Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unomi (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 14 January 2011 (→Discussion concerning Joshua P. Schroeder: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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 informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Joshua P. Schroeder

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

User requesting enforcement

Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

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
4. Had previously blanked the page then immediately nominated it for deletion
5. Belittles other editors in a noticeboard discussion
6. Belittles another editor in article talk page discussion

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

1. Warning by ArbCom
2. Previous ArbCom topic ban for similar behavior
3. 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)

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)

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages in this manner. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

Statement by Joshua P. Schroeder

Comments by others about the request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Comments by WMC

JPS has made valuable efforts to clean up Enneagram of Personality, for example 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 saying Removed recent edits by activist editor with a militant agenda, then re-restored 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 . 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)

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)

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 is an indirect accusation of tag-teaming, 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?), 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), an accusation that I focus on only a "very few issues" on MfD, 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 . 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)

Comment by un☯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. 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.

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. un☯mi 14:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions and considering Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Motion to sanction ScienceApologist as well as Misplaced Pages: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)
• 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)
• 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)