→Result concerning Joshua P. Schroeder: - support topic ban |
|||
Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
*I'm not really convinced. Sure, JPS's method of challenging that FAQ page initially was wrong – but he did have a valid case against it (the MFD for it has since gathered considerable traction; the emergent consensus is that the FAQ page had serious NPOV problems and should never have been created.) About the following talk page comments, I can see no big issues – this is what I call vigorous debate. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 08:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
*I'm not really convinced. Sure, JPS's method of challenging that FAQ page initially was wrong – but he did have a valid case against it (the MFD for it has since gathered considerable traction; the emergent consensus is that the FAQ page had serious NPOV problems and should never have been created.) About the following talk page comments, I can see no big issues – this is what I call vigorous debate. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 08:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
*My tentative view is more aligned with Sandstein. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEnneagram_of_Personality%2FFAQ&action=historysubmit&diff=407688712&oldid=407662545 This edit] is, let's just say, unnecessarily inflammatory, and in a tone that is quite inappropriate for an FAQ page, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEnneagram_of_Personality%2FFAQ&action=historysubmit&diff=407565229&oldid=407557907 this blanking] is not acceptable at all. If this were a new user, it might be understandable, but JPS is a highly experienced user who really should have known better. That said, when one looks at the underlying dispute, nobody really looks good, and I'm thinking that several users should probably be taking a break from this topic. However, my disagreement with NW on whether we ''are able to'' impose a broad, science topic ban notwithstanding, I'm not convinced that we ''should'' do it. [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
*My tentative view is more aligned with Sandstein. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEnneagram_of_Personality%2FFAQ&action=historysubmit&diff=407688712&oldid=407662545 This edit] is, let's just say, unnecessarily inflammatory, and in a tone that is quite inappropriate for an FAQ page, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEnneagram_of_Personality%2FFAQ&action=historysubmit&diff=407565229&oldid=407557907 this blanking] is not acceptable at all. If this were a new user, it might be understandable, but JPS is a highly experienced user who really should have known better. That said, when one looks at the underlying dispute, nobody really looks good, and I'm thinking that several users should probably be taking a break from this topic. However, my disagreement with NW on whether we ''are able to'' impose a broad, science topic ban notwithstanding, I'm not convinced that we ''should'' do it. [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
* I was on the fence about how to deal with this request. There is definitely a long history on antagonism between Cla68 and ScienceApologist (Joshua Schroeder). But a ban from all science articles also seemed excessive, considering that the diffs provided were all related to the [[Enneagram of Personality]] article. However, Joshua Schroeder's block log shows that he has had more than enough chances to work in a collaborative manner. Both the technique and tone of his language in "adding" inappropriate questions and answers to the FAQ page here,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEnneagram_of_Personality%2FFAQ&action=historysubmit&diff=407688712&oldid=407662545] and his continuing confrontational tone here at AE,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&curid=12936136&diff=407898101&oldid=407891834] are unacceptable. He has been formally [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist_cautioned|cautioned by ArbCom about good faith and civility]], and his most disruptive behavior is clearly associated with the pseudoscience topic area. I therefore support the idea of a ban up to one year from the entire pseudoscience topic area, to include both articles and talkpages, broadly defined. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 20:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:58, 14 January 2011
Joshua P. Schroeder
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder
- User requesting enforcement
- Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [1] sarcastic, belittling, disruptive, vandalistic edit
- [2] revert wars to readd it
- [3] blanks the page
- Had previously blanked the page then immediately nominated it for deletion
- Belittles other editors in a noticeboard discussion
- Belittles another editor in article talk page discussion
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [4] Warning by ArbCom
- Previous ArbCom topic ban for similar behavior
- Extensive block log for similar behavior
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Based on the history, I think a topic ban from science articles should be on the table.
- Regardless of the merits of the request, I question whether administrators have the to do this. For fringe or pseduo-science articles, sure, but not for science articles as a whole. NW (Talk) 03:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- As a purely academic question only, we can impose, inter alia, "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics". I think it is reasonable to say that "science" is closely related to "pseudoscience". T. Canens (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- That seems like too much of a stretch to me. If that were the case, you could extend discretionary sanctions to every biology article, physics article, astronomy article, chemistry article, geoscience article, to name just a few (all fields within the natural sciences). By that rationale, it would not be unreasonable to include oil field prospecting (part of geoscience) in the topic ban. I hardly think that ArbCom intended for such a thing. NW (Talk) 08:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not to mention the social and historical sciences. In pinch, Science goes back to scientia, meaning "knowledge", and thus applies to all of Wikipedia. That is a very slippery slope. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- That seems like too much of a stretch to me. If that were the case, you could extend discretionary sanctions to every biology article, physics article, astronomy article, chemistry article, geoscience article, to name just a few (all fields within the natural sciences). By that rationale, it would not be unreasonable to include oil field prospecting (part of geoscience) in the topic ban. I hardly think that ArbCom intended for such a thing. NW (Talk) 08:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- As a purely academic question only, we can impose, inter alia, "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics". I think it is reasonable to say that "science" is closely related to "pseudoscience". T. Canens (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of the merits of the request, I question whether administrators have the to do this. For fringe or pseduo-science articles, sure, but not for science articles as a whole. NW (Talk) 03:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Joshua P. Schroeder (JPS, and previously known as ScienceApologist) has asked me not to edit his userpage, so could someone else please notify him of this enforcement action? As for the content dispute involved here, JPS's source is, arguably, reliable. It's not a blog as I mistakenly called it. That said, however, JPS's bullying, bellitling, and battleground behavior over the issue continues his long pattern of disrupting Wikipedia in this manner. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [5]
Discussion concerning Joshua P. Schroeder
Statement by Joshua P. Schroeder
When it rains it pours!
This is an entirely tendentious request and I'm disgusted by both the request and the assumptions being pissed into the wind by some of the administrators jacking off to WP:PUNITIVE below. I will point out that Cla68 is pretty much Wikipedia:Wikihounding me. You can read about his agenda through the first posts he made at WP:ACTIVIST. His goal is to run me and others like me out of town, and he has asked me point-blank to stop editing Wikipedia. But typical of these charades, the commentators aren't interested in a balanced look: only in a witchhunt.
I'm so glad that governance is worrying about things like whether the Enneagram of Personality FAQ is showing a statement that it is scientifically verified!
Excuse me while I pay attention to more important things.
That's all from me!
jps (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Joshua P. Schroeder
Unhelpful threaded discussion collapsed by administrator
|
---|
Cla68, could you explain how this edit [6] is "vandalistic" under the definition at WP:VANDAL? Will Beback talk 00:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I have notified Joshua P. Schroeder, as Cla68 should have done. Cardamon (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Comments by ZuluPapa5
I am involved and mildly disturbed by Joshua P. Schroeder's actions. We were editing well together in WP:ACTIVIST. However, he went overboard in relation to Enneagram of Personality, when there was little substantial, if any, source support. This type of ideological wp:hounding is not necessary. It's up to ArbCom to determine if he requires a longer break. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments by WMC
JPS has made valuable efforts to clean up Enneagram of Personality, for example [7] where he removes a paragraph largely sourced to http://www.enneagramspectrum.com. That source should not have been used, especially in a paragraph nominally about verification. The para was restored by User:Afterwriting [8] saying Removed recent edits by activist editor with a militant agenda, then re-restored [9] with Restored article from abuse. But whether you agree with JPS's edit (I agree with it, and re-made it) it clearly isn't abuse. It is notable that Cla has been so very one sided in this report. Also, Cla has failed to note that he is an involved party in any dispute over the page, having himself partially restored the disputed para [10]. Cla's suggested remedy - topic ban from all science articles - is so ridiculously over the top that a mre appropriate result would be a ban on Cla reporting JPS William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment by BorisG
The tone of JPS's comments may not be veyr diplomatic, but inappropriate tone hardly warrants more than a warning. - BorisG (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Commnet by Collect
I am bemused by a comment that JPS's actions on the Enneagram deletion are in some way to be commended. I ask that the entire deletion discussion thereon be noted, as the sequence of insulting edits by JPS amounting to ad hom attacks on me is revealing. Included are claims that Cla68 and I are in any way relsted in editing patterns [11] is an indirect accusation of tag-teaming, [12] an accusation that the two of us are active "in the same areas" (um -- 8 articles and one essay overlap out of over a thousand?), [13] him using an IP address for multiple edits, accusing me of suddenly appearing on MfD (I would add that I have posted on well over 500 MfDs now, including 100 posts in the past three months, eliding only December 27 to January 7 for some reason), [14] an accusation that I focus on only a "very few issues" on MfD, [15] an accusation that saying I was off for Christmas was "twisting" anything at all. Then we have WMC, who is truly not a regular at MfD appearing with [16]. Jps is uncivil, makes accusations of bad faith, and iterates such without compunction. I would suggest repeated incivility warrants stern action. As an aside - I have more article overlap with Jps than with Cla68! Collect (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
From my reading of his past history, one of the main concerns and causes for sanction have been civility and matters of intellectual integrity[17][18][19].
Looking over his recent edit history there seems to be indication that he may be getting frustrated and acting out in response.
This edit at WP:ACTIVIST seems to support such an interpretation. Although, it could also be that the WP:ACTIVIST essay itself excited and incited this behavior. In any case, the effect is that he casts aspersions, alleges that editors are colluding against him, forcefully. As well as exhibiting a manner of discourse that seems to embody the very finest of battleground tactics, consistently insulting and obliquely ignoring attempts at discussion[20][21][22][23][24].
Unfortunately, such behavior seems to be generally accepted on wikipedia these days, but considering that the editor in question has repeatedly been warned and sanctioned for this kind of activity I can't see why this request does not have merit. It is my understanding that ScienceApologist has some value within "hard science" articles, unfortunately it seems that he would rather work in areas where he seems unable to maintain his composure. un☯mi 14:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Unhelpful threaded discussion collapsed by administrator
|
---|
|
Warning by Sandstein
As one of the administrators processing this request, I have collapsed the discussion threads above because they were degenerating into personal attacks and other bickering irrelevant to this request. This is not a dispute resolution forum and not a place to continue carrying on grudges. I am issuing warnings about this disruption of the arbitration enforcement process. For the rest of this thread, I request all editors to limit themselves to a single nonthreaded comment that addresses the request and nothing else. Editors who disregard this request and continue to engage in unrelated disputes on this page may be sanctioned without further warning. Sandstein 19:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment by ScottyBerg
Diff No. 1 is described as a "sarcastic, belittling, disruptive, vandalistic edit." It isn't any of those, and the rest seems to flow from that. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Joshua P. Schroeder
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Waiting for a statement by Joshua P. Schroeder (formerly ScienceApologist), but my preliminary opinion is that the request has merit and that, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions and considering Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Motion to sanction ScienceApologist as well as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist cautioned and his block log, a lengthy fringe science topic ban is appropriate. Sandstein 07:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not really convinced. Sure, JPS's method of challenging that FAQ page initially was wrong – but he did have a valid case against it (the MFD for it has since gathered considerable traction; the emergent consensus is that the FAQ page had serious NPOV problems and should never have been created.) About the following talk page comments, I can see no big issues – this is what I call vigorous debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- My tentative view is more aligned with Sandstein. This edit is, let's just say, unnecessarily inflammatory, and in a tone that is quite inappropriate for an FAQ page, and this blanking is not acceptable at all. If this were a new user, it might be understandable, but JPS is a highly experienced user who really should have known better. That said, when one looks at the underlying dispute, nobody really looks good, and I'm thinking that several users should probably be taking a break from this topic. However, my disagreement with NW on whether we are able to impose a broad, science topic ban notwithstanding, I'm not convinced that we should do it. T. Canens (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was on the fence about how to deal with this request. There is definitely a long history on antagonism between Cla68 and ScienceApologist (Joshua Schroeder). But a ban from all science articles also seemed excessive, considering that the diffs provided were all related to the Enneagram of Personality article. However, Joshua Schroeder's block log shows that he has had more than enough chances to work in a collaborative manner. Both the technique and tone of his language in "adding" inappropriate questions and answers to the FAQ page here,[26] and his continuing confrontational tone here at AE,[27] are unacceptable. He has been formally cautioned by ArbCom about good faith and civility, and his most disruptive behavior is clearly associated with the pseudoscience topic area. I therefore support the idea of a ban up to one year from the entire pseudoscience topic area, to include both articles and talkpages, broadly defined. --Elonka 20:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)