→Comment by BullRangifer: clarification |
→Result concerning Joshua P. Schroeder: the other aspects of this mess |
||
Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
*After considering the contributions above, I remain of the opinion that the request has merit. <p>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEnneagram_of_Personality%2FFAQ&action=historysubmit&diff=407688712&oldid=407662545] is [[WP:POINT|disruption of Wikipedia to make a point]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enneagram_of_Personality/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=407748474] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enneagram_of_Personality/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=407748474] are [[WP:EW|edit-warring]] (as are most of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enneagram_of_Personality/FAQ&action=history Joshua P. Schroeder's contributions] to that page). The fifth link cited in the request is not a diff but that discussion does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=407899218#Talk:Enneagram_of_Personality currently] contain some non-collegial, patronizingly dismissive contributions by Joshua P. Schroeder ("the character assassination of Robert Todd Carroll is attempted on the talk page", "petulant advocacy"), which also applies to the sixth edit , [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEnneagram_of_Personality&action=historysubmit&diff=407687235&oldid=407686995]. <p> The [[WP:EQ|principles of Wikipedia etiquette]] require that editors assume good faith, work towards agreement, argue facts and not personalities, and be civil. In the incidents described above Joshua P. Schroeder did not do so. Thereby, and by edit-warring, he has failed to adhere to expected standards of behavior when editing in the area of pseudoscience, as outlined in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions]]. The problem is very seriously aggravated by Joshua P. Schroeder's failure to bring his conduct into line with community expectations even after an ArbCom ban and caution, and after many blocks for similar problems, and by his failure to recognize and address the problems with his conduct in his statement here, which [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=407903512&oldid=407903333 even as amended] is also at odds with the principles of etiquette mentioned above. Finally, the findings at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#ScienceApologist]] indicate that Joshua P. Schroeder has continued to conduct himself in this manner since at least 2006 despite many blocks and proceedings. This leads me to the conclusion that Joshua P. Schroeder intends to continue to treat the pseudoscience / fringe science topic area as a battleground and should be restricted from doing so in order to prevent continued disruption. <p> A topic ban is therefore required. Considering that his most recent ban was [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Motion_to_sanction_ScienceApologist|an ArbCom site ban for three months and topic ban for six months]] "for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering", and that the Arbitration Committee noted, at that time, that "further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans", it is appropriate to impose a topic ban of twice the length of the previous one. <p> Consequently, in enforcement and application of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions]], {{user|Joshua P. Schroeder}}, is hereby topic-banned from the topics of [[pseudoscience]] and [[fringe science]] for a year. The topic ban shall have the meaning described at [[WP:TBAN]], and the topic area from which he is banned shall encompass (but is not limited to) all topics covered by the descriptions at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision]], sections 15 to 17. This ban is to be enforced with escalating blocks that may start at a duration of one week. It can be appealed as described at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 23:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
*After considering the contributions above, I remain of the opinion that the request has merit. <p>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEnneagram_of_Personality%2FFAQ&action=historysubmit&diff=407688712&oldid=407662545] is [[WP:POINT|disruption of Wikipedia to make a point]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enneagram_of_Personality/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=407748474] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enneagram_of_Personality/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=407748474] are [[WP:EW|edit-warring]] (as are most of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enneagram_of_Personality/FAQ&action=history Joshua P. Schroeder's contributions] to that page). The fifth link cited in the request is not a diff but that discussion does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=407899218#Talk:Enneagram_of_Personality currently] contain some non-collegial, patronizingly dismissive contributions by Joshua P. Schroeder ("the character assassination of Robert Todd Carroll is attempted on the talk page", "petulant advocacy"), which also applies to the sixth edit , [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEnneagram_of_Personality&action=historysubmit&diff=407687235&oldid=407686995]. <p> The [[WP:EQ|principles of Wikipedia etiquette]] require that editors assume good faith, work towards agreement, argue facts and not personalities, and be civil. In the incidents described above Joshua P. Schroeder did not do so. Thereby, and by edit-warring, he has failed to adhere to expected standards of behavior when editing in the area of pseudoscience, as outlined in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions]]. The problem is very seriously aggravated by Joshua P. Schroeder's failure to bring his conduct into line with community expectations even after an ArbCom ban and caution, and after many blocks for similar problems, and by his failure to recognize and address the problems with his conduct in his statement here, which [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=407903512&oldid=407903333 even as amended] is also at odds with the principles of etiquette mentioned above. Finally, the findings at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#ScienceApologist]] indicate that Joshua P. Schroeder has continued to conduct himself in this manner since at least 2006 despite many blocks and proceedings. This leads me to the conclusion that Joshua P. Schroeder intends to continue to treat the pseudoscience / fringe science topic area as a battleground and should be restricted from doing so in order to prevent continued disruption. <p> A topic ban is therefore required. Considering that his most recent ban was [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Motion_to_sanction_ScienceApologist|an ArbCom site ban for three months and topic ban for six months]] "for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering", and that the Arbitration Committee noted, at that time, that "further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans", it is appropriate to impose a topic ban of twice the length of the previous one. <p> Consequently, in enforcement and application of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions]], {{user|Joshua P. Schroeder}}, is hereby topic-banned from the topics of [[pseudoscience]] and [[fringe science]] for a year. The topic ban shall have the meaning described at [[WP:TBAN]], and the topic area from which he is banned shall encompass (but is not limited to) all topics covered by the descriptions at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision]], sections 15 to 17. This ban is to be enforced with escalating blocks that may start at a duration of one week. It can be appealed as described at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 23:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:I don't think that's a good call, nor do I think it's wise to allow [[WP:AE]] to be used as a weapon in a grudge match. But I can't really bring myself to care enough to argue the case further, so whatever. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 00:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC) |
:I don't think that's a good call, nor do I think it's wise to allow [[WP:AE]] to be used as a weapon in a grudge match. But I can't really bring myself to care enough to argue the case further, so whatever. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 00:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
*I find a one-year ban to be a bit excessive, given that the last ban expired over a year ago. Three months would be more appropriate, in my view.<p>I find ZuluPapa5's creation of the FAQ page with the obviously POV content to be quite inappropriate, and reading the recent talk page discussions does not inspire any confidence. Given that and the edit warring on the article, I have notified {{user|Afterwriting}} and {{user|ZuluPapa5}} of the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. Future disruptive activity may lead to a topic ban.<p>In addition, I find Cla68's characterization of the first diff as "vandalistic" to be unhelpful and inaccurate, and the unnecessary piling-up of adjectives to be unnecessarily inflammatory. Cla68 is admonished and reminded that vandalism is defined by [[WP:VAND|policy]] as any edit made in "a ''deliberate'' attempt to ''compromise the integrity'' of Wikipedia" (first emphasis in original) and that inaccurate accusations of vandalism that unnecessarily inflame a dispute may result in sanctions. [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 03:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:36, 15 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 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 offered below strike me as being of the WP:PUNITIVE sort. 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)
- Further comment on JPS statement. Surprisingly absent of acknowledgment, self-awareness or remorse. (For actions in an article on the subject even.) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:45, 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)
Comment by un☯mi
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)
Comment by BullRangifer
I think one should consider the source(s) here..... This is no way to deal with a content controversy. Pushers of fringe POV who get into squabbles with mainstream editors and then come crying....please! Of course the rest of the fringe gang soon piles on: Collect, ZuluPapa5... Just take this into consideration and see who is damaging the project most. Yes, incivility isn't the best thing, just don't judge too harshly considering the circumstances. Editors who haven't a clue about our NPOV, RS, and FRINGE policies and guideline shouldn't get rewarded when they gang up, push an experienced editor's buttons, and then come crying here like a little brother and his little friends who have been pestering his big brother in a room in the house far away from mom, and when big brother yells at them and mom hears it, big brother gets in trouble because mom reacts to his yelling without a clue as to what's been going on. That's what is happening here. Sure, big brother shouldn't yell at little brother and his irritating friends who haven't got a clue, but consider the source(s) and circumstances.
Let me make it clear that I'm not saying that JPS is totally innocent, but a long topic ban isn't called for in this case. If such a thing happens, then topic ban the lot of them for a month and no longer. Especially the one who started this has OWN problems and that's a significant factor here because JPS was editng HIS essay. They even went so far as to suggest that JPS not edit there. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:53, 15 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)
- Elonka, do you have a past history with Joshua? I'm not trying to insinuate anything, but my memory is telling me that there is some history here. NW (Talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Checking User:Elonka/ArbCom log, I implemented some sanctions on him (and others) back in 2008 when I was monitoring the Pseudoscience topic area: In April 2008, I banned him for one week from the Atropa Belladonna article and talkpage. In July 2008, I implemented a 12-hour block for edit-warring with Martinphi. In November 2008, a 30-day ban from editing the WP:FRINGE guideline, and then a 48-hour block for violating the ban. Details and diffs at my log page if anyone's interested. --Elonka 21:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- And you never have had any email discussions with him? NW (Talk) 22:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Back in 2008 and maybe early 2009 I probably had communications with him in a variety of venues, on-wiki and off-wiki. To the best of my knowledge though, I've had no communications with him for years, because I haven't been working as an admin in that topic area. Where are you going with this? --Elonka 23:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- And you never have had any email discussions with him? NW (Talk) 22:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Checking User:Elonka/ArbCom log, I implemented some sanctions on him (and others) back in 2008 when I was monitoring the Pseudoscience topic area: In April 2008, I banned him for one week from the Atropa Belladonna article and talkpage. In July 2008, I implemented a 12-hour block for edit-warring with Martinphi. In November 2008, a 30-day ban from editing the WP:FRINGE guideline, and then a 48-hour block for violating the ban. Details and diffs at my log page if anyone's interested. --Elonka 21:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Elonka, do you have a past history with Joshua? I'm not trying to insinuate anything, but my memory is telling me that there is some history here. NW (Talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- After considering the contributions above, I remain of the opinion that the request has merit.
[28] is disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. [29] and [30] are edit-warring (as are most of Joshua P. Schroeder's contributions to that page). The fifth link cited in the request is not a diff but that discussion does currently contain some non-collegial, patronizingly dismissive contributions by Joshua P. Schroeder ("the character assassination of Robert Todd Carroll is attempted on the talk page", "petulant advocacy"), which also applies to the sixth edit , [31].
The principles of Wikipedia etiquette require that editors assume good faith, work towards agreement, argue facts and not personalities, and be civil. In the incidents described above Joshua P. Schroeder did not do so. Thereby, and by edit-warring, he has failed to adhere to expected standards of behavior when editing in the area of pseudoscience, as outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. The problem is very seriously aggravated by Joshua P. Schroeder's failure to bring his conduct into line with community expectations even after an ArbCom ban and caution, and after many blocks for similar problems, and by his failure to recognize and address the problems with his conduct in his statement here, which even as amended is also at odds with the principles of etiquette mentioned above. Finally, the findings at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#ScienceApologist indicate that Joshua P. Schroeder has continued to conduct himself in this manner since at least 2006 despite many blocks and proceedings. This leads me to the conclusion that Joshua P. Schroeder intends to continue to treat the pseudoscience / fringe science topic area as a battleground and should be restricted from doing so in order to prevent continued disruption.
A topic ban is therefore required. Considering that his most recent ban was an ArbCom site ban for three months and topic ban for six months "for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering", and that the Arbitration Committee noted, at that time, that "further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans", it is appropriate to impose a topic ban of twice the length of the previous one.
Consequently, in enforcement and application of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions, Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs), is hereby topic-banned from the topics of pseudoscience and fringe science for a year. The topic ban shall have the meaning described at WP:TBAN, and the topic area from which he is banned shall encompass (but is not limited to) all topics covered by the descriptions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision, sections 15 to 17. This ban is to be enforced with escalating blocks that may start at a duration of one week. It can be appealed as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 23:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a good call, nor do I think it's wise to allow WP:AE to be used as a weapon in a grudge match. But I can't really bring myself to care enough to argue the case further, so whatever. MastCell Talk 00:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I find a one-year ban to be a bit excessive, given that the last ban expired over a year ago. Three months would be more appropriate, in my view.
I find ZuluPapa5's creation of the FAQ page with the obviously POV content to be quite inappropriate, and reading the recent talk page discussions does not inspire any confidence. Given that and the edit warring on the article, I have notified Afterwriting (talk · contribs) and ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs) of the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. Future disruptive activity may lead to a topic ban.
In addition, I find Cla68's characterization of the first diff as "vandalistic" to be unhelpful and inaccurate, and the unnecessary piling-up of adjectives to be unnecessarily inflammatory. Cla68 is admonished and reminded that vandalism is defined by policy as any edit made in "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (first emphasis in original) and that inaccurate accusations of vandalism that unnecessarily inflame a dispute may result in sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)