Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 23:53, 14 January 2011 (Result concerning Joshua P. Schroeder: topic-banned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:53, 14 January 2011 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (Result concerning Joshua P. Schroeder: topic-banned)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages'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
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Shortcut

    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

    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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

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

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    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

    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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder

    Unhelpful threaded discussion collapsed by administrator

    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)
    Stephan, that's bull:
    1. 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.
    2. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
    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)
    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. Misplaced Pages 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)

    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 unmi

    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. unmi 14:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

    Unhelpful threaded discussion collapsed by administrator
    My, how time flies: William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    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. unmi 16:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    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)
    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? unmi 17:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    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)
    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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
    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)

    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)

    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)

    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.