Revision as of 19:14, 13 March 2009

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.

Edit this section for new requests

Date linking/de-linking injunction violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dabomb87 — --Sapphic (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I explained this adequately—the article is a featured article, and is required to comply with all points the MOS, a point brought up a couple times already by other editors. I provided a pretty clear edit summary. I was consciously aware of each date link being removed, and can safely say that each date link removal was not in error. I never intended to delink any other article, and I don't think this qualifies as "mass removal". Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the thread below, to which Dabomb87 contributed several times, there is no excuse for this sort of testing of limits. I will block their account for 24 hours for breaching Misplaced Pages:ARBDATE/Injunction. For the future, when filing a report, link to the relevant arbitration case please, to make things easier on those who may review these notes later on. Dabomb87, don't play games with ArbCom or arbitration enforcement. When they say something, they mean it. Jehochman 02:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It says mass delinking. It has already been established here that people may delink in an individual article, along with other fixes. I do not believe this: Kendrick relinks 100s of articles and is not blocked; Dabomb87 unlinks one and is blocked. I'd like to know why such harsh, arbitrary punishments are being meted out. MASS, it says. MASS. MASS. Do you see that? SHould all FAC nominators be warned that every day they risk blocking? Tony (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read this clarification and undo the block. --NE2 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The injunction says nothing about a minimum number of articles to qualify as "mass". The edit in question removed all the date links from one article. This article has had date links since at least August 30, 2007 when it was promoted to Featured Article status. What was the urgency that justified making that provocative edit right after Dabomb87 engaged in a discussion on this board, knowing full well that an injunction was in effect? The edit was pure testing of limits, and very likely to provoke conflict at a time when we are trying to put out flames. The edit was most unhelpful, and now everyone knows that this sort of behavior is not allowed. We mean it. If there have been subsequent discussions, don't expect me to go fishing around for them. Those silly arbitrators should update their injunction so that it says what they mean. Jehochman 02:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"If you are consciously removing each bracket, and edit articles at a rate which is consistent with that, the injunction doesnt restrict you." --NE2 02:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question was a needless testing of limits. It was a purposeful breach. I have no idea where you got that statement or who said it. Jehochman 02:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Diff link of statement (from Feb 5), but keep in mind that was over a month ago, and further comments have been made below on this very page by arbitrators. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to read assume good faith after you read this clarification, which I linked above. --NE2 03:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM is disputed, stop using it as a hammer to force your POV on other editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• (1) How do you read Dabomb's mind WRT to "testing the limits" and aimed "to provoke conflict"? You are a mind-reader? There is certainly no history of doing this that might suggest these motives, or perhaps you can point to it.
• (2) In the case of Kendrick7, who really did breach the injunction massively—hundreds of times—there was just a little slap on the wrist. Your actions appear to confirm a blatant bias by ArbCom, and further jeopardises its claim to run a fair and neutral hearings process. Arguments such as "Oh, you were unlucky to be caught" and such, as used below, will convince no one. Kendrick was "caught" by being reported here: nothing was done. This sends a very bad message, doesn't it?
• (3) Clarification: so any FAC nominator who removes the links from their nomination will be liable to blocking? Your statements "The injunction says nothing about a minimum number of articles to qualify as "mass". The edit in question removed all the date links from one article.: beg the question as to the safety of users at large. The injunction concerned all editors, not just parties to a particular hearing. Should we be reporting them here? We really need to get this definition of "mass" right, and you seem to be making up the law on the hop to justify your actions. Now it's the number of dates that are unlinked in a single article, not the number of articles; one article counts as "mass". Let me think about that.
• (4) You appear to be in breach of two fundamental WP:ADMIN requirements to (a) communicate fully, before and after, the reasons for a block, and (b) to block only as "a last resort", to prevent harm to the project. It has all of the arbitrariness that characterises extreme regimes.

At the very least, the block should be reversed immediately. You were wrong. Tony (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I would encourage you to click on the diff above. Then I would encourage you to think: This has been a featured article which has been stable for some considerable time already, so it's not like the article is in featured article preparation. The edit did nothing but remove date links, and wasn't part of some general clean-up. Was it a good edit? Maybe, but considering the topic of this edit, the awareness of Dabomb of the sensitivity of such edits, and the absolute lack of any kind of time pressure, I think that this edit demonstrates at the minimum an extreme failure of judgement. What on earth made it so important to do this edit while MOSNUM is locked and the arbitration still under way? At the very minimum his edit was a further indication that some subset of the enforcers of date delinking are uninterested in consensus or cooperative editing. You should understand that I am actually for date delinking, but noticing what poor company I'm keeping is making me rethink my support of this position. I don't like being in the position of wanting to defend editors who are absolutely unable to conform to some minimal social norms. AKAF (talk) 08:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. These kinds of blocks, and much more importantly, these kinds of vindictive hostile reports, must stop immediately. The "injunction", if handled in this way, is evidently creating much more damage and bad blood than it could ever prevent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. AKAF, I have seen the edit. It does not satisfy the meaning of "mass delinking" in any sense. The imputed motives just not supported by evidence—they are merely an admin's claim, an outlandish one at that. The length of time the square brackets have been in the text is utterly irrelevant: who invented that one? Does that mean corrections should be made only to recent edits to WP's articles? Is there some new rule that I'm missing here? "What on earth made it so important to do this edit"—I don't think it was important or urgent; nor do I suspect that dabomb thought it was urgent. No one has answered my claims that Jehochman has breached policy tenets. I'd like a response on that. Nor has anyone explained why Kendrick7 was treated entirely differently for edits that are two orders of magnitude greater, whether in terms of the number of articles or units unlinked. Your use of the term "enforcers of date delinking" sounds like dishonest spin; I'm sure you didn't intend it that way. ArbCom is being made to look corruptly one-sided, I'm afraid. None of us wants that. Finally, I suggest you revisit your philosophical underpinnings if, as you claim, your judgements (here, concerning date unlinking) are hostage to the company you keep. Tony (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Copied from AN)_ The edit in question by Dabomb is . Dabomb had been commenting on the arbitration enforcement page, and so was aware that the very idea of delinking dates was under dispute (how could he not know?). Thus I agree with jehochman that the edit summary of that edit is provocative: "delinking dates and making dates the right format: this is a featured article and therefore must comply with all MOS guidelines".

The question whether that MoS guideline has agreement is well known to be disputed, especially by Dabomb, who has been discussing whether to place a "disputed" tag on it. For Dabomb to refer to that MoS page as if it is controlling when he/she knows that it is disputed is unlikely to help resolve the dispute, and more likely to irk those on the other side. It's a classic power move (and it does not build rapport with editors on the other side of the arbitration case).

Moreover, Dabomb had not previously edited the page in question, and made no other changes to it. I agree that if someone were to delink a date while making significant changes to an article, that would not violate the injunction. But to arrive at a page simply to change date linking isn't on, and Dabomb reasonably could be expected to know this.

If all editors would simply not change date linking styles until the arbitration case is settled, that would resolve the issue of blocks such as these. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:50, 2009-3-11 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Report (3)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Landed little marsdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Parapsychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (added by Jehochman 13:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

This edit is not only POV-pushing, it also has totally failed verification as Talk:Parapsychology#Utrecht University clearly shows. Why should we allow such behavior at featured articles? Per this warning, it is clear that this user is aware that such advocacy is not tolerated. There have been enough warnings. It's time to start doing something about problematic editors. Please. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that a quick google would have turned up ample evidence than the university of Utrecht had the first chair of parapsychology in Europe, and that internet courses in parapsychology are offered there, it is hard to believe that ScienceApologist did not know this and therefore this should be considered as a vexatious complaint. Further checking suggests that the Utrecht unit may no longer be operating, but this makes my edit an honest mistake rather than some deliberate attempt to push what would in any event be a fairly mundane point. And given this mundane nature of my edit, the rabid tone of the above attack is quite bizarre. I note that scienceapologist has recently been banned from editing articles such as the parapsychology article but has been editing it nonetheless. Perhaps an extension of his ban would give him time to cool down a bit.

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/parapsychologist

http://www.hollowhill.com/ghost-hunting/parapsychologydegree.htm

Landed little marsdon (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

LLM, do you seriously think those two links are reliable sources? Skinwalker (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that I can no longer be bothered dealing with. The sources above are not supposed to be RSs in the sense that they could be used to support article content. What they are supposed to be are sources that show that Utrecht had a parapsychology unit and that my edit was not pushing some bizarre pov of my own but was simply adding a fact to the article. That is what this discussion is about. FWIW, here is another source that not only confirms Utrecht but details another top notch university. If I was still editing I might add that info and source. You can if you want.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/05/offbeat.telepathy.reut/index.htmlLanded little marsdon (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your CNN source would be a far more reliable source than the parapsycology faq website that you used previously. The test for you would be: if you used that source to support the Lund parapsychology program, would you also use the following quote "Verifying the existence of paranormal phenomena does not seem to be a promising field of science," said Sven Ove Hansson, professor of philosophy at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.? Or the following Despite decades of experimental research and television performances by people such as spoonbending psychic Uri Geller, there is still no proof that gifts such as telepathy and the ability to see the future exist, mainstream scientists say. from the same source? An editor seeking to improve the article in an NPOV manner it seems, would seek to use those balancing tidbits, no? Reflect on it a bit and tell us just what you would add from that source to improve the article. Vsmith (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really about sources. The issue is that the edit used the words "worldwide" and "leading" in a weasely way, to make it seem that academic parapsychology is more prevalent than it really is, i.e. to push the view that parapsychology is widely seen as a reputable discipline. Looie496 (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good freaking grief. Why don't we just name this forum "24 hour Fringe Science argument center". How about both sides start to play nice with each other. (frustrated? ya think?) SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unarchiving because I was working on this case when SirFozzie closed it. "Play nice" doesn't work with tendentious accounts. I am banning User:Landed little marsdon indefinitely from all pseudoscience pages. The record shows that this is a single purpose account that only seems to use Misplaced Pages to push a specific point of view on that topic. There are millions of other articles available. You are free to edit them. After you show us through successful editing that you understand how WP:NPOV works, I may support lifting this ban. Jehochman 13:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

this seems little more than a spiteful tit-for-tat block totally out of proportion to anything I have allegedly done. I therefore request it be reversed.Landed little marsdon (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Making assumptions of bad faith doesn't exactly help your appeal. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

request removal of topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Given that on his talk page Jehochman has dredged up the long settled "sockpuppet of everyone" allegations in response to my request for an explanation of his action, I request that the completely over the top action be reversed. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone and this through the back door revenge ban for what has happened to scienceapologist is really out of order. I mean, Utrecht university is a major world university, as is Edinburgh, and both have/had parapsychology units. Can that factual information really be so out there as to warrant a lifetime topic can from the topic of my main interest. I feel there is no justification for this action or anything like it.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been cherry picking facts to support a point of view that you apparently favor. You were previously warned on several occasions, yet you continue to argue that your editing has been faultless. This is not a moral judgment at all. Simply put, for whatever reasons, you wear blinders with respect to this topic and refuse to listen to advice. As has been noticed by at least two administrators (myself and Elonka), your editing patterns don't match the typical new user, and you have been focusing exclusively on one highly dispute-ridden area of the encyclopedia. These last two are not determinative factors, but they most certainly weigh in the decision I have made, which is well within administrator discretion and the directives set forth by ArbCom. Your continued disputation on this thread benefits neither you nor Misplaced Pages. Good evening, Jehochman 23:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What warnings? I, like everyone else (although I didn't start throwing about accusations of nazism as a result), was notified of the arbitration case on pseudoscience. But, as was made plain at the time, that was not a warning nor even a comment about conduct but merely standard procedure.

Your other point defies belief. I have added numerous points to the introduction of an article, almost all of which are dealt with in the article proper and all of which can be backed by numerous reliable sources. I charge you to find more than one edit I have made that is not obviously true and able to be reliably sourced to sources in the article or discussed on the talk page. That all have been mainly from one perspective only shows that the article is lacking balance from that perspective. And that all have been criticized by someone like scienceapologist proves nothing since he has had to be banned for outrageous disruption and attacks conducted, it seems, over many years and facilitated by admins like yourself who have stepped in to unblock him previously, thus reinforcing his view that he could do as he pleased and creating the situation that has arisen with his ban. That you should ease your conscience, or appease his supporters by sacrificing me is quite disgraceful.Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No! You have 73 content edits, mostly Parapsychology related. Jehochman's decision to topic ban you is very reasonable, as you are focused entirely on a very problematic topic area. You need to diversify. If you need ideas on how to outlive a topic ban like this one, yet stay interested, email me. John Vandenberg 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem if the ban was just from that article for a time but that topic area: ufos, cryptozoology, psi is my primary area of interest and I have no real expertise in many other areas except those relating to my professional life and i deal with that all day. I ask again, where are the problem edits that necessitate a total subject area ban. Compared with the outrageous stuff i've seen that has gone unchecked from a different perspective it's hard to believe that any kind of case could be made under which this would look fair. Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about a total topic ban on an editor merely because of apparent POV and being an SPA. I have not reviewed the editor's work, but a total topic ban, not allowing even Talk page suggestions, does seem out of line without better justification, such as edit warring, incivility, or true tendentious debate, not merely the assertion of a POV in Talk. --Abd (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban now will greatly improve the chances of this editor surviving in troubled waters. If you want evidence of a problem, see here and notice no mention of a current survey despite constant requests and Landed little marsdon making eight posts. The evidence should have come in the second or third post. That type of discussion is a waste of time for other contributors. John Vandenberg 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, crime of the century. And the source is even in the article the whole time (!!!) and is no older than some sources being used for current anti parapsychology views. Double standards and moving goalposts that i have to bend over backwards to address while others have free rein.Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You were asked multiple times to cite a RS. You didnt. Even now you dont say which RS you are referring to. In this topical area, that is a problem. That creates tension and wastes precious time of all involved, including yourself. Dont take the topic ban personally, ... it can be lifted without drama by spending a month or two productively editing other areas of the project. John Vandenberg 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've cited it ad nauseum. It's the survey cited in the article. The survey of 1100 college professors. The one published in new scientist. Are you seriously claiming that i need to do more than this. Wtf would you like.Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

LLM, you can write biographies about important people in the PSI field, both for and against. You can write about journals that do accept articles related to PSI. You can write about old studies of unexplained phenomenon, and go over to Wikisource and transcribe original journal articles from the 1800s about the topic. There is plenty you can do. John Vandenberg 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If we weigh the few content contributions of this account versus the sheer volume of tendentiousness, the account is a big net negative to Misplaced Pages. Llm, you need to change tack immediately, or else you'll be indef blocked, and we'll also indef block any new accounts that show up in the same places pushing the same agenda. (Abd, please check the facts fully before commenting further.) Jehochman 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a completely ridiculous and unsourced edit pushing an outrageous pov far far worse than anything i've done. I look forward to the topic ban which demonstrates that my conspiracy theory that these bans are being used to manipulate content is merely a fantasy. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Parapsychology&diff=255930313&oldid=255274376Landed little marsdon (talk)

A topic ban is entirely reasonable, and even lenient, given this account's history and the various probations in effect. If this project took its stated goals and policies seriously, this thread would have ended a few posts ago with an indefinite block. I suppose it serves some sort of social purpose to entertain this sort of thing, though. Carry on. MastCell  01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman and mastcell make great play of my net detriment to the project. A cursory glance at my contribs would reveal that i played a significant part in the resolution of the naming problem on the list of pseudosciences article. That is, in only a few weeks i helped bring about a solution to a problem that seems to have been going for several years. But don't worry, never let something so mundane as the truth interfere with the stories you need to tell yourselves to justify your action.Landed little marsdon (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing alongside LLM for a while now, and I'm sorry to say that this topic ban is justified based on that account's pattern of editing. LLM and ScienceApologist, whose topic ban I consider equally justified, are two sides of the same coin. Both have a pattern of making edits that promote a point of view, without inadequate sourcing. Both have a disruptive influence on talk pages, where they propound their own unique interpretations of policy and guidelines that happen to suit their purposes. Both are subject to flurries of poor editing when confronted with statements that seem to contradict their positions - most recently in opposition to each other in an edit war on Parapsychology. The only difference is, LLM's edits promote fringe science, and SA's attack fringe science. I'd much rather see both editors learn to follow WP:NPOV and to help to promote a constructive editing environment. But in the absence of that, the present approach of blocking/banning seems the only option available to the admins. The only concern I would note is that SA has not been banned from editing talk pages, whereas it sounds like LLM has been. It would be good to see more consistency there. I would be happy to see LLM able to edit talk pages. If LLM can present solid reasoning on talk pages based on reliable sources and the relevant policies and guidelines, I for one would be happy to make suggested edits, just as I am with SA, and I imagine many other editors would be too. Apologies if I'm commenting out of place here, I'm new to this page and happy to refactor if I have the protocol wrong. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

At WP:RFAR the arbitrators are currently voting whether to ban SA for three months, followed by a six month topic ban. We should see what they decide. Jehochman 05:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not push the talk page issue into the future a little. If LLM puts some effort into editing other topical areas, we can reconsider the talk page ban. John Vandenberg 13:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think John Vandenberg's suggestion is a good idea. We can revisit this in a week or so, and if there has been a pattern of constructive editing, the talk page ban could be reconsidered. PhilKnight (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota on Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You will need to file this properly if you want some action taken on it. Kevin (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In this edit user:Cerejota calls Brewcrewer a "dick" . It seems to me that, at minimum, Cerejota needs to be cautioned for resorting to personal insults of the talk page of on article under Arbitration enforcement. In this context such language is inflammatory. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are instructions on how to use this page at the top. You should read them. Avruch 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparent complete failure to speak Bureaucrat effectively on my part. Sorry, but I can't do it, and apparently lack the capacity. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Block of Dabomb87 by Jehochman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jehochman has blocked Dabomb87 for 24 hours. I asked him here to explain the rationale for the block. It is my understanding (which may be in error) that the block is because Dabomb87 made a single edit involving de-linking. It is also my understanding that the parties to the ArbCom are currently enjoined from mass de-linking. Jehochman explained on his talk page that he “will not tolerate badgering from multiple parties every time I try to enforce the rules.” He further instructed interested parties to come here to discuss any concerns. Ergo my question: what rule? Shouldn’t he cite the rule he is enforcing? As I am not aware of a new rule further enjoining the parties from any linking or delinking, the original injunction applies. And in that injunction, the term “mass delinking” meant—and still means—bot delinking or manual delinking in similar quantities. If Dabomb87 really made a single edit (an assumption), then what rule does Jehochman think he is enforcing? Greg L (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to express any opinion of the block, but WP:AN/I is the best place to secure wider administrator input, especially if you are seeking a review of Jehochman's block. Jehochman has already explained his reasoning, and the blocked party is yet to put up an unblock request. There's no need for another AE thread, but repost on AN/I if you must. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This was bad advice. Please think about the process. Arbitration is the final stop in dispute resolution. Afterwards, things come to this board. If this board can't work out an issue, it goes back to ArbCom, not WP:DRAMA. Jehochman 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

J, let it go. WP:AN/I is the place if you seek wider review of any controversial blocks, AE or not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist abusively editing his Talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

. This isn't the first comment he's removed that contained relevant evidence about his behavior, which is important because substantial segments of the community, as was apparently planned, believe that SA was blocked for merely making spelling corrections; here, though, he selectively edits my Talk comment to make it into an insult, and the edit summary is likewise gratuitously pugnacious, (removing comments by a user who ought to be banned.) Previously, he removed another comment as soapboxing, but left response to that comment standing. I've been blocked, I know what it's like, and if I had behaved like this, attacking other editors from my Talk page instead of dealing with allowed business, I'd have fully expected to become unable to edit my Talk page. I conclude that is exactly what he expects, and I also conclude that we should oblige him, his block should be extended, even in advance of the pending decision, and probably the page should be blanked as a courtesy, and protected, to prevent further disruption and distraction. This is certainly not the outcome I sought.

(Editors can normally remove material from their own Talk page, but not to distort the meaning of a comment, but this right also may become somewhat restricted when it comes to material relating to the block. I know that when I attempted to simply refactor my Talk page while I was blocked, so that I could edit in a section without constantly running into edit conflicts, I was restricted as not having the right to do that. I've seen removal of material by blocked editors reverted many times. But, then again, I and they are not ScienceApologist.)

I brought this here because it relates to the restrictions on SA. --Abd (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be for you to distance yourself from SA and problems associated with him; they are being handled by a number of administrators and the arbitration committee, and his page is monitored by a large number of people with diverse points of view. If your comments are not helping, and he is editing and removing them, then you should stop commenting (as you noted you would do). Avruch 03:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The page has been re-factored and the material in question removed. Is this complaint still necessary? Ronnotel (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't a complaint, it was a notice. SA continues to be quite uncivil. If that is not a violation of his restrictions, no, there would be nothing more to do. For myself, WP:DGAF. The blanking of his page removes any immediate necessity, and it looks like the AC is going to block him, it would take a miracle to stop it now, so closing this seems like the best action to me. --Abd (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Editwarring over whether to merge Orthomolecular psychiatry with Orthomolecular medicine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On Ronnotel's recommendation, I'm continuing here a discussion from WP:AN/I#Orthomolecular psychiatry and Orthomolecular medicine.

First of all, I wish to thank and commend OrangeMarlin for collaboratively accepting the result of the RfC and discussion and beginning the difficult work of actually editing the article, which I hope to find time to participate in this weekend.

This dispute over article versus redirect at Orthomolecular psychiatry has involved several bouts of editwarring, necessitating page protection March 2–11. There was a discussion and an RfC, closed by uninvolved admin Ruslik, who further clarified that close here. Given the current situation, unless there is a further discussion (but see link 1A) involving merge tags, sufficient time (e.g. 5 days) and a clear consensus (e.g. acknowledged by all participants or closed by an uninvolved admin etc., not declared by one side over the objections of the other side), I consider converting the article to a redirect under current conditions to be disruptive; I expand on that in my last paragraph here: 1A.

I disagree with Keepcalmandcarryon's argument that there was an established merge. ScienceApologist tried to redirect the page in November, but was reverted a total of 3 times by 2 other editors. It then stayed in article form until February, indicating wiki-consensus for article form; no such wiki-consensus has been demonstrated for a redirect; any redirects have been reverted in less than 24 hours except when the page was protected. The discussion (before the RfC) which Keepcalmandcarryon is using to attempt to justify a redirect took place with no merge tags on the articles as far as I'm aware, started (except for comments in November) on 27 or 28 February; Keepcalmandcarryon redirected the page on 1 March and was reverted; remember that February has only 28 days. That discussion included clearly expressed opposition to, as well as support for, the merge, and all of the participants there also participated in the later discussion mentioned by Ruslik in the RfC close.

Note that Ruslik's close did not merely state "no consensus for merge" (uninvolved editors), but also stated "the results of the above discussion are clearly against the merge" (involved editors).

I'm bringing this here because editwarring over whether to redirect the page or not is continuing, and because Keepcalmandcarryon is continuing to argue at the AN/I discussion that redirecting the article is appropriate, even after the close by an uninvolved admin. Both Verbal and Keepcalmandcarryon have redirected the page (Orthomolecular psychiatry) after that close, after the further clarification by the closer, and after my warning in link 1A that I would consider such behaviour disruptive.

I call on all participants to accept the result of the RfC and discussion as closed by an uninvolved administrator and to use established discussion fora rather than editwarring if they wish to continue to pursue the idea of merging the articles. I would appreciate decisive statements by AE administrators to help ensure that this situation is resolved by discussion in appropriate fora rather than by editwarring. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggested that this be brought here from AN/I because I believe one or more recent ArbCom decisions may apply in this situation. Since I'm not too familiar myself, I figured this board would have the best collective experience to judge. Ronnotel (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue does not belong on this page and should be continued in the discussion at WP:ANI. The article is not really privy to discretionary arbitration sanctions (it's a fringe science, not a pseudoscience). ANI is the proper place. II | (t - c) 18:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science: "Editors in the disputed area are encouraged to seek to engage in formal mediation to help establish consensus when coverage of fringe science in an article or group of articles is under dispute. While mediation is not binding, editors are further encouraged to abide by the results of mediation (and other dispute resolution)." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So open a case at WP:MEDCAB. This is not MEDCAB. However, the side wanting it merged has already indicated that they aren't interested in mediation. II | (t - c) 18:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

MEDCAB is not formal mediation; but the RfC which already took place is "other dispute resolution" as mentioned in the quote I just gave. The fringe science case also says "All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and may lead to further sanctions being imposed." However, I realize that it may (or may not) have been a mistake for me to move this discussion here. If so, I apologize. If someone sees fit to move it back, (leaving a link to here because my comment above is part of that discussion), or to move it elsewhere, I won't object. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved back by II to the original AN/I thread. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• An arbitration enforcement request takes the form of "User:X has violated sanction Y of case Z. ...." This thread is not an arbitration enforcement request. Please do not engage in forum shopping. Take your content dispute to mediation or another acceptable form of dispute resolution, or reformulate your request according to the above form. Note that Y must be a sanction that has an enforcement provision, not simply a finding of fact or principal. Jehochman 19:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)