Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:A/R)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

This page trancludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Contents


Requests for arbitration

Electronic cigarette

Initiated byS Marshall T/C at 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by S Marshall

Going to arbcom over this is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but the other avenues open to me have failed and I can't bring myself to drop it. Which makes me, I accept, part of the problem.

The instructions for this page tell me to use diffs and links to convince Arbcom to take the case. I think the two diffs I've already provided are sufficient: Previous declined Arbcom case, closed on the grounds that arbitrators wished to give the (then newly-imposed) community sanctions the chance to work; and Most recent AN/I, in which there is a consensus that community sanctions have failed.

I've named four editors. I could have named two or a dozen ---- the actual case I ask you to take is to look in general at behaviour on the topic area.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Response to Georgewilliamherbert

Contrary to Georgewilliamherbert I don't see why it would be necessary for Arbcom to go deeply into the history here. Yes, there's a colossal content dispute to solve but that can only be done via mediation, to which this Arbcom case is a necessary prelude. Yes, editors have got a little overexcited in the content dispute and there are conduct issues to address, but in fact what's going on here, as I see it, is about poor judgment rather than bad faith. I can't produce the kind of diffs that are likely to lead to drastic action on Arbcom's part. I hope and expect this case will lead to nothing more than a number of targeted, focused interventions of limited scope and some guidance on how it is and isn't appropriate to behave.—S Marshall T/C 20:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by QuackGuru

Statement by CFCF

This topic has been subject of a great number of WP:SPAs as well as the odd WP:Undisclosed paid editor. The last dispute I got involved in was upon seeing a number of edits which removed relevant information [4]. I tried to point to the concept of "known unknowns" and how it is treated in medicine. I also explained that the exact same discussion on including such unknowns had occurred just a month or so previously (of which some of very same editors had taken part in). My reluctance to take part in another circuitous discussion resulted in having an ANI-report filed against me. I do not know how to keep SPAs or paid editors away from this topic, so I welcome any ArbCom decision. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SPACKlick

I'm aware of the case. I do believe some intervention is needed in this area there has been a long history of tendentious, battleground, ownership, socking, IDHT and it's not gotten better since the discretionary sanctions began. SPACKlick (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by content-uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

I was attempting to intervene as an uninvolved administrator but the scope and breadth of the disputes, the historical depth etc. has proved more complicated than I could absorb in my available time. This is a deep complicated one. I recommend the committee use an extended schedule on processing this one, as it will take far more digging and evidence production to adequately address it than average current cases. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor Levelledout

Personally speaking I have taken a hiatus from the topic area due to the fact that it is an impossible environment for any editor that prefers consensus over edit-warring/ownership. So yes I certainly think an ArbCom case is required, particularly as all other routes have been exhausted, repeatedly. I would hope that it would be possible to perhaps re-examine my previous request as part of this one.Levelledout (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Electronic cigarette: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <10/0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Accept Clearly we're going to end up dealing with this sooner or later. Yunshui  12:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept per Yunshui --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 22:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept. Last time this was raised at arbcom I had hopes that the community sanctions would work, but time has proven they have not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept Doug Weller (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept I think it is time we finally deal with this issue, it just is not being resolved. Courcelles (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept NativeForeigner Talk 06:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept, the community resolutions have clearly not been sufficient here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As I said last time, Accept. AGK [•] 19:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept LFaraone 15:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality

Initiated by Callanecc at 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Christianity and Sexuality arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Callanecc

Following an AE request (I'll add a permalink when it's closed) could the Committee please clarify what the second part of dot point one in Roscelese's restriction ("and is required to discuss any content [emphasis added] reversions on the page's talk page") applies to.

My suggestion would be that the bit in brackets for the first clause could be made to apply to the second clause as well, or if WP:BANEX could be applied to the whole dot point?

Roscelese may wish to make request regarding exceptions for dot point 2, but I'll leave that up to her. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: That really depends, currently there is no mechanism other than a formal amendment for the arbitrator comments below to be taken into account (or even found and referred to) for any enforcement in the future. If the Committee doesn't have an appetite for a formal amendment by motion perhaps they could do it through this request by foot noting the remedy with a summary of the arb comments here (though that would probably need to be done by an arb rather than a clerk). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually given that not all of the arbs commenting have answered:
  • Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts?
  • Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)?
Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The thing to consider here (and something which has come up in the past) is that if the admins involved in the enforcement of the Committee's decision don't understand or need clarification to confirm their interpretation (whether the interpretation is correct or not) then the Committee should provide that clarification as clearly as possible. The comments here are equivalent to obiter dicta on the PD page and they disappear to the case talk page, that is, you'd look at the decision the Committee has passed when deciding whether to report/enforce not the case talk page. In this case the dot points are separate items and so don't necessarily rely on the conditions set in in each other, so in this case the questions being asked are valid and may very well come up again. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Roscelese

  • Obviously, I agree with the arbs who have commented here; if the user had provided some reason for removal (either in the edit summary or the talk page) I wouldn't have reverted with a simple "?" ("why did you do this?"), which seemed like a nicer thing to say than "rv vandalism" despite the lack of a summary, the fact that the text was cited to reliable sources, and the absence of other edits on the account. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

I don't see any reason to make material changes to the sanctions. The sanctions involved in my initial filing set minimum communication requirements. She breached; no one seriously argues otherwise. Claiming her breach was justified by WP:BANEX simply doesn't fly; BANEX requires that "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible explanatory edit summary or that you link to an explanation detailing the exemption". That's pretty much equivalent to the communication requirement that Roscelese didn't comply with; it would be rather silly to say she should provide an edit summary explaining why she didn't have to provide an edit summary. Perhaps the Committee might amend the second clause of the remedy to allow an appropriate edit summary in lieu of talk page comment when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations, but Roscolese didn't even make that minimal effort here. The more significant issue, as I saw it, was the violation of sanction 2, making an automated rollback-type edit without providing an edit summary; given that rollback-type edits are pretty much limited to situations which would fall under BANEX, it seems clear to me that no exception was indicated by the Committee's language. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Christianity and Sexuality: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Christianity and Sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Generally speaking, an unexplained removal of large chunks of an article, especially by a very new editor, is reasonably treated as a vandal or test edit. Roscelese was well within reason to do so here. I would see the meaning of "content revert" as the reversal of a content edit, which would exclude vandalism. Regardless, I'm not inclined to require Roscelese to start a talk page discussion every time she removes "HI JOE!!!!!!!!" type vandalism from a page. If, of course, that editor comes back and provides a reason they believe the material should be removed, that would then bring these restrictions into force should Roscelese revert it again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I just re-read the restriction in question and was surprised to see that we did not explicitly say it did not apply to reverts of obvious vandalism/BLP violations; that said, I agree with Seraphimblade. It would be a waste of time to have Roscelese open a thread whenever she were to revert vandalism. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • i agree with both of my colleagues. Next time we must make this explicit. Doug Weller (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Having thought about this more since my comment at AE, I think all that is needed for vandalism reverts is an edit summary that notes it is vandalism being reverted (which is good practice for everyone). I'd be happy to amend the wording of the restriction to make this clear if people think that would be worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Callanecc: to explicitly answer your two questions:
    • Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts? It is neither required nor prohibited.
    • Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)? An explanation is needed, but an edit summary noting the nature of the revert (i.e. that it is reverting indisputable vandalism or BLP violations) is sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • We need to examine the full relevant sentence of the restriction being clarified:

    [Roscelese] is: indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page

    Given that reversions are expressly defined as excluding "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations", reverting simple vandalism is outwith the scope of the restriction. In my view no amendment is needed and the answer to the question seems fairly plain. AGK [•] 01:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It's actually the second bullet point that clarification is being sought with regards:

      [Roscelese] is: indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;

      While that contains no exceptions on it's own, it unclear whether the exception in the first bullet is intended to apply only to the first restriction or to both restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes it is, thanks Thryduulf. I think all of the above in any case have answered the question from that angle fairly exhaustively, so I still concur that no amendment is required. AGK [•] 03:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
"Yes it applies to both"; or "yes it applies to the first only"?. I read it as applying to both. There can be a need to revert vandalism immediately; there is not a need to revert without explanation. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I read it as no discussion is required for reverting obvious vandalism, and Rosclese did nothing wrong here. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that Roscelese should not be required to start a talk page discussion for reverting obvious vandalism. An edit summary mentioning that this was vandalism wouldn't have been a bad choice, but I'm not terribly concerned by "?". If we need to modify restrictions so that this is more clear, so be it, but I think that the exception of obvious vandalism is implied. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think at this point we need input. Do @Callanecc, Roscelese, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: or anyone else feels that the clarifications are sufficient as they stand or whether we need to amend the wording? Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Motions

Requests for enforcement


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 · edit 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 · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia: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:

  — Jess· Δ 03:29, 23 July 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?[26]

    This was despite my cordial disclaimer ("Apologies if you were previously alerted; I didn't find a tag in your history"),[27] 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.[28] He did this despite the WP:BLPPRIVACY problem already mentioned on the talk page,[29] even replying to it.[30] 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.[31] 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,[32] and it merely restated what had been in the article body for a month using the same sources.[33]
  • Considering the above diffs from myself and others, the disruption appears to stem from Peter's inability to approach the subject dispassionately, imparting a narrative of personalized conflict where editors are simply trying to use the best sources and report them accurately.

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

Reply to Peter:
  • Peter reverts, restoring Watts' personal address in the article, with edit comment See talk page "Improving the lead".[34]
  • Ten minutes later, he replies to my comment about BLPPRIVACY in the thread "Improving the lead".[35] 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.[36] I pointed out that IntelliWeather is registered to his home address, as are his other domains.[37]
  • 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.[38][39] 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 [Mann jess] 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? [etc.]" meaning I thought others intended it.

Re "claiming [Mann jess] equate[s] 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 Wikipedia 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).
  • Considers another editors calling one of his reverts a "removal of information" to be "misleading" [52], while edits by others are considered done with the intent to "destroy" information [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62].

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)

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 | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: You can reply, yes. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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 · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change :

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

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

Diffs:

  — 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 Wikipedia to be a battleground for climate wars:

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

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

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

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

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

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..."[75]

Upset by this:

  • "As always, thanks for fighting the good fight against the POV-pushers."[76]

And worried by this:

  • "Peter: could you please drop me an email at xxxxxATgmailDOTcom, to discuss developments in a CC topic of mutual interest?"[77]

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

Statement by Tillman

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

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


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

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

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

“ the serially debunked conspiracy theorist Stephan Lewandowsky.” Source: Quadrant magazine. His wikibio could use some work! --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Arbitrator Gamaliel questioned this edit regarding a lawsuit. Please see this discussion at Mann Jess’s talk page, where she writes “I don't doubt that the lawsuit is inactive; indeed, I think it is.” Please compare to her complaint above, “Adds inaccurate summary cited to a facebook post.” She appears to contradict herself, and all 3 editors there agree that the lawsuit appears inactive. Also note my response, that I had made a weak edit, and wasn’t sorry to be called on it. --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Arbitrator Gamaliel and another user mention a problem with this talk page edit, where I wrote: "thanks for fighting the good fight against the POV-pushers." I'm having trouble identifying the source of their objection. Are they arguing that we have no POV-pushers here? Would that it were so.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Two users and one arb (if I counted right) have expressed concern that I posted a note at another editor's Talk page, asking him to email me. I’m having trouble finding a problem with this. If I wanted to conspire with another editor, don’t you think that’s a little, well, Open? Can we stipulate that I’m not stupid? (don’t ask my wife about this). Why do you suppose we have this template: Template:You've got mail ? C’mn, folks, let’s act like adults here. It’s a free country, and attempts to regulate volunteer editors off-Wiki activities are likely to lead to, well, fewer volunteers. OK? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Medical and personal situation

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

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

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

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

Statement by JzG

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

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

Example: diff re Lewandowsky.

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

Compare that with:

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

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

Also:

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

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

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

The comment on Mann: "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, Mann's memoir and polemic, was generally well-received, but the Wall Street Journal's reviewer said the book was largely "score-settling with anyone who has ever doubted his integrity or work," which would include both Anthony Watt and Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, both included in the "twofer" quote that has become so contentious. The WSJ also described Mann as a "scientist-turned-climate-warrior." - yes, the WSJ did say this, but, crucially (and not mentioned), the WSJ is well-known as a lone holdout on climate change among quality newspapers (see also [78], [79], [80] 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 Wikipedia to trash living people who espouse the mainstream view and who you thus seem to think are "fair game" after the manner of Scientology. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
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)

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 Wikipedia, arbitration remedies or no. That attack alone is evidence that this editor needs to be reminded that the BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia. In the context of discretionary sanctions in a case already noted for widespread smearing of scientists on Wikipedia, is very serious indeed. Action must be taken to uphold the credibility of Wikipedia. --TS 15:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


Statement by Stephan Schulz

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: [81]. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
PS: this was my mistake, not Stephan's: posted the wrong link above. Sorry! --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
A polemic in Quadrant magazine, which as part of its very mission statement "turned a sceptical eye on a range of intellectual fads and fashions including postmodernism, cultural relativism, multiculturalism and radical environmentalism", and that disclaims all responsibility for published texts, is still not a good source for BLP statements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Re. "Facebook": The original edit is indeed a poster example on how not to source something. It's a Facebook post (hence unreliable) by an involved party (hence a primary source) which explicitly states that the case is not inactive (i.e. the opposite of the claim added to the article). The argument then seems to go "because there is an old post by Mann on Facebook there is no newer post by Mann on Facebook, and when there is no relevant activity by Mann on Facebook there is no activity in the lawsuit, therefore the lawsuit is inactive", which is not only original synthesis, but also a very weak argument. That others may agree with the conclusion (for whatever reason) does not in any way make the sourcing stronger or more acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Stephan: @13:40, 27 July 2015 I acknowledged that this was a weak argument. Did you read this discussion at Mann Jess’s talk page, where she writes “I don't doubt that the lawsuit is inactive; indeed, I think it is.” Indeed, all three editors agree that the lawsuit appears inactive. The edt is gone. I made & acknowledged a mistake. What's your point? Pete Tillman (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I have two points. First, the fact that you made the edit in the first place is a sign that you should reconsider how you come to your conclusions in this area. You yourself - to your credit - acknowledge that it was a mistake. But why and how did you make it in the first place? Secondly, you still maintain than Mann Jess "appears to contradict herself" because she thinks that the lawsuit is inactive while also claiming that your edit misrepresents the source. But there is no contradiction at all - one statement is about her personal belief in May 2015, the other is about what the linked source said back in early 2014. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

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

17 May Adds "climate change denial" in the lead.
17 May adds "global warming denial" elsewhere in the lead.
17 May changes to "climate change denial".
18 May Reverts A Quest For Knowledge who tried to remove climate change denial.
21 May Reverts 2001:4C28:4000:721:185:26:182:3 who tried to change to skepticism.
21 May Reverts Capitalismojo who tried to change to skepticism.
25 May Reverts Tillman who tried to change to skepticism.
25 May Reverts 2620:117:C080:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:86EC who tried to change to information about climate wars.
25 May Reverts 88.168.219.244 who tried to change to climate science.
25 May Reverts Ponysboy who tried to change to skepticism.
26 May Reverts TMLutas who tried to remove denial.
26 May Reverts SPhilbrick who tried to change to climate change issues
27 May Changes to "climate change skepticism or denial" and points to denial article, leaves "among the most influential in climate change denial blogs" elsewhere in the lead, unattributed.
6 June Reverts Peter Gulutzan who tried to remove denial
11 June Reverts 2600:1003:B007:D95E:0:1C:A3E2:E301: who tried to remove denial.
12 June Reverts Darkthlayli who tried to change to skepticism.

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

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

Statement by dave souza

Interim statement: still trying to find time for this.

Sorry for the mis-statement. Corrected above, thanks. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Still wrong, Markram's not a Frontiers in Psychology editor, and the retraction was "approved by Axel Cleeremans". Why don't you just withdraw your attacks on Lewandowsky? . . dave souza, talk 21:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pete Tillman's attempts to denigrate scientists and give "equal validity" to their non-scientist detractors aren't new. His [recent edit] 2015 edit discussed above added the Clive Crook opinion piece discussed in 2010, when Pete proposed it as "criticism" of the Penn State inquiry exonerating Mann – when Crook's uninformed non-expert opinion was opposed, Pete suggested Fox News quoting lobbyist Steven Milloy, or a statement from the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives [a fiscally conservative libertanian think-tank]. . . . dave souza, talk 22:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC) correction to self: incorrect diff removed from "recent edit", diff added for 2015 edit. . . dave souza, talk 05:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
First, I find this an inappropriate, inflammatory opening.
Second, regarding the statement regarding use of Crook’s 2010 Atlantic article: “Pete proposed it as "criticism" of the Penn State inquiry exonerating Mann – when Crook's uninformed non-expert opinion was opposed…"
“Crook’s uninformed non-expert opinion” is an interesting construction. Clive Crook is a “columnist for the Financial Times, the National Journal and a senior editor at The Atlantic Monthly. For twenty years he held various editorial positions at The Economist, including its deputy editor for eleven years.
In 2006, he co-chaired the Copenhagen Consensus project, framing global development priorities for the coming decades together with Nobel laureates and other world renowned economists…
To my eye, Crook appeaars to be a fine choice for commenting on the Climategate scandal and its aftermath. The Crook article no doubt makes difficult reading for supporters of the Climategate scientists. Crook wrote that “the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption.”
Crook continued,
“The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann … would be difficult to parody.” Crook goes on to document a number of problems with PSU’s self-examination. You will note, in the 2010 discussion Dave links, no refutations of Crook's conclusions. Instead, we see I don’t like it stuff.
“The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.” Indeed. Crook’s analysis (and that of The Economist) have (imo) held up remarkably well. Independent observers might well wonder why such opinions have been systematically excluded from most Wikipedia climate change articles. Is this what the arbitrators would like to perpetuate? --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This was Pete Tillman's 30 May 2015 edit to the WP:BLP of the Michael E. Mann#CRU email controversy section, which very briefly summarises the Pennsylvania State University investigations. A 2011 review by the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation confirmed the university panel's conclusions which cleared Mann of any wrongdoing, and it stated "Lacking any evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing the investigation with no further action."
In our July 2010 discussion, User:Stephan Schulz wrote of "Climategate and the Big Green Lie" by Clive Crook that "It's an editorial. It's also fairly uninformed", but Pete Tillman feels it merits great weight in Mann's bio. Crook is doubtless a notable economics journalist, his chairing the Copenhagen Consensus links him to the controversial economist Bjørn Lomborg but doesn't qualify Crook as an expert on scientific conduct, let alone justify accusations of "an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption" in which "the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute".
It's troubling that Pete Tillman still thinks this July 2010 opinion should be given weight in a BLP. . . dave souza, talk 06:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Tillman

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • There are a number of issues which trouble me here:
    • The disparagement of Stephan Lewandowsky. There are any number of ways an editor can responsibly indicate their negative opinion of a particular source; this is not one of them. This editor attempts to justify this disparagement above by citing a partisan opinion commentator. This indicates that they do not see the problem with this behavior.
    • The disparagement of Michael Mann as "vindictive", cited to the personal, self-published blog of a political opponent.
    • Disparagement of other editors and evidence of a battleground mentality, such as here
    • Replacement of a secondary source with primary source, a Facebook message, and then inaccurately recounting what that source says. The Facebook message reads "Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules" while this editor writes "As of mid-2015, the lawsuit appears to be inactive". This appears to be a blatant misuse of sources.
    • Polemical messages which appear to compare being called a "climate change denialist" with the treatment of African-Americans under Jim Crow, which is bizarre, inappropriate, and morally repugnant.
  • Given all of the above, I am of the opinion that this editor should not be editing in this topic area. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I generally agree with Gamaliel's analysis, and think that a topic ban is in order. T. Canens (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Citadel48

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 Citadel48

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 01:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Citadel48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
ARBMAC
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 1 May 2015 Citadel48 introduced {{Infobox military conflict}} into the Bijeljina massacre article, which already had an {{Infobox civilian attack}}.
  2. 2 May 2015 23 editor reverted the addition of the Infobox, with edit summary "rv unexplained additions to GA-class article; go to talk"
  3. 2 May 2015 24 minutes later, Citadel48 reverted the reversion with no edit summary, and edit marked as "minor". I reverted the same day after ARBMAC-alerting Citadel48 (see below).
  4. 7 June 2015 Citadel48 restores the {{Infobox military conflict}} with no edit summary, marking the edit as "minor". I reverted it the same day requesting discussion on talk.
  5. 10 June 2015 Citadel48 added a {{main}} template to a section of the Bijeljina massacre article, pointing to the "Capture of Bijeljina" article they had created (with a {{Infobox military conflict}}, and which was now subject to a merge discussion. I reverted that on the basis that the existence of the new article was under discussion.
  6. 13 June 2015 Citadel48 then added a portion of text to the article, stating as a fact some testimony given by two defence witnesses at the ICTY case against Radovan Karadžić.
  7. 13 June 2015 I reverted this, with the edit summary " when will you get the message about reliability?" (this obviously referred to the discussion on talk here), and continued to properly cite another video Citadel48 had copyvio linked (History Channel).
  8. 13 June 2015 Citadell48 then reinserted the testimony text with the edit summary "Balancing."
  9. 13 June 2015 As a result of the obvious consensus for merging, I took the remaining piece of text from the new "Capture of Bijeljina" article, and incorporated it into this article.
  10. 13 June 2015 Citadel48 promptly reverted that addition, and re-inserted the {{main}} template (above), with the edit summary "Same content on other page". I reverted it on the same basis as above.
  11. 14 June 2015 Citadel48 re-inserted the {{main}} template (above), with no edit summary, and I reverted him.
  12. 14 June 2015 Citadel48 re-inserted the testimony material as if it was fact (as before), and 23 editor reverted him with the edit summary "according to a witness at an ongoing trial; not in Wikipedia's voice".
  13. 15 June 2015 Citadel48 re-inserted the testimony as fact.
  14. I submitted a RfC to get a wider community view on this issue Talk:Bijeljina massacre#Request for comment on 15 June 2015, from which the clear consensus was for the testimony of witnesses at the Karadžić trial to be attributed in-line as such.
  15. 19 June 2015 I removed references to the "Capture" article, as it had been deleted.
  16. 27 June 2015 User:Scrawlspacer added the "Islamophobia Series" infobox.
  17. 15 July 2015 After a month, I undid Citadel48's re-insertion of the testimony material on 15 June 2015, on the basis of the consensus at the RfC.
  18. 26 July 2015 Citadel48 returned to the edit-warring, and also deleted the "Islamophobia Series" infobox. I reverted him for re-insertion of the testimony material.
  19. 26 July 2015 Citadel48 reverted my removal of the testimony material, and tagged a quote from the UN Commission of Experts as a POV statement. This is the current state of the article.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  • None I can see.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Citadel48 is actually not a new editor, having made over 1,300 edits with this account. His editing behaviour has been problematic since Day 1, a quick look at his user talk page will give you an idea of the extent of the issues, removing material, edit warring, linking to copyvios on Youtube, etc. His top edited pages confirm a proclivity for controversial subjects and drama. His first edit was on Sandy Hook conspiracy theories. Now, no-one's perfect, least of all me, but there is a bit of a pattern developing here. In 1,300 edits, he should have developed some level of clue about consensus, edit-warring and basic editing issues like tagging edits as minor when they clearly are not. My concern is that he may be WP:NOTHERE, as there is evidence of ongoing disruption, battlegrounding, gaming and lack of respect for consensus. He's also been alerted about ARBMAC over two months ago.

Since the alert, 23 editor and I made several improvements to the article in question, adding references to the current case before the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia regarding this matter to ensure it was completely comprehensive. I also made a series of edits to properly cite the videos that Citadel48 had copyvio linked from Youtube earlier. This was done in good faith to try to address Citadel48's concerns with the content of the article and so that Citadel48 could see how to do it without creating a copyvio link.

I consider that if Citadel48 is going to be a net positive for WP, he needs some correction now. This is not the only Balkans article he's taken a shine to, he created a list of all the people killed in a couple of incidents during the Bosnian War, and could not see how it was undue. See his talk page for more. They were both subsequently deleted. The pattern isn't just Balkans, but there is a strong Balkans link. That is why I have brought him here, as it is his most recent behaviour regarding the Bijeljina massacre article that is ongoing and most frustrating for productive editors working in what is a difficult space, and he has been alerted to possible sanctions in this area. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, it is apparent from his brief response that: a. he doesn't take this complaint seriously; and b. he isn't interested in abiding by WP policies. The fact that he appears to think this is about a content dispute demonstrates his lack of regard for WP policies such as those on reliable sources and edit-warring, among others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't include the issue of marking edits as minor when they clearly are not, but it is a further indication of Citadel48's disruptive failure to meet basic expectations of editing WP, and reinforces my contention that he needs correction if he is to eventually be a net positive for the encyclopedia. Further, Citadel48's tagging of the UNCE material using RT (a Russian state news source that has been accused of running Russian foreign policy propaganda and has consistently supported Serb interests in the Balkans) is an indication of pro-Serb POV-pushing, something that regularly crops up in articles about Yugoslavia in WWII (where I usually edit) and in articles about the Balkan Wars of the 1990's such as Bijeljina massacre. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

notified


Discussion concerning Citadel48

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

Statement by Citadel48

My additions to the page had previously been discussed on the talk page, no opposition was received.

The main information I added he is disputing is when I added that a Bosnian paramilitary group was in the time at the time of the initial capture & massacre. Information that sources that were cited on the page even before I started editing the specific page back up. Citadel48 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no connection to Serbia, I do not "support" any of the participants of the war.

I marked the statement as biased because even the UN & Hague are considered by many to be politically biased.[1]

The edit about the presence of the militia is sourced by materials there even before I edited the article.

Citadel48 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Statement by Writegeist

Topic bans for users who are persistently disruptive (and deaf to others) around articles in their particular areas of biased interest are sometimes a wise recourse, as we’ve seen recently with action at AE. I don't know whether this person’s input qualifies yet—uninvolved admins will have to decide how best to protect the 'pedia—but there seems to be a competency issue at the very least, and Balkan articles do attract incompetent and/or disruptive POV pushers from time to time. Clearly it’s best for users who can’t edit neutrally in these areas to leave them alone. Perhaps this one might voluntarily refrain until (s)he attains the blessed state of cluefulness? (Wow. My optimism sometimes surprises me.) Writegeist (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Citadel48

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

Citadel48 has posted above, though I think the response is inadequate. It does appear that Citadel48 has consistently edited Bijeljina massacre to make it more favorable to the Serbian side. On 26 July they even added a POV-section tag, complaining that a section wasn't neutral when the material was cited to a report by the United Nations Commission of Experts. They continue to mark all their Wikipedia edits as minor, even when editing contested articles in the domain of WP:ARBMAC. Admins reviewing this complaint might consider banning Citadel48 from everything concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, owing to their inability to edit neutrally, and banning them from marking any edits as 'minor' on article pages covered by WP:ARBMAC. I hope that Citadel48 will expand their above comment to address this proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)