User:Jess/Sandbox

Peter Gulutzan and Pete 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 just too biased to find the right sources.

Diffs:


 * Tillman
 * Sourcing, and dismissing reliable sources
 * Characterizes all sources as "personal opinions by opponents". No substantive reply to discussion above.
 * Adds inaccurate summary cited to a facebook post. His summary completely contradicts the citation.
 * He tells other users to find sources, but he never lists any. Here (bottom), he refuses to analyze sources provided, or provide his own, but continues edit warring and arguing.


 * Refusal to respond or answer questions
 * Tells an editor to go away, without responding to comments
 * Mistaken use of rollback, with no substantive reply on talk. Entirely ignores comments and sources above.
 * Edit warring without substantive responses:, , refuses to respond to questions


 * NOTFORUM, TPG, etc
 * Racist language: ..
 * ranting without sources
 * ,,
 * BLP vio: "The man is an incompetent blowhard". He was warned, and simply removed the warnings.
 * Character assassination of Michael Mann, cited to primary sources and a google search.
 * Suggests we should create a "wall of shame" for "climate alarmists".


 * Personal attacks and Battleground attitude:
 * "do you need reading lessons",
 * calls editors "activists",, ,


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


 * Battleground behavior: ,


 * Both editors keep misrepresenting others (e.g. by claiming I equate all "skeptics" to "deniers")) Peter repeats this claim, then insists on seeing a citation for it


 * EW (all within minutes):, , , , , , , , , ,
 * Both are aware of DS.