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

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

Edit this section for new requests

User:Lysy and User:Piotrus

A case reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lysy_making_manual_copy.2Fedit_moves seems to fall in the scope of the Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Two loosely related incidents are mentioned, both involving Polish users trying to enforce unsourced pseudo-English names on articles which should have sourced common English names which are similar to the German one:

Piotrus (talk · contribs), an admin who previously had been placed on the Digwuren list [1] [2], abused his admin powers in a content/naming dispute about the Battle of Annaberg by deleting a redirect to make way for a repeated move to his preferred name. Only hours later, facing overwhelming evidence, he conceded defeat but did not revert himself.

Lysy (talk · contribs), also not a newcomer to Polish-German disputes, as non-admin found himself unable to move over a redirect, and resorted to intentionally make four copy&paste moves at Kulmerland and Chełmno Land‎ (plus talk pages) with the summary (Manually undoing the frivolous rename. Please use WP:RM as advised before.).

Matthead Discuß 15:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't see that either of these editors are currently under editing restrictions in regards to the named case. If any action is taken, it should be to apply such a restriction and not to block any user. Note that I haven't actually looked at any evidence, I was just reviewing the case's final decision. (Removal of Piotrus' notice here) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VMORO

VMORO (talk · contribs), recently returned from a longer absence, is a persistent Bulgarian POV warrior. He was recently blocked for 3RR on Maleševo-Pirin dialect, where he has been pushing for a WP:OR synthesis promoting his preferred national opinion (regarding linguistic delimitations within the Bulgarian-Macedonian dialect continuum) against the reliable sources, using falsified references in turn. He is now back from the block and continues a sterile revert war, with two more reverts in two days immediately after the block, and promising that he will continue forever ([3]). This is a dyed-in-the-wool, hardened and skilled POV warrior who has never done anything else on Wikipedia. Please treat under WP:ARBMAC. (Note: I'm "involved"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a month-long topic ban. Short blocks do not seem to be working here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has been using sockpuppets too (both anon and account). See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VMORO‎. Balkan Fever 13:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re that RFCU, his sock is blocked indef and VMORO one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Buscema

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema

On a request for clarification concerning this case - Tenebrae made the following comment - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=228528545&oldid=228526664

I object to the incivility i.e. calling my edits 'hagiography', 'obssessive', plus various exagerrated claims -in general implying that I'm some sort of unbalanced fan with little capacity for critical thinking who is desperately trying to force innapropriate material on wikipedia - (this is not the case,I say, for anyone who may be inclined to believe his claims, if I wanted to do a personal web site on the artist, I would do so, there are plenty of resources for this besides Wikipedia). The reason I'm pursuing this consistently is because the discrediting has been going on a long time and I would like it to stop i.e. if one disagrees with an edit, why not simply describe what one objects about in terms of content, rather than making personal assumptions about the editor.

--Scott Free (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated problems between you two show stronger measures are needed since you can't work things out yourselves. Is there support for reimposing their bans on the John Buscema article? Three months didn't work before. How about 6 months this time? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before taking such mesures, I'd like to request waiting for the arbitration clarification request to finish, as the result of that could give added insight to the situation.

--Scott Free (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist and water fluoridation: incivility and POV pushing

Hi. I was recently called a "wacko conspiracy theorist lunatic" by ScienceApologist (diff) because I've pointed out that there is a current controversy over the fluoridation of water, as evidenced by, among other things, a 2000 BMJ systematic review which was ""unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide".[4], and the research covered by a 2006 National Research Council study, which noted studies suggesting that fluoridation increases the leaching of lead and Chinese epidemiological studies inversely correlating fluoride with IQ.[5] In 2007 SciAm ran an article where it said expert opinion may be changing.[6] Anyway, today SA told me "[e]xpert opinion may be changing on whether tinfoil hats can protect you from those mind-control beams too" (diff). He's made the rather pointy move of renaming the old water fluoridation opposition article to water fluoridation conspiracy theory, despite the fact that the article has nothing about conspiracy theories, and cut it from 34k to 11k. I don't want to engage in an edit-war, but there's clearly some heavy POV pushing going on here. II | (t - c) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was clearly no consensus for ScienceApologist's page move from Water fluoridation opposition to Water fluoridation conspiracy theory, so I have undone the move and recommended that SA go through WP:RM for any controversial moves. His above diffed comments to ImperfectlyInformed were also clearly uncivil and a violation of his ArbCom restrictions. I recommend a block for disruption, both for the "mind-control beams"[7] comment and for the WP:POINTy page move today. --El on ka 22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with ScienceApologist extensively, including investigating them for sock puppetry, and counseling them after I set up Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. It is my experience that sequential blocks, especially with this editor, are not effective at correcting habitual incivility. The blocks only cause more outlandish statements when they return, and encourage wikilawyering by opponents. We want the incivility to stop, absolutely. (SA, please read WP:BAIT one more time!) A more effective strategy at controlling these problems is to identify them to the editor, and request refactoring, or to simply redact incivil remarks. Perhaps try this first. SA has done many positive things for Wikipedia. We should not be so quick to block vested contributors. Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why I should waste my time with asking him to refactor repeated and obvious incivility. If the incivility was not obvious, then refactoring seems reasonable, but I personally don't get an emphasis on refactoring when the incivility is obvious. Refactoring does little, and half the time the refactoring is done in a snide way. Now, maybe an apology would be in order, but I'm not expecting one. II | (t - c) 23:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think SA trusts me enough to take the advice I just left on his talk page. Incivility is a definite problem, I agree with you, but this situation calls for a lighter touch, I think. If you have further issues with SA, feel free to let me know and I will do my best to help. Jehochman ^Talk 23:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not violate his restrictions? Isn't that the real issue here? Whether or not SA was uncivil? If he was uncivil, in violation of his restrictions, why does that require 'a lighter touch'? I came here to report him for a different violation and I found this report as well. When is enough, enough? Dlabtot (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I don't have much hope. His incivility is little in comparison to the blatant battleground behavior, POV pushing, and absurd comments which I have to deal with every time I encounter SA. Anyway, SA knows that those comments should be refactored, and should have been refactored immediately after they were made. Asking me to spend more of my time asking him to refactor, and seemingly accusing me of baiting him, is mildly insulting. I frequently hear that SA makes good contributions, but it seems like he spends much of his time making edits carefully calculated to start edit wars and pointless fights. I don't see much in the way of good contributions. II | (t - c) 23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need not spend your time. You can certainly bring reports here, or you can ask an uninvolved editor to mediate informally. I have offered. Rules are important, but we do not enforce them for their own sake. Every time we need to think, what is best for Wikipedia? Jehochman ^Talk 23:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a third report on this very page, but that one was filed by SA about me. However, when the truth of it all was revealed and the admins began to discuss punitive action against ScienceApologist, he quickly "withdrew" his request and no action was taken. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- I am saddened that so many folks have provided clues to SA, but SA still does not moderate his rhetoric. Perhaps we should request a revised sanction. Blocks have not stopped the disruption. SA related disputes occupy far too much attention on this board. Maybe somebody can propose something better. Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are few editors who have done more to define down the minimum level of civility required to participate at WP. WP will somehow manage to soldier on should we ask SA to take an enforced break of some length to reconsider his methods. Ronnotel (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Short blocks don't appear to work to get SA to stop being incivil. Asking him to refactor isn't going to work - the disruption has already occurred. Is there any way of restricting him so that someone else has to filter his comments before they get made visible? (The reverse of the flappers of Gulliver's Travels.) I'd be shocked if there is a way to do that. I see three remaining options for dealing with this disruption - long term blocks, long term topic bans, and punting it back to ArbComm. ArbComm is clearly struggling about incivility in both of the related open cases right now, so who knows what would happen if we punted back. I hope somebody else has a good idea here; do nothing appears to be the worst of all possible solutions but I can't see any real reason to favor any of the possible solutions over any other. (Edit warring is so much easier to deal with...) GRBerry 02:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should ban ScienceApologist from the areas of the encyclopedia where he has difficulty. Perhaps he would remain involved on other topics, and in time, learn the benefits of cooperating in spite of disagreements. SA's violations of decorum make it much harder to resolve those editorial issues that he would like to see resolved. I feel that we should go back to ArbCom with a proposal. Jehochman ^Talk 02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and we have conducted topic bans on editors with far less stacked against them (Kossack4Truth comes to mind). Do you think this is a suitable and acceptable course of action? seicer | talk | contribs 03:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If SA were subjected to a set of topic bans, it would be a victory for POV pushers, and a bad day for Wikipedia. Cardamon (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, SA's incivility is a major obstacle to us dealing with POV pushers. SA provides endless distractions and cover. Jehochman ^Talk 04:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with jehochman, SA's cronic name calling, editwarring, and forum shopping to try and remove 'opponents' is a major distraction from dealing with those whose main goal is to insert the 'truth' into wikipedia. I have cut my participation in the contentious and fringe sciences articles because I don't have the patience for the battleground SA promotes. I'm not sure about a topic ban, I havn't thought it through enough. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thread moved here from WP:ANI

Note: The comments below up until 06:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC) were moved here from WP:ANI so as to consolidate the discussion. Sandstein 06:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't quite understand why an editor is removing warning template from another editors page, and in the same time threatening me with a block.

User:ScienceApologist removed A LOT of sourced content from water fluoridation opposition article.

I placed a tag on SA's page, and it was removed with a 'harassment' accusation from User:Jehochman.

216.80.119.92 (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess WP:DTTR applies here, but I imagine such a large change should have been discussed on talk page first. As far as Jehochman's actions, I am not sure. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Both editors notified of thread. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP persists in issuing a vandalism warning to ScienceApologist over what is a content dispute. Any edit made in an effort to improve the encyclopedia is not to be considered vandalism. There is no requirement to discuss edits beforehand. If somebody objects, then discussion is a good idea. The IP is abusing vandalism warnings in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. That is not cool. Jehochman ^Talk 05:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh. I tend to disagree. User SA has a history of bad behavior.[8] Removing dozen sourced paragraphs is far from an effort to 'improve the encyclopedia'. In addition, I didn't even participate in the content dispute, but have just noticed SA's unjustified deletion of the content. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While ScienceApologist's large-scale edit to Water fluoridation opposition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and page move to Water fluoridation conspiracy theory) may not have been vandalistic in the strict sense of the term, it was disruptive and did not reflect the good editing practices we expect from regular editors. I find it interesting that a few hours after ScienceApologist's changes were reverted, the new account LOGANA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up, whose only edits consist of continually reverting the article to what looks much like ScienceApologist's preferred version. LOGANA is now blocked without opposition as a vandalism-only account. I would be interested to know whether a checkuser on LOGANA turns up anything in particular. Sandstein 06:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist had already been brought up on WP:AE for that edit. The IP is now forum shopping, which is itself disruptive. We don't solve problems by instigating huge dramas that disrupt multiple pages. Over at WP:AE I have already suggested rather strict measures for dealing with SA's disruption. A checkuser would be an excellent idea, and if it reveals sock puppetry by SA, that would be grounds for even stricter measures. Jehochman ^Talk 06:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, most new users don't find their way to AN/I so swiftly. It may be worth checking whether this IP is somebody logging out to evade scrutiny of their own actions. It is not a good idea to act on accusations without first checking the reputation of the accuser. Jehochman ^Talk 06:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to opening a RFCU on LOGANA and closing and copying this thread to WP:AE? Sandstein 06:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First part already done via Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist. I agree with merging this thread to WP:AE if you like. Jehochman ^Talk 06:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result of checkuser was

Unlikely that LOGANA was a sock of SA. Jehochman ^Talk 11:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor is indeed someone who has been in conflict with ScienceApologist before. Thatcher 11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

would it be appropriate to notify the ip/other editor or caution them on appearance of inappropriate use of hosiery to avoid detection, responsibility for actions? I'm unsure. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tired of the gaming

I am very tired of this little game where a gang of single-purpose, POV pushing accounts politely bait and goad ScienceApologist until he loses his cool and violates decorum. That is not what Wikipedia is about. We should be trying to help each other, not setting traps and then running to WP:AE and WP:ANI to get other users banned. The current restrictions on SA seem to exacerbate the problem by encouraging polite trolling. I think we need to revisit these sanctions and come up with a better plan. For instance, we should take a dim view of editors in a content dispute with SA who seek to use this board for tactical advantage. SA for his part needs to maintain decorum, or stay out of the "hot zone". Should that prove impossible, the Wikipedia community will have to impose external restrictions. I note that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions has recently (July 28, 2008) provided a new tool for administrators to control disruption. Perhaps the careful application of discretionary sanctions on SA and those who are trolling SA would help resolve the matter. Thoughts by uninvolved parties would be especially appreciated. Jehochman ^Talk 11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, one week topic bans from pseudoscience and natural science articles for SA and the IP (and its main account) might help control disruption. We need to be especially even handed to the combatants on both sides, lest one side be encouraged to troll the other. Jehochman ^Talk 11:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief blocks and/or topic bans are not the answer. ScienceApologist seems to take pride in the number of times he has been blocked, banned, or had to go through ArbCom cases. To address that kind of disruption, I recommend that an indefinite block be imposed, until he gives his word to change his behavior. With most other editors, a brief block usually gets the message across that behavior needs to change. But with ScienceApologist, he has received the message, but deliberately chosen to ignore it. I am also unaware of any location where he has acknowledged the authority of the ArbCom rulings about him. To my knowledge, he has never actually promised to abide by them. Until he personally gives his word that he is going to change his approach, he should be removed from the project. If that means we lose some of his good edits along with the disruption, well, okay, we can live with that. On the flip side, by his aggressive approach, we are suffering even greater damage, both from the good edits that we are losing from good editors that he is driving away, and from the bad example that he is setting towards other newer editors, that "this is how you get things done on Wikipedia." But that is not how things should be done, and until SA acknowledges the community's will on this, he should not be permitted to cause further disruption. --El on ka 13:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of this quote:

"I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51 5 February 2008

We need to be mindful of just who would be impacted by such a block or action. We might lose a vested editor in science, but the benefits, in my opinion, far outweigh the cost. Look at how much time has been wasted in the two most recent AE cases, on top of the countless AE, ANI, AN etc. filings. Or the editors who have stopped contributing because of the messes. And so on. seicer | talk | contribs 13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, it is a game being played by both sides of the dispute, not just one side of it. For an example, take a look at this ANI thread started 7 hours ago, where a member of the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs baited and goaded an editor with the other point of view and then ran to ANI in hopes of getting a ban. The game has been going on for a very long time (I've seen evidence of it going on more than a year ago) and has become an entrenched tactic of both sides of this POV dispute. I think we may need to start handling this rigorously the way we do the various nationalistic disputes - which are much better managed - any editor on either side who is disruptive gets dealt with firmly. We've given too many N^th chances to too many editors and tolerated too much disruptive behavior for too long. The long standing patterns of behavior in these topic areas are so poor that any new editor coming into it will come to see it as our accepted, approved style of behavior unless they have a grounding in good behavior from work elsewhere. There are some editors with reasonable behavior patterns in this mess, but it is hard to see them due to all the noise and heat being generated by those whose behavior patterns are not reasonable. GRBerry 15:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the nationalistic disputes are between people that have fundamentally opposed but arguably legitimate points of view. In this case, we have editors that want to treat haunted microphones and useless nostrums as being legitimate. The reason the dispute has lasted so long is because we tolerate such nonsense, and people have gotten frayed nerves from having to constantly deal with it. We need to stop pretending that it is a dispute between two sides that needs to be mediated and arbitrated. If people add statements supporting homeopathy, paranormal occurrences, and similar quackery and nonsense as true, block them immediately, and escalate to bans quickly. The problem will never go away for the same reasons that vandalism will never go away, but it can be managed if it is dealt with the same as any other effort to damage the encylopedia is.
Kww (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think GRBerry makes very good points here. Editors in this dispute on both sides are just as convinced of their infallibility as those in the nationalistic disputes. And again, just like nationalistic disputes, both sides have editors who's behavior is acerbating the dispute. Over time, some editors or groups of editors have become adept at skewing our dispute resolution processes to gain an upper-hand. They lash out at each other and anyone who tries to intervene; they waste enormous amounts of volunteer time. Since the pseudoscience case has been updated to include similar provisions as the nationalistic cases, I say we try out some of the remedies that have been working in that area and see if we can't get similar results in this one. Shell ^babelfish 20:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still misses the point, though ... the people that want to permeate the encyclopedia with homeopathy, EVP, and paranormal phenomena are not editors that we would miss. If you blocked every single one of them tonight, Wikipedia would be a better place for it. There actually is a clearly right side and a clearly wrong side viewed from the perspective of the information being added and deleted, even if both sides look pretty crappy from a behavioural perspective. I don't think that is true for the nationalism problems.
Kww (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What POV is the "the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs" pushing? Pro-science? Pro-reason? ScienceApologist is brave enough to enter articles like homeopathy and this, and for it, he ends up with a witch-hunting mob, trying to go after him. The fluoridation article was a clear case of WP:SYNTH being used to support a conspiracy theory. He wiped it clean and that upset the folks there. Well, sorry. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my view on "the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs" are folks whose pov is 'mainstream'. If we were in the early part of the 20th century, they would be arguing for eugenics and racial difference theories to be included as the mainstream and the fringe/pseudoscience of gnenetics to be excluded. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, even among fringe theories, has been described by Jimbo as something that "both sides can agree to". Much of SA's actions are unnecessary or unreasonable, and that's why become edit-wars. The recent example of Atropa Belladonna, where he edit-warred for days because it has a sentence mentioning the homeopathic remedy, despite the fact that there are 4 RS covering it, including 2 clinical trials, is a case in point. He also frequently inserts unprofessional language which can be roughly paraphrased as "anyone who believes in this is a retard". It is patently false that fluoride opposition is about a conspiracy theory; the conspiracy theory happened in the 1950s. The articles on the fluoridation used in that page are directly about fluoridation. You might try reading a few of them. Did you know that the 2000 systematic review published in the BMJ of the evidence in 2000 found no high-quality evidence of fluoridation's efficacy? However, that review got taken out. You could start with the Scientific American article from January 2008 entitled Second Thoughts About Fluoride, which is one of the first references. II | (t - c) 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman asked for uninvolved editors to comment. I haven't seen anyone comment yet that hasn't previously been involved in a dispute against ScienceApologist, or on his side in a dispute. I'm involved too, and have my opinions, but I'd actually like to see what uninvolved editors have to say about it. I'm curious. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just the act of commenting on such a case tends to end up with that person somehow 'involved'. SA has a tendency to go after, often with excessive aggression, anyone who attempts to check him. At this point convincing someone who has successfully steered clear to engage in this effort may be difficult. Ronnotel (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's hard to be completely uninvolved in this dispute if you care at all about the material. Best I can say for myself is that I've been on his side in some articles, and have reported him at ANI and 3RR for misbehaviour at others.
Kww (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points are raised by Elonka and GRBerry above. I agree that an indefinite restriction on SA may make sense, until they change their ways. Perhaps a topic ban from the locus of dispute would be a reasonable first step before going to an indefinite block. SA might learn to edit better outside the "hot zone" and eventually be able to return and edit successfully. I agree with GRBerry that baiting on all sides needs to be stopped. I see two levels of problems here:

Unacceptable behavior, such as baiting, trolling and incivilty. This needs to be controlled no matter what the editor's editorial outlook. Those who support "good" edits are still to be restricted from using "bad" methods.
Unacceptable content additions or changes which violate core policies, such as WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Just because somebody is polite, does not give them a free pass to relentlessly violate content policies. Such editors need to be restricted if they fail to heed advice.

It seems like we are moving toward some common ground. Who else, not involved in the content dispute, can provide views? Jehochman ^Talk 23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong measures in this topic area are long overdue. The baiting, POV pushing, gaming, incivility, edit warring, etc and so on BY BOTH SIDES needs to stop now. Since short blocks haven't worked, we need long blocks, topic bans on the range of pertinent articles, full protection of the articles, etc. Hopefully that will work. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the "both sides are guilty" defense. How about an unconventional approach, how about focusing on the "side" that starts it? Strange, yes, requires Admins to do more work, yes, but if you cannot handle the heat...why are you in the kitchen? Shot info (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong measures in the topic area are certainly long overdue, but I do not think that allowing the baiters to eliminate ScienceApologist would really be good for the project. All the noise gets tiresome, yes, but so do agenda-accounts and unduly credulous editors who continually try to push the boundaries of RS. I propose that we (by which I mean those of you with the buttons) make it clear that tendentious attempts to get members of an opposing POV restricted (yes, this would include the complaint ScienceApologist brought to this board the other day) will be judged meritless and ignored. Of course, this culture-shift should not apply to legitimate complaints, but admonitions to stop wasting people's time might be given some teeth. Additionally, it might help to be quicker with temporary page protections. Sometimes take it to talk edit summaries work, but often the removal of any other option is required. Occasional constructive edits often become the victims of the edit wars anyway; they should not, but rarely do emotionally charged editors take the time to sift out the wheat instead of just clicking restore my favorite version repeatedly. Single purpose accounts without a purpose may actually become convinced that neutral descriptions of reliable sources are the only reason anyone takes this project seriously, or they may just drift away. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOGANA and 66.65.85.138

is ScienceApologist really the subject of baiting?

I've noticed a consistent theme among those who've called for SA's actions to be excused once again - they keep claiming that people are 'baiting' him. I'd like to remind everyone of two things:

1. 'Baiting' is a type of disruption and should be treated accordingly. If SA has in reality been 'baited', the perpetrators of these alleged disruptions should be sanctioned in accordance with Wikipedia policies against disruptive editing. Has that happened? Let's see the diffs and apply WP policy - if anyone is engaging in baiting behavior, let's take the appropriate actions against them. But let's not excuse an uninjured 'victim' because of a wrong that was not committed.

2. Two wrongs do not make a right -- even if the alleged behavior took place, the supposed misbehavior of someone else is not an excuse for misbehavior by anyone. Dlabtot (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my unresearched observations of previous interactions are that the baiting is pretty limited. SA is much more likely to edit war (not always on the side of policy, but more often than not), which then baits his detractors into snippyness on talk pages and edit summaries, which then gets escalated by both SA and those he's editwarring with. It's very unfortunate. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting is unfortunately becoming common on Wikipedia and is very rarely punished... in fact it seems to be wholly endorsed by some admins as a weapon to be used against editors they don't like. I would agree that action needs to be taken against baiters. As far as claiming that being baited is no excuse, I think any regulation is based upon good faith realistic interpretation of those rules. People actively harassing someone to find any slip up in civility at all is a remarkably hostile situation to find oneself in, and I think remaining cool under such situations is highly unrealistic. Any action taken against SA should be equally applied to others doing similar actions -- whether they be regular editors or admins -- or else you are letting people game the system through wikilawyering and rewarding a continuation of disruption and harassment instead of good faith attempts to work with each other and follow policy. DreamGuy (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seeing baiting and not reporting it? Or is it just not being acted upon? Since you describe this as 'common', it should be easy for you to provide some diffs of this alleged behavior so that we can judge this based on facts, not rumor and anecdote. I look forward to seeing the examples. Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting is an epidemic all across the encyclopedia, and it's certainly been reported in many cases (including several I know of on the ANI page), but it's typically not acted upon... certain admins seem to actively encourage the process as a way of finding an excuse to punish someone they don't like and which they can't find any valid reason to take any actions against. This has also been reported, and it is currently being discussed on RFC and elsewhere. At least one of the admins in question is someone who has a history of conflict with SA and is undergoing an RFC at this moment. DreamGuy (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA is the subject of plenty of baiting, particularly from sockpuppet and IP accounts (mostly proxies, several of which I have reported and gotten indefblocked). If there is some compelling reason besides your personal interest for finding a list of diffs, I'd be willing to do this. Antelan 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do provide evidence to support your assertions. If the misbehavior of SA is primarily directed at the perpetrators of the actions you describe, it certainly would have weight as a mitigating circumstance, even if not as an excuse. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the interest, but to me that is not a strong enough reason for me to spend hours poring over diffs left by anons and sockpuppets, sorry. If you're interested, please feel free to do so yourself. You'll find plenty over the past 2 months. Antelan 15:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Science Apologist really the subject of baiting? Of course he is; I've seen it dozens of times, from editors in good standing, from anon IPs, and from banned editors using socks. Davkal was banned before I ever ventured into Wikipedia, and yet I've seen so many comments from Davkal socks that I recognize the twisted arguments and the taunting style on sight. Before I learned to recognize Davkal and to understand that it wasn't worth taking the time to respond to his provocations with thoughtfully crafted responses on the issues (since it's obvious that Davkal isn't interested in debating a question, only in provoking a response), I was baited by a Davkal sock for having the temerity to agree with Science Apologist about something. I can't point to the diffs because the comments were removed by an administrator as made by a banned user. The interesting thing is that SA's opponents kept reverting the comments back in after they were removed, suggesting that they approved of the baiting, but I think eventually the deletion was made to stick. I found the encounter so aversive that I never edited that page again (in other words the banned user was able to get his way in an argument even while banned) and soon after that I decided that editing Wikipedia wasn't worth the aggravation for me. Luckily for the encyclopedia, SA isn't so easily intimidated; at any rate this is the kind of thing he has to deal with, day in and day out. Even though I disagree with him on some things, and find him unecessarily combative sometimes (probably as a natural result of so often being the target of such baiting) it's my opinion that without his perseverance in the face of concerted opposition the encyclopedia would be much worse than it is. I just don't know where he finds the strength to keep on. Woonpton (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shot info removed comment from banned user. making my comment below irrelevant. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the baiting. I'm seeing a bit of tenditions discussion from several editors, that's mostly just fine, and mostly working towards understanding and resolution of a question on sources. I'm also not seeing SA's alleged abuse of other editors in this instance. no comment as to the correctness of any party to that discussion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dakval socks that keep on popping up here are good evidence of baiting, harassment, whatever you want to call it. Of course, it's quite possible that SA is baited/harassed and he engages in unjustifiable conduct. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this baiting thing at all. Are we going to give SA extra latitude because he is an aggressive editor? IMO, the entire baiting thread implies that SA can't keep his temper and that therefore we should give him a more lenient treatment than other editors in the same situation. This is an argument you would use as an excuse for the behavior of a child. And by the way, if SA represents rationality, reason and the scientifc mainstream, would we not expect that to be reflected in a mature and balanced editing behaviour? MaxPont (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More sock baiting on this page[9]. MaxPont, they are saying that he is defending those ideas on the articles, not that he is representing them. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, since when did defending rationality, reason and the scientific mainstream require one to deny that this is the Natural History Museum. [10] Is this a case of we-must-lie-for-the-greater-good, and is this something else that needs to be put up with alongside the abuse. Have you got the integrity to acknowledge that the source is in fact the NHM? 66.225.253.134 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you go to the Atropa Belladonna article right now you'll see the defender of Truth and Light in action. Trying to reject books by the OUP as the ravings of the evil pro-homeopathy crowd. The OUP! A bunch of anti-science, fringe-POV pushing, woo-woo supporting, mental deficients if ever there were some. Go look. Enjoy.66.225.253.134 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the socks are tenditios, and unhelpful, edit warring with them doesn't help the encyclopedia. I mostly don't participate in the broad article areas that SA is involved in because the edit warring is disruptive to my participation. I mostly agree with SA's POV. If there were some way for SA to keep the edit warring out of his participation, I think other editors would be more willing to be involved. Another option (and one I've contemplated) is to develop some set responses (even written out) to esentially cut and past to respond to the tenditious arguementation. The challenge here is to actually read someones statements first, and I freely admit to glossing over quite a lot of talk page blather. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

User:Parishan

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

sounds resolved to me. Next time put him on formal notice of restrictions. ..Rlevse

Parishan (talk · contribs) has been constantly resorting to incivility on Talk:Blue Mosque, Yerevan. Instead of discussing the disputed topics in question he resorts to making not so civil remarks on users he calls "opponents" (Wikipedia is not a battleground). Comments such as: "Astounding! :) People have no flipping idea whatsoever of what they are talking about, yet they choose to go on with their... agenda thinking they are experts in the field. Without hurting your feelings, neither of you realises how ridiculous this looks." or ". I would appreciate it if you refrained from wasting both of us's time on your baseless original-research speculations emerging from your appaulingly poor knowledge of the structure of Turkic languages. Manipulation-schmanipulation. The cobbler should stick to his last." (both found here: [11]). I had asked him to tone it down on July 5 but just yesterday he continued with: "...with your asinine original-research speculations" [12]. Webster defines asinine as: 1 : extremely or utterly foolish <an asinine excuse 2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass . At the very least this warrants a warning per the discretionary sanctions clause of AA2.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User was a party to AA2 and AA1, was not named in remedies in either case. The editor has not been put on formal notice previously. I see Khoikhoi imposed sanctions under the case related to the article in early July; I'll go jog his elbow. GRBerry 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on his talk page. Didn't place him on the restrictions since Parishan is largely a constructive contributor, but I warned him that he could be placed on said restrictions if he continues to make similar comments. Khoikhoi 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Small Text[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.

[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]