Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Cihsai

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of that administrator: Notification Diff

Statement by Cihsai

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

Background:

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

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

Reverts:

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

During the "revert period", I have:

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

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

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

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

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

Admin Involvement:

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

My explanations and requests for discussion in the edit summaries.

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

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

Conclusions:

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

RESPONSES TO OPINIONS “UNINVOLVED EDITORS”

It seems I am considered to start and continue an “edit war” and have not attempted any discussion.

Facts are:

The insertion into the lead was done by a user in his first appearance ever in the article without any discussion and with a factually false statement in edit summary.
Following my revert the very same sentence has been reinserted on and on and on by the same user and by two other joining users. And again, the joining users have also not engaged in discussion and are either first time on the article or first time since long.
I have repeatedly requested those users to discuss before insisting on the insertion to no avail.

The info I present here is detailed in the diffs in my first statement above.

Here,I wish to quote from Wikipedia Guidelines :

...but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war... [19]

...Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion. ...[20]

In conclusion I feel the party to be criticsed is not me.

It seems I am criticized of being a “single purpose account

It is true that I use Wikipedia actually to learn and not to edit. This article caught my interest because it concerns my home region in Turkey. I interfere whenever I see a necessity. I do not interfere with all edits in this article. I am not trying to push any opinion.

It seems this article is considered unquestionably to be under the relevant Arbitration rules.

It is not up to me to build an opinion on that point .The counterparts in the given issue are obviously very active editors and obviously share the single and intense interest namely “Armenians”. Therefore I wonder what article is left out from those rules, once one or more of the Armenian interested users decide to be active on that article.Cihsai (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO OPINION “INVOLVED EDITOR"

User:EatsShootsAndLeaves has not been involved in the relevant article or with me. I guess his involvement is yielded from the “arbitration” to which I was not party. His indication to WP Bold is well on place but the addressee should not be me. Pls. see above Cihsai (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by uninvolved User:EatsShootsAndLeaves

This is unfortunately a no-brainer. Edit-warring is not permitted anywhere on this project - and this seems to be the major point the appellant is forgetting. You may add or remove something once, as per WP:BOLD. When it's reverted, you may never EVER re-remove or re-add it until you have WP:CONSENSUS to do so. It really doesn't matter the nature or topic area of the article in this case - it's simple process. The fact that virtually identical changes were made again and again and again shows that this basic law of Wikipedia means little to them. As such, I'm not horrified that they're unable to edit their favourite set of topics. It's not a topic ban that's preventing you from enjoying Wikipedia: it's YOUR OWN ACTIONS that are preventing you from enjoying Wikipedia.

As I see no sign of acknowledging that their behaviour was inappropriate on any article, they have shown no positive route forward, and indeed have not show proof of positive/non-problematic behaviour in other areas of the project, there's no grounds whatsoever put forward that could lead to a removal of the topic ban ES &L 16:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Cihsai: the fact that you cannot see how the above applies to you is the scariest part of this entire thing. WP:BRD is not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD for a reason. Your change was not accepted by consensus yet, and as such, your change is not acceptable and you have to stop trying to force it. ES &L 15:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Cihsai

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

Their contributions show that Cihsai is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting a particular point of view about the Hemshin peoples through edit-warring. That is quite sufficient basis for discretionary sanctions (see in particular WP:EW and Wikipedia:ARBAB#Single purpose accounts). The article is within the topic area for which WP:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions authorizes discretionary sanctions, because the text Cihsai wants to remove concerns the possible Armenian origin of the Hemshin peoples. Although I might have scoped the ban to concern the Hemshin peoples only, its broader scope makes no practical difference because Cihsai has not edited about anything else. For these reasons, I would decline the appeal, but recommend that future sanctions are not explained in such a way that one might think that they were also made because of the content of the problematic edits, which would have been inadmissible under most circumstances. Sandstein 23:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Sandstein. Cihsai appears to do almost nothing other than revert the same edit on the same page, with no serious attempt to resolve the edit war through discussion. This wouldn't be acceptable conduct in any topic area; that the conduct was in an area where tempers are already frayed and is thus under sanctions is clearly an aggravating factor. I believe the appeal should be dismissed and the topic ban upheld. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - At this point I do not see grounds for an appeal, but I want to wait a reasonable period for Cihsai to notify other editors and make any other statements. Since this is an appeal, the only thing harmed by our taking more time is Chihsai.--Tznkai (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed that this seems to be an appeal with very little chance of success. No attempts to discuss, SPA? The topic ban was the right step here. SirFozzie (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My view (partially taken from my statement on the talk page of the article in question):

There has been extensive and detailed discussion (in which I was heavily involved) about the article on its entirety starting 2007. The origin theories (about which the sentence consistently inserted by the involved editors make a bold statement) were covered in detail during these discussions. A stable version has been achieved end of 2008,
The lead has been stable since then, except for a summary effort by user Seth on Dec. 1, 2009, which has not changed the main idea of the paragraph. No major changes since then until recent insertions of JackalLantern .
To my understanding, it is up to the inserting users to seek consensus in editing stable version in case there is opposition, instead of Cihsai.
I observe that the inserting users never responded to the calls for discussion by Cihsai.
As a side note: I looked up the reference provided for the insertion, and observed that it does not include or indicate the inserted statement. Omer182 (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Cihsai

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

~~Hold~~ while Cihsai contacts editors who may wish to say something concerning this request.--Tznkai (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any grounds or support to overturn, lessen, or modify the restrictions placed on Cihsai by EdJohnson so I must deny the appeal at this time. I would be open to reconsidering in several months if Chisai demonstrates knowledge and adherence of the appropriate norms. I do want to note there is a a possible language barrier issue here, and urge any and all users to use a soft touch. Chisai may find it easier to edit a less controversial area in the meantime.--Tznkai (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonzo Green

Alfonzo Green is indefinitely topic-banned from Rupert Sheldrake, broadly construed. Zad68 14:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Alfonzo Green

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Guy (Help!) 01:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

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

23/12/2013 Attempts to rehash debate on long-setteld issues in tha rticle; Reverts admin closure of same; repeats same
23/12/2013 Reinserting disputed text, widely discussed with consensus against inclusion on Talk
21/12/2103 Reinserting disputed text, widely discussed with consensus against inclusion on Talk
11/12/2013 Reinserting disputed text, widely discussed with consensus against inclusion on Talk. Insistence on "some academic support" although the support is for Sheldrake's right to state his conjectures, not actualy for the conjectures themselves.
11/12/2103 Reinserting disputed text, widely discussed with consensus against inclusion on Talk. There is robust consensus that "morphic resonance" does not meet the scientific definitionof theory, it is a conjecture, and this has been discussed at length.

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

Warned on 23 December 2013 by me (JzG)
Notified of prior consensus on 11/12/2013 by Vzaak
Warned on 4/12/2013 by Callenec
Prior AE request rejected due to lack of actionable material: [21]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

10:34, December 11, 2013 Callanecc blocked Alfonzo Green with an expiry time of 72 hours (Arbitration enforcement: breaking 1RR restriction on Rupert Sheldrake)
01:07, October 16, 2013 EdJohnston blocked Alfonzo Green with an expiry time of 31 hours (Edit warring on Rupert Sheldrake))
15:01, July 16, 2009 B blocked Alfonzo Green with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR, incivility on Rupert Sheldrake)

It is fair to characterise Alfonzo Green as a single-purpose account with a focus on Rupert Sheldrake, and little or no interest in any other topic.

There have been long periods of inactivity by this account, but the focus is, and always has been, Rupert Sheldrake.

The Sheldrake article is contentious. Sheldrake was originally a mainstream biologist but following his development of a conjecture he calls "morphic resonance", categorised as pseudoscience by numerous reliable independent sources, he has ceased publishing in that field and now writes speculative books supporting his conjecture and castigating the world of science for refusing to accept it, disputing, inter alia, conservation of energy (good luck with that).

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. 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. The problem all along has been obdurate refusal by both sides, but mainly the pro-Sheldrake side, to compromise in any way. We recently topic-banned Barleybannocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for exactly this, Alfonzo Green is doing the same, and appears to have decided to become active again primarily in order to pick up the baton from Barleybannocks.

This is a contentious article with some outside world focus. The character of debate, being characterise by obdurate refusal to accept that Sheldrake's ideas are generally regarded by the scientific community as nonsense, with a side order of trying to elevate the status of credentials over the ideas (a form of the appeal to authority fallacy) materially impeded progress towards compromise when barleybannocks did it, and continues to impede it now. There is no point arguing the rightness of a conjecture that lacks robust evidence and is contradicted by conservation of energy, to continue to do so is plainly obstructive and indicative of an inclination to keep asking until ou get the answer you want.

If this was a heavily-watched article we'd manage. It's not. This kind of obduracy fosters burnout and frayed tempers. I request a topic ban. Guy (Help!) 01:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified [22]

@Johnuniq Precisely. There is an inequality of motivation. For Sheldrake's supporters this is personal and of paramount importance. For Wikipedia it is not. We have seen many good people burn out trying to hold back the tides of pseudoscience and other crank advocacy, for precisely that reason. Wikipedia's prominence makes it pretty much the single most important place to have your crank idea validated. That's why we have the discretionary sanctions (and @A Quest for Knowledge, we can't review that without fundamentally changing the character of Wikipedia - and most of us have no desire to be involved in a project that pretends creationism, homeopathy and psi phenomena are true). Guy (Help!) 10:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, he has had the template warning before and been linked to the decision (see his talk page) and also blocked for violation of a 1RR parole specifically referencing the case. This is Wikipedia, we should not be demanding shrubberies. The problem is clear: a WP:SPA demanding, yet again, that we remove the characterisation of Sheldrake's pseudoscience, which characterisation is supported by reliable independent sources, on the basis of WP:OR. We will never make any progress on the article if every time a new or re-emerging editor comes along, they insist on going right back to the beginning again. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Alfonzo Green

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 Alfonzo Green

JzG claims that on Dec 23 I inserted disputed text against which there was consensus. His claim is not only false but irrelevant. Examining the talk page discussion over the last month, it's clear that no consensus has been reached. The number of editors arguing each side of the debate is roughly equal. But this is immaterial for the simple reason that the disputed text, according to Wikipedia policy, must be included. We must describe Sheldrake as a scientist or biologist because that's how the overwhelming majority of reliable secondary sources describe him. Since JzG has been following the talk page discussions, he certainly should know this. The following statement was posted less than a month ago:

Using reliable secondary sources, we find that The University of Binghamton refers to him as a biochemist.[23] He is also referred to as a biologist by the University of London,[24] the University of Arizona,[25] the Open University,[26] Institute of Noetic Sciences, [27] the University of Reading,[28] the BBC,[29][30][31][32][33][34] the Daily Telegraph,[35][36][37][38] National Geographic,[39] Discover magazine,[40] The Independent newspaper,[41] Scientific American,[42][43] Science,[44] Financial Times,[45] New York Times,[46] and in various academic/university textbook,[47][48][49] peer-reviewed journals, Trans. Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2012)[50] --Iantresman (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind this is a sampling, by no means an exhaustive list. Many more have since been added to the talk page. In my edit, I cited the New York Times article and added three more from the "paper of record" just to be perfectly clear that this is the consensus mainstream view of Sheldrake.

But contrast, only a tiny number of sources describe him otherwise. Two sources, [51] and [52] describe him as a parapsychologist, but both articles deal exclusively with his research into telepathy, so it's understandable they would label him this way. Neither source bothers to mention that he has undertaken this research to provide further evidence for his biological hypothesis of a mechanism of development from the egg. The only source that unequivocally denies Sheldrake's status as a scientist is an article by Jerry Coyne, [53], which labels Sheldrake a "pseudoscientist." Against dozens of sources that call him a scientist of one type or another, we have precisely one source that denies this status. Editors who remove his designation as a biologist are thus in violation of WP:Fringe. That Sheldrake's views are fringe does not alter the fact that the denial of his scientific status is also a fringe view.

JzG is bringing a complaint against me for attempting to enforce the principle that Wikipedia articles reflect sourced material. He repeats this error with his statement that on Dec 12 I inserted disputed text related to academic support for Sheldrake's work. Again, I quote a statement from the talk page that JzG has presumably already seen:

These are a number of scientists who argue Sheldrake is doing science rather than pseudoscience and have offered support in various ways.

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. [54]

These four all signed an open letter to TED that was published in the Huffington Post [55] and which should be detailed in the section on the TED controversy. (Links to their credentials can be found above on a previous post.)

Menas C. Kafatos, Ph.D., is the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University

Stuart Hameroff, MD, Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona

Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D., Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital

Neil Theise, MD, Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

Here's one who also explicitly rejects the accusation of pseudoscience in a letter published in nature:

Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate in Physics.[56]

And here's an academic who argues, amongst other things, that books such as Sheldrake's, whatever you ultimately think about morphic resonance, are the "life's blood of Science" (thus not pseudoscience).

Theodore Roszak, Professor Emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay [57]

Here's a scientist who worked with Sheldrake in developing some of his theories.

David Joseph Bohm FRS - "American theoretical physicist who contributed innovative and unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, philosophy of mind, and neuropsychology. He is widely considered to be one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century." [58]

JzG claims these statements merely support Sheldrake's right to express his views rather than the content of his work. Not only is this false but it reveals a failure to understand the nature of science. Roszak, for instance, isn't claiming that morphic resonance is wrong but that proposing radical theories, right or wrong, is essential to the progress of science. The anti-Sheldrake editors seem to think that a scientist who departs from conventional wisdom is no longer a real scientist. I can't imagine a more ignorant, anti-science attitude.

Ironically, JzG accuses me on my talk page of promoting an anti-science agenda. He also says I'm "asserting that unverifiable conjectures are anything else," as if the fact that Sheldrake is a scientist and enjoys a degree of academic support is unverified conjecture. When I stated that our opinions are beside the point and that only the sources matter, he said, "You have it the wrong way round, but you already know that." I assume he means here that the sources back up his view, not mine, and that I'm deliberately lying. I don't think JzG is lying. I think he's profoundly confused. He's so convinced that Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist, he can't accept that the bulk of secondary sources don't back up this view. His idea of consensus is a group of editors who share his personal bias and willingness to flaunt Wikipedia policy so as to "Right Great Wrongs," an error he then projects onto me.

It's odd that he leaves out my contributions to the genetic determinism article, in which I made no effort to invoke Sheldrake. My interest in Sheldrake follows from my interest in biology. I've had to devote in astounding amount of time and effort to his biography page because it's been dominated for several months now by editors who wish to bias his article as much as possible. For my dedication to restoring accuracy to this article, I'm now to be banned from it like so many before me. As long as administration punishes those who seek neutrality and retains those who blatantly violate it, this problem will not go away.

Bottom line: JzG is making false claims in order to silence an editor for introducing relevant, sourced material. That he's an administrator only makes his disgraceful conduct that much more scandalous. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai How am I supposed to know I'm accused of edit warring when JzG never utters that phrase in his complaint? The only thing he specifies is that I'm "rehashing a debate that is so very unlikely to result in a consensus to change the article." Whose fault is it that consensus can't be reached when one side is appealing to secondary sources while the other side brazenly ignores them? However, now that you've brought up the charge of edit warring, I'm more than happy to respond. It takes two to tango, and the edit I introduced was reverted by a committed anti-Sheldrake editor called Roxy the dog: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=prev&oldid=587164732. Note that he claims to be reverting a "POV edit." My edit was based on secondary sources. Roxy's reversion was in defiance of the source material and therefore in defiance of the principle that Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say rather than the opinions of editors. So, whose edit is POV? If anyone is edit warring, it's Roxy, not me.

I agree that the issue is not whether Sheldrake should be called a biologist or not, but this point is irrelevant. The issue is whether editors base edits on reliable sources, and it just happens that this edit concerns Sheldrake's status as a biologist.

You say "this is not a project where being right excuses you from having to do it right." In what way am I not doing this right? Before making the edit, I explained it on the talk page and responded to some of the comments. To understand why I didn't respond to all the comments, please have a look at the talk page discussion and the irrational commentary the anti-Sheldrake editors offered in response to my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Reality_and_Wikipediality

Roxy's first comment was "Please don't do that." In other words, please don't bring the opening sentence in line with Wikipedia policy. Roxy's next comment was "Your sources are useless. Please self revert unless you can demonstrate he is a biologist per my comments above." Keep in mind we're talking about four sources from the New York Times. The comments he refers to are the following: "If he is a scientist, show us his scientific work. The publications, the criticism (meant in its classic sense) the collaborations, the citations, the discussions, the follow-up work, the other scientists in the field, the awards, the acclaim of peers etc. etc. I point you to the huge gaping and above all - empty - vacuum." --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Even a cursory examination of the article demonstrates the falsehood of this claim, for instance his collaboration with neuroscientist Steven Rose to test morphic resonance in successive batches of day-old chicks. But that's not the point. The point is that Roxy wants to argue over the content of the article instead of simply reporting what the sources say. That's why I opened the subsequent talk discussion with my own opinion on Sheldrake's work and followed this up by noting that my particular opinion doesn't matter any more than the opinions of any other editors. It's not about our opinions. It's about restoring the neutrality that was abolished in July.

This isn't about me or even Sheldrake. This is about Wikipedia. We have a clear-cut example of abuse of Wikipedia policies encouraged by an administrator who tries to silence an editor protesting said abuse. If Wikipedia can't get this right, why should the general public believe Wikipedia can get anything right? Those of you sitting in judgment here need to take a deep breath and really think this over, perhaps leaving it until the 26th, by which time you'll have had a chance to digest all this material. Please, for the good of Wikipedia. Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe Thanks for reminding me about the Wolpert-Sheldrake wager in the genetic determinism article. Though it's obviously relevant, in the judgment of other editors it wasn't notable enough to warrant mentioning. (The discussion took place elsewhere). In the spirit of compromise, I made no effort to restore the edit. If there's a thematic pattern to my edits, it's that I oppose deterministic philosophy (though I've never placed my belief above the facts according to reliable sources). ~~I support Sheldrake in part because morphic resonance offers a probabilistic rather than deterministic account of organic development and behavior.~~ As to my recent focus on Sheldrake, this was made necessary by the takeover of the page by a clique of POV editors. If the same thing happened to the Prigogine page, I'd be devoting my spare time to fixing that article. Clearly I don't fit the standard profile of an SPA, unlike some of the anti-Sheldrake editors. That JzG labelled me an SPA is another indicator of his willingness to twist the facts so as to fit his agenda, whether here or on the Sheldrake page. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken a sentence from the above statement due to irrelevance. This is about actual edits, not opinions of editors. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Roxy the dog

What were the four NYT sources Alfonzo "bigs up" so much? They are still there. In the first sentence of the lede. The first is in the fashion pages, the second from a piece on the arts, the third written by the "Hatched, Matched and Despatched" intern, (actually an obit of John Maddox) and the fourth is taken from the description of a 1994 TV show. The journalists concerned probably couldn't recognise a scientist if they tripped over one at CERN. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons greetings ! Regarding recent proposals by an admin and a Sheldrake supporter to split the article, this suggestion is not new, as I have proposed it in the past, and it has been proposed by others on the talk page. It has gained no traction, probably because without "Morphic Resonance" Shelly has no notability of his own, and a bio would not meet WP notability requirements. The end result would almost certainly be a short piece about a crackpot fringe theory, and no bio at all. It would certainly solve our problems in regards to this issue, but I'm not sure Sheldrakians would approve. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I think it would be deeply misguided to gradually ban from the article anyone who thinks Sheldrake should be treated with greater respect and thus let his bio be controlled by people who express open disdain for the man and his ideas. Guy's flouting of his admin status here is not exactly appropriate behavior.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NW, JzG's comments should be looked at in context. Above in his evidence, Guy refers to Alfonzo "reverting an admin closure" of the discussion as one of Alfonzo's acts of misconduct. The admin in that case was Guy himself as seen here and here. Other statements Guy has made over this period include "But you are a single-purpose advocacy account looking for ways to square your agenda with policy, and I'm an admin with a long history of dealing with sensitive biographies, fringe and pseudoscience advocacy and other issues. Of course you may choose to ignore my advice. I suggest to you that doing so will result in a worse outcome for you than following it. If you carry on like that, you will be topic banned." The context is clear. Guy is flouting his status as an admin on a matter where he is involved. This is not the first time it has been a problem either.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to the question of edit-warring, I would note that Alfonzo may not have made a second revert on the article had Barney3 not violated 1RR with this revert, which came twenty-four hours and three minutes after this revert.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I just wanted to mention that the pseudoscience‎ ArbCom case is extremely old. It was opened 12 October 2006 and seems to cover an overly broad spectrum of articles. (There are lots of pseudoscientific theories. Are they all covered under these sanctions? Apparently so. But since most adherents of pseudoscience‎ dispute that their theories are pseudoscience, how does AE determine which topics are actually covered under the pseudoscience sanctions without making a content decision? Content decisions are clearly beyond ArbCom's (and by extension, AE) remit.) There was a recent clarification request where the Arbitration Committee distanced itself from its own ruling due to the age of the case. Perhaps it's time to end these sanctions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I have taken a break from watching the article and its talk page, but I would like to make one observation, prompted by The Devil's Advocate's statement. It is obvious that a group of editors have been trying to puff up the topic and minimize mentions of the fact that "pseudoscience" is a kind description of several of the ideas mentioned, but it is also true that those on the other side have sometimes been too vigorous in their approach. However, TDA's concern is misplaced because if the SPAs were removed, experienced editors would start repairing the article with proper balance. It is the unlimited enthusiasm of the SPAs, and their over-the-top proposals, that leads to others being unwilling to consider anything of a positive nature. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Jzg (talk · contribs) says, because it is fair and accurate and he is an experienced admin. It is worth looking at all the contributions of Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) under WP:ARB/PS and WP:FRINGE.

I do sense that Jzg (talk · contribs) is somewhat frustrated by the whole process - my sense is that this is a result of the previous general unwillingness to take action by the authorities, despite the existence of WP:ARB/PS. This is entirely understandable, and it would be unfair for the authorities to hold this frustration against him when they are at least partially responsible for creating the environment that generates the frustration in the first place. If this is handled appropriately I'm sure Jzg's annoyance will only be transient. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, in Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs)'s defence, instead of addressing the issues outlined above WP:SPA, WP:EDITWARRING, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, he's posted a regurgitation of tired content-related arguments which have failed to gain consensus. We've been there and done that (I'm writing a summary elsewhere). This demonstrates that AG still doesn't get that this is a WP:FRINGE issue, despite the WP:REDFLAGS, (especially extraordinary claims that contradict accepted scientific knowledge and which are not published in peer reviewed journals) and that level of support for Sheldrake is more significant than it is (the supporters tend to be people with their own Fringe-related problems such as Deepak Chopra, and even then for the most part support his right to free speech/free inquiry rather than endorsing his views, some of which are plainly nonsensical.) Anything more than a cursory look at the references (many of which are contained within the article now) demonstrates this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, as with the previous case of Barleybannocks (talk · contribs), one senses that to quote Mastcell (talk · contribs) on Barleybannocks "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". The same seems to apply to Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by iantresman

Alfonzo Green is not a single purpose account as evidenced by his contributions to (a) Genetic determinism (b) Creode (c) Scientific wager (d) William McDougall (psychologist) (e) Lewis Wolpert (f) Ilya Prigogine (g) Michael Shermer (h) Mae-Wan Ho. The argument seems to be, some SPAs are bad editors, hence all SPA are bad editors, irrespective of whether we can show it or not. You may notice the fallacy in this argument.
Guy's description of the first set of diffs #1-#5 is misleading, where he states there is "consensus against inclusion", this is false. The fact is, "there is no consensus for either the inclusion or removal", of certain statements. For example, when the article was begun in Oct 2002, Sheldrake was described as a "biologist/biochemist"[59] a fact (not a truth) that remained stable for about a decade until around July 2013.[60] While there are indeed some editors arguing for a this change, there are other editors who are happy with the original.[61][62]
Guy's statement that "The character of debate, being characterise by obdurate refusal to accept that Sheldrake's ideas are generally regarded by the scientific community as nonsense" is also misleading. There is not one editor that has refused to accept that some scientists have indeed characterise Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience, and they are all happy to include this fact in the article. This includes Alfonzo Green,[63] myself,[64] Barleybannocks,[65] Tumbleman,[66] Annalisa Ventola,[67] and Blippy.[68] The onus is on editors to provide diffs supporting this allegation. There are none, per WP:ASPERSIONS.
I am also concerned with Guy's possible COI as an WP:INVOLVED Admin,[69] with strong opinions about the subject,[70] towards Barleybannocks and Alfonzo Green (2013):
- 30 Nov: "one more black mark against you"[71]
- 5 Dec: "You are now on notice"[72]
- 25 Dec: "One of us is an admin. It's not you. I strongly suggest you take the hint"[73]
Likewise, when Guy reported me to WP:AN"Sheldrake", for an experienced Admin, he offered not one diff in support of his allegation, that were misleading at best, and which I contradicted in my points #1-#9. I requested supporting diffs three times, and none were forthcoming. WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct"

There appears to be a confusion that "disagreement" is tantamount to disruption. It isn't. And the description of this case is misleading. --Iantresman (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai. The onus is on an editor to demonstrate "edit warring" with diffs, not for an editor to prove that they didn't (which is not possible). As I showed in my comments above, Alfonzo Green has not been editing against consensus, but has been removing changes that have also not met consensus. --Iantresman (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Editors. Which part of "Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience" are we seeking remedy? Alfonzo Green did not violate every sentence. It is not a problem to "debate", nor to repeat discussions if other editors are also repeating the same. Or are we judging the content issues that Guy mentioned, or should they be struck? --Iantresman (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai. I agree this is not about "established consensus". But Alfonzo Green did not war with himself. He did not go against consensus. That was the allegation. It was not substantiated with diffs. --Iantresman (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy. I have just read Tom Butler's posts where he points out that you allege that Alfonso Green "advocates pseudoscience" and you "can't find any edits [he's] made that don't", contradicted by, for example:[74][75][76][77][78] Your claim, has no diffs nor an explanation, and the suggestion that someone's edits is indicative of their belief in pseudoscience is an association fallacy. You made the same unfounded claims against me in your WP:AN "Sheldrake". WP:NOTPERFECT: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." By the same logic, anyone who notes in an article that Vichy France and Mussolini's Italy supported Hitler must a Nazi sympathizer. Clearly nonsense. --Iantresman (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I re-read Guy's sentence again, it appears different to how I remember it. @Tom Butler: Is this how you remember it? Since the diffs show no changes, I must have gotten it wrong, so I apologise to Guy for making allegations that are not supported by the diff given. --Iantresman (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom Butler

Wikipedia is founded on the assumption that editors are able to establish consensus to develop a proper article. In fact, this basic assumption is repeatedly shown to be wrong because blocks of editors are able to dominate specific articles. The real failure here is that there are no honest brokers trying to help maintain balance.

In my view, Alfonzo Green is treating the subject properly. But, as there are fewer and fewer editors who have been trying to treat the subject with respect, the remaining few have found it necessary to be even more assertive.

Perhaps the greatest sin here is that administrators expect people to give up moral principles and quietly go away. That has not happened.

In this case, an administrator has continuously exhibited a point of view which implicitly supports a group of editors more interested in proving Sheldrake is just a pseudoscience nuisance than explaining who he is. Terms such as those used above by Guy: "long-settled issues," "widely discussed with consensus" and "rehashing closed debates" exhibit a myopic view of what is really occurring. None of those characterizations are true, but they signal to the skeptical editors that they are right and anything done in dispute is wrong.

Guy is assuming bad faith editing. Alfonzo Green's actions are symptomatic of a lone editor trying to protect the good name of a still living scientist. It is fact that Sheldrake is still one, even though at 70, he has turned more to philosophy just as Einstein and Edison did in their later years.

I think the solution is to either just delete the article to protect Wikipedia or split it so that there is the biography and his theories in separate articles where they belong. I for one would go away if the biography part is fair. (By the way, this proposal has repeatedly been shot down by editors who clearly want the article as is so that they can discredit the man. That is pretty much how the future history of this little flap is going to be written.) Tom Butler (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai I understand that a consensus to violate a Wikipedia rule, for instance, is not an acceptable concept. The point is that how the generally respected rules are interpreted is being contested. "Respect" is a subjective term, so how rules about a biographies of a living person are translated into edits needs better oversight. Here, some of the editors equate "consensus" with "fair treatment."

I also understand that Wikipedia is not able to address moral questions. However, and this is an important point--much of the fuss here is predicated on righteous point of views on both side of the issue. I for one am offended by the treatment of the man but I care less about the treatment of his hypotheses. (I expect only the pseudoscience treatment for all such frontier subjects in Wikipedia.) It is clear to me from watching banned editors that turning them out only releases them to attempt fair treatment for the man in other venues. Again, it is irresponsible for administrators to do things that further soil the already tarnished name of Wikipedia. Tom Butler (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now it appears Guy is gloating. Is it correct to say that anything we say about things deemed pseudoscience is advocating pseudoscience? If this admin is speaking for Wikipedia, it poisons the water for any free discussion about frontier subject content. Tom Butler (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Iantresman the comment buy Guy at [79] is pretty explicit. He is saying that Alfonzo Green is a single purpose editor and that purpose is pseudoscience.

The irony is that, like Sheldrake's Hypothesis of Formative Causation, virtually all of the frontier subjects are predicated on the existence of subtle energy, mind separate from brain and the influence of intentionality. From my interaction with Wikipedia, Electronic Voice Phenomena, Spiritualism (beliefs) and Energy medicine are all considered pseudoscience and are subject to the same restrictions applied to the Sheldrake article of not allowing references from community of interest peer-reviewed journals, or any effort to explain in balanced terms the associated theory. Only people working outside of the community of interest can be used as references without a caveat implying: "the person said this but he is really a crackpot."

that comment from Guy to Alfonzo really applies to anyone who does not strictly adhere to the party line that it is all pseudoscience and therefore, one must not talk about it. Tom Butler (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangoe

While it is true that there are old edits by AG on other subjects, the fact is that his contributions show that he has edited no article other than Sheldrake's since he resumed editing in October after a two and a half year hiatus. I also find that nearly all his other article edits are related to Sheldrake: one series is on a wager Sheldrake made with one Lewis Wolpert; others inserted mention of that wager in scientific wager and in genetic determinism; the creode edit also inserted material about Sheldrake. The only edits that do not explicitly mention Sheldrake are the handful on Mae-Wan Ho and Ilya Prigogine, minor changes to a pair of biologist/geneticists, and a longer series on Michael Shermer, a prominent skeptic; and this edit in particular is strongly consonant with the line of argument taken with the Sheldrake article. I'm not sure exactly how Ho fits into this, but Prigogine is also connected through the same themes, as seen in this edit. All of the latter edits are at least four years old, and AG's very first edit was to Sheldrake's article. So yes, his editing pattern surely is that of an SPA. Mangoe (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Alfonzo Green

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

If we are to see a succession of editors behaving this way on this article, I am prepared to article-ban until we run out of problem editors. This editor meets the criteria under which we article-banned the last one. The extenuating circumstances there seem missing here. I would propose moving relatively quickly to the same conclusion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree fully and suggest an indefinite topic ban. He has had plenty of chances already. NW (Talk) 03:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if those filing requests, admins especially, would be so kind as to link to the remedy, and not just the case in general. I do see a prime facie case of edit warring, although I do not necessarily think that all or any of the substantive edits being particular are flawed. I also do not see it as AE's remit to enforce whatever operating consensus emerges on an article. What is demonstrated is edit warring - which is not only against whatever "consensus" exists, but demonstrates no attempt to collaborate, improve, or do anything beyond duck season/wabbit seasondiff=587565728.--Tznkai (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TDA - I am personally conflicted on the status of comflating the BLP and fringe / pseudoscience into one article, as to the effects that that has on the BLP aspects. In the now closed incident above I mentioned that starting a discussion on if and how to split those into separate articles to solve that, with un-topic-involved editors and admins, would be helpful. I admit I have not moved on that yet and the situation is continuing to complicate matters. However - that cannot cripple us from continuing to enforce the pseudoscience case behavioral issues. We have an article; it has not been proposed for removal, and what's there has not been held to violate BLP. We have an arbcom case that clearly bears on the article. We have editors flouting the arbcom base decision. We have editors doing so who may well be associated with the off-wiki canvassing effort that was made earlier. There may be a neutral-er ground to find in the middle somewhere within the existing singular article, but without getting into the content fight in a 3-rd party manner I don't want to suggest it necessarily will work. It would be entirely proper for Shelldrake and his followers to hold our feet to the fire on trying to do something constructive out of this. Continuing to edit war in violation of the pseudoscience decision and Wikipedia core values isn't constructive, has been warned about, has had others sanctioned over recently, etc. Picking a fight going into Christmas when many people are away or busy seems poorly timed for a more sympathetic hearing.

TLDR - I'm up for enforcing here, even if we have to make a bigger fix in the next month with proper discussions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about a single-purpose account who has racked up multiple blocks for edit-warring in service of his agenda. Once those boxes are checked, in an area subject to discretionary sanctions, an indefinite topic ban seems entirely appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 06:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that requests should link to the remedy to be enforced, in this case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. It does not seem to be in dispute that Rupert Sheldrake is an article "relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted", and is therefore within the scope of that remedy. Whether that remedy is still useful, as questioned by A Quest for Knowledge, cannot be examined here: it must be be enforced until it is lifted by the Arbitration Committee (which can be petitioned at WP:ARCA). But considering the recurrent confrontative behavior in this topic area, as seen in the number of AE requests it gives rise to, I think the remedy is useful and should be maintained. Contrary to A Quest for Knowledge's assumption, we don't need to make a content decision about whether something is pseudoscience in order to enforce the remedy. We only need to determine whether it is related to pseudoscience, such as because (as in this case) its classification as pseudoscience is disputed among editors.

At a first glance, it appears likely that there are grounds for a topic ban. However, I've not examined the case on the merits in much detail because a formal requirement for discretionary sanctions is not met: a warning that meets the requirements of WP:AC/DS#Warnings – that is, "a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions" on the talk page of Alfonzo Green or in an edit notice active on the article at the relevant time. Unless a diff of a warning that meets these requirements can be provided, the most we can do is issue such a warning.

As concerns JzG's conduct, I agree that JzG's statement to Alfonzo Green ("One of us is an admin. It's not you. I strongly suggest you take the hint"), as mentioned by The Devil's Advocate, does not meet the expectations of civility I have in administrators. Because JzG has recently been active in an editorial capacity in the article, and has expressed opinions about the merits of Sheldrake's work, he should not act in an administrative capacity with respect to that article, per WP:UNINVOLVED. A case can be made that he has violated that policy, and has inadmissibly attempted to use his administrator status to gain an advantage in a content dispute, by archiving a discussion in his administrative capacity while involved in the content dispute, and by invoking his administrator status in the discussion with Alfonzo Green about this. On these grounds, I think a discretionary sanctions warning would be appropriate for JzG also. Sandstein 10:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that Alfonzo Green did receive the required warning on 18 November 2013. This diff should have been supplied with the request.

On the merits, the contributions by Alfonzo Green show that they are a single purpose account dedicated only to promoting a particular point of view with respect to a single article, Rupert Sheldrake. Such conduct is disruptive on its face, see WP:SPA and particularly Wikipedia:ARBAB#Single purpose accounts. I support a topic ban from everything to do with Rupert Sheldrake. Sandstein 12:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Quest for Knowledge, we're not determining whether or not Rupert Sheldrake is a psuedoscientist when we determine the article is within the topic of pseudoscience, because the topic of pseudoscience includes all things asserted to be pseudoscience beyond a common sense threshold. The same way the topic of "objective truth" would cover both assertions that objective truth exists, and that it does not exist. I think there is wide agreement there is a problem and on the remedy, but we're also coming up on the big finish of a busy holiday season, at least where I am. I suggest we hold for a few days to get Alfonzo Green an opportunity to respond, assuming no other edits in the meantime.--Tznkai (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: In context, that single post is more understood. No need to issue a "formal discretionary sanctions warning." If you're concerned (I personally am not—it was a reasonable response to something User:Tom Butler said), then just drop JzG a note on his talk page and talk your concerns over with him. NW (Talk) 17:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Alfonzo Green has responded, I believe we have enough to move forward. I wish to point out that the issue before us is not on the substantive disagreement concerning whether or not it is proper to call those with science credentials engaged in what is broadly considered pseudoscientific research "scientists" "biologists" or related terminology. I think this is an interesting question with more than one reasonable answer. However, Alfonzo Green has failed to demonstrate that the edits aforementioned are not edit warring. In fact, the only defense raised here is that the underlying edits are supposedly in greater adherence to the content policy - and this is not a project where being right excuses you from having to do it right. Alfonzo Green's response raises strong indications of a battleground mentality - Wikipedia is not the right place to fight out over who carries forward the spirit of scientific inquiry the best. It is in fact, very much the wrong place. For purposes of full disclosure, I recently started pitching in on improving the prose at water memory which, given Alfonzo Green's response, is connected to this topic by a couple degrees through Brian Josephson, but do not believe that makes me an involved administrator. I will however step aside at the request of any administrator, JzG, or Alfonzo Green. Otherwise, I am willing to execute a decision at this point.--Tznkai (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Iantresman:, I take no position on what the so called "established consensus" is. I find the very concept useless or possibly even un-wiki like. That however, is a content matter. My belief is that a case of edit warring has been established, and it has not been refuted. As to @Tom Butler:'s suggestion for splitting the article, I share georgewilliamherbert's belief that it may be the best solution. It is not something I believe I, or any other administrator can enforce here. Wikipedia is not a place to exercise your moral principles in noble intellectual combat. If you're interested in that nonsense, join a political party or become an academic (with very few apologies to any politicians or academics who edit). Any further complaints about JzG should be itemized as an enforcement request in the proper format, so that they may be read, discussed, and acted upon if necessary. There is a draft guide in my users space if you need guidance.--Tznkai (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misspelled his name three times above. Please fix that, to avoid any implication of impropriety. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, and my thanks.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see you have a conflict of interest (or involvement). Enact away. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has trailed off. 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. Based on this I am closing this AE request with an indefinite topic ban of Alfonzo Green from Rupert Sheldrake, broadly construed. Alfonzo may appeal this topic ban through the normal AE topic ban appeal processes and timeframes. Zad68 14:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post close note - Alfonzo took issue with Zad's close on his talk page, suggesting that the other reviewing admins had not had a chance to review Alfonzo's response to the AE filing prior to close. I would like to point to my note above re Tznkai which was after Alfonzo's main rebuttal response, and confirm for the record that I had read Alfozno's main rebuttal prior to posting the above, and have read his additional notes now. My opinions regarding the underlying facts and issues, the AE enforcement need, and appropriate sanction remained unchanged after reading Alfonzo's first post, and still remain unchanged now after reading the followup notes. For the record, I believe the close was and is correct. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close note: Like Georgewilliamherbert, having read Alfonzo's responses in their entirety, my view remains that an indefinite topic ban is appropriate under the existing discretionary sanctions. I think the close by Zad68 was entirely appropriate and reflected a consensus of experienced administrators. MastCell ^Talk 01:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estlandia

Estlandia (formerly Miacek) is topic-banned from everything related to Poland and is also banned from interacting with MyMoloboaccount. Sandstein 14:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Please note that this is a list taking into account previous remedy in a case

Estlandia Arbitration case which ended with result Estlandia(formerly editing as Miacek) and Volunteer Marek are warned(...I am closing this with a formal warning to Estlandia, as required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings (which does not exempt users previously sanctioned) as a prerequisite for future sanctions...). Sandstein 07:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)]
Please refer to this AE request for details.Notably, you must not make personal attacks on others under any circumstances.Sandstein 07:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Logged into Eastern European sanctions after warning(talk · contribs) (formerly Miacek) warned because of personal attacks per AE request. Sandstein 07:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Log_of_blocks_and_bans "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."

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

stop whitewashing! 26th October Calling edits by other user whitewashing.
taking an english course instead of wasting your time on edit warring might be an idea to consider, too 17 December Saying to other user that he should be "Taking english course" instead of editing is of course a clear personal attack.
Please stop whitewashing Polish far-right, As you chose to remove reliably sourced stuff without even offering ANYTHING in return, this can be seen as whitewashing obnoxious political movements and supporting homophobia 17th December Accusing during content dispute other user of whitewashing Polish far right and suggesting that he supports homophobia
no one cares what you think it officially is. sources have been provided, you are not allowed to remove them! 23rd December Instead of rationally debating the topic, this edit summary consists of personal attack "no one cares what you think", "you are not allowed to remove them!" are obviously directed personally against another user and aggressive.
get lost 23rd December Stating "get lost" in edit summary in regards to other user is a clear case of personal attack.
But it's hopeless to explain it to primitive obdurate anti-German fanatics like you 24th December Naming other user "primitive" "anti-German" and fanatic and so on, again a clear case of personal attack. As this was done in regards to comment about use of German nationalist author for history of Poland it would again fall also under Eastern Europe sanctions.

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

Warning:

Warned on 4 May 2013 (UTC) by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Requests by other users to stop personal attacks, after they happened after the warning

27th October request by Dougweller (talk · contribs) to stop personal attack.
Request by me to remain civil and not use personal attackson 1st November 2013
Asked to remain civil and polite on 23rd December by Darwinek (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User Estlandia has been previously warned not use personal attacks against others in May 2013 and was logged into list of users warned per discretionary sanctions. Unfortunately he continued to use personal attacks and despite my request earlier and by others continues to do so. While I understand that everyone can have different views, I sincerely believe debates should be undertaken in civil manner. As the user was previously warned that the he should cease all personal attacks against others, logged in discretionary sanctions and others have at least three times asked him after this to stop personal attacks, I believe requesting enforcement in view of the above is justified. Based on the above diff's it is clear that he is not following the warning given to him earlier this year to cease personal attacks. Proposed remedy:a short block with further warning to cease personal attacks. In light of recent 36 hour block for edit warning, perhaps 48 hours. It could be then extended in case further personal attacks happen.But this is just a suggestion. Also as these kind of procedures aren't that well known to me, I might have written down some things incorrectly.For example I am not sure if the requests to remain polite and civil should be in the section they are right now.Feel free to correct me. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the below comment by Estlandia, shows that is unwilling to drop personal attacks. The link below is to some bizarre personal attack against me by anon editor combining posts all over the net(not even from Wikipedia) from various users(and posted 5 years ago in 2008!) falsely alleging that I am that person behind all these people from various places on the net, alongside insulting remarks about me. I am afraid that even here Estlandia can't restrain himself from directing accusations and remarks against others or repeating them.

The second link just links to my edit on well known nationalist thinker from 19th century who supported racism(and stated things like But now that the Aryans have become accustomed to the idiosyncrasies of' finance, the Jews are no longer necessary. The international Jew, hidden in tile mask of different nationalities, is a disintegrating influence, and can hardly be justification of any personal attack against me. If Estlandia believes that editing articles about such figure is anti-German and people doing so are fanatics,that justifies personal attacks, that indicates severe POV. If Estlandia believes my or any other user editing history is wrong, he should bring it to dispute resolution or other appropriate channels, instead of using insults and personal attacks.

I can't see any explanation of actions by Estlandia below, just an attempt to deflect this situation by attacking the person who brought up his violation of warning against personal attacks. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified [80]

Discussion concerning Estlandia

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 Estlandia

First thing: Darwinek's warning [81] that Molobo listed here concerned a comment on the subject of the article not any users here, as I explained, so it is clearly wrong to bring this up as evidence against me. Also calling Molobo's editing 'anti-German fanaticism' is - in the light of his whole editing history and recent edits like this - not a personal assault but a truthful characterization of the lamentable situtation. More to come. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sandstein - if we are not any more dealing with civility issues but with the more general question 'who's being disruptive in which topic' I suggest you consider Molobo's conduct on German related topics, too. Nothing but hate mongering [82], POV [83] and disruption ([84], [85] - note the persistent use of inflammatory language (local Germans as 'colonists') despite being told this is not NPOV), as evident from third party reactions [86]. Was this user's edit summary ('nonsense') also an evil personal assault against Molobo? Has Molobo ever had one good word to write about Germans? This all contrasts with small-scale but constructive editing I perform on Polish topics [87], [88], [89]. If you admins find it unnecessary to consider here, I'll need to open a specific request to that effect. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Secret Considering Eslandia continued disruption to Polish related topics, including three different edit warring blocks in three different years - First, only the last one of those blocks had anything to do with Poland. Second, the other editor was blocked, too. Third, any user with even superficial knowledge of WP policies would understand that removing OR is not 'disruption', adding it is. Who is being disruptive here, the one who keeps adding patent OR [90] or the one who is removing it? Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trust Is All You Need

He is rude, has insulted me on several occasions, and has this view that if you don't agree with him, you're biased, or you're pushing POV onto to WP. Any editor who opposes Estlandia edits, is referred to a POV pusher, wrong and biased. This user insults everytime he has the chance. Thirdly, and lastly, (and this is the worst bit) this user thinks he's always right, and because of that he seems to believe that he has a right to act badly towards other editors. --TIAYN (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Estlandia

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

The request has merit. Taking into consideration that I warned Estlandia (formerly Miacek) against similar conduct in May 2013, that comments such as "primitive obdurate anti-German fanatics like you" are personal attacks that are unacceptable under any and all circumstances, that Estlandia's statement (which inadmissibly attempts to justify such remarks) indicates that they still do not understand this, and that Estlandia has a block log of topic-related misconduct going back to 2009 and was most recently blocked a few days ago for topic-related edit-warring, I believe that a topic ban from everything related to Poland is indicated, to begin with for six months.

I am inviting Trust Is All You Need to back up their accusations with diffs or to retract them, because Wikipedians are not allowed to accuse others of serious misconduct without evidence (see WP:ASPERSIONS). Sandstein 23:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Sandstein here while ignoring Trust is All You Need extremely broad statement. Considering Eslandia continued disruption to Polish related topics, including three different edit warring blocks in three different years, it seems like he is guilty of Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_sanctions_for_disruptive_behavior. As a result it falls under the previous ArbCom case on Eastern Europe and a topic ban of minimum six months is warrantied, with a further warning concerning his civility, which might escalate to a block if Eslandia continues to act this way. Secret ^account 01:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After considering Estlandia's additional statement, the accusations leveled in it by Estlandia against MyMoloboaccount appear unfounded. The first reported diff, [91], dates from 2011 and is not "hate-mongering", but an on-topic contribution to the article talk page referencing a reliable source. The other reported diffs seem to reflect content disagreements and are at least not obviously objectionable from a conduct point of view, whatever their merits from a content point of view may be.
I'm implementing the topic ban at once to prevent further statements of this sort, which continue the personal attacks reported here by using terms such as "hate mongering". In view of these continuing attacks, I am making the topic ban indefinite and am also combining the topic ban with an unilateral interaction ban regarding MyMoloboaccount. I am ready to hear an appeal against these sanctions after six months of problem-free editing by Estlandia. Sandstein 14:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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