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 NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 7 July 2015, and follow-up posts as described in Additional comments, show NewsAndEventsGuy making a series of personal accusations on Talk:Climate Change Skeptic and not accepting requests to take them to an appropriate forum or remove them.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. (none known)

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 8 June 2015.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

"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)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]

For now, please note

• June 30, 2015 Peter believes he's engaged in a battle as evidenced by this comment he posted and then redacted.
• July 11, 2015 I offered to do DR at the DR venue of Peter's choice, but here we are instead.

• 10:35 July 12, 2015 I posted that I'm buried on talk page with very few eds but where Peter is involved. Let's hope that remains a figure of speech!
• 03:17, July 13, 2015‎ This complaint was filed 17 hours later

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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.

Peter Gulutzan

Examples of battleground behavior,

• Groups editors into factions e.g., the "put-denialism-in" side, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12].

• Considers another editors calling one of his reverts a "removal of information" to be "misleading" [13], while edits by others are considered done with the intent to "destroy" information [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23].

Tillman

In work.

Updated from [24] — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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:

Tillman

• Sourcing, and dismissing reliable sources
  • Characterizes all sources as "personal opinions by opponents". No substantive reply to discussion above.
  • Adds inaccurate summary cited to a facebook post. His summary completely contradicts the citation.
  • He tells other users to find sources, but he never lists any. Here (bottom), he refuses to analyze sources provided, or provide his own, but continues edit warring and arguing.

• Refusal to respond or answer questions
  • Tells an editor to go away, without responding to comments
  • Mistaken use of rollback, with no substantive reply on talk. Entirely ignores comments and sources above.
  • Edit warring without substantive responses: [25], [26], refuses to respond to questions

• NOTFORUM, TPG, etc
  • Racist language: [27]. [28].
  • ranting without sources
  • [29],[30], [31]
  • BLP vio: "The man is an incompetent blowhard". He was warned, and simply removed the warnings.
  • Character assassination of Michael Mann, cited to primary sources and a google search.
  • Suggests we should create a "wall of shame" for "climate alarmists".

• Personal attacks and Battleground attitude:
  • "do you need reading lessons",
  • calls editors "activists", [32], [33], [34]

Peter Gulutzan

• Not answering questions: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], 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: [42], [43]

• Both editors keep misrepresenting others (e.g. by claiming I equate all "skeptics" to "deniers")) Peter repeats this claim, then insists on seeing a citation for it

• EW. While discussion ongoing, reverted 11 pages to his preferred version. [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]
• Both ([55],[56], [57]) are aware of DS.

Statement by Tillman[edit]

• I'm surprised to see this filing by Peter Gulutzan against N&EG. I consider both of these gentlemen to be valuable editors who have made numerous fine contributions to the project. We all make mistakes, and the Wiki CC area tends to bring out the worst in otherwise-sensible editors (including me.)

I suggest the complaint be dismissed. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I emphatically reject the charges by user Mann Jess re WP:Tendentious Editing (above). In fact, a good case could be made that she has engaged in just such behavior: at the least, disruptive & unproductive editing, such as her absurd opening edits at Anthony Watts (blogger), diffs to be added. I have cautioned her on several occasions regarding this. I'll add to this defense as time permits. I'd hoped this unproductive crap had died down, but no. Bah, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Manul[edit]

• 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?[58]

  This was despite my cordial disclaimer ("Apologies if you were previously alerted; I didn't find a tag in your history"),[59] 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.[60] He did this despite the WP:BLPPRIVACY problem already mentioned on the talk page,[61] even replying to it.[62] 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.[63] 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,[64] and it merely restated what had been in the article body for a month using the same sources.[65]

• 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 21:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]

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

Preventing archive for a week per comments above, this doesn't need to be done right now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Commenting so this doesn't go into the archives, but I haven't read through all the evidence yet. I hope some other admins participate here, because I'm troubled by some of the behavior in the diffs presented above. Gamaliel (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Given the amount there is to go though here, can I ask that this filing be kept for evidence/defence/etc regarding NewsAndEventsGuy and anything other evidence about other editors (including the filer) be put forward in an AE report specifically for them. Otherwise this report is just going to get massive. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think that ship has sailed. There's not much point in dealing with NewsAndEventsGuy since he's retired. This request should probably be retitled. Gamaliel (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yeah good point. Maybe closed (with a note that there's no predujidce against refiling if NewsAndEventsGuy returns) and refiled for specific editors (or editor) is the best option? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agree with User:Callanecc. NAEG has declared (above) that he is taking a 12-month break. So why not close with no action, on the assumption that NAEG will make no edits (on either articles or talk pages) in the domain of WP:ARBCC before 19 July 2016, and will not make any posts at admin boards on that topic for the same period. If he changes his mind before that date, anyone can bring the complaint back from the archive and it will be investigated then. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Wavyinfinity[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Manul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wavyinfinity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive146#Wavyinfinity, topic-banned from everything related to astrophyics or cosmology.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 19:20, 21 July 2015 Violation of topic ban at Talk:Nebular hypothesis
2. 14:23, 24 June 2015 Violation of topic ban at Talk:Planet
3. 16:58, 15 April 2015 Violation of topic ban at Talk:Cosmic age problem
4. 18:14, 19 March 2015 Violation of topic ban at Talk:Venus

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 08:15, 11 May 2014 Blocked 1 month for violation of topic ban
2. 17:44, 12 November 2014 Blocked 3 months for violation of topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[66]

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.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Wavyinfinity[edit]

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

• Looks like a block is required. It would be a choice between a one-year AE block and an ordinary indef block per WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would choose an indef block as he's made it clear how he feels about Wikipedia's editing community. There's no need for him to continue his suffering a year from now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE to me. Gamaliel (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Closing: Wavyinfinity is indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Debresser[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ykantor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

wp:1RR

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 11:38, 21 July 2015‎ Debresser's first revert
2. 00:55, 22 July 2015‎ Debresser's revert which breaches the wp:1RR rule
3. 04:30, 22 July 2015 Debresser's revert which breaches again the wp:1RR rule

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Block log (rather old blocks).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

- 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.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

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)Reply[reply]

@StevenJ81 I agree with your assessment of the situation.

@Kingsindian I also have my self-imposed revert restrictions, but this was not one of them. I never expected YKantor to not recognize the inferiority of his edit after he was reverted and the edit summary explained why.[67][68]

@EdJohnston As I said on my talkpage, 1RR should not apply to such unrelated edits. WP:IAR comes strongly to mind. Mind you, I am not saying that to show I am right, because I already said above that I simply hadn't noticed the WP:ARBPIA restriction, but on an academic level, I think I have a point here. Even if you disagree, it should definitely be a reason to mitigate any sanctions to an absolute minimum. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@All I am willing to take upon myself not to edit Wikipedia for 3 days, if that will make anybody happy, let's say Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Debresser (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pluto2012 As you can see on that talkpage, I dropped that issue. Bringing this up here is poisoning the well. Especially in view of your own incorrect edits based on your POVs. That is at least something I try to avoid. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kingsindian Thank you for the link to WP:PRESERVE. I will try to be more careful in the future.

@YKantor I take offense to "simply deletes whatever he dislike". First of all, what reason would I have to dislike your edit, which is simply providing a source., if not that it has a problem? Also, I am a very conscientious editor, aware of the fact that there are many and different opinions about all kinds of subjects, be it local conflicts or e.g. sexuality in Judaism, and the one thing I don't do is delete something just because I personally disagree with it. I do insist on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, like WP:UNDUE, for example, and on good editing technically. It is the last point which your edit failed. May I remind you of WP:AGF. Debresser (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert Yes, I made a mistake and desisted as soon as it was pointed out to me. That doesn't mean I have to agree that this post was justified. I think YKantor merits a WP:LAME mention. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@YKantor You asked about removal of content. As I said above "I never expected YKantor to not recognize the inferiority of his edit after he was reverted and the edit summary explained why". Debresser (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Looking at the page history, it is clear that Ykantor put a lot of effort into looking at the historical situation and tried to use quotes from various pages to clarify the matter, while Debresser removed part of the quote cited, instead of splitting the citations. I am well aware of how irritating it is when your carefully researched work is removed, whether for good or bad reasons. I see no reason for sanctions here, perhaps a warning for Debresser to not edit-war even if they're right. Also remind Debresser of WP:PRESERVE. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ykantor[edit]

-@GoldenRing: Thank you for the explanation concerning the remedy.

---As for "whether Debresser has ever been made aware of the 1RR restriction", As I wrote here, I reminded him twice to undo himself , linking to the wp:1RR page. He responded that he was aware of the wp:1RR rule, and tried to explain that his edit was not related to wp:1RR.

--- When I encounter such an edit, I always remind the editor to undo himself, and until this time, the edit is always undone. This is the first time when the infringing editor refuse to undo himself even after being reminded twice.

--- Why Debresser is deleting a sourced material? why can't he suffice to explain his point and letting the other editor (e.g. myself) a chance to fix the issue?

I'm not saying he did the right thing. I am saying that you could have resolved the problem by simply dividing the citation into three individual citations and have been done, and not brought the whole problem here. I therefore wonder why you bothered, other than for punitive reasons. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- if one find a flawed edit, is it better to delete it promptly rather than highlight the alleged problem?

- As another editor wrote:""Debresser may be correct, however once the edit was reverted, the proper way to handle it is to discuss is until there is a consensus rather than edit war over it. Ykantor (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-@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.

- How come that no one here relates to the incivility of an editor that simply deletes whatever he dislike. It is frustrating to work hard finding and quoting the sources, and then this hard work is promptly deleted, without any warning or question mark. mind you, this is a sourced material. As said in Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies - "Nobody gets excited to join a project when they write up something meaningful only to see someone scrap it all." Ykantor (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Why no one cares for this commonly ignored 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) 08:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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. Zero^talk 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert: I'm not arguing for a sanction against Debresser. What I think you should do is to close it with a warning that further violations won't be tolerated. What I urge you not to do is to establish a precedent whereby editors can make up their own exceptions to the nRR rules. Doing that would only make it harder for editors to know what is allowed, as well as making the rule harder to enforce. The 1RR rule is one of the best things that happened to the Middle East part of Wikipedia in the 11 years I've been editing there; please don't weaken it. Zero^talk 08:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Debresser[edit]

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

• Let's see if User:Debresser will respond. A 1RR is a 1RR whether or not a concern about the MOS could have motivated the revert. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This shows that Debresser has been warned as early as last August with regards to ARBPIA DS; thus, this request can end in either a block based on 1RR or sanction under DS if necessary. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I am not particularly happy to be seeing something like this reported here, even if it's technically a violation. AE is not intended as a 50-pound sledgehammer to smash opponents in minor style debates that were properly removed to talk page discussions. We are here for serious, ongoing problem patterns. AE remedies are entirely out of proportion to tiny disputes like this one, absent a long history of serious problem behavior by the editors involved. Debresser is not completely innocent of prior issues, but does not seem to have had any sort of ongoing pattern problem. I recommend closing as not actionable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Zero0000 - IAR does not apply to Arbcom enforcement. But common sense does. Arbcom does not intend to be taken 100% literally with maximum enforcement of every possible tiny infraction of findings. A style dispute has no relevance to the Israel/Arab Conflict substance, and there is no sign this was an attempt by either side to disrupt the page in a secondary attack of some sort. This is a bog-standard tiny editing dispute and was removed to the talk page. Everyone needs to do a much better job of justifying why the AE hammer is necessary here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To further emphasize my points, at the AE Arbcom case now being discussed, Tony Sidaway proposed the following clarifying remedy:

1) The Arbitration Committee clarifies and reiterates that, when the conditions for active discretionary sanctions and other remedies are fulfilled, all administrative actions are taken at the discretion of the uninvolved administrator on their own cognisance unless the wording of the sanction or other remedy specifically requires otherwise. All administrator actions may be reviewed and appealed.

(Note: This is, clearly, still only a Workshop opinion / proposal not an adopted final decision. However, I believe it best captures the intended spirit of AE.)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zero, re making exceptions to the 1RR; Debresser admitted they violated 1RR and stopped and took it to talk, once it was pointed out to them, correct? The further "this should not be a 1RR violation" does not change that they backed off the actual activity. This is not the place to make policy changes, and 1RR is 1RR until and unless someone makes a policy change over at the policy, but mistaking a 1RR page for a 3RR page on a minor formatting / style point is about the weakest of the possible violations of 1RR. I think the closing admin should note that 1RR means 1RR and that Debresser admitted an error, and leave it at that, unless it happens again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• On the one hand, this is a clear violation. On the other, the reporting party (and the others involved) were apparently engaged in novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I agree with Georgewilliamherbert that this is not what AE exists for and further agree with parties above that this can be closed with a warning. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• In practice, 1RR violations are often dismissed with no action if we are sure the person understands the problem and won't continue to revert. The editor's responses don't give me 100% confidence that the point has been made. If this kind of thing recurs, a block should be considered but I don't object if another admin wants to close this report with no action or a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Citadel48[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Citadel48 (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

ARBMAC

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 1 May 2015 Citadel48 introduced ((Infobox military conflict)) into the Bijeljina massacre article, which already had an ((Infobox civilian attack)).
2. 2 May 2015 23 editor reverted the addition of the Infobox, with edit summary "rv unexplained additions to GA-class article; go to talk"
3. 2 May 2015 24 minutes later, Citadel48 reverted the reversion with no edit summary, and edit marked as "minor". I reverted the same day after ARBMAC-alerting Citadel48 (see below).
4. 7 June 2015 Citadel48 restores the ((Infobox military conflict)) with no edit summary, marking the edit as "minor". I reverted it the same day requesting discussion on talk.
5. 10 June 2015 Citadel48 added a ((main)) template to a section of the Bijeljina massacre article, pointing to the "Capture of Bijeljina" article they had created (with a ((Infobox military conflict)), and which was now subject to a merge discussion. I reverted that on the basis that the existence of the new article was under discussion.
6. 13 June 2015 Citadel48 then added a portion of text to the article, stating as a fact some testimony given by two defence witnesses at the ICTY case against Radovan Karadžić.
7. 13 June 2015 I reverted this, with the edit summary " when will you get the message about reliability?" (this obviously referred to the discussion on talk here), and continued to properly cite another video Citadel48 had copyvio linked (History Channel).
8. 13 June 2015 Citadell48 then reinserted the testimony text with the edit summary "Balancing."
9. 13 June 2015 As a result of the obvious consensus for merging, I took the remaining piece of text from the new "Capture of Bijeljina" article, and incorporated it into this article.
10. 13 June 2015 Citadel48 promptly reverted that addition, and re-inserted the ((main)) template (above), with the edit summary "Same content on other page". I reverted it on the same basis as above.
11. 14 June 2015 Citadel48 re-inserted the ((main)) template (above), with no edit summary, and I reverted him.
12. 14 June 2015 Citadel48 re-inserted the testimony material as if it was fact (as before), and 23 editor reverted him with the edit summary "according to a witness at an ongoing trial; not in Wikipedia's voice".
13. 15 June 2015 Citadel48 re-inserted the testimony as fact.
14. I submitted a RfC to get a wider community view on this issue Talk:Bijeljina massacre#Request for comment on 15 June 2015, from which the clear consensus was for the testimony of witnesses at the Karadžić trial to be attributed in-line as such.
15. 19 June 2015 I removed references to the "Capture" article, as it had been deleted.
16. 27 June 2015 User:Scrawlspacer added the "Islamophobia Series" infobox.
17. 15 July 2015 After a month, I undid Citadel48's re-insertion of the testimony material on 15 June 2015, on the basis of the consensus at the RfC.
18. 26 July 2015 Citadel48 returned to the edit-warring, and also deleted the "Islamophobia Series" infobox. I reverted him for re-insertion of the testimony material.
19. 26 July 2015 Citadel48 reverted my removal of the testimony material, and tagged a quote from the UN Commission of Experts as a POV statement. This is the current state of the article.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• None I can see.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above, and this alert given on 2 May 2015 by Peacemaker67

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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)Reply[reply]

Sadly, it is apparent from his brief response that: a. he doesn't take this complaint seriously; and b. he isn't interested in abiding by WP policies. The fact that he appears to think this is about a content dispute demonstrates his lack of regard for WP policies such as those on reliable sources and edit-warring, among others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't include the issue of marking edits as minor when they clearly are not, but it is a further indication of Citadel48's disruptive failure to meet basic expectations of editing WP, and reinforces my contention that he needs correction if he is to eventually be a net positive for the encyclopedia. Further, Citadel48's tagging of the UNCE material using RT (a Russian state news source that has been accused of running Russian foreign policy propaganda and has consistently supported Serb interests in the Balkans) is an indication of pro-Serb POV-pushing, something that regularly crops up in articles about Yugoslavia in WWII (where I usually edit) and in articles about the Balkan Wars of the 1990's such as Bijeljina massacre. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given his lack of comment re: EdJohnston's suggestion, I wondered what Citadel48 was up to, and took a look at his current article of interest, Bougainville Civil War. Here he continues to link Youtube videos in flagrant disregard of WP policy and advice he's received on several occasions about copyvio links, 27 July 2015 where he has been linking copyvios of a Channel 9 (commercial TV) doco from the 1990's. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EdJohnston it appears Citadel48 has no intention of arguing the toss here, and is creating drama at Bougainville Civil War for now. I believe sanctions along the lines you have proposed should be enforced, in an attempt to at least protect the ARBMAC area from his behaviour. I also intend to return to Bijeljina massacre to remove Citadel's last edit. That may provoke further drama there, but it is GA, and timely action is required to return the sourcing to that status. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

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.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Citadel48[edit]

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

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)Reply[reply]

Closing. User:Citadel48 is indefinitely banned from everything concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, on all pages of Wikipedia including talk and admin boards. They are also banned from marking any edits as 'minor' on article pages covered by WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Futrell[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Brustopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Futrell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBGG the bit about discretionary sanctions:

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. Literally every edit this guy has ever made

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

[69]

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. [70]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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...
Pretty much ever edit this editor makes violates BLP. They have no clue how to edit a BLP. Please can some admin topic ban or block him or something. A brief look through his brief contribution history clearly shows that some form of sanction is justified Brustopher (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

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.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Futrell[edit]

Statement by Liz[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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Given the string of edits today, I think this AE needs enforcement sooner rather than later. User has no intention of stopping or engaging in dialogue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 18:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Futrell[edit]

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

• This does look like a WP:COMPETENCE issue. If Futrell does not respond in some way then a block seems inevitable. Gamaliel (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Yuck. I suppose if you only enforce BLP for non-assholes, it's not really a policy, but a popularity contest. Since Futrell does not respond to comments, I've blocked them indefinitely. No point in a topic ban. This is just a normal block, not an AE block, mostly because (a) the red tape for an AE block is annoying, and (b) I find it unlikely that another admin is going to unilaterally unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning WeijiBaikeBianji[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Wajajad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Tag-team_editing

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Review#Presumption_of_coordination

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Decorum

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Editors_reminded_and_discretionary_sanctions_.28amended.29 :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 27 July 2015 Initial removal of established content
2. 29 July 2015 Revert 1
3. 29 July 2015 Revert 2
4. 29 July 2015 Revert 3
5. 30 July 2015 Revert 4
6. 30 July 2015 Revert 5
7. 1 August 2015 Revert 6
8. 1 August 2015 Revert 7
9. 1 August 2015 Closes the RFC about the content he's just removed, with an unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry (there was no sockpuppet investigation).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 3 January 2015 WeijiBaikeBianji given a 3-month topic ban from race and intelligence
2. 29 January 2015 TheRedPenOfDoom sanctioned for misconduct that includes edit warring in another area
3. 12 May 2011 Volunteer Marek formally warned for conduct on race and intelligence
4. (unsure of date) This concerns ArtifexMayhem's involvement in race articles, but I can't find the case's final decision, so I don't know whether this conduct was included in it.

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

• TheRedPenOfDoom was notified about the R&I discretionary sanctions in July 2015. [73]
• ArtifexMayhem was reported at AE under the R&I case in February 2014. [74]
• As linked above, WeijiBaikeBianji was topic banned from R&I under the discretionary sanctions in January, and Volunteer Marek was formally warned under them in 2011 (this warning is logged on the R&I case page).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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.

Here's a question for the admins who think there's no action worth taking in this report. Here and on the article, the four users I'm reporting accused me of sock puppetry and called for WP:BOOMERANG. This assumption led to me being falsely blocked for a day, until admins realized the evidence doesn't support it. This habit of assuming bad faith about editors one disagrees with is another recurring problem on articles covered by the R&I arbitration case.

I've already linked to a case where Volunteer Marek in particular was warned by administration for violating WP:GOODFAITH with unwarranted accusations of sockpuppetry. This is not a new thing, but something admins have dealt with before in multiple topic areas, some probably just as contentious as the race and ethnicity one. This sort of behavior is frowned upon in talk pages and shouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged on AE either. I kindly request admins to consider looking into these events, and if anything, not let it go undisputed. Wajajad (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice to WeijiBaikeBianji about this request for enforcement of discretionary sanctions.

Notice to TheRedPenOfDoom.

Notice to ArtifexMayhem.

Notice to Volunteer Marek.

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.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

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)Reply[reply]

Question for administrators: Inasmuch as an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in preventing editor misconduct, and inasmuch as protecting pages is part of the toolkit allowed any administrator for pages under discretionary sanctions, why not semi-protect (restrict to autoconfirmed users only) the pages in the scope of the Race and intelligence ArbCom case? Much of the troublesome editing conduct on those pages since the case was decided in 2010 has been blocked editors evading blocks with I.P. edits and other general I.P. vandalism. I think the accused editors here are all willing to work collaboratively with editors who stand by their own contribution histories by associating their contribution histories with a stable user name. The other usual editing rules would continue to apply, of course, as well as the discretionary sanctions reminder to be especially careful about using reliable sources. In five years since the case was decided, general semiprotection of all the pages in the scope of the case has never been tried. I think now is the time to try. Banning me for three months earlier this year didn't result in any of the editors who complained about me lifting a finger to bring any articles to good article status. (I brought English language up to good article status with other editors while waiting out my topic ban, rather than appealing it.) Let's see what six months of semiprotection of all R & I articles could do for improving many of them. I think that could do a lot to help the project and improve the encyclopedia. Best wishes on much success for Wikipedia whatever you decide. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

This is just begging for a WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Does anyone else find irony that in a AE filed making accusations about "tag teaming" the IP protesting "I'm a meatpuppet, not a sock!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by ArtifexMayhem[edit]

If anybody sees something other than a WP:BOOMERANG here, please advise. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the number of socks [79][80] and disruptive IPs we experience in the "race" topic area, perhaps something similar to the restrictions (as subsequently modified) on non-autoconfirmed/IP editing placed on the abortion topic area would be helpful here? Maybe @NuclearWarfare or MastCell: would offer an opinion, given their involvement with the abortion case. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Drmies[edit]

Wajajad is practically begging for a NOTHERE block. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning WeijiBaikeBianji[edit]

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

• No violation; recommend closing without action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Going to let someone else make the final call on WeijiBaikeBianji but the filing party is blocked for 72 hrs for edit warring as themselves and the IPs after the DS warning last year. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am unable to verify the IPs claims that they're geographically distinct from Wajajad; a checkuser can disambiguate that, however. If you find they're clearly not the same then the block should be undone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Checkuser note: All I feel at liberty to say is that you should assess whether the named account and the IP are the same by behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The IPs (above, and the ones which revert-warred the content in question) have only edited Race and Intelligence topics; that's Wajajad's only topic area of note as well. And are related to each other by being in the same /24 netblock. Which is why I made the WP:DUCK assumption and block. Based on behavior the block stands. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Further CU activity at the reporting users' talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • @Georgewilliamherbert: I think you mean socking activity. You make it sound like a checkuser is socking. Anyway, here's some findings for you to chew on. Despite using probable webhosts, the three IPs - 192.253.251.106, 192.253.251.79, and 107.6.121.145 - are  Confirmed to each other and apparently  Unrelated to Wajajad, who, additionally, is not using suspicious IP addresses.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Per the checkuser finding and Georgewilliamherbert's authorization above, I am unblocking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • I was not sure if I had misread something earlier, thanks Bbb23 and NYBrad. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I see this as a blown-out-of-proportion content dispute as well, although I think some sort of restriction to this page is required. I recommend something along the lines of 1 month 1RR on the page (or in the area?) + requiring all reverts to be explained on the talk page, with the usual exceptions allowed. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I appreciate the reasons for this suggestion, but do not think I could support it; from time to time the amount of noxious content warranting reversion in this topic-area is significant, but does not fall within the formal exceptions to 3RR. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• What would you suggest, then? I think something needs to be done, but not sure what. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not sure we need to do anything specific at this time, although either semiprotecting or PC1 would not be out of the question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @192.153 (IP User): Requiring all content reversions to be accompanied by either a talk page entry or reason written out in the edit summary is one of the least things editors can do when a content dispute is going on. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• User:WeijiBaikeBianji has engaged in unnecessary removal of a paragraph on alternatives to the fixation index, F_ST (as in Diff #1 of this report). He is not the only person edit warring. In my opinion other parties have either added or removed that paragraph when it was obvious that they didn't have a talk page consensus to do so. I would close this with a warning to WBB that they may be blocked if they remove the paragraph again before consensus on the talk page is clear. If, while WBB is being attentive to this warning, other editors continue to add or remove that paragraph prior to consensus, I suggest that any admin could place Race and genetics under full protection until an adequate discussion on the talk page has occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just in case anyone has missed it, I've blocked two socks of User:Mikemikev in the last few days who have been editing the talk page. There's a new SPA IP there right now from Singapore, not sure who that is but probably a sock. Doug Weller (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Gob Lofa[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Wikipedia: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". [83]. 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: [84]
• A month later restores edit (despite addition of a source by me) citing "See talk" [85] despite no consensus there for it.

Ulster Defence Regiment

• Adds in personal opinion [86]. Reverted and asked to take it to talk [87]. *Restores [88], but again reverted [89]. *More OR [90]. Reverted again. [91].
• Nearly two months and 15 intermediate revisions later [92] Gob Lofa decides to revert Gavin Lisburn and still provides no evidence. They, no surprise, are reverted [93].
• They return with sources [94] that don't back up their claims. *Restores again [95]. Gavin Lisburn removes one [96] as it didn't even mention the UDR specifically. They then restore "some" per the talk discussion [97]. Flexdream removes the other of Gob Lofa's dubious sources [98] 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 [99], which I amend [100].

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

• Changes sourced statement, adding in highly contentious OR, [101]. I revert requesting direct quote [102].
• Provides a source [103] but it still doesn't back up claim as shown by my amendment [104].
• Removes wording from sourced sentence stating that it is speculation [105]. Removes it again stating that it is not in one of the sources [106], however I have to revert again as there are two sources given, after which I show them what they should do in such circumstances [107].

RUC Special Branch

• Addition of sourced speculation as fact [108]. They then revert the amendments made to this edit [109]. 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 [110], [111], [112].
• Gob Lofa re-adds these categories but amended [113]. I revert asking for reliable sources.
• Gob Lofa reinserts citing a source [114]. Snowded reverts [115] 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" [116], then just over a day later restores their edit [117].

Mabuska ^(talk) 14:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified 14:12 11 August 2015

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.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Statement by Valenciano[edit]

• Callanecc, there are numerous messages on their talk page advising them of the Troubles restrictions, for example here and here, while the user themselves refers to troubles restrictions in a post, so it's clear that they are aware of them. Valenciano (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 ^(talk) 20:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 ^(talk) 15:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Gob Lofa[edit]

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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Tillman[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change :

Reposting. Peter Gulutzan and Tillman are both editing tendentiously. It appears they dislike our coverage of climate change and "climate change skepticism", since we represent the mainstream scientific view, and so have been campaigning to hide or limit our coverage of those topics. For example, they are attempting to ensure as few redirects as possible go to climate change denial, where our coverage is extensive, and instead point our viewers to Global warming controversy, which they see as more sympathetic to the fringe view. In this campaign, several behavioral problems have made collaboration impossible.

Both have dismissed high quality sources which disagree with their edits, while providing no sources of their own. They have both refused to answer questions or collaborate with others. They have edit warred extensively, and promoted a battleground atmosphere, labeling others "activists" and too biased to find the right sources.

Diffs:

• Sourcing, and dismissing reliable sources
  • Characterizes all sources as "personal opinions by opponents". No substantive reply to discussion above.
  • Adds inaccurate summary cited to a facebook post. His summary completely contradicts the citation.
  • He tells other users to find sources, but he never lists any. Here (bottom), he refuses to analyze sources provided, or provide his own, but continues edit warring and arguing.

• Refusal to respond or answer questions
  • Tells an editor to go away, without responding to comments
  • Mistaken use of rollback, with no substantive reply on talk. Entirely ignores comments and sources above.
  • Edit warring without substantive responses: [119], [120], refuses to respond to questions

• NOTFORUM, TPG, etc
  • Racist language: [121]. [122].
  • ranting without sources
  • [123],[124], [125]
  • BLP vio: "The man is an incompetent blowhard". He was warned, and simply removed the warnings.
  • Character assassination of Michael Mann, cited to primary sources and a google search.
  • Suggests we should create a "wall of shame" for "climate alarmists".

• Personal attacks and Battleground attitude:
  • "do you need reading lessons",
  • calls editors "activists", [126], [127], [128]

• DS Warnings: [129],[130]

  — Jess· Δ♥ 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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:

• "Thanks for the prompt response. Saving those of us on the front lines from more work picking up after this fellow." (diff)
• "I try to avoid the disciplinary side as much as possible -- in fact I've been avoiding the [climate change] area lately becaise it's such a pain to change anything, in the face of the True Believers." (diff)

Tillman made the above remarks without provocation and against the cordial atmosphere prior disciplinary action was being conducted, and was given a firm warning by Sandstein for his battlefield mentality. (diff) Yet his disruptive behaviour continues.

In 2014, climate scientist Michael E. Mann was seeking to bring a libel suit against columnist and talk show host Mark Steyn. There was some discussion in opinion journals and legal blogs as to whether or not Mann could fairly be described as a "public figure". It was thought that an affirmative answer could diminish Mann's chances of success. At precisely this time, Tillman appeared on Michael Mann's talk page to propose a new subsection with a rather conspicuous and pronounced header: "Public outreach on global warming". (diff) This proposal was accepted and added by a different user several days later. (diff)

More recently, he added an inflammatory opinion piece to Michael Mann's biography, by Clive Cook, titled "Climategate and the Big Green Lie", that included the by-line, "The so-called exoneration of disgraced climate scientists has only furthered the damage they have done to their cause", (diff) despite repeatedly being advised against using outdated, fringe sources.

Same user also has no problem warping other Wikipedia articles around a fringe narrative. Gatekeeper is one example. (diff) — TPX 21:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Nigelj[edit]

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..."[131]

Upset by this:

• "As always, thanks for fighting the good fight against the POV-pushers."[132]

And worried by this:

• "Peter: could you please drop me an email at xxxxxATgmailDOTcom, to discuss developments in a CC topic of mutual interest?"[133]

--Nigelj (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Tillman[edit]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• Re Stephan Lewandowsky (below). Maybe I should have used this reliably sourced opinion:

“ the serially debunked conspiracy theorist Stephan Lewandowsky.” Source: Quadrant magazine. His wikibio could use some work! --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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.

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 [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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Actually it turns out that you are materially wrong on several counts (see below) but actually the problem was cherry-picking and quote-mining, something which characterises your approach to the entire topic but is especially problematic when it concerns abusing Wikipedia to trash living people who espouse the mainstream view and who you thus seem to think are "fair game" after the manner of Scientology. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@Peter Gulutzan: I said that "[WUWT] is very obviously a climate change denial blog. Only an idiot would state otherwise." I stand by that. WUWT is arguably the leading climate denial blog on the internet. The fact that climate denialists don't like to be called denialists is not my problem to fix.

The term "swivel-eyed loon" originates within the parliamentary Conservative party, referring to senior Conservative figures "forcing MPs to take hardline positions on Europe and same-sex marriage" - Monckton is a Europhobe and a homophobe. His ill-informed crank opinions on climate change are not what puts him into this category, but they do contribute to the overall impression. You'll note that I accept the use of the term "blowhard" re. Lewanowsky. Calling a published expert "incompetent" because you disagree with what he publishes, is a very different matter (and would potentially be actionable in both US and UK courts). Guy (Help!) 07:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Point of fact: the Ridley essay was published in Quadrant magazine, a respected publication: [137]. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: this was my mistake, not Stephan's: posted the wrong link above. Sorry! --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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?.

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by dave souza[edit]

Interim statement: still trying to find time for this.

• In this comment, attempting to justify his BLP violation, Pete Tillman asks if JzG is "disputing that Henry Markram, Lewandowsky's editor for the retracted paper, actually wrote the post" – it's a comment under the blog post by neurologist Henry Markram, co-founder of Frontiers Media. The paper in the Frontiers in Psychology#Controversy, was edited by Viren Swami.[138] Careless of Tillman. . . dave souza, talk 19:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the mis-statement. Corrected above, thanks. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• Pete Tillman's attempts to denigrate scientists and give "equal validity" to their non-scientist detractors aren't new. His [recent edit] 2015 edit discussed above added the Clive Crook opinion piece discussed in 2010, when Pete proposed it as "criticism" of the Penn State inquiry exonerating Mann – when Crook's uninformed non-expert opinion was opposed, Pete suggested Fox News quoting lobbyist Steven Milloy, or a statement from the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives [a fiscally conservative libertanian think-tank]. . . . dave souza, talk 22:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC) correction to self: incorrect diff removed from "recent edit", diff added for 2015 edit. . . dave souza, talk 05:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Reply[reply]

First, I find this an inappropriate, inflammatory opening.

Second, regarding the statement regarding use of Crook’s 2010 Atlantic article: “Pete proposed it as "criticism" of the Penn State inquiry exonerating Mann – when Crook's uninformed non-expert opinion was opposed…"

“Crook’s uninformed non-expert opinion” is an interesting construction. Clive Crook is a “columnist for the Financial Times, the National Journal and a senior editor at The Atlantic Monthly. For twenty years he held various editorial positions at The Economist, including its deputy editor for eleven years.

In 2006, he co-chaired the Copenhagen Consensus project, framing global development priorities for the coming decades together with Nobel laureates and other world renowned economists…

To my eye, Crook appeaars to be a fine choice for commenting on the Climategate scandal and its aftermath. The Crook article no doubt makes difficult reading for supporters of the Climategate scientists. Crook wrote that “the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption.”

Crook continued,

“The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann … would be difficult to parody.” Crook goes on to document a number of problems with PSU’s self-examination. You will note, in the 2010 discussion Dave links, no refutations of Crook's conclusions. Instead, we see I don’t like it stuff.

“The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.” Indeed. Crook’s analysis (and that of The Economist) have (imo) held up remarkably well. Independent observers might well wonder why such opinions have been systematically excluded from most Wikipedia climate change articles. Is this what the arbitrators would like to perpetuate? --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Tillman[edit]

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

• I'm having issues with Tillman's attempt at external discussions to advance argument in this topic area. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Peter has asked on my talk page for a delay in closing this as he wishes to provide evidence against filer. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

• What do you think the proper duration should be, then? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Gamaliel, Timotheus Canens, and Newyorkbrad: regarding Penwhale's question, what do you think the duration of the TBAN should be? Based on AE standard, probably looking at 3-6 months or indef. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• (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)Reply[reply]