Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:52, 14 January 2014

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

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

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

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

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

GHcool

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 GHcool

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: IRISZOOM (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction

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

GHCool broke the 1RR and though that he has been blocked several times in this topic, he keeps doing the same thing.

04:26, 6 January 2014 "anachronism"
20:44, 6 January 2014 "Arabs ... see talk page"

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GHcool&diff=407079517&oldid=407076933

Warned on 15:45, 10 January 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) 24 hours block
Warned on 06:12, 24 January 2011 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) This was first a 55 hours block and then changed to two months and lifted after one month
Warned on 19:57, 18 June 2013 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) Topic banned from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for six months

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Before GHCool's second edit, he brought up the topic at the talk page (Talk:History of the Arab–Israeli conflict#"Palestinian Arabs" vs. simply "Arabs"). In spite of that, he goes and makes his second revert, which also was in violation of the 1RR, before we had an discussion. Now we have a discussion and he keeps on imposing his views (589668403 and 589669072). While I am writing this, I see that he has written that he will make another change that he thinks is right (589681953) and now he has done it (589682109). Obviously the talk pages are meant for discussion but unfortunately, for me it seems that he is more interested in imposing his views.

I also want to add while that GHCool didn't press "undo", it's still a revert. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning GHcool

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 GHcool

I apologize for the 1RR violation. I admit my error and I apologize for it. I gotta stop doing that. I got in trouble before for it, but I get excited and do it again anyway. I really do need to make a better effort at it and will check myself in the future. I'll accept any sentence I receive, but I really think a very light sentence is in order for this one. The infraction is so minor and this isn't exactly the edit war of the century.

On IRISZOOM's other point, I thought I was just being bold by imposing the changes. The issue we're discussing isn't very controversial at all. I thought it was one of those things that we can just do and it would eventually be acceptable to both of us. Its a very minor difference of opinion. I would have kept to the talk page if I had thought that IRISZOOM felt this strongly about this matter. --GHcool (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IRISZOOM

June 2013 is not two years ago. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning GHcool

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

Given the previous blocks were two years ago they are pretty immaterial to imposing anything more than a block. Given their statement my feeling is that any block would now be punitive. I think the best course of action is a logged warning in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the topic ban, see below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, with the caveat that if this does happen again, there will be no excuse for the behavior. Try harder to not get "excited" when working in contentious areas. SirFozzie (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What IRISZOOM brought up wasn't a block, but it was indeed a 6-month topic ban. Because it's another violation of the same behavior less than 1 month after the editor has came off the ban, a more significant remedy is necessary. I suggest a 1-year topic ban and/or 0RR restriction on topic. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the link IRISZOOM, given that GHcool has already has had his chance I would be in favour of a 1 year topic ban as well as an indefinite 0RR restriction on all pages relating to this topic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't like 0RR in general, but I wouldn't stand in the way of it. In terms of the topic ban, I agree that 1 year is necessary given that GHcool just got off a six-month ban about a month ago. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I alerted SirFozzie to the existence of TBAN; however, he hasn't edited in two and a half days. I consider his point above not well-argued (since what he originally supported was erroneous), and thus: if no other comments arise within 24 hours, I will enact a 1-year topic ban. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with this. Fozzie seems simply not to have noticed a critical fact in the case, as Callanecc also did not at first. I think it's OK to move on without him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A one year topic ban would seem to be the correct course of action in this situation. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds right to issue a one year topic ban, but I'd rather not be the one to close because I issued the previous ban. It is common to fight over the definition of Palestinian people, and we have to find a way to discourage that. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Darkness Shines

Consensus is to decline this appeal. Darkness Shines informed of route of direct appeal to ArbCom. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: You are prohibited from reverting (as defined at WP:3RR) any edit to an article if that edit or article is related to the topic of climate change. You may however attempt to convince others to revert the edit. This restriction applies without exceptions, including for reverting vandalism or WP:BLP violations.[1]

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

Notification of that administrator: [2]

Statement by Darkness Shines

The sanction is flawed, I cannot be prohibited from reverting BLP violations, reverting BLP violations is policy. Sandstein also wrote as his rationale for imposing this bollocks, "To prevent continued disruption by you," As there has been no disruption from me at all since the article was unprotected I can only see this as punitive, not preventative. I am also of the opinion that as the closer of the AFD for the article which has led to this bollocks he is involved, as it was he who decided that BLP did not apply. It also strikes me as off that Sandstein did not mention any sanctions until I question his closure, which makes this look as petty as it obviously is. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: That is a guideline, not a policy. I have the right to clear my talk page, and I will be damned before I let that giant banner sit at the top of my talk like a badge of shame. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: @SirFozzie: This sanction means I cannot revert even obvious BLP violations such as this or all of these or how about "Delingpole is indeed a stupid unscientific denier and promotes ignorant anti-science views". Darkness Shines (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge: How I plan to deal with it is obvious, see any reverts by me on that article since it was unprotected? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously IQs are the usual, I am effectively topic banned. Any edit to existing content is a revert, and once this joke is over, were do I appeal? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

My restriction excludes (alleged) BLP violations because the edits by Darkness Shines that caused this sanction illustrate that Darkness Shines believes that their interpretation of the BLP policy, even when contested in good faith by multiple other editors, gives them license to edit-war at will. They do not appear to accept that legitimate disagreements about the BLP policy must be resolved through the appropriate consensus-based processes (in this case, the then-ongoing AfD discussion). Therefore, if my sanction did not exclude what Darkness Shines believes to be BLP policy violations, they would continue to edit-war based on their interpretation of that policy, and the sanction would have no preventative effect. Based on the general discretionary sanctions authorization, administrators may take "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project", which includes sanctions of this type. If there are genuine BLP policy violations in an article covered by the sanction, Darkness Shines remains free to call them to any other editor's attention, but it is apparent from the background of this sanction that they cannot be relied upon to correctly identify and appropriately respond to such violations themselves.

There might have been some doubt about which kinds of BLP-based reverts my sanction would exclude if I had not explicitly mentioned them in my sanctions. Per WP:BANEX, in the context of bans, only "obvious" BLP policy violations are exempt, but per WP:3RRNO, in the context of revert restrictions, " libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons" is excluded – that is, not only "obvious" cases. To avoid doubt about which standard to apply, and because Darkness Shines can (as explained above) not be relied upon to correctly identify actual BLP policy violations in any case, I specified that (alleged) BLP policy violations of any sort are not excluded from the restriction.

As concerns Darkness Shines's doubts about the motivation of my sanction because they appealed an AfD closure I made (the appeal was filed some 20 minutes after I closed the discussion), they are unfounded. Both my AfD closure and the sanction are actions of an administrative nature, which means that per WP:UNINVOLVED they do not trigger concerns of bias. In addition, Darkness Shines should have voiced such concerns when I gave them the opportunity to voice objections before imposing sanctions. They did not voice any objections but said: "Sanction away." Any objections made now are belated and should not be heard.

The appeal should therefore be declined. Sandstein 23:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

DS wants to act unilaterally to impose his own take on BLP whatever the views of other editors on the topic: [3]. In this context, the sanction is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Darkness Shines has repeatedly ignored consensus and demonstrated a profound lack of understanding about WP:BLP and other policies, examples of which are abundant at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. There seems to be an attempt by this user to prevail in a content dispute by edit warring, forum shopping and repeating arguments that have been soundly rejected by other editors.- Mr X 20:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has also removed the sanction notice, which I believe is required to remain in place according to WP:REMOVED.- Mr X 20:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Darkness Shines

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The exact wording of the sanction in this case is actually inappropriate. Exemptions for edit-warring only apply to obvious violations of BLP, such as unsourced contentious claims, and that does not cover this case. A simple 1RR would suffice, though DS should be mindful of the exact circumstances where the edit-warring exemption applies.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon realizing this is, in fact, a 0RR I must protest even more vociferously. Should someone add blatantly defamatory and unsourced material to a BLP he shouldn't have to sit on his hands until someone else notices. A 1RR, even with the removal of the edit-warring exemptions, would at least allow him to immediately remove the kind of stuff none of us wants to be present in an article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK, the restriction Sandstein imposed covers any BLP violations and vandalism, including the kind that no one needs to be told should be reverted on sight. I fail to see how restricting him to just one revert with no exemptions would be a problem.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Sandstein went too far in this restriction. A block on the basis that it was a contentious BLP claim or simply placing him on a strict edit-warring limitation where none of the exemptions could be claimed would have sufficed. Barring him from making any reverts and from claiming the exemptions is far too harsh.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

Darkness Shines edit-warred against consensus breaking at least 6RR.[4][5][6][7][8][9]. The only thing that stopped the edit-warring was that the page was locked. There is no excuse for such blatant misconduct. Given the circumstances, the AE sanction is more than reasonable. Darkness Shines has not acknowledged why such conduct is unacceptable, nor have they provided an explanation as to how they plan on preventing such misconduct in the future. Therefore, I recommend that this appeal be declined. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention that Sandstein's suggestion that "If there are genuine BLP policy violations in an article covered by the sanction, Darkness Shines remains free to call them to any other editor's attention" is working just fine.[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate: Please see my above comment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate: Because DS has already abused the BLP exemption multiple times, and as I point out above, the new system is working just fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Darkness Shines

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

I'm inclined to dismiss this appeal. On the face of it, BLP concerns are one of the few exemption to our revert policies. However, the post linked in this request where he states (the equivalence of) "it doesn't matter if I have the BLP policy wrong, I was acting in good faith.." doesn't fill me with confidence to their ability to edit without trouble in this area. Recommend closing as Decline SirFozzie (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SirFozzie and with Sandstein's interpretation (and hence recommend that we decline the appeal), the reason for the sanction was Darkness Shines's interpretation of the BLP policy the related exemption from 3RR. Likewise this diff (the one SirFozzie referred to) "It does not matter if others think my interpretation of BLP is wrong, I was acting in good faith" also suggests to me that they won't be able to edit this area without further trouble. Regarding WP:REMOVE I can see where MrX is coming from and agree that this would technically be covered, but I don't intend to prevent a user removing a notice which is logged elsewhere (unlike declined unblock requests for example) unless an argument can be put forward. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline I agree with SirFozzie's and Callanecc's assessments of this situation. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to decline. First, having a look at the dispute in question has given me no confidence that DarknessShines was unequivocally right in his application of BLP, as the items he removed were sourced. Of course, it could still be a BLP violation if the sources were misused or unreliable. But if source usage or reliability is in doubt, as it was here, one can't simply ram one's own reading of the sources through. While I'm loath to do anything that might have a chilling effect on BLP enforcement, I have to agree that in this case, DarknessShines is not the one to be doing it and must agree to uphold the sanction as is. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Darkness Shines: You may appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee by email (see here) or by posting a request for amendment. When doing so, you would most likely gain more sympathy if you chose not to insult others' intelligence the way you have here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above views that the appeal should be declined. When an editor demonstrates clearly that he understands neither the letter nor the spirit of a policy, then it is reasonable to restrict him from "enforcing" it. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent01/Flau98bert

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 Urgent01/Flau98bert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Urgent01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Flau98bert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

After receiving this block, the user continued edit warring in the same article, covered by "pseudoscience", up to December 2013 [11] [12],[13] (removal of the same paragraph on the bottom). However, this is now stale and probably would not be a reason for enforcement per se.
December 21 "This article isn't the place for non-mainstream anti-Einstein advocates to present their views." Who he means, exactly? Apparently he means me, based on diffs below. According to all sources (including book "Non-postulated relativity" discussed at this article talk page), Ives misinterpreted his own experimental results as contradicting Special Relativity Theory. ~~This brings biography of Ives under discretionary sanctions covered by the "Pseudoscience and Fringe science" case.~~
January 5 - "I think if someone wants to promote the beliefs ... they should propose a separate article about him". This and other comments (below) indicate that Urgent01 knows about my personal connection to author of the book (yes, there is connection, and it can be easily established by anyone, because my account was outed), and he is trying to intimidate and discredit me personally to "win" a content dispute.
January 5 "This is your pet idea...it does not make sense to claim that Ives was correct by citing a crackpot book". No, according to the "crackpot" book and my edit, Ives was incorrect [14]
January 9 - "There have also been efforts in the past to create articles about ... in Wikipedia." (1st phrase) - implying COI editing on my part. No, I never made a single attempt to create articles about this person or this book. In this diff, he brings back my question dated 2006, when I just started editing and had no idea about rules and practices around here.
January 9 - "I know this is disappointing for you to hear, but it is the truth. Read and learn." (in the end)
January 10 - "you are striving to promote ... in the book you are trying to promote". This user repeatedly claims that I am trying to promote the book. No, I did not, because I included references to the book in only one article, a long time ago [15] to source consensus by other uninvolved editors at this article talk page [16]. I also tried to use it in another article ("special relativity") 7 years ago, however a consensus was reached that the reference should not be included in this article, and this is something I never disputed later.
December 21, January 3, January 5, January 5, January 5. Edit warring in article Herbert_E._Ives, just as in diffs #1.

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

Warned on January 5 by My very best wishes (talk · contribs) - his response (edit summary), my clarification, his response (edit summary)
A previous warning by admins and discussion about edit warring in this subject area [17]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In essence, this user continue doing the same and worse in the area of pseudoscience, despite the previous warning by admins [18]. Note that diffs 3,4 and 8 on January 5 are edits made after my warning. This user is an SPA, with few edits made from at least two accounts (the 2nd one is User:Flau98bert). He is an activist with agenda to fight pseudoscience or something he perceives as "pseudoscience". He is not a newbie, he knows what he is doing [19],[20], [21].

I wanted to avoid this AE request, in a hope that the Urgent01 would understand policies and improve [22], however he responded by making further insults (diffs # 5, 6 and 7).

The book and other sources, which are currently discussed, may be used somewhere or not; this is all merely a content dispute.

@Sandstein. Speaking about your last comment, this is something I strongly disagree about. You can not unilaterally declare a source "fringe" (I am speaking about Russian book), not translation to English and use this as a reason for sanction, without discussion on WP:RS or other appropriate noticeboards. Is it really "fringe"? Of course, not. There are lots of mainstream books published in Russian (or other languages), whose authors were not widely cited in English literature. That does not make any of the sources "fringe" or prohibited for use per WP:RS, but only sources with low or zero citation index, for whatever reason. As a matter of fact, one can find a lot of publications in Institute for Scientific Information database with zero citation index. That does not make any of them "fringe" or inappropriate for use in wikipedia.

Thank you, Sandstein, for discussing this matter with me [23]. I think this is simply a misunderstanding [24]. And yes, I take very close to the heart what you and EdJohnston are telling here; I will try to improve and do my best to always follow all WP policies. My very best wishes (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to consider this book "fringe". It has [25] 33,000 hits in Russian internet. More important, most claims by this book are not even novel. And here I would like to quote my "content opponent", Urgent01 [26]. He tells: "There is absolutely nothing in Lomize's "From High School Physics to Relativity" that is not already thoroughly discussed in countless more reputable and verifiable references." I do not necessarily agree. That is what he thinks. According to him, this is simply another book on the subject, and there are many hundred books on SRT. So, it comes at no surprise that a self-published English translation of a book, which is well known in Russia, did not bring much attention. A non-notable book? Yes, maybe. A fringe? No. My very best wishes (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston.

Speaking about the source, this is merely an English translation (with a few modification) of Russian edition, which does qualify as RS in my opinion, as I already explained here. It was reviewed and supported by Vitaly Ginzburg and other physicists from Lebedev Physical Institute and printed in 70,000 copies by major publishing house "Prosveshenie" ("Enligntment")ru:Просвещение (издательство). Speaking about author, he had at least 100+ publications (I do not remember exactly), however Google scholar is not an appropriate method to identify publications by people who worked long time ago in countries like the Soviet Union. Institute for Scientific Information database (also a poor method) retrieves some his publications from 1960-1980s. To my knowledge, he worked in a secret Soviet scientific institution, with highly restricted publishing. But this is not the place to asses sources.
Speaking about my alleged COI, my approach here is to simply follow Wikipedia:Five pillars. That is, I treat this book (for example) exactly as any other RS I read and liked as something interesting and informative. One could make a much stronger case that I "promoted" "Black book of communism" around here. I do not see this a "COI editing" on my part. Yes, I may have a bias, however this is merely a result of my knowledge/understanding of the subject, just as for everything in Chemistry, Biology or History. This is the reason I never had a trouble editing subjects, which are directly related to my work (unlike SRT) - I treated all sources equally per WP:NPOV.
Now, speaking more directly about WP:COI, it tells: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.. Yes, exactly. Let me tell this for a record: I am not advancing any outside interests at all (other than interests of Wikipedia readers), while editing anything related to Physics and SRT. And as long as I do not have any conflict of interest in this area, I am as "regular" editor as everyone else. I do apologize for a few reverts I made in article "Ives" (first of them was per WP:BRD cycle). On the other hand, I could easily make a point that someone who actually teaches SRT, has a COI if they are trying to make WP content more conforming with their lectures. But I did not, because doing so would be confrontational. Another side did.
Why there is a dispute here? This is simply because the teaching and interpretation of SRT (all effects and equations are exactly the same) is still a matter of debate. This is simply a typical situation when someone with a very strong POV (Urgent01) resorts to personal accusations because they do not have better arguments on the subject. Hence I submitted this request.

--- Conclusion. After looking at the comments by admins here, I would like to withdraw this request, if possible. There is no theory by Lev about Ives, and there are no any theories by Lev at all. This Russian book (and all my links/references were made to the Russian book) is merely a secondary source that quotes other sources, as was admitted even by Urgent01. I believe there is no reasonable justification for sanctions against me right now, as I explained on the talk page of Sandstein. This is an unnecessary and extremely offensive sanction for me on personal level. Please do not force me to leave the project. Yes, I got your message. I will do my best to avoid the trouble in the future. Trust me. Yes, I made some errors of judgement and will take a wikibreak enforced by a block for a couple of months. Does it show that I am learning my lesson and taking this very seriously? My very best wishes (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @EdJohnston. The Russian book by Lev is absolutely "mainstream" because it describes an approach to teaching SRT, which is not even new, as was noted even by my "opponent" Urgent01 [27]. He tells: "There is absolutely nothing in Lomize's "From High School Physics to Relativity" that is not already thoroughly discussed in countless more reputable and verifiable references."

@EdJohnston. More specifically, with regard to time dilation and Ives, Urgent01 said [28]: J.S.Bell's 1976 paper on "How to Teach Relativity", in which he clearly explains how relativistic phenomena (including length contraction and time dilation) can be described as a consequence of the (Lorentz invariant) laws of physics expressed in terms of a single reference frame... This is not new." Yes, he is right; this also has been described in multiple sources before Lev (this is simply not a new theory by Lev). Something to be expected from mainstream Russian book written for students.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

Discussion concerning Urgent01

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 Urgent01

Statement by NE Ent

Formally topic banning mvbw for picking the wrong noticeboard is overkill. Reviewing the article talk page [30] it's almost all mvbw and urgent01 (with a little Dvdm). They came here asking for help, so help them. (e.g. Please consider WP:DRN or WP:RS/N before filing an AE request). He got the message, just close request as "no action." NE Ent 00:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Urgent01

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

I have been hoping this would settle out without need for admin intervention, but my first impression is a boomerang... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have started to come down with a cold since posting the above, and am getting grumpy; the opinion above represents what I thought about this several days ago, and is not affected by this, but I would prefer other admins review and comment for the immediate future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how all this even relates to pseudoscience or fringe science, which is what sanctions are authorized for. Judging by the article, Herbert E. Ives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a genuine scientist, even though he may have been mistaken in his ideas about relativity. The article hasn't ever been categorized as pseudoscience, nor does it seem to have contained any text describing Ives's ideas as such. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Alternative theoretical formulations, "alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process", even if they turn out to be wrong. I would decline this request as out of scope. "Ordinary" edit-warring can be addressed via WP:AN3. Sandstein 08:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Sandstein's comment it's unclear whether WP:ARBPS can be used to regulate editor behavior on Herbert E. Ives. However I do have concerns about the behavior of User:My very best wishes. He is trying to add references to and material from a work of Lev Lomize to the Ives article.

The full text of the book, Non-Postulated Relativity by Lev Lomize, is available free online at http://www.nonpostulatedrelativity.com. The title page of the book gives the publisher as ‘Clue’, in Ann Arbor Michigan, but Wikipedia has no article on a publisher of that name and Google returns nothing. My scrutiny of the copyright page of the book suggested to me that the book was self-published.

The cautions expressed in WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources suggest that Lomize’s book may not normally be used in our articles, unless perhaps in an article about Lomize himself.

Google Scholar finds no conventionally published work by Lev Lomize on relativity, let alone work which is cited by others.

User:My very best wishes admits above that he has a personal connection to the author of the book. Under the WP:COI guideline he should avoid editing the article directly to add Lomize's work. Certainly he should not engage in edit wars with regular editors.

It's my impression that a WP:BOOMERANG awaits for User:My very best wishes if he continues to pursue this issue at noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this analysis. According to Lev Lomize's website, his self-published book claims to contain "an explanation of Special Relativity without using Einstein's postulates, but only classical physics." Considering that the work of Albert Einstein is a cornerstone of modern physics, and that Lev Lomize's work seems to have had zero impact on scientific discourse (no Wikipedia article, self-published book, nothing on Google, no peer-reviewed publicationsaccording to his own website), it is apparent that his work must be classified as "fringe science, broadly interpreted" as described in WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions. That his work may have been more professionally published in (Soviet?) Russia does not change this assessment of the impact of Lomize's work as it relates to international mainstream physics. The edits by My very best wishes are therefore covered by discretionary sanctions.

I agree with EdJohnston that the inclusion of citations from Lomize's work in any article except one about Lomize violates WP:V, particularly in light of WP:ARBPS#Appropriate sources: "in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals". By edit-warring to reinsert unreliable sources into an article ([31], [32], [33] etc.), My very best wishes has violated the policies WP:V and WP:EW.

Unless there are objections from other administrators, I intend to topic-ban My very best wishes from everything related to Lev Lomize. Sandstein 16:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein's recommendation of a topic ban of User:My very best wishes from everything related to Lev Lomize. This sanction appears justified after rereading WP:FRINGE for the definition of fringe science as well as the remedy section of the WP:ARBPS case: " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted." WP:FRINGE also provides that, when marginal and mainstream ideas are considered together, "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner". There are no reliable sources in English to affirm the relationship of Lomize's theory about Herbert E. Ives' time dilation results to the mainstream account of the same results. Self-published material about an alternative theory does not belong in the Ives article at all. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaj Taj Mahal

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 Kaj Taj Mahal

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Darkness Shines (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBCC

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

25 December 2013 Unsourced contentious content added to a BLP. removed by me [shit, look, I know a bLP vio when I see it Warned about BLP [34]
5 January 2014e Continues
1:49, 10 January 2014 Still continues
01:23, 11 January 2014 And blatant false misrepresentation of a source. As source does not say" despite its wide acceptance in the scientific community. He has no scientific qualifications." Remotely. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Warned on [35] by Me

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

You were happy to sanction me for two reverts following the same notification that Taj got. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And no doubt calling me a dipshit is all fine and dandy? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The filing of an entirely frivolous SPI is OK though? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Is calling a BLP a mental-midget OK? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[36]

Discussion concerning Kaj Taj Mahal

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 Kaj Taj Mahal

Please watch the interview referred to. He says himself that he hasn't any scientific expertise. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- An exact quote from the interview in question, "I haven't got the scientific expertise". I thought this should have been obvious, but in case it wasn't: there it is. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's another source, again, from Delingpole himself "I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. I read English Literature.", confirming what should be obvious. (source). --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Anyone is welcome to take a look at the references for themselves. Also see Talk:James_Delingpole#He_Has_No_Scientific_Qualifications --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it should be noted that Arbitration Enforcement isn't some toy you can use to complain about someone you don't like, it is the last resort for dispute resolution. This seems to be a clear abuse of AE process. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't frivolous, there was legitimate suspicion that two separate users would post nearly the same request in rapid succession. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I'm noticing a general theme here where you're taking each and everything I do personally. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Darkness Shines, as I'm sure you know, BLP only applies to statements in the article.~~ Removing that statement would violate TPG, which I know you hold very dear. And yes, Delingpole is a mental midget, at least compared to Planck. Delingpole's comparison to a genius like Planck was extraordinarily undue. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "mental midget" slight was undue, but he is undoubtedly intellectually inferior when compared to an esteemed genius such as Planck, which was my original point. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

If Kaj Taj Mahal continues their tendentious editing now that they've been officially warned, they should be topic-banned. The last thing we need is more agenda-driven editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kaj Taj Mahal

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

I have full protected the article for 3 days in light of general multiparty edit warring on this point.

Regarding the content issue - I am getting grumpy about watching BLP policy based seesawing between whitewashed and possibly libelous versions of an article. There is something Just Not Right about this pattern, and it's happening a lot lately. I don't want to discourage the prompt and proper application of BLP to fix possibly libelous material, but given DS and ARBCC I am thinking that we need to try and lay down an adequately clear standard that neither side should be doing this particular dance, that a revert of (sourced relevant controversial material presented in a negative manner) done under color of BLP should be followed by restoration by the reverting editor of a minimal factual version with the source and information, without any perjorative, not just a revert to nuke the content, and that the revert message needs to make it clear exactly what in the edit is found to be violating BLP (misread of source, perjorative description of the facts, false or unreliable source, whatever combination it is) so that editing can proceed around normal processes with the uncontroversial parts of the material. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editing by Kaj Taj Mahal on James Delingpole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was at least initially very problematic. By adding material such as "He maintains that the Anthropogenic climate change is a "scam",^[ref] despite both its wide acceptance in the scientific community, and having no scientific qualifications himself to make this accusation", Kaj Taj Mahal has engaged in inappropriate editorializing and violated the BLP and WP:NPOV policies by expressing in Wikipedia's voice and without references the opinion that this person has "no scientific qualifications", which is derogatory.

But their later edits, although still slanted to a particular point of view, do not repeat policy violations of this kind. Moreover, we can't take enforcement action for edits made prior to a proper warning as provided for by WP:AC/DS#Warnings. I've now issued such a warning. Combined with the article protection, with which I agree, I think that we can close this without further action. Sandstein 08:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines, calling you a "dipshit" is absolutely not fine, and if Kaj Taj Mahal repeats such conduct they may be blocked. However, we cannot issue sanctions for edits that were made before anybody warned Kaj Taj Mahal that discretionary sanctions are authorized in this area. Sandstein 19:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal by Alfonzo Green

Appealing user: Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Topic-banned from Rupert Sheldrake, broadly construed, imposed at [Result_concerning_Alfonzo_Green]

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction: Zad68 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Zad68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor: I am aware of this request Zad68 01:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alfonzo Green

I was edit banned from the topic of Rupert Sheldrake for inserting the word "biologist" in the lead sentence. I took this action because the majority of secondary sources refer to Sheldrake as a biologist, though some use the term "scientist" and others use the term "biochemist." In keeping with WP:V, I cited four sources, all from the New York Times, describing Sheldrake as a biologist. My edit was reverted by Roxy the dog here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587139696

Note that Roxy claimed to be reverting a "POV edit," implying that edits in accord with secondary sources are POV.

Another editor, Tom Butler, undid Roxy's blatantly POV edit and requested that Roxy explain his actions on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587139696

Yet another editor, Barney the barney barney undid Butler's edit with the claim that "Roxy explained per talk."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587249006

Barney was referencing the following comment from Roxy on the talk page (under "biologist title"): "Sheldrake no longer does science, hasn't done science for more than twenty years, probably thirty, and shows no signs of putting his ideas up for scientific scrutiny. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)"

Roxy's statement is contradicted by the Sheldrake article itself, which includes discussions of a collaboration with neuroscientist Steven Rose to test the hypothesis of morphic resonance as well as the effort of psychologist Richard Wiseman to replicate another experiment conducted by Sheldrake. But that's not the point. We're not here to argue the facts. We're here to report the claims of reliable secondary sources. Roxy has an agenda, and his agenda is at odds with the vast majority of those sources.

In his reversion of Butler's edit, Barney also stated that Roxy's action was consistent with "facts and WP:Fringe." Again, the facts we must report are those found in the source material, not the ones we privately promote as factual. As to the fringe charge, only one source describes Sheldrake as a "pseudoscientist" as opposed to dozens of others that describe him as a scientist of one form of another. Clearly Barney and Roxy are promoting the fringe view.

For this reason I reverted Barney's edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587269669

Roxy then "corrected" my edit by inserting the "former" in front of "biologist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587399860

Once again Roxy was guilty of WP:OR. That Sheldrake is a "former biologist" is not supported by the source material. Not a single source describes him this way. This is Roxy's opinion.

I made no further edits to the article. Prior to reverting Barney's edit, I introduced a new topic to the talk page, "Reality and Wikipediality," in which I argued that our job is not to promote our opinion of reality but to stick with Wikipedia policies, in particular that all material be sourced and that well sourced material not be removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_18

At this point an administrator, JzG or Guy, stepped in and warned me that the discussion was over and my "POV" lost. He closed my topic from viewing and launched the above-referenced complaint against me.

In his complaint he stats, "This is not about the content that Alfonzo Green advocates ,though this is clearly not compliant with policy and consensus regarding fringe and pseudoscientific topics. It is about his insistence on, and refusal to be dissuaded from, rehashing closed debates." JzG's claim about content is false. The point of my edit was to bring the opening sentence into compliance with Wikipedia policy. As long as the Sheldrake biography is out of compliance, editors must restore it and, if necessary, explain on the talk page why a new edit does so.

It's significant that JzG brought his complaint not because of edit warring but because I discussed my edit on the talk page. His objective was to silence me, to prevent me from expressing the inconvenient fact that Sheldrake is nearly always identified as a biologist. Like Roxy and Barney, JzG is pushing a POV and doesn't want to be reminded of this fact.

Five administrators commented on the complaint. Georgewilliamherbert claimed I could be dismissed under the same criteria that a previous editor, Barleybannocks, was banned. NW agreed. Needless to say, Barleybannocks was banned for pursuing discussion of why the Sheldrake article failed to reflect source material. First a coterie of anti-Sheldrake editors systematically revert any edits that restore NPOV to the article. Then when we try to discuss the issue we are banned for "rehashing closed debates."

Tznkai took a different approach. He claimed I was guilty of edit warring, which he defined (elsewhere) as "any short circuiting or depreciation of discussion by using article edits to override the contributions of others." My own edit was reverted twice and illegitimately modified a third time. So how am I guilty of edit warring but not Roxy and Barney? And of course my edit was supported by source material. Roxy and Barney were removing sourced material. I initiated a discussion on the talk page, and JzG tried to short circuit discussion by closing the topic. That he advocates banning me instead of them makes no sense.

Georgewilliamherbert chimed in again to state, "We have an arbcom case that clearly bears on the article. We have editors flouting the arbcom base decision." The arbcom case in question concerns pseudoscience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience). However, nowhere in this decision is there any explanation of why morphic resonance is pseudoscience. Is it obvious pseudoscience, generally considered pseudoscience, questionable science or simply an alternative theoretical formulation? Arbcom doesn't say. We have a list of topics considered pseudoscience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience), but there's no talk page discussion concerning why morphic resonance is included on that list. "Arb" seems to stand for arbitrary rather than arbitration.

According to MastCell, "We're talking about a single-purpose account who has racked up multiple blocks for edit-warring in service of his agenda." In fact I've contributed to several articles, so I cannot be considered a single-purpose account. (See WP: SPATG). Any blocks I've received resulted from conflicts with editors pursuing an agenda in violation of Wikipedia policy. But that's neither here nor there. MastCell fails to address the issue at hand. Have I committed an action, here and now, that warrants topic ban? MastCell makes no comment. Same goes for Sandstein. He invokes no actual infractions before deciding I should be banned. This is especially odd because in a previous complaint, filed against me by Mangoe, Sandstein made it clear that I could not be banned without specific violation of policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#Alfonzo_Green

What happened between that decision and this one? Mangoe's complaint was obviously frivolous, and Sandstein ruled correctly. Why the flip flop in the face of an equally frivolous complaint now?

In short, not a single legitimate reason was given for my topic ban. Please lift it immediately. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, according to WP:SPATG, "the timeline of a user’s edits should not be considered when using single-purpose account tags. One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits." This applies to users "with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits." The SPA tag is clearly inapplicable and cannot form the basis of legitimate sanctions. The comment that yielded a two-day block was not a complaint but simply a request for information regarding the arbcom decision that allegedly classified morphic resonance as pseudoscience. Rather than admit that no such decision ever took place, Sandstein silenced me.

Sandstein, aside from the fact that I don't qualify as an SPA, if you think I'm in violation of WP:NPOV, please provide an example of where I've attempted to express an opinion at odds with reliable secondary sources. Specifically, how does citing Sheldrake as a biologist, in accord with the overwhelming majority of sources, constitute POV-pushing?

Barney the barney barney, my edit history with the Sheldrake article demonstrates a commitment to neutral presentation of source material, emphasizing the preponderance of sources over a few fringe voices, so as to impart the mainstream view of his work. Per WP:NOTNOTHERE, focusing on a niche area, in my case the natural sciences, doesn't mean I'm not here to help build the encyclopedia.

Right now the Sheldrake article is slanted against Sheldrake, which reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Even if my ban is upheld, other editors will eventually seek to rectify the imbalance. The Sheldrake dispute cannot be resolved as long as administration favors biased editors over responsible editors. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've neglected it up to now, let's have a look at the ruling issued by Zad68. "I see unanimous agreement between Georgewilliamherbert, NuclearWarfare, Tznkai, MastCell and Sandstein that, after due warnings and previous attempts by administrators to get Alfonzo to stop disruptive editing behavior (see block log), Alfonzo has persisted in engaging in disruptive edit-warring behavior. In Alfonzo's statement here, I don't see any indication that the tendentious edit-warring behavior will stop; in fact all I see is a justification for it. I also see in this edit by Alfonzo that he is invoking WP:Ignore all rules as justification for breaking the rules against edit-warring at this article."

Unanimous agreement sounds impressive until you consider the fact that it was based entirely on misinformation provided by JzG. Discussion "trailed off," as Zad notes, after I issued my statement overturning JzG's claims. As to the block log, this is relevant only in establishing precedent for current misbehavior. Since no misbehavior was identified in this case, the log is irrelevant. However, because Zad zeroes in on a comment I made in regard to the 11 December report, I'll briefly discuss that one, which concerns an edit in violation of 1RR. The main source of contention was a reference to limited academic support for Sheldrake's work, along with three citations from reliable sources. By blocking this material (in yet another blatant POV act), anti-Sheldrake editors succeeded in keeping the article slanted at the expense of Wikipedia credibility. Zad claims I invoked WP:Ignore all rules to justify edit warring. Quite the contrary. I invoked it for exactly the reason stated in the policy: to restore integrity to the encyclopedia.

According to MastCell, the "indefinite topic ban is appropriate under the existing discretionary sanctions." Yet no authorization seems to exist for discretionary sanctions in this case, as I realized after Sandstein hit me with a two-day block for daring to inquire where morphic resonance appears in the arbcom pseudoscience decision. Not only the ruling itself but the justification for the ruling has no basis in fact. Alfonzo Green (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zad68

I fully expect this appeal to be declined without any need for comment from me. If for any reason the granting of this appeal is being considered please notify me on my User Talk, otherwise I don't plan to participate. Zad68 01:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To expand why I feel this appeal is basically a frivolous waste of time, please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Appeals_of_topic_bans. Specifically:

An editor who is indefinitely topic-banned or otherwise restricted from editing in a topic area under an Arbitration Committee decision may request an amendment to lift or modify the restriction after an appropriate time period has elapsed. A reasonable minimum time period for such a request will ordinarily be six months, unless the decision provides for a different time or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise. In considering such a request, the Committee will give significant weight to, among other factors, whether the editor in question has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.

As the filing of appeal is Alfonzo's very first edit after the topic ban and subsequent block less than three weeks ago, there's no basis for this appeal to be granted. Re-hashing the exact same arguments that were presented at the original AE discussion as if the original AE discussion didn't close with a clear consensus of five admins (and only one admin is needed anyway!) is a particularly bad waste of time. Zad68 20:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the appeal by Alfonzo Green

Comment by Mangoe

AG has edited no article since his topic ban, and his only other two edits were to object to two admins involved as to his topic ban, one of which got him blocked for two days. I repeat my analysis from the AE case that his only edits not related to Sheldrake are a very few four-year-old edits. I interpret his case here as being a promise to pick up where he left off, and I note that editing on the article has proceeded at a less frenetic pace and with no edit-warring. I would not see his return to the topic as a gain for Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hopefully last comment: The discussion thus far is retreading the original case, which is ironic considering that User:Jzg's original complaint was precisely that AG was never going to let a bad argument go: "There is no obvious merit in an editor who has clearly been watching the article and debates, as Alfonzo Green unquestionably has, rehashing a debate that is so very unlikely to result in a consensus to change the article." So here we go around again, repeating all the same old claims. I see no need to say more. Mangoe (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by iantresman

I am still dismayed at the absence of accountability concerning the topic banning of Alfonzo Green for the reasons I gave in his WP:AE, and further concerned that Admins generally ignored my request for relevant diffs. To summarise:

Alfonzo Green is not single purpose account, having edited at least EIGHT other articles (qv). I would ask admins to (a) read (b) strike through their comments as the allegation is contradicted by the evidence. That Admins continue to perpetuate this inaccuracy is troubling.
In my comments during the WP:AE, I showed that the allegations made against Alfonzo Green, (A) regarding his edits, ie. that there is "consensus against inclusion", is not supported by diffs. (B) "The character of debate, being characterise by obdurate refusal to accept that Sheldrake's ideas", is also not supported by any diffs.
Finally, I requested diffs supporting the allegation that Alfonzo Green engaged in "disruptive editing behavior", as no relevant diffs were provided, or subsequently forthcoming on request.

I would ask Admins to read WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."--Iantresman (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein You appear to have left a comment in the section headed "to be edited only by uninvolved administrators". --Iantresman (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Barney WP:SPATG says that Alfonzo Green is not a single purpose account (I have already provided evidence that contracts your claim), and WP:ASPERSIONS requires that you provide evidence (eg. diffs) to support your accusations of misbehavior by him. --Iantresman (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge. There is no doubt that Alfonzo Green has recently focused on one article, but his overall history shows that he has edited at least 8 different article, therefore he is not a single purpose account (SPA) per WP:SPATG. Even if he was an SPA, this in itself is not an issue, and is not grounds for banning. If an SPA is the main allegation against Alfonzo Green, then the rest of the case must be exceedingly weak, as evidenced by the extreme lack of diffs as evidence of misbehavior. --Iantresman (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein Thank you for your comments regarding WP:UNINVOLVED, but I have to disagree with some of the content on common sense grounds. While it may be proper for an uninvolved Admin to take part in several WP:AE cases against the same editor, an appeal is a wholly different matter, where the Admins themselves are also being scrutinised for accountability in the original case. It is like asking the police to investigate themselves, where there is an apparent conflict of interest. --Iantresman (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TRPoD Well done on providing diffs supporting your statements, it is far more than most editors and admins. While I agree that they are related to Sheldrake, I disagree that this makes Alfonzo Green a single purpose account. By extension, this would make any editor that stuck to "science" or "history" an SPA. I respect that editors will draw the line in different places. More importantly, as I have mentioned before, even if Alfonzo Green was an SPA, there is not Wikipedia policy preventing it. The one thing missing are diffs which demonstrate that Alfonzo Green is behaving inappropriately compared to his fellow editors. --Iantresman (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Sandstein, you should not be commenting in the section for uninvolved administrators as you were explicitly advocating for the topic ban during the previous case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, you should not be commenting as an uninvolved admin either. All this does is create an appearance that the fix is in on the sanction and lessens faith in the process.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, admins are not considered "involved" by virtue of having placed (or supported) a previous administrative sanction against an editor. That should be clear both from standard practice and from written policy. Moreover, sanction appeals at AE are often reviewed by admins who took part in the initial sanction discussion. To my knowledge, that's never been an exclusion criterion, nor would it be a reasonable one. That said, I noted in my initial comment below that I participated in the initial sanction discussion and supported the sanction, in the interest of transparency. And like Sandstein, I'm not in a hurry to close this appeal and I'm happy to wait for whatever additional administrative input will be forthcoming. MastCell ^Talk 00:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think admins should go back and review the original reasons why - it's in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive143. The idea that Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) is not an SPA is just plainly false. This sounds remarkably like a defence lawyer who is arguing an appeal on an entirely spurious basis. To ask for diffs as Iantresman (talk · contribs) does is entirely disingenuous - firstly there is special:contributions/Alfonzo Green and the original request (see my first sentence) explained why he is an SPA. To pretend that no evidence was submitted is classic WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. There is little point in resubmitting the evidence when it can be re-examined at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive143. Finally, to quote Mastcell (talk · contribs) on Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) (but equally applicable to Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs)) "he's also being encouraged to some extent by people who are particularly poor role models for how to edit responsibly on fringe topics, which isn't doing him any favors". These poor role models are still trying to defend him. It's clear that Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA who is anti-WP:NPOV, anti-WP:FRINGE anti-WP:MAINSTREAM and therefore anti-Wikipedia per WP:NOTHERE. The only commendable thing here is that unlike Tumbleman (talk · contribs) he hasn't started socking. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One point by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I find that that claim that Alfonzo Green isn't an SPA is not merely wrong, but bordering on absurdity given the overwhelming evidence that this editor focuses on a single topic.[37] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tom Butler

Let me understand this issue of single purpose account. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but they cannot edit just one article. Further, if the editor does not agree with the interpretation of rules posed by the majority and most aggressive editors, then her will be banned from that article. is that about right?

Consensus building in the Sheldrake article has been a matter of one side trying to find balance while the other stonewalls with one view ... no negation. The rules are important and certainly applicable here, but there are reasonable ways to apply them and hard-nosed ways preferred by some of the editors. What I am reading here is that the admins agree with the hard-nosed approach.

Alfonzo Green has done everything imaginable to find middle ground in the article. He is a diligent editor whom I think adds value. Since you all have banned him and the other moderate editors from the article, it has drifted more and more into the skeptical bias trying to make Sheldrake and his work appear to be stupid. I will say again, if that is official Wikipedia policy, then the article needs to be deleted!

You are poisoning the water by banning editors on one side of the discussion rather than trying to arbitrate a better article. Every banned editor becomes another pushing back from outside of Wikipedia.

Please stop a moment and consider the alternative ways to balance the article within Wikipedia rules rather than the hard-nosed approach you seem to be taking now. Tom Butler (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so now I am being threatened by Georgewilliamherbert with "Due to ongoing single purpose advocacy of pseudoscience topics and editors, you are hereby notified that this topic area is under an Arbitration Committee case [[WP:DS|discretionary sanctions] enforcement. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

Every frontier subject associated with things paranormal is cast as pseudoscience by the controlling skeptical editors. Therefore, this warning is telling me that my "single purpose advocacy," which is potentially all articles associated with the paranormal, is forbidden. That is the extreme of what has happened with Barleybannocks and Alfonzo Green. Tom Butler (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side note by Georgewilliamherbert

A notification under the Pseudoscience case is not a topic ban or editor sanction such as a block or ban or revert restriction. It places the editor on notice that the topic area is under discretionary sanctions, and that some aspect of their behavior requires notification (and logging) of the case findings, those sanctions, and the topic area's sensitivity.

Tom Butler's activity is for all intents and purposes single-purpose, in this topic area, and shows an active disbelief or disputation of the Pseudoscience case findings' and relevant policy etc. That said, no edit or edits or pattern of edits I have seen go beyond "requiring notification" into "warning or threatening sanctions".

Advocacy that an Arbcom finding or enforcement activities are wrong, should be different, or should be changed is not actionable. It should be taken up with Arbcom in a new case or a motion, rather than here, but nobody will be sanctioned merely for stating opinions that they disagree with AE activity.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by TheRedPenOfDoom

As is always the case, one should always look closely at the content presented by iantresman.

If we look at those EIGHT "not Rupert Sheldrake articles" that AG has edited as presented by iantresman that purport to show AG is NOT an SPA,

[38] The article is Creode, but AG is adding content about Sheldrake
[39] The article is Lewis_Wolpert, but AG is adding content about a bet between Wolpert and Sheldrake
[40] the article is Scientific_wager, but AG is adding content about the scientific wager between Wolpert and Sheldrake
[41] the article is Genetic_determinism, but the content AG is adding is about a scientific wager about genetic determinism, involving, you guessed it, our friend Sheldrake
[42] the article is Michael_Shermer where AG is adding content that was reverted for being "PoV pseudoscience apologetics" that attempts to discredit Shermer, who is a major critic of and quoted extensively in Rupert Sheldrake (AG's earlier edits to the article include adding external links to a page that Criticizes Shermer in relation to a debate the had with Sheldrake

That leaves the non-direct Sheldrake edits at:

[43] the article is Mae-Wan_Ho, but AG is editing content about the applicability of the law of thermodynamics to living critters, which is a key contention that Sheldrake makes
[44] - making a piped link (at William McDougall (psychologist) who, "rejects the materialistic" approach to science, just like Sheldrake

And the final piece of evidence from iantresman, [45] - the article is Ilya Prigogine where AG enters commentary about a book about claims that scientific determinism is outdated. Alone, that would be a stretch to connect directly to Sheldrake, but given the rest of the evidence, it so close to the same vein that one would be hard pressed to say it is any way substantial evidence that AG is NOT an SPA. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Alfonzo Green

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

In the discussion that led up to the sanction being appealed, I expressed support for the sanction because Alfonzo Green is a single-purpose account dedicated only to promoting a particular point of view about his chosen topic. Such conduct violates WP:NPOV, see Wikipedia:ARBAB#Single purpose accounts. The appeal contains nothing that would change this assessment. In addition, there is no indication that the sanctioning administrator exceeded the broad discretion granted to administrators in WP:AC/DS, and we should not second-guess the exercise of this discretion on appeal without good cause. I would decline the appeal. Sandstein 09:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iantresman: I know. Per WP:UNINVOLVED, administrators' interactions with editors in a purely administrative capacity - which includes discussions about whether discretionary sanctions should be applied - do not constitute involvement. Sandstein 18:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that what I said above is not quite clear to all who are commenting. I'll point the issue out for the arbitrators' consideration in ongoing rules review at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review. Meanwhile, I'll not be closing this request, so I'll leave it to the administrator who does close it to decide whether my opinion should be considered (if that turns out to be relevant to the outcome of the appeal). Sandstein 19:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appeal more or less restates, at great length, the arguments made during the first AE case. I see no evidence that Alfonzo Green has any insight into the ways in which his behavior was problematic, no indication that he has any interest in this project beyond using it as a single-issue battleground, and no reason to believe that the disruptive behavior which triggered the sanction will change. I would therefore recommend declining this appeal. (For clarity, I weighed in to support the initial topic ban as well). MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 284: / Line 284: @@
 In addition, I'm noticing a general theme here where you're taking each and everything I do personally. --[[User:Kaj Taj Mahal|Kaj Taj Mahal]] ([[User talk:Kaj Taj Mahal|talk]]) 21:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
-Darkness Shines, as I'm sure you know, BLP only applies to statements in the article.  Removing that statement would violate TPG, which I know you hold very dear. And yes, Delingpole is a mental midget, at least compared to Planck. Delingpole's comparison to a genius like Planck was extraordinarily undue. --[[User:Kaj Taj Mahal|Kaj Taj Mahal]] ([[User talk:Kaj Taj Mahal|talk]]) 01:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
+<s>Darkness Shines, as I'm sure you know, BLP only applies to statements in the article.</s>  Removing that statement would violate TPG, which I know you hold very dear. And yes, Delingpole is a mental midget, at least compared to Planck. Delingpole's comparison to a genius like Planck was extraordinarily undue. --[[User:Kaj Taj Mahal|Kaj Taj Mahal]] ([[User talk:Kaj Taj Mahal|talk]]) 01:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
+:Perhaps the "mental midget" slight was undue, but he is undoubtedly intellectually inferior when compared to an esteemed genius such as Planck, which was my original point. --[[User:Kaj Taj Mahal|Kaj Taj Mahal]] ([[User talk:Kaj Taj Mahal|talk]]) 01:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 ====Statement by A Quest for Knowledge====

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