Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 20 August 2015 (→Result concerning Collect: wait, I thought this was a rule). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:35, 20 August 2015 by Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) (→Result concerning Collect: wait, I thought this was a rule)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

    Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

    To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Tillman

    Tillman indefinitely topic banned, with an appeal not recommended for 6 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 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.
    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
    Misplaced Pages: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:

    • DS Warnings: ,

      — 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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..."

    Upset by this:

    • "As always, thanks for fighting the good fight against the POV-pushers."

    And worried by this:

    • "Peter: could you please drop me an email at xxxxxATgmailDOTcom, to discuss developments in a CC topic of mutual interest?"

    --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)

    “ 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.

    — http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00293/full

    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 , , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 " 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 Misplaced Pages, arbitration remedies or no. That attack alone is evidence that this editor needs to be reminded that the BLP applies everywhere on Misplaced Pages. In the context of discretionary sanctions in a case already noted for widespread smearing of scientists on Misplaced Pages, is very serious indeed. Action must be taken to uphold the credibility of Misplaced Pages. --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: . --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)
    • 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)

    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.

    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)
    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 Misplaced Pages 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)

    Result concerning Tillman

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • 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)
    • 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
    Misplaced Pages: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: , , , , , , , 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.
    • Battleground behavior: ,
    • EW. While discussion ongoing, reverted 11 pages to his preferred version. , , , , , , , , , ,
    • Aware of DS:

      — 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:

      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?

      This was despite my cordial disclaimer ("Apologies if you were previously alerted; I didn't find a tag in your history"), and our only prior interaction was a couple comments on the article talk page that were non-personal and on-topic.
    • Peter proceeded to violate WP:BLPPRIVACY, reverting my removal from the BLP of a link to a website publishing the subject's personal address. He did this despite the WP:BLPPRIVACY problem already mentioned on the talk page, even replying to it. 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. 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, and it merely restated what had been in the article body for a month using the same sources.
    • 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:
    • Peter reverts, restoring Watts' personal address in the article, with edit comment See talk page "Improving the lead".
    • Ten minutes later, he replies to my comment about BLPPRIVACY in the thread "Improving the lead". 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. I pointed out that IntelliWeather is registered to his home address, as are his other domains.
    • 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. 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 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? " meaning I thought others intended it.

    Re "claiming equate 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 Misplaced Pages 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).
    • Groups editors into factions e.g., the "put-denialism-in" side, .
    • Considers another editors calling one of his reverts a "removal of information" to be "misleading" , while edits by others are considered done with the intent to "destroy" information .

    — 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 | 06:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Peter Gulutzan: You can reply, yes. - Penwhale | 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


    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.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Gob Lofa

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Gob Lofa (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
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Slow-edit warring at Billy Fox (politician): 8 Sept 2013, 1 Feb 2014, 26 Feb 2014, 20 April 2015, 30 May 2015, 3 July 2015, 12 July 2015 - that's seven times, with no consensus on the talk page. They did provide two sources, however neither back up their claim they assert. It violates the remedy because Gob Lofa is edit-warring over a contentious issue without seeing the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
    2. Edit-wars at Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922: 19:04 30 July 2015, 20:09 1 August 2015, 00:16 5 August 2015, 6:27 6 August 2015. Does not once seek outside opinion or provide sourcing, the 3rd and 4th reverts come only days after having being notified of the Troubles restrictions.
    3. Potential gaming-the-system breach of 1RR at Kingsmill massacre: 00:39 8 August 2015, despite making original edit 21:14 7 August 2015. Only difference is the tense of one word, though whole edit is not backed up by the source they provided and presents speculation as fact. They thus also foul fall foul of the NPOV and reliable sourcing principles of the remedy.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 1 August 2015
    • The editor is also a long-time editor of Troubles articles so is bound to be aware of the restrictions well prior to this date.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    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.

    McGurk's Bar bombing

    • Removes statement and adds in context changing piece of OR, "launched armed campaigns" to "retaliated". . They restore their edit using personal opinion as their vindication, personal opinion that only makes mention of one of the two groups mentioned, but applies it to both:
    • A month later restores edit (despite addition of a source by me) citing "See talk" despite no consensus there for it.

    Ulster Defence Regiment

    • Adds in personal opinion . Reverted and asked to take it to talk . *Restores , but again reverted . *More OR . Reverted again. .
    • Nearly two months and 15 intermediate revisions later Gob Lofa decides to revert Gavin Lisburn and still provides no evidence. They, no surprise, are reverted .
    • They return with sources that don't back up their claims. *Restores again . Gavin Lisburn removes one as it didn't even mention the UDR specifically. They then restore "some" per the talk discussion . Flexdream removes the other of Gob Lofa's dubious sources as it doesn't substantiate the claims Gob Lofa is making.
    • Gob Lofa then lets the issue lie, however decides to embark upon an unsourced weasel-worded rewrite , which I amend .

    Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (1970–79)

    • Changes sourced statement, adding in highly contentious OR, . I revert requesting direct quote .
    • Provides a source but it still doesn't back up claim as shown by my amendment .
    • Removes wording from sourced sentence stating that it is speculation . Removes it again stating that it is not in one of the sources , however I have to revert again as there are two sources given, after which I show them what they should do in such circumstances .

    RUC Special Branch

    • Addition of sourced speculation as fact . They then revert the amendments made to this edit . After this Gob Lofa is quick to restore the amendments despite their assertions of "OR".

    Bloody Sunday (1972)

    • Adds in contentious terrorist categories into this article , , .
    • Gob Lofa re-adds these categories but amended . I revert asking for reliable sources.
    • Gob Lofa reinserts citing a source . Snowded reverts requesting direct quote, to which Gob Lofa does take to talk.

    In contrast at the Birmingham pub bombings article they changes "terrorism" in regards to the IRA to "violence" , then just over a day later restores their edit .

    Mabuska 14:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Gob Lofa

    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 Gob Lofa

    Statement by Flexdream

    Regarding 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'. 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 Kieronoldham

    In 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 Snowded

    Gob 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 05:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

    Callanecc Breach of 1rr policy here and request to self revert ignored, warning here and we could find others - its pretty blatant ----Snowded 18:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Valenciano

    Statement by requester, Mabuska

    I 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 15:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

    User:Callanecc, I believe a topic-ban for a specified period might be the best course of action. They do make many decent edits, despite hiding contentious edits amongst them, and they edit in other areas outside of the Troubles arena, so an outright ban might not be the best. Thus I believe a topic-ban in regards to articles and content that can be construed as being Troubles area related would be best as it allows them to continue editing outside the arena. Mabuska 20:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    User:Callanecc, thank you for taken the time to oversee this request. I would like to point out that the 1RR occurred on the 8th of August and this enforcement request was filed on the 11th of August, having been raised at AN/I on the 10th where I was told to take it here. That's only three days, and if the new process means that that is too long for anything to be done, then I can see quite a few editors avoiding enforcements on this technicality. I suppose the fact Gob Lofa now knows of the specific discretionary sanctions, despite already being informed of the Troubles restrictions, and knows it due to a caution from an administrator, it carries more weight than an ordinary editor posting it. Oh so many technicalities. Mabuska 15:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Gob Lofa

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Hi Mabuska: To take any action under discretionary sanctions the user needs to be "aware". I can't find where they've been notified? There is a 1RR vio, but I think that's too old to block for. If they haven't the only thing we can do is with normal administrative action which is probably better discussed at ANI (sorry to send you in circles). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that Valenciano, however there are pretty strict requirements when it comes to the imposition of discretionary sanctions. But if you could have a look at the criteria I linked and worked out if they are "aware" that would be helpful! Under the old system what you've presented probably would be enough but there really isn't any room for movement under the new (much for bureaucratic, IMHO) system. I note, also, that Gob Lofa referred to 1RR rather than discretionary sanctions. I've given them an "alert" so that any further edits can be used as evidence. Also I've moved your comment to it's own section as threaded discussion (except in the admin's section) isn't allowed on this page. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • If there's a 1RR vio in the last couple days I can do something but a week is too old to issue sanctions. As they aren't "aware" per the discretionary sanctions procedure I can't topic ban (or do anything else) under that remedy other than warn Gob Lofa that they need to be cautious with further edits and ensure that they comply with 1RR and that their edits are directly supported with reliable sources, if they aren't sure if a source is reliable they need to discuss it on a talk page.
    I've alerted Gob Lofa to the existence of the discretionary sanctions so anything they do in the future can be brought here. Though it might be quicker to report 1RR vios to WP:ANEW unless you're asking for sanctions other than a block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

    new request

    Collect

    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 Collect

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    2600:1000:B001:1FC2:9E5E:5DCF:BF25:8FF8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Collect (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
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others#Collect_topic-banned_.28option_2.29 :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 20 Aug 2015 Reverts contentious edit to Josh Duggar.  Josh Duggar is a former executive director of the political action committee of the Family Research Council.  Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. 
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
     
    1. 13 July 2015 Collect was blocked for a week for violating his topic ban.
    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. 
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Collect has been forum shopping this topic at BLPN and at Jimbo's talk page.  This is behavior consonant with this finding of fact in his arbitration case.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
     

    Discussion concerning Collect

    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 Collect

    Statement by Writegeist

    Complaint does not warrant enforcement action. Move to close vexatious request by newly-minted IP troll. Writegeist (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Collect

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Despite the complainant's contortions, I cannot seem to stretch Collect's topic ban to cover the (single) edit presented. Yes, Josh Duggar apparently has at some point had some involvement in politics, but he is by far better known for his involvement in reality television. The edit in question – which involved removing sensational, BLP-governed content – had no direct connection to Duggar's politics or to U.S. politics in general. This request appears to be without merit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Wait, are we accepting AE reports from IP addresses now? I thought it said somewhere that we don't do that. If it doesn't, it should. There are probably +/- 5 people who legitmately participate in arbitration-related discussions without an account due to some difficult-to-understand but honest opposition to having an account. There are probably +/- 500 people who use an IP address to avoid scrutiny of their own actions, but who claim to not have an account. The 5 people make dealing with anon's at arbitration complicated, but they should just have to deal with not being able to file an AE case; the 500 have poisoned that well. Also, the snarky "Cheers" in the IP's notice on Collect's talk page, mirroring Collect's own snarky "Cheers", leads me to believe this is one of the 500 anyway. Unless someone thinks I'm really off base, I'll close this with no decision; if a longer-term editor with an account wants to file this complaint, it can be refiled, though I personally don't recommend it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)