Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Comments by others about the request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder: he told me I couldn't |
|||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
:::"to test their lunacy" is not a factually correct statement - no one involved with the issue has been definitively judged to be mentally incompetent under any legal or therapeutic system. There may be factually correct elements of JPS' edit, but the overall tone is one of prejudicial disdain. I don't really have an opinion on this enforcement issue, mind you, but I am tired of science mavens who think they can talk about pseudoscience issues as though everyone involved with them were ''factually'' morons, fuckheads, and/or creeps. Being right does not entitle one to be a rude-assed son-of-a-bitch, and people who think that it does do more damage to the encyclopedia than any of the the project's fringe advocates. my 2¢. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 03:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
:::"to test their lunacy" is not a factually correct statement - no one involved with the issue has been definitively judged to be mentally incompetent under any legal or therapeutic system. There may be factually correct elements of JPS' edit, but the overall tone is one of prejudicial disdain. I don't really have an opinion on this enforcement issue, mind you, but I am tired of science mavens who think they can talk about pseudoscience issues as though everyone involved with them were ''factually'' morons, fuckheads, and/or creeps. Being right does not entitle one to be a rude-assed son-of-a-bitch, and people who think that it does do more damage to the encyclopedia than any of the the project's fringe advocates. my 2¢. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 03:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
I have notified Joshua P. Schroeder, as Cla68 should have done. [[User:Cardamon|Cardamon]] ([[User talk:Cardamon|talk]]) 02:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
I have notified Joshua P. Schroeder, as Cla68 should have done. [[User:Cardamon|Cardamon]] ([[User talk:Cardamon|talk]]) 02:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:He ordered me not to edit his user talk page. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 06:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==== Comments by ZuluPapa5 ==== |
==== Comments by ZuluPapa5 ==== |
Revision as of 06:16, 14 January 2011
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:
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}}.
|
Joshua P. Schroeder
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [1] sarcastic, belittling, disruptive, vandalistic edit
- [2] revert wars to readd it
- [3] blanks the page
- Had previously blanked the page then immediately nominated it for deletion
- Belittles other editors in a noticeboard discussion
- Belittles another editor in article talk page discussion
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [4] Warning by ArbCom
- Previous ArbCom topic ban for similar behavior
- Extensive block log for similar behavior
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Based on the history, I think a topic ban from science articles should be on the table.
- Regardless of the merits of the request, I question whether administrators have the to do this. For fringe or pseduo-science articles, sure, but not for science articles as a whole. NW (Talk) 03:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- As a purely academic question only, we can impose, inter alia, "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics". I think it is reasonable to say that "science" is closely related to "pseudoscience". T. Canens (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of the merits of the request, I question whether administrators have the to do this. For fringe or pseduo-science articles, sure, but not for science articles as a whole. NW (Talk) 03:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Joshua P. Schroeder (JPS, and previously known as ScienceApologist) has asked me not to edit his userpage, so could someone else please notify him of this enforcement action? As for the content dispute involved here, JPS's source is, arguably, reliable. It's not a blog as I mistakenly called it. That said, however, JPS's bullying, bellitling, and battleground behavior over the issue continues his long pattern of disrupting Wikipedia in this manner. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [5]
Discussion concerning Joshua P. Schroeder
Statement by Joshua P. Schroeder
Comments by others about the request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder
Cla68, could you explain how this edit [6] is "vandalistic" under the definition at WP:VANDAL? Will Beback talk 00:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- JPS said this, "The RHETI promoters have hired people to test their lunacy, but all they've got is some piss-poor studies that they paid for." Looks like it meets the WP:VANDAL definition of "crude humor". He then blanked the page when an IP tried to remove the vandalism. Blanking a page also meets the definition. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's an addition of a Q/A pair to a FAQ. It's also factually correct. While the tone is unsuitable for the encyclopaedia proper, it's within acceptable boundaries for a FAQ on a talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- "to test their lunacy" is not a factually correct statement - no one involved with the issue has been definitively judged to be mentally incompetent under any legal or therapeutic system. There may be factually correct elements of JPS' edit, but the overall tone is one of prejudicial disdain. I don't really have an opinion on this enforcement issue, mind you, but I am tired of science mavens who think they can talk about pseudoscience issues as though everyone involved with them were factually morons, fuckheads, and/or creeps. Being right does not entitle one to be a rude-assed son-of-a-bitch, and people who think that it does do more damage to the encyclopedia than any of the the project's fringe advocates. my 2¢. --Ludwigs2 03:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's an addition of a Q/A pair to a FAQ. It's also factually correct. While the tone is unsuitable for the encyclopaedia proper, it's within acceptable boundaries for a FAQ on a talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I have notified Joshua P. Schroeder, as Cla68 should have done. Cardamon (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments by ZuluPapa5
I am involved and mildly disturbed by Joshua P. Schroeder's actions. We were editing well together in WP:ACTIVIST. However, he went overboard in relation to Enneagram of Personality, when there was little substantial, if any, source support. This type of ideological wp:hounding is not necessary. It's up to ArbCom to determine if he requires a longer break. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Joshua P. Schroeder
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.