AE).

Source quotes:

Extended content

Radziłowski, in Glaukopis 19, p. 281: Odejście prof. Roszkowskiego w 2003 r. stało się powodem kolejnego kryzysu, związanegoz trudnościami ze znalezieniem odpowiedniego następcy. Jako rozwiązanie prowizoryczne fun-datorka zaproponowała stworzenie etatu profesora-asystenta (z dodatkowymi funduszami), codałoby czas na poszukiwania. W międzyczasie profesor tymczasowy mógł kontynuować pracęrozpoczętą przez prof. Chodakiewicza. Było to konieczne do utrzymania i rozwijania potencjałuinstytucjonalnego, czego wymagała misja katedry. Komisja poszukująca następcy prof. Rosz-kowskiego była zdominowana przez przedstawicieli wydziału historii. Profesor Chodakiewicz,pełniący tę funkcję przez dwa lata, był formalnie kandydatem wewnętrznym uniwersytetu.Mógł pochwalić się sporym dorobkiem naukowym i doświadczeniem w nauczaniu. Nie zapro-ponowano mu jednak nawet wstępnej rozmowy, poprzedzającej decyzję o zatrudnieniu. Przyjętonatomiast świeżo upieczoną docentkę, która nie mogła pochwalić się w zasadzie żadnymi pub-likacjami, ani doświadczeniem w nauczaniu, nie mówiąc o doświadczeniu w rozwijaniu poten-cjału instytucjonalnego KC. (Ja także zgłosiłem swą kandydaturę, lecz również nie zostałemdopuszczony do rozmowy wstępnej, niezależnie od faktu, iż także miałem na koncie więcejpublikacji i doświadczenia administracyjnego.) Chociaż kandydatka, zatrudniona ostatecznieprzez University of Virginia, nie ponosi winy za całą sytuację; jej główną zaletą był fakt, iż niebyła Markiem Janem Chodakiewiczem, ani nie reprezentowała podobnych poglądów, niestraw-nych dla naukowców panującego nurtu. Brak odpowiednich kwalifikacji ze strony zatrudnionejkandydatki oraz nieetyczny charakter całej procedury, zaowocowały wycofaniem funduszy i lik-widacją katedry kościuszkowskiej na University of Virginia.

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

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

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

Statement by Icewhiz

Some sources on the topic:

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

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

Statement by DannyS712

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

Statement by WBG

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

Result concerning François Robere

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)

• @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 [34]. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Roscelese

Blocked for four weeks. Sandstein 15:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Roscelese User who is submitting this request for enforcement Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC) 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 19:10, June 8, 2019 On actions of the Synod 19:11, June 8, 2019 Description of Dignity and Courage 22:14, June 9, 2019 Description of Dignity and Courage 19:15, June 8, 2019 A description of political activity in the lede 22:11, June 9, 2019 A description of political activity in the lede 22:12, June 9, 2019 A description of political activity in the lede 22:53, June 9, 2019 description of marriage activities 22:59, June 9, 2019 Discussion of discrimination She is also restricted from personalizing disputes or casting aspersions. I put these forth for consideration. She calls my good faith edits "destructive" She calls my efforts destructive again She accuses me of having ulterior motives in organizing an effort to bring the article to GA staus She says I knew a proposed compromise edit was bad before I made it During a previous enforcement action, she tried to deflect blame off of herself by making the issue about me Even after having been found to violate her restrictions, she tries to appeal by saying the filing was "obviously bad-faith" 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) Roscelese blocked for two weeks per AE report. Sandstein 15:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC) 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 Discussion concerning Roscelese Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Roscelese Uh, I went through Slugger's giant stack of edits one by one, walking back the parts that seemed disruptive. As everyone knows, consecutive edits are considered one edit; I could have done it all in one giant revert, but this seemed easier to track, and I didn't notice that he made intervening edits. Moreover, Slugger's own list of diffs clearly shows that not all of my edits in this time-frame were reverts and that I did not, in fact -- unlike Slugger -- repeatedly attempt to edit-war my wording through in a brief period of time. Last I heard, my restrictions were related to reversions, not to any edit, so Slugger's claim that I've violated my restriction by doing too much editing and by failing to discuss every edit is spurious. This seems like pretty clear retaliation for the 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) Statement by Slugger O'Toole 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) Result concerning Roscelese This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. A look at the talk page and history of Catholic Church and homosexuality shows that Roscelese made multiple non-consecutive reverts on 10 June and did not discuss them on the talk page, in violation of her restriction. I am imposing another block and, as per my usual practice, am doubling the duration, this time to 4 weeks. Sandstein 15:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)