Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:19, 11 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 information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341

Edit this section for new requests

Pseudoscience Report (3)

Resolved

– I think we've all had QUITE enough Fringe Science cases at AE. How about trying to play nice with each other for a change? SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of the problematic conduct of SA, the conduct of Landed little marsdon has also been problematic. Therefore, a ban has been placed. Jehochman ^Talk 17:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.html Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 13:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

request removal of topic ban

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. Good evening, Jehochman ^Talk 23:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(chat) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kendrick7 has been editing with the primary/sole intention of linking years en masse

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.

Kendrick7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the last 3 days, Kendrick7 has inserted links to years in some 40 articles: The edit summaries are straightforward to the effect, except occasionally he will refer to such linking as 'supplying context or somesuch. He is plainly aware of the injunction, but relies on the defense that 'years are not dates'. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, [1], 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, [2], 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. The linking is referred to in the complaint below, but is not formalised. I am doing this for the record. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you file a report here, state what case you want enforced, and which sanction or injunction. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody show me evidence that Kendrick7 was aware, or should have been aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision#Temporary injunction against automated date linking or delinking? Jehochman ^Talk 16:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick7 has been warned here. Unless somebody can show me evidence that Kendrick7 was previously warned about the injunction, I am not going to support a block at this time. Next question, can somebody give me a reason not to block Ohconfucius for filing a vexations complaint? Tiptoety already explained this situation. It is a pure waste of time and disruption to the board when people file duplicate requests. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Ohconfucius has been blocked by Daniel for socking and other misdeeds. Case closed. Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

Colonies Chris and Kendrick7: due process in question

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.

User:Colonies Chris, a party to the current ArbCom "date-unlinking" case, has been blocked by the trainee clerk on the case, User:Tiptoety, for allegedly breaking a temporary injunction issued by ArbCom on 13 January. This raises three issues concerning both tenets of natural justice ("Everyone is entitled to a hearing" and "Justice must be seen to be done"). I'm sure that ArbCom is keen to adhere to these tenets, as a judicial body that—by its own policy—pays service to real-world legal principles.

Apparently arbitrary punishment. Oddly, the block was without warning and gave the user no opportunity to respond to the accusation. This is in contrast to other blocks of parties in this case (e.g., those involving User:Ohconfucius and User:dabomb87, which have arisen from matters raised here by members of the opposing side and processed openly). Specifically, we deserve to know whether the trainee clerk (a) identified the alleged behaviour him/herself, or was alerted to it privately by an opposing party, and (b) considered posting the matter here before acting, as a matter of openness and fairness (where parties are expected to "notify the user of [their] report at his or her user talk page".
Query as to whether the injunction has been breached. The injunction says, inter alia, "all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates" (my italics). "Mass delinking" was not explicitly defined, but it has already been established that unlinking in the course of other improvements is acceptable (diffs on request). Subsequently, Arbitrator Vandenburg made this statement: "The injunction doesnt completely prohibit the use of scripts, however editors should not be primarily focused on delinking." The user's unlinkings were a minor part of other significant improvements made to the articles cited by the trainee clerk. The user claims at his talk page that they include "unlinking duplicates or removing incorrect formatting". Nominators at FAC and FLC have been unlinking their articles as a matter of course (required by those processes); there appears to be no problem there, or has everyone been breaching the temporary injunction for the past six weeks on that count? Where does the boundary lie that marks out what "mass delinkings" are? If the boundary is not explicit, the matter should be brought here first to allow the affected party to argue their case, shouldn't it?
Perception of one-sidedness. Clerks are expected to be neutral in their management of ArbCom cases; however, this sudden, unilateral blocking of a party from one side brings into stark view the fact that a party from the other side has been allowed to embark on a campaign to relink dates/date-fragments all over the place. I'm not blaming the trainee clerk for this, but the situation needs to be dealt with if we are to retain a sliver of confidence in the fairness of the hearings process. Far from being part of a larger article improvement program that has been ongoing for more than a year (in Colonies Chris's case), this appears to be a single-minded attempt to relink these items on a grand scale. A clear-cut, wilful breach of the injunction has escaped ArbCom's attention by one side, while punishment has been meted out without the opportunity for self-defence or debate by the other.

I believe it would be proper to (a) reverse the block and to allow Colonies Chris the opportunity to argue the case openly, here, in good faith, and (b) investigate Kendrick7's behaviour in this respect. Tony (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked an arbitrator multiple times to clarify the injunction, but to no avail (diffs available on request). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness. I had no idea linking the year of the founding of the city where I grew up would become an arbitration matter. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a courtesy note at Tiptoety's talk page, in case s/he has not put this on watch. Tony (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block looks fine to me. There's some pretty clear testing of limits going on here. Administrators are like the Highway Patrol; they certainly aren't going to catch every speeder, nor is that expected of them. Risker (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Kendrick7 has been caught here. Fifteen date links a day isn’t “testing of limits”; it’s pure & simple flouting of rules. If Tony or I were busy de‑linking 15 dates a day, we’d be strapped down and have bamboo shoots shoved under our fingernails. If you admins expect to be perceived as fair, maybe a *little* bit of warning is in order for Kendrick7?? I see that he just now (64 minutes after Tony’s above post, and only three minutes after responding to Tony on his talk page about this ANI) welcomed 63 editors using {{welcome-anon}} and this has pushed all his date-related edits off the top 50 list. Regardless, a look at his most recent 500 edits shows what he’s been up to. If he continues to get away with this, perhaps he should receive his second Barnstar for diligence:

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award this Barnstar to you, Kendrick7 for your splendid accomplishment of flying under the radar, flouting MOSNUM guidelines, flouting ArbCom warnings, and linking 15 dates a day, day after day. That is diligence.

As for Kendrick7’s evasive response here: “Goodness. I had no idea linking the year of the founding of the city where I grew up would become an arbitration matter”, well, golly gee Kendrick, nice deflecto-attempt; but it’s not about a single edit you did to an article about the city in which you grew up; it’s purely about being a party to the ArbCom and making the linking of dates a focus of your daily efforts in defiance of an ArbCom ruling. So just pardon me all over the place if I have a problem with people who think rules, like “12 items or less at this grocery checkout stand” applies to everyone but you. Greg L (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonies Chris is not one to "test limits". Have you read what your colleague John Vandenburg said, quoted above? How does this relate to your conclusion that the block "looks fine"? I have raised a number of questions about procedural fairness that you have not responded to. A "looks fine to me" is not going to convince anyone, I'm afraid. We are still waiting to learn why Kendrick is allowed to flout the injunction, while Chris is punished for what appears to be not flouting it. We have been misled by John Vandenburg, and by the wording of the injunction, it seems. And concerning your bizarre analogy to cops and speeders: it would be a good idea for the ArbCom process to be seen to be fair to both sides, such that when CKatz comes along and points his finger at Chris, and I come along and point my finger at Kendrick, both are given equal weight. It has nothing to do with chance, as you seem to be suggesting. We await your further comments on these matters. The points are numbered above for convenient referencing in your reply.

And just so there's no doubt about this, Kendrick has been conducting a systematic program of relinking—typically 15 a day since about 28 February, but I see five on 23 February, so it's gone back further; these are visits to articles solely for the purpose of relinking years, and occasionally decades and other chronological items. I don't know how many diffs you require (they're all here on his contribs page, but if you want me to spend half an hour gathering them all, please let me know. Here are just a few from 7 March: [3], [4] (previous two a little revert-war with someone called Attilios), [5], [6], [7]. Seems to be an ongoing flagrant breach of the injunction, doesn't it? Tony (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, thanks for the star, GregL. But I'm not a party to this case, I've been linking years not dates, I've been doing so, with rare exception, only on pages linked from WP:MAIN, and I haven't been using any scripts or automation. This injunction simply doesn't apply to this as far as I am concerned and under the guidance John Vandenberg provided here. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Kendrick, you aren’t officially a named party to the ArbCom. You are still a Wikipedian. And please don’t bother Wikylawyering with me. The term “date”, while somewhat ambiguous and causing some confusion as to what it means, doesn’t afford you any wiggle room here. MOSNUM has this to say about linking of “dates” or “chronological items”: Linking: Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so. Now, a “reason to do so” means more than “ ’cause I like ta.” As Saphic suggested, why not try to avoid linking controversial quantities of dates (years).
Let’s look at just one of your edits. Your edit to Cayman Islands to link to the 1503 article did nothing more than create yet another Treasure hunt link that takes readers to an article which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either the Cayman Islands nor Christopher Columbus other than the fact that there is the one entry there about Columbus stumbling across the Cayman Islands in 1503, which the reader already knew before they clicked on the link. There is precious little in the 1503 article that even deals with the topic of “Island”.
We link not “because we can”, but because there is topical and germane material in a related article that could enhance the reader’s understanding of the subject, better prepare them for their studies elsewhere, and ensure they will be conversant with someone skilled in the subject of the Cayman Islands. Unless you are linking the year 1589 in our Trivia article, which (curiously) is a year that is not linked, these links you are making are next to worthless and just desensitize readers to the links that truly have value.
BTW, since the year 1589 in the Trivia article would enhance a reader’s understanding of trivia, be my guest to link it; I don’t mind at all. Greg L (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Greg, you know that MOS page is protected because of edit warring over adding that very language. Let's refrain from pulling the wool over any administrator's eyes, OK? -- Kendrick7^talk

Ditto. Pay no attention to those RfCs behind the curtain. Greg L (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick, while everything you say may be true, it would still be better to voluntarily honor the spirit of the injunction, which is to refrain from contentious date-related edits while the ArbCom case is being worked out. I want to see dates linked and in my preferred format too, but I want to get there the right way. --Sapphic (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't violated the spirit of the injunction, nor do I have any plans to do in the future. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some disingenuity here, as you relinked years in some 40+ articles over the last 3 days alone. Quite which articles and how they were chosen is not entirely relevant. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing the way Colonies Chris works, I do not believe he violated the injunction in any way. I would not be at all surprised that the blocking admin saw the edit summaries and panicked. Having looked at all his edits of 6 March, very few edits actually involve dates, and those which do have an overwhelming amount of other improvements such as orthograph and overlinking ameliorations. The only conclusion any reasonable editor would reach is that there has obviously not been any "mass delinking of dates". The block makes me wonder if this is yet another trigger-happy admin acting without either careful research of the "problematic edits" or a proper warning posted on AE or the user's talk page. It further makes me wonder whether any of the parties to this dispute are actually allowed do any editing at all. The admin concerned should immediately review his/her action with a view to restating Chris' right to go about not violating the injunction. - Posted on behalf of User:Ohconfucius. Tiptoety ^talk 22:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First let me start by saying that I apologize I was unable to respond to this earlier. Right as Tony1 posted to my talk page I was walking out the door to go to work, and upon coming home early this morning took advantage of the time to get some much needed sleep. My reason for saying this is to 1. explain why I did not respond earlier, and 2. to reinforce that I am human (needing sleep and all) and am prone to mistakes, not a robot who is 100% fair in every situation as I truly think “fairness” is different to each party involved and to each side of the dispute, and have not devoted my life to editing Wikipedia.

Now, to address Tony1’s comments above:

I am not sure this block was given without any warning. I mean the parties were notified on their talk page in regards to the injunction and are well aware it was in place. I think the bigger question is why they thought it would be a good idea to push the limits. As for the other blocks, I do not recall there ever being warnings issued, nor do I feel there need be any issued. If a person violates a injunction put in place by ArbCom after they were notified, should they not be blocked? I felt no need to warn Colonies Chris as I would only be telling him something he already knew. As for your question in regards to how I became aware of the delinking, it was notified on my talk page by Ckatz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) whom I have never interacted with before, nor am I aware which side of the dispute he stands on. Because of this, I looked into the situation and as a reasonable administrator I blocked Colonies Chris for what appeared to me to be a fairly clear violation of the injunction. Should it have been posted to AE? No, I feel I would have taken administrative action anyways as like I said before, I feel he violated the injunction.
You are right. The injunction leaves a lot of room up to the person enforcing it. To be honest, I never saw Vandenburg’s post. I instead did what I thought the injunction was here for, and that was to stop automated “mass” date delinking. And Colonies Chris’s appeared like mass delinking to me. I was able to easily provide 11 diffs, and there were more. I feel that the term “mass” is open to interpretation, and that interpretation is left up to the administrator taking the action. I really doubt had I taken this action against Kendrick7, the interpretation of "mass" would have been much different than my interpretation here.
Please do not say I am being one sided. I am not magic, I am not a super hero. I can not see every violator, nor should I be expected to. I see what is presented to me. And yes, I looked at Colonies Chris’s edits (more than just the edit summaries). As for the post about Kendrick7 to my talk page, I did not have time to deal with it then. Like I said, I had work in less than a hour and was rampantly busy at the time. That said I am more than willing to look into the behavior of Kendrick7, and ask that in the future parties bring issues here opposed to my talk page in a hope to avoid situations like this as to be blatantly honest, situations like this make me think Wikipedia is a big waste of time.

Tiptoety ^talk 23:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this right: Kendrick gets a nicely worded note (look at the title) and two statements, although hedged, that he breached the injunction. But here's the clincher:

:"Because I was slow to respond to peoples concerns, and was not made aware of this until you had stopped linking dates a block would be viewed as purely punitive here".

So your slowness to respond is your excuse for acting in a totally biassed way? And because Kendrick has stopped his breaching since I notified him of this section (as a courtesy)? Pffff, why wouldn't he?

And the fact that Colonies Chris's actions were part of a much larger article-fixing program, in which many many other improvements were made to the articles, yet Kendrick blatantly visits articles to relink dates alone? You just pass over that, do you? I think it's ~~disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.~~very disappointing. Tony (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I urge you to step into my shoes. Now, I know that you want to see Kendrick blocked and had I been a bit more on top of things he/she would have been. But remember here I also must follow the spirit of WP:BLOCK and I am responsible to the community who would view such a block as punitive, which would only further this growing problem and add fuel to the fire. Please assume good faith, this is not easy for me and I am learning very fast that this is one dispute I should have stayed far away from. But my intentions are not malicious, and I have no agenda here and no interest in seeing one party blocked while the other let go free. I am truly doing what I feel is right, and that may be (and obviously is) far different from what you feel is right. But, so be it. Tiptoety ^talk 04:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing the date (de-)linkings of both user:Colonies Chris and user:Kendrick7. As the clerk action of blocking user:Colonies Chris has been called into question, I have reviewed that first.

user:Colonies Chris was clearly aware of the injunction as he was formally notified by clerk Ryan [8](archive)

I've looked back as far as the 4th, when there were 36 edits followed by 23 edits on the 5th in the same editing session. It was an AWB run of 59 conversions of Concepción Province->Concepción Province, Peru and Juarez->Juárez. I have grouped them into

"didnt delink" - the editor did not delink when the opportunity was there
"clean" - the page did not have any linked dates, and consequently there was no delinking.
"delinked" - dates were delinked

4th: 36 edits

didnt delink: [9] (also delinked, but not everything)
clean: [10][11][12] [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
delinked: [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]

5th: 32 edits

didnt delink:
clean: [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]
delinked: [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78]

6th: 26 edits, converting "revison->revision" and "mangement->management", with date delinking conversion rules enabled again.

didnt delink: [79]
clean: [80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96]
delinked: [97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104]

He delinked half of the pages, and of these 92 edits done with AWB, only 2 edits left any dynamic date elements linked. It is also worth noting that I saw one of the automated date delinks broke the page. As a result, the block for 24 hrs is extremely light, and he should have been blocked for much longer for flagrantly ignoring the injunction. And to those crying about the injunction being vague or misunderstood, the proper way to handle that would be to not do any date delinking until you were confident that it wouldnt break the injunction. It is possible to not do any date delinking to be extra sure; Colonies Chris only needs to turn off the date delinking rules in his AWB config in order to avoid further problems.

My intention is to now review Kendrick recent actions. If I am needlessly distracted here due to this review of Colonies Chris recent edits, I may not conclude my review of Kendrick actions tonight, in which case you will have yourself to blame if I also dont get it done tomorrow due to work. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modification to injunction

One thing I think all concerned parties agree on is that the current situation — with anons (and editors who have specified "no preference") seeing an inconsistent mix of date formats within a single article — is bad. If people could agree to just fix formats within an article, and not link/de-link any dates (just leave all the date linking as-is) then I think that would actually be acceptable to everyone involved. Could the injunction be modified to apply only to changing the link status of dates, and to allow date edits that simply fix format? Or would that be too hard to enforce, since people could bury their linking/de-linking in a sea of format edits? --Sapphic (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree regarding formatting. We’ll be addressing this in the ArbCom and RfCs too, I expect. Greg L (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphic, thank you for your attempts to bring about changes to the injunction. I have queried a clerk and Arb several times, but have either not received a response or have been waved off because (paraphrase) "the Arbs are close to a decision". Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the injunction should have "dates" changed to "chronological items" as I explained here. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that you (Dabomb87) are still delinking dates, despite the injunction. See, for example, these edits of yours: (1) and (2). See also this previous complaint about your delinking activities. Tennis expert (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TE, I rarely bother to mess around in too many articles. If I stumble across one that has an inane date that is linked contrary to MOSNUM, I delink it. That doesn’t happen too often (I can’t exactly recall when I last bothered) and hardly qualifies as “mass delinking”. You’ve cited two whole examples where Dabomb87 has delinked dates. Both occurred on 7 March, where his edit history clearly shows he was busy with a wide variety of other types of edits. That doesn’t exactly impress as being sufficent evidence for “mass delinking.” Perhaps you might cite some better evidence. Greg L (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those diffs were the first two I found when looking as his edits for March 6-7. But given that you're still unconvinced, I'll start examining his edits from, say, the last two weeks. Please let me know if that's still not good enough. Here's one I just found from March 5th after 5 minutes of looking: Thomas Jefferson University. Although I'm pretty good at finding diffs, feel free to help out with this task if you have time! Also, note this promise to arbitration enforcement from Dabomb87 on March 2: "I will not delink any dates if even this is not permitted. Please accept my apologies." So much for that.... Tennis expert (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more (still working on this task): Prada (March 5), Houston Rockets seasons (March 4). Tennis expert (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the "if even this is not permitted". I have received no clarification on this. I have not been mass delinking (the script has been disabled in my monobook). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification

Let us make one thing very clear: enforcement of the injunction is left to the judgment of administrators in general, and that includes clerks (who are both familiar with the current injunctions and with the case background and thus are likely to be able to do the enforcement).

That means that, if in the administrator's judgment, the injunction has been violated by someone who is aware of it — and named parties are certainly reasonably presumed to be — then it is entirely appropriate to stop the violation with a swift block. This does not mean that any one administrator is able to see all violations, or that some putative "due process" has been violated because some have been caught and some have not. An unblock can be requested through the usual channels if the editor feels this is an error.

If you are unhappy that you have been caught violating the injunction and someone else hasn't, there is a simple solution that will leave everyone happy: don't violate the injunction to begin with; that guarantees you will not be blocked over it. — Coren ^(talk) 03:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is manifestly unjust: Kendrick's actions (in full knowledge of the injunction) have been excused after they were brought here in detail. Chris's were punished without discussion or warning. It's not a matter of being "caught": it's a matter of treating people fairly in this forum. Kendrick, too, has been "caught". Tony (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical "justice" doesn't enter into it. If you don't start linking or delinking dates in violation of the injuction, you will not be blocked. If you do, you take the chance that you might be depending on circumstances and context. If you gamble on "X didn't get blocked doing N, I can safely do N-1" then you have to live with the consequences. — Coren ^(talk) 04:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The date linking case has not been the Arbitration Committee's finest hour. The problems started when the committee failed to define bounds of the case. This lead to chaos, several editors repeatedly ask for clarification. None came.

In the evidence collection phase, some editors had their concise and informative evidence summarily rejected because it was incorrectly formatted. Other editors could add 200 kilobytes of properly formatted drivel.

Corin's "clarification" demonstrated more confusion among the arbitrators. In a rare moment of illumination, Arbitrator Vandenburg, gave some limits on what was acceptable editing.[105] Colonies Chris was following that guidance and was summarily blocked.

The Arbitration Committee needs to understand that some of their actions in this case have had the appearance of bias. They need to exercise care that their actions are above reproach and do not appear to unduly favor one side in this case. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to respond to a few of the points made here. First of all, I don't believe that my actions were in violation of the injunction. It does not ban all unlinking, and John Vandenberg's suggestion that we should all just not do any unlinking at all goes well beyond any reasonable interpretation. It has been tested before and by those results, my actions were not in breach. If the injunction is now going to be interpreted more strictly, we need (a) to be told what the interpretation is, and (b) to be sure that it's being applied evenhandedly.

On the block itself - if you believed, Tiptoety, that I was violating the injunction, you could have sent me a message warning me that I was in danger of a block and requiring me to stop and to respond to you. Assume good faith, remember. I'm an editor of many years standing with tens of thousands of edits to my name. The block was not an urgent action vital to protect the encyclopedia, it was punitive. Therefore there is no reason Kendrick7 should not be subject to at least the same punishment, even though his blatant breaches have now stopped (for the time being).

What I'm seeing here, unfortunately, is the Arbs closing ranks and refusing to admit to a misjudgment. We're all human, misjudgments will happen, but the best way to regain the respect of editors is to acknowledge it and take some positive action to ensure that any harm done is mitigated and that it won't happen again. This means that other parties in breach of the new interpretation must suffer equivalent punishment, and that the terms of the injunction must be clarified so we know where we stand in future.

And most importantly, the whole Arbcom case needs to be progressed rapidly to a conclusion so we can stop tearing ourselves apart over this. I've many times come close to just quitting the whole thing over this. It's galling, after all the work I've put into the encyclopaedia over the years, to find myself treated as little better than a vandal. My unlinkings were just part of a large number of improvements to various articles, and you will note that despite their allegedly controversial nature, not one of them has provoked a reversion or even a comment from any of the articles' editors (unlike Kendrick7's relinkings, which were done in the face of active opposition). Colonies Chris (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The injunction was to "put a pause on" unlinking or linking efforts, which you were clearly not doing, and so the block was 100% appropriate. This is not merely closing ranks - you violated an injunction intended to reduce the tension surrounding this case and the sense of fait accompli. You misjudged whether the committee was serious about the injunction. The injunction didnt say that a warning was required. You may have stopped if asked, but then if we give everyone a warning, and no blocks, we end up with problems of socks and meatpuppeting. Ohconfucius has already been blocked twice for similar edits as yours. If you were unsure of whether you should keep using your AWB rules, you could have asked.

Kendrick7's mainspace edits are obviously not automated; that user is working on year articles, however I do see that Kendrick7's linking efforts as wading into deep water. Kendrick7 is definitely considering which links to add, and the opposition you speak of is indiscriminately reverting, socking and baiting Kendrick7.[106][107] Note that those edits were by Ohconfucius, who has now been blocked a third time. See User talk:Ohconfucius#Blocked for two weeks for violating temporary injunction while logged out, block evasion for more details. the notice

Kendrick7's activity has only now been raised to this forum, and I think that we need to clarify that linking of years also needs to be put on hold as Kendrick7 is going a bit to far with that. I've looked at every edit, but not carefully studied them, because in the course of analysing them, I found that Ohconfucius was using socks. Talk about unclean hands.

The case has been open a long time, and that is largely my fault, but we have not been idle: there has been the development of the RFC that Ryan is overseeing, and I am in the process of pushing the evidence that I have collected onto the /Evidence page - I have been talking to devs and raising bugs, adding to the documentation of the technology over on mediawiki.org, etc. This takes time. There is 4.5 years of history here, and core technology at stake, with editors accusing devs and each other of being a part of the problem and changing their tune over that time, for various reasons that need to be understood. And of course there is truckloads of other arbcom work. I am sorry it is dragging on, however the injunction should not been seen as a reason to speed up the case - we need clarity rather than more edit warring and wheel spinning.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me echo the frustration expressed by Chris above. Whilst it may be normal to expect some small deviation between the interpretation of different Arbs as to exactly what the injunction covers, this does not appear to cover the difference (wrt Chris' 'crimes') expressed by Risker in relation to the complaint against me when I was not judged to be in violation. I am more than a little disappointed with Jayvdb's analysis above, which takes absolutely no consideration the qualitative improvement he has contributed with the edits analysed, but dissected crudely only in terms of numbers of articles which have had their dates removed. I am furthermore a little upset with the subtext of his message that if we are to further complain about the validity Chris' block, the action we seek against Kendrick will no be done tonight because we "will only have ourselves to blame". In any event, I have posted above diffs of Kendrick7's edits over the last 3 days, and it wont need a trainee arbcom clerk to work out that there are exclusively for the purposes of relinking years, and that there were not other improvements to the articles concerned in the same edit. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing Kendrick7 edits; your list of diffs added nothing except to waste my time to read it and cross check whether you had something important to add that I may have been missing. Oh and then I had to deal with some socking thanks to yours truly. Consequently I havent sufficiently looked at Kendrick7's edits to arrive at a conclusion, nor have I spent my Sunday afternoon and evening enjoying the pleasurable task of working on the date delinking case. Yes, you have yourself to blame for the part you played in consuming my evening. It was not a subtext that I didnt want people to add banal posts here supporting each other - AE is not ANI - I was stating it as clearly as I could because I wanted to focus on reviewing Kendrick7's edits and get back to the date delinking case. Kendrick7's edits are year linking which the injunction does not explicitly cover, nor did we say "date fragments" were part of the injunction in order that the delinking of broken dynamic dates would clearly be acceptable. I think a few admins and/or arbs will need to comment on whether Kendrick7's year linking was against the spirit of the injunction, i.e. whether it was inflammatory or not, and then how to act on it.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a chatroom. Go to the arbitration pages if you want to engage in dispute resolution. I will block the next party who posts an irrelevant comment (i.e. not related to the purpose of this board) about this dispute. To reinforce what Jayvdb has said immediately above, this is not WP:ANI. Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I request that Arbcom either enforce their remedies or not make them. Allowing User:ScienceApologist to edit the Atropa belladonna page and to contribute to talk pages on fringe science articles, homeopathy articles, and any article on Wikipedia that can be used as by him and his cohorts as an anti-pseudo science banner is simply expanding the problem, that brought about the initial arbcom cases.

Now, SA is on the A. belladonna talk page at war with User:Levine2112.

Is there any chance whatsoever of actually enforcing these arbcom decisions so that editors can write about the plant? SA has proven beyond any need for investigation that given the least slack he will abuse the discretion granted him. Any talk page he posts on will bring about a posse of rabid anti-fringe-scientists who will attempt, as they are doing on the A. belladonna article, to insert anti-fringe science banners in 100 ways, edit warring about it, debating the issue for months on end in hopes of attriting the opposition, and originally interpreting any reference they can find to support the harshest anti pseudo science statement they can possible put into an article, no matter how much undue weight, and no matter how tangentially related to the article.

I would really like to write about this plant, and about herbs, and herbals, but I can't write anything while in these areas while Wikipedia is a proving ground for just how much the rampant anti-fringe science group can get away with on Wikipedia. Arbcom has made decisions. Please, just enforce them instead of tiptoeing around editors who are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

Use the above non-decisions for diffs.

--KP Botany (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't this been addressed above? Have you tried any other DR measures? Several other editors are also involved. SA is allowed to edit talk pages. There is no case to answer. Verbal chat 10:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking here for an arbitrator to enforce an existing arbcom decision. I'm not asking you to discuss A. belladonna here, and this is the place for discussing arbcom enforcement of decissions, not other DR measures. --KP Botany (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a peculiar perspective: "Wikipedia is a proving ground for just how much the rampant anti-fringe science group can get away with on Wikipedia" – the example you've pointed to looks like a proving ground for how much uncritical support for fringe pseudoscience views can be inserted into scientific articles. WP:UNDUE should be fully adhered to, without the battleground reversions apparent from the pro-fringe editors. . . dave souza, talk 11:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the "pro-fringe" editors on the article? What's so peculiar about my perspective considering just how much of fringe science on Wikipedia is about discussing the anti-fringe science editors, and not just these two arbcom decisions? And just how much SA is getting away with after being banned from editing in the arena of pseudoscience. --KP Botany (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this bait: Levine is one. Verbal chat 11:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I defy you to find one of my edits or comments in all of the time I've been at Atropa belladonna which backs up your assertion that I am a pro-fringe editor. All you have to do is provide one diff which demonstrates that I am "pro-fringe". Come on. It should be easy if I am what you say I am. Instead, I think what you are going to find is that I am very much pro-NPOV. See, what I recognize is that although homeopathy is pseudoscience, it is also knowledge. True or false, right or wrong, effective or not, the homeopathic usage of belladonna is well documented and notable. There is absolutely no reason to exclude this information from the article. ScienceApologist has tried for a long to remove any mention of it from the article. Why? Because he feels that since homeopathic is pseudoscience that any mention of it should be limited to the Homeopathy article. That is out-and-out POV pushing. I recognize this, and have argued that homeopathy should be mentioned in Atropa bellandonna since its use is well-documented and notable. I have not made any argument that we should present the homeopathic usage in a positive light. I have not made any claim that homeopathy works. In fact, if you read the archives, you will see that I have stated just the opposite. I don't believe in homeopathy. I think it is bunk. And I think that its pseudoscientific nature is undeniable. However, my challenge to you stands. Just find one diff which proves your assertion; that I am a pro-fringe editor. I'll be away this weekend, but I either look forward to viewing the diff on my return or - if you are unable to find such a diff - I look forward to seeing your retraction and apology to me. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For the record, I think KP Botany's state above is untrue: Now, SA is on the A. belladonna talk page at war with User:Levine2112. Neither I nor SA are on the talk page at war with anyone. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By saying you were pro-fringe I meant exactly what you have stated above, and no offence was intended. You are for the inclusion of fringe topics. That's a POV and it's fine, and I don't generally disagree. I may disagree with you sometimes. Note though that on this talk page I have been arguing for full information, not the removal of homeopathy; if homeopathy is included all relevant information about the plant and homeopathy should be included. Thanks, Verbal chat 23:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SA is not banned from talk pages SFAIK; if there is some remedy which states that which I have missed, post a link here. Otherwise, you are on the wrong page for what appears to be a content dispute. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here are the applicable remedies for the two cases:

KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ScienceApologist isn't banned from the Atropa belladonna talk page, however I think KP Botany was indicating that he could be under the homeopathy or pseudoscience restrictions, although he would have to be formally notified first. The same restriction could also be applied to Levine2112. PhilKnight (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate enough; however I fail to see an attempt at DR before coming here. I'd prefer to see something attempted, at least, before warning either of those two under AE - I would anyway, and its specified in that case. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Now, SA is on the A. belladonna talk page at war with User:Levine2112."

I've looked through the history of that page carefully, three times to make sure I didn't miss something, and the last edit I can see to that page from SA occurred August 11, 2008. While I don't necessarily agree with SA's deliberate testing of the limits of his topic ban (which does not extend to talk pages BTW) it seems to me that those who are trying the last couple of days to take SA down for good could at least use valid verifiable examples of his violating the ban, instead of making up things out of whole cloth. Woonpton (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody tell me why KP Botany shouldn't be sanctioned for filing a frivolous enforcement request? This page is full of pleas from the usual suspects to block SA. Asking for blocks over and over and over again on flimsy grounds is WP:POINT and should be deterred. I am not at all interested in response from anyone other than KP Botany themselves, or some uninvolved editor who might be familiar with what's going on here. I am not looking for answers from the usual parties to fringe science disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I made a mistake, his recent edit was to the article page itself in support of his cohorts arguments on the talk page, the huge number of other edits devoted to supporting making the article an anti-pseudoscience platform on the talk page were all ancient, and, after all, he's allowed to participate in the year long discussion of including their anti fringe science platform (zero molecules) in this particular or any article. Please, do sanction me, block me, fire me, whatever you're afraid to and will never do to ScienceApologist as more of Wikiepdia is consumed by this garbage while Arbcom sits around and does nothing about the real problem, issues decisions it will never support, and generally makes it clear that total disruption of writing the encyclopedia is 100% sanctioned if it supports ScienceApologist's or anyone's agenda of using Wikipedia article space to promote their anti-pseudo science agenda.
- Please do see how many other editors you can sanction as fallout for failing to deal with ScienceApologist, editors who would otherwise be writing real science articles, who are sick to death of this endless pushing of anti-pseudoscience which has risen to the level of quackery itself. Please ban me for a year for wanting to write about a plant I'm very familiar with and include some interesting, current, and missing information about the botany of the plant. --KP Botany (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Oops, I made a mistake, his recent edit was to the article page itself in support of his cohorts arguments on the talk page"

For the record, SA's most recent edit was to add a wikilink to the word "subshrub" which already existed in the article, and the next most recent edit before that was to change "contains few or no molecules of the original plant" to "is diluted to the point of being chemically indistinguishable from pure dilutant." In neither case is the article changed substantially, nor do the edits support the charge that he was editing as a way of supporting or opposing those engaged in a battle. Whether he should be editing this article at all is a matter for the current clarification to determine, but as I said above, when making charges, the charges ought to be backed up by actual verifiable evidence. It is correct to say that SA edited this page, once yesterday and once the day before; it is not accurate to say that the edits changed the article to reflect any bias. Nor is it valid to complain about SA's being "allowed" to participate in the discussion, after it's already been pointed out that he hasn't actually participated in that discussion since last August. The overwrought tone here is inexplicable and unhelpful. Woonpton (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to let me know when I'm sanctioned, as I won't be watching this page any more. It was absurd to think that I could write science in a Wikipedia article already taken over by this quackery. In fact, trying to write science on Wikipedia is an overt act of hostility on my part. The gameboys nominate the science articles for deletions, the amateurs don't quite get the science and revert it without elaborate explanations and days of discussion on the talk page, and now, the anti-pseudo-science quacks own the articles with the blessing of arbcom. --KP Botany (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that. try to write from a proper scientific perspective on Wikipedia on some articles, and you end up in something resembling an Abbot and Costello routine, except no one thinks it's funny. But, you know, whatever. if ArbCom doesn't want to put its foot down about neutrality and civility, well... it's their project, their choice, and wikipedia's loss. best you can do is keep working at it patiently in the hopes it will eventually work itself out (otherwise you might as well give up now and save yourself the aggravation; let the POV-warriors on both sides keep-on-keepin-on in their own terrible bliss

). as it stands, every academic I know (and I know a lot of them) grades students down when they cite wikipedia for anything without a whole lot of critical back-checking, so in the academic world at least, this kind of nonsense isn't doing any harm. --Ludwigs2 21:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KPBotany, I've watched you on several articles. I'm not sure you're one to speak about civility or neutrality, or even science, given that you seem to want to be the last word on what should or should not be in your articles. You make it difficult to edit these articles. And I agree with Jehochman, you should be sanctioned. Your comment above is quite rude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs, actually I believe the Evolution article was cited by academics as a great article. As for your comments about Wikipedia, any student using it shouldn't be sanctioned for using Wikipedia, but for using tertiary sources. They should be reviewing the citations and using them. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the trolls who provide no useful content to that article WP:WIN over the contributors who know something about the topic. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)[reply]

In this edit user:Cerejota calls Brewcrewer a "dick" [108]. 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)[reply]

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

The discussion above 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.

Apparent complete failure to speak Bureaucrat [109] 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)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 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. [[User:Landed little marsdon|Landed little marsdon]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 00:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 == [[User:Kendrick7|Kendrick7]] has been editing with the primary/sole intention of linking years en masse ==