Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:43, 29 January 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,064 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive145) (bot← Previous edit Revision as of 09:53, 31 January 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,064 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive145) (botNext edit →
Line 66: Line 66:
*I agree with Sandstein on this one. Given that HouseOfArtaxiad has been mostly inactive there is no evidence that they would be able to edit constructively in this topic so the appeal is, in effect, that there was no evidence to ban and hence that the administrators acted outside the DS policy. I find both of these to be groundless so recommend '''declining''' the appeal until HouseOfArtaxiad can present evidence that the ban is no longer needed. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC) *I agree with Sandstein on this one. Given that HouseOfArtaxiad has been mostly inactive there is no evidence that they would be able to edit constructively in this topic so the appeal is, in effect, that there was no evidence to ban and hence that the administrators acted outside the DS policy. I find both of these to be groundless so recommend '''declining''' the appeal until HouseOfArtaxiad can present evidence that the ban is no longer needed. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
*If HouseOfArtaxiad had established a pattern of unproblematic editing in a different subject area over the last three months, I'd look very favourably at ending the topic ban early or perhaps replacing it with a looser restriction. As it is, HouseOfArtaxiad has hardly edited at all since the topic ban. The idea is not that a sanctioned editor simply waits out the duration of the sanction (this isn't some virtual game of chicken), but that when the sanction ends, the editor comes back with a clear idea of where they went wrong and how to avoid doing so in future (preferably informed by editing something less controversial). ] &#124; ] 18:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC) *If HouseOfArtaxiad had established a pattern of unproblematic editing in a different subject area over the last three months, I'd look very favourably at ending the topic ban early or perhaps replacing it with a looser restriction. As it is, HouseOfArtaxiad has hardly edited at all since the topic ban. The idea is not that a sanctioned editor simply waits out the duration of the sanction (this isn't some virtual game of chicken), but that when the sanction ends, the editor comes back with a clear idea of where they went wrong and how to avoid doing so in future (preferably informed by editing something less controversial). ] &#124; ] 18:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

==Lecen==
{{hat|No actionable evidence submitted. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 06:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning Lecen===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lecen}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] and ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
# Lecen mentions both MarshalN20 and me by name, and requests some unclear action against us. He does not report any actual and tangible violation of any ban.

; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
#Warned on by {{user|Sandstein}} (actually, it was a previous block for this very same reason)

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
There is an interaction ban of Lecen with both MarshalN20 and me. He mentions both of us, by name, and requests some unclear action against us (he's not reporting any violation of the bans, nor anything that may affect him somehow). Besides, he is a reincident, he has already been blocked for violation the interaction bans. See ], for the enforcement discussion that led to his block, and ] for the discussion where the first violation took place. I will point as well some info that may be relevant here.
* Lecen's description of the case is completely inaccurate. As it can be seen in the enforcement discussion, he was not blocked immediately: he ''did'' receive explanations of the meaning and extent of his interaction ban, and was blocked only after his refusal to remove the text that was violating it.
* The discussion that led Lecen to complain that the case is "still alive" is located at ]. It is a discussion between MarshalN20 and Astynax. '''Lecen is not involved in it''', and has no interests at stake to justify ignoring the interaction ban.
* During the previous discussion Lecen mentioned his retirement, and some users blamed me for it. Let me clarify that detail. As I have been checking in histories and archives, Lecen weared the "retired" tag . MarshalN20's clarification request was opened on November 27, and Lecen made the edit that led to his block on November 28. Thus, his alleged retirement was '''not''' caused by the enforcement. He was blocked for one month , and the block expired on December 29. He began to edit again (just mere 10 days afterwards), and removed the "retired" tag .
* Newyorkbrad says that if Lecen had appealed his block, he may have supported an unblock. Still, the outcome of such appeal belongs in the realm of the speculation, as other arbitrators may have rejected it. With things as they are, Lecen '''was''' blocked and the block was '''not''' contested, so it must be considered as a precedent for this new violation of the interaction ban.
* As far as I know, a one-month block is the standard block for first violations of bans.
As in the previous case, I'm talking about Lecen here because I consider that the interaction ban has been violated, which is a standard exception to the ban. ] (]) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

:Reply to Penwhale: I noticed the edt because the page ] is in my watchlist since the original case was proposed in it. ] (]) 03:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning Lecen===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Lecen====

====Statement by MarshalN20====
What bothers me about this is not that Lecen indirectly mentions Cambalachero & myself (which breaches the ] point: "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whether directly or indirectly"), but rather that ] continues to be broken.

In fact, assuming ], Lecen's indirect mentions show no clear intention of breaking his IBAN. For this reason, perhaps only a warning is necessary that any further indirect breaches will result in blocks. Nonetheless, this being stated, Cambalachero's request is justifiable and formal sanctions would be justifiable as well (especially when considering the aspersion casting).

Indeed, the true serious problem here is the aspersion casting (one of the principles of the Argentine history case ). Not only is this taking place against Cambalachero and myself, but also against Sandstein (who is accused of "arbitrary use of powers"). Moreover, Lecen mildly insults the Arbitration Committee as well ("Will there be a moment when anyone among the arbitrators will wake up and do something?").

The aspersion casting against Cambalachero and me is already under study (and sanction proposals) at AN/I (]) for another user. It surprises me that Lecen takes this time to also carry on the torch and continue with the insults. Then again, perhaps ''it should not be'' surprising.

However, the unwarranted attacks against Sandstein are not under study at AN/I. To be fair, Lecen is not the only user who has commented negatively on Sandstein. Nevertheless, Lecen's insults have no real justification when considering that Sandstein simply followed protocol and even Lecen's own suggestion to block him (see , "I fully agree with Sandstein"). I know that Sandstein has a tough skin, but surely there is a limit to the amount of insults anyone can take from others.

Should Lecen be taken to AN/I for all the aforementioned aspersion casting, or can the enforcement board do something about it?

Regards.--] | ] 00:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

*It's worth pointing out that I filed (and later withdrew) a clarification request at the Arbitration Committee page (which is now archived ). Cambalachero was notified of the request. Since I tagged the page on my watchlist, I became aware of Lecen's talk page statement on 24 January. My request was archived 20 hours later (see ). Since this is how I became aware of Lecen's statement, it seems logical that Cambalachero became aware of it in the same manner. Best regards.--] | ] 03:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning Lecen===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small>

It seems to me that Lecen's comments at fall under ], reasonably interpreted, which include when "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 01:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

*I believe that the original block based on has merit because I quote, ''Now let's take a look at what Marshal has done in the last month'' - this portion breaks the IBAN as the request didn't directly deal with Lecen (Lecen is not under TBAN in this area and thus the request normally doesn't affect him). That being said: I believe this request is without merit as the only text in that refers to MarshalN and Cambalachero were exactly what Lecen wrote on ARCA in the first place - and Lecen is raising concerns on the block due to that. Therefore, from my point of view, this is not a violation of the TBAN. On the flip side, I do not understand how under the IBAN would Cambalachero notice Lecen's edit. {{ping|Cambalachero}}, can you answer this? - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 03:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

*I agree that this is not a violation of the IBAN and so is not actionable in this forum. Cambalachero would have been well advised to ignore Lecen's post as it did not deal directly with him. In fact this seems to have been used as a chance to get the other side blocked rather than to try and stop the behaviour which lead to the sanction. Due to that I recommend that this request be '''declined'''. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
*: Done. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 06:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==Blippy== ==Blippy==

Revision as of 09:53, 31 January 2014

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages'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
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    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 informationShortcuts

    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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    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.
    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:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347


    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HouseOfArtaxiad

    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
    HouseOfArtaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    Topic ban from the subject of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, imposed at .
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

    Statement by HouseOfArtaxiad

    I would like to appeal a six month ban I was given three months ago. The requester cites a dispute on the Shushi article. He says I was ignoring the discussion on the talk page, but I was very active in it. He also claims I was edit warring, but I had only undone two edits, the same amount as he himself, and did not violate the three per day rule or anything that directly merited punishment. I feel the request to ban me was more like a ban for having a different opinion and EdJohnson rushed to place a ban. I think this was a relatively small incident that was reacted to too harshly. Considering almost all of my edits are focused around Armenian topics, most of which aren't controversial, I think half a year is too long of a sanction and that three months is plenty. Having already spent half the time banned, I want to request it be removed now. I promise I will not do any undoing during my next talk regardless of if the other editor does it or not. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by EdJohnston

    HouseOfArtaxiad has done very little editing since the closure of the original AE in November 2013 that led to his ban. So this should be viewed as though it was an immediate appeal in which he challenges the grounds presented at AE for the sanction.

    • For reference, the original AE discussion was here.
    • The prior ANI discussion was here. The bottom line of that ANI was summarized by User:Drmies as: "HouseOfArtaxiad, you are hereby warned that your behavior is unacceptable and blockable".

    In my opinion, the appeal should be judged on whether HouseOfArtaxiad effectively refutes the points raised in the above two discussions. To save following a lot of links, here was the original argument I presented:

    My statement in the November 2013 AE
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    HouseOfArtaxiad has now edit warred at two articles: List of massacres in Turkey and Nazim Bey. Look at the massacres article first because it's easier to check, even though HOA only reverted twice there:

    1. No edit summary, 1 November 2013
    2. "Undoing vandalism. Most of these don't have sources, and the rest are sourced to people such as Justin McCarthy, whom was declared unreliable in the talk.", 4 November 2013

    One of the massacres that he removes is called 'Massacres in the Çoruh River valley', which has an academic source in a book by Robert Gewarth et al. published by Oxford University Press, “War in peace: Paramilitary violence in Europe after the Great War”. This was a massacre where Armenians are said to have participated. Another is Yıldız assassination attempt, which describes an attack carried out by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. It's reasonable to have low tolerance for edit warring on obvious ethnic hot-button articles like this one. The other article where HOA engaged in warring is Nazim Bey.

    • Nazim Bey: HouseOfArtaxiad made nine reverts here that occurred between Sept 18 and Nov 4. See the summary by User:Drmies Here:
    "What a fine mess. HouseOfArtaxiad is (besides the personal attacks and false claims of vandalism) very clearly edit warring here; I just slapped a warning on their talk page. Their suggestion that the Ungor book is unreliable is based on nothing at all, and at any rate such a discussion ought to take place on the article talk page or on WP:RSN, not with some sneers in edit summaries.."

    I didn't look into the claims of edit warring at Shusha, a dispute which has now led to full protection of the article by User:Ymblanter. My recommendation for a sanction is given in the admin section below. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

    Regarding HoA's claim that 'EdJohnston rushed to place a ban', please note that User:Sandstein and User:Drmies also supported this action. In terms of 'rushing', the complaint was opened on 8 November and closed on 15 November. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HouseOfArtaxiad

    Result of the appeal by HouseOfArtaxiad

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

    This appeal isn't going anywhere, and may be archived, if the sanctioning administrator is not notified of the appeal by the appellant, as instructed in the template. Then we normally wait for the sanctioning admin to make a statement.  Sandstein  09:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

    • I now see that I voiced support for the ban in the discussion about the enforcement request that led up to the ban. But this appeal does not require us to examine whether the ban was appropriate to begin with. That's because HouseOfArtaxiad does not contest this. They only want the ban to end now rather than in three months.

      In my view, this appeal should be declined. First, on procedural grounds: such a request should have been made to the sanctioning admin first. Second, because HouseOfArtaxiad's assumptions about how sanctions work are mistaken. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. They should end as soon as they are no longer needed to prevent problematic behavior, not sooner and not later. This means that one can't argue that a less serious infraction (which HouseOfArtaxiad believes this was) must automatically result in a sanction of a shorter duration.

      In order for us to be able to determine whether the ban is no longer needed at this time, HouseOfArtaxiad would need to address their misconduct that caused the ban, and explain why it will not reoccur (see, by analogy, WP:GAB). Because HouseOfArtaxiad doesn't do that here (instead, they attempt to play down the significance of their misconduct), and because their lack of an editing record since the imposition of the ban doesn't allow us to infer that they will edit non-disruptively if unbanned, I don't see an argument for why the ban should be lifted now rather than later.  Sandstein  21:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

    • I agree with Sandstein on this one. Given that HouseOfArtaxiad has been mostly inactive there is no evidence that they would be able to edit constructively in this topic so the appeal is, in effect, that there was no evidence to ban and hence that the administrators acted outside the DS policy. I find both of these to be groundless so recommend declining the appeal until HouseOfArtaxiad can present evidence that the ban is no longer needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
    • If HouseOfArtaxiad had established a pattern of unproblematic editing in a different subject area over the last three months, I'd look very favourably at ending the topic ban early or perhaps replacing it with a looser restriction. As it is, HouseOfArtaxiad has hardly edited at all since the topic ban. The idea is not that a sanctioned editor simply waits out the duration of the sanction (this isn't some virtual game of chicken), but that when the sanction ends, the editor comes back with a clear idea of where they went wrong and how to avoid doing so in future (preferably informed by editing something less controversial). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

    Blippy

    Blippy is topic banned from all fringe and pseudoscience-related topics on all pages of Misplaced Pages for a period of 6 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    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 Blippy

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Blippy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Standard discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience and fringe science topics, per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2#Discretionary sanctions

    Blacklight Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article about a company that claims (and has claimed for a couple of decades, now) to have developed remarkable new technology to extract energy from hydrogen atoms using a non-standard theory of physics. The topic falls squarely within the bounds of fringe science and arguably falls under 'cold fusion' as well.

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

    In a long series of edits around 15 and 16 January, Blippy edit warred extensively to include favorable content and claims from a Blacklight Power press release. This edit warring resulted in 72 hours of full protection of the article. While the article was protected, it was discovered that Blippy's additions included a substantial copyvio. As a result of the ensuing AN/I discussion (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Breach of copyright in a locked article) several revisions of the article were deleted, and Blippy's edits were removed by an independent admin while the article remained fully protected.

    Over a period of just under four days, Blippy engaged in slow edit warring by making daily reverts to re-add certain claims to the article. These scientific claims were sourced, rather dubiously, to The Village Voice (a tabloid newspaper). This edit warring began less than a day after the previous full protection of the article had expired.

    1. 20 January
    2. 22 January
    3. 23 January
    4. 23 January

    Four separate editors disagreed with the use of the source and independently removed the claim from the article: Bhny, Noformation, Alexbrn, and AndyTheGrump. Several editors tried, and failed, to explain their concerns to Blippy at Talk:Blacklight Power#Village Voice addition.

    When Blippy was cautioned (by me, TenOfAllTrades; see diff below) about edit warring on the content, he decided instead to start edit warring to add a {{POV}} template to the article. So far, we're up to three attempts – in less than 24 hours – to 'spite tag' the article since he couldn't get his way.

    1. 24 January
    2. 24 January
    3. 24 January

    On the talk page, he justifies his action by claiming that "many of the editors here seem to be justifying their removal of such material based on personal animosity toward BLP ": Talk:Blacklight Power#NPOV. Once again, on the matter of the tag he is a lone holdout against the consensus of several different editors, including Alexbrn, Roxy the dog, and Jim1138.

    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. On 18 November 2013 Blippy was notified of the discretionary sanctions applying to pseudoscience topics by Bbb23 (talk · contribs).
    2. On 23 January (yesterday) Blippy was explicitly cautioned by me – TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs) – that edit warring could lead to a block or topic ban; he then immediately began edit warring to add a {POV} tag to the article.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    At this point, it doesn't seem likely that this editor will be able to contribute positively on this topic, as he has been edit warring continuously and making baseless insinuations of bad faith ever since the article's full protection expired—protection which was the result of Blippy's own earlier edit warring. While Blippy's only recent edits have been to Blacklight Power and its talk page, I very much doubt that encouraging him to bring his approach to any other articles in this topic area would be helpful. I would therefore recommend a topic ban on cold fusion and fringe energy topics, broadly construed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

    @Sandstein: Fair enough; his recent edits have essentially all be related to his editing (and edit warring) at Blacklight Power. Looking a bit deeper into Blippy's contribution history – something that I hadn't really taken the time to do until now – is interesting-bordering-on-informative: Blippy's last 500 edits. Blippy was a relatively prolific editor back in August 2009, but received a 24-hour 3RR block for edit warring over a {POV} tag (sound familiar?) during some heated editing at Sense About Science, and then disappeared from the project – at least as a logged-in editor under this account name – for four years. In November 2013 Blippy made dozens of contentious edits at Rupert Sheldrake and its talk page (and on a few noticeboards related to that dispute), apparently edit warring just as vigorously then as he is now (per Vzaak's evidence below). His editing on Sheldrake virtually stopped when he was warned about discretionary sanctions, leading to another hiatus—this time for just two months. From mid-January to the present we have the extant edit warring and IDHT behavior at Blacklight Power, only briefly interrupted by a page protection.
    All of the pages involved relate to fringe and pseudoscience in some way, with Blippy attempting, against consensus and using the same disruptive tactics, to weaken Misplaced Pages's reporting of the mainstream scientific position. Based on his pattern, a page ban will solve the problem at Blacklight Power, there will be a reprieve for a few weeks or months, and then Blippy will find another fringe-science article that he feels is unfairly skeptical and resume his disruptive editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Notified.

    Discussion concerning Blippy

    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 Blippy

    This disagreement revolves around the second & final lede para which reads (with my proposed addition in italics):

    The proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics and critics have ruled it out on those grounds, with some labelling it "fraud", "extremely unlikely", lacking corroborating scientific evidence, and a relic of cold fusion. In 2009 IEEE Spectrum magazine characterised it as a "loser" technology because "most experts don’t believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don’t present convincing evidence", however other scientists have expressed interest in exploring his work further.

    My proposed edit attempted to provide a summary of relevant material that appears further down in the article (that some scientists consider BLP's claims worthy of investigation) which is not otherwise represented in the lede viz.:

    By 2000, Mills raised $25 million in funding for the company, recruiting several researchers to sit on the board, which subsequently included representatives of venture capital firms, a former CEO of Westinghouse and turnaround expert Michael H. Jordan...
    In 2013 BLP was one of 54 applicants to receive ~$1.1M grant from the New Jersey Economic Development Authority and was awarded a Trailblazer award by the New Jersey Technology Council.
    Around 2002 the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) granted a Phase I grant to Anthony Marchese, a mechanical engineer at Rowan University, to study a possible rocket propulsion that would use hydrinos.
    In a 2007 review of cold fusion research, researcher Edmund Storms put forward the hydrino model as a possible explanation for cold fusion.
    In 2012 after investigating the BLP process, both Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary of Rowan University and Professor of Chemical Engineering at University of California, Santa Barbara, W. Henry Weinberg claimed that the BLP process is legitimate.

    I believed that adding something along the lines of however other scientists have expressed interest in exploring work further was a reasonable summary of this content. The fact that BLP have had independent investigators supportive of their claims, and they (and others) have published many articles in peer reviewed journals, are some of the most notable things about BLP (as compared to other 'free energy' types), and this information is an important part of the BLP story which I believe should be reflected in the lede of any fair WP article on them.

    I have engaged with other editors on the Talk page, but often they would revert and/or make broadly dismissive comments - often ad hominem in nature - but then not respond to the responses I made to their criticism (the editor lodging this complaint being a case in point). I accepted that the consensus was not to include my (or a similar) edit in the lede, but I believed this consensus to be in violation of NPOV, so introduced the POV tag in the hope of attracting the attention of more editors beyond those who - in their comments - had been expressing hostility toward BLP in a way which seemed to colour their perspective on my proposed edit. However, the tag was also deemed inappropriate. I was half way through seeking some different views via the dispute resolution form when I received notification of this process, which I believe means that avenue can no longer be pursued. Hopefully this process will generate sufficient interest from disinterested editors to resolve the matter one way or another - I'm always open to learning from mistakes I make (the copyvio business for instance), and readily acknowledge that being in the midst of a disagreement can skew one's perspective and judgement beyond what is reasonable, so I am very open to the advice of those who have no strong views either way on BLP. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Statement by Alfonzo Green

    TenOfAllTrades not only fails to demonstrate edit warring in the diffs provided but doesn't seem to be understand WP:Consensus. "After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it." Simply reverting the edit at this stage is not an option. "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." Before reverting, editors are to discuss the added material. Yet Bhny reverted the edit in question without prior discussion. In his comment he justified the revert with the claim, "(need better source than Mills...)" indicating that he didn't know Blippy's source was a major US urban weekly, The Village Voice, which is cited in countless articles throughout Misplaced Pages and undeniably a reliable source (and no, WP:RS doesn't set a different standard of reliability for science articles). Yet TenOfAllTrades carries on the charade, claiming in his request that the material is "rather dubiously" sourced, though he knows it's the Voice, not a press release from Mills, as Bhny apparently believed.

    Bhny additionally claimed in his revert that he "removed weasely 'some scientists.'" Again, WP:Consensus: "An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording." One way to fix the problem would simply be to quote from the cited article, which reads: "More quietly, however, some scientists are taking notice." This way the reader knows the "weasel word" is in the source itself and not a poor characterization on Blippy's part (and yes, "some" is a useful word, meaning neither "none" nor "all"). Instead of leaving the added sentence alone or changing it into a direct quote, Bhny chose to edit war. Not content to see Bhny have all the fun, Noformation jumped in and reverted with the same (weaselly) non-justification. 91.221.58.5 later supplied the third revert with no comment whatsoever. Seems that once a couple of reverts have occurred, the fact that they're not based on policy is no barrier to adding more. The final member of the tag team was AndyTheGrump, who justified his revert by noting a failure of consensus on the talk page.

    Yet the talk page discussion reveals no willingness on the part of the dissenting editors to base their objections on actual policy. Aside from declaring himself "a little uncomfortable with using the Village Voice" as a source, Noformation claims we need to know why "any particular scientist is interested in this technology," implying that the editor, Noformation, is more of an expert on this sort of thing than the scientists in question. It goes without saying that no Misplaced Pages policy justifies Noformation's demand for extra information. According to Jim1138, "one can almost always find 'other scientists' who support a dubious claim." The point, however, is that a reliable source reports that some scientists, even if Jim1138 knows better, aren't convinced that Mills' claim is dubious. TenOfAllTrades steps into the breach with the following zinger: "The problem with 'some scientists believe' and variations on the theme is that it is true for virtually any assertion you might wish to make." Guess what, Ten, the claim is legitimized by the presence of a reliable source. By contrast, "virtually any assertion" doesn't have sources backing it up, so we don't have to worry about "virtually any assertion" worming its way into Misplaced Pages. Alexbrn chimes in to claim the edit is "not neutral," as if accurately paraphrasing a reliable source could somehow be construed as POV. It's POV when it's not sourced, when it's the editor's opinion. Again, what we have here is a complete failure to comprehend policy.

    According to Andy, the "viewpoint isn't 'significant' if it is held by a tiny minority, by definition." And this takes us right to the heart of the problem. The defining characteristic of science is that no final answers are ever given (and no deity exists to ladle them out). The assumption is always that some of what we think we know will turn out to be false. It's because scientists can sometimes get it wrong that we don't call them priests. Scientists are all too aware of how easily orthodoxy crumbles in the fact of continued questioning and investigation, and it appears that in this case at least a small number of them think they may have found a crack in the wall. Thanks to Blippy, Misplaced Pages is now in possession of a source making this claim. The other editors' job was to make sure the sourced material was accurately conveyed in the article. Instead they engaged in pointless chatter while brazenly triggering an edit war and, worse, blaming it on the injured party. "Edit warring," according to WP:EW, "is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus," or in this case impossible since the dissenting editors plainly refuse to rationally engage Blippy's edit. At the very least, they should receive a warning that that blocking consensus is unacceptable.

    No rational observer would grant this request. To rule in favor of the dissenting editors is to demonstrate contempt not only for Misplaced Pages policy but the scientific project. Appeals to WP:ARB/PS only serve to distract from the real issue. This isn't about pseudoscience; it's about a clique of clueless editors misrepresenting science. Discretionary sanctions, intended to "tackle misconduct" are instead applied by administrators at the behest of science-confused editors so as to preempt usual Misplaced Pages policy and remove editors who don't share their ignorance or tolerate their misconduct. Alfonzo Green (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by vzaak

    Blippy warred extensively at Rupert Sheldrake.

    • Warring to remove reference to the Sokal hoax:
    • Warring to give Sheldrake the title of "biologist":
    • Warring to add a hearsay Dawkins quote:
    • Warring to add the POV tag:

    I had implored everyone to read the instructions for the POV tag, but despite the instructions saying Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article, Blippy added the tag with comment, "we should warn readers".

    There was a competency issue as well: syntax problems in wikitext, adding a quote that appeared in the very next section, and basically warring without understanding what is being warred. Blippy had also jumbled up the timeline, introducing errors, which was very time-consuming to fix.

    Please consider extending this request to cover pseudoscience and fringe science. vzaak 02:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

    The recent comment by TenOfAllTrades reminded me of my other run-in with Blippy at Mars effect, where he made a short push against the scientific consensus, claiming "the statistical correlation exists".
    Looking back further, there is some wild warring at Arthur C. Clarke; relevant phrase is "about 50 cases that are hard to explain":
    And warring at Scientific skepticism:
    And apparent warring at Ian Stevenson too, though I haven't looked into the details.
    In all cases I've seen, Blippy's warring is a push against policies such as WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL. Blippy is a time sink on editors who could be doing something more productive than fixing Blippy's policy-violating edits. As TenOfAllTrades describes, there is a long term pattern of behavior here which is unlikely to change. I might call it "push and run": cause just enough disruption to fall short of serious administrative action, then leave. Sandstein is looking for recent edits, but we should also learn from history. vzaak 17:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

    Vzaak (talk · contribs) summarises the issues at Rupert Sheldrake above, but there appears to be a wider problem. Looking at special:contributions/Blippy it is apparent that Blippy (talk · contribs) is either unwilling or unable to understand and implement WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:MAINSTREAM, and therefore anti-Misplaced Pages per WP:NOTHERE, and I think a ban on all fringe and pseudoscience-related articles broadly construed is unfortunately necessary. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by Enric Naval

    in BlackLight Power

    Blippy edit-warred to keep his changes to the article. Later he edit-warred again to put a POV tag (diffs were already provided by TenOfAllTrades). If you look at his changes, he is removing negative material and introduceing promotional material. One of his removals of negative material was not noticed by other editors, and the material was absent from the article during 14 days.

    Note the snarky and unhelpful replies . The assumption that editors who oppose his edits are "hostile". He broadly dismisses all arguments, saying the editors are not being intellectually honest: "(...) yet so far the responses to my NPOV concerns have included personal attacks ("POV-pusher", "credulous"), broadbrush dismissal (WP not a platform for nonsense), whimsy, and unilateral declarations of truth ("there is no neutrality problem"). How about some intellectually honest engagement with the issue?". This is a battleground mentality. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

    in Rupert Sheldrake

    See Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_12#Snowstorm_of_drive_by_edits_by_Blippy. Blippy provides 3 sources, and other people tell him that there are problems with his suggestion. Blippy displays WP:ICANTHEARYOU the whole section, and uses snarky and unhelpful replies near the end. Other editors give up on reasoning with him. He gets told to go to WP:RS/N, but he never does it. When challenged about it, he plays the victim . Soon, the thread died down without any improvement to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

    in Arthur_C._Clarke

    Looks like a long-term problem. Back in August 2009, he gets told that his last edit has a lot of issues, and he plays the victim "I shall endeavour to ignore your hostility and provide a civil response. ". When he gets told of a lot more issues, he dismisses all of them and tells the other editor that he is assuming bad faith, then makes a condescending comment that he will take the suggestions into account . Later, his proposed edit keeps being rejected and he makes unconstructive comments on the other editor . In the end, the other editors re-wrote the discussed paragraph.

    My impression in general

    Always attempts to give undue weight to quotes and sources that are positive towards fringe subjects. Maybe he feels they are treated unfairly in wikipedia, or something.

    When told about weight and POV, he reacts badly (see diffs above). When he can't counter the other editor's arguments, he seems to resort to civil accusations of bad faith and non-neutrality. The ones I have seen were enveloped in exquisite civility, and they were baseless. They feel like a technique to avoid discussion and get his edits introduced despite the objections. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by Johnuniq

    Blippy is unable to discuss issues in the terms required at Misplaced Pages, as shown in my recent interaction at Talk:BlackLight Power#NPOV. At "00:18, 25 January 2014" (diff) my brief comment focuses on a single policy link (WP:SYNTH). After a reply by Blippy, I asked for a response to the substance of my comment. Blippy then replied "It's hard to know which of your claims you think is substantive" (diff) in a comment that again deflects from the point, namely that an article should not be padded with text that suggests there may be scientific support for the claim that the company has a new energy source. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by 76.107.171.90

    As of the moment I am writing this Blippy has made 150 edits to articles since he returned to Misplaced Pages in early November. Of those edits:

    88 (58.6%) are POV pushes

    23 (15.3%) are arbitrarily rearranging articles and rephrasing sentences

    19 (12.6%) have been redacted

    11 (7.3%) were actual edits

    8 (5.3%) fixed errors (many of which were his own errors)

    1 (0.6%) tried to fix an error, but failed.

    I would also like to point out that some of his edits have rather dishonest edit summaries.

    ] Changed scientists to some scientists. Marked it as a copy edit.

    ] Changed journal to journals (implying more than one). Marked it as a copy edit.

    ] Called Sheldrake a “Research Fellow of the Royal Society”. Marked it as a copy edit.

    ] Called morphic resonance a theory. Marked it as a copy edit.

    ]. Changes “advocacy” into “research”. Marked it as a copy edit.

    In determining Blippy’s future on Misplaced Pages please consider the fact that he has done more harm than good. Though he certainly doesn’t approach User:Abd in terms of magnitude or length of disruption, Bilppy’s combination of POV-pushing, incompetence, and a generally foul attitude make him a textbook WP:RANDY. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

    comment by User:TheRedPenOfDoom

    As context for why IP 76.107.171.90 would classify some the edit summaries as "rather dishonest",

    the others are pretty clear in their effect to create the impression that Sheldrake's work is more highly regarded than it actually is and are not merely copyedits for grammar or clarity. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

    Result concerning Blippy

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

    In arbitration enforcement, we cannot resolve content issues, such as whether the article should be modified the way Blippy wants it to be. What we can address is editor conduct, and the complaint demonstrates that Blippy has engaged in edit-warring, in violation of WP:EW. On these grounds, I believe a ban from the article Blacklight Power and its talk page is appropriate. A broader topic ban, such as the sanctions TenOfAllTrades and Vzaak suggest, might be considered if there is evidence of recent disruptive conduct with respect to other articles. Vzaak's evidence concerning Rupert Sheldrake is from November 2013 and therefore probably too old to be actionable now.  Sandstein  09:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

    If one reads through Blippy's list of contributions, one does get the impression Vzaak describes: Blippy seemingly only edits a variety of fringe- or pseudoscience topics, and almost always does so by edit-warring with others over matters such as "POV" tags. It seems he is only here to make Misplaced Pages portray an array of fringe- or pseudoscience topics in a more positive (or less negative) light. Agenda-driven editing of any sort is not welcome on Misplaced Pages (see WP:NPOV, which also applies as a conduct rule). I'd welcome other admins' opinions about whether this is a basis for a ban from the whole field of fringe- and pseudoscience.  Sandstein  19:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

    Blacklight Power is proposing to generate power through a mechanism that contradicts well-accepted physics. If this really happened, it would be epochal. The fact that no mainstream publications give their hypothesis credence is what should matter for Misplaced Pages. It's well within the domain of WP:ARBPS to issue sanctions to an editor who insists on wanting our articles to recognize a scientific hypothesis that hasn't received mainstream notice. If people working for Blacklight Power get an article accepted in the Physical Review then we should start paying attention. I support Sandstein's proposal for a ban of this editor from fringe and pseudoscience-related topics on all pages of Wikipeda, including Blacklight Power. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

    • I find the request to be quite convincing, in that action is needed to prevent the disruption. Whilst I agree with Sandstein that edits from Nov 2013 aren't actionable, in this case they do from a pretty convincing pattern of behaviour. Given the long running history of disruptive edits I agree that a topic ban from fringe and pseudoscience-related topics would be appropriate, however I'd prefer it had a 6 month expiry date. After the initial 6 months, if Blippy begins disruptive editing again it won't be difficult to make a case for a longer or indefinite TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions Add topic