Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:46, 16 January 2011

WP:AE

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Joshua P. Schroeder

Joshua P. Schroeder topic-banned from the topics of pseudoscience and fringe science for a year by Sandstein (talk · contribs) (see also appeals below); several users notified of pseudoscience discretionary sanctions; Cla68 (talk · contribs) admonished and reminded to avoid inaccurate characterizations of edits as vandalism. T. Canens (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

User requesting enforcement: Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Joshua_P._Schroeder

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

[1] sarcastic, belittling, disruptive, vandalistic edit
[2] revert wars to readd it
[3] blanks the page
Had previously blanked the page then immediately nominated it for deletion
Belittles other editors in a noticeboard discussion
Belittles another editor in article talk page discussion

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[4] Warning by ArbCom
Previous ArbCom topic ban for similar behavior
Extensive block log for similar behavior

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Based on the history, I think a topic ban from science articles should be on the table.

Regardless of the merits of the request, I question whether administrators have the to do this. For fringe or pseduo-science articles, sure, but not for science articles as a whole. NW (Talk) 03:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a purely academic question only, we can impose, inter alia, "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics". I think it is reasonable to say that "science" is closely related to "pseudoscience". T. Canens (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like too much of a stretch to me. If that were the case, you could extend discretionary sanctions to every biology article, physics article, astronomy article, chemistry article, geoscience article, to name just a few (all fields within the natural sciences). By that rationale, it would not be unreasonable to include oil field prospecting (part of geoscience) in the topic ban. I hardly think that ArbCom intended for such a thing. NW (Talk) 08:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the social and historical sciences. In pinch, Science goes back to scientia, meaning "knowledge", and thus applies to all of Wikipedia. That is a very slippery slope. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Joshua P. Schroeder (JPS, and previously known as ScienceApologist) has asked me not to edit his userpage, so could someone else please notify him of this enforcement action? As for the content dispute involved here, JPS's source is, arguably, reliable. It's not a blog as I mistakenly called it. That said, however, JPS's bullying, bellitling, and battleground behavior over the issue continues his long pattern of disrupting Wikipedia in this manner. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [5]

Discussion concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Statement by Joshua P. Schroeder

When it rains it pours!

This is an entirely tendentious request and I'm disgusted by both the request and the assumptions being offered below strike me as being of the WP:PUNITIVE sort. I will point out that Cla68 is pretty much Wikipedia:Wikihounding me. You can read about his agenda through the first posts he made at WP:ACTIVIST. His goal is to run me and others like me out of town, and he has asked me point-blank to stop editing Wikipedia. But typical of these charades, the commentators aren't interested in a balanced look: only in a witchhunt.

I'm so glad that governance is worrying about things like whether the Enneagram of Personality FAQ is showing a statement that it is scientifically verified!

Excuse me while I pay attention to more important things.

That's all from me!

jps (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Unhelpful threaded discussion collapsed by administrator

Cla68, could you explain how this edit [6] is "vandalistic" under the definition at WP:VANDAL? Will Beback talk 00:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JPS said this, "The RHETI promoters have hired people to test their lunacy, but all they've got is some piss-poor studies that they paid for." Looks like it meets the WP:VANDAL definition of "crude humor". He then blanked the page when an IP tried to remove the vandalism. Blanking a page also meets the definition. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an addition of a Q/A pair to a FAQ. It's also factually correct. While the tone is unsuitable for the encyclopaedia proper, it's within acceptable boundaries for a FAQ on a talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"to test their lunacy" is not a factually correct statement - no one involved with the issue has been definitively judged to be mentally incompetent under any legal or therapeutic system. There may be factually correct elements of JPS' edit, but the overall tone is one of prejudicial disdain. I don't really have an opinion on this enforcement issue, mind you, but I am tired of science mavens who think they can talk about pseudoscience issues as though everyone involved with them were factually morons, fuckheads, and/or creeps. Being right does not entitle one to be a rude-assed son-of-a-bitch, and people who think that it does do more damage to the encyclopedia than any of the the project's fringe advocates. my 2¢. --Ludwigs2 03:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say both good faith and uncommon sense would suggest that "lunacy" references the Enneagram technique, not the practitioners. Yes, the tone is one of disdain, although I'd say it's well-considered and justified disdain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan, that's bull:

It is self-evident that the word 'lunacy' and its derivatives are always a reference to the cognitive state of the people involved. inanimate things (like techniques) can be useless, functionless, inadequate for a task, or etc., but lunacy implies that those who use those objects are mentally defective. You cannot get away from the fact that the phrase denigrates an entire group of people without sourcing or cause.
Wikipedia is not in the business of "showing disdain". It does not matter whether the disdain is justified, well-considered, based in fact, or can be rationalized in some other way; wikipedia adopts a Neutral Point of View which excludes editor's emotional value judgements about viewpoints. You yourself would argue vehemently against against allowing a fringe advocate to express the emotion of 'approval' for a pseudoscientific topic; why do you believe that the emotion of 'disdain' is more acceptable?

I don't know whether you are doing it intentionally, but you are presenting a prime example of the kind of myopic, self-entitled chauvinism that's a hallmark of Wikipedia science mavens. You and JPS are both demonstrating an inability to distinguish between the necessary encyclopedic act of maintaining scientific clarity on fringe articles and the unencyclopedic (and undesirable) act of biasing a fringe article with pure bigotry. But please keep talking; you're reinforcing my argument with every word.--Ludwigs2 15:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "lunacy" does not have to refer to a cognitive state. Not that Wictionary is authoritative or anything, but I see that it gives "something deeply misguided" as one possible meaning of lunacy. My dictionary gives "wild foolishness: extravagant folly" as a possible meaning. Given the context, I suggest that jps used it as a synonym for "nonsense". Cardamon (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only things that can be 'deeply misguided' are thoughts, beliefs, and human actions. 'Misguided' (meaning 'to guide wrong') is a use term, not a property term. Or are you going to suggest that it's the baseball bat that is 'deeply misguided' if someone smacks someone else over the head with it?

More to the point, no one here disagrees that JPS' edit was pointedly disdainful. What we are disagreeing over is the assertion that JPS' pointedly disdainful claim is excusable because it is factually true (which is the argument that Stephan advanced above). It may be true that enneagrams are useless; it is not true that they are lunacy (not even in your preferred spin of 'nonsense'). let me put this forth boldly: There is NO excuse for editors to express disdain for any area of human knowledge, no matter how flawed. Wikipedia is not here to judge, and if editors cannot control their disdain for a particular topic area and edit neutrally, they should have the grace and foresight not to edit in those topic areas. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Joshua P. Schroeder, as Cla68 should have done. Cardamon (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He ordered me not to edit his user talk page. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why were you even following him to that page in the first place? Will Beback talk 06:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, that leading question doesn't merit the dignity of a response. What do you think of Joshua's actions as listed in the diffs section above? Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first step in dispute resolution is disengagement. Reverting an editor and then complaining about them reverting you seems more like creating a problem than solving it. Will Beback talk 07:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ZuluPapa5

I am involved and mildly disturbed by Joshua P. Schroeder's actions. We were editing well together in WP:ACTIVIST. However, he went overboard in relation to Enneagram of Personality, when there was little substantial, if any, source support. This type of ideological wp:hounding is not necessary. It's up to ArbCom to determine if he requires a longer break. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on JPS statement. Surprisingly absent of acknowledgment, self-awareness or remorse. (For actions in an article on the subject even.) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by WMC

JPS has made valuable efforts to clean up Enneagram of Personality, for example [7] where he removes a paragraph largely sourced to http://www.enneagramspectrum.com. That source should not have been used, especially in a paragraph nominally about verification. The para was restored by User:Afterwriting [8] saying Removed recent edits by activist editor with a militant agenda, then re-restored [9] with Restored article from abuse. But whether you agree with JPS's edit (I agree with it, and re-made it) it clearly isn't abuse. It is notable that Cla has been so very one sided in this report. Also, Cla has failed to note that he is an involved party in any dispute over the page, having himself partially restored the disputed para [10]. Cla's suggested remedy - topic ban from all science articles - is so ridiculously over the top that a mre appropriate result would be a ban on Cla reporting JPS William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

The tone of JPS's comments may not be veyr diplomatic, but inappropriate tone hardly warrants more than a warning. - BorisG (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet by Collect

I am bemused by a comment that JPS's actions on the Enneagram deletion are in some way to be commended. I ask that the entire deletion discussion thereon be noted, as the sequence of insulting edits by JPS amounting to ad hom attacks on me is revealing. Included are claims that Cla68 and I are in any way relsted in editing patterns [11] is an indirect accusation of tag-teaming, [12] an accusation that the two of us are active "in the same areas" (um -- 8 articles and one essay overlap out of over a thousand?), [13] him using an IP address for multiple edits, accusing me of suddenly appearing on MfD (I would add that I have posted on well over 500 MfDs now, including 100 posts in the past three months, eliding only December 27 to January 7 for some reason), [14] an accusation that I focus on only a "very few issues" on MfD, [15] an accusation that saying I was off for Christmas was "twisting" anything at all. Then we have WMC, who is truly not a regular at MfD appearing with [16]. Jps is uncivil, makes accusations of bad faith, and iterates such without compunction. I would suggest repeated incivility warrants stern action. As an aside - I have more article overlap with Jps than with Cla68! Collect (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Bullriangifer per rest of the fringe gang soon piles on: Collect, ZuluPapa5 - I take umbrage at that unwarranted personal attack and ask that you redact it. You should note that I have essentially zero edits in the area of fringe views, and exceedingly little overlap on any articles with ZuluPapa5. actually precisely one article overlap, out of thousands edited. Further that my comments above specifically deal with acts by JPS, and the diffs speal eloquently enough that your post helps this discussion not a whit. Collect (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by u n☯mi

From my reading of his past history, one of the main concerns and causes for sanction have been civility and matters of intellectual integrity[17][18][19].

Looking over his recent edit history there seems to be indication that he may be getting frustrated and acting out in response.

This edit at WP:ACTIVIST seems to support such an interpretation. Although, it could also be that the WP:ACTIVIST essay itself excited and incited this behavior. In any case, the effect is that he casts aspersions, alleges that editors are colluding against him, forcefully. As well as exhibiting a manner of discourse that seems to embody the very finest of battleground tactics, consistently insulting and obliquely ignoring attempts at discussion[20][21][22][23][24].

Unfortunately, such behavior seems to be generally accepted on wikipedia these days, but considering that the editor in question has repeatedly been warned and sanctioned for this kind of activity I can't see why this request does not have merit. It is my understanding that ScienceApologist has some value within "hard science" articles, unfortunately it seems that he would rather work in areas where he seems unable to maintain his composure. u n☯mi 14:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful threaded discussion collapsed by administrator

My, how time flies: [25] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? The sentiments espoused therein were the reason that I was indef-blocked, and rightly so. I can make no claims of perfection, and I have largely stayed away from discussions pertaining to the misuse of wikipedia as a repository for inflammatory rhetoric that I saw the discussion, which led to my intemperate comments, to be, not to mention the unwillingness of the editor in question to leave my talk page be.

It is deeply unfortunate that otherwise intelligent people so readily succumb to employing tactics which are not only ineffectual but serve to undermine their credibility, it becomes an unfortunate self-defeating spiral. Most people, I would imagine, indulge in uncivil and intemperate language from time to time, for a number of people the 'preview' button and a modicum of self-restraint combined with feedback from their surroundings can help keep such destructive impulses in check. Willfully ignoring and even condoning such behavior serves only to exacerbate and prolong the problematic behavior, what we are seeing with SA/JPS seems to be such an artifact of your failure to act in a way that could have avoided it, WMC. u n☯mi 16:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that JPS should be perma-blocked from editing science articles for an offence far less than yours? You were happy to take forgiveness for your sins, but offer none to anyone else? And that this particular dispute has bad behaviour only on one "side" - you (like Cla) have nothing at all to say about anyone else involved? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have said no such thing, I have commented on his behavior as I read it from the logs - the final outcome of this is up to the admins and indeed JPS himself. I was unblocked because I took responsibility for my actions and acknowledged that it was unacceptable conduct, conduct which I have since refrained from, JPS on the other hand has not even commented on this AE. Could you point out which, non-content related, behavior I should comment on regarding other persons involved? u n☯mi 17:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WMC: if JPS gets in trouble for this offense it will because he has an extensive history of this kind of behavior over a period of years, including blocks and topic bans. Unomi may have made the same error, but looking at his block log it's reasonable to assume he's learned the lesson. can you say the same about JPS? Again, I don't have an opinion here (I've been interacting reasonably with JPS recently, so I have no problem with him), but let's not make false comparisons. --Ludwigs2 17:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made this reasonable argument on the talk page. The response by Ludwigs2 seems to be stonewalling. The arguments made by Ludwigs2 are not based on Wikipedia policies. Ludwigs2 prefers to delete sourced text and replace it with his own personal opinion. Ludwigs2 claims the NSF webite supports his version but after trying to verfiy the text the version added by Ludwigs2 continues to fail verification. Ludwigs2, please try to stop deleting sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal because you have a personal disagreement with the source. I agree with Ludwigs2 that we should not make false comparisons. Ludwigs2's behaviour is simply to ignore all rules and he refuses to collaborate. It is impossible to compare Ludwigs2's behaviour to any other editor on Wikipedia. Ludwigs2, do you agree to stop deleting sourced text when you personally disagree with a peer reviewed publication. Ludwigs2, do you think your behaviour at Pseudoscience is appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

would an administrator please strike QuackGuru's above comment (as well as this comment I'm making now)? QG is simply following me around wikipedia trying to export and perpetuate a stale argument we are having elsewhere. the above is irrelevant to this discussion and very close to harassment. thanks. --Ludwigs2 18:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning by Sandstein

As one of the administrators processing this request, I have collapsed the discussion threads above because they were degenerating into personal attacks and other bickering irrelevant to this request. This is not a dispute resolution forum and not a place to continue carrying on grudges. I am issuing warnings about this disruption of the arbitration enforcement process. For the rest of this thread, I request all editors to limit themselves to a single nonthreaded comment that addresses the request and nothing else. Editors who disregard this request and continue to engage in unrelated disputes on this page may be sanctioned without further warning. Sandstein 19:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ScottyBerg

Diff No. 1 is described as a "sarcastic, belittling, disruptive, vandalistic edit." It isn't any of those, and the rest seems to flow from that. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BullRangifer

I think one should consider the source(s) here..... This is no way to deal with a content controversy. Pushers ~~of fringe POV~~ who get into squabbles with mainstream editors and then come crying....please! Of course the rest of the ~~fringe~~ gang soon piles on: ~~Collect,~~ ZuluPapa5... Just take this into consideration and see who is damaging the project most. Yes, incivility isn't the best thing, just don't judge too harshly considering the circumstances. Editors who haven't a clue about our NPOV, RS, and FRINGE policies and guideline shouldn't get rewarded when they gang up, push an experienced editor's buttons, and then come crying here like a little brother and his little friends who have been pestering his big brother in a room in the house far away from mom, and when big brother yells at them and mom hears it, big brother gets in trouble because mom reacts to his yelling without a clue as to what's been going on. That's what is happening here. Sure, big brother shouldn't yell at little brother and his irritating friends who haven't got a clue, but consider the source(s) and circumstances.

Let me make it clear that I'm not saying that JPS is totally innocent, but a long topic ban isn't called for in this case. If such a thing happens, then topic ban the lot of them for a month and no longer. Especially the one who started this has ownership problems and that's a significant factor here because JPS was editng HIS essay. They even went so far as to suggest that JPS not edit there. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 and ZuluPapa5 show their true colors here:

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Talk:Enneagram_of_Personality

ZuluPapa5 baits JPS on his own talk page here:

User_talk:Joshua_P._Schroeder#Pseudoscience_advocate.3F

These characters are far from innocent and are misusing this process. Unfortunately editors who don't know what's been going on are backing them up. There is a serious miscarriage of justice occurring here. Brangifer (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge difference between incivility in normal discourse and when it happens in the process of defending the integrity of Wikipedia against a gang ~~of fringe POV pushers~~ whose ~~(witless)~~ mission actually damages the project. That's what's been going on. JPS is defending Wikipedia and the gang is seeking to misuse it. Incivility isn't good, but a one year topic ban?! This is insane. Give them all three months, with a special warning to the most guilty, IOW the ~~fringe POV~~ pushers who are trying to own an essay and misuse Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my incivil remarks above which I have stricken, and especially to Collect who became collateral damage. I still stand by my objection to the length of the sentence imposed on JPS. I also suggest that the past actions of Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be examined and their future actions be followed more closely. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Let's see what we got here: ZP5 creates absurdly POV and uncited material; Cla68 pours gasoline on the flames with an obviously bad faith accusation of "vandalism"; and the science-oriented editor is the only one sanctioned. Quoth David Byrne, "Same as it ever was." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mathsci

This request seems to have been a continuation of personal issues unresolved by WP:ARBCC. [26][27] Possibly in the future ArbCom might need to impose broader disengagement sanctions to prevent such incidents recurring. On WP:FTN, Joshua P. Schroeder seems to have been fairly good at locating questionable articles on a regular basis. Presumably, if there is some doubt about how things were handled here, a request for clarification could be made directly to ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hans Adler

When JPS returned from his ban there was a remarkable change in his behaviour. As a scientist myself, who had had some skirmishes with him over the homeopathy article, I was extremely happy about that. When I saw that he was working on Enneagram of Personality, I fully expected that he was going to continue his recent good approach and was going to support him in the attempt to make the article on that particular pseudoscience fact-based and NPOV. But when I looked at the talk page and the page history, I was shocked to find what looked like his pre-ban behaviour.

I would like to believe that he was framed here, by editors moving a conflict to a different location after it has escalated, and then calming down or needling JPS in imperceptible ways. Or any other, similar explanation. Unfortunately no such thing has been claimed so far, so I am not going to waste my time with research in that direction.

Whatever happens now should be aimed at supporting JPS to continue being a benefit to the project in the long run. (E.g., as Mathsci mentioned JPS is good at spotting fringe articles that need work. In the past he has demonstrated that sometimes he can also be good at helping to fix them.) Given that JPS does not have problems on science articles unless fringe science or pseudoscience is involved; given that he spent his ban working on a science article and then came back refreshed and as a model editor – given this, asking for a ban on science articles because of problems on a pseudoscience article is as inappropriate as JPS' recent behaviour. Hans Adler 09:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ludwigs2

For what it's worth, I would have suggested a shorter ban for JPS, except that the current behavior of his supporters suggests that the length is appropriate. It no longer seems to be an issue of whether JPS himself appreciates the gravity of the problem, but rather that his entire cohort has banded together in a determined effort to obscure the point. tres tristé. --Ludwigs2 11:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

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

Waiting for a statement by Joshua P. Schroeder (formerly ScienceApologist), but my preliminary opinion is that the request has merit and that, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions and considering Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Motion to sanction ScienceApologist as well as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist cautioned and his block log, a lengthy fringe science topic ban is appropriate. Sandstein 07:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really convinced. Sure, JPS's method of challenging that FAQ page initially was wrong – but he did have a valid case against it (the MFD for it has since gathered considerable traction; the emergent consensus is that the FAQ page had serious NPOV problems and should never have been created.) About the following talk page comments, I can see no big issues – this is what I call vigorous debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My tentative view is more aligned with Sandstein. This edit is, let's just say, unnecessarily inflammatory, and in a tone that is quite inappropriate for an FAQ page, and this blanking is not acceptable at all. If this were a new user, it might be understandable, but JPS is a highly experienced user who really should have known better. That said, when one looks at the underlying dispute, nobody really looks good, and I'm thinking that several users should probably be taking a break from this topic. However, my disagreement with NW on whether we are able to impose a broad, science topic ban notwithstanding, I'm not convinced that we should do it. T. Canens (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the fence about how to deal with this request. There is definitely a long history on antagonism between Cla68 and ScienceApologist (Joshua Schroeder). But a ban from all science articles also seemed excessive, considering that the diffs provided were all related to the Enneagram of Personality article. However, Joshua Schroeder's block log shows that he has had more than enough chances to work in a collaborative manner. Both the technique and tone of his language in "adding" inappropriate questions and answers to the FAQ page here,[28] and his continuing confrontational tone here at AE,[29] are unacceptable. He has been formally cautioned by ArbCom about good faith and civility, and his most disruptive behavior is clearly associated with the pseudoscience topic area. I therefore support the idea of a ban up to one year from the entire pseudoscience topic area, to include both articles and talkpages, broadly defined. --Elonka 20:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Elonka, do you have a past history with Joshua? I'm not trying to insinuate anything, but my memory is telling me that there is some history here. NW (Talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Checking User:Elonka/ArbCom log, I implemented some sanctions on him (and others) back in 2008 when I was monitoring the Pseudoscience topic area: In April 2008, I banned him for one week from the Atropa Belladonna article and talkpage. In July 2008, I implemented a 12-hour block for edit-warring with Martinphi. In November 2008, a 30-day ban from editing the WP:FRINGE guideline, and then a 48-hour block for violating the ban. Details and diffs at my log page if anyone's interested. --Elonka 21:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And you never have had any email discussions with him? NW (Talk) 22:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Back in 2008 and maybe early 2009 I probably had communications with him in a variety of venues, on-wiki and off-wiki. To the best of my knowledge though, I've had no communications with him for years, because I haven't been working as an admin in that topic area. Where are you going with this? --El on ka 23:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After considering the contributions above, I remain of the opinion that the request has merit.
[30] is disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. [31] and [32] are edit-warring (as are most of Joshua P. Schroeder's contributions to that page). The fifth link cited in the request is not a diff but that discussion does currently contain some non-collegial, patronizingly dismissive contributions by Joshua P. Schroeder ("the character assassination of Robert Todd Carroll is attempted on the talk page", "petulant advocacy"), which also applies to the sixth edit , [33].
The principles of Wikipedia etiquette require that editors assume good faith, work towards agreement, argue facts and not personalities, and be civil. In the incidents described above Joshua P. Schroeder did not do so. Thereby, and by edit-warring, he has failed to adhere to expected standards of behavior when editing in the area of pseudoscience, as outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. The problem is very seriously aggravated by Joshua P. Schroeder's failure to bring his conduct into line with community expectations even after an ArbCom ban and caution, and after many blocks for similar problems, and by his failure to recognize and address the problems with his conduct in his statement here, which even as amended is also at odds with the principles of etiquette mentioned above. Finally, the findings at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#ScienceApologist indicate that Joshua P. Schroeder has continued to conduct himself in this manner since at least 2006 despite many blocks and proceedings. This leads me to the conclusion that Joshua P. Schroeder intends to continue to treat the pseudoscience / fringe science topic area as a battleground and should be restricted from doing so in order to prevent continued disruption.
A topic ban is therefore required. Considering that his most recent ban was an ArbCom site ban for three months and topic ban for six months "for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering", and that the Arbitration Committee noted, at that time, that "further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans", it is appropriate to impose a topic ban of twice the length of the previous one.
Consequently, in enforcement and application of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions, Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs), is hereby topic-banned from the topics of pseudoscience and fringe science for a year. The topic ban shall have the meaning described at WP:TBAN, and the topic area from which he is banned shall encompass (but is not limited to) all topics covered by the descriptions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision, sections 15 to 17. This ban is to be enforced with escalating blocks that may start at a duration of one week. It can be appealed as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 23:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good call, nor do I think it's wise to allow WP:AE to be used as a weapon in a grudge match. But I can't really bring myself to care enough to argue the case further, so whatever. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find a one-year ban to be a bit excessive, given that the last ban expired over a year ago. Three months would be more appropriate, in my view.
I find ZuluPapa5's creation of the FAQ page with the obviously POV content to be quite inappropriate, and reading the recent talk page discussions does not inspire any confidence. Given that and the edit warring on the article, I have notified Afterwriting (talk · contribs) and ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs) of the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. Future disruptive activity may lead to a topic ban.
In addition, I find Cla68's characterization of the first diff as "vandalistic" to be unhelpful and inaccurate, and the unnecessary piling-up of adjectives to be unnecessarily inflammatory. Cla68 is admonished and reminded that vandalism is defined by policy as any edit made in "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (first emphasis in original) and that inaccurate accusations of vandalism that unnecessarily inflame a dispute may result in sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with respect to the last two paragraphs, and am also warning BullRangifer for his inflammatory comments in his statement above. Sandstein 08:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly endorse BullRangifer's statement as well-considered, pointing to the core of the problem, and appropriate in tone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First I should point out that until I looked at this just now I didn't realise JPS was SA, or if I'd ever known it I'd forgotten it. I do recall reverting JPS once but as I recall I was wrong. I agree with T. Canens statement above although I think even three months is too long at this point. I still don't understand why that first diff is described as a "sarcastic, belittling, disruptive, vandalistic edit" and tend to agree with MathSci that this is a grudge match. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by JPS

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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: Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – jps (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: <Text>

Topic ban from the subject of fringe science relations. According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions, "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." This did not happen.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by JPS

Please let me know what I can do to improve!

The below is merged from three other appeals by JPS. T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal 1

Part of sanction appealed: The topic ban shall have the meaning described at WP:TBAN, and the topic area from which you are banned shall encompass (but is not limited to) all topics covered by the descriptions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision, sections 15 to 17.

Reason: Commenting members of arbcom has agreed that this ruling being referred to should not be construed as a content ruling (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Pseudoscience_2) Therefore, Sandstein's reference to these sections of an ancient arbcom case to solve his own personal demarcation problem was beyond his remit and essentially is a content-decision.

Appeal 2

Part of sanction appealed: "The topic ban shall have the meaning described at WP:TBAN"

Reason: Accrording to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#ScienceApologist_topic_banned, topic bans for myself from pseudoscience pages are to be done from article space only, not talk space or meta space. This was because the committee recognized that I have provide a valuable expertise and help for editing these articles. Throughout my previous topic ban, I was permitted to edit in all areas except article space. Extending to WP:TBAN is well-beyond the remit given by arbcom from that case.

Appeal 3

Sanction appealed: Enforcement against myself of a topic ban for one year

Reason: This diff indicates that Sandstein has injected himself into Wikipedia controversies surrounding the purveying of pseudoscience firmly on the sides of those defending the purveying of pseudoscience. As such, he is an involved administrator and should not have made any enforcement against me per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions where it specifically requires "uninvolved administrators" to make this determination. Sandstein's bias in these proceedings is obvious.

Statement by Sandstein

This appeal seems to consist only of spurious procedural complaints, rather than any objections to the substance of the sanction, and I recommend that it be declined for this reason:

Complaint concerning lack of a warning

The warning and required by the sanction was given at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist cautioned; it was notified with a link to the decision to Joshua P. Schroeder (then editing as ScienceApologist) at [34] by Thatcher (talk · contribs). Sandstein 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines...." You did not do this. Nor did anyone else. jps (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sanction reads: "... where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps ...". The caution read: "... is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility." In conjunction with the findings concerning you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist is uncivil et seq., as well as later at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#ScienceApologist, that is all the advice you needed to avoid the sanction I imposed on you. You should have taken it. Sandstein 16:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to where I was uncivil to another user and how I can be more civil towards them? jps (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained the reason for your topic ban at length in the respective section above. Sandstein 00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal 1

I do not understand what Joshua P. Schroeder is trying to say here. Sandstein 00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal 2

The now-elapsed topic ban on editing articles cited by Joshua P. Schroeder was imposed on him by the Arbitration Committee in the "fringe science" case. It does not restrict the ability of administrators to impose other sanctions, including wider-ranging topic bans, on him in accordance with the discretionary sanctions remedy of the separate "pseudoscience" case, as was done here. Sandstein 00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal 3

In that discussion I opposed an admin candidacy because the user had a divisive soapboxing userbox on their user page. I did so not because of my opinion about the real-life dispute at issue (which I have minimal knowledge about or interest in), but because I believe that admins (and other users) should not have polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia on their user pages, per WP:UP#POLEMIC. I do not see how this makes me involved for the purposes of this dispute. In fact I said in that diff that "I guess I even agree with the sentiment [expressed in the userbox] as a matter of policy". From what I understand about this issue, that would not put me on what Joshua P. Schroeder describes as "on the sides of those defending the purveying of pseudoscience", but on the other side (of course, I consider myself not to be on any particular side). Sandstein 00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

third-party comments

You might discontinue mocking behavior like that evidenced here: User_talk:Lar#Warnings ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not helpful, Lar. Those statements are not cited above nor are they covered by the "remedy" here. jps (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My response was directed at "Can you point to where I was uncivil to another user and how I can be more civil towards them?" ... I have given such an example, per your request. Your inability to get along with others is endemic, not just confined to this particular matter. ++Lar: t/c 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And your comments to me noted in my initial comments above seem rather to indicate an extraordinary level of incivility. Including suggestions of stalking, tagteaming, and excessive involvement in "fringe" topics. I need not iterate the diffs, I trust. Collect (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not cited in the rationale either. And, moreover, these comments can continue according to the remedy. jps (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I ask Sandstein to acknowledge that the diffs represented your incivility clearly. As the ruling was partially based on incivility in general, it is well within his purview to state that these examples also apply. Thanks for your interesting legal argument here :). Collect (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should do that above. This is not the correct venue. You're welcome, if there's one thing we might agree upon it's that Wikipedia's governance structure is problematic. jps (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

First, kudos to T. Canens for noticing the baiting and misbehaving made by some editors in relation to jps [35].

jsp has been editing well since the end of his ban. So, a 1 year ban looks excessive. Three months would have been enough to carry the message that he mustn't fall back to his previous behaviour. Care to adjust the ban length? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JPS

Something quite terrible is happenning here before our eyes. jps is being banned from a field for desperately trying to defend the integrity of wikipedia from a vocal group of editors promoting fringe POVs. He is doing so in combative style. This sanction will simply vindicate his opponents. If admins have Wikipedia's sanity at heart, they should immediately lift this sanction and try to find a remedy that will preserve jps's contribution to this important area. I don't think the letter of his appeal has merit, but admins need to have the bigger interests of Wikipedia at heart. - BorisG (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by JPS

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

It is my view that all four grounds raised by JPS should be rejected as meritless.
- Warning: As of 4 November 2008, JPS (then as SA) was banned from WP:FRINGE by Elonka (talk · contribs) citing the Pseudoscience case; as of 5 December 2008, he was warned and placed under a restriction by FT2 (talk · contribs), explicitly under the authority of the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. These actions serve as ample warning and satisfy the warning requirement.
- Involvement: Under the applicable discretionary sanctions provisions, "an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions". The diff provided by JPS falls far short.
- Talk page: The discretionary sanctions provision authorizes "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" and "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". That arbcom in one case decided not to ban JPS/SA from talk pages does not mean that admins suddenly lost their ability to do so under a discretionary sanctions regime enacted in another case.
- Definition: This is pure wikilawyering. The imposing admin is perfectly allowed to refer to existing definitions instead of reinventing the wheel. Sandstein could equally have written "the topic area from which he is banned shall encompass (but is not limited to) theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus; theories which have a following, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community; and theories which have a substantial following, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience". That other aspects of the principles - the examples - may have been disclaimed by arbcom does not mean that admins are prevented from referring to them.

I'm frankly very disappointed. I was prepared to accept an appeal claiming that the duration of the sanction was too long, as I have already said in my comments at the original thread. Instead, what I see is excessive amounts of wikilawyering and deliberate violations of the ban, reminiscent of the aftermath of the closure of the fringe science case, which resulted in a three-month site ban. JPS would do well to avoid going down that path again.

Given the behavior since the topic ban, I'm no longer convinced that shortening the sanction at this moment is a good thing to do. I'd be willing to consider another appeal in three months, but if it is going to be anything like this, then please kindly refrain from wasting everyone's time. As to the appeals before us right now, I think they should all be declined. T. Canens (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua P. Schroeder 2

Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs) blocked for three days for violating his topic ban.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

User requesting enforcement: ATren (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

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

[36] Indicates he does not intend to abide by the recently enacted ban.
[37][38][39] 3 edits to an article that would be covered under the ban
[40] Seems to imply that a block/ban might be good for him.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[41] Ban enacted by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (see earlier request, above)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I defer to the uninvolved admins

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Full disclosure: I have had previous conflicts with jps but I am not involved in this dispute.
jps indicated his intention to violate the ban, and then violated it 5 minutes later with 3 edits to an article/talk that clearly falls under the scope of this ban. This seems to be an act of civil disobedience.
Note: Sandstein has questioned whether RHETI falls under the scope of pseudoscience. jps himself has called it "...the fancies of some pseudoscientific psychotherapists trying to make a buck off the disaffection of the guileless and the unwise"[42] and "high grade baloney [43], and has also called the people involved "charlatans".[44]. I am only presenting these in defense of Sandstein's insinuation that this article does not fall under the scope of the ban. ATren (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [45]

Discussion concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Statement by Joshua P. Schroeder

Comments by others about the request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Comment by Off2riorob

The user seems to have appealed to the correct location now (just above) and these couple of rebellious edits are unworthy of action imo in deference to the appeal outcome. The user should now wait for the appeal judgment and abide by that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How long, O Lord, how long? by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Yet another attempt at settling old scores. How much longer are the admins/arbs going to let this stuff go on? If people know they can take a free shot with no repercussions to themselves this is only going to continue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have disclosed the fact that jps and I have had prior conflicts. But I am not involved whatsoever in this conflict. What I saw here was a clear statement that jps was about to violate a ban, followed by 3 edits that clearly violated the ban in the next 5 minutes. So I reported it here, like we're supposed to do when someone violates a ban. The accusations of "settling old scores" are completely uncalled for. ATren (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cardamon

I believe that Elonka is involved where jps is concerned, and should not be commenting on this as an uninvolved admin. Cardamon (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mathsci

I agree that with SBHB that there is perhaps a need to impose some form of compulsory disengagement on those sanctioned by ArbCom under WP:ARBCC. At the moment it seems as if the same kind of battleground behaviour criticized during that case is now being repeated in different venues over different issues but against the same perceived opponents. Mathsci (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with CC. ATren (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please move these comments to your own section. WP:AE is not for threaded discussion or haranguing of those that comment. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

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

As the administrator imposing the ban, I recommend that this request be closed as unhelpful. Edits 1 and 3 are not ban violations. Edits 2 may possibly be, but it is not clear from the article how RHETI is related to (or part of) pseudoscience, and it's not worth wikilawyering this to death while the ban itself is also being appealed. Please make enforcement requests only in the event of reasonably clear violations of arbitration sanctions, or make it clear in the request why the edits at issue violate the ban. Sandstein 16:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to defer to Sandstein's wishes on this, though I do think that the edits are a clear violation of the ban. RHETI is directly related to the Enneagram of Personality article, which is where the ban originated in the first place, and clearly within the psuedoscience topic area. As for how to deal with the enforcement response, I don't think a lengthy block is necessary. A short block (from a few hours up to no more than 72 hours) would feel about right, and then if infractions continue after that, a longer block would be appropriate. --El on ka 16:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Elonka in all respects, here. T. Canens (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's wilfully ignoring his ban. You do not get to violate a ban just because you filed an appeal. I'm blocking for three days. Courcelles 23:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Sandstein 00:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Emmanuelm

User requesting enforcement: Sol (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Emmanuelm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles 1RR, tendentious editing, WP:OWN

Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so

19:20, 15 January 2011 Here Emmanuelm reverts a fifteen day old edit with a month old disscusion on the grounds that it "must first be discussed."
20:22, 15 January 2011 After I'd reverted back to the older version, Emmanuelm rewrites the section with the same title and some of the same problem content. The title alone is a clear 1RR violation.

Diffs of prior warnings: Not applicable. It's right there at the top of the talk page.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indef article ban with 3 month review.

Additional comments: I truly do not have the patience to try and list every time Emmanuelm has reverted various edits in Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations on the grounds that they were not discussed first (without any actual policy reason given). Let's just say it's a lot. Here's an excellent [46]. The only problem is that there was an active talk discussion, one that Emmanuelm had abandoned a week before the edit was made.

Now we have another example in which Emmanuelm has reverted on the grounds that there was no discussion, despite being involved in the discussion a month earlier and abandoning it. That it also involves a 1RR violation and the same BLP issues raised a month ago (calling Jean Ziegler "anti-Israeli" and saying he accused Israel of "starving Palestinian children") is just too much. Emmanuelm apparently sees no problem with it. The article is a mess. It's a huge WP:Coatrack of various accusations against the UN and covers very little in terms of actual information on the three groups' history or interactions. I invite any interested editor to look at the talk page and archives and see the numbers of editors who have tried to improve the article only to have the same above tactics employed against them. Emmanuelm engages in talk, disappears, and then reverts on the baseless grounds that there was no discussion (which is not a valid policy reason). I'm sorry it's come to this but Emmanuelm's display of WP:OWN is now actively deterring any efforts to clean up the article.

I've been involved in this. It really is difficult to get Emmanuel to understand even the basics of sourcing. I took out material sourced only to op-eds and he accuses me of bias on the basis that I have "passionately" opposed use of the Boston Globe. I don't mind working gradually to improve the article, but as Sol says this is really getting tiresome. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Blocked 31 hours. NW (Talk) 19:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 348: / Line 348: @@
 The article is a mess. It's a huge [[WP:Coatrack]] of various accusations against the UN and covers very little in terms of actual information on the three groups' history or interactions. I invite any interested editor to look at the talk page and archives and see the numbers of editors who have tried to improve the article only to have the same above tactics employed against them. Emmanuelm engages in talk, disappears, and then reverts on the baseless grounds that there was no discussion (which is not a valid policy reason). I'm sorry it's come to this but Emmanuelm's display of [[WP:OWN]] is now actively deterring any efforts to clean up the article.
 :I've been involved in this. It really is difficult to get Emmanuel to understand even the basics of sourcing. I took out material sourced only to op-eds and he accuses me of bias on the basis that I have "passionately" opposed use of the [[Boston Globe]]. I don't mind working gradually to improve the article, but as Sol says this is really getting tiresome. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 16:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
+===Result concerning Joshua P. Schroeder===
+*Blocked 31 hours. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 19:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 19:46, 16 January 2011

Joshua P. Schroeder

Request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Discussion concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Statement by Joshua P. Schroeder

Comments by others about the request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Comments by ZuluPapa5

Comments by WMC

Comment by BorisG

Commnet by Collect

Comment by un☯mi

Warning by Sandstein

Comment by ScottyBerg

Comment by BullRangifer

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Comment by Mathsci

Statement by Hans Adler

Statement by Ludwigs2

Result concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by JPS

Statement by JPS

Statement by Sandstein

third-party comments

Statement by Enric Naval

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JPS

Result of the appeal by JPS

Joshua P. Schroeder 2

Request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Discussion concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Statement by Joshua P. Schroeder

Comments by others about the request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Comment by Off2riorob

How long, O Lord, how long? by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Comment by Cardamon

Comment by Mathsci

Result concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Request concerning Emmanuelm

Result concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Comment by u n☯mi