Tillman
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 Tillman
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Tillman (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/Climate_change :
Reposting. Peter Gulutzan and Tillman are both editing tendentiously. It appears they dislike our coverage of climate change and "climate change skepticism", since we represent the mainstream scientific view, and so have been campaigning to hide or limit our coverage of those topics. For example, they are attempting to ensure as few redirects as possible go to climate change denial, where our coverage is extensive, and instead point our viewers to Global warming controversy, which they see as more sympathetic to the fringe view. In this campaign, several behavioral problems have made collaboration impossible.
Both have dismissed high quality sources which disagree with their edits, while providing no sources of their own. They have both refused to answer questions or collaborate with others. They have edit warred extensively, and promoted a battleground atmosphere, labeling others "activists" and too biased to find the right sources.
Diffs:
- Sourcing, and dismissing reliable sources
- Characterizes all sources as "personal opinions by opponents". No substantive reply to discussion above.
- Adds inaccurate summary cited to a facebook post. His summary completely contradicts the citation.
- He tells other users to find sources, but he never lists any. Here (bottom), he refuses to analyze sources provided, or provide his own, but continues edit warring and arguing.
- Refusal to respond or answer questions
- Tells an editor to go away, without responding to comments
- Mistaken use of rollback, with no substantive reply on talk. Entirely ignores comments and sources above.
- Edit warring without substantive responses: [1], [2], refuses to respond to questions
- NOTFORUM, TPG, etc
- Racist language: [3]. [4].
- ranting without sources
- [5],[6], [7]
- BLP vio: "The man is an incompetent blowhard". He was warned, and simply removed the warnings.
- Character assassination of Michael Mann, cited to primary sources and a google search.
- Suggests we should create a "wall of shame" for "climate alarmists".
- Personal attacks and Battleground attitude:
— Jess· Δ♥ 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Tillman
Statement by ThePowerofX
Tillman's editing has concerned me for some time. This user has made his feelings clear that he considers Wikipedia to be a battleground for climate wars:
- "Thanks for the prompt response. Saving those of us on the front lines from more work picking up after this fellow." (diff)
- "I try to avoid the disciplinary side as much as possible -- in fact I've been avoiding the [climate change] area lately becaise it's such a pain to change anything, in the face of the True Believers." (diff)
Tillman made the above remarks without provocation and against the cordial atmosphere prior disciplinary action was being conducted, and was given a firm warning by Sandstein for his battlefield mentality. (diff) Yet his disruptive behaviour continues.
In 2014, climate scientist Michael E. Mann was seeking to bring a libel suit against columnist and talk show host Mark Steyn. There was some discussion in opinion journals and legal blogs as to whether or not Mann could fairly be described as a "public figure". It was thought that an affirmative answer could diminish Mann's chances of success. At precisely this time, Tillman appeared on Michael Mann's talk page to propose a new subsection with a rather conspicuous and pronounced header: "Public outreach on global warming". (diff) This proposal was accepted and added by a different user several days later. (diff)
More recently, he added an inflammatory opinion piece to Michael Mann's biography, by Clive Cook, titled "Climategate and the Big Green Lie", that included the by-line, "The so-called exoneration of disgraced climate scientists has only furthered the damage they have done to their cause", (diff) despite repeatedly being advised against using outdated, fringe sources.
Same user also has no problem warping other Wikipedia articles around a fringe narrative. Gatekeeper is one example. (diff) — TPX 21:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Nigelj
During the last few weeks, I was concerned when I saw this:
- "Have at it pal. Pretty sure I have a file of your best stuff. See you there! But watch out for that boomerang..."[13]
Upset by this:
- "As always, thanks for fighting the good fight against the POV-pushers."[14]
And worried by this:
- "Peter: could you please drop me an email at xxxxxATgmailDOTcom, to discuss developments in a CC topic of mutual interest?"[15]
--Nigelj (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Tillman
- I have other committments for the next several days, and then have a trip scheduled. For the moment, since one of the Arbs commented on my external discussion attempts: this consisted of my leaving a note at another editor's talk page, asking him to email me. As it happened, he declined: Talk page reply.
In general, as I've commented elsewhere, the Wiki CC area seems to bring out the worst in editors, and that certainly include me. If I've given offense to fellow-editors, I apologize. Pete Tillman (talk)
This will be a piecemeal reply to specific charges above, as I have bits of time here and there.
- Editor Power Of X wrote, above:
- ...he added an inflammatory opinion piece to Michael Mann's biography, by Clive Cook, titled "Climategate and the Big Green Lie", that included the by-line, "The so-called exoneration of disgraced climate scientists has only furthered the damage they have done to their cause", (diff) despite repeatedly being advised against using outdated, fringe sources."
The "Fringe source" here is The Atlantic (magazine). The author is Clive Crook, whose reputation speaks for itself, and perhaps that user will advise why he thinks the piece is "outdated." Link to Atlantic article --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Re Stephan Lewandowsky (below). Maybe I should have used this reliably sourced opinion:
- “ the serially debunked conspiracy theorist Stephan Lewandowsky.” Source: Quadrant magazine. His wikibio could use some work! --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Arbitrator Gamaliel questioned this edit regarding a lawsuit. Please see this discussion at Mann Jess’s talk page, where she writes “I don't doubt that the lawsuit is inactive; indeed, I think it is.” Please compare to her complaint above, “Adds inaccurate summary cited to a facebook post.” She appears to contradict herself, and all 3 editors there agree that the lawsuit appears inactive. Also note my response, that I had made a weak edit, and wasn’t sorry to be called on it. --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Arbitrator Gamaliel and another user mention a problem with this talk page edit, where I wrote: "thanks for fighting the good fight against the POV-pushers." I'm having trouble identifying the source of their objection. Are they arguing that we have no POV-pushers here? Would that it were so.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Two users and one arb (if I counted right) have expressed concern that I posted a note at another editor's Talk page, asking him to email me. I’m having trouble finding a problem with this. If I wanted to conspire with another editor, don’t you think that’s a little, well, Open? Can we stipulate that I’m not stupid? (don’t ask my wife about this). Why do you suppose we have this template: Template:You've got mail ? C’mn, folks, let’s act like adults here. It’s a free country, and attempts to regulate volunteer editors off-Wiki activities are likely to lead to, well, fewer volunteers. OK? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Medical and personal situation
My personal situation has, no doubt, affected my editing here. I'm still trying to get the dosage right for my new(ish) antidepressant medications. I suffer from bipolar disorder.
More seriously, my wife of 37+ years has undergone multiple surgeries for breast and skn cancers in the past couple of years. That’s my upcoming trip, to her oncologist at Stanford Medical, 3 1/2 hours away. If her breast cancer recurs again… well, 3 strikes, you're out.
She also suffers from asthma & COPD, which required a move from the New Mexico mountains to sea level. Which put us under financial stress — few retirees move from New Mexico to California, or take on a new mortgage.
I’m still responsible for my own behavior, but I’m only human. Please make allowances. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
Both sides in the disputes over climate change topics, show evidence of entrenched opinion, battleground behaviour, cherry-picking of sources and personal attacks on both each other and the public figures involved in the controversy.
However, as the science has become increasingly unambiguous and the global warming denialist machine has been systematically exposed for what it is, those editors who oppose the scientific consensus view have become increasingly strident.
Example: diff re Lewandowsky.
Dave: I'm horrified that you appear to be defending Lewandowsky. The man is an incompetent blowhard, and his CC papers are a bad joke. Here's what the editor of his second (retracted) CC paper wrote, after he retracted Lew's hit-job:
“My own personal opinion: The authors of the retracted paper and their followers are doing the climate change crisis a tragic disservice by attacking people personally and saying that it is ethically ok to identify them in a scientific study. They made a monumental mistake, refused to fix it and that rightfully disqualified the study." -- Henry Markram,
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830
Compare that with:
[...] the truth is not as sensational and much simpler. The studied subjects were explicitly identified in the paper without their consent. It is well acknowledged and accepted that in order to protect a subject’s rights and avoid a potentially defamatory outcome, one must obtain the subject’s consent if they can be identified in a scientific paper. The mistake was detected after publication, and the authors and Frontiers worked hard together for several months to try to find a solution. In the end, those efforts were not successful. The identity of the subjects could not be protected and the paper had to be retracted. [...] It is most unfortunate that this particular incident was around climate change, because climate change is a very serious threat for human civilization. But the importance of the subject matter does not justify abandoning our principles.
— The actual source cited, rather than the comment that Tillman cites.
Also:
In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical, and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.
So: the paper is technically correct (i.e. competent, thus "incompetent blowhard" is factually incorrect, though blowhard is clearly defensible), the only issue is that climate change deniers don't like being called deniers. We get that. They use legal thuggery to prevent people calling them climate deniers, we get that, too.
The comment on Mann: "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, Mann's memoir and polemic, was generally well-received, but the Wall Street Journal's reviewer said the book was largely "score-settling with anyone who has ever doubted his integrity or work," which would include both Anthony Watt and Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, both included in the "twofer" quote that has become so contentious. The WSJ also described Mann as a "scientist-turned-climate-warrior." - yes, the WSJ did say this, but, crucially (and not mentioned), the WSJ is well-known as a lone holdout on climate change among quality newspapers (see also [16], [17], [18] and many others). Tillman asserts that support for Mann is biased, and uses a biased source whose bias he clearly fails to properly accept, as justification.
Tillman has a very obvious distaste for the label "denialist", and rejects it regardless of how well it is sourced. He seemingly considers that describing someone as a climate change denialist is equivalent to calling a black person a nigger (it is hard to see how else to interpret that comment). In this he is categorically wrong. Climate change denialism is the manufacture of sciencey-looking arguments against the scientific consensus, it is a legitimate and increasingly appropriate term. In 2000, climate change skepticism was arguable legitimate. In 2015 it is not. David Duke is a white supremacist, Fred Phelps was a bigot, Anthony Watts is a climate change denier, sorry you don't like that.
Updated. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the long response. Are you disputing that Henry Markram, co-founder of Frontiers Media, actually wrote the post I quoted? Pete Tillman (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually it turns out that you are materially wrong on several counts (see below) but actually the problem was cherry-picking and quote-mining, something which characterises your approach to the entire topic but is especially problematic when it concerns abusing Wikipedia to trash living people who espouse the mainstream view and who you thus seem to think are "fair game" after the manner of Scientology. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK. So, a fellow-editor is editing "after the manner of Scientology"? Do you think that falls under WP:AGF?
- Dr Markram apparently felt the Lewandowsky affair required the statement that I quoted, which (ims) was picked up by secondary sources. How is that "quote mining"?--Pete Tillman (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan: I said that "[WUWT] is very obviously a climate change denial blog. Only an idiot would state otherwise." I stand by that. WUWT is arguably the leading climate denial blog on the internet. The fact that climate denialists don't like to be called denialists is not my problem to fix.
- The term "swivel-eyed loon" originates within the parliamentary Conservative party, referring to senior Conservative figures "forcing MPs to take hardline positions on Europe and same-sex marriage" - Monckton is a Europhobe and a homophobe. His ill-informed crank opinions on climate change are not what puts him into this category, but they do contribute to the overall impression. You'll note that I accept the use of the term "blowhard" re. Lewanowsky. Calling a published expert "incompetent" because you disagree with what he publishes, is a very different matter (and would potentially be actionable in both US and UK courts). Guy (Help!) 07:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Tony Sidaway
JzG quotes Tilman's appalling personal attack on Stephan Lewandowsky, a living person. We should not be letting such attacks pass us by on Wikipedia, arbitration remedies or no. That attack alone is evidence that this editor needs to be reminded that the BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia. In the context of discretionary sanctions in a case already noted for widespread smearing of scientists on Wikipedia, is very serious indeed. Action must be taken to uphold the credibility of Wikipedia. --TS 15:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Stephan Schulz
I'm a but surprised (and concerned) that Tillman seems to suggests that an after-the-fact reference to a blog article justifies his attack on Stephan Lewandowsky, --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Point of fact: the Ridley essay was published in Quadrant magazine, a respected publication: [19]. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- PS: this was my mistake, not Stephan's: posted the wrong link above. Sorry! --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- A polemic in Quadrant magazine, which as part of its very mission statement "turned a sceptical eye on a range of intellectual fads and fashions including postmodernism, cultural relativism, multiculturalism and radical environmentalism", and that disclaims all responsibility for published texts, is still not a good source for BLP statements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- PS: this was my mistake, not Stephan's: posted the wrong link above. Sorry! --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Re. "Facebook": The original edit is indeed a poster example on how not to source something. It's a Facebook post (hence unreliable) by an involved party (hence a primary source) which explicitly states that the case is not inactive (i.e. the opposite of the claim added to the article). The argument then seems to go "because there is an old post by Mann on Facebook there is no newer post by Mann on Facebook, and when there is no relevant activity by Mann on Facebook there is no activity in the lawsuit, therefore the lawsuit is inactive", which is not only original synthesis, but also a very weak argument. That others may agree with the conclusion (for whatever reason) does not in any way make the sourcing stronger or more acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Stephan: @13:40, 27 July 2015 I acknowledged that this was a weak argument. Did you read this discussion at Mann Jess’s talk page, where she writes “I don't doubt that the lawsuit is inactive; indeed, I think it is.” Indeed, all three editors agree that the lawsuit appears inactive. The edt is gone. I made & acknowledged a mistake. What's your point? Pete Tillman (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have two points. First, the fact that you made the edit in the first place is a sign that you should reconsider how you come to your conclusions in this area. You yourself - to your credit - acknowledge that it was a mistake. But why and how did you make it in the first place? Secondly, you still maintain than Mann Jess "appears to contradict herself" because she thinks that the lawsuit is inactive while also claiming that your edit misrepresents the source. But there is no contradiction at all - one statement is about her personal belief in May 2015, the other is about what the linked source said back in early 2014. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Stephan: @13:40, 27 July 2015 I acknowledged that this was a weak argument. Did you read this discussion at Mann Jess’s talk page, where she writes “I don't doubt that the lawsuit is inactive; indeed, I think it is.” Indeed, all three editors agree that the lawsuit appears inactive. The edt is gone. I made & acknowledged a mistake. What's your point? Pete Tillman (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Peter Gulutzan
From May 17 till now Mann jess did 1240 edits. For an example, since Penwhale brought it up, this partial history shows Mann jess's involvement with the lead of Watts Up With That?.
- 17 May Adds "climate change denial" in the lead.
- 17 May adds "global warming denial" elsewhere in the lead.
- 17 May changes to "climate change denial".
- 18 May Reverts A Quest For Knowledge who tried to remove climate change denial.
- 21 May Reverts 2001:4C28:4000:721:185:26:182:3 who tried to change to skepticism.
- 21 May Reverts Capitalismojo who tried to change to skepticism.
- 25 May Reverts Tillman who tried to change to skepticism.
- 25 May Reverts 2620:117:C080:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:86EC who tried to change to information about climate wars.
- 25 May Reverts 88.168.219.244 who tried to change to climate science.
- 25 May Reverts Ponysboy who tried to change to skepticism.
- 26 May Reverts TMLutas who tried to remove denial.
- 26 May Reverts SPhilbrick who tried to change to climate change issues
- 27 May Changes to "climate change skepticism or denial" and points to denial article, leaves "among the most influential in climate change denial blogs" elsewhere in the lead, unattributed.
- 6 June Reverts Peter Gulutzan who tried to remove denial
- 11 June Reverts 2600:1003:B007:D95E:0:1C:A3E2:E301: who tried to remove denial.
- 12 June Reverts Darkthlayli who tried to change to skepticism.
JzG objects that Tillman disparaged a person. This is the JzG who said a person who doesn't call Watts Up With That a climate change denial blog is an "idiot" and called a BLP subject a "swivel-eyed loon".
Administrators only make things worse by judging editors like Tillman at the behest of editors doing worse things. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by dave souza
Interim statement: still trying to find time for this.
- In this comment, attempting to justify his BLP violation, Pete Tillman asks if JzG is "disputing that Henry Markram, Lewandowsky's editor for the retracted paper, actually wrote the post" – it's a comment under the blog post by neurologist Henry Markram, co-founder of Frontiers Media. The paper in the Frontiers in Psychology#Controversy, was edited by Viren Swami.[20] Careless of Tillman. . . dave souza, talk 19:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the mis-statement. Corrected above, thanks. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Still wrong, Markram's not a Frontiers in Psychology editor, and the retraction was "approved by Axel Cleeremans". Why don't you just withdraw your attacks on Lewandowsky? . . dave souza, talk 21:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the mis-statement. Corrected above, thanks. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Pete Tillman's attempts to denigrate scientists and give "equal validity" to their non-scientist detractors aren't new. His
[recent edit]2015 edit discussed above added the Clive Crook opinion piece discussed in 2010, when Pete proposed it as "criticism" of the Penn State inquiry exonerating Mann – when Crook's uninformed non-expert opinion was opposed, Pete suggested Fox News quoting lobbyist Steven Milloy, or a statement from the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives [a fiscally conservative libertanian think-tank]. . . . dave souza, talk 22:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC) correction to self: incorrect diff removed from "recent edit", diff added for 2015 edit. . . dave souza, talk 05:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- First, I find this an inappropriate, inflammatory opening.
- Second, regarding the statement regarding use of Crook’s 2010 Atlantic article: “Pete proposed it as "criticism" of the Penn State inquiry exonerating Mann – when Crook's uninformed non-expert opinion was opposed…"
- “Crook’s uninformed non-expert opinion” is an interesting construction. Clive Crook is a “columnist for the Financial Times, the National Journal and a senior editor at The Atlantic Monthly. For twenty years he held various editorial positions at The Economist, including its deputy editor for eleven years.
- In 2006, he co-chaired the Copenhagen Consensus project, framing global development priorities for the coming decades together with Nobel laureates and other world renowned economists…
- To my eye, Crook appeaars to be a fine choice for commenting on the Climategate scandal and its aftermath. The Crook article no doubt makes difficult reading for supporters of the Climategate scientists. Crook wrote that “the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption.”
- Crook continued,
- “The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann … would be difficult to parody.” Crook goes on to document a number of problems with PSU’s self-examination. You will note, in the 2010 discussion Dave links, no refutations of Crook's conclusions. Instead, we see I don’t like it stuff.
- “The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.” Indeed. Crook’s analysis (and that of The Economist) have (imo) held up remarkably well. Independent observers might well wonder why such opinions have been systematically excluded from most Wikipedia climate change articles. Is this what the arbitrators would like to perpetuate? --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- This was Pete Tillman's 30 May 2015 edit to the WP:BLP of the Michael E. Mann#CRU email controversy section, which very briefly summarises the Pennsylvania State University investigations. A 2011 review by the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation confirmed the university panel's conclusions which cleared Mann of any wrongdoing, and it stated "Lacking any evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing the investigation with no further action."
In our July 2010 discussion, User:Stephan Schulz wrote of "Climategate and the Big Green Lie" by Clive Crook that "It's an editorial. It's also fairly uninformed", but Pete Tillman feels it merits great weight in Mann's bio. Crook is doubtless a notable economics journalist, his chairing the Copenhagen Consensus links him to the controversial economist Bjørn Lomborg but doesn't qualify Crook as an expert on scientific conduct, let alone justify accusations of "an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption" in which "the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute".
It's troubling that Pete Tillman still thinks this July 2010 opinion should be given weight in a BLP. . . dave souza, talk 06:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- This was Pete Tillman's 30 May 2015 edit to the WP:BLP of the Michael E. Mann#CRU email controversy section, which very briefly summarises the Pennsylvania State University investigations. A 2011 review by the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation confirmed the university panel's conclusions which cleared Mann of any wrongdoing, and it stated "Lacking any evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing the investigation with no further action."
- “The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.” Indeed. Crook’s analysis (and that of The Economist) have (imo) held up remarkably well. Independent observers might well wonder why such opinions have been systematically excluded from most Wikipedia climate change articles. Is this what the arbitrators would like to perpetuate? --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Result concerning Tillman
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I'm having issues with Tillman's attempt at external discussions to advance argument in this topic area. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Peter has asked on my talk page for a delay in closing this as he wishes to provide evidence against filer. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 00:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- There are a number of issues which trouble me here:
- The disparagement of Stephan Lewandowsky. There are any number of ways an editor can responsibly indicate their negative opinion of a particular source; this is not one of them. This editor attempts to justify this disparagement above by citing a partisan opinion commentator. This indicates that they do not see the problem with this behavior.
- The disparagement of Michael Mann as "vindictive", cited to the personal, self-published blog of a political opponent.
- Disparagement of other editors and evidence of a battleground mentality, such as here
- Replacement of a secondary source with primary source, a Facebook message, and then inaccurately recounting what that source says. The Facebook message reads "Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules" while this editor writes "As of mid-2015, the lawsuit appears to be inactive". This appears to be a blatant misuse of sources.
- Polemical messages which appear to compare being called a "climate change denialist" with the treatment of African-Americans under Jim Crow, which is bizarre, inappropriate, and morally repugnant.
- Given all of the above, I am of the opinion that this editor should not be editing in this topic area. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I generally agree with Gamaliel's analysis, and think that a topic ban is in order. T. Canens (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be in everyone's interest, including the editor's own, to separate him from this topic-area for a time. I will add that regardless of wiki disputes, he and his family have my deepest sympathy and support regarding the personal circumstances he describes, and I'm sure that goes for others commenting here as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- What do you think the proper duration should be, then? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel, Timotheus Canens, and Newyorkbrad: regarding Penwhale's question, what do you think the duration of the TBAN should be? Based on AE standard, probably looking at 3-6 months or indef. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- My gut feeling is at least 6 months, or an indef which can be reevaluated after 6 months. I also want to echo NYB's comments about extending our sympathies regarding his personal circumstances. When grappling with real life issues, I find it healthy to step away from contentious online scuffles, regardless of whether or not one is in the right. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- (That ping didn't go through.) Indef with appeal after six months, I'd say. I dislike fixed-duration topic bans. T. Canens (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan
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 Peter Gulutzan
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Peter Gulutzan (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/Climate_change :
Reposting. I believe this behavior warrants further review, and since Peter Gulutzan posted an AE request against NEG instead of pursuing requests for dispute resolution shows the problem is escalating, not resolving itself. Below is my comment on that thread, but other editors (User:ArtifexMayhem and User:Manul) posted additional info I won't reproduce on their behalf. Split comments per request.
---
Peter Gulutzan and Tillman are both editing tendentiously. It appears they dislike our coverage of climate change and "climate change skepticism", since we represent the mainstream scientific view, and so have been campaigning to hide or limit our coverage of those topics. For example, they are attempting to ensure as few redirects as possible go to climate change denial, where our coverage is extensive, and instead point our viewers to Global warming controversy, which they see as more sympathetic to the fringe view. In this campaign, several behavioral problems have made collaboration impossible.
Both have dismissed high quality sources which disagree with their edits, while providing no sources of their own. They have both refused to answer questions or collaborate with others. They have edit warred extensively, and promoted a battleground atmosphere, labeling others "activists" and too biased to find the right sources.
Diffs:
- Not answering questions: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], to NEG below
- Strangely, he accused me of not answering his questions, but then didn't answer me when I asked what question I'd missed. NewsAndEventsGuy asked us both to summarize what questions had gone unanswered. I provided a list, but Peter refused to answer.
- Both editors keep misrepresenting others (e.g. by claiming I equate all "skeptics" to "deniers")) Peter repeats this claim, then insists on seeing a citation for it
- EW. While discussion ongoing, reverted 11 pages to his preferred version. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]
- Aware of DS: [41]
— Jess· Δ♥ 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Adding a note to prevent archiving. Several admins have commented that they have concerns, but there hasn't been any action taken, or discussion to close the case. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Peter Gulutzan
Statement by Manul
- Note that Peter Gulutzan was alerted to climate change discretionary sanctions on 18 March 2015, earlier than indicated above.
- Peter's comment on that date is indicative of his general attitude:
This was despite my cordial disclaimer ("Apologies if you were previously alerted; I didn't find a tag in your history"),[43] and our only prior interaction was a couple comments on the article talk page that were non-personal and on-topic.By now I have grown used to editors who try to intimidate me with accusations which they pretend could lead to blocking. I'm going to make this a standard reply: hit me with your best shot, eh?[42]
- Peter proceeded to violate WP:BLPPRIVACY, reverting my removal from the BLP of a link to a website publishing the subject's personal address.[44] He did this despite the WP:BLPPRIVACY problem already mentioned on the talk page,[45] even replying to it.[46] This is either blind reverting without care for the reasons behind a change, or worse.
- The situation has not since improved. Most recently Peter claimed that I added a "smear" to the article "without attribution", saying in the edit comment,
you don't "clean up" by pouring dirt
.[47] The over-the-top personalization from Peter is typical, but more importantly the claim is untrue. My change to the lead cited high-quality reliable sources,[48] and it merely restated what had been in the article body for a month using the same sources.[49]
- Considering the above diffs from myself and others, the disruption appears to stem from Peter's inability to approach the subject dispassionately, imparting a narrative of personalized conflict where editors are simply trying to use the best sources and report them accurately.
Manul ~ talk 04:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Reply to Peter:
- Re WP:BLPPRIVACY, to be absolutely clear, the timeline is:
- Peter reverts, restoring Watts' personal address in the article, with edit comment
See talk page "Improving the lead"
.[50] - Ten minutes later, he replies to my comment about BLPPRIVACY in the thread "Improving the lead".[51] This is the right comment; I did not link to the wrong one.
- Either Peter didn't read the comment to which he replied -- blindly reverting -- or he willingly violated BLPPRIVACY.
- Despite the government website clearly showing Anthony Watts' personal address, he later tried to justify his change by saying it was IntelliWeather's address.[52] I pointed out that IntelliWeather is registered to his home address, as are his other domains.[53]
- Peter reverts, restoring Watts' personal address in the article, with edit comment
- I agree 100% with the Jimbo Wales quote. It is a recurring theme that discussion about accurately characterizing the WUWT blog as a climate change denialism blog (which it is, according to high-quality and scholarly sources) will eventually be derailed by a switch to characterizing Watts as a "denier". It is a red herring, and I have said so in discussions where Peter has participated.[54][55] When the switch happens, as Peter has done in this AE, the conversation is destined to go round and round.
- Manul ~ talk 22:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Peter Gulutzan
Re Mann jess's accusations ...
Re "Peter Gulutzan posted an AE request against NEG instead of pursuing requests for dispute resolution": I indeed made a request for dispute resolution re redirection to Global warming controversy or Climate change denial, saying "... if anyone from either side agrees at least in principle that consensus or arbitration should be sought, please state preferred venue and wording.". No reply.
Re pointing to something "more sympathetic to the fringe view": no, I said "slightly less vicious redirect", that is, I care about people who are accused of having the view.
Re: "dismissed high quality sources": they're poor quality, I tried to discuss sources despite Mann jess calling my complaints "nonsense" and "insane" and "nonsense"). I questioned repeatedly what these sources supposedly support. No reply.
Re me labelling editors as "activists" or calling them "too biased to find the right sources": no diffs. I've no idea what Mann jess is talking about.
Re me refusing questions from NewsAndEventsGuy: question was prefaced with accusations that I said I found offensive, I explained at WP:AE#NewsAndEventsGuy.
Re I "didn't answer me [Mann jess] when I asked what questions I'd missed": look at the diff Mann jess supplied. Mann jess misquoted me twice using quote marks, I objected, Mann jess misquoted again and asked "What sources are being overlooked or misinterpreted?" (not "what questions I'd missed"), I answered "As for the question about sources, I have no idea what it refers to".
Re "battleground behavior": no, I said on my talk page "I'm acknowledging the existence of a battle" meaning I thought others did it, and "hit me with your best shot, eh? [etc.]" meaning I thought others intended it.
Re "claiming [Mann jess] equate[s] all 'skeptics' to 'deniers'": I didn't say that, I said it's necessary to show all skeptics are deniers if you're going to change so all redirects for skeptics point to denial.
Re "EW": Look at the 11 diffs: the first doesn't revert anything, the tenth was self-reverted on July 9, the others were all restorations to the state before the dispute began, which is normal when no consensus.
Re Manul's accusations ...
Re "Peter's comment on that date is indicative ...", my note about deleting that comment from my talk page is here.
Re WP:BLPPRIVACY: when Manul refers to my reply he shows the wrong link, my actual reply on March 18 is here, please read it rather than Manul's link.
Re "you don't clean up by pouring dirt": Manul made a section heading which uses a hurrah! phrase "cleaning up", I balanced with a boo! phrase "pouring dirt". I mentioned "without attribution" because the text did not attribute the words "climate change denial" in the lead to the sources (I distinguish attribution from citation and I believe WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does).
Re "editors are simply trying to use the best sources": I don't think editors agree what sources are best, I agree with Jimbo Wales. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Update: I had to trim my post above so that it would be 490 words, without changing content. I cannot reply to anything else unless administrators permit me to go well over the limit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Administrators: I request permission to reply to statements made after the post by Mann jess and the first comment from Manul. So far I've used 490 words, versus around 1200 words. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE ... Okay, I have permission to reply.
- Manul says: "Peter reverts, restoring Watts' personal address in the article". That is false. Watts's personal address was not in the article either before or after any edit that I did. Instead there was a cite for Watts's company = a government site containing addresses, added by JournalScholar in 2012. Although this is not a valid WP:AE issue (I had not received a DS alert at the time I did that revert), I'll point out anyway that: (1) the edit which I reverted contained two things, removal of the citation AND addition of the claim that Watts "runs the climate denialism website 'WattsUpWithThat'", a contentious statement about a living person with what I regarded as poor sourcing, and WP:BLPREMOVE says such things should be removed "immediately". (2) In fact I myself removed the citation, 76 minutes later, and wrote "... I acknowledge that such government-related sites shouldn't be publicized by Wikipedia and have replaced with a reference to WUWT which merely says Watts runs IntelliWeather. I apologize for the delay in making this change."
- Manul's sources are low quality and the majority of known reliable sources say the blog is skeptic, compare the entries from S Philbrick's lists (ignore the junk) here and here. But I'll happily leave that content dispute aside if Manul stops bringing it up. What's an issue is whether I engaged in misconduct at times when I insisted that sources have to be good enough for BLP -- which I did. To redirect "Climate change skeptic" etc. affects many BLPs, and to make the first sentence of a BLP contain a denigration, about the main thing the person is known for, is denigrating a person. Sure, some people say otherwise. But taking me to WP:AE is more than disagreement.
- Penwhale: I hope you will consider that my reply to Manul, and my diffs showing some of the explanation how denial got in the lead of WUWT, may have a bearing on your initial remarks.
- Re Artifex Mayhem: I'm accused of violating an essay, and of performing battleground behaviour. The details are that I used the words "side", "misleading", and "destroyed". If the contention were that sides, statements that mislead, and destruction never in fact existed, or are WP:WTW words, there would be something to answer here.
- Re JzG: I issued a DS notice two days after JzG referred to a BLP subject as a "swivel-eyed loon". I was not aware that administrators are exempt from DS notices. I deny that I am a single-purpose account, I have done hundreds of non-climate edits and created seven non-climate articles (Burr, Saskatchewan, Edenbridge, Saskatchewan, Points North Landing, Saskatchewan, The Sheepdogs, Peavey Mart, Aspy Bay, YCSB). I also deny JzG's "assessment" of me, but shouldn't need to, unsupported speculations about my defects don't belong here or anywhere. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by ArtifexMayhem
Over the past few months civil (mostly) POV pushing by Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs) (along with Tillman (talk · contribs)) has been a primary source of disruption in the topic area.
- The recent filing of this WP:AE request by Peter Gulutzan against NewsAndEventsGuy was without merit and should be considered vexatious (and sucessfully so as NewsAndEventsGuy has retired from the project for 12 months).
- Examples of battleground behavior,
— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
Peter Gulutzan issued a DS notice to me regarding climate change. This does not bother me at all. It is a little weird for an effective WP:SPA to issue an administrator with a DS notice, but there you go.
My assessment of Gulutzan's edits is that he simply does not care what the scientific consensus is, he wants Wikipedia to reflect the world as he believes it to be, not the world as science says it actually is. The fundamental issue is that climate change "skepticism" is pseudoskepticism, which is synonymous with denialism. Not a form of denialism, synonymous with it. Like the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, who are vaccine denialists. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Tillman
- I believe the complaint against Peter Gulutzan is without merit and and should be dismissed.
Further, I believe the real problem here lies with the originating editor, Mann Jess. She succeeded with her complaint here against AQFK last month: link. The present complaint started out as a side-complaint against both PG & myself. By a curious coincidence, these are the three editors who were having the most problems working with editor Jess at the Anthony Watts (blogger) and his WUWT blog pages at our encyclopedia. On this topic, a fourth editor has remarked:
- "Mann Jess is vexatious and tendentious. In a controversial topic area Mann Jess often uses the most inflammatory language that is not encyclopedic. The worst instances are in BLP's like Watt's but extend elsewhere."
For some time, I’ve been considering filing an ArbComm complaint re Mann Jess’s editing behavior in the CC area, especially in the case of Anthony Watts (blogger) and his WUWT blog. I regard her actions there as unencyclopedic, uncollegial, egregious POV pushing, tendentious editing and, in general, I found her impossible to deal with as a fellow-editor. She's certainly single-minded (imo). Other editors who couldn't deal with her vexatious editing included both Gulutzan and AQFK. A pattern emerges.
I certainly don’t have time for that now — I don’t really have time to mount a refutation of her charges here, except to note that many appear to be "ruffled feathers". And I hate this sort of unproductive posturing and name-calling.
It's also troubling that MJ (and others) could be putting the project into legal jeopardy. I believe Anthony Watts was receiving legal advice, and perhaps offers of pro bono legal representation, for filing a defamation and slander lawsuit against Wikipedia's parent for the attempted labelling of Watts as a "climate change denier" by MJ and collaborating editors. Watts emphatically rejects this charge. I don't think he expressed any interest in actually filing a suit. I'll research this further for my formal complaint against Editor Jess. This may take some time to prepare, as I am under severe time constraints for prior committments, to at least the end of the following week. I would welcome help in preparing a complaint againt Mann Jess, who I believe is doing substantial damage to the integrity of the Project. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by JBL
I think the behavior with respect to NewsAndEventsGuy, a consummate good-faith, consensus-building editor, was an enormous shame. Obviously in practice the articles related to Anthony Watts and climate change denialism are a massive battleground, and NAEG was one of the few editors who really seemed to be interested in doing a decent job with them, respecting sourcing etc. The attacks by Gulutzan on NAEG were really shameful, and have (at least temporarily) driven off a great editor. --JBL (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy
@JBL, while I appreciate the kind words, I disavow the notion that Peter's remarks "drove (me) off". I still log in to see if anyone refers to me, and since you did so I would just like to say that I've been feeling pressed from a lot of real life quarters of late, and quite frankly find little reward in organizing the diffs to demonstrate anyone's violation of WP:ARBCC#Battleground editing. Peter was just a minor thing that put my decision to make a long retirement seem timely. Nothing should be read into my decision viz-a-viz the extent of Peter's disruption or non-disruption. His record of diffs should be read without regard to other factors, and we should trust diligent admins to act accordingly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Result concerning Peter Gulutzan
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Manul's 4th point in the bullet list is telling; also, since it is clear that no one disagrees with the fact that Watt runs WUWT and the lead of WUWT does say Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change skepticism or denial created in 2006 by Anthony Watts (both as of this edit and on June 27 when Manul made the edit to Watts), I find Peter's position in this discussion to be extremely weak. However, I will wait for others to comment before assessing more. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan: You can reply, yes. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Citadel48
| Topic ban from Bosnia and Herzegovina. User is also restricted from marking any edits as 'minor' on articles within the domain of WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Citadel48
Citadel48 is actually not a new editor, having made over 1,300 edits with this account. His editing behaviour has been problematic since Day 1, a quick look at his user talk page will give you an idea of the extent of the issues, removing material, edit warring, linking to copyvios on Youtube, etc. His top edited pages confirm a proclivity for controversial subjects and drama. His first edit was on Sandy Hook conspiracy theories. Now, no-one's perfect, least of all me, but there is a bit of a pattern developing here. In 1,300 edits, he should have developed some level of clue about consensus, edit-warring and basic editing issues like tagging edits as minor when they clearly are not. My concern is that he may be WP:NOTHERE, as there is evidence of ongoing disruption, battlegrounding, gaming and lack of respect for consensus. He's also been alerted about ARBMAC over two months ago. Since the alert, 23 editor and I made several improvements to the article in question, adding references to the current case before the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia regarding this matter to ensure it was completely comprehensive. I also made a series of edits to properly cite the videos that Citadel48 had copyvio linked from Youtube earlier. This was done in good faith to try to address Citadel48's concerns with the content of the article and so that Citadel48 could see how to do it without creating a copyvio link. I consider that if Citadel48 is going to be a net positive for WP, he needs some correction now. This is not the only Balkans article he's taken a shine to, he created a list of all the people killed in a couple of incidents during the Bosnian War, and could not see how it was undue. See his talk page for more. They were both subsequently deleted. The pattern isn't just Balkans, but there is a strong Balkans link. That is why I have brought him here, as it is his most recent behaviour regarding the Bijeljina massacre article that is ongoing and most frustrating for productive editors working in what is a difficult space, and he has been alerted to possible sanctions in this area. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Citadel48Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Citadel48My additions to the page had previously been discussed on the talk page, no opposition was received. The main information I added he is disputing is when I added that a Bosnian paramilitary group was in the time at the time of the initial capture & massacre. Information that sources that were cited on the page even before I started editing the specific page back up. Citadel48 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC) I have no connection to Serbia, I do not "support" any of the participants of the war. I marked the statement as biased because even the UN & Hague are considered by many to be politically biased.[1] The edit about the presence of the militia is sourced by materials there even before I edited the article. Citadel48 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by WritegeistTopic bans for users who are persistently disruptive (and deaf to others) around articles in their particular areas of biased interest are sometimes a wise recourse, as we’ve seen recently with action at AE. I don't know whether this person’s input qualifies yet—uninvolved admins will have to decide how best to protect the 'pedia—but there seems to be a competency issue at the very least, and Balkan articles do attract incompetent and/or disruptive POV pushers from time to time. Clearly it’s best for users who can’t edit neutrally in these areas to leave them alone. Perhaps this one might voluntarily refrain until (s)he attains the blessed state of cluefulness? (Wow. My optimism sometimes surprises me.) Writegeist (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Citadel48
Citadel48 has posted above, though I think the response is inadequate. It does appear that Citadel48 has consistently edited Bijeljina massacre to make it more favorable to the Serbian side. On 26 July they even added a POV-section tag, complaining that a section wasn't neutral when the material was cited to a report by the United Nations Commission of Experts. They continue to mark all their Wikipedia edits as minor, even when editing contested articles in the domain of WP:ARBMAC. Admins reviewing this complaint might consider banning Citadel48 from everything concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, owing to their inability to edit neutrally, and banning them from marking any edits as 'minor' on article pages covered by WP:ARBMAC. I hope that Citadel48 will expand their above comment to address this proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
|
WeijiBaikeBianji
| I'm closing this as there doesn't seem to be any strong desire among the admins who have commented to take action against WeijiBaikeBianji. Regarding the article it hasn't been edited since 1 August, and is currently semi protection which should alleviate the concerns of most of the admins who have commented. I have semi protected the talk page for a month as a normal admin action to try and stop the block evasion going on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:46, 12 August 2015 (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. Request concerning WeijiBaikeBianji
I'm reporting a group of four users for violating the arbitration case's prohibition on tag teaming: user:WeijiBaikeBianji, user:TheRedPenOfDoom, user:Volunteer Marek, and user:ArtifexMayhem. They are repeatedly removing the same material from Race and genetics while mostly refusing to participate in the talk page discussion, where most of the editors who've commented support including the material. (According to the template at the top of the talk page, "race and genetics" is covered by discretionary sanctions from the R&I arbitration case.) Only two of the four have commented in the discussion at all, and both have been unwilling to explain the rationale for their removals, despite several pleas for them to explain it. After removing this material for the eighth time, ArtifexMayhem then removed the RFC about it, which thus far had only attracted editors who thought the material should stay in the article. [81] This group has a history of serial reverting to get around the three-revert rule on other articles covered by the R&I arbitration case. On IQ and Global Inequality this happened last September (nine reverts in around 40 hours): TRPOD, TRPOD, WBB, WBB, TRPOD, AM, AM, WBB, WBB and again in December (four reverts in seven hours): TRPOD, TRPOD, TRPOD, VM. On "race and genetics", restoring the other editors' reverts is the first edit Volunteer Marek ever made to either the article or its talk page, [82] [83] and ArtifexMayhem's editing history at "IQ and Global Inequality" is comprised entirely of restoring the other editors' reverts. [84] (See the "presumption of coordination" principle.) ArtifexMayhem was reported a year ago for tag-teaming with Volunteer Marek on a different article covered by the R&I case, but the report was declined when the user filing the request was blocked. I request that this time admins please carefully examine the conduct being reported. I also recommend that they read this discussion, which occurred within a week after WeijiBaikeBianji's topic ban expired. It's a textbook example of WP:SOUP, and is just one of many examples of how difficult WeijiBaikeBianji makes it for other users to work with him. I welcome @Direktor:, @Victor Chmara:, @Klortho:, @Deleet: and @The Devil's Advocate: to comment in this report, because they've been involved in some of the earlier issues I've mentioned.
Notice to WeijiBaikeBianji about this request for enforcement of discretionary sanctions.
Discussion concerning WeijiBaikeBianjiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WeijiBaikeBianji(After second big edit on 7 August 2015:) Wajajad, are you withdrawing this enforcement request? Administrators who have joined the discussion here have suggested that you need not press this issue. Editors are already discussing article edits on the appropriate article talk pages. Volunteer Marek, TheRedPenOfDoom, and ArtifexMayhem didn't do anything to violate any Wikipedia policy or guideline here. On my part, I am looking up sources to share with other editors on the article talk page, so that we may all discuss this content dispute amicably and collaboratively after looking up current reliable sources. Why not just drop this request? I'm perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 00:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer MarekThis is just begging for a WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by TheRedPenOfDoomAppears to be a clear case of Wajajad attempting to avoid scrutiny by editing the discretionary sanctions topic via IPs . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by MarkBernsteinThe party filing this complain opens a trap at your feet, a pit that in the worst case might prove large enough to encompass the entire project. tread lightly and with care. I believe this warning should be sufficient, but if you need clarification from me, you know how to find me. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by ArtifexMayhemIf anybody sees something other than a WP:BOOMERANG here, please advise. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Darwinian ApeWithout commenting on the content dispute itself, I believe the conduct of the accused editors are not productive. I can see the evidence of tag-teaming as the filer suggested. Even in here, same people are calling for boomerang. The accused editors did not seek consensus to remove the content and WeijiBaikeBianji did evade the IP user's request to rationalize their removal of what seems to be reliably sourced material. And the IP is accused of being a sock, clearly against WP:AGF I haven't seen any conduct that would require sanctions on the part of the filer so I don't see why this should require WP:BOOMERANG. They seem to be trying to resolve this dispute by proper channels. The content in dispute was in the article for a long time, so if they want to change it they have to seek consensus and not engage in edit wars. You can't remove existing content without consensus and ask people to seek consensus if they don't agree with your edit! I haven't seen one coherent argument made by them to rationalize the removal of said content. The removal could be fully justified, I don't know yet. But the way they go about is certainly not helping. If there is a content dispute, people should seek more eyes to review it, not remove RFC requests and accuse opposition of sock-puppetry. Darwinian Ape talk 17:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by IP user@Georgewilliamherbert: Please be aware not that I'm not the same individual as Wajajad. I don't understand why other people are assuming that. He often edits while logged out, and he's never used this IP range. You can verify that by running an IP check on him. If this is the reason he's been blocked, the block is erroneous. It's also an erroneous reason to reject his report, if that's why it's being rejected. I've raised this issue in Georgewilliamherbert's user talk. [87] This problem should be dealt with quickly, if possible. 192.253.251.79 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC) @Penwhale: Will a one-revert limit be enough to prevent situations like the one here? The main problem is that a few users think it's fine to remove sourced content from any of these articles without giving a reason, and/or change the subject when they're asked for a reason. (Note that the 107.6 IP commenting in that discussion was me; I've edited from that range as well.) 192.253.251.79 (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC) @Georgewilliamherbert: As I said in my comment here, [88] within the past six months I've edited from the ranges 192.253.*, 107.6.*, and 43.228.*. Are all three of these ranges in the same neblock as Wajajad? Also, please be aware that I do not edit exclusively in the Race and Intelligence topic. The IP I'm currently using is the same one I previously used to edit the Peking University article, in which Wajajad has never shown any interest. 192.253.251.106 (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Just noting that there seems to be some recent disruption by blocked user Mikemikev at the race and genetics article. If this is typical behavior for Mikemikev, it's very likely that these four users' months (years?) of dealing with his sock puppets is the reason they tend to assume bad faith about legitimate editors. That's an explanation, not an excuse; in other cases such as Climate Change the arbitration committee has consistently ruled that someone being on the same "side" of a dispute as a known puppeteer is not an adequate reason to assume bad faith about them. 43.228.157.21 (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by DrmiesWajajad is practically begging for a NOTHERE block. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning WeijiBaikeBianji
|
Futrell
| Blocked indef for near-constant violations of WP:BLP. Non-AE block, as explained inside the hat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2015 (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. Request concerning Futrell
I'll be brief, because when I first started editing Wikipedia I did not envisage I would be spending a sunday afternoon protecting the reputation of Roosh "that guy I really dislike" V of all people...
Discussion concerning FutrellStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FutrellStatement by LizBrustopher, I think you meant WP:NEWBLPBAN, not WP:ARBGG. I added a diff of your notification. Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by EvergreenFirWhile I'd argue GG sanctions apply to Roosh, I agree with Liz that NEWBLPBAN would be more apt given the edits. That said, I would fully endorse a t-ban or a ban from this page. User is a SPA, has been warned multiple times, and still refuses to "get it". User is edit warring as well. Note, there are no edits by this user on Talk:Roosh V. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by FyddlestixThis user added some particularly bad unsourced accusations to Roosh V this morning, I reported him at BLPN here before I realized there as a post here. Note that I'm pretty sure this editor is named after or impersonating anti-MRA blogger David Futrelle - I don't actually think it's him, obviously. More likely someone trying to make Futrelle look bad. NOTHERE in any case, though, as their edits make clear. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by SmythThe user removed the warning from their user talk page without responding [91] and then repeated their edits [92]. Please deal with them. – Smyth\talk 18:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Futrell
|
Gob Lofa
| Gob Lofa & Mabuska both blocked for one day for 1RR vio, and warned re possible sanctions in the future. As Gob Lofa wasn't previously "aware" of discretionary sanctions there's nothing more to do with them on this page this time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:21, 14 August 2015 (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. Request concerning Gob Lofa
Important note Apologies that this section violates the word and diff limits. I originally filed this in AN/I, however have been told to take to ArbCom. I have tried to condense it as much as possible detailing the main problem instances. Evidence of Gob Lofa's willing misuse/abuse of sources to push a slanted POV, as well engaging in slow-edit warring to force their edits onto Troubles restricted articles.
Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (1970–79)
In contrast at the Birmingham pub bombings article they changes "terrorism" in regards to the IRA to "violence" [126], then just over a day later restores their edit [127]. Mabuska (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Gob LofaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Gob LofaStatement by FlexdreamRegarding Kingsmill massacre and Gob Lofa's edits. I removed a source and added a citation required to support 'Reavey is currently taking a related case to the European Court of Human Rights, regarding UDR involvement in his brothers' killings and the RUC's failure to investigate them properly'[128]. The source that Gob Lofa persists in reinstating states 'These murders are before the European Court of Human Rights because of strong indications that Ulster Defence Regiment colluded with the UVF' which clearly in itself doesn't substantiate Reavey's involvement or claims against the RUC. It is frustrating when such a clear disparity is ignored repeatedly.--Flexdream (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by KieronoldhamIn my personal experience with user Gob Lofa on the Birmingham pub bombings article, I can state that there were indeed reverts which user Mabuska has rightly illustrated upon this article, followed by meandering talk upon said article's talk page which began to border on sarcasm as to the reliable references classifying this atrocity as terrorism. I am no bona fide expert on these disruptive matters personally, as (to date) personal issues with other editors have been resolved with little friction, and have never gone beyond one instance of taking a dispute to the Teahouse; however, looking at the extensive bigger picture which user Mabuska has rightly illustrated both here and upon the Administrators' Noticeboard previously, it does seem user Gob Lofa is pushing an agenda which violates both NPOV and general consensus, causing extensive friction. I do hope action is taken. In Gob Lofa's favour it does seem that, if my own experience is anything to go by, there is a lack of proverbial relentless hammering of these issues upon individual articles upon presentation of reliable references, so, perhaps, a temporary block of 14 days or so will suffice (unless he/she has been warned and temporarily blocked in the past)? There is no shortage of activity from this user. I am not in favour of a permanent block of this user, unless there is a recurrence or unless, as stated, he/she has been warned of this disruptive editing in the past. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by SnowdedGob Lofa has at least had the positive effect of uniting people normally of different sides of the fence (or peace wall) in this contentious area. 80% of his/her edits are useful, but edits with a sectarian bias are sneaked in. The constant change of names to imply that the Provisionals are the legitimate heirs of the IRA being but one example. These edits which are known to be controversial are deliberately being disguised as basic improvements. Removing 'terrorism' is another example. The fact that they are small changes hidden in a mass of improvements makes monitoring very difficult for other editors and time consuming. We also have slow edit wars, waiting a few days then making the change again to see if everyone is still alert. Talk page comments are 'clever' to the point of insulting with a consistent refusal to acknowledge that they are doing anything remotely controversial. We need a full topic ban at least for a period, then a readmission under monitoring or the threat of a permanent topic ban if there is any recurrence. ----Snowded TALK 05:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Valenciano
Statement by requester, MabuskaI have a feeling some of the issues I've raised are better at AN/I so will be going around the round-a-bout, however the 1RR breach at the Kingsmill massacre article was not even a week ago so I don't know how it could be too old for anything to be done, though I had reported it at the initial AN/I days ago. Same with the Civil authorities edit-warring which is quite recent as well. Both those instances continued after Gob Lofa was notified of the Troubles restrictions. Mabuska (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Gob Lofa
|