Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:13, 11 August 2015

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

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Tillman

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

Request concerning Tillman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change :

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

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

Diffs:

• 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: , , refuses to respond to questions

• NOTFORUM, TPG, etc
  • Racist language: . .
  • ranting without sources
  • ,,
  • 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", , ,

• DS Warnings: ,

  — Jess· Δ♥ 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Tillman

Statement by ThePowerofX

Tillman's editing has concerned me for some time. This user has made his feelings clear that he considers Misplaced Pages to be a battleground for climate wars:

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Nigelj

During the last few weeks, I was concerned when I saw this:

• "Have at it pal. Pretty sure I have a file of your best stuff. See you there! But watch out for that boomerang..."

Upset by this:

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

And worried by this:

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

--Nigelj (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tillman

• I have other committments for the next several days, and then have a trip scheduled. For the moment, since one of the Arbs commented on my external discussion attempts: this consisted of my leaving a note at another editor's talk page, asking him to email me. As it happened, he declined: Talk page reply.

In general, as I've commented elsewhere, the Wiki CC area seems to bring out the worst in editors, and that certainly include me. If I've given offense to fellow-editors, I apologize. Pete Tillman (talk)

This will be a piecemeal reply to specific charges above, as I have bits of time here and there.

• Editor Power Of X wrote, above:

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

The "Fringe source" here is The Atlantic (magazine). The author is Clive Crook, whose reputation speaks for itself, and perhaps that user will advise why he thinks the piece is "outdated." Link to Atlantic article --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• Arbitrator Gamaliel questioned this edit regarding a lawsuit. Please see this discussion at Mann Jess’s talk page, where she writes “I don't doubt that the lawsuit is inactive; indeed, I think it is.” Please compare to her complaint above, “Adds inaccurate summary cited to a facebook post.” She appears to contradict herself, and all 3 editors there agree that the lawsuit appears inactive. Also note my response, that I had made a weak edit, and wasn’t sorry to be called on it. --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Arbitrator Gamaliel and another user mention a problem with this talk page edit, where I wrote: "thanks for fighting the good fight against the POV-pushers." I'm having trouble identifying the source of their objection. Are they arguing that we have no POV-pushers here? Would that it were so.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Two users and one arb (if I counted right) have expressed concern that I posted a note at another editor's Talk page, asking him to email me. I’m having trouble finding a problem with this. If I wanted to conspire with another editor, don’t you think that’s a little, well, Open? Can we stipulate that I’m not stupid? (don’t ask my wife about this). Why do you suppose we have this template: Template:You've got mail ? C’mn, folks, let’s act like adults here. It’s a free country, and attempts to regulate volunteer editors off-Wiki activities are likely to lead to, well, fewer volunteers. OK? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Medical and personal situation

My personal situation has, no doubt, affected my editing here. I'm still trying to get the dosage right for my new(ish) antidepressant medications. I suffer from bipolar disorder.

More seriously, my wife of 37+ years has undergone multiple surgeries for breast and skn cancers in the past couple of years. That’s my upcoming trip, to her oncologist at Stanford Medical, 3 1/2 hours away. If her breast cancer recurs again… well, 3 strikes, you're out.

She also suffers from asthma & COPD, which required a move from the New Mexico mountains to sea level. Which put us under financial stress — few retirees move from New Mexico to California, or take on a new mortgage.

I’m still responsible for my own behavior, but I’m only human. Please make allowances. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Both sides in the disputes over climate change topics, show evidence of entrenched opinion, battleground behaviour, cherry-picking of sources and personal attacks on both each other and the public figures involved in the controversy.

However, as the science has become increasingly unambiguous and the global warming denialist machine has been systematically exposed for what it is, those editors who oppose the scientific consensus view have become increasingly strident.

Example: diff re Lewandowsky.

Dave: I'm horrified that you appear to be defending Lewandowsky. The man is an incompetent blowhard, and his CC papers are a bad joke. Here's what the editor of his second (retracted) CC paper wrote, after he retracted Lew's hit-job:
“My own personal opinion: The authors of the retracted paper and their followers are doing the climate change crisis a tragic disservice by attacking people personally and saying that it is ethically ok to identify them in a scientific study. They made a monumental mistake, refused to fix it and that rightfully disqualified the study." -- Henry Markram,
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830

Compare that with:

the truth is not as sensational and much simpler. The studied subjects were explicitly identified in the paper without their consent. It is well acknowledged and accepted that in order to protect a subject’s rights and avoid a potentially defamatory outcome, one must obtain the subject’s consent if they can be identified in a scientific paper. The mistake was detected after publication, and the authors and Frontiers worked hard together for several months to try to find a solution. In the end, those efforts were not successful. The identity of the subjects could not be protected and the paper had to be retracted. It is most unfortunate that this particular incident was around climate change, because climate change is a very serious threat for human civilization. But the importance of the subject matter does not justify abandoning our principles.

— The actual source cited, rather than the comment that Tillman cites.

Also:

In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical, and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.

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

So: the paper is technically correct (i.e. competent, thus "incompetent blowhard" is factually incorrect, though blowhard is clearly defensible), the only issue is that climate change deniers don't like being called deniers. We get that. They use legal thuggery to prevent people calling them climate deniers, we get that, too.

The comment on Mann: "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, Mann's memoir and polemic, was generally well-received, but the Wall Street Journal's reviewer said the book was largely "score-settling with anyone who has ever doubted his integrity or work," which would include both Anthony Watt and Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, both included in the "twofer" quote that has become so contentious. The WSJ also described Mann as a "scientist-turned-climate-warrior." - yes, the WSJ did say this, but, crucially (and not mentioned), the WSJ is well-known as a lone holdout on climate change among quality newspapers (see also , , and many others). Tillman asserts that support for Mann is biased, and uses a biased source whose bias he clearly fails to properly accept, as justification.

Tillman has a very obvious distaste for the label "denialist", and rejects it regardless of how well it is sourced. He seemingly considers that describing someone as a climate change denialist is equivalent to calling a black person a nigger (it is hard to see how else to interpret that comment). In this he is categorically wrong. Climate change denialism is the manufacture of sciencey-looking arguments against the scientific consensus, it is a legitimate and increasingly appropriate term. In 2000, climate change skepticism was arguable legitimate. In 2015 it is not. David Duke is a white supremacist, Fred Phelps was a bigot, Anthony Watts is a climate change denier, sorry you don't like that.

Updated. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the long response. Are you disputing that Henry Markram, co-founder of Frontiers Media, actually wrote the post I quoted? Pete Tillman (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

OK. So, a fellow-editor is editing "after the manner of Scientology"? Do you think that falls under WP:AGF?

Dr Markram apparently felt the Lewandowsky affair required the statement that I quoted, which (ims) was picked up by secondary sources. How is that "quote mining"?--Pete Tillman (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Tony Sidaway

JzG quotes Tilman's appalling personal attack on Stephan Lewandowsky, a living person. We should not be letting such attacks pass us by on Misplaced Pages, arbitration remedies or no. That attack alone is evidence that this editor needs to be reminded that the BLP applies everywhere on Misplaced Pages. In the context of discretionary sanctions in a case already noted for widespread smearing of scientists on Misplaced Pages, is very serious indeed. Action must be taken to uphold the credibility of Misplaced Pages. --TS 15:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz

I'm a but surprised (and concerned) that Tillman seems to suggests that an after-the-fact reference to a blog article justifies his attack on Stephan Lewandowsky, --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

A polemic in Quadrant magazine, which as part of its very mission statement "turned a sceptical eye on a range of intellectual fads and fashions including postmodernism, cultural relativism, multiculturalism and radical environmentalism", and that disclaims all responsibility for published texts, is still not a good source for BLP statements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Re. "Facebook": The original edit is indeed a poster example on how not to source something. It's a Facebook post (hence unreliable) by an involved party (hence a primary source) which explicitly states that the case is not inactive (i.e. the opposite of the claim added to the article). The argument then seems to go "because there is an old post by Mann on Facebook there is no newer post by Mann on Facebook, and when there is no relevant activity by Mann on Facebook there is no activity in the lawsuit, therefore the lawsuit is inactive", which is not only original synthesis, but also a very weak argument. That others may agree with the conclusion (for whatever reason) does not in any way make the sourcing stronger or more acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Stephan: @13:40, 27 July 2015 I acknowledged that this was a weak argument. Did you read this discussion at Mann Jess’s talk page, where she writes “I don't doubt that the lawsuit is inactive; indeed, I think it is.” Indeed, all three editors agree that the lawsuit appears inactive. The edt is gone. I made & acknowledged a mistake. What's your point? Pete Tillman (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I have two points. First, the fact that you made the edit in the first place is a sign that you should reconsider how you come to your conclusions in this area. You yourself - to your credit - acknowledge that it was a mistake. But why and how did you make it in the first place? Secondly, you still maintain than Mann Jess "appears to contradict herself" because she thinks that the lawsuit is inactive while also claiming that your edit misrepresents the source. But there is no contradiction at all - one statement is about her personal belief in May 2015, the other is about what the linked source said back in early 2014. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

From May 17 till now Mann jess did 1240 edits. For an example, since Penwhale brought it up, this partial history shows Mann jess's involvement with the lead of Watts Up With That?.

17 May Adds "climate change denial" in the lead.

17 May adds "global warming denial" elsewhere in the lead.

17 May changes to "climate change denial".

18 May Reverts A Quest For Knowledge who tried to remove climate change denial.

21 May Reverts 2001:4C28:4000:721:185:26:182:3 who tried to change to skepticism.

21 May Reverts Capitalismojo who tried to change to skepticism.

25 May Reverts Tillman who tried to change to skepticism.

25 May Reverts 2620:117:C080:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:86EC who tried to change to information about climate wars.

25 May Reverts 88.168.219.244 who tried to change to climate science.

25 May Reverts Ponysboy who tried to change to skepticism.

26 May Reverts TMLutas who tried to remove denial.

26 May Reverts SPhilbrick who tried to change to climate change issues

27 May Changes to "climate change skepticism or denial" and points to denial article, leaves "among the most influential in climate change denial blogs" elsewhere in the lead, unattributed.

6 June Reverts Peter Gulutzan who tried to remove denial

11 June Reverts 2600:1003:B007:D95E:0:1C:A3E2:E301: who tried to remove denial.

12 June Reverts Darkthlayli who tried to change to skepticism.

JzG objects that Tillman disparaged a person. This is the JzG who said a person who doesn't call Watts Up With That a climate change denial blog is an "idiot" and called a BLP subject a "swivel-eyed loon".

Administrators only make things worse by judging editors like Tillman at the behest of editors doing worse things. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza

Interim statement: still trying to find time for this.

• 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. Careless of Tillman. . . dave souza, talk 19:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Still wrong, Markram's not a Frontiers in Psychology editor, and the retraction was "approved by Axel Cleeremans". Why don't you just withdraw your attacks on Lewandowsky? . . dave souza, talk 21:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pete Tillman's attempts to denigrate scientists and give "equal validity" to their non-scientist detractors aren't new. His 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 . . . . dave souza, talk 22:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC) correction to self: incorrect diff removed from "recent edit", diff added for 2015 edit. . . dave souza, talk 05:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

First, I find this an inappropriate, inflammatory opening.

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

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

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

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

Crook continued,

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

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

This was Pete Tillman's 30 May 2015 edit to the WP:BLP of the Michael E. Mann#CRU email controversy section, which very briefly summarises the Pennsylvania State University investigations. A 2011 review by the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation confirmed the university panel's conclusions which cleared Mann of any wrongdoing, and it stated "Lacking any evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing the investigation with no further action."
In our July 2010 discussion, User:Stephan Schulz wrote of "Climategate and the Big Green Lie" by Clive Crook that "It's an editorial. It's also fairly uninformed", but Pete Tillman feels it merits great weight in Mann's bio. Crook is doubtless a notable economics journalist, his chairing the Copenhagen Consensus links him to the controversial economist Bjørn Lomborg but doesn't qualify Crook as an expert on scientific conduct, let alone justify accusations of "an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption" in which "the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute".
It's troubling that Pete Tillman still thinks this July 2010 opinion should be given weight in a BLP. . . dave souza, talk 06:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Tillman

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

• I'm having issues with Tillman's attempt at external discussions to advance argument in this topic area. - Penwhale | 06:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Peter has asked on my talk page for a delay in closing this as he wishes to provide evidence against filer. - Penwhale | 00:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• There are a number of issues which trouble me here:
  • The disparagement of Stephan Lewandowsky. There are any number of ways an editor can responsibly indicate their negative opinion of a particular source; this is not one of them. This editor attempts to justify this disparagement above by citing a partisan opinion commentator. This indicates that they do not see the problem with this behavior.
  • The disparagement of Michael Mann as "vindictive", cited to the personal, self-published blog of a political opponent.
  • Disparagement of other editors and evidence of a battleground mentality, such as here
  • Replacement of a secondary source with primary source, a Facebook message, and then inaccurately recounting what that source says. The Facebook message reads "Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules" while this editor writes "As of mid-2015, the lawsuit appears to be inactive". This appears to be a blatant misuse of sources.
  • Polemical messages which appear to compare being called a "climate change denialist" with the treatment of African-Americans under Jim Crow, which is bizarre, inappropriate, and morally repugnant.
• Given all of the above, I am of the opinion that this editor should not be editing in this topic area. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• I generally agree with Gamaliel's analysis, and think that a topic ban is in order. T. Canens (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• I agree that it would be in everyone's interest, including the editor's own, to separate him from this topic-area for a time. I will add that regardless of wiki disputes, he and his family have my deepest sympathy and support regarding the personal circumstances he describes, and I'm sure that goes for others commenting here as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• What do you think the proper duration should be, then? - Penwhale | 06:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan

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

Request concerning Peter Gulutzan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change :

Reposting. I believe this behavior warrants further review, and since Peter Gulutzan posted an AE request against NEG instead of pursuing requests for dispute resolution shows the problem is escalating, not resolving itself. Below is my comment on that thread, but other editors (User:ArtifexMayhem and User:Manul) posted additional info I won't reproduce on their behalf. Split comments per request.

---

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

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

Diffs:

• Not answering questions: , , , , , , , to NEG below
  • Strangely, he accused me of not answering his questions, but then didn't answer me when I asked what question I'd missed. NewsAndEventsGuy asked us both to summarize what questions had gone unanswered. I provided a list, but Peter refused to answer.

• Battleground behavior: ,

• 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. , , , , , , , , , ,
• Aware of DS:

  — Jess· Δ♥ 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding a note to prevent archiving. Several admins have commented that they have concerns, but there hasn't been any action taken, or discussion to close the case.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Peter Gulutzan

Statement by Manul

• Note that Peter Gulutzan was alerted to climate change discretionary sanctions on 18 March 2015, earlier than indicated above.

• Peter's comment on that date is indicative of his general attitude:

  By now I have grown used to editors who try to intimidate me with accusations which they pretend could lead to blocking. I'm going to make this a standard reply: hit me with your best shot, eh?

  This was despite my cordial disclaimer ("Apologies if you were previously alerted; I didn't find a tag in your history"), and our only prior interaction was a couple comments on the article talk page that were non-personal and on-topic.

• Peter proceeded to violate WP:BLPPRIVACY, reverting my removal from the BLP of a link to a website publishing the subject's personal address. He did this despite the WP:BLPPRIVACY problem already mentioned on the talk page, even replying to it. This is either blind reverting without care for the reasons behind a change, or worse.

• The situation has not since improved. Most recently Peter claimed that I added a "smear" to the article "without attribution", saying in the edit comment, you don't "clean up" by pouring dirt. The over-the-top personalization from Peter is typical, but more importantly the claim is untrue. My change to the lead cited high-quality reliable sources, and it merely restated what had been in the article body for a month using the same sources.

• Considering the above diffs from myself and others, the disruption appears to stem from Peter's inability to approach the subject dispassionately, imparting a narrative of personalized conflict where editors are simply trying to use the best sources and report them accurately.

Manul ~ talk 04:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Peter:

• Re WP:BLPPRIVACY, to be absolutely clear, the timeline is:

• Peter reverts, restoring Watts' personal address in the article, with edit comment See talk page "Improving the lead".
• Ten minutes later, he replies to my comment about BLPPRIVACY in the thread "Improving the lead". This is the right comment; I did not link to the wrong one.
• Either Peter didn't read the comment to which he replied -- blindly reverting -- or he willingly violated BLPPRIVACY.
• Despite the government website clearly showing Anthony Watts' personal address, he later tried to justify his change by saying it was IntelliWeather's address. I pointed out that IntelliWeather is registered to his home address, as are his other domains.

• I agree 100% with the Jimbo Wales quote. It is a recurring theme that discussion about accurately characterizing the WUWT blog as a climate change denialism blog (which it is, according to high-quality and scholarly sources) will eventually be derailed by a switch to characterizing Watts as a "denier". It is a red herring, and I have said so in discussions where Peter has participated. When the switch happens, as Peter has done in this AE, the conversation is destined to go round and round.

Manul ~ talk 22:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

Re Mann jess's accusations ...

Re "Peter Gulutzan posted an AE request against NEG instead of pursuing requests for dispute resolution": I indeed made a request for dispute resolution re redirection to Global warming controversy or Climate change denial, saying "... if anyone from either side agrees at least in principle that consensus or arbitration should be sought, please state preferred venue and wording.". No reply.

Re pointing to something "more sympathetic to the fringe view": no, I said "slightly less vicious redirect", that is, I care about people who are accused of having the view.

Re: "dismissed high quality sources": they're poor quality, I tried to discuss sources despite Mann jess calling my complaints "nonsense" and "insane" and "nonsense"). I questioned repeatedly what these sources supposedly support. No reply.

Re me labelling editors as "activists" or calling them "too biased to find the right sources": no diffs. I've no idea what Mann jess is talking about.

Re me refusing questions from NewsAndEventsGuy: question was prefaced with accusations that I said I found offensive, I explained at WP:AE#NewsAndEventsGuy.

Re I "didn't answer me when I asked what questions I'd missed": look at the diff Mann jess supplied. Mann jess misquoted me twice using quote marks, I objected, Mann jess misquoted again and asked "What sources are being overlooked or misinterpreted?" (not "what questions I'd missed"), I answered "As for the question about sources, I have no idea what it refers to".

Re "battleground behavior": no, I said on my talk page "I'm acknowledging the existence of a battle" meaning I thought others did it, and "hit me with your best shot, eh? " meaning I thought others intended it.

Re "claiming equate all 'skeptics' to 'deniers'": I didn't say that, I said it's necessary to show all skeptics are deniers if you're going to change so all redirects for skeptics point to denial.

Re "EW": Look at the 11 diffs: the first doesn't revert anything, the tenth was self-reverted on July 9, the others were all restorations to the state before the dispute began, which is normal when no consensus.

Re Manul's accusations ...

Re "Peter's comment on that date is indicative ...", my note about deleting that comment from my talk page is here.

Re WP:BLPPRIVACY: when Manul refers to my reply he shows the wrong link, my actual reply on March 18 is here, please read it rather than Manul's link.

Re "you don't clean up by pouring dirt": Manul made a section heading which uses a hurrah! phrase "cleaning up", I balanced with a boo! phrase "pouring dirt". I mentioned "without attribution" because the text did not attribute the words "climate change denial" in the lead to the sources (I distinguish attribution from citation and I believe WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does).

Re "editors are simply trying to use the best sources": I don't think editors agree what sources are best, I agree with Jimbo Wales. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: I had to trim my post above so that it would be 490 words, without changing content. I cannot reply to anything else unless administrators permit me to go well over the limit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Administrators: I request permission to reply to statements made after the post by Mann jess and the first comment from Manul. So far I've used 490 words, versus around 1200 words. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE ... Okay, I have permission to reply.

Manul says: "Peter reverts, restoring Watts' personal address in the article". That is false. Watts's personal address was not in the article either before or after any edit that I did. Instead there was a cite for Watts's company = a government site containing addresses, added by JournalScholar in 2012. Although this is not a valid WP:AE issue (I had not received a DS alert at the time I did that revert), I'll point out anyway that: (1) the edit which I reverted contained two things, removal of the citation AND addition of the claim that Watts "runs the climate denialism website 'WattsUpWithThat'", a contentious statement about a living person with what I regarded as poor sourcing, and WP:BLPREMOVE says such things should be removed "immediately". (2) In fact I myself removed the citation, 76 minutes later, and wrote "... I acknowledge that such government-related sites shouldn't be publicized by Misplaced Pages and have replaced with a reference to WUWT which merely says Watts runs IntelliWeather. I apologize for the delay in making this change."

Manul's sources are low quality and the majority of known reliable sources say the blog is skeptic, compare the entries from S Philbrick's lists (ignore the junk) here and here. But I'll happily leave that content dispute aside if Manul stops bringing it up. What's an issue is whether I engaged in misconduct at times when I insisted that sources have to be good enough for BLP -- which I did. To redirect "Climate change skeptic" etc. affects many BLPs, and to make the first sentence of a BLP contain a denigration, about the main thing the person is known for, is denigrating a person. Sure, some people say otherwise. But taking me to WP:AE is more than disagreement.

Penwhale: I hope you will consider that my reply to Manul, and my diffs showing some of the explanation how denial got in the lead of WUWT, may have a bearing on your initial remarks.

Re Artifex Mayhem: I'm accused of violating an essay, and of performing battleground behaviour. The details are that I used the words "side", "misleading", and "destroyed". If the contention were that sides, statements that mislead, and destruction never in fact existed, or are WP:WTW words, there would be something to answer here.

Re JzG: I issued a DS notice two days after JzG referred to a BLP subject as a "swivel-eyed loon". I was not aware that administrators are exempt from DS notices. I deny that I am a single-purpose account, I have done hundreds of non-climate edits and created seven non-climate articles (Burr, Saskatchewan, Edenbridge, Saskatchewan, Points North Landing, Saskatchewan, The Sheepdogs, Peavey Mart, Aspy Bay, YCSB). I also deny JzG's "assessment" of me, but shouldn't need to, unsupported speculations about my defects don't belong here or anywhere. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ArtifexMayhem

Over the past few months civil (mostly) POV pushing by Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs) (along with Tillman (talk · contribs)) has been a primary source of disruption in the topic area.

• The recent filing of this WP:AE request by Peter Gulutzan against NewsAndEventsGuy was without merit and should be considered vexatious (and sucessfully so as NewsAndEventsGuy has retired from the project for 12 months).

• Examples of battleground behavior,

• Groups editors into factions e.g., the "put-denialism-in" side, .

• Considers another editors calling one of his reverts a "removal of information" to be "misleading" , while edits by others are considered done with the intent to "destroy" information .

— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Peter Gulutzan issued a DS notice to me regarding climate change. This does not bother me at all. It is a little weird for an effective WP:SPA to issue an administrator with a DS notice, but there you go.

My assessment of Gulutzan's edits is that he simply does not care what the scientific consensus is, he wants Misplaced Pages to reflect the world as he believes it to be, not the world as science says it actually is. The fundamental issue is that climate change "skepticism" is pseudoskepticism, which is synonymous with denialism. Not a form of denialism, synonymous with it. Like the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, who are vaccine denialists. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tillman

• I believe the complaint against Peter Gulutzan is without merit and and should be dismissed.

Further, I believe the real problem here lies with the originating editor, Mann Jess. She succeeded with her complaint here against AQFK last month: link. The present complaint started out as a side-complaint against both PG & myself. By a curious coincidence, these are the three editors who were having the most problems working with editor Jess at the Anthony Watts (blogger) and his WUWT blog pages at our encyclopedia. On this topic, a fourth editor has remarked:

"Mann Jess is vexatious and tendentious. In a controversial topic area Mann Jess often uses the most inflammatory language that is not encyclopedic. The worst instances are in BLP's like Watt's but extend elsewhere."

For some time, I’ve been considering filing an ArbComm complaint re Mann Jess’s editing behavior in the CC area, especially in the case of Anthony Watts (blogger) and his WUWT blog. I regard her actions there as unencyclopedic, uncollegial, egregious POV pushing, tendentious editing and, in general, I found her impossible to deal with as a fellow-editor. She's certainly single-minded (imo). Other editors who couldn't deal with her vexatious editing included both Gulutzan and AQFK. A pattern emerges.

I certainly don’t have time for that now — I don’t really have time to mount a refutation of her charges here, except to note that many appear to be "ruffled feathers". And I hate this sort of unproductive posturing and name-calling.

It's also troubling that MJ (and others) could be putting the project into legal jeopardy. I believe Anthony Watts was receiving legal advice, and perhaps offers of pro bono legal representation, for filing a defamation and slander lawsuit against Misplaced Pages's parent for the attempted labelling of Watts as a "climate change denier" by MJ and collaborating editors. Watts emphatically rejects this charge. I don't think he expressed any interest in actually filing a suit. I'll research this further for my formal complaint against Editor Jess. This may take some time to prepare, as I am under severe time constraints for prior committments, to at least the end of the following week. I would welcome help in preparing a complaint againt Mann Jess, who I believe is doing substantial damage to the integrity of the Project. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JBL

I think the behavior with respect to NewsAndEventsGuy, a consummate good-faith, consensus-building editor, was an enormous shame. Obviously in practice the articles related to Anthony Watts and climate change denialism are a massive battleground, and NAEG was one of the few editors who really seemed to be interested in doing a decent job with them, respecting sourcing etc. The attacks by Gulutzan on NAEG were really shameful, and have (at least temporarily) driven off a great editor. --JBL (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy

@JBL, while I appreciate the kind words, I disavow the notion that Peter's remarks "drove (me) off". I still log in to see if anyone refers to me, and since you did so I would just like to say that I've been feeling pressed from a lot of real life quarters of late, and quite frankly find little reward in organizing the diffs to demonstrate anyone's violation of WP:ARBCC#Battleground editing. Peter was just a minor thing that put my decision to make a long retirement seem timely. Nothing should be read into my decision viz-a-viz the extent of Peter's disruption or non-disruption. His record of diffs should be read without regard to other factors, and we should trust diligent admins to act accordingly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Peter Gulutzan

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

• Manul's 4th point in the bullet list is telling; also, since it is clear that no one disagrees with the fact that Watt runs WUWT and the lead of WUWT does say Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change skepticism or denial created in 2006 by Anthony Watts (both as of this edit and on June 27 when Manul made the edit to Watts), I find Peter's position in this discussion to be extremely weak. However, I will wait for others to comment before assessing more. - Penwhale | 06:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: You can reply, yes. - Penwhale | 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Citadel48

WeijiBaikeBianji

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

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)

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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Tag-team_editing

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Review#Presumption_of_coordination

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Decorum

Misplaced Pages: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.
• ArtifexMayhem was reported at AE under the R&I case in February 2014.
• 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.

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, and ArtifexMayhem's editing history at "IQ and Global Inequality" is comprised entirely of restoring the other editors' reverts. (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)

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

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

(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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages whatever you decide. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

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

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

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)

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)

Statement by MarkBernstein

The party filing this complain opens a trap at your feet, a pit that in the worst case might prove large enough to encompass the entire project. tread lightly and with care. I believe this warning should be sufficient, but if you need clarification from me, you know how to find me. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ArtifexMayhem

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

Given the number of socks 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)

Statement by Darwinian Ape

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 17:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IP user

@Georgewilliamherbert: Please be aware not that I'm not the same individual as Wajajad. I don't understand why other people are assuming that. He often edits while logged out, and he's never used this IP range. You can verify that by running an IP check on him. If this is the reason he's been blocked, the block is erroneous. It's also an erroneous reason to reject his report, if that's why it's being rejected.

I've raised this issue in Georgewilliamherbert's user talk. This problem should be dealt with quickly, if possible. 192.253.251.79 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Penwhale: Will a one-revert limit be enough to prevent situations like the one here? The main problem is that a few users think it's fine to remove sourced content from any of these articles without giving a reason, and/or change the subject when they're asked for a reason. (Note that the 107.6 IP commenting in that discussion was me; I've edited from that range as well.) 192.253.251.79 (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert: As I said in my comment here, within the past six months I've edited from the ranges 192.253.*, 107.6.*, and 43.228.*. Are all three of these ranges in the same neblock as Wajajad? Also, please be aware that I do not edit exclusively in the Race and Intelligence topic. The IP I'm currently using is the same one I previously used to edit the Peking University article, in which Wajajad has never shown any interest. 192.253.251.106 (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that there seems to be some recent disruption by blocked user Mikemikev at the race and genetics article. If this is typical behavior for Mikemikev, it's very likely that these four users' months (years?) of dealing with his sock puppets is the reason they tend to assume bad faith about legitimate editors. That's an explanation, not an excuse; in other cases such as Climate Change the arbitration committee has consistently ruled that someone being on the same "side" of a dispute as a known puppeteer is not an adequate reason to assume bad faith about them. 43.228.157.21 (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning WeijiBaikeBianji

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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    •  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)
      • 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)
        • Further CU activity at the reporting users' talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
          • @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)
            • Per the checkuser finding and Georgewilliamherbert's authorization above, I am unblocking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
              • I was not sure if I had misread something earlier, thanks Bbb23 and NYBrad. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• 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 | 22:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)

• What would you suggest, then? I think something needs to be done, but not sure what. - Penwhale | 00:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

• @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 | 00:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Futrell

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

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)

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)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'll be brief, because when I first started editing Misplaced Pages 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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Futrell

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

Statement by Liz

Brustopher, I think you meant WP:NEWBLPBAN, not WP:ARBGG. I added a diff of your notification. Liz 19:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

While I'd argue GG sanctions apply to Roosh, I agree with Liz that NEWBLPBAN would be more apt given the edits. That said, I would fully endorse a t-ban or a ban from this page. User is a SPA, has been warned multiple times, and still refuses to "get it". User is edit warring as well. Note, there are no edits by this user on Talk:Roosh V. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fyddlestix

This user added some particularly bad unsourced accusations to Roosh V this morning, I reported him at BLPN here before I realized there as a post here. Note that I'm pretty sure this editor is named after or impersonating anti-MRA blogger David Futrelle - I don't actually think it's him, obviously. More likely someone trying to make Futrelle look bad. NOTHERE in any case, though, as their edits make clear. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Futrell

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)

Gob Lofa

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

Request concerning Gob Lofa

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gob Lofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case :

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I originally filed this in AN/I, however have been told that as it is ArbCom related it should be taken here. I will—having got some feedback at that AN/I—cut down on the amount of evidence to try to keep this briefer.

User:Gob Lofa is intent on pushing subtle or blatant bias, misusing sources and using personal opinion as justification, mixed with occasional edit-warring, and unwillingness to seek consensus. They may also have breached the 1RR Troubles restriction in regards to the Kingsmill massacre article, which I detail below. The following is not an exhaustive list of Gob Lofa's issues but the main venues over the past couple of months, and largely revolve around abusing sources to backup very slanted and biased statements.

McGurk's Bar bombing

• Here Gob Lofa removes a statement and adds in a context changing piece of OR, "launched armed campaigns" to "retaliated". , providing no sourcing whatsoever.
• I reverted and that was it for 9 days until they decided to repeat the edit using personal opinion as their vindication, personal opinion that only makes mention of one of the two groups mentioned in the statement, yet still applying it to them both:
• I once again inform them of WP:BRD, add a source for the sentence they keep removing and remove the OR. Likewise pointing out the obvious
• A month later Gob Lofa decides to return and push his edit again with the edit summary of "See talk" . As anyone can see, there is no consensus or anything at the talk page for Gob Lofa to even get the impression that they can go ahead with their contentious edit.

Ulster Defence Regiment

• Here Gob Lofa adds in personal opinion citing "well documented" as their justification . User:Gavin Lisburn reverts them asking them to take it to talk .
• Gob Lofa restores it claiming that it is referenced . This they are reverted by User:Flexdream .
• Next Gob Lofa decides to take the personal opinion and OR furhter . Reverted again by Gavin Lisburn .
• Nearly two months and 15 intermediate revisions later Gob Lofa decides to revert Gavin Lisburn again and still providing no evidence for their claims. Once again Gob Lofa is reverted .
• Gob Lofa returns with sources but these do not bac up their claim and they are reverted by Flexdream .
• Regardless Gob Lofa tries to force it again . Gavin Lisburn removes one as it didn't even mention the UDR specifically. They then restore "some" per the talk discussion . Flexdream removes the other of Gob Lofa's dubious sources as it doesn't substantiate the claims Gob Lofa is making.
• Gob Lofa then lets the issue lie, however decides to embark upon an unsourced weasel-worded rewrite , which I amend as Gob Lofa added in very subjective wording that is not backed up the sources they provided.

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

• Here Gob Lofa changes a sourced statement to add in contentious OR so that the sentence states that the army looted hundreds of houses. I remove the "and looted" telling Gob Lofa to provide a direct quote from the source .
• Gob Lofa then provides a source , however I have to reword the statement as the source Gob Lofa provided did not state that hundreds of homes were looted but that the army admitted that their were "incidents" of looting. This is outrageous and disruptive POV pushing.
• The next issue on this article is Gob Lofa removing wording from a sourced sentence stating that it is speculation . I revert asking them do they have the source to know it's not in it .
• Gob Lofa removes it again stating that it is not in one of the sources , however I have to revert again as there are two sources given. Just because it is not in one does not mean the other does not have it .
• After reverting, I decide to show Gob Lofa what they should do in such circumstances by adding a request quote tag to the statement .

Billy Fox (politician)

• I myself perform no reverts one this article, however this article is littered with reversions of Gob Lofa edits . Also Gob Lofa has been slow-edit warring on this article since 8th September 2013 with their latest being 12th July 2015: , , , , , , , - that's eight times.
• Despite opening a talk page discussion back in February 2014 on the issue which was still going on till the 28th July 2015, Gob Lofa has garnered not one bit of support for their edit with the other five editors (including me) who have commented on the discussion requesting he provide sources.
• Gob Lofa has provided two sources, however neither back up their claim that Billy Fox identified as an "Ulster Protestant". One source doesn't even mention Billy Fox, whilst the other one makes mention of Protestant in one part of it and Ulster in another, but not as an ethnic term, meaning Gob Lofa is using synthesis.

Kingsmill massacre

• Adding unsourced original research and POV (the very last addition). - again adding further OR. These edits are OR and opinion, evidenced by Flexdream challenging them as not being in the source quoted
• After this Gob Lofa adds a reference however it does not back up their statement as my revert clearly points out
• Gob Lofa then restores their edit within 4 hours of making it regardless of issues raised . This may be a breach of 1RR. They were notified of 1RR in regards to Trouble articles on 1st August 2015, this breach was done on the 8th August 2015. It could be argued that it was not technically an exact revert as they changed the tense of a word, however that could simply be a case of gaming the system considering there is still an issue with the edit. Also consider that they still hit revert (or rollback) as it does state "Undid revision" despite making an alteration.
• I again reverted back to the citation needed version informing Gob to stop adding sources that do not back up their claims to which they decide to revert me whilst making a change to the edit that still does not solve one of the core issues raised about the source . Why they needed to do a revert here I don't know and I can only see it as antagonism.

Gob Lofa's edit is biased and flawed because they are stating that the case is "regarding UDR involvement", despite the direct quote he provides in the edit summary stating "because of strong indications that Ulster Defence Regiment colluded with the UVF". Gob Lofa is presenting speculation as fact. The edit also doesn't state that Reavey took out the case, so a source is still needed for that or a rewording.

Civil_Authorities_(Special_Powers)_Act_(Northern_Ireland)_1922

• Here Gob Lofa tries to enforce their viewpoint on Northern Ireland's status by pushing their edit into the article four times between 30th July and 6th August despite being reverted by three different editors (me, User:Snowded and User:Ebonelm) , , , .
• The second last is the most ironic because despite making the initial edit that was reverted he demands that Ebonelm argues their case on the talk page whilst they don't even go near the talk page until after Snowded reverts him and even then he didn't even argue a case. The result of the talk page discussion shows that Gob Lofa doesn't even accept or is unwilling to admit and accept that they were edit-warring.

RUC Special Branch

• An article created by Gob Lofa, where I have to revert a clear misuse of a source where they present speculation as fact. The subjective term "infiltration" is likewise not in the source, hence my amendments , to which Gob Lofa reverts .
• After this I take it to talk and then notify the UK and Ireland WikiProjects so that more input can be sought. Having done that Gob Lofa is quick to restore the amendments to their contentious edit despite their assertions that it itself was OR.

Bloody Sunday (1972)

• A highly sensitive article, where I come across highly contentious categories in this article whilst checking up on Gob Lofa's edits to the categories . These categories state that Bloody Sunday was an act of British terrorism despite the article itself not making this statement anywhere in it.
• Gob Lofa decides to re-add the terrorist category but this time amended . I revert stating that Gob needs to provide reliable sourcing that it was indeed terrorism .
• On 20th July an IP suddenly appears to add in the claim that Bloody Sunday was a terrorist incident . Maybe it is related, maybe not.
• Despite not once discussing the issue on the talk page Gob Lofa decides to reinsert the terrorist category citing a source . Another issue with this edit is that Gob Lofa "reverts" my edit I made on the 14th July, which is 20 days and 12 intermediate edits later . The fact the only thing that seems to have changed despite reverting 12 intermediate edits is the addition of the category, meaning Gob Lofa is intentionally clicking revert whilst keeping any intermediate edits. What is the point of this other than being provocative?
• Snowded reverts Gob Lofa's addition requesting a direct quote, to which Gob Lofa does take to talk, to which I provide the rationale to the problem.
• It also turns out that Gob Lofa was the editor who introduced the contentious terrorist categories I originally removed into this article back on 8th January 2015 , changed it a bit on 5th February 2015 and n same day added the other .

This article is sensitive enough without such contentious content being added.

Birmingham pub bombings

• Here Gob Lofa changes "terrorism" to "violence" , to which Snowded reverted .
• Just over a day later Gob Lofa restores their edit regardless . User:Kieronoldham restores "terrorism" adding two references . The articles talk page shows Gob Lofa's unreasonable attitude trying to argue what is the sources definition of terrorism .

What this shows is Gob Lofa's blatant bias where it is OK for actions by the British Army (Bloody Sunday) to be classified as terrorism however actions by the IRA to not be so.

Democratic Unionist Party

• Here an IP removed two infobox ideaology terms . Gob Lofa restored them (note they didn't do a revert for the IP). Snowded then reverts Gob Lofa citing OR and synthesis.
• Gob Lofa agrees with Snowded about one of the sources so omits it but restores the rest. I revert as the sources do not explicitly say that the DUP are what is claimed and that it is synthesis .

This helps show the issue Gob Lofa has with sources and being able to interpret or use them properly. Despite the fact none of the sources backed up the claims, they were happy enough to include two of them.

End notes Yes above is a lot of and there is still a lot of evidence out there that can be provided. Personally I believe Gob Lofa should be topic-banned from Troubles articles, or be made to request an edit to a Troubles article on the talk page just like IPs have to do on semi-protected articles. Whilst they do do many minor edits that are not troublesome, even if not needed, their attitude in the area is disruptive and problematic and has antagonised several editors, all from different political bias'/viewpoints. Like in all my time on Misplaced Pages I can't ever remember me and Snowded actually agreeing on something! I believe that sanctions are merited to try to encourage them to edit more responsibly in this sensitive topic-area. As Gob Lofa does edit articles in other fields, a topic-ban would not restrict them from editing on this site, and indeed would allow checkups to be done to see whether or not they are improving.

Gob Lofa may also be abusing their rollback privilege with their reverts, especially the ones that seem to not affect intermediate revisions of articles, but still result in me getting notifications that my edits have been reverted even when they aren't actually making a revert.

Mabuska 14:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified 14:12 11 August 2015

Discussion concerning Gob Lofa

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

Statement by Gob Lofa

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gob Lofa

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