Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive178
NewsAndEventsGuy
[edit]| NewsAndEventsGuy has indicated that he is taking a 12 month break, so I'm closing this on the assumption that he will make no edits regarding WP:ARBCC topics on articles, talk pages or noticeboards (eg AN, ANEW). If he changes his mind before that date, anyone can bring the complaint back from the archive and it will be investigated then. Complaints regarding other editors should be filed as a separate report as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]
"Verbally vomit on someone else for allegedly not answering questions." In fact my words were "I've despaired about receiving answers", I'd given examples earlier (easiest seen from this reply to me). "Decline to provide list of allegedly unanswered questions" I had not been asked for any such list (I'd been told I would be asked "if we were at DRN" and we weren't), so I did not decline. "Fake a desire to work towards consensus building by calling for someone else to do the sweat labor of packaging a DR filing." In fact what I'd said was "Perhaps an RFC or DRN could occur if there was agreement about wording." which isn't sweat, and I didn't ask anyone else to do it. Saying I "fake" is a dishonesty claim. "Meanwhile - Redact battle planning and admission". I believe cover-up of a battle plan would be a serious block-me-forever kind of offence, so please look at the entire conversation that caused it and my entire response. That really is all the evidence that NewsAndEventsGuy has. NewsAndEventsGuy also says that I've had a "tirade", blown my top (from the edit summary) and intend to "hiss and spit" (from a DRN post that NewsAndEventsGuy posted but withdrew after pleading lack of experience with DRN. There's no specific reference and I think the fiercest things I've said on the page are "false" (often) and "it's a bit rich" (once) and snippiness when I've been misquoted. I suggested twice that these accusations should not be brought to the Climate skeptic talk page but to a forum where I would defend and NewsAndEventsGuy would have to risk being judged himself (here and here); when that went nowhere I said I regarded the post as offensive and requested removing it (here). Instead I got a claim that I wasn't answering the questions which had been prefaced by his accusations (which is true), and a new accusation that I won't "take Guy Macon (talk · contribs) up on his offer to do mediation". In fact I was the only person who'd suggested readiness for dispute-resolution steps but when I'd asked whether "anyone at least in principle agrees that consensus or arbitration should be sought" I'd gotten no response and that's what I told Guy Macon. ... Absence of niceness on this talk page, which relates to climate change, is to be expected. But NewsAndEventGuy's accusations stand out because they're multiple and serious and false. Or, using WP:CIVIL terminology, "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" and "personal attacks". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]For now, please note
Come to think of it, I'm pretty sick of the stubborn caginess and acrimony, and am retiring for 12 months. Let chips fall. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]Lately the climate change topic area has been slowly heating up (no pun intended... well, OK maybe). Suggest the case be retitled in a more general way as there have been several individuals whose conduct has crossed the line. I will submit a more detailed statement in a couple of days or so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by ArtifexMayhem[edit]In the light of the retirement statement by NewsAndEventsGuy above, I will present evidence in support of a WP:BOOMERANG for the OP. In work. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC) The filing of this request by Peter Gulutzan against NewsAndEventsGuy is without merit and should be considered vexatious. Over the past few months civil (mostly) POV pushing by Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs), and Tillman (talk · contribs) has been the primary source of disruption in the topic area.
Updated from [24] — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Jess[edit]Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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:
Statement by Tillman[edit]
I suggest the complaint be dismissed. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by DHeyward[edit]I agree with Tillman. I haven't edited these topics in a while and while NAEG and I disagree, we can work together and there is rarely any concern about his behaviour. Mann Jess on the other hand 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. --DHeyward (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Manul[edit]
Manul ~ talk 21:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Result concerning NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]
|
Wavyinfinity
[edit]| Indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Wavyinfinity[edit]
More topic-ban-violating diffs could be listed; I only gave one from each page, which I presume is sufficient. Also consider the continued WP:NOTHERE ranting (see prior AE) at User:Wavyinfinity and User talk:Wavyinfinity, e.g. "Banning By Thought Police". Manul ~ talk 15:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Wavyinfinity[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wavyinfinity[edit]Statement by Tony Sidaway[edit]This user is essentially running a personal science-related blog or bulletin board on Wikipedia (see their user page.) An indefinite block seems reasonable, per the policy WP:NOT and the guideline WP:USERPAGE. Free web hosting is available elsewhere, and they could also use social media to advance their message. There may be article or talk page edits somewhere that are outside the topic ban, but I couldn't find any. It's clear that this editor has spent the past 18 months flagrantly ignoring their topic ban. --TS 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Wavyinfinity[edit]
|
Debresser
[edit]| Not actionable, per admin consensus that "AE remedies are … out of proportion to tiny disputes like this one". Debresser is reminded to follow 1RR on restricted pages whether or not the dispute is minor. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 25 July 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 Debresser[edit]
- A civilized person can express his criticism in the talk page before the taking the extreme step of reverting it again. - Moreover, you are out of the consensus.
Discussion concerning Debresser[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Debresser[edit]The reason I am being reported here today is because I reverted parts of this edit and this edit, by removing page numbers and fragments of sentences from a quotation inside a citation template. I can't think of anything further removed from the conflict which stands at the basis of the WP:ARBPIA restriction. My first reaction was that if that trifle is reason to restrict an otherwise perfectly productive editor, who has been contributing since 2007 or 2008 and who is one of Wikipedia's 500 most active editors, then just go ahead guys... My second reaction was that this is a base attempt by YKantor to push through his edit with WP:WIKILAWYERING. The edit is blatantly inferior, and other editors have already agreed with this on the talkpage. Make no mistake: if I will be sanctioned for reverting an inferior edit to a quotation template on an issue not related to WP:ARBPIA, the message will not be that edit warring is detrimental. The message will be that below par editors can push through their edits with the Wikilawyering that combined with the bureaucracy on Wikipedia has already sent many good editors home forever. I have violated the 1RR rule. I was at the time not aware of the edit restriction on this page. Please note that since I was issued a warning about it, I have not reverted further. I have instead opened a discussion. Restricting me at this point is not necessary to stop further escalation of the edit war, which has stopped, and as far as it regards me, will be only punitive. I have already explained the message it will send in my opinion to other editors. I know that editors who are reported to WP:AE are expected to roll over and play dead. I propose a more realistic approach, commensurate to the gravity of the transgression (which is in my opinion ridiculously small), the lack of Good faith (law) from the side of the reporting editor, and the lack of positive influence expected to rise form this report, for all sides involved. Regarding the note on my talkpage by EdJohnston, whom I thank for his note, please see my answer there. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment by GoldenRing[edit]You need to say which remedy of which case you are looking for enforcement of. Just linking to WP:1RR is not very useful. Did you mean WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction? Also it'd be useful to know whether Debresser has ever been made aware of the 1RR restriction (or the ARBPIA case more generally). GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by StevenJ81[edit]In my opinion, this is a witchhunt. The reversions were principally about MoS issues and only peripherally substantive. I don't think Debresser handled it the best way possible. Yet, I believe that Debresser is correct on the MoS issues. I suggested a way forward for the other editors which would allow 100% of the consensus content to remain intact while addressing Debresser's MoS issues on citation templates. So far, I saw no response on that. My only conclusion is that the other editors want an excuse to invoke an enforcement action here to "get rid of" Debresser, rather than addressing the substantive question of his disagreement. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]People simply cannot bear that the WP:WRONGVERSION stays up a few days while the issues get sorted on the talkpage. There was no reason for edit-warring. Let the discussion sort itself out on the talk page, then the correct edit can be made. I have a personal rule for reverts: even I believe I am right, and even if I believe I didn't break 1RR (which Debresser clearly broke), I simply self-revert when asked. It saves much drama. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Ykantor[edit]-@GoldenRing: Thank you for the explanation concerning the remedy.
-@Georgewilliamherbert: Yours: "Everyone needs to do a much better job of justifying why the AE hammer is necessary here." If this is a "tiny edit dispute" then the sanction should not be a hammer but rather a tiny sanction as well, perhaps a warning only. Still, "closing as not actionable." is ignoring an offense (and incivility) which indirectly promote more offenses.
-@Debresser: Yours: "I am a very conscientious editor, .... I do insist on Wikipedia policies and guidelines". So why did did you ignored this rule: Types of content removal "When removing content from an article, whether it be a whole section or even just a single word, if the removal is likely to be opposed by one or more other editors, it is important to make sure there is clearly a consensus to remove the content. When in doubt, discuss prior to removal.If you boldly make the removal, and it is then reverted by another editor, it is especially important that you discuss it prior to making a second removal." Ykantor (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Pluto2012[edit]I am involved in the discussions but I want to point out that Debresser also broke 1RR on another article (1 and 2), was informed (here 2 times) but didn't mind. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]I am dubious that WP:IAR applies to rulings of the arbitration committee. In any case, WP:3RRNO gives a detailed list of exceptions to the 3RR (and, by implication, 1RR) rule. One of the big advantages of the rule is that it is a fairly precise red line with defined exceptions. Allowing editors to create their own additional exceptions can only reduce its effectiveness. The correct procedure is to go to the policy talk page and argue for an additional exception to be added to the policy. Zerotalk 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Debresser[edit]
|
Citadel48
[edit]| 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[edit]
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 Citadel48[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Citadel48[edit]My 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 Writegeist[edit]Topic 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)[edit]Result concerning Citadel48[edit]
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)
|
Futrell
[edit]| 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[edit]
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 Futrell[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Futrell[edit]Brustopher, 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 EvergreenFir[edit]While 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 Fyddlestix[edit]This 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 Smyth[edit]The user removed the warning from their user talk page without responding [71] and then repeated their edits [72]. Please deal with them. – Smyth\talk 18:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Futrell[edit]
|
WeijiBaikeBianji
[edit]| 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[edit]
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. [75] 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, [76] [77] and ArtifexMayhem's editing history at "IQ and Global Inequality" is comprised entirely of restoring the other editors' reverts. [78] (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 WeijiBaikeBianji[edit]Statements 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[edit](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 Marek[edit]This is just begging for a WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]Appears 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 MarkBernstein[edit]The 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 ArtifexMayhem[edit]If anybody sees something other than a WP:BOOMERANG here, please advise. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Darwinian Ape[edit]Without 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[edit]@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. [81] 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, [82] 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 Drmies[edit]Wajajad is practically begging for a NOTHERE block. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning WeijiBaikeBianji[edit]
|
Gob Lofa
[edit]| 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[edit]
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" [116], then just over a day later restores their edit [117]. Mabuska (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Gob Lofa[edit]Statements 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 Lofa[edit]Statement by Flexdream[edit]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'[118]. 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[edit]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[edit]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 TALK 05:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Valenciano[edit]
Statement by requester, Mabuska[edit]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 (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Gob Lofa[edit]
|
Tillman
[edit]| 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. Request concerning Tillman[edit]
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:
— Jess· Δ♥ 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Discussion concerning Tillman[edit]Statement by ThePowerofX[edit]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:
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[edit]During the last few weeks, I was concerned when I saw this:
Upset by this:
And worried by this:
--Nigelj (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Tillman[edit]
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.
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)
Medical and personal situation[edit]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[edit]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.
Compare that with:
— The actual source cited, rather than the comment that Tillman cites. Also:
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 [134], [135], [136] 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)
Statement by Tony Sidaway[edit]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[edit]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)
Statement by Peter Gulutzan[edit]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?.
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[edit]Interim statement: still trying to find time for this.
Result concerning Tillman[edit]
|