|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning NewsAndEventsGuy
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Standard_discretionary_sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 7 July 2015, and follow-up posts as described in Additional comments, show NewsAndEventsGuy making a series of personal accusations on Talk:Climate Change Skeptic and not accepting requests to take them to an appropriate forum or remove them.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- (none known)
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 8 June 2015.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I quote each of NewsAndEventsGuy's accusations in italics starting with ones from this post. "Verbally vomit on someone else for allegedly not answering questions." In fact my words were "I've despaired about receiving answers", I'd given examples earlier (easiest seen from this reply to me). "Decline to provide list of allegedly unanswered questions" I had not been asked for any such list (I'd been told I would be asked "if we were at DRN" and we weren't), so I did not decline. "Fake a desire to work towards consensus building by calling for someone else to do the sweat labor of packaging a DR filing." In fact what I'd said was "Perhaps an RFC or DRN could occur if there was agreement about wording." which isn't sweat, and I didn't ask anyone else to do it. Saying I "fake" is a dishonesty claim. "Meanwhile - Redact battle planning and admission". I believe cover-up of a battle plan would be a serious block-me-forever kind of offence, so please look at the entire conversation that caused it and my entire response. That really is all the evidence that NewsAndEventsGuy has. NewsAndEventsGuy also says that I've had a "tirade", blown my top (from the edit summary) and intend to "hiss and spit" (from a DRN post that NewsAndEventsGuy posted but withdrew after pleading lack of experience with DRN. There's no specific reference and I think the fiercest things I've said on the page are "false" (often) and "it's a bit rich" (once) and snippiness when I've been misquoted. I suggested twice that these accusations should not be brought to the Climate skeptic talk page but to a forum where I would defend and NewsAndEventsGuy would have to risk being judged himself (here and here); when that went nowhere I said I regarded the post as offensive and requested removing it (here). Instead I got a claim that I wasn't answering the questions which had been prefaced by his accusations (which is true), and a new accusation that I won't "take Guy Macon (talk · contribs) up on his offer to do mediation". In fact I was the only person who'd suggested readiness for dispute-resolution steps but when I'd asked whether "anyone at least in principle agrees that consensus or arbitration should be sought" I'd gotten no response and that's what I told Guy Macon. ... Absence of niceness on this talk page, which relates to climate change, is to be expected. But NewsAndEventGuy's accusations stand out because they're multiple and serious and false. Or, using WP:CIVIL terminology, "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" and "personal attacks". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
[reply] - Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy&diff=671195947&oldid=669793251
Discussion concerning NewsAndEventsGuy
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy
I'm dealing with a busted sewer and water line and will be unable to reply for a few days, maybe a week, as I'm making the repairs myself (largely hand digging too). I'll refrain from editing until I post a full response.
For now, please note
Also note the timing of this filing
- 10:35 July 12, 2015 I posted that I'm buried on talk page with very few eds but where Peter is involved. Let's hope that remains a figure of speech!
- 03:17, July 13, 2015 This complaint was filed 17 hours later
Stay tuned for my full response when house and property are secure....
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, I'm pretty sick of the stubborn caginess and acrimony, and am retiring for 12 months. Let chips fall.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
Lately the climate change topic area has been slowly heating up (no pun intended... well, OK maybe). Suggest the case be retitled in a more general way as there have been several individuals whose conduct has crossed the line. I will submit a more detailed statement in a couple of days or so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by ArtifexMayhem
In the light of the retirement statement by NewsAndEventsGuy above, I will present evidence in support of a WP:BOOMERANG for the OP. In work. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The filing of this request by Peter Gulutzan against NewsAndEventsGuy is without merit and should be considered vexatious.
Over the past few months civil (mostly) POV pushing by Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs), and Tillman (talk · contribs) has been the primary source of disruption in the topic area.
- Peter Gulutzan
- Examples of battleground behavior,
- Considers another editors calling one of his reverts a "removal of information" to be "misleading" [13], while edits by others are considered done with the intent to "destroy" information [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23].
- Tillman
- In work.
Updated from [24] — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Jess
Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Peter Gulutzan and Tillman are both editing tendentiously. It appears they dislike our coverage of climate change and "climate change skepticism", since we represent the mainstream scientific view, and so have been campaigning to hide or limit our coverage of those topics. For example, they are attempting to ensure as few redirects as possible go to climate change denial, where our coverage is extensive, and instead point our viewers to Global warming controversy, which they see as more sympathetic to the fringe view. In this campaign, several behavioral problems have made collaboration impossible.
Both have dismissed high quality sources which disagree with their edits, while providing no sources of their own. They have both refused to answer questions or collaborate with others. They have edit warred extensively, and promoted a battleground atmosphere, labeling others "activists" and too biased to find the right sources.
Diffs:
- Tillman
- Sourcing, and dismissing reliable sources
- Refusal to respond or answer questions
- Personal attacks and Battleground attitude:
- Peter Gulutzan
- Not answering questions: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], to NEG below
- Strangely, he accused me of not answering his questions, but then didn't answer me when I asked what question I'd missed. NewsAndEventsGuy asked us both to summarize what questions had gone unanswered. I provided a list, but Peter refused to answer.
- EW. While discussion ongoing, reverted 11 pages to his preferred version. [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]
- Both ([55],[56], [57]) are aware of DS.
Statement by Tillman
- I'm surprised to see this filing by Peter Gulutzan against N&EG. I consider both of these gentlemen to be valuable editors who have made numerous fine contributions to the project. We all make mistakes, and the Wiki CC area tends to bring out the worst in otherwise-sensible editors (including me.)
I suggest the complaint be dismissed. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I emphatically reject the charges by user Mann Jess re WP:Tendentious Editing (above). In fact, a good case could be made that she has engaged in just such behavior: at the least, disruptive & unproductive editing, such as her absurd opening edits at Anthony Watts (blogger), diffs to be added. I have cautioned her on several occasions regarding this. I'll add to this defense as time permits. I'd hoped this unproductive crap had died down, but no. Bah, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by DHeyward
I agree with Tillman. I haven't edited these topics in a while and while NAEG and I disagree, we can work together and there is rarely any concern about his behaviour. Mann Jess on the other hand is vexatious and tendentious. In a controversial topic area Mann Jess often uses the most inflammatory language that is not encyclopedic. The worst instances are in BLP's like Watt's but extend elsewhere. --DHeyward (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Manul
- Note that Peter Gulutzan was alerted to climate change discretionary sanctions on 18 March 2015, earlier than indicated above.
- Peter's comment on that date is indicative of his general attitude:
By now I have grown used to editors who try to intimidate me with accusations which they pretend could lead to blocking. I'm going to make this a standard reply: hit me with your best shot, eh?[58]
This was despite my cordial disclaimer ("Apologies if you were previously alerted; I didn't find a tag in your history"),[59] and our only prior interaction was a couple comments on the article talk page that were non-personal and on-topic.
- Peter proceeded to violate WP:BLPPRIVACY, reverting my removal from the BLP of a link to a website publishing the subject's personal address.[60] He did this despite the WP:BLPPRIVACY problem already mentioned on the talk page,[61] even replying to it.[62] This is either blind reverting without care for the reasons behind a change, or worse.
- The situation has not since improved. Most recently Peter claimed that I added a "smear" to the article "without attribution", saying in the edit comment,
you don't "clean up" by pouring dirt .[63] The over-the-top personalization from Peter is typical, but more importantly the claim is untrue. My change to the lead cited high-quality reliable sources,[64] and it merely restated what had been in the article body for a month using the same sources.[65]
- Considering the above diffs from myself and others, the disruption appears to stem from Peter's inability to approach the subject dispassionately, imparting a narrative of personalized conflict where editors are simply trying to use the best sources and report them accurately.
Manul ~ talk 21:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning NewsAndEventsGuy
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Preventing archive for a week per comments above, this doesn't need to be done right now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Commenting so this doesn't go into the archives, but I haven't read through all the evidence yet. I hope some other admins participate here, because I'm troubled by some of the behavior in the diffs presented above. Gamaliel (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the amount there is to go though here, can I ask that this filing be kept for evidence/defence/etc regarding NewsAndEventsGuy and anything other evidence about other editors (including the filer) be put forward in an AE report specifically for them. Otherwise this report is just going to get massive. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Agree with User:Callanecc. NAEG has declared (above) that he is taking a 12-month break. So why not close with no action, on the assumption that NAEG will make no edits (on either articles or talk pages) in the domain of WP:ARBCC before 19 July 2016, and will not make any posts at admin boards on that topic for the same period. If he changes his mind before that date, anyone can bring the complaint back from the archive and it will be investigated then. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
