Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive176

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.

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.

• May 30, 09:05
• May 30, 13:06
• May 30, 18:11
• June 1, 19:28

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]

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.

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):

• PBS - "skeptic"
• Scientific American - "skeptical"
• American Thinker - "skeptic"
• New York Times - "skeptics"
• Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
• PBS - "skeptic"
• LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
• Fox News - "skeptical"
• USA Today - "skeptic"
• The Telegraph - "science"
• BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general

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:

• IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
• The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
• Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
• Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
• Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
• Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
• Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
• Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
• The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
• Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".

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:

• Akhilleus[24][25]
• ArtifexMayhem[26][27][28]
• Capitalismojo[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]
• DHeyward[39][40][41]
• Gnncmac[42][43]
• Joel B. Lewis[44][45][46][47][48]
• JzG[49][50]
• Mann jess[51][52][53][54][55]
• Nomoskedasticity[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]
• Peter Gulutzan[69][70][71][72][73][74]
• PeterTheFourth[75][76]
• Stephan Schulz[77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84]
• Tillman[85][86][87][88][89][90][91]
• Ubikwit[92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102]

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]

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]

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].
    
    • It further bears noting that Dave souza has been tackling the definitional aspects in a professional manner, with this edit[105], for example, and more to come[106] from this source.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

• 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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

• Are all admins here aware that the arbitration committee decided unanimously that A Quest For Knowledge had been engaged battlefield conduct and edit warring on the topic of climate change and had been indefinitely topic banned from climate change?

I have never heard of a topic ban being reinstated for a shorter period of time, or given a narrower scope, when there is similar problematic behavior after a topic ban has been lifted. Manul ~ talk 15:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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

to WP:FRINGE.... (DIFF)

which I rebutted with

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

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.

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

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Discussion of possible sanctions

Ah, thanks for the clarification earlier today Gamaliel, in which you articulated the idea is 1RR just on the specific editor in question. That works for me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: and @Heimstern Läufer:, Here's a technical fly in the ointment and I'm not sure what to think. AQFK made 22+ reverts of the same material from the lead, claiming the existence that a 3RR exemption allowed this. If you impose 1RR, someone less wise than AQFK might laugh, and carry on after the dust settles... after all, if claiming a revert didn't count due an exemption got them past 3RR, it should get them past 1RR, right? I don't know what to make of this observation. I have no reason to think AQFK would stoop to such gamesmanship, but there are many others who are interested in the same material whom I don't know as well. Do you think you might say something about the claims of exemption, to help any future controversy in event someone tries to break AQFK's revert record using the same exemption claims? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tillman:, who opines with no analysis that "NAEG's reply to AQFK's apology, @23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC), also strikes me as rather mean-spirited, as his own behavior has not (imo) been without fault in this ongoing edit war. "

Pete, I would like to become a better editor. Please explain, with diffs instead of innuendo, how you think I have been at fault? I can't help but note that earlier today you made an article edit that deleted the word "however". You justified it with a vague reference to the MOS; I reverted you with a pinpoint cite to WP:HOWEVERPUNC. You may well be right, but I'd just like to hear something specific. Instead, you've posted this innuendo about my behavior here. Please defend the claim? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINS, Pete also complains of a chilling effect on a group of editors opposed to labeling Watts a "denier". If they're after real NPOV why should they be chilled? We could easily report Watts' self-description (skeptic), criticisms of Watts (some say denier), the controversy over which label applies, and observe that most pop culture sources don't really distinguish between these terms (see work in progress at global warming denial. There is only a chilling effect on those who say "just skeptic" or "just denier". And that's OK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our purpose here is prevention, not punishment. The only way to prevent future chaos in these articles is to resolve, once and for all, the correct application of policy to criticisms of Watts and his blog as being engaged in "climate change denial". Unless there is a binding resolution how that should work on these articles, I have little hope that sanctioning one or even a handful of editors will prevent anything, longterm. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jess, are arguments that are primarily about policy interpretation still regarded as mere content disputes? In a criminal matter I once sat on a jury, and among the charges we had to diliberate was one with several aspects, but our instructions only explained some of them. Once we had resolved what we thought had actually happened, we just spun our wheels until finally we trotted back into court with a written legal question for the judge. After that, it was resolved quickly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

This is now stale and AQFK has shown the same behavior or worse has been displayed by some of his detractors here. This should be closed with no action as it's clear there is no action against AQFK will be preventative considering the amount of discord and POV pushing and BLP violations that exist on the topic. Any action should be aimed at adressing the disruption which is at the page and topic level. 1RR should be a page 1RR, not an editor, for example. Ubikwit is facing a topic ban imminently which should lower the confrontation. level somewhat. --DHeyward (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much unhappy and ugly behavior on display in the recent (and continuing) edit warring over Anthony Watts (blogger) and WUWT, that it seems a bit churlish to single out AQFK. He has acknowledged, and apologized for, his edit-warring at Watts Up With That, above -- but he's gotten in trouble over this sort of thing before.

The edit-warring that I observed began at WUWT, with a provocative edit by the editor who filed the complaint against AQFK, who added this opening sentence to the article, with no prior discussion:

Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial.... -- cited to a long list of sources, all apparently personal opinions by opponents of Watts. Please see this Talk page entry

Unsurprisingly, a number of editors felt that this was a problematic edit. The situation wasn't helped by the supporters of this change repeatedly claiming to have reached WP:Consensus for the change: please see this section at Article talk page. Specifically, please see this reply to the editor proposing sanctions, @ 18:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

[Quote]"We established consensus to link climate change denial..."

"Where do you find this consensus? I see a section above where you asserted that "denier" is the right word, but you immediately got pushback. As an editor with over 10,000 edits, I would have thought you knew what the word consensus meant. No, it doesn't mean without any opposition, but there is substantial, in-depth opposition. ..."

So there was problematic behavior by the editor proposing the sanctions -- which makes one wonder if the purpose of this RfE might be to get an opposing editor to go away. Further, we read at the Statement by JBL:

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. ...

So it's clear what at least one editor is hoping for from this, and perhaps subsequent, enforcement actions. Other editors, both here and at Anthony Watts (blogger), have made clear their antipathy against both Watts and his blog.

NAEG's reply to AQFK's apology, @23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC), also strikes me as rather mean-spirited, as his own behavior has not (imo) been without fault in this ongoing edit war. To be fair, neither has mine, and I think the arbs would have to look very hard to find a blameless editor active during the edit wars at these two articles. Sigh.

This Request for Enforcement is already having a chilling effect on editors who have opposed the efforts to label Anthony Watts and his blog as Climate Deniers. Is this what the ArbComm wants? --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy This request is about specific problematic behavior, not a content dispute. While I agree that broader action will be necessary to address related problems from other editors, it is very likely going to require a separate AE case (and probably soon). AQFK's behavior is distinct from the other problems we're seeing, and it is very likely to extend to other articles in the topic even if this specific dispute is resolved. I'm unsure how I feel about his apology for the RfC, and especially his lack of interest in addressing other complaints, such as his edit warring, misrepresentation of sources, and so on. It's possible his behavior will improve without sanctions, but we should consider that possibility on its own, not settle on it because we got distracted by unrelated behavior from others.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this report is simply allowed to archive, we will surely end up here again when the behaviour resumes. It's not hard to imagine that AQFK is biding his/her time, refraining from editing as a means of giving the impression that there's no issue to deal with. Past experience suggests otherwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK has not edited essentially since this was filed. During the same period, discussion on the Anthony Watts page has been considerably more civil and constructive. I think there's a natural conclusion to draw. --JBL (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Any thoughts regarding a 1RR restriction on articles and talk pages in the topic area given the evidence of edit warring? Gamaliel (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems acceptable as a compromise between no action and reinstating the topic ban, both of which have been called for by those here. Of course, compromise is not always the right solution, but since I'm not seeing any real administrative will for a full topic ban, and as it seems incorrect to allow edit warring to simply stand, this may be best. (Note: I am restricted to mobile browsing only, so laying any sanction myself will be a bigger hassle than I have time for unless my situation changes.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NewsAndEventsGuy: I apologize for being unclear. I meant a 1RR restriction on A Quest For Knowledge. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And for the record, that's also the kind of 1RR I was responding to above. So we're on the same topic. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• One way or another, this AE ought to be closed. Though it's hard to see much exemplary behavior in the climate change area, there is evidence submitted that AQFK has engaged in long-term edit warring on articles related to Anthony Watts. Either this is serious enough to do something, or we should close this with a warning. Since he's already been in an arb case, a mere warning may not be enough. If you want to impose a sanction that actually does something, I'd propose a three-month ban from the topic of Anthony Watts (blogger) anywhere on Wikipedia, and a 3-month ban from the topic of Climate change denial. The evidence submitted by WP:AE#Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy shows a pattern of long-term reverting that went on for six weeks or so and during that time AQFK may never have actually broken 1RR. This suggests that a 1RR restriction on AQFK could be more symbolic than real. A complete topic ban of AQFK from the suggested articles would have more effect. I don't know if sanctioning AQFK will solve the long-term problem with these articles, but if it doesn't a fresh AE may be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I'm fine with this too if editors are concerned that a 1RR restriction will be ineffective. Gamaliel (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Will enact the 3-month TBAN from Watts and Climate change denial with a modified end date of September 16, as this should have been closed days ago. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. previous "close": General consensus amongst admins and others appeared to be that there is no issue to pursue here. However, another admin (and arbitrator) has gone ahead and unilaterally blocked Eric after this AE report was closed. The purpose of this page (and indeed any concept of consensus on it) now therefore appears to be unclear. Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Eric Corbett (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/Interactions_at_GGTF#Eric_Corbett_topic_banned :

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

1. 16:19, 25 June 2015 Corbett posts comment on talk page about how WMF's workshop related to gender issues is "grossly offensive". Adds that Callanecc can block me again for as long as he likes, for whatever reason takes his fancy, but to my mind this is simply unacceptable.
2. 16:31, 25 June 2015 Adds another comments to the section linked above

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 13:18, 25 January 2015 Blocked by Sandstein for 48 hours for GGTF tban violation
2. 13:40, 27 February 2015 Blocked by Coffee for 72 hours for GGTF tban violation
3. 03:08, 27 May 2015 Blocked by Callanecc for 1 week for GGTF tban violation
4. 22:00, 28 May 2015 Blocked by Callanecc for 2 weeks for GGTF tban and Lightbreather iban violations

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. diff

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.

Jesus Christ, he made a single comment on his own talk page. Leave him be. Or is he so influential that Wikipedia is going to riot over his comment? GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What possible benefit is served by this, other than allowing whoever posted it to boost their feeble sense of self-worth? Andy Dingley (talk) 5:22 pm, Today (UTC−5)

The devil makes work for idle thumbs. Utterly pointless and tantamount to harassment of Eric. Some people clearly have too much time on their hands. Cassianto^Talk 22:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pointless petty action and has no benefit to Wikipedia whatsoever. In fact, as I am a British female (yes, I know all the "vocal American feminists" will no doubt spit, hiss and create the usual drama at this: "British" and "female" appear to equate to "non entity" and/or "idiot" or of "no importance", "not worthy of any consideration" as far as the vociferous, vocal few are concerned.) Over the last couple of weeks on Wikipedia I have been subjected to pornographic images, been left "barnstars" advising me to have a poisoned drink, seen messages that advocated I should get cancer and die, as well as being the target of a particularly persistent POV pushing editor. Who has been the main person who has tried to encourage me to see past all the c*ap, helped, advised and been one of the few voices of support and reason? Certainly not any members of the Gender Gap Task Force or those who claim to be advocating Civility ... no, the editor who has particularly helped, enticed and encouraged is Eric. SagaciousPhil - Chat 23:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I think EvergreenFir could find a more productive way to help Wikipedia than hounding Eric's posts for slight references to the GGTF. KonveyorBelt 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why this user got a topic ban, but I find watching his every move and reporting even the slightest violation of his topic ban much more concerning than this minor breach. WP:WIKIHOUNDING is never a good thing. Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone has too much time on there hands!, Stop wasting the communities time and find something better to do that doesn't involve following Eric like a lap dog. –Davey2010^Talk 00:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose they gave a drama and no one came? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wikilawyered and frivolous sanction. EC has never in my knowledge treated any editor differently because of their sex. I would note the irony of the "harassment" (at least as defined by others in GGTF) he is undergoing and it is a minor sort for sure, but out of all the people who "know" harassment most are quite content to visit it on other people or their conceived opponents. I'm sure he'll be blocked and eventually down the line it will be wiki-lawyered into a site ban. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Jaqeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Jaqeli 14:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

1

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

1

Hello everyone. 3 months ago I was granted by admin @HJ Mitchell: with 3 month topic ban exemption on several of my TBAN-related articles, the reason behind this was to see if I could be trusted again in the area of my TBAN. Now my 3 months topic ban exemption is over so I want to file a new request at AE. I want my TBAN to be cancelled and lifted from me entirely. During these 3 months I've created some good quality articles, expanded some and I didn't engage in any edit war. I want to get back to wiki again without any TBAN on me as I can do many good for wiki as I am sure during this period of time I have truly learned my lessons from my past mistakes. As I've said in my past appeal 3 months ago I fully understand this is my last chance given to me so I will definitely keep and follow my word. Thank you. Jaqeli 15:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Heimstern: Please see my contribs but one of them can be Epigram of Amazaspos. As for conflicts, I had no conflicts during 3 months. Thank you. Jaqeli 23:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not currently active in AE matters, so I'll leave it to my fellow admins to determine whether the topic ban should be lifted. At a glance I see nothing problematic in recent contribs, so why not.  Sandstein  13:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Hello, Jaqeli. You say that you have created quality articles in the past three months. Would you mind linking to some of your best contributions in that time? Also, have you handled any conflicts in that time? That could help us evaluate your request. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just letting everyone know that I've hit a busy patch of real life and likely won't be able to continue work on this for at least a few days. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Break in busyness came sooner than expected. I don't see any problems in recent edits, so I would say let's go ahead and lift this (as my colleagues below have said). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on a lookover of the past several hundred edits (going back through May), I'm fine with the topic ban being removed. Has the process by which one lifts a topic ban changed from a bureaucratic perspective recently? Or can I just go and strike the remedy from the log? NW (Talk) 21:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Re: NW, I think struck the entry (but not remove it fully) is the proper procedure. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing as successful appeal. Will struck from log.- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Either that's the right answer or it should be. I support doing that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

A21sauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bus stop (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/Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#Log of blocks and bans :

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

1. 26 June 2015 Overrode Talk he himself participated in to put in his preferred edit
2. 27 June 2015 Didn't take my commment about his vote seriously after I noted his infraction

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 14 June Discretionary sanctions alert posted on his talk page by another editor

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

a two-week block on article from Bus stop would be great. Is that possible? From individual editors? Or is it only across the board?--A21sauce (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABus_stop&type=revision&diff=669098453&oldid=668784347

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.

As concerns BLP considerations I am the editor trying to abide by the wishes of the artist. She has expressed that the works are separate and distinct, and she expressed the hope that she would not be stereotyped by the subject matter that her various but limited body of work addresses. When we say "related work" we invoke the thread of commonality of "rape". This is not something that the reader needs pointed out. It could not be more obvious that the three pieces concern themselves with rape. We can respect the artist's wishes and we can write a better article by simply using a section heading reading "Other work". Concerning section headings, in this case, the less said the better. There is no need for the added implication(s) of "Related work". The only requirement of the section heading in this instance is to alert the reader that "here are two other works of art by the same artist". I can't speak about the motivations of others but the effect of "Related work" is to emphasize rape as an aspect of these works of art. Such emphasis, I am saying, is purposeless, as the reader does not benefit from this guidance, and the artist hopes not to be pigeonholed as making art dealing with only one type of subject matter. Bus stop (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the Related work to Other work is a minor change which is not that controversial since the artist herself stated those works are not related. I questioned the same thing in that talk page a while ago, so I can understand if Bus Stop did not seek consensus to change a minor thing, I don't believe this action requires a block. However, I could not see the rationale behind demanding his/her contribution to an unrelated discussion to be discarded because he/she made a small change without a consensus, much less demanding a block because he/she did not comply. Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't see any thing that's controversial enough to act here. Note that the correct remedies authorizing DS rises out of GamerGate and BLP cases. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see any merit to this request and would support a speedy close with no action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Masem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:04, 30 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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Decorum

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

1. 20:47, 2015 June 29‎ Diff #1 - Mark comments on why he reverted a change (okay) but suggests that opining that a person is not an expert would require revdel (see comments)
2. 15:59, 2015 June 30 Diff #2 - Mark called unnamed editors but with rather obvious intent on who as "Gamergate fans", and started to question the possible case of a source, harassed by GG, would be invalidated.
3. 16:38, 2015 June 30 Diff #3 - Mark assuming bad faith in interpretation of a comment I made.
4. 17:07, 2015 June 30 Diff #4 - Mark calling me out as assuming I'm okay with people receiving rape threats.
5. 17:00, 2015 June 30 Diff #5 - Mark's reply to a request I made at his talk page which again assumes I and others are acting in bad faith.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 17:39, 2014 November 28 Topic Ban under the community general sanctions for decorum issues.

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Yesterday, Mark opened a section (Diff #1) with a fair question of why one quote from one of the people (in this case, Brianna Wu) harassed by Gamergate was removed after his restoration (appropriate); however, he begs the issue that questioning if a person is an expert on a topic might be a BLP violation and require oversight (Note that Mark has made many comments that perhaps border on being overly protective of BLP beyond what BLP and BLPTALK require but this alone isn't enforceable). This led to discussion of whether Wu had the expertise as a developer to comment on the history of video games for her opinion to be important, generally agreeing that her opinion should be kept.

In response to comments made by myself, Rhorak, and Torchiest, Mark makes a comment (Diff #2) that calls out unnamed editors as "Gamergate fans" (though the intent is obvious to the reading) and calling the idea that if a person in the media has received harassment from GG that it makes it a "convenient policy" for the "Gamergate fans" to dismiss the opinion of those that have been harassed. While the statement is not directed any specific editors, the intent of the statement is clear, and I consider a personal attack. (Again, from Mark, I might add, more later).

Feeling that his diff was not appropriate and was making a bad faith reading of what the discussion was, I commented on his talk page [112], hoping to avoid elevating this; I also commented on the talk page that I don't think he was reading what we were saying right, in that just because someone is harassed does not make them an invalid source on WP per how we handle independent and dependent sources.

Mark returns this comment with Diff #3 in which again he appears to be taken my comment in very bad faith. He also replies to the message I left on his talk page (Diff #5) where he does not believe that I or others are helping because we aren't fighting hard enough to prevent BLP or prevent arranged GG activities on the GG-related pages, which I think is an overly extreme expectation and assumes bad faith of what myself and other editors are doing at that page.

Finally is that Diff #4 specifically asks me "(I'm just assuming that you think it's OK for victims to object to rape threats, do correct me if I'm mistaken)" which shouldn't even be a question being asked since that never came up in the previous conversations: that's akin to "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions. Mark has called me out as a rape apologist (both on and offsite via his blog) when I had tried to explain in a neutral manner what 4chan's idea of a "rape joke" was (which to be clear is part of the ingrained culture there, it is not something pleasant to discuss but it exists and needed to be discussed at the time for article improvements), see [113] from Nov 2014.

I can tell Mark cares strongly about protecting female developers/journalists (and anyone else) that is being harassed by GG, and that's certainly a strong moral position to take - but that's outside Wikipedia. Mark however appears to be using Wikipedia to try to actively defend and fight against GG by making sure none of these people's names are even tarnished or questioned and making sure those that attempt to tarnish them (whether it is third parties, or WP editors themselves) are shamed appropriately. And that's absolutely not acceptable on WP; we're neutral and not meant to be that involved. We have to be careful and viligent to prevent any unverified BLP from being added, or to allow a third-party to influence GG in the way it has tried to, no question, but there's a point where this goes too far where if we going beyond what a neutral party does, we become involved. Mark's continued personal attacks and assumption of bad faith is nowhere near appropriate, now considering the decorum that ArbCom has asked from the case.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [114]

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.

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

• To any parties who may wish to participate, note that we are not going to tolerate another one of the displays of incivility, virtual shouting, and off-topic ranting that always happens when this particular user is discussed. Keep it calm, keep it relevant, and keep it civil. Post evidence with diffs and not just your gripes or opinions. I have been taking a step back from handing out sanctions and closing requests on WP:AE, but I will assist other administrators here by making sure this is handled in an orderly fashion, up to and including sanctions for people who have been here before if they try to turn this into such a display again. This is a warning to those parties; you won't get another one. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 19:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

[134] Article ban from Kombucha (you may still edit the talk page and are encouraged to do so) until 7:59 pm, 28 June 2015, this Sunday (6 days from now) (UTC−4)

You have been sanctioned as this is second time you have edit warred on the article in the past week so this sanction will stop the edit warring and encourage discussion.

Reason for the appeal

Administrator imposing the sanction

Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[135]

• Feb 10, 2015 - Callan imposes revert restriction on Griffin and simply warns editors involved in tag-teaming and reverting my edits.

• Feb 22, 2015 Callan advises another admin on how to prepare against me, clearly showing favoritism...if/when this eventually ends up at AE for someone to look through your edits and believe that Atsme was pushed or harangued through incivility or personal attacks on your part.

• Feb 23, 2015 Callan's summary and the RfC close which substantiated that my edits were indeed correct in removal of BLP violations even though I was repeatedly threatened and harassed by other editors, and also warned and told by Callan to drop the stick while he supported the position of the other editors who opposed me.

• April 20, 2015 6 weeks later, more of the same suggestive tone by Callan with reference to acting against me by taking a harder line (purposely mentioning STICK) while ignoring the false accusations of the OP. This is further indication of Callan's bias against me, and his double standards.

Callanecc's first ARB warning to me which was unwarranted

• March 11, 2015 Callan posts my first ever ARB warning (CAM) not long after consensus supported my position and problematic editors refused to abide by it - This edit is disruptive and is not commenting on the content but instead on the contributor.

Other editors respond to Callan's DS warning

• March 12, 2015 An editor confirms other instances of double standard w/diffs to demonstrate.

• March 13, 2015 Another editor comments, Is that a joke, or are you actually threatened with prosecution for using an emoji?

• March 11, 2015 I asked Callan why I got the warning.

• March 12, 2015 Callan explains The pun regarding SPECIFICO's username and adding the rolling eyes are the bit which is uncivil.

• Note: I used specificolly instead of specifically in a harmless comment. The emojis were inadvertent and the result of a glitch in the emoji dashboard which I proved many times over before Callanecc would remove the warning.

• March 14, 2015 Explanation with diff from T13 about the emoji dashboard glitch.

More evidence of bias and double standards

• Feb 16, 2015 Issues ARB warning to a very offensive editor (also an admin), then removes all trace of it from the DS log the next day. My warning remains as a strike-thru as evidenced below.
• March 12, 2015 Editor who previously cast aspersions against me now asks Callan to do more than just warn me. Callan responds with .... working from memory and my opinion of Atsme's conduct (which overall I haven't had a problem with).... Yet he issued an ARB warning for inadvertent emojis?

• March 12, 2015 I request help from Callan because other editors are casting aspersions.

• March 12, 2015 Explains warning, acknowledges aspersion but does not act on it. Asks me, Can you explain why you think it's casting aspersions, the only one I can see there which could be is the implication that editors are leaving the article because of you.

• March 12, 2015 Callan simply hides offending comment directed at me by the same user who caused me to get the ARB warning and is asking Callan for stricter penalties imposed against me.

My warning remains on DS log with a strike through - more evidence of the bias and double standard considering he removed all traces of other editor's warning who was far more deserving of more than just a warning.

• Atsme (talk · contribs) warned for making a disruptive and uncivil edit on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Vacated following discussion on my talk page (see 1 & 2). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• March 14, 2015 Discusses my warning with other editor who repeatedly harassed me, and continued to ignore my requests for removal of the warning from the log, not unlike what is happening now in the Kombucha case.

• March 25, 2015 My response to Callan's discussion with now desysopped Dreadstar regarding Griffin and how he failed to accomplish what Callan wanted done with regards to me. (my bold for emphasis) Sorry Callanecc, I tried to help but apparently failed miserably. I'll keep an eye on the talk page of the article and try to keep it on the straight and narrow, but helping with the above editor is beyond my ability.

The above exchange made me feel as though I have a target on my back, and that I'm fair game for the gamers who like to play games with human lives.

• June 21, 2015 Request to Callanecc to repeal the DS but my request was ignored; typical of our prior interactions.
• June 22, 2015 Callan's response is reminiscent of Griffin, not unlike what was happening at Kombucha. .....you need to get consensus before making large or contentious changes to articles, or if you have been reverted (especially more than one) barring things like WP:3RRNO you need to get consensus It was apparent to me that he didn't even bother to evaluate the situation, and the block article ban was a knee jerk reaction based on his bias, double standard, and in support of some of the same editors that were involved at Griffin. ^{correction made 15:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)}
• Some of the noncompliant material I disputed at the article have been removed but the issues are ongoing.
• June 23, 2015 I provided a sequential list of diffs demonstrating my edits and attempts to remove noncompliant material (scientifically unsupported death claims) that is grossly noncompliant with our 3 core content policies and MEDRS. Instead, I was blocked article banned for it.

• Article is PP by NeilN 23:48 June 20, 2015 Which should have been the initial action imposed by Callanecc instead of the block article ban he imposed on me, clearly resulting from his past biases and ongoing double standards. ^{block to article ban correction 04:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)}

A wise admin and former ARBCOM member Someguy1221 explained Verifiability well: "In an encyclopedia built by volunteers, in which no real vetting of an individual's expert status is feasible, this policy simplifies discussion greatly. Instead of relying on debate over the validity of a fact or viewpoint, the debate focuses on the easier to tackle issue of whether it is verifiable. Even if experts could be vetted, this philosophy is still preferable. Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles."

With the latter in mind, I can't help but consider the following with reference to MEDRS when Doc James stated: "This guidelines is malleable to accommodate poorly studied areas such as this one." June 22, 2015. The poorly studied area being kombucha, and the questioned source being a low quality, single author, 13 yr. old systematic journal review that Doc James green lighted for citing unsupported scientific claims of potential causality based on the poor reporting of a very small group of anecdotal case reports. No, this appeal isn't about my misunderstanding of MEDRS as Doc James is trying to make it appear - it's about my refusal to accept his suggestion that MEDRS guidelines are malleable. My first obligation when writing any article is to maintain compliance with NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR, and in the case of health and/or food articles, to strictly adhere to MEDRS which clearly conflicts with malleable, particularly when citing material regarding human health. I remember how, 2 mos ago, I was castigated by certain members of Proj Med for once referring to MEDRS as a guideline, not a policy, when writing my first essay. The words, "strict adherence", were tattooed on my posterior. A group of Proj Med editors immediately requested the essays deletion, partly because they felt it didn't show enough respect for MEDRS when I wrote "follow" MEDRS guidelines instead of treating it more like policy with strict adherence. The new essay WP:AVDUCK now reads "requires close attention" but based on current events, I should probably update it to read, MEDRS, the malleable guideline. And the irony - here I am now appealing an block article ban for having respected MEDRS. Atsme^📞📧 03:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) ^{strike correction made 03:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Interesting. The diff Callan provided was the same diff I used as evidence to demonstrate his bias. He still hasn't responded to my questions on his TP [136] wherein I provided a sequence of diffs with edit summaries. I realize he is one of our busiest admins, however he did manage to find time to impose DS against me, so I would think he would have shown me the courtesy of responding (with supporting diffs) to the questions I raised. His silence in this matter is quite telling. I am more certain now than before that he acted without even investigating to confirm that I was edit warring. If I had been edit warring, I would have been taken to 3RR but that didn't happen because I wasn't edit warring. So why was Callan called in? Callan has a record of imposing improper DS warnings against me - re: the rogue emoji caper that I had no control over (and I wasn't even aware of at the time). And now Callan's response here is to simply drop off a diff in a drive-by appearance that does nothing to support his action, and serves to further demonstrate his bias toward me. I'm sorry but it is not ok for an admin to show bias toward any editor or automatically assume an editor is guilty based on bias and unwarranted preconceived notions all the while turning a blind eye to tag teaming edit warriors.

Logging an article ban against me gives an admin license to impose an even stricter ban in the future. Had I deserved it, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. However, I will not sit back quietly while an unwarranted article ban has been logged against me. In fact, the other unwarranted warning should have been redacted from the log the same way Callan redacted the warning against the other editor who was being grossly uncivil. Again, more evidence of his bias and double standard. I brought this case here hoping it would be reviewed by uninvolved admins who actually have the time to analyze what took place. Callan did not review the situation before he imposed DS against me or he would have known another admin had already posted to the TP June 23, 2015, and drew attention to the unwarranted reverts (TW rollbacks of GF edits, etc.) by the real edit warriors. Having that ban logged on my record leaves me open to being railroaded again by this same group of editors, except next time the sanctions may be worse because of the log. It's a tactic often used by cabals when faced with editors who are following PAGs but disagree with a particular POV, but that's a different case for ARBCOM. If we are to allow any admin the authority to impose DS like those we'd expect to see in an ARBCOM hearing, then each appeal deserves to be reviewed in a fair and equitable manner from a completely neutral position. I just want the log redacted, and in the future, Callan recuse himself from any administrator action involving me in the future. Atsme^📞📧 19:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably thank Ca2James, and Andy the Grump (who is no stranger to disruption) for their comments and diffs because they actually provided further support that I was not edit warring. I was editing and expanding prose. In this diff, [June 18, 2015, Ca2James stated: "The lede no longer includes the fact that deaths have been reported. I agree with Andy that describing the deaths as "claims" when they've been reported in RS is a POV characterization and wouldn't be acceptable anywhere in the article, let alone the lede." Despite the admitted POV characterization, Ca2James makes the following edit completely ignoring the scientifically unsupported death claims in that same section: June 25, 2015. Atsme^📞📧 22:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away until around 8 July. However I'll briefly point out that an article ban (not topic ban) is one of the lowest level sanctions which can be placed, and it was pretty short at that. Regarding the merits of the appeal, please see the reply on my talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good top ban. This user by comments like this is struggling with respect to proper interpretation of the WP:MEDRS guideline [137]. And unfortunately this has been ongoing for a couple of weeks at least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I found this article, the Lede read in part:

Drinking kombucha has been linked, in rare cases, to serious side effects and deaths, and improper preparation can lead to contamination.1 (link to now removed page on cancer.org)

Atsme rewrote the lede and removed unsupported claims of poisoning, infection and death in compliance with NPOV, MEDRS and UNDUE:

• June 15, 2015

Edit Warring to restore non-compliant material ensued:

• Alexbrn reverted to death claims: June 15, 2015
• Alexbrn reverted to death claims: June 15, 2015
• Alexbrn reverted to death claims: June 16, 2015
• I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reverts to death claims: June 16, 2015
• I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reverts to death claims: June 16, 2015

The mention of death, poisoning and infection has finally been removed from the Lede and the death incident clarified in the body, at the expense of a good faith editor. Atsme is blocked for reverting non-compliant material but those who were edit warring remain unscathed.

Present Lede:

Although consuming kombucha has been claimed to have beneficial health effects, there is no high quality evidence to support these claims. Adverse effects related to drinking kombucha have been documented, and reports have raised concern over the potential for contamination during home preparation. A systematic review found that the mostly unclear benefits do not outweigh the known risks.

Body:

At least one person has died after consuming Kombucha, but the death could not be specifically linked to the drink.

Atsme edit-warred twice in less than a week to include text that did not have consensus, as is shown in the diffs she has provided, although she denies having done so.[138] Page-protecting the page was a good interim solution but being required to discuss the issues on the Talk page, which this sanction was designed to do, is better. This sanction is a minor one.

As for the accusation that Callanecc is biased against her, I'm not seeing that this is true. That she was sanctioned before shows not that he was biased against her but that she appeared disruptive on another article, and the sanctions were struck after a technical analysis showed that she had not deliberately been disruptive. Note that Atsme regularly accuses editors who disagree with her edits or interpretations of policies and guidelines or who say she is edit-warring (full disclosure: I am in both categories) of things like harboring ill-will towards her,[139][140] being disruptive,[141][142] lacking competence,[143][144] making unwarranted statements,[145] and casting aspersions.[146] She has also said that Doc James was not a neutral collaborator because of bias towards natural prodiucts.[147] I see her accusations of bias on the part of the DS-enforcing admin being in this same vein as these other accusations. Ca2james (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I am involved, as one of those who reverted Atsme's disputed edits) It should be noted that the contested edits which led to the topic ban did not merely remove material that Atsme claimed to be 'non-compliant', but also added other material - see e.g. the following promotional material - e.g. 'Kombucha tea is often referred to as a beneficial health drink because of its combined antioxidant activity, and its probiotic properties produced by live bacteria or metabolites of bacteria during fermentation. Over the past 20 years or so, scientific research has indicated the potential beneficial effects of tea and fermented tea (black tea) for health, the latter of which is considered meaningful because of its world-wide popularity. The antioxidative properties of black tea have been displayed in vitro and in vivo "by its ability to inhibit free radical generation, scavenge free radicals, and chelate transition metal ions."' [148] The supposed justification for the edits - that they were removing material not compliant with Wikipedia policy (which isn't of itself an exemption under WP:3RR anyway), is thus a complete red herring. Atsme was edit-warring to impose her own personal perspective on the article, plain and simple, and her repeated attempts here to make out that this was some sort of defence of Wikipedia standards suggests to me that the topic ban was entirely justified, if not unduly lenient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should further be noted that one of the sources Atsme cited for the contested edit - for the promotional health claims - was an NBC News article (clearly not WP:MEDRS compliant), [149] which itself specifically discusses the death of a woman after drinking homebrewed Kombucha. I think the double standard here should be self-evident - Atsme cites an article for supposed health benefits , while insisting that material relating to possible risks, as described in the same article be excluded. I can think of no way to describe such double standards that doesn't include the word 'dishonest'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I have to question if a close would be best. There are accusations here of bias and double standards against an Admin. Alot of evidence was provided. (Note I'm not endorsing these accusations.) -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme has a history of tendentious editing and querulous complaints. This restriction is lenient given her determination in pursuit of often quixotic goals. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'll point out that the DS is not a block, but a TBAN (for 7-days). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The sanction being appealed is an article ban from Kombucha. The ban itself expired on June 28 so there is nothing to lift. I don't see any merit to the complaints about User:Callanecc, and take note of the promotional language that User:Atsme added to Kombucha as observed by User:AndyTheGrump, above. Since the appeal is now moot, I suggest it be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Ed that this can be closed. While we can grant an appeal after a sanction expires, I see no reason to disturb this (rather lenient) sanction. T. Canens (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vordrak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TheRedPenOfDoom (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/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions :

This user has been made subject to a topic ban in accordance with the standard GamerGate discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom, per the notice placed on their talk page here - here.

This is a topic ban covering - "[...] all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed [...]"

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

Ellen Pao is the CEO of Reddit. She has an article on Wikipedia - Ellen Pao, which refers to a gender related dispute - specifically a discrimination lawsuit also with an article, called Pao v. Kleiner Perkins. On the talk page Talk:Ellen Pao is a discussion about whether to add a note that Reddit users criticized Mrs Pao for her conduct of the litigation. The thread is clearly about a gender-related dispute.

TheRedPenOfDoom commented in the thread. An IP editor reverted the edit. TheRedPenOfDoom then edit-warred, reverting the IP editor four times, clearly violating WP:3RR once and the topic ban 5 times.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

TheRedPenOfDoom then opened a thread at WP:EWN and persuaded administrator Bishonen to block the IP for two weeks 6. TheRedPenOfDoom did not volunteer that they were subject to a topic ban. The IP editor mentioned it and protested, but not in an articulate fashion, without diffs and without explaining how the conversation was covered by the discretionary sanctions.

It appears that in effect TheRedPenOfDoom has gone so far as to mislead an administrator into assisting their breach of their topic ban.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

TheRedPenOfDoom was admonished by ArbCom

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

• Admonished by name by ArbCom per link above
• Subject to Discretionary Sanctions directly notified per link above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am particularly concerned that the user has essentially ignored their topic ban and misled an administrator into helping them. I would suggest only a substantial block is appropriate.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here.

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.

The WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior of the original poster in attempting to make an issue of me addressing a question about the reliability of a source with regards to a WP:BLP issue is clear. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My humble impression is that Bishonen is no one's fool. The complainant, being new here, may not know that. Perhaps I'm mistaken. If I am, never mind.

It's a principle-- and one specifically reinforced here with reference to NBSB not long ago, that Wikipedia pillars (and specifically BLP) trump just about everything. Breitbart is, in fact, not reliable, and the revert war was not in fact started by TRPoD. A good faith editor would have discussed the matter or summoned help from a board or an expert. An actual newbie wouldn't know what a topic ban or a Red Pen of Doom was..

It's interesting that such an inexperienced or inarticulate editor was involved, but that editor is replaced here by a "journalist". The use of "inexperienced" editors to further Gamergate goals is familiar to all of us at this point. TRPoD might have prudently sent up a flare to some editors not employed by Gamergate rather than doing this himself, but any Wikipedian ought to uphold RS and BLP on any page, and of course we must be especially careful on pages, like that one, which Gamergaters have notoriously targeted , 02:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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