Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎sanction violations: rem stray header
Handpolk (talk | contribs)
1,588 edits
Line 360: Line 360:
At the very least, I would ask him to be topic banned.
At the very least, I would ask him to be topic banned.


:So far I count a grand total of one person who has actually addressed this complaint and not tried to change the subject to make this about me. The subject himself did not even feel it worth his effort to explain himself, despite him repeatedly being sanctioned for this very behavior in the past. [[User:Handpolk|Handpolk]] ([[User talk:Handpolk|talk]]) 05:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
:So far I count one person who has actually addressed this complaint and not tried to change the subject to make this about me. The subject himself did not even feel it worth his effort to explain himself, despite him repeatedly being sanctioned for this very behavior in the past. [[User:Handpolk|Handpolk]] ([[User talk:Handpolk|talk]]) 05:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

::User:Jorm made the same accusations and personal attacks about me here as the subject of this AE made. Calling me a Gamergate supporter. These types of unfounded attacks and accusations being allowed so freely directly violate the sanctions along with the rules of Wikipedia. They contribute to the battleground mentality of the article and should not be tolerated. We are to assume good faith. [[User:Handpolk|Handpolk]] ([[User talk:Handpolk|talk]]) 07:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Revision as of 07:30, 13 June 2015

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.
    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
    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338

    A Quest For Knowledge

    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 A Quest For Knowledge

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions :


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

    Watts Up With That - a blog which promotes fringe views on climate science - recently canvassing their readers to "correct" our coverage. Since then, we've been having a tough time handling the increased attention and fervor, and consensus building has been turbulent. I requested page protection to facilitate discussion, but we kept hitting the same walls, so JzG created an RfC to address a recurring issue.

    Unfortunately, A Quest For Knowledge has been disrupting the RfC and other methods of consensus building, which has made our task considerably harder. He has repeatedly inserted his opinions into the RfC question, suggesting that responding is a waste of time, and all but one of the options contravene policy, making the RfC's summary markedly non-neutral. In two cases, he added his opinions in the middle of JzG's comment, which mixed up attribution of JzG's words and the origin of the RfC. My first effort was to move his comment to the discussion section, but he reverted me, and approaching him on his talk page hasn't helped.

    While the RfC's wording may not be perfect, it was obviously a good faith effort to aid discussion and build consensus, and the structured format has helped us tease out a few suggestions already. AQFK's edits are clearly an effort to stop discussion and collaboration, which has not been helpful in an already terse environment.

    AQFK has also been edit warring on the article for a considerable time. He is not the only one, but his history is extensive, and his reverts are often not coupled with substantive discussion. The following diffs are all removing the same sourced content from the article: June 1, May 30, May 29, May 26, May 23, May 23, May 22, May 12, May 10, May 10, May 10, May 7, May 7, May 6, May 3, May 3, April 30, April 29, April 27, April 21, April 21, April 20


    AQFK has been exhibiting other problematic behavior as well, which I'll add to this request as I'm able. It is worth noting that disruptive behavior is not limited to AQFK, and broader sanctions may eventually be needed, but at the moment AQFK is the only one attempting to hinder collaboration.

    AQFK was previously topic banned from climate change by arbcom in 2010. The ban was lifted in 2012. The topic is subject to discretionary sanctions, and I'm asking that they be applied (in whatever form is deemed necessary) to prevent further disruption.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    AQFK has also been misrepresenting the conversation, and not working toward a goal of building consensus and collaborating with editors of different viewpoints. For example, when discussing the inclusion of this quote, AQFK has repeatedly summarized the dispute as the addition of the word "denier": [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
    This has led to confusion, since the contested edit does not contain the word "denier". Yet, AQFK continues to assess sources based on their use of the word "denier" and not variants like "climate change denial". Editors have asked AQFK to be more careful in his choice of language ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]), and method of assessing sources ([19]), but his behavior has not changed ([20]).
    Note that the last diff is one AQFK has copied and pasted several places. In it, AQFK misrepresents the sources by saying the word "denier" does not appear in any of them, when in reality some variant of "denier" appears in nearly 30%. ([21])   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#A Quest For Knowledge's battlefield conduct and this DS notice on May 3rd

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    [22]


    Discussion concerning A Quest For Knowledge

    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 A Quest For Knowledge

    The problem with the RfC as currently written is that it presents a false trichotomy. According to WP:WTW, the contentious terms such as "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say? In order to answer this question, I examined a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term "skeptic" (as randomly selected by Google):

    These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. Based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as:

    1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
    2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
    3. Science - 1 Source
    4. Denier - 0 Sources

    I also performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:

    Google Scholar Totals:

    1. Skeptic - 3 times.
    2. Meteorologist - 2 times
    3. Conservative - 2 times
    4. Anti-climate science - 1 time
    5. Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
    6. Science - 1 time
    7. Science (in quotes) - 1 time
    8. Denier - 0 times

    Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number approaches zero, let alone a wide majority.

    Unfortunately, the RfC as written presents 3 options, all of which require that we violate Wikipedia's rules, on a WP:BLP no less. Other options are completely omitted from the RfC. For example, another editor presented a compromise which both Jess and I liked[23] yet it was completely omitted from the RfC. Why was this omitted from the RfC?

    Imagine an election where major opposition candidates are left off the ballot. Would such an election be considered legitimate?

    I'm not against an RfC - quite the contrary - RfCs are a wonderful way to judge consensus. An RfC which presents a false trichotomy while ignoring actual legimate options isn't going to solve anything.

    I've been on Wikipedia for 6 years and have tens of thousands of edits. I have as much right to point out that an RfC is flawed as anyone. The idea that an editor should be sanctioned for pointing out that a flawed RfC is flawed is absurd. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As for the edit-warring, anyone who knows me knows that I always try to follow WP:BRD. However, BRD does not work if I'm the only one willing to follow it. I brought up a legitimate WP:BLP concern. Under no circumstance should anyone edit-war contentious negative information back into the article. It should have gone to the talk page and only restored after consensus was reached. I may have edit-warred, but at least I edit-warred to remove contentious content, not the other way around.
    In any case, if we're throwing stones at glass houses, here's everyone with more than one revert on just the last sentence in the lede:
    If you want to sanction someone, how about sanctioning all the editors who edit-warred contentious negative WP:BLP material into the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In retrospect, I obviously wasn't thinking clearly. It was a mistake for me to edit-war on the RfC. I can see why it was disruptive, although it was certainly not intentional. I suppose that might make little difference. But if I realized that it was disruptive at the time, I certainly wouldn't have done it. I obviously let my emotions get the better of me, and for that I'm sorry. I let down the editors of that article, and the community, and I let down myself. I apologize. All I can say is that nobody is perfect, and we all have lapses of judgement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Guerillero

    I have no horse in this race, I just formatted Jess's request in the format that AE likes --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 07:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Ubikwit

    This is an issue that needs attention. AQFK has been tendentiously ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and making repeated recourse to WP:WTW, for example, ignoring the numerous comments on the Talk page refuting the attempt.
    The Watts BLP and WUWT blog article are subject to WP:PSCI, and the semantics issue between "denier", etc., and "skeptic" would seem to be clearly subordinate to the policy-based prioiritization of the mainstream view of scientists versus Watts' pseudoscience views, which do not correspond to scientific skepticism, but do fall under the rubric of environmental skepticism.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was not aware that the article was under a 1rr restriction, either. Perhaps someone should post a banner or the like on the page.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • It bears noting that the discussion regarding denialism vs skepticism has been going on for a couple of months now at Watts' BLP, predating the appearance of both Man Jess and Sphilbrick. A substantial number of sources and interpretive aspects have been discussed, and I added most of the sources that had been previously discussed at the BLP to the WUWT talk page yesterday, rounding out this list.
      • It also bears noting that the issue of including "denialism" on WP:WTW has also been under discussion for a couple of months, with an emerging consensus to delete the term from that guideline. AQFK did participate in that discussion[103] as well, though he subsequent deleted his comment[104].

    Query What is the reason for the delay in handling this complaint?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by JzG

    I have to say that AQFK's approach seems to me to be unhelpful. AQFK states as fact that an RfC cannot possibly succeed because of WTW, even though it includes nothing more skeptical than the result of the previous RfC, and numerous good-faith comments by long-time Wikipedians have already accepted that the question is valid.

    It is fine to dispute the question put in an RfC. It is not fine to insist on stating as fact that the question is invalid, when that is just an opinion, and is rejected by most others commenting.

    AQFK also repeatedly removes a statement which is sourced and attributed to a well-known authority, citing BLP, despite, again, numerous long-time Wikipedians arguing in good faith that this is not a violation since it si high profile, sourced and attributed.

    Overall the impression is that PAG are being used not as a guide to good practice, but as a magic talisman to wave away opinions for which the editor very obviously harbours a visceral hatred. And AQFK comes across as a Warrior for Truth™, where Truth equates to a philosophical view divorced from scientifically established reality. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sphilbrick I am not sure what you're implying re. Mann jess, I would have thought that the involvement of experienced editors new to the article would be highly desirable, given the history of entrenched views and fights between the usual suspects on these articles. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @AQFK: You are stating your opinion as fact again. It is not a fact that the three options "violate" WP:BLP. That is in fact a grossly uncivil comment given that a significant number of people support one or other of them; you are in essence saying that several good faith editors and admins are systematically violating a core policy, by advocating an attributed comment from a world-famous expert in the field - who you happen to dislike. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Tony Sidaway

    As indicated in the request, this is an editor with a history of egregious disruption in this topic. The topic ban was lifted on the basis that the topic was under a sanctions process and the editor had kept their nose clean for a good while. And so we're back here.

    On the face of it, the editor has returned to their disruptive ways and is now interfering with serious consensus-building attempts. It seems reasonable to me to consider once again an indefinite topic ban. --TS 11:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Are we going to allow a former topic banned policy violator to argue that their latest serious violation is justified by some content argument, related in some vague way to the BLP policy? That's the same question arbcom faced in 2010, when A Quest For Knowledge used the same argument in defence of their disruptive conduct at that time. Why would we assume that they've learned from their mistakes if they pull the same silly stunt _five years later_? --TS 22:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Robert McClenon

    I was not involved in this particular controversy, but have a comment. I was involved in a Request for Comments where one of the parties to the conflict protested the RFC vociferously. That sort of behavior is very disruptive, especially because an RFC is often the last option of resolving a content dispute before going to conduct dispute resolution. Also, inserting one's own comments in the middle of another editor's comments, even if meant in good faith, is problematic because it is very likely to cause other editors to mistake who is saying what. Aside from the more general matter of whether the subject editor is POV-pushing or personalizing the dispute (and I haven't researched that), disrupting an RFC is a conduct issue that complicates the resolution of content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Sphilbrick

    • As Mann jess correctly points out, there is a post at WUWT reacting to recent edits to the article.
    • Guy was understandably concerned about potential external influence, (see my talk page). I shared this concern, reviewed the article edit logs and recent edit history. I am sure there is some involvement, my casual review suggested it was not significant. Please note that Guy and I hold very different opinions on the substance of the dispute, but Guy concurs. Most of the recent edits, and most of the contributors to the talk page are "regulars", the exception being Mann jess, who had zero involvement prior to 17 May, but who is now the fifth leading contributor to the article.
    • The very first edits by Mann jess to the WUWT article were a consecutive sequence of 14 edits, adding relevant material, but also changing the lede to characterize WUWT as a "blog dedicated to climate change denial"
    • Mann jess has over 10,000 edits. Most editors with that much experience would know that such a contentious statement should be discussed on the talk page first.
    • The edit was reverted, by AQFK, with edit summary (Per WP:WTW.) a reference to a guideline which specifically singles out "denialist" as a word to watch
    • The article is subject to a 1RR editing restriction, but Mann Jess re-introduced the wording with less than 24 hours elapsing between the first entry, the removal, and the re-introduction. In fairness, not every editor is aware of which articles are subject to 1RR, so I think this should mot result in sanction.
    • To her credit, Mann jess immediately went to the talk page to open up discussion. However, per WP:BRD, one should then reach a consensus before re-introducing contentious wording.
    • Mann jess requested semi-protection, I requested full protection. It has achieved the goal of stopping the edit war, and starting talk page discussion, which while heated, is proceeding.
    • I understand Mann jess's objection to the edit by AQFK that inserted a comment near the top of an RfC, rather than at the bottom. However, the RfC failed to mention that "denialism" is covered by WP:WTW, and thus, while not prohibited, requires a much higher hurdle than simply a consensus of editors to use the word. It is understandable that AQFK was trying to be helpful, so that outside editors would not spend time reviewing sources, and thinking about the best wording, only find some time later that a specifically relevant guideline existed.
    • I do think AQFK could have handled the attempt to inform readers differently, but we do not levy sanctions for failure to be perfect (for which I am thankful). --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by JBL

    There is a long-term content/wording-based edit war going on about how to describe Anthony Watts (blogger) and his blog, and particularly about the use of various forms of the word "deny." AQFK is very involved in this dispute (as are Mann jess and I). Probably this will only be resolved when sanctions are placed on a large enough fraction of denialist editors that normal editing can continue. In this context, most of AQFK's behavior has been consistent with the battleground approach being taken by editors on both sides, but the disruptive edits to the RFC are I think notable for their inappropriateness. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit to add: it is worth mentioning that Mann jess has been making substantial improvements to at least the Watts article (unrelated to ongoing edit warring) while all this has been going on.
    Response to Arzel: This sort of bad-faith argumentation, in which you pretend to care about the sanctity of process when in fact you care about the actual outcome, is tiresome. See my related comments here.

    Statement by MONGO

    I cannot say whether or not AQFK has or has not acted inappropriately as far as edit warring and disruption, or whether others have in this matter. My take on the blog is that it posts guest speakers that are at least skeptical if not openly in denial of AGW. The lack of sturdy science in the blog which agrees with the scientific consensus that AGW is fact is alarming...so I would not consider the blog to be a reliable source. In one post on the blog, apparently written by Watts, he states in essence that he agrees with the scientific concensus that the planet is warming and that some of this warming is caused by us. He did not elaborate on how much is caused by what source. Watts then proclaims he considers himself a skeptic and scoffs at being labelled a denier. He also seems to be calling on his readers to correct this information. I do not know if AQFK saw this and is trying to help, but I doubt it. I won't link to the blog post as it makes a personal attack against one of our editors. Anyway, my take is that Watts opinion of himself, though it is a primary source, is important since this is a BLP issue. The parties need to work towards a consensus about incorporating Watts's proclamation and also listing what reputable scientists say. I suggested the source by an antagonist of Watts (Mann) be kept out since other scientific viewpoints of similarity could be used instead.--MONGO 21:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Peter Gulutzan

    Mann jess's accusation should be dismissed.

    Re JzG's RFC: I also complained it was not neutral and warned that JzG says people who don't call WUWT a denial blog are "idiots", Mann jess says about A Quest For Knowledge "he reverted me" but actually three different editors reverted.

    Re the diffs: Mann jess says this is about the Watts Up With That article but actually the diffs are from the Anthony Watts (blogger) article, a BLP, which did not have a recent influx of new editors or perturbation caused by Watts's blog post. On Anthony Watts (blogger), by my count five different editors have reverted the addition of the quote in the lead saying Watts's blog is a denial blog, with oft-expressed concerns on the talk page about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. There are more editors re-inserting (I counted eight), but that is not a consensus and A Quest For Knowledge deserves a defender-of-wiki barnstar. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I believe one would get a better view of academic and mainstream-media reliable sources (plus Watts himself) saying skeptic by looking at an older version of the Anthony Watts (blogger) page here, and looking at the five citations after the sentence "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming" then the ten citations after the sentence "The blog is focused on the global warming controversy, in particular, Watts skepticism about the role of humans in global warming." I point to an older version because Mann jess destroyed those sentences. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by EvergreenFir

    I followed the Anthony Watts page for a bit, but honestly got tired of it and unwatched it. I'm disappointed to see that the exact same thing I saw weeks ago is still occurring. Without commenting on the content itself, AQFK's actions seem quite inappropriate and battleground. Especially so for the RFC comments. I opened the diffs, closed them, and reopened them thinking I had accidently opened the same one over and over... the fact that I hadn't and that the same comment was essentially spammed is what prompted me to comment now.

    Given the past sanctions but otherwise good behavior (unless someone knows of similar disruption related to AGW outside of this recent event), perhaps a short reinstatement of the topic ban (e.g., 4 months) would be appropriate. It would provide cooling off time as well as time to demonstrate intent to cease disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Cas Liber

    If a person is perverting the use of or misrepresenting sources according to our sourcing guidelines, that is a much more difficult and time-consuming problem to deal with than incivility and filibustering and undermines wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia...and should be dealt with accordingly. has someone done that here yet? I've only just scanned this page but reams of talkpage notes I haven;t had time to read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (Arzel)

    AQFK actions have been no worse than those that would complain against him. In particular the statement by JBL is extremely troubling. "Probably this will only be resolved when sanctions are placed on a large enough fraction of denialist editors that normal editing can continue." - JBL How is that not a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? And it is right here in the this complaint! Not to mention calling all of us that disagree with him "denialists" Simply put, there will never be compromise with attitudes like that, and I doubt that opinion is limited to JBL. Arzel (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

    The admins here are experienced enough to see past some of the "But so did he!" stuff above. (I agree with the substance of Arzel's complaint though not with the way he has put it.) Any misbehavior by others can be dealt with separately.

    This leaves us with AQFK's disruptive conduct as outlined in User:Mann_jess's diffs. AQFK has a right to object to what they regard as an ill-formulated RFC but does not have the right to do so disruptively. Having previously been sanctioned at WP:ARBCC means that AQFK is fully aware that this is a contentious topic area and that they should be even more careful than usual.

    I do not think AQFK is a "bad" editor but for whatever reason climate change is a hot-button issue for them. There's no indication of troublesome behavior outside of climate change -- which reinforces both the argument that AQFK is basically a valuable editor and the conclusion that climate change is a topic they should stay away from, whether by choice or otherwise. It appears that the original topic ban needs to be reinstated but I see no need at all for other sanctions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Manul

    AQFK continues to misunderstand and/or misrepresent scholarly articles on climate change. One needn't look further than the first scholarly article AQFK cites[107] in order to see the competence issue. This is not a question of content but of competence, of whether AFQK is able to understand the plain meaning of a source. That article says the exact opposite of what AQFK thinks it says: it actually equates "climate skepticism" and "climate denial" in the context of WUWT, as exhaustively explained here. Yet AQFK did not understand their mistake then[108] and despite repeated corrections over the course of months AFQK continues making the same mistake, up to this very AE request. This kind of tendentious behavior is time-wasting for all those involved.

    This is not a battleground between opposing factions, nor is it a content dispute between equal sides. Rather, there are simply problematic individuals who misapprehend the scientific literature and the scientific consensus. While Wikipedia should describe fringe views accurately and fairly, Wikipedia ultimately aims to reflect consensus science. To portray the scientific consensus on climate change as anything other than settled is to violate Wikipedia policies, in particular WP:PSCI. AQFK has consistently and tendentiously violated this policy by attempting to portray a climate denialism blog as practicing legitimate scientific skepticism, a view that goes against every scholarly source that substantively addresses the blog in question. AFQK makes tendentious arguments by searching for "skepticism" without apprehending the content or context of sources (in particular, not understanding or being concerned with the demarcation sources make between scientific skepticism and the word "skepticism" in the context of the specific blog in question).

    Discretionary sanctions exist, at least in part, because certain topic areas attract entrenched individuals whose editing is not in line with Wikipedia's policies and goals. It is not clear why AQFK's topic ban on climate change was lifted, but it should be clear now that the topic ban needs to be reinstated, and for an indefinite duration. Manul ~ talk 03:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy

    Wikilawyering disruption in part by AQFK drove me from the article in April. He's still at it in this action.

    For his main "defense", AQFK offered a blatantly wrong reading of WP:Words to watch, falsely claiming that this guideline allowed him to

    A. Disrupt an RFC survey that included as one option "2. Use [Watts'] self-identification, climate skeptic, but note [others'] accusations of denialism, with attribution."
    B. Edit war to remove a certain quotation multiple times list imported from OP in this complaint and verified by me that they're all dealing with the same quote

    The first problem with AQFK's WP:Words to watch argument is that this guideline provides no edit-war exception and states in the lead The guideline does not apply to quotations... Second problem Naturally, he'll reply to this statement invoking something else. Shifting rationale is a common sign of disruptive wikilawyering. In April, as I was trying to pin AQFK down as to the rationale for his edit warring, his positions swirled from vague invocations of WP:WTW (above)

    to WP:FRINGE.... (DIFF)

    which I rebutted with

    edit summary, "Wrong framing of the question.... this is a BLP issue, not a fringe one". (AQFK made no reply to my rebuttal, but still uses vague references to "Fringe", even though there are no edit war exceptions in that guideline.) and back again to WP:BLP...

    which provides that we can at times report that so-and-so said "x" instead of saying X in wikivoice. At least, that's what I thought it said but AQFK kept on reverting the quotation. So I asked an abstract "how does it work" question at the noticeboard.
    See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive221#I am a quack vs my work is regarded as quackery
    Called to the involved editors' attention here

    And AQFK chose not to participate.

    What it boils down to is that BLP - the real issue at play in the content dispute - requires inclusion of minority views. AQFK just ignores those viewpoints with a disruptively vague dismissal citing FRINGE but without constructively pursuing WP:Dispute Resolution when others disagree with his evaluation. Exhausted from the wikilawyering, I departed the article.

    Question for AQFK Others have suggested you've had prior experience with dramas involving 3RR exception point 7, and certainly there's the present example. Do you think your approach has caused less disruption than might have resulted by instead following the advice explicitly stated in the exception, i.e., to seek help from BLP noticeboard instead?

    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ADDITION
    Talk about wikilawyering! After posting my initial statement I peeked at AQFK's talk page. It turns out that AQFK has misrepresented himself. In his opening statement above he claims he was allowed to edit war on the basis that the text he repeatedly deleted was prohibited material. However, at his own talk page he contradicts that claim, saying that he was actually edit warring just because he didn't want the material in the lead!!
    Quote, "'Denier' is a WP:WTW and shouldn't be used unless widely used by WP:RS. It's not widely used, in fact, it's rarely used. And I don't object to having this in the article. My objection is that it doesn't belong in the lede. It's not widely used and minority/fringe POVs don't belong in the lede. But like I said, I'm fine with it being in the body." (bold added)
    There is no 3RR exception for "Text you approve for the body, but you don't like in the lead"
    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    NAEG's reply to AQFK's apology

    I now endorse calls for a renewed climate change topic ban due to Edit warring, gaming the system, and battlegrounding. The comments offered by Arbs thus far all address the RFC, so AQFK apologizes on that specific point and simply ignores my complaint of disruptive policy-shopping in order to somehow justify 22+ reverts of text AQFK apparently thinks is perfectly fine if it appears in the body of the article. There's neither an explanation nor apology for disrupting the article and talk page simply because he wanted to control the text in the lead section. By trying to soothe the ruffled Arb feathers thus far exposed, combined with these other behaviors, it's my opinion the apology is an example of gaming the system and battlegrounding while he is under the microscope. Accordingly, the topic ban should be renewed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by dave souza

    The #Statement by A Quest For Knowledge above repeats an argument he introduced at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) on 21 April 2015. It misrepresents the WP:LABEL guideline, which is a sub-page of MOS/STYLE, and introduces novel claims about policies.

    As of 21 April, the guideline included "denialist" as an example of a value-laden label which "may express contentious opinion and may be best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option." AQFK reinterprets this as meaning "the contentious terms such as 'denier' should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources."
    This misrepresents the guideline, which says at the top of the page "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias", going on to "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly", and "The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources".

    AQFK then says "So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say? In order to answer this question, I examined a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term 'skeptic':", presenting "reliable sources randomly selected by Google".
    This shifts the burden from "widely used" to "used by a majority", and disregards the requirement of WP:SOURCES policy to consider the quality of sources. It also disregards WP:WEIGHT policy.
    The article concerned is about a blogger who promotes the fringe view that scientists and government scientific bodies such as NASA and NOAA "spuriously doubled" reported temperature increases for nefarious reasons; WP:PSCI requires us to show how these views have been received by topic experts. Several academic sources explicitly associate Watts or the blog with climate change denial, but AQFK argued on the basis of the google search that using the word "denial" was "advocating giving undue weight to WP:FRINGE/insignificant minority POVs into the article."[109]

    The word denier is defined in OxfordDictionaries.com as: 1) noun
    A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:
    a prominent denier of global warming
    a climate change denier
    Both the historian Spencer R. Weart[110] and the National Center for Science Education[111] use the word non-pejoratively.

    These are content issues to be resolved in normal talk page discussion, but AQFK's dogmatic insistence on novel interpretations of policy is tendentious and disruptive. A topic ban appears appropriate. . dave souza, talk 14:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning A Quest For Knowledge

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • My initial reading suggests that this is actionable. Edit warring on both the article and on the RFC, as well as little attempt to engage with those supporting the RFC suggests a battleground approach. I have some concerns that there may be others in this topic area with unclean hands (even some of those accusing AQFK seem to allude to edit warring by others), and in part for that reason, I would prefer to wait a bit and see if AQFK will post a statement here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Posting a note at the top of an RFC declaring it "a waste of time" and edit warring to keep it there certainly appears to be disruptive behavior and evidence of a battleground mentality. I'm curious to see what the justification is for this behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this editor is unable to distinguish between participating in an RFC, which a number of other editors managed to do without incident, and disrupting an RFC, then future disruption in this topic area will be inevitable. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awaiting A Quest for Knowledge's statement. He should post that statement here before making any further edits to the RfC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    MarkBernstein

    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 MarkBernstein

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Handpolk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 6/12/15 accuses me of several things
    2. 6/12/15 More accusations
    3. 6/12/15 Calls me a gamergate fan
    4. 6/12/15 accuses me of being non-neutral and says i came from a 'gamergate basement'
    5. 6/12/15 accuses me of not being new or neutral
    6. 6/12/15 calls me a troll when i warn him
    7. User_talk:MarkBernstein 6/12/15 admits to battleground mentality on his talk page
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any


    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

    It's important to note that 'gamergate supporter' or anything similar is essentially a slur. It's a personal attack. And since I am not in any way a gamergate supporter, it really offends me to be described that way. It's also a violation of AGF to accuse somebody of editing the article in accordance with views you perceive them to have. And extremely disruptive to do so repeatedly whenever you disagree, in an attempt to win an argument. Along with demonstrating a battleground mentality.

    All of those are exactly what User:MarkBernstein has been doing to me, despite repeated warnings from me to stop. And they are against the sanctions that put a very short leash on all editors to not be disruptive.

    At the very least, I would ask him to be topic banned.

    So far I count one person who has actually addressed this complaint and not tried to change the subject to make this about me. The subject himself did not even feel it worth his effort to explain himself, despite him repeatedly being sanctioned for this very behavior in the past. Handpolk (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jorm made the same accusations and personal attacks about me here as the subject of this AE made. Calling me a Gamergate supporter. These types of unfounded attacks and accusations being allowed so freely directly violate the sanctions along with the rules of Wikipedia. They contribute to the battleground mentality of the article and should not be tolerated. We are to assume good faith. Handpolk (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarkBernstein&diff=prev&oldid=666700640


    Discussion concerning MarkBernstein

    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 MarkBernstein

    I am meeting with a distinguished colleague Saturday, and will have tasks and topics of greater interest and urgency before me. The complainant's behavior rather speaks for itself, as does the number of distinguished editors at AN/I who supported an indef even before this ill-advised return to AE. His subreddit, where notable Wikipedians have been ordered to "post tits", may also interest readers; it will not be difficult for you to find,

    I would call your attention to the amount of time and aggravation this editor has cost the project in the immediate wake of steps taken to stem the flood of "new" and zombie Gamergate editors. I said then that more would be needed; that appears to be the case. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by uninvolved IP

    Please note that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI about whether User:Handpolk's latest complaint should earn him a boomerang. At the moment it has unanimous support.208.76.111.246 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Beyond My Ken

    I do not want to replicate the AN/I report referred to by the IP, but it should be noted that Handpolk made 170 4-byte edits to List of Tamil films of 1973 within an hour, each one removing a single Wikilink, in order to pad his edit total and qualify for the 500/30 requirement. Such gaming of the system (which also included 20 closely-times edits to another article, as reported in the AN/I thread by Floquenbeam) should not be rewarded by allowing him to edit Gamergate articles, or by having this complaint heard here. BMK (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on the AN/I discussion Handpolk has now been indefinitely topic-banned by Euryalus "from making edits related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. BMK (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion one way or the other regarding MarkBernstein's edits or behavior, and I am totally uninvolved in Gamergate. BMK (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Masem

    While I do have a lot of doubts as to Handpolk's sincerity on their edits (the numerous tiny edits on one article as to get to 500+ edits), it should be noted that Mark has been warned and blocked twice before [112], [113] due to his commenting on contributors not content in article talk space. This diff [114] for example is specifically targeted at me due to a discussion I put into earlier regarding our WP:W2W policy. The comments toward Handpolk in article talk space are more of the same. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Jorm

    User:Handpolk has pretty much followed the Gamergate Handbook On How To Be Difficult, only with a new twist (that of rapidly making hundreds of minor edits in order to game himself into the 30/500 set). Oh, he also started a subreddit where he exposes other Wikipedia editors to sexual harassment. He's absolutely not here to make an encyclopedia, and has just been indefinitely topic banned from the Gamergate/games/feminism area for his conduct.

    This should be closed as "no action."

    Statement by PeterTheFourth

    @Masem: Perhaps you should start a different enforcement request where the well is not quite so prodigiously poisoned by the filer? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Ryk72

    I do not believe that a reasonable person would find either the subject or the filer of this AE request to be entirely blameless. Given the issue raised here appears to be limited to comments about each other an interaction ban may be sufficient & appropriate.

    Support mutual (two-way) I-ban. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by ForbiddenRocky

    I suspect the filer is WP:NOTHERE as evidenced by his reddit and other actions. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning MarkBernstein

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=666731180"