Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:52, 20 December 2013

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Cihsai

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Cihsai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Cihsai (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of Armenia and Azerbaijan, imposed at here, logged at Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 logs

Administrator imposing the sanction: EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Notification Diff

Statement by Cihsai

The reason for the ban is: “You’ve once again reverted the lead of Hemshin peoples to remove mention of possible Armenian descent, without ever achieving consensus for your views,”

Background:

Back in 2007- 2008 lengthy discussions took place addressing, among others, the issue of alleged “Armenian roots”. Not only the wording but also its location within the article has been dealt with. The lead paragraph as well as the sections dealing with the history and demographics have undergone numerous changes. That discussion and editing came to a halt by end of 2008 and a fully referenced- and somehow lenghty- lead article became stable. In December 2009, a user Seth Nimbosa reorganized the article, shortening drastically the lead article (Diff). Nobody contested that edit and so that one became the stable version.

In October 2012, JackalLantern introduced a sentence regarding alleged “Armenian roots” into the lead paragraph claiming he is “Restoring crucial and deliberately removed and suppressed sentence”. Looking back until 2008, I could not locate the sentence. That is to say that the claim of “restoration” does not stand. On the contrary JackalLantern has introduced a sentence into the lead paragraph without prior discussion.

Reverts:

Since then, the very same sentence has been removed from the lead paragraph by myself and reinserted back about a dozen times by JackalLantern and MarshallBagramyan, sometimes within hours after my action. They were very recently joined by a third user yerevantsi.

During the "revert period", I have:

steadily invited JackalLantern and MarshallBagramyan to study the prior discussion on this issue. If that would have happened those users would have seen that there are arguments why the claim regarding “Armenian roots” does not belong to the lead paragraph,

encouraged them to study the article (and not only the lead paragraph). If that would have happened those users would understand that such a statement in the lead would not be in harmony with the rest of the article.

(if not convinced) requested those users to at least discuss the sentence they wish to insert prior to the insertion

All the response I got was in my opinion commonplaces, such as “denying or attempting to obscure their Armenian provenance” ,“No serious scholar questions this basic fact about the Hamshens”, “Turkish nationalist propagandists “.

Relevant diffs in chronological order: [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18].

Admin Involvement:

Messages of the banning Administrator to me in my and his talk pages indicates that he has not noticed :

My explanations and requests for discussion in the edit summaries.

That the “reference” of the sentence in question is used on numerous places in the body of the article.Hence it is not removed.

That I have not claimed that there is consensus to “remove” but on the contrary requested discussion before changing longstanding stable lead.

Conclusions:

Due to above the “Ban” is not fair. It deprives me of using Wikipedia rules to influence the Article I am interested in. Also, Hemshin has no relation to Azerbaijan. This article is presumably considered under the rules of WP:ARBAA2 due to the mere fact that the users inserting the controversial sentence are involved therein.

Statement by EdJohnston

Cihsai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This saga began when MarshalBagramyan left a note on my talk:

Hi Ed. Can you please take a look at editor Cihsai. Through the course of this year, he has edited no other article besides the Hemshin peoples and has made no other contribution to it beside removing/reverting a crucial part of the lead, which states that the Hemshin people are believed to have an Armenian origin and which is well sourced. He has carried out the same edit time and time again and has obliquely referred to a "discussion on the talk page", which he has never bothered to make a contribution. I, along with other editors, have reverted such disruptive edits but he persists in making the reverts. I think some sort of action is necessary here and I'd appreciate any help in dealing with this matter. Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

By checking the article, I verified that Cihsai had been reverting the Hemshin peoples article with no discussion, altogether about 12 times since December 2012. Here is the note I left for User:Cihsai on 6 November. This message was hoping to persuade him to engage in discussion about the possible Armenian origin of the Hemshin peoples before reverting again:

Hello Cihsai. Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Editor Cihsai. You may respond there if you wish. It appears that you have been constantly reverting a mention of Armenians from the lead of this article, for example here. If you have a reason for doing this, one would expect you to present it on the article's talk page. There are no posts by you on the talk page since 2008. The background for this issue is the WP:ARBAA2 arbitration case, which I can explain if you are curious. If you don't choose to respond, you'll probably be getting a formal warning under that case. Trying to force your point of view into the article by reverting is unlikely to work in any article that is subject to arbitration. You need to have reasons and you need to persuade the other editors. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cihsai made a response to my notice which I didn't find convincing. After issuing an ARBAA2 warning, I offered these further suggestions:

You have not participated at Talk:Hemshin since 2008. Yet here you are on 6 November 2013 in this diff where you remove a claim about Armenian origin at the same time as you remove the reference which was intended to support it. If you don't believe that Simonian's book on the Hemshin is a good reference for the claim of Armenian origin, you could try asking for an opinion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In the past year you have reverted the lead 12 times. This looks to be a case of long-term edit warring. If anyone agreed with you, you would not be the only one removing this material. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After this exchange, Cihsai did leave a comment on talk on 14 November, but he did not wait to persuade the other editors on the talk page. He just went ahead and reverted the lead again on 24 November, 2013. At that point I decided to topic ban him from WP:ARBAA2. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Cihsai

Cihsai, please notify all of the editors you have mentioned by name of this appeal for their comments, and I ask that those comments be brief and on point.--Tznkai (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their contributions show that Cihsai is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting a particular point of view about the Hemshin peoples through edit-warring. That is quite sufficient basis for discretionary sanctions (see in particular WP:EW and Wikipedia:ARBAB#Single purpose accounts). The article is within the topic area for which WP:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions authorizes discretionary sanctions, because the text Cihsai wants to remove concerns the possible Armenian origin of the Hemshin peoples. Although I might have scoped the ban to concern the Hemshin peoples only, its broader scope makes no practical difference because Cihsai has not edited about anything else. For these reasons, I would decline the appeal, but recommend that future sanctions are not explained in such a way that one might think that they were also made because of the content of the problematic edits, which would have been inadmissible under most circumstances. Sandstein 23:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Cihsai

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Arthur Rubin

Arthur Rubin is blocked for a week. Sandstein 13:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Arthur Rubin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: - Mr X 16:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement#Arthur Rubin topic-banned

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1 December 2013 Attempted proxy editing in violation of WP:PROXYING.
5 December 2013 Talk page comment about the reliability of a source.
6 December 2013 Further talk page comment about the reliability of a source, after being warned about the TBan restriction.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required - not required, but included to demonstrate that a good faith effort was made to avoid this forum)

Warned on 1 December 2013 by RL0919 (talk · contribs)
Warned on 5 December 2013 by MilesMoney (talk · contribs)
Warned on 6 December 2013 by MrX (talk · contribs)
Warned on 7 December 2013 by MilesMoney (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The attempted proxy editing speaks for itself. Arthur Rubin's comments at Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers seem to be prohibited by the ARBCOM sanction in the Tea Party Movement case. The article falls within the scope of "all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed" inasmuch as the article contains cited references to the Koch's involvement with the Tea Party (here; second paragraph; two citations) and here ("An organization with ties to the Koch Brothers,[36] Freedom Partners, gave grants worth a total of $236 million to conservative organizations, including Tea Party groups like the Tea Party Patriots..."; three citations. In the past, Arthur Rubin has been involved in talk page discussion in which the connection between the Koch's and the Tea Party movement were discussed, for example Fred and the John Birch Society. There are reliable sources that clearly make a connection between the Koch's and the Tea Party that are not currently cited in the article.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Arthur Rubin

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Arthur Rubin

My apologies. Although the paragraph in question has no connection to the TPm, the article does, so I shouldn't be making comments about it. I'll keep that in mind in the future. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

@Georgewilliamherbert - There are no other articles or cases that I am aware of, nor should that be a requirement. I am very concerned that an TBanned editor, admin and ARBCOM candidate would ask Arzel, who was involved in the same (Tea Party Movement) ARBCOM case, to edit by proxy in violation of WP:PROXYING. Note also that Arthur Rubin seems to have ignored all four warnings, and only acknowledged the violation after this enforcement request was opened. A simple "official warning" is necessary, but far from sufficient given his transparent attempt to GAME the system.- Mr X 17:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest for Knowledge: This is not the venue for appealing an ARBCOM decision. Perhaps you should open your own request so that you don't inadvertently disrupt this very specific request for enforcement. Thanks. - Mr X 04:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I do not believe the Political activities of the Koch brothers article falls entirely within the scope of the Tea Party arbitration case as their political activities predate the Tea Party. That said, although the talk page comments in question do not explicitly concern the Tea Party, the fact the Koch brothers were funding Tea Party candidates in some fashion in2012 probably means details about any activities during the 2012 election should be generally considered within the scope of the discretionary sanctions. Since it is a bit on the edge, I do not think there should be any action taken against Rubin for those comments. As to the proxy editing, he did pull back from that so I think it should not be considered either. He should be strongly advised against further such actions in the future but that is all.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK, only ArbCom can lift an arbitration remedy. The AE admins can only review sanctions imposed through AE.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The decision explicitly says the topic ban is to be appealed to ArbCom. Generally, only discretionary sanctions are appealed at AE. I am not sure of any case where arbitration remedies can be appealed to AE.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

I think it would be helpful to take a step back and re-examine why the sanctions against Arthur Rubin were enacted in the first place. ArbCom found that this editor had "repeatedly edit warred". However, they only found 4 diffs([19], [20], [21], [22] spanning the course of 5 months (February 17, 2013 to July 16, 2013). In what crazy, bizarre world are 4 diffs over 5 months considered edit-warring? That's less than one revert per month for heaven's sake. If we sanctioned every editor who ever reverted another editor less than once a month, there would be precious few of use left to edit. Never mind the fact that many editors consider WP:BRD to be a best practice.
I opened an RfC regarding this crazy decision and not a single member of the community agreed with it and not a single member of ArbCom was willing to defend it.[23]
Therefore, I respectfully ask that AE re-examine this sanction, do the right thing and remove it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX:@The Devil's Advocate: ArbCom sanctions can be appealed at AE per the AE header instructions: "Arbitration decisions may provide that appeals against sanctions imposed under the decision are to be appealed to this noticeboard or to another community forum." These particular sanctions imposed by ArbCom have absolutely no basis in policy and fly in the face of community consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Broadly construed is right...perhaps overly broad. While the evidence posted by MrX indicates Arthur isn't following the Tban remedy perfectly, it's still a stretch to say he is actually in violation. So is Arthur and the others that are Tbanned supposed to avoid all articles that have even the most peripheral mention of anything related to the Tea Party? In essence that appears to be the case. So that would mean all alleged members of the Tea Party, any group or entity that has ever had any affiliation like fund raising or open support of the Tea Party and even persons and groups that are opposed to the Tea Party...maybe had the arbitration committee been a lot less vague on this matter, it would have been a lot clearer to all when a real violation has occurred.--MONGO 06:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think its important that Arthur and all those that have been topic banned from anything "broadly construed" to the Tea Party movement should now know that this means more than 500 articles are off limits...articles such as Morgan Freeman (since he thinks the Tea Party is racist[24], nevermind that they have Herman Cain and endorsed Tim Scott [25]...Arthur, big no-no to edit those articles as a heads up!), Ronald Reagan, Immigration reduction in the United States and United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2012 to name but a few. While the actions of the Koch family and their conservative sponsorship has been well known for years, the Tea Party movement is but the latest of a long list of conservative causes they have sponsored and endorsed....so what. Should Arthur stay away form anything broadly construed to be even tangetially related to the Tea Party movement...yes, looks that way and I'm sure he will do that within reason, but that really narrows the pot and if sanctioned here, then that opens up doors for even more peripheral rationales to implement sanctions.--MONGO 16:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the discretionary sanctions boilerplate to the Political activities of the Koch brothers article just now [26], but I'm not an admin so I don't know if I can do this. That boilerplate is now on the page, but it would be pretty easy to miss it....as dense as I am I would want the thing to flash red lights or something.--MONGO 21:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RL0919

I tried advising Arthur that he was playing with fire (one diff is in MrX's report, here's another), but he kept at it. He clearly knows, and knew at the time he made some of the edits, that he he has been doing things that could be subject to enforcement action. Not acting will simply tell him to keep going. Not acting because he is running for ArbCom would be even worse, since it would announce to other sanctioned editors that a run for ArbCom provides a free window (of over a month) for ignoring their sanctions. Count yourselves blessed that the election ends minutes from now, so you can avoid the issue of disqualifying him during the vote. As for any election steps after that, there are others who can figure out what the impact is if 1) he meets the voting threshold, and 2) any block is still in place when results are announced and/or he would have to take office.

@A Quest For Knowledge: The decision in the relevant case specifically says that the topic ban "may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case." I don't see anything to indicate the decision allows for appeals here, and certainly not for this particular sanction at this time.

@MONGO: For the sake of argument, let's say the topic ban does affect over 500 articles. That leaves over 4.4 million non-redirect articles, and millions of other pages, on which Arthur can fully participate. If it were plausible that he didn't know a page he edited was connected to the topic, I would be sympathetic, but that isn't the case here. --RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Goethean

Back in September, Arthur Rubin stated that "...part of the problem with this article is certain editors state that topics are related to the TPm without credible evidence."[27] [28] [29]
He also edited Political activities of the Koch brothers on Sept 14 and 16, once to revert a banned editor and once to replace material removed from the article.[30][31] — goethean 18:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Arthur Rubin

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Are there any other articles or incidents related to the ban? This by itself seems like it's about worthy of only an official notification to confirm Arthur's acknowledgement that the article should be off limits going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Striking, recusing - possible appearance of involvement or conflict of interest with another Arbcom candidate in this election. Forgot temporarily that he was running. My apologies. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur should be reminded that edits like this one to User talk:Arzel are forbidden by the language of WP:TBAN, since he is saying that his ban prevents him from editing the article but he wants someone else to do it. It would also make sense for us to add the banner {{Discretionary sanctions|topic=tpm}} at Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers, to be sure that people know it is in the scope of the Tea Party sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disinclined to let Arthur off with a slap on the wrist. He fails to address all the issues raised by MrX, and the request to another editor to theoretically circumvent his topic ban should not be excused.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Bbb23 here. The request for proxy editing was a blatant violation, as a topic ban forbids all editing regarding the topic in question in any namespace, except for a few limited exceptions. Requesting that someone else make an edit is certainly not one of those exceptions. Given several violations and repeated warnings, I think a stronger measure than yet another warning is in order. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Just saw GWH's edit, and I forgot that too. I'll recuse from this one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that enforcement action would be appropriate. Arthur Rubin's acknowledgment of his error in his response might allow us to overlook the edit of 5 December, but not the attempt at proxy editing of 1 December which makes mention of the topic ban, and also not the talk page comment of 6 December, which occurred after he was warned about his ban. Considering that the enforcement provision allows blocks of up to a month for first infractions, and that we face two (or three) cases of wilful violations of a sanction, I think that a two-week block is appropriate. Sandstein 19:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: I'd rather avoid the complexities of blocking a current Arbcom candidate. Since the election is over at 23:59 on December 9 maybe we can postpone any decision till then. Arthur's edits are unlikely to create havoc and chaos in the intervening time. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The results are not out until a week later, however. --Rs chen 7754 21:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that if we wait until after the election, GWH and Seraphimblade can unrecuse themselves?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ah... I would think it cleaner to stay recused, just on general principle. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with GWH. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the repercussions of blocking Arthur before December 9? What would be the repercussions of blocking Arthur after December 9 but before the results are announced?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought Arthur might perhaps be let off with a warning on this occasion, since he appears to be contrite, but if there's a consensus to block, I don't see why the fact that he happens to be a candidate for Arbcom should be considered an obstacle. Gatoclass (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think the election matters here; it's not as though there is any rule that candidacy provides immunity from sanctions. In reply to A Quest for Knowledge, AE may under certain circumstances hear appeals against sanctions enforcing a Committee decision, but the decision itself is not subject to appeal, as the Committee is the final dispute resolution authority (see WP:AP). As concerns whether the article Political activities of the Koch brothers is related to the Tea Party movement, "broadly construed", a Google search for "tea party koch brothers" yields some 1 million results, and it's apparent from the search results that the political activities of the Koch brothers are related to the Tea Party movement in some way. Sandstein 08:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked people can't run for Arbcom. The question is whether the closing admin's decision here might affect the outcome of the election. ("An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who: ... is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans... "). EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein and with Gatoclass about the ArbCom issue. Arthur met the criteria for running at the time he submitted his candidacy. If he is blocked, I suppose it would be up to the Election Committee whether his candidacy must be withdrawn. Even if he is blocked later but before he took office (if elected), it could be a problem that someone would have to sort out. Putting aside the procedural complexities, I think it would be wrong for us not to block him or to delay blocking him if there's a consensus for the block. It's not whether there would be further disruption. There are issues of transparency and trust (not that I'm claiming any "bad" motives on Ed's part as I understand this is a complicated issue, just expressing my views).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein has asked for a two-week block. Though I'm neutral on that, if it's a block that also prevents him from succeeding as a candidate, then it's a bigger sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you neutral on the duration or the block itself?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has turned into a sort of ethical dilemma. Some admins appear to believe that any consideration of the effect of the block on the election might be considered to be improper. Since I can't say whether I agree with that or not, I won't comment further. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the voting has now closed in the Arbcom election, I suggest that the admins here can go ahead and close this however they prefer. Due to the passage of time it now seems unlikely that a block would be seen as disqualifying the candidate. Simply being a candidate for office should not be a protection against sanctions. Since Arthur is an admin you'd think he would know the rules about topic bans. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue now is whether there is a consensus for a block. Two of us, Sandstein and I, favor a block. Just so it's clear, the two-week block suggested by Sandstein is fine with me (I might have been amenable to a shorter block had Arthur returned after his one short statement to address some of the stated concerns). No one has opposed a block. I don't see Gatoclass or EdJohnston expressly opposing or supporting a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's not really the issue, as AE actions don't require consensus. It's just that I haven't had the time for the AE block paperwork yet, but anyone is free to go ahead if they do have the time. Sandstein 23:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a block also. Whichever admin closes this will hopefully summarize the grounds for the block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support a block. The apology is enough for the edits of December 5-6, and I think a simple warning about disengaging from the topic area fully would suffice to take care of the violation in the December 1 post. NW (Talk) 02:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking NuclearWarfare's comment into consideration, I'm closing this request with a one-week block. Because Arthur Rubin's statement does not address the attempted proxy editing of December 1, I believe that a block rather than a warning is required in order to effectively deter Arthur Rubin from future noncompliance of that kind. Furthermore, the enforcement provision does not mention warnings, but allows blocks up to a month for first infractions. I understand this to mean that the Committee considers a mere warning to be insufficient by way of an enforcement action. Sandstein 13:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barleybannocks

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Barleybannocks

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Barleybannocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Pseudoscience_2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

00:26, 15 December 2013 "I am opposing your statement of generally considered pseudoscience because it is based on a minority of sources which say pseudoscience, and ignores the majority of sources which say science" - denial of Rupert Sheldrake's works as being generally considered pseudoscience.
D06:29, 16 December 2013 The user was questioned about whether or not they were really positing that Sheldrakes works were not generally considered pseudoscience, and reminded that AE applied]
12:18, 16 December 2013 "It's not my position, it's what the sources say."

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on 00:49, 18 November 2013 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs)
D06:29, 16 December 2013 The user was questioned about whether or not they were really positing that Sheldrakes works were not generally considered pseudoscience, and reminded that AE applied]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The article Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has come under attack by a number of SPA and pseudoscience pushing accounts after Sheldrake recently made public comments about the article no longer presenting his ideas in the unquestioned fashion that he preferred. One of those SPAs is Barleybannocks. The user's refusal to come to terms with the fact that Sheldrake's work is widely considered pseudoscience (see [32] ) appears to be at the basis of their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editing on the talk page which makes it impossible to make any progress on the article and helps create Walls of Text that drive other more moderate editors away. Request that the user be banned from editing any pseudoscience articles or topics, broadly construed. (although the ban may only be needed for Rupert Sheldrake broadly construed as they are an SPA who have not touched any other articles.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per iantresman, all the others that hold that Sheldrake's work is not generally considered pseudoscience should also be banned from the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie: and @Richwales: does the utter lack of support that there is anything wrong with the article in these recent notice board discussions [[33]] (which was archived before yet another futile trip to the BLPN Wikipedia:BLPN#Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake) impact whether there should be a specific RfC about the article?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: and @The Devil's Advocate: - I am not suggesting they be banned "because they do not agree with me". I am suggesting that they be banned for the TE of filling up pages and pages of archives trying to suggest that an article that is under the PSEUDOSCIENCE arbcom sanctions is not "generally considered pseudoscience". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, The comment was originally made partly in jest in response to iantresman's apparent suggestion that because multiple people making the same inane push there was somehow mitigating circumstances to allow TE pushing by Barleybannocks to go unquestioned.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[34]

Discussion concerning Barleybannocks

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Barleybannocks

@User:MastCell I note below that mastcell said I don't have any insight into why my behaviour was wrong. He's right, I don't. Largely because nobody here will explain it. With my lack of understanding in mind, then, I will set out a few thoughts about talk pages and then the senior representatives of Wikipedia below can explain why I am mistaken. I thought talk pages were for talking/discussing the content of the article, which is ALL that I have used them for. Others, however, use them for different reasons. TRPoD, for example, uses them to berate people in an abusive manner. Here,[35], here [36] and here [37] Or to engage in BLP-violating abuse of the subject of the article. Here, for example [38] This has all been reported to administrators but no action was taken. Once again, then, I would be grateful for an explanation of how TRPoD's editing is conducive to a constructive dialogue about the content of the article and why my editing is so very very wrong that I need to be banned for an indefinite period? If all that's required to be a good editor is that I speak to people in a foul manner and fill up talk pages with abuse about the subject of the article then I will set aside my natural politeness and comply. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to strike through my previous comment but couldn't so I'll leave it there as is. Below there seemed to be some confusion about the action here. Reading through it I see a lot of general commentary, some saying the action itself is raised wrongly, but very little in the way of specifics and certainly no clarification for me, a newish user, on what any of it means in a real sense - that is, in practice, as opposed to simply pointing at some words in policy which clearly don't mean what they ordinarily do. The issue, then, is that TRPoD was fairly clear about the reasons for this action: it is that I felt sources did not support the general categorisation of the subject matter of an article (eg, a man, his scientific theories and his philosophical views) as psuedoscience to the extent that Astrology is so regarded, and that by refusing to edit the article in line with that editors' source-contradicted opinion I was breaching some policy or other. I would be grateful for some specific statement about the EXACT nature of my offence here; some evidence of it being committed; and some explanation of Wikipedia's attitude to well-sourced reliable and relevant information being excluded from a BLP. Thanks Barleybannocks (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t intend to offer any defence because I don’t think a defence is necessary. Instead I would like to ask the adjudicators here a few specific questions, and I would be very grateful for some specific answers.

1. Is Wikipedia primarily supposed to reflect: a) what reliable sources say; or b) can multiple reliable sources be overridden by a few editors’ opinions?

2. If the answer to the above question is (b), then should this not be made much clearer in policy etc, because as things stand they give the impression that Wikipedia should primarily be a reflection of what reliable sources say? (I would not, for example, have argued as I had had I known this was the case and had it been made clearer in policy/guidelines etc.)

3. If the answer to the first question is (a), then why is it inappropriate to say that “Sheldrake’s work has received a small degree of support from academics” in light of the following sources which are a sample of sources supporting/showing both the fact of, and the content of, some of Sheldrake’s academic support?

Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia:

David F. Haight, [39] Professor of Philosophy at Plymouth State University writing in The Scandal of Reason, published by the University Press of America says, “that Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields have been taken seriously by more physicists than biologists is to be expected.” [40]

Bryan Appleyard, writing in the Sunday Times (a source already used in the article) says “Morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported”.[41]

Adam Lucas, [42] writing in 21.C says that “of all the scientific journals, New Scientist has undoubtedly been the most supportive of Sheldrake, having published a number of sympathetic articles on formative causation over the years." And this: "when he has not been ignored, however, Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise."

But are these sources true? Yes, as it happens, here are some scientists and academics who have supported Sheldrake’s work:

Nobel Laureate in Physics Brian David Josephson writing in Nature.[43]

Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder writing in Psychology Today.[44]

Menas Kafatos, the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University – Huffington Post [45]

Stuart Hameroff Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona – Huffington Post [46]

Rudolph E. Tanzi,[47] Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital – Huffington Post [48]

Neil Theise,[49] Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York – Huffington Post [50]

All four of the above wrote a letter, published in the Huffington Post supporting the scientific content of Sheldrake’s TEDx talk (which included a discussion of morphic resonance) and about which they say "there was not a hint of bad science in it". Hameroff also said that Sheldrake’s work could be accounted for by his own theory of consciousness developed in association with Roger Penrose

Further scientific/academic support for Sheldrake.

David Bohm FRS, who collaborated with Sheldrake on connection between his implicate order and Sheldrake’s morphic resonance with a dialogue published in the peer-reviewed journal ReVision

Hans-Peter Durr Physicist, who wrote about Sheldrake’s work in connection with quantum Physics

Theodore Roszak Professor Emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay writing in New Scientist [51]

Mary Midgley writing in the Guardian [52]

Paul Davies Physics professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science

John Gribbin Atrophysicist, and a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex

A final point

One other WP:DEADHORSE I have been flogging is that Sheldrake is a biologist and this well known (and extraordinarily well-sourced) fact should not be removed from the first sentence of the lede as it constantly is, [53] contra BLP and clear Wikipedia precedence. If needed I can provide 100 reliable sources for this from every conceivable type of source/individual/institution. Here are four from the New York Times alone which, I believe, are not included in the more than 25 currently cited on talk. [54] [55] [56] [57]

All in all, then, I feel I have been arguing for the inclusion of a few well sourced points, and the amount of discussion on the talk page generated is purely a function of the total disregard for sources of some of the editors there. I await your responses to the questions above.

Please note this is not a point about content per se, but about Wikipedia policy as regards content using this as an example.

Thank you.

Statement by Barney the barney barney

I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs). We have been extremely patient with this SPA, who continues to insist on some kind of exception from the WP:REDFLAG issues with this article that result in WP:FRINGE according to any WP:COMMONSENSE approach. Every flaming discussion meanwhile descends into a discussion in which Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) repeatedly raises the same old tired long-refuted criticisms, e.g. he makes a claim that "morphic resonance" is scientifically supported. He is asked to provide citations to peer reviewed journals. He can't. He is told that without these citations there is no scientific support for Sheldrake. In another thread, he makes a claim that "morphic resonance" is scientifically supported. There are a group of consensus builders on this article, which I believe include Vzaak (talk · contribs), Jzg (talk · contribs), TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs), Roxy the dog (talk · contribs), QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk · contribs) and Bobrayner (talk · contribs). Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) is out of this group. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph removed by an administrator for containing unsupported accusations of misconduct. The editor has been warned. Sandstein 22:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further point This edit, starting with a clearly loaded question, followed by a lecture to a "senior editor" (Barley bannock (talk · contribs)'s words not mine), clearly show that Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) still doesn't get the points we have repeatedly made to him. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by iantresman

Barleybannocks does not disagree with Arb/PS and has stated many times, that he accepts that some scientists consider Sheldrake's work to be pseudoscience, and is happy to describe it as such.[58][59][60] He (and other editors) merely disagrees with how to quantify it. TRPoD and other editors are confusing disagreement with dissent.

Barleybannocks is not alone in his position, and there are several other editors who support the same view. But most editors have stopped discussing the article because of the difficulty in making progress, AE threats[61][62][63][64][65] (see also "Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors", and offensive editing behavior[66][67][68][69][70]

I should mention that I have not edited the article for nearly 2 years, and of the edits I made before then, I haved include a quote consistent with Arb/PS (that Maddox considered Shelrake's work to be pseudoscience), and all my edits are still in the article (ie. I have a 100% editing record). I also feel I have also been intimidated by other editors[71] including adminstrators[72] that I robustly rebutted despite there being not one diff in support of the allegation. --Iantresman (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Richwales: Barleybannocks has support from a larger group of "consensus builders", that in my opinion includes: myself iantresman (talk · contribs), Askahrc (talk · contribs), Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs), David in DC (talk · contribs), 74.192.84.101 (talk · contribs), Tom Butler (talk · contribs), ~~Tumbleman (talk · contribs) (banned)~~ and Lou Sander (talk · contribs). Other editors who have been involved include Liz (talk · contribs), Nigelj (talk · contribs), Olive (talk · contribs) and wnt (talk · contribs). If any editor feels I have misrepresented them here, I will happily strike their name. --Iantresman (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Barney I would be grateful, that if you are going to copy someone else's allegations, that you back up the original allegations with original diffs (per WP:WIAPA), or strike them. --Iantresman (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators. In my nearly 10 years on Wikipedia, why is it that no-one requests allegations to be substantiated with diffs?

My recent WP:AN case[73] was supported with no diffs, and none were forthcoming on request.
My Community Ban[74] was support by no diffs, a fact noted in the discussion by me and at least two other editors.
My recent Discretion Sanction[75] include no diffs of any edits by me.

For someone with my alleged notoriety, editors should be spoilt for choice of diffs demonstrating misconduct and improper edits. That there are none, and worse, not asked for, is grossly unfair, can be solved trivially, and would circumvent the need to wade through dozens of unsubstantiated and potentially unreliable comments. If any of you were the targets of allegation of misconduct, you'd rightly request and expect them. --Iantresman (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie The only possible issue with an RfC is (1) how it is phrased, and (2) where it is announced. I would imagine that there would be a different outcome depending on whether it was announced only at WP:FTN, or only at WP:PARA. If an RfC were made, I would suggest that it is announced in neither of these locations, and restricted to only WP:NPOVN, and perhaps WP:RSN. --Iantresman (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@vzaak: As someone actively taking part in the talk page discussion, you will have seen the WP:AE notification (permalink) on the same page. The editors I notified were those I mentioned specifically in my post. If it's any consolation, no-one notified me either. I am also not " topic-banned from other areas of pseudoscience", and would be grateful if you would strike this from your comment. --Iantresman (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell:-

So that Barleybannocks and other editors can also assess them too, could you provide some of the diffs you found describing (a) Barleybannocks' "strong personal viewpoint", (b) Non-neutral edits/discussion.
Although half the editors commenting thought otherwise, could you comment on why you thought opposing editors' strong personal viewpoint, and their edits, are not equally problematic? --Iantresman (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@vzaak: The Journal of Consciousness Studies did not "abandoned peer-review for its issue on Sheldrake"[76] but chose to use "open peer review" as trialled by Nature.[77] Despite a similar suggestion by TRPoD[78] in a thread(parmalink) you were part of, this is misleading, biased, and discrediting, violating WP:NPOV --Iantresman (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Editors may wish to review WP:DISRUPTSIGNS in order to provide diffs demonstrating disruptive editing, not to be confused with intensive discussion. --Iantresman (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbitrators. I am uneasy that some Arbitrators are making blanket claims of "Barleybannocks's disruption" without providing any examples or diffs. I am pleased that some have requested diffs concerning other editors. I hope that the case will stay open long enough for editors to see what they can find. --Iantresman (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe. Removed by an administrator as a discussion about content. Please limit statements to pertinent submissions of evidence about editor conduct. Sandstein 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein How can you allow an editor to make a comment involving content, but remove[79] the reply that contradicts it? I specifically noted that it was consistent with WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, and provided the sources to backup my statement. --Iantresman (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Dealt with elsewhere. --Iantresman (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe Unfortunately I am not allowed to discuss content further, which I addressed in my now-deleted post. Looks like you can have your cake and eat it. --Iantresman (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@74 At your request, I have removed Tumbleman from the list of "consensus" editors above, although I actually disagree, but he is not here to speak for himself. I felt his discussions were reasoned and constructive, and his infinite ban was out of proportion to his actual socking. --Iantresman (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc As noted by 40% of the editors, ie., myself, talk, Littleolive oil, Tom Butler, Liz, Alfonzo Green and 74, it is not that one-sided. Please give me some extra time to find some diffs demonstrating WP:DISRUPTSIGNS by other editors (we have day jobs!) --Iantresman (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein. I had requested that Barney the barney barney should either provided diffs, or strikethough his allegations against me, which you endorsed per WP:ASPERSIONS. It may be just an oversight, and of no consequence to anyone else, but it is an important per WP:WIAPA. --Iantresman (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell, I would be grateful if you would answer my query above. Callanecc stated that "like Sandstein, at first thought the supplied diffs were quite benign", so clearly you have all found some relevant information; would you all please provide the diffs, it is only fair to Barleybannocks, and makes this process more transparent and accountable. --Iantresman (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, (1) now that you have taken action against Barleybannocks, and echoing my comment to MastCell, I would still to see the diffs which contributed towards the decision. (2) I will have the diffs that Arbitrators have requested regarding other editors, this evening. --Iantresman (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs suggesting signs of disruption

I offer some diffs and discussion which suggest consistency with WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. As it is a little wordy, I've stuck it in a collapse box, but wanted to provide as much useful explanation as possible. Hopefully it is without prejudice, a concept I hope that everyone is familiar.

Summary with diffs

1. Re: sokal affair (permalink). See also, the current text in the article "In scientific and popular culture"(p) where the criticism is on Sokal's paper, not Sheldrake's work.

The "sokal affair" section begins well. After Barleybannocks makes an edit in the article[80] minutes later, he provides the first explanation on the talk page (explaining the inadvertent association fallacy)[81] and later why it is wrong in a BLP (see "Balance" and the comment on Guilt by Associate). The discussion begins to go wrong when:

Guy accuses Barleybannocks that he "refuses to even countenance compromise by suggesting an alternative quote .. one more black mark against you"[82], contradicted by BB in the previous comment, that he had made tweaks[83][84] that were changed by Barney.[85]. Guys comment is incivil and uncalled for.
It gets worse. Next Guy accused BB that he does "not to understand what compromise means", and "inserted different wording," and of taking ownership.[86]. You can't have it both ways, ask an editor to provide alternative wording, and then complaint when they do. This is unreasonable and incivil.
It gets worse. Later, Guy accused BB that "Your 'compromise' is obdurate refusal to compromise. You are now on notice."[87] To describe a good faith attempt to compromise an "obdurate refusal" not to, is misleading and unfair. Then to put an editor on notice while involved with the same article[88] based on misleading reasons, must be an abuse of Administrator privilige.

Later editor Andreas suggests an edit[89] which BB is quite happy with, and explains why.[90]

It appears to me that BB is making good faith attempts to improve this part of the article, and doing so with appropriate discussion and reasoning. I haven't even mentioned the changes that Barney was making behing the scenes[91][92][93] with no attempt to engage in the talk page discussion, and with the apparent blessing of Guy who had been made aware of Barney's edits by BB, twice.[94][95]

2. Re: Sheldrake 2. Callanecc pointed us towards this discussion,[96] and I'd like to limit my comments to the first post initiated by Guy.

The entire post by Guy is consistent with WP:ASPERSIONS, containing several allegation, and not one single supporting diff. The effort required to fact check the contents is oneous and disrupting to anyone wish to carry on editing. It violates WP:WIAPA "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence [that] often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."
Guy suggests that "The problem with barley's edits is that he asserts that his bias is neutrality .. Barley is here to support Sheldrake,". How do we know (a) BB is here to support Sheldrake, (b) the support will result in bias, rather than fairness (c) that other editors opinions will also not result in inappropriate bias?
Some of logic in the post is quite fallacious. "You know that SPAs usually have a deep commitment to a POV" .. "the fact that he's a WP:SPA", from which we are lead to conclude that ALL SPA, and hence BB have a (biased) POV? This is fallacious and misleading.
"I'm an OTRS volunteer, so I am comfortable that when I judge the biographical element to be compliant with WP:BLP I am right. Barley doesn't seem to accept that," So can BB claim to be right if he's a Red Cross volunteer and read lots of biographies? We don't know what editing experience he has.

I was also on the receiving end of Guy's Admin stick[97], with the same pattern of a lot of unsubstantiated allegations. My firm rebuttal, with diffs!, is a substantial disruption to my usual editing, and my polite request for some diffs was not forthcoming.

I had a similar incident from Barney, see "User_talk:Iantresman#Barney_objections Barney objections"(P)

3. Re: "Supporters & Fans". The continued description by some editors of others as Sheldrake/fringe/pseudoscience supporters/fans, is never substantiated (ie. it is presumed), and has only one use: to try and discredit editors by suggesting a conflict of interest, or by association. It has no constructive editorial value to make such comments, and is a personal attack "regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream" (even if they are true!) per WP:WIAPA, and hence consistent with WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

See examples in my comments to "@Carcharoth & Roger Davies" here[98]
See more examples by Barney.[99]

Likewise, questioning another editor's competence is equally insulting, and a personal attack (address the comment, not the editor). Imagine your Admin decisions caused editors to questions your competency!:-

"Looks like a pretty clear case of WP:COMPETENCE issues leading to WP:POV pushing. This is fairly typical of Sheldrake's fans"[100]
"Clear competency issues here."[101]
"You are either incompetent or trolling"[102]
"this demonstrates a lack of basic WP:COMPETENCE"[103]
"This is clearly either stupidity or incompetence"[104]
"If you aren't competent enough to see where a scientist is judging content for the lack of its scientific basis, then you should probably not be in this conversation"[105]
"If you think facts can't be falsified, you are not competent enough to be editorializing here."[106]
""Are you incapable of rational thought? You cannot be that stupid" "[107]

--Iantresman (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Askahrc

I'm sorry, but is the standard for disruption simply having a different opinion? No actual misconduct was demonstrated, and as far as I can tell the only accusation is that Barleybannocks does not agree with tRPoD's opinions. For crying out loud, there wasn't even a clear policy that was supposedly violated, but rather Barleybannocks is up for blocking because tRPoD doesn't think he believes Sheldrake is pseudoscience, despite the fact he's done nothing abusive with that opinion.

Guess what, editors are allowed to think whatever they want, and if you disagree with it, too bad! Make your argument and see what the evidence, policies and community lead to, but you don't have the right to declare what opinions are permissible. If they're abusive with their bias, that's one thing, but trying to ban someone because you feel they don't have the right to their opinion is unacceptable and unwarranted. The fact that tRPoD went on to proclaim that anyone who doesn't agree with him/her that Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist should be blocked is a shockingly repugnant statement. (let's dispense with hiding behind some extra-contextual comment of iantresman)

What was all that people said in my ArbReq about there not being any intimidation or bullying on the Sheldrake page? tRPoD, you've done a lot of productive work over the years and were the first person to welcome me to WP; it's incredibly disheartening to see how this dysfunctional page has brought out the worst in people I generally admire. The Cap'n (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wnt

In a brief period of editing from 3-15 December I tried to get rid of Rupert_Sheldrake#Notes, which seems to showcase negative arguments contrary to BLP recommended style, and to introduce a brief summary of one of his essays, which was reverted six minutes later.^[108] In the end I abandoned it as hopeless; I suspected the issue might end up here but I never expected TRPOD and Barney3 to be the ones to do that!

I am a strong proponent of "letting the subject have his say" in any biographical article by detailing the content of his writings, no matter whether that is taken by observers to be favorable or unfavorable to how he is perceived. I do not believe that WP:FRINGE prohibits us from describing what Sheldrake said. To the contrary, I see that as the primary purpose of this article! And I think that when you look closely, while some ideas he has about morphogenesis are pseudoscience in that I know of many well documented alternate explanations, his comments about other topics, such as the relation of dark energy and perpetual creation of energy, or the nature of consciousness, for which there is little if any scientific truth known, do not really stand apart from "scientific" explanations. By contrast, TRPOD has declared that an article about Sheldrake could be reorganized into

poppycock
nonsense
utter nonsense

which does not suggest to me that he is willing to give the man a fair hearing for each of his ideas.

Now I cannot speak to how the article may have been biased before, but the problem right now is that a few avowed skeptics are preventing the topic of the article from being presented (and also vowing to oppose any attempt to split off articles about the concepts Sheldrake advocates). I agree that we don't have creationism in an article about evolution, but we don't write an article about a creationist by saying "he's wrong, all wrong" a hundred times. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vzaak: When a BLP subject complains about an article, you should be cautious before dismissing his concerns. I am not part of any off-wiki push, and I have found and failed to fix notable problems. Our article should note the abundant criticism of several of his ideas, but Sheldrake should not be singled out as a "former" biochemist or defined solely as a "pseudoscientist", and his continuing publication record should be acknowledged.^[109] Nor is it Wikipedia's role to blindly dismiss and avoid coverage of all things paranormal and extraordinary. Like it or not, it is out there, and once you've seen it, you may need to consider a lot of things seriously that you used to hold beneath ridicule. Wnt (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lou Sander

Where to begin? BarleyBannocks is said to be posting too much on the talk page, maybe disrupting discussion. As I see it, he is carrying all the water for those who want to see this BLP more fairly descriptive of the man it is about. The others have been driven away by persistent bad behavior, e.g., [110] by the group that claims to be aiming for consensus. In carrying all that water, Barleybannocks is necessarily doing a lot of posting.

Rarely editing the article, Barleybannocks mostly makes polite and reasoned arguments on the talk page. Most of his posts are discussions with others about sources. Again and again he provides the sources that others demand, and again and again the others disregard them, or misread them, or in some other way diminish them. They demand that sources commenting positively about Sheldrake be from peer-reviewed journals, yet their claims of "pseudoscience" rest on lesser things, such as the comments in books by portfolio managers, cultural advisors to corporations, and non-scientist science writers.

To me, Barleybannocks seems to be working diligently toward consensus, in an environment where many others seem to be working against it. Lou Sander (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: I second the concerns of Iantresman and others that Barleybannock has not been shown through diffs to have strong personal viewpoints about Sheldrake, and that others who DO have strong personal opinions have not been called on it. IMHO, the frequent rude expression of those opinions has been an important factor in driving neutral editors away from this article. Lou Sander (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai - From the sidelines, re your question to Olive: IMHO, a shepherd with a billy stick could do a lot to fix the numerous situations where Editor A says "Provide a suggested wording (or a RS, or whatever)", and Editor B says "I did, but you're not acknowledging it", and Editor A says "you #$%@, don't you GET IT???" Lou Sander (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sandstein - As a newbie to AE forums, I think I have finally figured out that they are basically 100% about behavior and 0% about article content. That is not necessarily obvious to everyone. From what he has posted here, I'm guessing that it is not obvious to Barleybannocks. IMHO it would help things greatly if this could be made clearer (IF I have it right, of course). There is plenty of bad behavior in the Sheldrake world, typically initiated by disagreements over article content. It's easy for those who comment to focus on the wrong part of the equation. Lou Sander (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai - There are some who claim to be consensus builders: [111]. Here is a diff showing provocative behavior toward Barleybannocks by one of them: [112]. The consensus-builder calls the BLP subject "nothing but a pseudoscientific huckster". They call editors not in their own consensus-seeking group "fans", in spite of these folks' frequent assertions that they are not. This might be seen by Barleybannocks and others as a challenge by a bully. It might get responses in kind, if not for their forbearance. Lou Sander (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more discussion between some supposed anti-science and anti-Wikipedia "fans" and a consensus-builder. ("Every piece of nonsensical crap" is maybe not 100% in that vein.) Barleybannocks is involved, and IMHO not very tendentious: [113]. And here is an addition to that dialogue by another "fan": [114]. (Take it from the top. The Panpsychism stuff is on a different subject.) Lou Sander (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell - It would be VERY useful to a lot of us, (including Barleybannocks, but mostly the rest of us IMHO), if we understood in more detail just why he was banned. It is apparently obvious to some, but not so clear to others. Could somebody here explain it to us, or is there someplace we can go to learn more about it (hopefully without having to read and interpret walls of text), or is there maybe something else available???? Some of us are not exactly stupid, yet we don't grok something that is apparently obvious to others. Lou Sander (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Littleolive oil

Disclaimer: I have no position on Sheldrake one way or the other. I have a strong position on BLPs, and on railroading and removing editors one is in dispute with.

TRPOD has made at least as many comments to the talk of the Sheldrake article as has Barleybannocks or multiple other editors in that discussion. Unless AE is making a decision as to what is the accurate content, and I hope this isn't the case since that would be outside the remit of AE, then no parties on either side can be considered in this forum to be either wrong or right in their concerns about this article. Singling out any editor because they have expressed and hold an opinion that the other side considers to be wrong means AE is taking a position, is supporting one position over another and is non neutral. I agree that disputes about content should be taken to an RfC. Contentious articles require patience and the ability to understand that there is never one side to anything . Assuming so is simplistic thinking. Rather than attempting to rubber stamp WP articles with a pseudoscience or even fringe label, I'd suggest editors take the slower, more careful and more thoughtful approach-deal with every contentious edit with patience, entertaining every editor's input. If there's long term contention get outside input. This board should be for clear and obvious misbehaviur supported by accurate diffs supporting the decision. And as idealistic as it sounds, truth.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

An editor advocates removing and entire group of editors, and that rather horrendous comment in a community that is supposed to be collaborative is not a violation of an arbitration, nor are the implications of that kind of attitude discussed in terms of how that is disruptive, truly uncivil, and contributes to a poisonous talk page environment? Then an editor is sanctioned for writing too much on a talk page in a situation where a POV is so blatant that editors feel free to discuss removing editors they disagree with. I think there's something very wrong here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)([reply]
While probably not popular or even usual, and certainly idealistic; I wonder if editors who on either side of this argument, if they know, they either get along or face sanctions, and with a mediator present who can monitor the talk page and editing,whether there could be some peace on that article. This only works if all editors whose actions have not been, let's say helpful, face possible sanction. Better to retain editor input than sanction seems to me. This doesn't seem to be a one sided problem.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

- Hi Tznkai. Thank you for even considering that there might be another way of dealing with this than the usual sanction-an admin with a stick. I am asking for something that doesn't exist, but should because the present system cannot be fair. Unless, Sandstein has read through all of the article talk page, the article and its edits and the various user talk pages; he will not see what is really going on. And what is going on? Just the usual - ongoing argument about content on a contentious article, and in this case a BLP. To consider:

A very good. very mature, neutral editor aware both of what constitutes fringe and BLP left the article, not in a huff but hurt and maybe damaged by this process. That's not acceptable and points to more than one editor causing problems.

TRPOD asks for all editors on one side of this debate be sanctioned. How can such a statement be ignored when the stick falls. This points to an editor with an extreme POV. To make such a comment, he has to first delineate editors into two groups as for or against something, and in doing so, he has to be identifying what he thinks is acceptable content and then asking those who don't feel as he does to be removed. How is that kind action and thinking not hugely problematic in any discussion. How does that attitude not colour a talk page and how can that be ignored when looking for where the problems are?

An editor is at risk of a sanction based on his talk page discussion. What is the charge against him, the usual and highly nebulous tendentious editing? Who accompanied him on that journey? Are they not tendentious as well, but for another view. You can't be tendentious by yourself. Assuming one editor is arguing for something, while the others are arguing for what is right is another POV which a sanctioning admin should not have if a judgement is going to be fair.

Barney3 attempted to change the Fringe guideline recently. [115] I assume he meant well, but the changes indicate a strong POV and are changes that would impact the Sheldrake article in the midst of all of this squabbling. The changes were discussed here. [116]. Several editors, Mastcell, Dougweller (myself) did not seem to be greatly in support of the change so at this point the idea has been dropped.

What I am pointing to is a system that cannot in many instances work fairly. And anyone on Wikipedia who thinks a lack of fairness, bias and bigotry is fine and doesn't hurt the encyclopedia in a long run needs to rethink how that lack of fairness would hurt them.

Ultimately what I am describing are the elements of a squabble in which all the players have added something. Un tangling which of those somethings/additions constitutes some violation of the arbitration is difficult if not impossible.

Ludwigs2 before he left suggested a system where mediator or "sheriff" comes into a contentious article to police behaviour. While that idea did not become an active guideline, it has merit in cases like this one - the appointment of someone willing to mediate on the page, and with the backing of the AE admin. If the sherif sees problems which the combatants won't solve peacefully, back they come to AE and with an uninvolved editor who has been collecting diffs of problem users. One advantage of this is that all editors are scrutinized on the article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

To Tznkai: Thanks for considering the points above and thanks for listening. Yes, I'll keep an eye on the article and post to you any concerns. What if Barley were to voluntarily take a week long break? Wikipedia is not punitive. If the community is suggesting that a break would be to his benefit unless Wikipedia is punitive, it doesn't matter how he takes that break. There may be others who could use the break too. How mature that would be if all editors took a break voluntarily. What a show of good faith in each other and what effect would that show of good faith have on the article environment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

PS If someone else wants to take this please feel free. Definitely not attached. :O}(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

- To Callanecc : I'm surprised to see Tznkai's solution to this situation ignored. What happened to a few days article ban or if Barleybannocks is willing, he will take a break himself. Not only that, I don't see that Tznkai's solution was even considered or discussed. Perhaps I missed something. (I've checked Tznkai's talk and I don't see discussion there) If I've missed something I apologize , but I did want to make sure the best possible solution for an editor was not ignored. Finally there are indications that the problems on the article page include more than one editor. How is an indef article ban of any one editor fair or serve the article development. Again if I've missed something I apologize.(Littleolive oil (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

- To Barleybannocks. Barley i doubt you made things easier for yourself by continuing to post, but I think its important for you to expect clear answers on what you did that precipitated a sanction.

- To the admins: Wikipedia has a very set culture and a new user would probably not understand how it works and what is acceptable and what isn't. In life we tend to forget what it was like when we didn't know something or have something once we move beyond that. Had Barley been addressed directly and positions stated for him; this might have ended better. I hope in the future admins will consider asking questions first and shooting second so all editors can really understand what is going on. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Mangoe

I have to count myself involved in this though I have done very little to edit the article. At least part of the reason is because I do not have the time to deal with the torrent of words on the talk page.

Sheldrake is, rather obviously, someone who did some important work at one point but then went off on a radical new ideas kick (and some of them, most particularly the animal intuition thesis, are not at all new) in which he set himself up as a sort of Martin Luther against the Scientific Establishment. As I've had cause to say several times in these discussions, nobody seems to care all that much about anything except his scientific heresies. So if there are balance problems in that wise, all contenders are on the same (and presumably wrong) side. TO fix that, they would all have to be locked out of the article. But the real problem seems to be that there is a core group of a few editors, including Barleybannocks, who want the article to leave open the question of whether Shedrake's ideas have merit, if not actually support them. They are abetted by the usual cast of editors who try to blunt Wikipedia's negative coverage of pseudoscientific and fringe material. Naturally, WP:FT/N people (myself included) show up, generally in opposition.

What I see in BB's editing is an obvious bias, as shown in edits like this: "As it stands the article makes it appear as if Sheldrake's ideas have been subjected to scientific scrutiny and rejected. Almost nothing could be further from the truth. His ideas have, though, been ignored, and most of the criticism is not the result of any science being done but is largely opinion, often a priori, and on occasion from people who have later confessed to not even having read his work." The implication I am apparently supposed to draw is that Science hasn't passed a negative verdict on Sheldrake's theories, and that therefore we cannot consign these theories to the junk heap of bad science. This thesis pervades all of BB's discussion, with the subtext that it's really an open question as to whether science will eventually ratify his notions. Therefore every response that can be given the slightest positive spin is played up, and negative assessments (frequently by the same people) are minimized if not blatantly misrepresented.

BB's supporters are trying to cast this as a tone of discourse issue because it is certainly true that the main anti-fringe antagonists have not possessed the relentless civility of Sheldrake's supporters. But we're not here to reward nice people with control of the article, and I recall that some of the most persistent fringe pushers (see for example User:Paul Bedson) were generally quite polite. The root problem is that BB, along with others, is trying to portray Sheldrake as someone whose theories are plausible, rather than someone who is pushing ideas which are plainly pseudoscientific. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re Alfonzo Green's statement: This is a classic case of the kind of badgering the non-supporter side has had to put up with. A simple Google book search for "Sheldrake pseudoscience" provides ample evidence of the lack of regard that exists for his ideas outside the alt-med/pseudoscientific world, to the point where one can separate the sheep from the goats as to whether they say "scientists" or "some scientists". Most famously John Maddox, the editor of Nature at the time, published a scathing editorial assailing Sheldrake's ideas. There is no reason to expect that there should be long lists of people who can be cited on this, but both AG and BB incessantly hammer on the notion that we have to imply that there might be something to Sheldrake's notions because dozens upon dozens of scientists haven't taken the time to explicitly address them. The logic of this is obviously specious and would imply that we have to implicitly endorse every pseudoscientific and alt-med idea that comes along simply because large numbers of Scientists don't make room on their schedules to do rigorous rebuttals. The idea is ludicrous and its advocates need to be told to stop pushing it. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@iantresman: Removed by an administrator as a discussion about content. Please limit statements to pertinent submissions of evidence about editor conduct. Sandstein 17:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The Red Pen of Doom's statement above that essentially anyone who disagrees with him should be banned from the article is just one in a series of inappropriate comments he has made regarding this issue. In addition to this comment noted by Wnt where he responded to Barley's suggestions for re-organizing the article with some derogatory "suggestions" of his own, there is also his comment mocking Sheldrake by implying "morphic resonance" was something he came up with while high on drugs. Indeed, his initial remarks make clear his intent was to disparage Sheldrake and his ideas with such an implication.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom Butler

It is telling that, when I proposed the editors "Delete or separate theory from biography" in the article, Bareny3, one of TRPOD's solders, fired back with "Not happening..." My objective was to find a way to explain to the reader that Sheldrake's hypotheses are generally not well accepted by mainstream science while treating his BLP in a respectable way. Virtually all of the other articles in Wikipedia about a man and his/her work separate the subject from the person in multiple articles. Why is Sheldrake being treated differently?

Virtually every effort by conservative editors to balance the article by saying "This is who the man is" from "This is what mainstream scientists think of the theory" have been blocked by pretty much three editors with TRPOD out front. The impression is that this is not about a quality article but about bashing the person. "Wikipedia wants to bash the person!" is the way the public is seeing it now.

I second Lou Sander's statement that "BarleyBannocks is carrying all the water for those who want to see this BLP more fairly descriptive of the man it is about." That fact, I think, is why there has been an effort to eliminate opposing editors like him. The tactic is clearly "Do not compromise, eliminate the editors with an opposing viewpoint and stonewall until everyone gives up."

@the administrators -- I have a longtime love-hate view of Wikipedia that began when I was bullied and slandered over the Electronic voice phenomenon article. It tookk you guys years to finally block the ringleader in that battle, ScienceApologist. Of course, I fought back off wiki. Every time an editor is "purged" as TRPOD is trying to do here with BarleyBannocks, and as has been successfully done with other moderate editors involved in this article, there is at leas some pushback in the off-wiki community. That is accumulating, as witness the new book by editor Creig Weiler about the Sheldrake, TED/Wikipedia scandle.

As it is going now, the Sheldrake article is producing way too much push-back from the off-wiki community. That can be remediated with a little effort to moderate the article but that is going to take your help. Banning moderate editors, driving off editors by wearing them down and intimidation, refusing to allow a more moderate description that has been shown to have good support in fact, only fuels the push-back and further harms Wikipedia.

Please stop playing Solomon and try to keep this article from being a black eye for Wikipedia! Tom Butler (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the Administrators, please be mindful that much of BarleyBannocks' behavior can probably be attributed to a learned response due to the recalcitrance and bullying of other editors which has driven off most others. He has been patiently trying to explain a point that is simply being ignored. It is unreasonable to expect him to just give up but that is exactly the response expected by editors who stonewall. Tom Butler (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the Administrators, This seems to have turned into a lynching. What in the diffs is so compelling that you are willing to block a user who is so clearly willing to work with editors to improve the article? Compare how the article looked a few months ago with today. It is much improved as a "What it is and why, with moderate mainstream opinion" article. BarleyBannocks is much the reason for that. I can promise you that, with him gone, the article will quickly revert back to "What it is and why it is all crap".

Please explain your reasoning! What diffs? Tom Butler (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

Sheldrake's latest ideas have clearly been rejected by most scientists. And by "most" I mean "almost every single scientist".

From my observations, Barleybannocks seems to be grasping at straws to claim that there is more support for Sheldrake's ideas than there really is. Midgley's review is one of the very few positive reviews of Sheldrake's work, and Barleybannocks seems to be milking this source to give the (misleading) impression that there is support for Sheldrake.

This topic is under discretionary sanctions. Relentless advocacy and SPA-ness is supposed to be a cause for a topic ban in such topics. This behaviour is sufficient to get a topic ban. Or at least for getting a warning that will get them topic banned if they keep up the advocacy. You shouldn't wait until after good editors get burned and abandon the article. Discretionary sanctions are supposed to cut this behaviour at the root, so please use them. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by vzaak

Given the sustained push by Barleybannocks to the Sheldrake article and talk page, I had expected an eventual AE (as suggested by JzG [117]), though I did not expect it this soon. We could argue about whether there is enough WP:ROPE here, but cost of ROPE is expensive, as it ties up everyone's time.

Barleybannocks is the next SPA to show up following the extensive off-site canvassing from pro-paranormal sites (including from the subject of the article). The pattern is common: very long arguments in talk, user appears to lack a basic understanding of how science works, user doesn't get the point, user continues making tendentious edits anyway, repeat. Take for example my last conversation with Barleybannocks, from which I show the tail-end only (!) of it: [118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131] (note therein Barleybannocks accuses me of being disingenuous). In that long conversation I had been spectacularly unsuccessful in conveying to Barleybannocks the importance of not misrepresenting the scientific support for "morphic resonance" (for which there is none). Barleybannocks ignored the whole conversation and warred again to put in his change,[132] along with the absurd edit comment "this is now well established...". Contrary to the picture painted by others above, Barleybannocks has in fact edited the article extensively, and played a significant role in the lead-up to the 1RR being imposed.

Were this simply a matter of opinion among editors, we wouldn't be in AE. No, this is part of a continued push, initiated from off-wiki, to drop the pseudoscience designation in the Sheldrake article. That is, this is a push to violate WP policies. Barleybannocks explicitly states that he/she will continue pushing the point -- continue flooding the talk page and taking up the time of editors -- rather than accepting the clear consensus and moving on to some other point. This doesn't fit into the "ban dissent" metaphor that others have suggested.

Off-wiki canvassing aims to slant the article in a way that is contrary to WP policies. Wikipedia suffers when editors need to spend more time on one article being targeted from off-site. The canvassing is expected to increase with upcoming events. Whether an explicit aim or not, the effect is to exhaust the non-canvassed editors. AE should step in to prevent an article being manipulated from off-site in this way. vzaak 19:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of manipulation, I was wondering why so many of the above statements were slanted in one direction, and found Iantresman's canvassing for this AE: [133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141] I was not notified by Iantresman, nor was anyone else who doesn't share Iantresman's point of view. This should be immediately actionable. (For context see JzG's AN on Iantresman, who has been topic-banned from other areas of pseudoscience.) vzaak 20:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional diffs: Here is Barleybannocks slow-warring on content related to the conversation mentioned above.[142][143][144]. With the last diff Barleybannocks actually violated the 1RR since this is also a revert:[145][146], wherein Barleybannocks removes the fact that the Journal of Consciousness Studies abandoned peer-review for its issue on Sheldrake. (Barleybannocks replaces it with a nebulous phrase "open peer-review process", which does not communicate the important point that the regular peer review was suspended.) vzaak 23:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Liz

The evidence is talk page comments where the editor is expressing a point of view. I didn't see any diffs of actual edits to the article in question. As long as it is not offensive or hostile, editors should not be penalized for their opinions, however contrary they might be to other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, regarding your comment about single purpose accounts, does this judgment stand for SPAs who are in opposition to Sheldrake's views? Because if you look on the other side of this dispute, you will find ones that could be considered disruptive. AE should judge conduct, not points of view and use the same standards used to judge editors who hold different opinions from each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of admin JzG

You know me, I can't resist trying to fix stuff, and I am (obviously) inclined to the scientific rationalist viewpoint. However, I am also a strong advocate of WP:BLP and have suffered real-world harassment as a result of defending contentious BLPs against agenda accounts, and defending Wikipedia against angry BLP subjects. I am an OTRS volunteer, I am absolutely on top of the impact of Wikipedia on real people's real lives.

I support a topic ban at this stage. Nothing else is likely to work.

I have tried to explain to Barleybannocks (BB) how to work productively with others, how to achieve changes, the types of sources required and so on, but all I get back is a broken record. I could cite half a dozen WP:CAPITALS references, but in the end BB is a single purpose account who is here to Right Great Wrongs rather than collaborate to document the world as reliable independent sources portray it. I have several times invited BB to propose an existing para, a proposed new compromise para, and the reliable independent sources that support the change and to achieve consensus for the change, the response has been insistence that compromise is equal to accepting BB's demands in their entirety. It's all starting to feel a bit BTDT.

Our best content is written by those who can "write for the enemy" and work with people whose views are diametrically opposed. BB is the exact opposite: obdurate, perceives their own biases as neutrality, refuses to accept that any other POV is valid. As a massive time-sink that is actively preventing progress on a contentious BLP, it is time to draw a line under this one. If BB wants to help make Wikipedia great, for FSM's sake please do it somewhere else. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Alfonzo Green

BB has been no more of a broken record than TRPoD, vzaak and Barney3. All three have repeatedly violated NPOV by engaging in a dispute rather than merely reporting it. Specifically all three contend that Sheldrake's work is "generally considered pseudoscience" and that all editors working on the Sheldrake bio must operate under this condition. Yet we have only a handful of sources that make this claim. It's a fringe opinion with little support in the scientific community, of which Sheldrake is obviously a member. The vast majority of sources refer to Sheldrake as a scientist while noting that his work falls outside the mainstream of scientific theory. His most notable concept, morphic resonance, has been mostly ignored by his peers. This fact in no way implies that his peers regard it as pseudoscience. The only thing we know for sure is that his hypothesis has no bearing on the standard biochemical approach to development from the egg. So long as TRPoD, vzaak and Barney3 can revert edits that seek to restore neutrality to the Sheldrake bio, the dead horse will continue to be beaten. This problem will not go away until all editors refrain from participating in the dispute and agree to merely report it. Since none of these editors has shown any willingness to treat Sheldrake in a neutral manner, I suggest that all three be banned from editing the article.

Here's TRPoD's contention: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=586402432&oldid=586396688

Here's vzaak's contention: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=585597445&oldid=585595772

Here Barney3 chimes in to support vzaak's pseudoscience charge (though using the term pre-scientific): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=585635345&oldid=585628894

And Barney3 further reveals his bias by claiming that Sheldrake can't be referred to as a scientist though this is how the vast majority of secondary sources refer to him: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=585820490&oldid=585820381

Alfonzo Green (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@mangoe: Neither BB nor I have ever made the claim Mangoe attributes to us. What we do claim, and back up with dozens of sources, is that Sheldrake is generally referred to as a scientist. Alfonzo Green (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jps

I really don't like these processes, so let me exxplain what's happening. Barleybannocks(BB) is a new editor who was likely attracted to the Sheldrake article's flame by the modicum of publicity this article has received from Sheldrake supporters on external sites and, to a lesser extent, the mainstream media (New Republic and sfgate have included commentary surrounding Deepak Chopra's anger that skeptics edit this particular article). BB got involved in this contentious article and has been acculturated to one of the most toxic editing environments you can find on this websites. Consequently, much of his problematic behavior seems to stem from this. The environment, ideally, should be changed, but this will not happen as long as agendas are allowed to take center stage on the talkpage and in the history of the article itself. BB typically shows two behaviors that I have found tiresome: 1) focusing on favored sources while ignoring disfavored sources, and 2) demanding that others with whom he disagrees produce talkpage content to satisfy his beliefs as to how discussion or editorializing should proceed. However, I do think the editor serves a valuable purpose in giving a perspective that is likely to closely mirror that of the subject of the article. Banning him will likely result in either Alfonzo or Lou stepping in to try to fill his shoes, and in a few days or weeks we'll be back. What is needed is a referee who is WP:COMPETENT in the material to end archive talkpage discussions that are pointless and encourage the (admittedly few) threads that actually lead toward collaborative editing in line with policies and avoiding promtionalism or obsessive-rejoinderism. Until or unless you guys find someone capable and willing to take on this task (an actual EDITOR in the publishing sense, not in the Wikipedia sense), this infection will simply continue to fester. jps (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 74

Exceedingly long (1800 words) and rambling statement removed by an administrator. Please be more concise. Sandstein 21:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Barleybannocks

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I fail to see how any of the diffs cited in the request are actionable misconduct. Discretionary sanctions are authorized as a response to violations of Wikipedia's conduct rules. Merely expressing the opinion (even a mistaken opinion) that something isn't pseudoscience doesn't violate any conduct rule that I am aware of, and no such rule is cited in the request. Whether Rupert Sheldrake's work should be described as pseudoscience in the article about him is a content dispute that can't be decided in this forum, and whether it is pseudoscience for the purpose of applying discretionary sanctions (as does seem likely from a glance at the article) does not need to be decided here because, as I said, there is no sanctionable misconduct. In the present form, the request borders on the frivolous, and TheRedPenOfDoom should be warned not to make such requests again, as they can create a chilling effect that stifles discussion.

If there is a case for action here, it is not well presented in the request. Some types of talk page conduct, such as writing walls of text and failing to engage with others, can be seen as misconduct, but we'd need evidence in the form of dated recent diffs of such misconduct. Sandstein 06:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, after looking at the contributions of Barleybannocks, it is apparent that they are a single-purpose account and that they contribute a staggering volume of material to the talk page, such that it may in effect suppress productive discussion. I'm inclined to consider that in and of itself disruptive conduct, but would prefer to hear the opinions of others. Sandstein 06:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion (the bit at the top with Barleybannocks) on my talk page might also be useful reading and background as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There can sometimes be a fine line between an SPA and a bona-fide editor with a niche interest. In this case, however, the overwhelming majority of Barleybannocks's 555 edits (since he started editing about a month ago) appear to have been to Talk:Rupert Sheldrake — and this level of intense concentration on a single, highly contentious topic is a matter of legitimate concern. Even given a very charitable interpretation of the facts, Barleybannocks is clearly not getting any consensus supporting his viewpoint despite an exhaustive effort to discuss the subject in good faith. At this point, I would suggest he be instructed either to drop the matter for the time being, or else to take his concerns to other levels of dispute resolution (and be fully prepared to accept what uninvolved people have to say, even if they don't agree with him). If that simply won't work, then a topic ban or a block would seem to be an unfortunate necessity here. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with being a SPA, per se.. but I think I agree with Rich that Barleybannocks should either take it to formal RfC (and be prepared to accept the consensus of univolved editors), drop it, or risk a topic ban or block. SirFozzie (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting on Barleybannocks to address the above in their statement. In the meantime, Barney the barney barney: Iantresman is correct when they request that you withdraw your allegations of misconduct against Iantresman: they have nothing to do with the subject of this request, are not supported by evidence and should not have been made here in the first place. Casting aspersions of misconduct without evidence is itself misconduct, see WP:ASPERSIONS. I have issued you a warning about the discretionary sanctions in effect in this topic area. If you continue to accuse others of misconduct without appropriate evidence you may be made subject to sanctions. Sandstein 16:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Barney had already been notified of the sanctions about a month ago by me. Not really necessary to notify him twice, although you added a specific comment in addition to the standard template.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, TheRedPenOfDoom: It is out of the question that "all the others that hold that Sheldrake's work is not generally considered pseudoscience should also be banned from the article", as you suggest. That you even suggest sanctioning users merely for disagreeing with you calls into question, in my view, your ability to collaborate effectively with others in this topic area. Sandstein 16:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TRPoD has requested Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Pseudoscience_2 as "Sanction or remedy to be enforced", but it isn't even a sanction, it is a finding; I think the sanction we should consider is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. I think this line of reasoning is what accounts for the weakness of this filing that you noted before, Sandstein; in any case I agree with your point here—this is kind of a shocking request for TRPoD to be making. We want to tolerate people who don't endorse Arbcom's findings, and we can do that without allowing them to disruptively crusade against them. (TRPoD has been notified of DS here: by Bbb23.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vzaak: This forum cannot be canvassed. It is not a consensus-based process, so there is no consensus to sway by piling up statements from one side of a dispute. Statements that do not help administrators resolve the issue are simply ignored.

Everybody: Administrators in this forum will not decide whether Rupert Sheldrake's work should or shouldn't be described as pseudoscience in the article about him, or how else the article should be changed, because the arbitration process and its enforcement part do not decide content disputes. We are looking for one thing only: evidence, in the form of dated and concisely described diffs that show that any editors involved in this request have recently acted contrary to any specific accepted rule of conduct of Wikipedia in relation to the topic of pseudo- or fringe science. Anything else will not be acted on and is a waste of your time to write. Sandstein 20:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, like Sandstein, at first thought the supplied diffs were quite benign, but upon reading over Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake and various users' talk pages (User_talk:Callanecc#Sheldrake_2, User_talk:JzG#Warning) see quite a tenacious effort over a several day period in several forums about just the question of whether the lede should imply some level of support from mainstream academia. It is mostly civil, but this kind of dead horse beating can still be very disruptive, as I'm sure we've all seen in other cases. I think considering all the warnings this user has received, both the DS warning and the attempts by JzG and Callanecc, something probably needs to be done here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. OK, assuming they do not reply: the contributions of Barleybannocks show that they are a WP:SPA focused on promoting one particular point of view with respect to Rupert Sheldrake, and do so by filling up the article talk page with an inordinate amount of verbiage. This is in violation of the rule to "keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion", a part of the guideline Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and is a case of "failure or refusal to 'get the point'", a type of disruptive editing described at WP:HEAR, part of the guideline Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. In response, I recommend that Barleybannocks is indefinitely banned from the talk page (and, as a necessary consequence, from the article) about Rupert Sheldrake. The ban can be lifted after Barleybannocks has established a record of productive editing about unrelated topics. Sandstein 21:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like the other admins who have commented here, I see the contributions by Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) as problematic. This is clearly a single-purpose agenda account which is suppressing reasonable discussion at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake through sheer volume of posting and inappropriate tenaciousness. His presence on the talkpage has been disruptive and counterproductive.
Regarding single-purpose accounts, ArbCom has repeatedly held that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." By those criteria, I see a clear problem with Barleybannocks' participation on this talkpage and would support a topic ban, as lesser means of guidance and persuasion have failed. MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that Barleybannocks is being disruptive doesn't exclude the possibility that others are being disruptive as well. In general, the article and talkpage are chock-full of examples of poor editorial conduct, which are not limited to Barleybannocks by any means. I'm open to reviewing other editors' conduct, but Barleybannocks isn't a borderline case in any way in my view. MastCell ^Talk 00:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has tried to find a way to resolve this, so I've seen the discussions up pretty close, without topic banning people (ie, the 1RR restriction) I originally came down the other way on Barleybannocks (that is, that he was a good-faith contributor being stopped unfairly), but as time went on I think it's become pretty obvious that this isn't the case. As well as being a single purpose account I think it is become clearer that Barleybannocks has difficultly getting the point and moving on from being told no. I echo Sandstein's recommendation that Barleybannocks be indefinitely page banned from Rupert Sheldrake, Talk:Rupert Sheldrake and subpages. Given that the disruption is confined (or directly related) to the page and talk page I don't see a need to topic ban, if the disruption spreads because he is no longer able to edit the article we (or almost any admin) can topic ban. @Barleybannocks: I encourage you take this ban as an opportunity to take a break from what seems like a high stress environment of the Sheldrake talk page and show us that you can work constructively in other areas, if you can I encourage you to appeal the ban in a few to six months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- However I also think we should look at both sides of this dispute and if editors (User:Liz for example) could, in their statements, could point (with diffs and explanations) to other users they believe are being disruptive that would be helpful to resolving this. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. Sandstein 10:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based exclusively on Barleybannock's response here and my review of Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake, I believe that Barleybannocks is demonstrating a battleground mentality (or perhaps, battleground posture), which combined with a narrow focus justifies a corrective response, either with AE tools or without. I have been away, so I leave the exact mechanism to the discretion of others. I also wish to note that I find the talk page an example of what not to do in pursing good article writing. There appeared to be some genuine attempts by various parties to come at an agreement that were immediately trampled over by someone else.--Tznkai (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Littleolive oil, I provisionally agree that this is a multi-sided problem, but can you unpack your proposal a bit? Do you want an administrator shepherding a discussion along with his proverbial hand on his proverbial billy stick? Are you encouraging the disputants to go to mediation?--Tznkai (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the response by Barleybannocks is disappointing: it focuses on the content dispute, which is not at issue here, and ignores their own conduct, which is. On that basis, I think we should be ready now to implement the discussed page ban (or topic ban, if an admin thinks it's needed, which I don't), unless there is forthcoming evidence of relevant recent misconduct by others. Sandstein 10:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Littleolive oil, given the evidence presented in this request, and my review of the situation, I do not think we can justify using the pseudoscience case remedies to institute the scheme you've suggested. If however, you or another editor agrees to keep me informed in a neutral, focused and concise manner, I will observe but not mediate the page to see if adminsitrative interference or even special measures are jstified. That is the best I will do at this point. As to Barleybannocks, I think a short (days, not months) but enforced break from the page could be good for both Barleybannocks and the editing culture on the page.--Tznkai (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - If someone wants to be spared the indignity of a logged sanction, I think we should all be willing to grant it, with the explicit understanding that voluntary can quickly become involuntary. However, Barleybannocks would have to him or herself volunteer the same in clear terms. As to everyone else taking a break, I agree they should, but I lack clear evidentiary grounds to enforce that belief.--Tznkai (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the one most problematic user, I am beginning to think that splitting the content out into Biography article and Theory article may be the only way to untangle some of the threads here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend not to pursue the issues of article splitting or content mediation further in this forum. These are matters of article content that are beyond the scope of AE. This forum is only concerned with whether discretionary sanctions are needed to prevent or deter misconduct by individual users. Sandstein 10:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you will allow the analogy, we do not have jurisdiction to settle the underlying dispute of fact, but we may have the authority to order disputants into arbitration, and I do not see the harm in making limited non binding suggestions. AE's remit of power is limited, but we are not restricted for hoping things get better. Unfortunately, at this time, the only evidence I have seen demonstrates a single problem user and a thicket of grumpy editors that we cannot enforce away. Like every other AE old-hand knows, we do not have the experiences and memories of the disputants, so we need to be properly briefed.--Tznkai (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cast a wider net. This forum is not empowered or authorized to serve as a content dispute resolution forum; we have no more authority there than anywhere else. That does not mean we cannot note and discuss how content problems are playing into behavioral problems brought to our attention. This is a fine line, perhaps, but can be managed. It would not hurt anyone if uninvolved admins from here were to waltz over to the article talk page and start up a discussion about incompatible policy and goals regarding handling of fringe science and handling of biographical articles, and starting up a discussion over there about whether a split is the best mechanism to stop having collisions in which we find no white and black, only odious shades of grey. It would not hurt for brief, non-executive-decisionmaking discussions relative to that to happen here in pursuit of starting that actual, local-consensus-prompting-and-seeking discussion on the article talk page.

We do need to stay mindful of this not being the place to decide. But we can do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objects or compelling evidence presented about other editors I'll close this with an indefinite page ban for Barleybannocks on Rupert Sheldrake, Talk:Rupert Sheldrake and subpages in the next few hours. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting iantresman's comment, happy to give it some more time. But I'll enact the the ban against Barleybannocks in the next couple hours as there is pretty much unanimous agreement amongst admins. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, given the number of admins calling for action on Barleybannocks I am imposing the following sanction on Barleybannocks: [Barleybannocks is] indefinitely banned from editing: Rupert Sheldrake; Talk:Rupert Sheldrake; and all subpages of both the article and talk page. My current thinking is to leave this request open for around 24 hours to allow users to present evidence regarding other editors as requested. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're going to wait for objection or comment, it might help to give more than 4 hours that most of the English speaking userbase, myself inclusive, typically spends asleep. With AE working the way it works, we have little control over each other, but we don't want to turn it into a first admin who pulls the trigger wins scenario. My belief is that an indefinite topic ban is unnecessary, especially since there is agreement that there are other problems plaguing the page, so removing one element indefinitely may not prevent harm.--Tznkai (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point taken, but we've been discussing it (and in mostly general agreement) for around 2 days that a ban is the way to go (and the discussion on my talk page is proving it to me at the moment). No it may not prevent harm given the other editors, but taking into consideration the evidence and general agreement we have so far it seems pretty clear that removing this one user will make somewhat of a positive difference. In terms of whether it's necessary, as pointed by a few admins there have been a number of attempts to resolve this informally including suggestions that Barleybannocks leave the article and talk page alone for a few days. In an a few weeks or a month or a few months Barleybannocks shows that they can edit constructively in other areas then I'll have no issues lifting the ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see fairly wide agreement for a ban, but not necessarily an indefinite one. As I indicated earlier in response to Littleolive oil vis-a-vis a voluntary break, Barleybannocks would have to request it him or herself. He or she did not. As to letting Barleybannocks apply to have the restriction lifted there is the issue of making a clear sanctioned users have that hope, and further the issue of Barleybannocks can apply to have the restriction lifted after some time, couldn't admins just reapply the sanction after the time lapses instead? Among the many reasons short, or at least sun-setting bans should be preferred is that ought not protect admin time over editor opportunity.--Tznkai (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Callanecc's action. But since being page-banned, Barleybannocks has continued their content arguments on the talk pages of multiple administrators who have commented about this request ([147], [148] [149], [150]). These arguments obviously do not belong there, and are attempts to evade the page ban. I suggest that the page ban be changed to a ban from the topic of Rupert Sheldrake. Sandstein 16:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to escalate at this time. If the worst that happens is Barleybannocks wishes to proverbially scream himself hoarse at some administrators, --Tznkai (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with Barleybannocks posting on admins' talk pages, and it doesn't suggest a need to broaden the ban. But it does reinforce my view that an indefinite page ban is necessary here. Barleybannocks' behavior to date is textbook soup-spitting, and he's shown no insight into the ways in which his approach is counterproductive - instead, he's doubled down on it. This kind of behavior is poison to any sort of constructive talkpage discussion.

I don't think that further explanation is going to help right now, because he's not receptive (perhaps understandably, given the adversarial nature of this venue). I don't think we can reasonably expect his approach to improve in a week or two, particularly in the absence of any insight into why it's problematic in the first place. I also think he's also being encouraged to some extent by people who are particularly poor role models for how to edit responsibly on fringe topics, which isn't doing him any favors. He needs to learn how to use article talkpages properly in a less contentious environment, which is why I think a indefinite page ban is the most appropriate tool at our disposal here. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tznkai and MastCell on this one, let's just give Barley some time. Being banned from contributing to an area they have an interest in is hard. It's already an indefinite ban, and as I said the posts on various admin's talk pages shows me that the ban was necessary. It won't be hard for Barleybannocks to show that they can edit constructively over the next few months in which case I'll be happy to lift the ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barleybannocks and others have now supplied evidence of talk page misconduct by TheRedPenOfDoom. That includes needlessly coarse and intimidating language, which suppresses collegial discussion (e.g., "And I dont fucking like is (sic) you making assumptions about what I fucking like"), and violations of WP:BLP with respect to the article subject ("a psuedoscientific (sic) huckster). On that basis, I believe a ban from the topic of Rupert Sheldrake is appropriate for TheRedPenOfDoom also. Sandstein 22:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that incivility doesn't justify a sanction, but, as a project, we have been all over the place when it comes to sanctioning editors for incivility, particularly experienced editors. Most of those discussions have occurred at venues outside of AE (usually ANI), but TRPoD historically has a tendency to lose his cool when he gets pissed. Other than the incivility, is there other evidence of disruption?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting a topic ban or a ban with the same terms as Barleybannocks? I've also notified TRPoD that a sanction has been proposed against them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 343: / Line 343: @@
 @[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]], (1) now that you have taken action against Barleybannocks, and echoing my comment to [[User:MastCell|MastCell]], I would still to see the diffs which contributed towards the decision. (2) I will have the diffs that Arbitrators have requested regarding other editors, this evening. --[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] ([[User talk:Iantresman|talk]]) 12:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
+'''Diffs suggesting signs of disruption'''
+I offer some diffs and discussion which ''suggest'' consistency with [[WP:DISRUPTSIGNS]]. As it is a little wordy, I've stuck it in a collapse box, but wanted to provide as much useful explanation as possible. Hopefully it is without [[prejudice]], a concept I hope that everyone is familiar.
+{{Collapse top|title=Summary with diffs}}
+'''1. Re: [[Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#sokal_affair|sokal affair]]''' ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&oldid=586821805 permalink]). See also, the current text in the article "[[Rupert_Sheldrake#In_scientific_and_popular_culture|In scientific and popular culture]]"([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&oldid=586819947 p]) where the criticism is on Sokal's paper, not Sheldrake's work.
+The "sokal affair" section begins well. After Barleybannocks makes an edit in the article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583859534&oldid=583858663] minutes later, he provides the first explanation on the talk page (explaining the inadvertent [[association fallacy]])[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583860145&oldid=583857630] and later why it is wrong in a BLP (see "[[Wikipedia:BLP#Balance|Balance]]" and the comment on Guilt by Associate).  The discussion begins to go wrong when:
+#Guy accuses Barleybannocks that he "refuses to even countenance compromise by suggesting an alternative quote .. one more black mark against you"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583943051&oldid=583942812], contradicted by BB in the previous comment, that he had made tweaks[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583912012&oldid=583895829][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583913057&oldid=583912438] that were changed by Barney.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583914473&oldid=583913057]. Guys comment is incivil and uncalled for.
+#It gets worse. Next Guy accused BB that he does "not to understand what compromise means", and "inserted different wording," and of taking ownership.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583945243&oldid=583944987]. You can't have it both ways, ask an editor to provide alternative wording, and then complaint when they do. This is unreasonable and incivil.
+#It gets worse. Later, Guy accused BB that "Your 'compromise' is obdurate refusal to compromise. You are now on notice."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=584742420&oldid=584742152] To describe a good faith attempt to compromise an "obdurate refusal" not to, is misleading and unfair. Then to put an editor on notice while involved with the same article[https://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/usersearch.py?name=JzG&page=Rupert+Sheldrake&max=100&server=enwiki] based on misleading reasons, must be an abuse of Administrator privilige.
+Later editor Andreas suggests an edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=586084456&oldid=586045435] which BB is quite happy with, and explains why.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=586085215&oldid=586084802]
+It appears to me that BB is making good faith attempts to improve this part of the article, and doing so with appropriate discussion and reasoning. I haven't even mentioned the changes that Barney was making behing the scenes[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583895829&oldid=583859534][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583912438&oldid=583912061][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583914473&oldid=583913057] with no attempt to engage in the talk page discussion, and with the apparent blessing of Guy who had been made aware of Barney's edits by BB, twice.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583900100&oldid=583861966][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583932125&oldid=583931415]
+'''2. Re: [[User_talk:Callanecc/Archive_8#Sheldrake_2|Sheldrake 2]]'''. Callanecc pointed us towards this discussion,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=586454873&oldid=586453948] and I'd like to limit my comments to the first post initiated by Guy.
+#The entire post by Guy is consistent with [[WP:ASPERSIONS]], containing several allegation, and not one single supporting diff. The effort required to fact check the contents is oneous and disrupting to anyone wish to carry on editing. It violates [[WP:WIAPA]] "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence [that] often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."
+#Guy suggests that "The problem with barley's edits is that he asserts that his bias is neutrality .. Barley is here to support Sheldrake,". How do we know (a) BB is here to support Sheldrake, (b) the support will result in bias, rather than fairness (c) that other editors opinions will also not result in inappropriate bias?
+#Some of logic in the post is quite fallacious. "You know that SPAs usually have a deep commitment to a POV" .. "the fact that he's a WP:SPA", from which we are lead to conclude that ALL SPA, and hence BB have a (biased) POV? This is fallacious and misleading.
+#"I'm an OTRS volunteer, so I am comfortable that when I judge the biographical element to be compliant with WP:BLP I am right. Barley doesn't seem to accept that," So can BB claim to be right if he's a Red Cross volunteer and read lots of biographies? We don't know what editing experience he has.
+I was also on the receiving end of Guy's Admin stick[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive257#Sheldrake], with the same pattern of a lot of unsubstantiated allegations. My firm rebuttal, with diffs!, is a substantial disruption to my usual editing, and my polite request for some diffs was not forthcoming.
+I had a similar incident from Barney, see "[[User_talk:Iantresman#Barney_objections Barney objections]]"([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iantresman&oldid=586699780#Barney_objections P])
+'''3. Re: "Supporters & Fans".''' The continued description by some editors of others as Sheldrake/fringe/pseudoscience supporters/fans, is never substantiated (ie. it is presumed), and has only one use: to try and discredit editors by suggesting a conflict of interest, or by association. It has no constructive editorial value to make such comments, and is a personal attack "regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream" (even if they are true!) per [[WP:WIAPA]], and hence consistent with [[WP:DISRUPTSIGNS]].
+#See examples in my comments to "@Carcharoth & Roger Davies" here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=584588188#Statement_by_iantresman]
+#See more examples by Barney.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=584588188#Statement_by_Barney_the_barney_barney]
+Likewise, questioning another editor's competence is equally insulting, and a personal attack (address the comment, not the editor). Imagine your Admin decisions caused editors to questions your competency!:-
+#"Looks like a pretty clear case of WP:COMPETENCE issues leading to WP:POV pushing. This is fairly typical of Sheldrake's fans"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=579011091&oldid=579010851]
+#"Clear competency issues here."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=581666138&oldid=581664009]
+#"You are either incompetent or trolling"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=582007069&oldid=582004754]
+#"this demonstrates a lack of basic WP:COMPETENCE"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=582840137&oldid=582839906]
+#"This is clearly either stupidity or incompetence"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=582932549&oldid=582903429]
+#"If you aren't competent enough to see where a scientist is judging content for the lack of its scientific basis, then you should probably not be in this conversation"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=585038740&oldid=585038500]
+#"If you think facts can't be falsified, you are not competent enough to be editorializing here."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=586747992&oldid=586744705]
+#""Are you incapable of rational thought? You cannot be that stupid" "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=581965628&oldid=581954623]
+{{Collapse bottom}}
+--[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] ([[User talk:Iantresman|talk]]) 01:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Askahrc====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards