Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:02, 6 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

Edit this section for new requests

User:ScienceApologist and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science on Atropa belladonna

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science ScienceApologist is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles.

Atropa belladonna has been twice protected due to fringe-science edit wars (over Homeopathy). It is, in fact, under the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy decision under Discretionary sanctions re:Homeopathy, which is a "fringe science topic."

The article was edited by Science Apologist - [1] after his ban.

I have reverted his edit and will inform him of this report. The fact that I suspect both sides would accept his comment (I think?) is not relevent to the fact that his valid ban prevents him from solving disputes on pages related to Fringe Science. Hipocrite (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not an article that is categorized as fringe science. I reject it as being "fringe science" and, as discussed here, applying the rules that the people who attempted demarcation outlined would not consider it to be fringe science either. It is an article about a real and actual plant. The edit I did is no different than this edit, this edit, or this edit. I am not disrupting Wikipedia because it's actually a very good edit. There is no such thing as a "plant molecule". Plants are made of many different kinds of molecules. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the key phrase is supposedly "broadly construed", I don't see how including this in "Fringe Science" is in the spirit of the arbitration ruling. The ruling is not supposed to prevent ScienceApologist making uncontroversial competent edits to articles about plants. So I don't think there's anything to be done here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question has gone through major edit wars about homeopathy, as evidenced by the two article protections and it's inclusion in the Homeopathy sanctions. If SA is allowed to edit article about plants that fringe science edit wars have broken out over, next he'll be allowed to edit articles about preservatives that fringe science edit wars have broken out over, or even molecules, or basic scientific theories. Where do we draw the line? I can't imagine a ban only from articles like Time Cube and Homeopathy is what ArbCom had in mind, was it? Can he edit Cold Fusion, as long as he's not violating any other policies that another editor is subject to?Hipocrite (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note from me saying that I re-incorporated some of ScienceApologist's edit into the article. If I erred against the arbitration ruling, please feel free to revert me. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article being edited is Atropa belladonna, but the edit in question concerns the plant's relation to Homeopathy. Also, considering the edit history of the Atropa belladonna, the assertion that the edit is 'uncontroversial' just won't fly. And, one should also take note of this Dlabtot (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

much as I would really like to avoid this entire conversation, I would like to call attention to this edit - [2] - ScienceApologist made on the fringe theories noticeboard. I'm thinking particularly about the line "We'll continue to make people who want to see fringe theories treated 'kindly' feel bad...". The implicit threat, combined with his pushing the limits of his sanctions on the AB page (without even, mind you, engaging the lengthy discussion on the AB talk page, which would have been perfectly allowable), suggests that he is entirely unrepentant and recidivist. the 'we' also suggests that he's cooperating with other editors to violate his sanctions, though I have no proof that that is the case beyond that single 'we'. I don't think it's ever been wikipedia practice to make other editors 'feel bad' in order to get your way on articles, and the fact that he is making that claim this soon after receiving sanctions for similar prior bad acts makes me think that stronger sanctions might be in order. pardon the intrusion of my opinion, but I'd rather not see a new round of edit wars begin at AB because he's testing the arbcom waters there. --Ludwigs2 23:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c with Ludwigs2) Regarding [3], I think that in the aftermath of the ArbCom decision ScienceApologist can be expected to do some mild venting. He won't however be blocked unless he actually acts on this. The arguments here seem too much like slippery slope, and I feel that blocking him for this edit would be proactively clarifying the arbitration ruling in a manner that is both unfair and for little gain to the encyclopedia. The ruling bans him from any article relating to fringe science topics not from performing any edit relating to fringe science topics (bolding mine). The ruling is very open-ended, but to secure blocks for such edits those desiring to prevent him making such edits would probably be better getting an ArbCom clarification. I do however encourage other uninvolved admins here to disagree with me if they see a need. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon: speaking as someone who's been blocked twice for milder venting than this (and that without an arbcom sanction hanging over my head), I have to admit that your post leaves a sour taste in my mouth. bit of a double standard... at any rate, If these sanctions have any meaningful purpose at all, it should be to encourage SA to participate with less aggression and more communication; allowing him to 'vent' like this with impunity simply defeats the purpose of the sanctions. I don't really have an opinion about him getting blocked (I'd be fine if he doesn't and fine if he does) but I think that any clarification of the limits of the sanctions should be expansive. it should be made clear that he's obligated to play nice, and that that obligation extends to everything remotely fringe. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are as follows: If not for the broadly construed part, Deacon, I would agree. Let's not get too legalistic here. I do see this edit as problematic.

He's been restricted from fringe science topics, such as homeopathy. This edit specifically infringes in an area that he's been restricted from. I would not support any action being taken at this point on the issues, however, assuming good faith. Let's make it clear, going forward that his restriction applies to edits within the "fringe science" area and move on. That would be the best way to prevent future issues in a contentious area where he's been restricted. SirFozzie (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(re to Foz) You would support a warning then, stating that SA will be blocked for performing homeopathy-related edits? Broader wording? Perhaps then this could be converted into a ban, deriving from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#ScienceApologist_topic_banned, that could be logged for clarity at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the need to file an arbitration clarification request (or how to), but things like this, are deleterious to Wikipedia, and should be avoided. Can the community just agree to allow ScienceApologist to correct typos (without needing to go back to arbitration)? While technically "violating" the former ruling, it's clearly helpful to the encyclopedia, and shouldn't be blindly reverted. If a formal request is opened, would someone please copy my comments there? Mahalo. --Ali'i 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the typos, the problem might be partially that no-one wants to be the admin that blocks a user for fixing typos. On the other hand, letting it go opens up the possibility of gaming and pushing the line. Ideally this should have been clarified, but AE admins aren't fools and will act if a certain line is crossed. SA, at the moment, performs such edits at his own risk. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have some clarification on the actual extent to which users are allowed to deliberately violate bans? Is the rule of thumb that you’re allowed to do it so long as it’s a trivial edit made purely to prove a WP:POINT, or if you are feeling bored and would really like some attention? Artw (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps this particular issue could be resolved by some ArbCom statement to the effect that editors can revert SA's edits on articles covered by the sanctions without it counting towards 3rr. that way, SA is free to make corrections such as this, but if he does something more questionable no one will have any worries about undoing it? just a thought... --Ludwigs2 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone care to weigh in on this provacative edit made by ScienceApologist: [4]? Wasn't SA specifically warned about targetting User:Elonka in such a retalitory fashion (See X5)? I don't think that it is fair to afford SA the "but I was baited" defense any longer, when it is clear that he is the one doing the baiting. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned him specifically on that. I'm working on the wording for the section above, I will post it here and on SA's talk page when I come up with clear enough wording for that "clarification". And Ludwigs, I don't think that would be advisable. SirFozzie (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say, give him a good old spanking for that. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing a warning, just a claim that doing so was intimidating (which is laughable, especially considering Elonka's longstanding attempts to intimidate SA with threats of blocks, etc.) and a POINT violation. Elonka was never spanked for her harassment, and neither were other admins who hounded him with biased actions. That's not an excuse for a poor decision here (I was the one who denied the prod), but, come on, we're not here looking for excuses to spank people, we're looking to solve problems, and he was at least right to say that Elonka mever should have made that redirect to her own article in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of ScienceApologist's topic ban

Since there could be some lingering confusion on the topic ban of ScienceApologist, which reads as follows, I have clarified the restriction as an ArbCom Enforcement action:

The restriction: 3.1) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles.

Passed 8 to 3 with 1 abstention, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The clarification: Violations of this topic ban include making edits concerning fringe science topics, even to articles that would not be considered fringe science topics. SirFozzie (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohconfucius delinking dates in violation of injunction again

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.

Despite already having received a block for violating the current injunction in the date delinking arbitration (AE report, block notification), Ohconfucius is once again engaging in a program of removing date links from articles en masse as part of edits. Examples:

[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]

-- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 03:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone think a 1 week block is not called for? Kevin (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since he's making other edits at the same time. --NE2 03:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest? Kevin (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer you to this post by User:Risker at WP:ARBCOM concerning similar edits. It was ruled that I was not in violation. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the last sentence: "He has not edited frequently enough to be considered carrying out mass delinking." Considerably fewer articles were involved at that time, over a longer period, with significantly more improvement to the articles themselves. I do not believe these two situations are identical, Ohconfucious, and I won't have you using my name as an excuse to violate the Arbitration Committee's injunction. Risker (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be most useful if that interpretation was posted alongside the injunction. It does put things in rather a different light. Kevin (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earle is plainly aware of the judgement. He is bringing this frivolous/vexatious complaint here again in an attempt to get me into trouble, and should be ignored. If he wasn't stalking me, how would he know about all this? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 04:25, 5 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.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science reports x2

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.

For heaven's sake.... (fill the rest in yourselves) Kevin (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScienceApologist

I have warned this user for this edit which is technically a violation of his (ill-thought out, rediculous) topic ban. Hipocrite (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided that for the next six months, I will edit so-called "fringe science" pages to correct misspellings when I come across them. I am doing this as an act of civil disobedience. I do not believe it is WP:POINT violation because I do not believe I am disrupting Wikipedia by doing this. I also believe that I am in good standing with WP:IAR. I do believe that others will disagree with me, but I have grown past caring. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Hipocrite's removal of SA's edit. I'm not thrilled by the edge-pushing promised, but I think SA is right. SA wasn't right to remove my Talk page comment, but let's let that one go, I certainly wouldn't have brought it here unless further disruption appeared (and maybe he was right about that one too, but he shouldn't be getting into potential catfights, removing Talk comments is dicey.) Please, don't bring AE enforcement reports over trivial and small kindnesses. Since Hipocrite thinks that SA's ban was "rediculous" [sic], could this be a WP:POINT violation? (Not SA, Hipocrite.) It certainly is a disruptive action, wasting my time and the time of those who follow AN/AE. I'm taking a short wikibreak. --Abd (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abd

Before SA made his spelling correction, however, User:Abd invoked his name, in direct violation of the "Baiting" principle. In this edit, made before SA had violated his ban, Abd wrote "Have you read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science? Might be worth the time. Read it carefully, and note the result for ScienceApologist." Science Apologist had not edited Cold Fusion or it's talk page since December of 2008 Why would Abd bring up Science Apologist on a page Science Apologist had not edited for over two months if not to join in the "persistent low-level attacks and other continuous goading of specific editors in order to exhaust their patience and induce them to lash out in an uncivil manner."

User:Abd had been warned for similar conduct - most recently by User:Stephan Schulz at 07:54, 4 March 2009. Hipocrite (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to Hipocrite at my Talk. I'm a little puzzled that he'd ask me a question on my Talk, then, without any response, take it to a Noticeboard. The edit wasn't baiting, and I was astonished that SA showed up, it was totally unexpected. Hipocrite seems to have totally misread the comment, and persisted in this after my explanation. Something strange is going on. He suggested I copy my comment here. Instead, I'll point to the section on my Talk, and to a permanent link for future generations. --Abd (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All this over a typo. right, I think carrots rather than sticks are what's required. There will be absolutely nothing constructive coming from leaving this open. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This "ABD" section is not about a typo. The above "ScienceApologist" section is. Hipocrite (talk) 01:37, 5 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.

Pseudoscience Report (2)

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.

ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Opposition to water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This edit is extremely problematic. The user in question is including numerous blatant mischaracterizations of sources, cherry-picking only General Ripper-esque conspircy theory sources, and conforming the article to a coatrack status in stark defiance to the warnings imposed upon him directly through this very board not two days ago[26], [27]. Per this arbitration decision I ask that this user be explicitly warned about his promotion of water fluoridation paranoia rhetoric and perhaps even given a break from editing such articles.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The occurrence of mild dental fluorosis at the PHS recommended concentration is not controversial, all mainstream reviews and metaanalyses mention it, and even quantify it; see Water fluoridation#Safety. I won't comment on the rest of the changes, because I've not reviewed them. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is a WP:POINT violation. I am going to stop the disruption by closing this thread. Any other admin is free to determine if the participating users need to be sanctioned. Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 4 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.

Fringe Science enforcement

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:ScienceApologist is evidently testing the limits of Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, where he was topic-banned for a variety of infractions, including:

"generally edit(ing) aggressively above and beyond what would be necessary and justified by a neutral point of view"
"a combative approach to editing and to engaging with other editors"
responding to a page ban by User:Elonka by editing Elonka Dunin, in what could "reasonably be understood as an attempt at intimidation, or at least disrupting Wikipedia to make a point".

Obviously, ScienceApologist has not (in practice) learned much, since he has continued with two more examples in the above vein:

(1) A frivolous attempt to community ban User:ImperfectlyInformed, which was rejected per WP:SNOW. Attempt was obviously made in retaliation for II's legitimate flagging of a conflict in which SA was involved.

(2) A frivolous attempt to sanction yours truly (section just below this one, at the moment, titled "Pseudoscience report"). Complaint is dealt with below; meritless on substance and flagrant example of WP:KETTLE (as if this from me, in response to this from OrangeMarlin, in the context of this discussion could hurt the feelings of OrangeMarlin, of all people). Only in the most hypocritical and drama-queeny of universes can I imagine that SA's complaint about my "combative and derisive tone" was made sincerely. Clearly, it was made in retaliation for my criticizing SA's conduct in the episode above involving II (which, ironically, also involved SA's lodging a frivolous and retaliatory complaint). These actions increase only heat, not light. Stop them.

(2a) Bogus accusation of COI. Per Wikipedia:Coi#Examples, ""Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest".

(2b) The bogus COI accusation is also, by definition, a personal attack. Per this section of WP:NPA:

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.

(2c) Attempting to violate WP:OUTING by speculating about my profession, which could be used to link me to old accounts. Reading WP:OUTING in its spirit and not just its letter, it says that posting certain personal info that a Wikipedian doesn't choose to disclose is a no-no. As I said below, I don't disclose my profession on-wiki (I don't mind doing so off-wiki). That's my prerogative. It's personal info, and there is no basis for COI (and on top of that, it's a damned personal attack, in the context of an obviously frivolous claim meant to harass) -- so, how is speculating about it EVER justified? I want the harassment to stop, now.

The substance of both of SA's actions above (against II and myself) can legitimately be dismissed under WP:SNOW. Still, these are flagrant violations of WP:GAME and WP:HARASSMENT (and, let's be real, WP:DICK) for sure; exactly the sort of thing those ArbCom findings above identified as problematic.

Personally, I'm significantly more annoyed and discouraged about editing than I was before this happened, which I'm sure is the result SA intended (plus, some people actually enjoy poking others with sharp sticks).

I think that the relevant ArbCom case sent a clear message to SA -- that you can improve content without being a dick -- which he is now trying to test the limits of. The question of whether SA can't or won't change his behavior is somewhat interesting, but in any case the remedy is clear. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Editors_warned says:

"All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and my lead to further sanctions being imposed."

Please, sanction him swiftly and surely, and help put an end to this corrosive anti-collegiality that is (as the case noted) driving away good editors and having a bad effect on the project.

Finally, in the interest of avoiding duplication and the appearance of forum-shopping, I'm raising the above issues here only. My complaint about the WP:OUTING attempt is real, and is included in the above. best regards, Middle 8 (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong stretch of the outing policy. Shot info (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even go in the ballpark. Why would one want to? What good purpose is served by revealing putative information that a person expressly doesn't want stated on-wiki? Hmmmmm? The COI argument doesn't fly, as I've shown. Oh I remember: it was to harass my ass. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about now? - try to stay focused please. Shot info (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a simple caveman editor; my prefrontal cortex isn't developed enough to stay focused like the rest of you. Me make simple: Outing not good. No good even come close to outing. No good violate spirit of law. Me like bananas. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SA Generates a steady stream of time-wasting bureaucratic attacks on people he disagrees with. WP:AE appears to be his latest toy. Artw (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artw -- agree. Given that he's already under ArbCom sanction for that behavior, the fact that he'd continue it here at an ArbCom noticeboard is remarkable, to say the least. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new one today. Every minor gripe is worthy of mention at AE it seems. Artw (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is rapidly approaching incivility. If the complaints have no merit, they will be (and are being) rejected. Please stop poking the editor with sticks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state for the record that in my opinion WP:FRINGE has no useful mechanism of enforcement at present, and that SA's approach was the only thing that gave it any effect. I have been a pretty regular participant in WP:FTN, but the topic ban of SA has pretty much demoralized me, and I no longer have any faith in the possibility of defending Wikipedia against fringecruft. Looie496 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

having read over all the reasons why SA received a topic ban (on the link above), I am shocked at your suggestion that his approach was a desirable 'mechanism of enforcement', and if it's true that that is the only useful method that self-styled 'defenders against fringecruft' have, then you all really need to rethink your approach, and reconsider what you're doing. aggressive bullying tactics like that are destructive of the wiki as a whole. I for one am glad that this kind of attitude got set back on its heels a bit; now maybe we can all work towards neutral articles on fringe topics without having to fight for every punctuation mark against a wave of petty scientism. --Ludwigs2 05:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards the WP:OUTING, I'd like to comment that before SA's post about Middle 8's occupation, I had absolutely no idea who this editor was in real life. Now, that I know this editor's occupation, I am fairly confident I know exactly who Middle 8 is in real life. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, which post is that exactly? Shot info (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first one in the section he created below this one. This edit specifically. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is standard procedure with outing attempts, I'm not confirming or denying the substance, so Levine2112 can only speculate. Still, SA's comments were unwelcome, gratuitous and infringed on my privacy. They were clearly made as part of a pattern of harassment, a bad habit SA can't seem to shake. Whether or not it rises to the formal threshold of WP:OUTING, it's obviously very poor behavior. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pressing SA's buttons. Middle 8, you are being most unkind for no good reason. We at WP:AE are not fools. We can see what's going on here. Please don't fan the flames. Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 4 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.

Pseudoscience report

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

This edit is extremely problematic. The user in question User:Middle 8 is adopting a combative and derisive tone and claims the mantle of NPOV problematically while supporting the sympathetic POV towards acupuncture. I happen to know that this user gets paid to perform acupuncture (evidence can be had privately so as to avoid outing concerns). Per this arbitration decision I as that this user be warned against this kind of behavior. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lighten up, SA, and go have another look at WP:KETTLE before the irony gets too thick to stand. OrangeMarlin and I go back aways, and although we disagree we respect each other and are good-spirited even when things get a little rowdy[28]. We were getting along just fine (permalink) without your "helpful intervention" here, which, given your history, I can only assume was in vengeful response to this, where I uttered uncomfortable truths about your excessively aggressive editing.

However, my earlier olive branch to you was real. But it has its limits: You be collegial, I be your friend. You no be collegial, I no be your friend.

Honestly, dude, have you no shame? This kind of "revenge action", like you did to Seicer and Elonka, is exactly the sort of thing upon which ArbCom said they'd look dimly. And here you're blazing ahead as if that ruling never happened. You want to test those limits? OK, but as a practical matter, I really don't think you should. The screw can only turn one way for you from now on: if you push limits, sometimes sanctions on you won't tighten, sometimes they will. If you can't refrain from poking people with sharp sticks, then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. And if you want to "go out with a bang", please move your blasts so that I'm not in your radius.

Oh, by the way, your outing attempt here has been duly noted. WP:OUTING says posting certain personal info that a Wikipedian doesn't choose to disclose is a no-no. That includes job title, dude. If you want to know the information I want to disclose on WP, it's on my user page. Anything beyond that is not your business. (Also, WP:NPA is clear as can be that editors' off-wiki affiliations aren't grounds to attack them. My edits are reasonable, and that is where the focus should be.) I have every right to do what our colleague Shoemaker's did, i.e. leave and come back with a durable, not-to-be-outed pseudonym. Your posting info like that potentially threatens my privacy, and like your report here, is harassment. Stop it, por favor.

I didn't seek this conflict nor do I relish it, but I am going to respond by reporting you for your attempted violation of WP:OUTING. I don't like the appearance of escalation, but I have my limits, and privacy is one of them. Back off, and don't poke me anymore. Thanks. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about asking Orangemarlin whether he considers the tone of that edit summary appropriate or not? It looks as if SA is attempting to describe a financial conflict of interest within the bounds of Foundation privacy policy, which is an appropriate thing to do. If Middle 8 thinks SA crossed the line in some way, suggest taking that up with a neutral third party. Disclosure: I mentor Scienceapologist, although he and I have not discussed this particular incident or the personalities involved in it. Durova^Charge! 22:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Durova: I can say with 100% confidence that OM had no problem with that ES. Both of us have done rowdier, and it's fine when it's people you know.

With respect, Durova, you're simply wrong about COI: a person's merely having X profession is never a basis for COI, period ("Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest"). (Naturally I'm not going to confirm or deny the substance of SA's outing attempt). Additionally, since it is a wholly bogus COI accusation, it is an NPA (click for section): "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

Pretty clearly, then, there is no merit in SA's post at all. He is WP:KETTLE-ishly complaining about the mildest of zingy edit summaries on my part, a genre in which he and OM excel, sometimes IMO excessively. SA is just gaming the ArbCom decision to harass me, with an outing cherry on top. Lovely. He doesn't seem to have learned anything from the [ArbCom ruling concerning him]. I didn't seek this conflict, but I'm not going to stand for the harassment: no editor should have to. I want to edit articles and enjoy broadening my intellectual horizons, not fend off GAME-ish attacks. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is clear is your opinion of your relationship with OrangeMarlin, not whether OM shares the same view. If you're confident of that, why not ask him to come and weigh in at this discussion? Durova^Charge! 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova - I'd ask OM if I didn't think it were a waste of time. You should feel free to ask him, though -- and along the way, please explain why this issue is anything more than completely peripheral. (Remember, I'm being poked with a sharp stick -- SA is frivolously trying to bring the ArbCom noise. So sorry if I'm a little curt here.) --Middle 8 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I don't think it's fair to drag OM into the middle of this. The question is whether my edit was bad enough to invoke an ArbCom sanction, and if not, whether SA raised this complaint inappropriately. OM's insights are therefore no less nor more valuable than any other editor's. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who asserted twice that you were sure of Orangemarlin's opinion. Let's get that from the horse's mouth. It may help too cool down an escalating situation. Durova^Charge! 01:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Yeah, I'm sure it didn't offend him. I'm also sure that there isn't a whiff of COI or pseudoscience violation here. And that SA's complaint here is the second frivolous and retaliatory complaint he's filed today. -- Middle 8 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shows what I know. Next, my bullish market predictions will be disproven, or something. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a violation of OUTING to note that you receive income from performing accupuncture. It is not your "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information." A job title and work organisation would be along the lines of "Vice President(job title) at Acme Corp(and work organization)." Hipocrite (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Hipocrite: I don't disclose my profession on-wiki (I don't mind doing so off-wiki). That's my prerogative, and it's not appropriate for anyone else to speculate on it -- particularly since the information could link back to previous accounts I might have had. It's personal info, and there is no basis for COI (and on top of that, it's a damned personal attack) -- so, how is speculating about it EVER justified? regards, --Middle 8 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←OK, since my name is being bandied about here, I'm going to comment. First, I didn't like the tone of the edit summary. Now, all who know me would assume that I'd have verbally clobbered Middle 8 under normal circumstances. My not doing so was not an oversight on my part. Although I do not agree with Middle 8's edits, I have found that in his previous incarnation, he was semi-reasonable. I was willing to overlook his edit summary with a little banter, and did respond to him on the discussion page to see if we could work out a compromise. This doesn't mean I accept Middle 8's view of things, hardly. It's more like I'm willing to massage verbiage a bit. So, everyone needs to lighten up a tad. Yes, I thought the edit summary was over the top, considering Middle 8 and I have had a collegial relationship. Yes SA should have come to my defense (but probably not here), since he did not know about our banter. I know that Middle 8 has a vested interested in acupuncture, so he has to overlook his personal bias to keep the NPOV on the article. We had a Chiropractic editor who was not a very compromising editor, and I gave him crap all the time. I know where SA is coming from, and I know where Middle 8 is coming from. A group hug would be productive here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on upping the good vibes -- I certainly have intended to offend no one. I do believe SA's coming here rather than the acu talk page was extremely hostile and ABF on his part. If I'm gonna trust SA, he's gonna have to earn that trust by not being an asshole to me, especially when I try to make nice with him.[29]

OM, you do realize your ES's can be just as cranky as mine was, right? Not seeking to justify mine, just a little bit surprised that I misjudged (a) how I came across, and (b) how you'd take the kinda thing you sometimes dish out. IOW, I thought you liked a little good-natured rough-and-tumble rhetoric. I'm sorry for causing offense, and surprised that I did. Just goes to show, you don't ever know...just watch each card, and play 'em slow...

I also feel that WP:COI is being taken to ridiculous extremes with the notion that members of a profession have some sort of interest in that profession that creates a problem on WP. Read COI again: there is none simply for being in a profession. Given my experiences here in the past with people who got away with ridiculous attacks, I do not disclose every detail about myself, including whether or not I stick needles in people; suffice it to say am nonetheless an expert editor in the field, one way or another. I'm definitely more on the "believe in it" side, but there's a range of reasonable opinion, and given that I'm more conservative than the WHO, I think I'm within that range. It seems to me that I'm the kind of editor WP should be glad is editing, given that I have pretty deep knowledge of TCM, know the rules and know my ass from the scientific method. Well, whoever said the beast (WP as a whole) had any intelligence.

I reject SA's escalation, and maintain he hasn't learned his lesson. I'll hug him after he takes a bath or someone hoses him off; everyone else, sure, hugs all around. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) Just to summarize (and place this info where it belongs), SA's complaint is meritless on substance, not to mention a flagrant example of WP:KETTLE. It's highly improbable that this from me, in response to this from OrangeMarlin, in the context of this discussion could (a) be construed as a pseudoscience violation, or (b) hurt the feelings of OrangeMarlin, of all people. It is true that I sarcastically claimed the NPOV high ground in response to his doing the same; in the scheme of misconduct that's probably about a 2 on a 10 scale, especially since we instantly de-escalated on talk, because we're grownups, not drama queens.

On the topic area, some technical detail: It's obvious from the talk page that we were having an exchange over how properly to depict the state of play in acupuncture research, which is definitely a grey area: the British Medical Ass'n issued a qualified endorsement of it; the WHO says its efficacy is proven for a whole host of conditions. The article also notes that a 2007 review led by Professor of Complementary Medicine Edzard Ernst (who is very skeptical of anything lacking the highest caliber of evidence) finds that the "emerging clinical evidence seems to imply that acupuncture is effective for some, but not all conditions." OrangeMarlin found a review questioning whether acu was effective at all, and edited the article to reflect that; I felt his edit went further to the it's-not-effective side than the sum total of our sources justify. And I haven't even mentioned the thorny issue of how to design an adequate placebo for a procedure as opposed to a pill.

So, if ScienceApologist is trying to imply that by taking anything other than an unqualified hard line against acu, I'm pushing pseudoscience, he only shows his own ignorance of the subject matter and tendency to play fast and loose when it suits him. OM and I are, then, debating how to summarize acu's efficacy. We're doing fine, thanks. ScienceApologist could have chimed in at the acu talk page, but instead he escalated straight to here. I think that speaks volumes about the lack of good faith behind his actions; he seeks only to inflame and not to enlighten. Smack him with the banstick for this and other inappropriate conduct, and show that the decision topic-banning him was for real. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Middle8 a recent metastudy showed no real evidence of acupuncture doing anything, but anyway that is a content dispute and AE as I understand is about whether an editor's conduct is ok or not. Sticky Parkin 01:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do know there are other meta-analyses? I won't repeat my points above. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss it, but WHO is not a reliable source. Government agencies have political agendas. There is not a single reliable source that confirms that acupuncture works. Ernst, though I respect, did not publish his opinions in a peer-reviewed journal but in a mass-market book. We need to follow WP:MEDRS to verify claims. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst made his statements in peer-reviewed meta-analyses, not just his book (did he endorse acu at all in his book?). On WHO, the biggest criticism I have is that the inclusion criteria are so lax; they're mostly case studies -- but see below re double-blinding. I agree a healthy skepticism is warranted toward government bodies, but they're not worthless; the NSF report on pseudoscience has been used without objection (probably because its conclusions sounded good to the skeptic editors, eh? What's good for the goose...). The WHO does come under MEDRS, just not real high. ("'Ideal sources for these articles include ... medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies.")

As to the statement that "there is not a single reliable source that confirms that acupuncture works", don't you think that kind of raises the question whether there's a single reliable source that confirms ANY surgical technique works? You can't double-blind a procedure ... period. Pretty much. They're making some headway with acu, but the issue is far from settled in the literature, even though Ernst may think it is settled to his satisfaction. So, should WP as a rule say in the lead section of every surgical procedure that there is no evidence they work? There are gold-quality sources saying this. Should we cite them uncritically, or is that maybe an undue weight problem? You see what i mean, right? We may want to unpack this issue for real, and talk about other levels of evidence in the EBM tier.

And see, I don't think this is going to end well... because these are all legit questions, but people like SA are gonna go all ABF on me and try and portray me as if I'm spinning like Martinphi (who actually made a good point or two in his day, but didn't know when to stop). A spectrum exists in terms of evidence for things... acu is in a grey area, and as long as people like SA don't get all shouty and dismissive like Ann Coulter et. al., we can depict it with reasonable pith and nuance. But we have to get rid of the idea that people like me are POV-pushing just because we disagree on subject like acu, which if ID is a 10 and homeopathy a 9 and physical therapy is a 3, is about a 5 or 6 in terms of flakiness. Tell you something -- theoretically, if I were in a position to make money from acu, it would mean little because two family members of mine are major-league disabled and I'm the main full-time caretaker (and have a, compared to them, minor but real medical disability myself). Smoke that COI. I'm everyday people. cheers, --Middle 8 (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've looked Middle 8's edit in question, and it's appalling. For instance, here's the first sentence of Middle 8's version.

“

Because acupuncture has been the subject of active scientific research only since the late 20th century, its effects are not well-understood by Western medicine, and its application remains controversial among Western medical researchers and clinicians.

”

And here's the abstract of the source he uses to support it:

“

Even though widely used in today's clinical practice, acupuncture has remained a controversial subject. Many reviews are currently available but most lack a critical stance and some are overtly promotional. The aim of this overview is to provide a balanced, critical analysis of the existing evidence. Some of the original concepts of traditional acupuncture are not supported by good scientific evidence. Several plausible theories attempt to explain how acupuncture works but none are proved beyond doubt. The clinical effectiveness of acupuncture continues to attract controversy. Many controlled clinical trials and numerous systematic reviews of these studies have been published. Considerable problems are encountered when interpreting these data. Heterogeneity is a significant drawback of both clinical trials and systematic reviews. Some of the controversies may be resolved through the use of the new 'placebo needles' which enable researchers to adequately control for placebo effects of acupuncture. The majority of studies using such devices fails to show effects beyond a placebo response. Acupuncture has been associated with serious adverse events but most large-scale studies suggest that these are probably rare. Nonserious adverse effects occur in 7-11% of all patients. In conclusion, acupuncture remains steeped in controversy. Some findings are encouraging but others suggest that its clinical effects mainly depend on a placebo response.

”

Only the last clause of Middle 8's sentence is supported by the source; the rest is solely Middle 8's opinion. Meanwhile, Middle 8 deletes all evidence against acupuncture from the lead. And this is meant to be NPOV?

Crossposted to Talk:Acupuncture

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, I didn't delete anything substantive... and in fact your edit removed an excellent source, Ernst (2006). However, I'm not going to stand here at WP:AE yelling about how your edit was "appalling", because I'm reasonably sure it was a good-faith error, and I see no need to polarize the debate further. My full reply is at Talk:Acupuncture#More_re_lead_edits. I suggest a highly efficacious homeopathic chill pill for all parties. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message board is not a game board. Stop playing Risk (game) here, lest you all get blocked. SA, why on earth are you pushing the limits of your sanctions? (I don't agree with them, so I won't volunteer to enforce them, but come on!) Jehochman ^Talk 17:35, 4 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.

Breech of sanctions

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.

No breeching of the sanctions has occurred. Decorum has been maintained. Kevin (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elijah boardman by earl.jpg

Breeches of decorum? Or a breach of sanctions? brought to you by the spelling police

Mooretwin was advised at 10:31, 2 March 2009 here that they breeched the WP:1RR outlined on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles in the section titled Final remedies for AE case which state “All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.” By removing the notification here they acknowledged they read it.

The two reverts are:

1st revert 00:06, 2 March 2009
2nd revert 00:07, 2 March 2009

with an additional revert on *09:15, 3 March 2009

When I replaced the information here without being ask, I provided quotes from the references used here with an additional reference and added the reference here and book title here. Which now numbers six references and footnotes.

The text has been removed on a number of occasions including: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] .

The relevant discussions can be found here, here and here. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two reverts in question were - fairly obviously - in reality part of a single revert, i.e. I removed the contentious text as per the discussions. Then I realised I hadn't removed the relevant reference and removed it immediately. You might notice that the two edits were within a minute of each other! This complaint is petty to say the least, and, in my view, part of this particular editor's strategy of demolarising editors who dare to challenge his perceived ownership of various articles. He's a serial complainant: a regular visitor to this page and AN/I with complaints. All rather tedious.

The rest of the complainant's post relates to a content dispute in which I and another editor are involved. As content disputes are not relevant here, and hence I won't comment unless asked by an Admin. Mooretwin (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Domer, I'm concerned that you're still so much more interested in getting opponents punished than collaborative editing, and that you didn't heed the concerns made by myself, Black Kite and Jehochman about frivolous forum-shopping little over a day ago. See WP:3RR: .A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so Deacon could you explain my block for breaching 1 RR seen as you know all about reverts as I still can't figure it out and considering you said The restriction in an electric fence... so explain please or is just because Domer has made the report. Also Mooretwin you say Domer is a serial complainant does that make you a serial offender? BigDunc^Talk 14:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon, please show me were I’ve looked to get opponents punished? The last report I made here pacifically did not ask for any sanctions. Both Jehochman and Tznkai will both attest to the fact that I have in fact asked for Admin intervention to prevents sanctions and have done so for quite some time now. Now as to your interpretation of 1RR, please read this here. The revert restriction refers to any reversions on the same page within 24 hours - regardless of the particular content...--Tznkai (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC) This discussion also shows Deacon you defending Moortwin, and attacking Dunc, the exact same thing you did in this discussion here. Now please explain your comments and your consistent attacks on both myself and Dun. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is very simple. Taking two edits to revert is not the same as two reverts. The difference is clear, per the passage from WP:3RR above. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not just say that instead of your diatribe about Domer? Is he not allowed to bring what he feels is a breach here? Or was it you intention to muddy the water for any other admin who might come across this thread? I accept Mooretwin's explanation of what he did regarding the reverts and I'm sure Domer does too but I can't speak for him.BigDunc^Talk 14:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all extremely petty. Domer48 would be better served investing his energies into collaborative editing rather than constantly running to AN/E and AN/I. Maybe he might like to reflect on why he finds himself in conflict with other editors so often. Mooretwin (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin could you please not pull up another editor over a spelling mistake Domer has Dyslexia and spelling mistakes are common with people diagnosed with it. BigDunc^Talk 14:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll take that on board and overlook the poor spelling in future, unless, of course, it appears in an actual article. You know him, then? Mooretwin (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From wikipedia thats all. I know him aswell as I know you. BigDunc^Talk 15:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you know he has dyslexia? You don't know about my disabilities. Mooretwin (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Deacon, Tznkai was wrong here The revert restriction refers to any reversions on the same page within 24 hours - regardless of the particular content...--Tznkai (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC). If Admin's who I've emailed privitaly to prevent edit-wars and sanctions wish to say so I've no problem with that. And like Dunc, I can accept Mooretwins explanation of what he did, having been blocked for the exact same thing myself. Deacon you have again created a drama, based on your unfounded accusations, strike you personal attacks and stop trying to muddy the waters. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not.: e.g. it is NOT a Battleground. Your persistent revert-warn-forum shop pattern, (as evidenced alone by the two threads in this page, targetting two different editors) is against policy as well as the spirit of good collaboration, and you are stretching patiences here (including mine). I want to see you spending more effort in relationship building and constructive dialogue than the opposite, the constant (usually unfounded) forum-shopping against ideologically opposing editors. PS, I believe you need to reread the definition of revert in WP:3RR. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim I know exactly what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and I also know what the standards are for active membership, and how editors should conduct themselves. Now, you throw accusations around and can't or won't support them and are stretching patiences here. On the two threads I raised here, it was you who created the drama. You'd block either myself of Dunc in a heart beat if you could, and I've provided the diff's to support this. Now again, I came here to report a breech of 1RR, I again, did not call for any sanctions. I've asked for editors to revert their breeches and use the talk pages and looked for AE to support this, but every time we come here we get the same BS. The next time you make an accusation, have the good grace to back it up with a Diff. Now so there is no more confusion, WP:1RR needs to be amended to reflect this new interpratation, Tznkai's obviously being wrong according to Deacon of Pndapetzim, and when reports are filed they should be dealth with according to the policies. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Deacon as I stated above you said The restriction in an electric fence... have you changed your mind? Is it open to interpretation now?BigDunc^Talk 18:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, BigDunc, you are both misinterpreting WP:1RR and Tznkai's statement about it. The policy is clear that consecutive edits count as one revert, therefore Tznkai's statement can refer to a single edit or a series of consecutive edits. There is no need to amend WP:1RR whatsoever. Kevin (talk) 22:57, 3 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.

Please enforce the pseudoscience arbitration

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

Two users User:Colonel Warden [37][38][39] and User:John Gohde [40][41] are making false claims of (non)consensus and generally POV-pushing for greater coverage of orthomolecular psychiatry than what is permissable according to the work of a number of other editors[42][43][44][45]. Their actions are blatantly obstructionist and petulant. User:ImperfectlyInformed is behaving in a way that can only be described as blind and mute tagteaming [46]. We need an administrator willing to start enforcing this arbitration decision. Wikipedia should not be held hostage to roving bands of credulous alternative medicine promoters who instead of discussing content Wikilawyer arguments regarding what "consensus" means and "proper process for discussion". ScienceApologist (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScienceApologist, I've notified the editors of the ArbCom case. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You might consider warning the third editor mentioned as well. Hopefully that stems the tide. If it does not, I will be back with more. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly ironic. I was thinking about starting a thread on ANI about this last night, since we have 4 editors at orthomolecular psychiatry (Orangemarlin, Verbal, Keepcalm, and SA) who, in a forum-like thread entitled "This article was a POV-fork", decided that since they agree to a merge, there is therefore consensus. Despite the forum-like tone and title of the thread, Colonel Warden and Coppertwig objected. I didn't (I avoid these types of threads). Since there is currently a 4-5 yes-no opinion on the merge, and there was no straw poll, there's clearly no consensus. Despite this, the group has has edit-warred to keep doing the merge, inserting statements like "per consensus" ... against "POV pushing". The bad faith, personal attacks, and view that people who don't share your opinions don't count is shocking. II | (t - c) 18:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ImperfectlyInformed, after commenting here, you started a thread on WP:AN, which certainly appears to be forum shopping. Anyway, I've notified you of the ArbCom sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up on the details of these things, but while OMM is certainly fringe science, it is not pseudoscience under WP:PSCI -- it was founded by Linus Pauling and probably falls between questionable science and alternative scientific views. Anyway, considering that those opposing the merge (see talk:orthomolecular medicine) outnumber those supporting, an admin should probably restore the orthomolecular psychiatry page. II | (t - c) 07:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the pseudoscience ArbCom case includes discretionary sanctions, however the fringe science case doesn't. Secondly, the merge discussion could probably be left open a little longer - at the moment it has been open for less than 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Looks some people are trying to do a RfC for independent views (there are a few so far -- opposes from DGG and Phil153). It can hang out for a few more days. II | (t - c) 17:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support SA's call for the arbcom decision to be enforced. This is not about numbers that cruft supporters can muster to defend cruft. This is about enforcing an arbcom decision. It would be a simple matter for arbcom to make the sanctions the same for both fringe science and pseudoscience. Cruft is cruft and arbcom shouldn't fluff it. There's a new catchcry. Don't fluff cruft! Kevin McCready (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on thread starter - User:John Gohde is enjoying the expiration of, what, his third year-long ban? He is an inveterate troll and should be indef-site-banned immediately, full stop. However, I have to agree with User:ImperfectlyInformed's assessment of affairs. Whether to merge or not merge is a fair question and doesn't need to be rushed. Gohde is a bad actor, but don't conflate him with other editors and their views on the article. Coppertwig and Colonel Warden are expressing valid objections; SA and OM are charging in two aggressively. Wikipedia isn't fucking paintball, gentlemen; it is possible to make your points with a softer touch. (Could the ArbCom have made that point to you with any firmer a touch, SA? Time to beat your swords into plowshares.) regards, Middle 8 (talk) 18:23, 3 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.

[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 58: / Line 58: @@
 ::I say, give him a good old spanking for that. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 ::Not seeing a warning, just a claim that doing so was intimidating (which is laughable, especially considering Elonka's longstanding attempts to intimidate SA with threats of blocks, etc.) and a POINT violation. Elonka was never spanked for her harassment, and neither were other admins who hounded him with biased actions. That's not an excuse for a poor decision here (I was the one who denied the prod), but, come on, we're not here looking for excuses to spank people, we're looking to solve problems, and he was at least right to say that Elonka mever should have made that redirect to her own article in the first place. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 00:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
+===Clarification of ScienceApologist's topic ban===
+Since there could be some lingering confusion on the topic ban of ScienceApologist, which reads as follows, I have clarified the restriction as an [[WP:AE|ArbCom Enforcement]] action:
+The restriction:
+'''3.1) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles.'''
+'''    Passed 8 to 3 with 1 abstention, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC) '''
+The clarification: Violations of this topic ban include making edits concerning fringe science topics, even to articles that would not be considered fringe science topics. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 01:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 == [[User:Ohconfucius]] delinking dates in violation of injunction again ==