Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bucketsofg (talk | contribs) at 00:09, 2 January 2007 (→[] : format). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

This is a message board for coordinating and discussing enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions. Administrators are needed to help enforce ArbCom decisions. Any user is welcome to request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision. Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.

Are you sure this is the page you are looking for?

This page only involves violations of final Arbitration Committee decisions.

• Reporting of Three-revert rule violations is done on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (WP:AN/3RR). Even if an editor has an Arbitration ruling about reverts, you will likely get a quicker response there.
• Reporting of other types of incidents (e.g. blocked users evading blocks, etc) that do not involve the Arbitration Committee is done on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I).
• To request specific assistance from an administrator, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for administrator attention. To request assistance from a specific administrator, see ].
• If you are blocked, please contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage and click email this user).
• To request arbitration, please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration.

Enforcement

Enforcement requests against users should be based on the principles and decisions in their Arbitration case.

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content. Arbitration Committee decisions are generally about behavior, not content. Very few editors have content dispute prohibitions. Requests for Comments is still the best place to hash out content disputes.

Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still Assume Good Faith. Arbitration Committee decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Misplaced Pages's civility or personal attacks policies will be paraphrased and, if reinserted, will be deleted.

If an Arbitration case has not been finalized, it is not enforceable. In that case, bad behavior should be reported on WP:AN/I and you should consider adding the behavior to the /Evidence page of the Arbitration case.

Note to administrators: Arbitration Committee decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that certain types of behavior by these users is not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia. If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned. The enforcement mechanisms listed in each individual case should be constructed liberally in order to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.

Using this page

Edit this section. Please put new requests above old requests and below the sample template. A sample template is provided, please use copy and paste, do not edit the template.

Be prepared with:

• Diffs showing the violating behavior
• Point to the final decision in their Arbitration case, a list with summary disposition is at WP:AER
• Clear and brief summary relation of how this behavior is linked to the principles, findings of fact, remedies, and/or enforcement mechanism of the arbitration case.
• Sign and date your report with Misplaced Pages's special signature format (~~~~). The archival bot uses the time stamp to determine when to archive reports.

Be advised to:

• Notify the user at his or her user talk page.

Archives

Sections are automatically archived when the oldest time stamp in the section is 7 days old. The current archive is Archive 3.

• Archive 1 (May 2006 to August 2006)
• Archive 2 (August 2006 to November 2006)

Edit this section for new requests

User:ScienceApologist

In addition to the issues that I raised above (see "User:ScienceApologist", and User:ScienceApologist ), I note the following where ScienceApologist writes:

"I am beginning to be of the opinion that this entire monstrosity may deserve deletion as it may be doomed to be a haven for original research, but I'm not going to give up yet. I ask that other editors join me in making a reliable article about the pathology of these people who advocate this "electric universe" idea."

This demonstrates two contraventions of the ArbCom remedies which requested that ScienceApologist is "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines":

• 1. Disruptive editing:

• The article has survived an AFD on 20 July 2005,, but ScienceApologist deleted it anyway, under his old Username Joshuaschroeder,
• User Woohookitty noted that "You can't do what you did and circumvent it 6 hours after the vote closes. That would constitute disrupting Misplaced Pages and trying to circumvent it's policies."
• As I pointed out in the ArbCom, this is not the first time that ScienceApologist has blanked an article,
• As I pointed out above, ScienceApologist's editing is not "Bold" but reckless, and that editors shouldn't "make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories"
• ie. ScienceApologist's editing is both disruptive, and, shows intent to be disruptive.

• 2. Personal attacks and deprecation of living people

• ScienceApologist writes that he wants other editors to make "a reliable article about the pathology of these people".
• This is clearly an ad hominem and demonstrates that the article subject is secondary.
• It is also in contravention of WP:LIVING which prohibits negative comments about living people in articles and talk pages.
• As I (and ScienceApologist) consider myself to be "one of those people", this is also yet another personal attack against me.
• ScienceApologist is also suggesting to another editor that he is ".. too accomodating of Ian's POV-pushing and you are too critical of me for guarding Misplaced Pages against promoters of pseudoscience." This is not assuming good faith, and discrediting me with the pseudoscience quip, which is yet another personal attack.

I believe this is the third set of examples which I believes shows that ScienceApologist is not upholding his ArbCom caution, let alone the policies and guidelines which the majority of editors abide. --Iantresman 17:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• On point #1, you say that you brought this to the attention of ArbComm, which would make it inappropriate for me to punish him now. On point #2, you provide no diffs of behaviour that is (1) recent (2) specifically and clearly in violation of some policy of widipedia. Please note that frank assertions about the quality of a source is part of determining what is a reliable source, and frank evaluation of the quality of arguments is part of successful editing. Provided that he does not pursue this to an extent that violates WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, I am not going to repremand him for it. Also, I advise you to be careful about what you are asking for here. If you drag me or some other admin into this, we're also going to look closely at your behaviour in light of the arbcomm ruling. This exchange between you and Ionized raises concerns with me about the good-faith of the appeals that both of you have brought here. Bucketsofg 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• The first statement I quoted starting "I am beginning to be of the opinion..." is a current diff,
• The examples in point #1 shows a history of deleting and blanking, which other Admins have described as possibly "disruptive". His recent statement indicates further intent to do the same.
• Again, the quote beginning "I am beginning to be of the opinion..." is current,, and includes the phrase "a reliable article about the pathology of these people". The subject of the sentence is "these people", and the attribute is "the pathology". Without a source, this is an emphatic ad hominem that fails both WP:CIVIL and WP:LIVING. It would be no different to discussing "administrators" and asking editors to write an article about "the dishonesty of these people", rather than perhaps asking editors to contribute to an article on the flaws in the Arbitration process.
• I am quite happy for you "to look closely at behaviour", and note that whatever you find, does not excuse ScienceApologist of his responsibilities. --Iantresman 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I can see nothing in any of this that warrents any action. Bucketsofg 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is absurd that this warrants no action. So this means I am free to delete the BigBang article?(sarcasm) This isn't about Ian it is about SA and his behavior, his threats, his ignorance of policy, his constant disruption and threats to delete an article that was on Wiki long before he was. And he calls us pathological? -Ionized 18:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please be mindful that any request for admin-intervention must involve the whole situation, not one user: especially when I find you saying something like your recent statement "ScienceApologist needs to be banned from editing this article". I have begun a such a review and will report back here in due course. Bucketsofg 19:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I see nothing wrong with making the statement that I made. -Ionized 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note to other admins. I'm making a full investigation and it may take some time. Please consult with me before intervening here. Bucketsofg 20:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Findings

In the matter of User:Iantresman's complaint against User:ScienceApologist, after reviewing the relevant Arbitration cases, reviewing all involved editors' edits since closing, and much of the previous case, I find that SA's actions are not sufficiently problematic to justify formal sanction. Iantresman's complaints in my view are minor and many are misleading. Indeed, I'm concerned that Iantresman's complaints here are part of a long series of complaints stretching back over the year that seem perilously close to vexatious litigation. Since (1) this implies a certain aggressiveness, (2) Iantresman's remedy called for his being "banned from any article or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing", and (3) several, including me, have found his editing to be disruptive (cf. , , , and ), I find that Iantresman has indeed disrupted through aggressive biased editing. After careful consideration and consultation with other admins, I impose the following penalty. Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is to be blocked for 24 hours for disruption and banned for 3 weeks for aggressive biased editing. This decision will be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience Bucketsofg 00:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist

Further to the ArbCom remedies which requested that ScienceApologist is "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines", and in addition to the issues mentioned earlier, I would like to raise the following which I believe contravenes policy:

• ScienceApologist has begun an AfD on the Electric universe (concept) here, which he is entitled to do so. However:

• I believe that the reasons ScienceApologist gave for the AfD were misleading, although I respect he is entitled to his view. I responded with my own comments, but ScienceApologist has removed them from the discussion page, to the talk page, This is uncivil at best, worse, the "Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy" page, an official policy page, says in the section "Commenting on a listing for deletion" that "Normally you should not remove any statements from any deletion discussion.". This is not the first time ScienceApologist has removed material from Deletion discussion page, see

• Having moved my comments to the Talk page, ScienceApologist responded by intermixing his comments with mine, making it difficult for others to read mine. This practice is not allowed in ArcCom cases, and the "Talk page guidelines" section on "Layout" tells us to "Answer a post underneath it". ScienceApologist is not a new user, and is well aware of this.

• "Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy" in the section "Abuse of deletion process" tells us that "It should also be noted that packing the discussion .. meatpuppets (advertising or soliciting of desired views) does not reflect a genuine consensus,", yet ScienceApologist has advertised the AfD on the Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (science) page,. This is also a contravention of policy.

• It also turns out that ScienceApologist is involved with editing the "Misplaced Pages:Notability (science)" article,, so there is a potential conflict of interest.

• All in all, I note (1) several contraventions of policy and guidelines, and, (2) an AfD in which there appears to be irregularities, and I can't see how it can be fair. --Iantresman 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect, this is the fourth report in a short span you've submitted on him. Take a step back, a few deep breaths, and disengage if necessary. To be blunt, you come off as having an axe to grind at this point. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect, let me point out that there was an ArbCom case which concluded that ScienceApologist is "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines" (an odd conclusion, since it applies to the rest of us without requiring an ArbCom decision).
• Either ScienceApologist is respecting policies and guidelines, or he isn't. He's already called me a bean counter and having lied twice . He's suggested professional impropriety of a living person , and numerous other examples relating to editing.
• If a tree in a forest unfairly overshadowed the others, I think you'd grind an axe too. --Iantresman 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, I wouldn't. Such nursed slights as you seem to have are divisive, create a negative environment on the encyclopedia, and poison the well - many editors aren't going to want to touch an article where this kind of negative environment exists, for fear of becoming entangled in this whole dispute. I think it would be best for the moment if you forgot it, if not forgave it. Have some trust in the administration of Misplaced Pages. If he truly is disruptive, you need not be around to report it for him to be disciplined. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Peter, if nursed slights are decisive and create a negative environment, how do you think that contravening policy helps?
• How many times should I forgive? We've already been through a dispute resolution at least a dozen, culminating in the ArbCom case. The ArbCom case found several examples of ScienceApologist being uncivil towards me,and failure to extend good faith,. And when I point out that this has continued past the ArbCom decision, I am criticized for mentioning it!!!
• With respect, ScienceApologist has either contravened policy (yet again), or he hasn't. I feel it is the duty of the administration to at least find out. --Iantresman 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• And what is the point of this fourth report? A sysop is already making a full investigation int your third report, as stated above. Why the need for another report? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• To show that it continues. Do you think that if ever I get arrested, I can tell the police that they don't have to worry about investigating this case, because there is someone looking into my previous three arrests? If the admin is going to include this case with the previous three, then no problem. --Iantresman 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why not just add it into the outstanding report? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately policy prevents us from taking a step back and disengaging, as silence signifies 'consent' towards ScienceApologists bold changes, and we certainly don't consent. Currently he is trying to delete the Electric Universe page, and merge the Plasma Cosmology page with one of its stubs. While I have less care for what happens to the Electric Universe page, I can not sit by silently and witness the destruction of the Plasma_cosmology article. We have gone way past the point of assuming good faith, etc, as SA has clearly demonstrated his ill intent. -Ionized 18:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please take a moment to consider your attitude. It comes off as combative, ("I can not sit by and silently witness the destruction of the Plasma_cosmology article). Consider the fact that there are millions of editors on Misplaced Pages, and that one editor not contributing does not mean an article will be neglected or fall into POV. You may consider requesting a peer review as a more constructive way to get more eyes on the article and avoid POV. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note See my findings above. I regard this matter as now closed. Bucketsofg 00:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administration