Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:32, 29 December 2013 editGatoclass (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators104,270 edits →Result concerning RoslynSKP: question← Previous edit Revision as of 16:56, 29 December 2013 edit undoHJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators122,031 edits →Result concerning RoslynSKP: r, and q to RoslynSKPNext edit →
Line 686: Line 686:
:::@] {{small|apologies for the typo in my previous edit}}, I disagree. We're not robots; ArbCom is perfectly capable of coming up with a process for 'automatically' enacting its remedies that doesn't involve admins using their judgement. The very fact that the process for enforcement is one that requires the judgement of several administrators suggests that we are expected to use that judgement to decide the best (or least worst) outcome for the project. ] &#124; ] 12:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC) :::@] {{small|apologies for the typo in my previous edit}}, I disagree. We're not robots; ArbCom is perfectly capable of coming up with a process for 'automatically' enacting its remedies that doesn't involve admins using their judgement. The very fact that the process for enforcement is one that requires the judgement of several administrators suggests that we are expected to use that judgement to decide the best (or least worst) outcome for the project. ] &#124; ] 12:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
:::: Are there any precedents for the imposition of sanctions other than blocks in AE cases where discretionary sanctions were not authorized? If so, it might strengthen the case for doing the same here. ] (]) 13:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC) :::: Are there any precedents for the imposition of sanctions other than blocks in AE cases where discretionary sanctions were not authorized? If so, it might strengthen the case for doing the same here. ] (]) 13:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
:::::I'm not aware of any within the framework of AE (unless there are cases where ArbCom has specifically authorised other sanctions), but admins here too often overlook the option of ordinary administrative action when it may be better suited than the very narrow options available to us under arbitration remedies. @], how would you feel about a 0RR restriction on ] (ie, you wouldn't be allowed to revert any edit or any part of any edit on that article for any reason whatsoever) for, say, six months, as opposed to the two-week block Sandstein proposes and the indefinite topic ban that would trigger? Obviously, if you violated the 0RR, you would be blocked and the topic ban would come into force; my hope is that this will give you just enough rope and that you won't hang yourself with it. ] &#124; ] 16:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:56, 29 December 2013

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347


    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Cihsai

    Cihsai's appeal is denied. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

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

    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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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...
    ...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. ...
    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 Misplaced Pages 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)

    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)

    Statement by EdJohnston

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: it's YOUR OWN ACTIONS that are preventing you from enjoying Misplaced Pages.

    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)

    @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)

    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)

    • 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
    • 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)

    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)

    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)

    Alfonzo Green

    Alfonzo Green is indefinitely topic-banned from Rupert Sheldrake, broadly construed. Zad68 14:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


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

    Request concerning Alfonzo Green

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Guy (Help!) 01:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
    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
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 23/12/2013 Attempts to rehash debate on long-setteld issues in tha rticle; Reverts admin closure of same; repeats same
    2. 23/12/2013 Reinserting disputed text, widely discussed with consensus against inclusion on Talk
    3. 21/12/2103 Reinserting disputed text, widely discussed with consensus against inclusion on Talk
    4. 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.
    5. 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)
    1. Warned on 23 December 2013 by me (JzG)
    2. Notified of prior consensus on 11/12/2013 by Vzaak
    3. Warned on 4/12/2013 by Callenec
    4. Prior AE request rejected due to lack of actionable material:
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    1. 10:34, December 11, 2013 Callanecc blocked Alfonzo Green with an expiry time of 72 hours (Arbitration enforcement: breaking 1RR restriction on Rupert Sheldrake)
    2. 01:07, October 16, 2013 EdJohnston blocked Alfonzo Green with an expiry time of 31 hours (Edit warring on Rupert Sheldrake))
    3. 15:01, July 16, 2009 B blocked Alfonzo Green with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR, incivility on Rupert Sheldrake)

    Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been active on Misplaced Pages since April 2008, with 231 mainspace edits, of which 145 (63%) are to the article Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a further 28 directly relating to a wager between Sheldrake and Lewis Wolpert, inclusing creating Wolpert-Sheldrake wager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Wolpert-Sheldrake Genome Wager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 3 to Lewis Wolpert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 14 to Michael Shermer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a well-known skeptic, adding material supportive of fringe ideas.

    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)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified

    @Johnuniq Precisely. There is an inequality of motivation. For Sheldrake's supporters this is personal and of paramount importance. For Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages - 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)
    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 Misplaced Pages, 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)


    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 Misplaced Pages 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. He is also referred to as a biologist by the University of London, the University of Arizona, the Open University, Institute of Noetic Sciences, the University of Reading, the BBC, the Daily Telegraph, National Geographic, Discover magazine, The Independent newspaper, Scientific American, Science, Financial Times, New York Times, and in various academic/university textbook, peer-reviewed journals, Trans. Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2012) --Iantresman (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

    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, and 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, , 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
    These four all signed an open letter to TED that was published in the Huffington Post 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.
    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
    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."

    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 Misplaced Pages 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)

    @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/search/?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 Misplaced Pages 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/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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. We have a clear-cut example of abuse of Misplaced Pages policies encouraged by an administrator who tries to silence an editor protesting said abuse. If Misplaced Pages can't get this right, why should the general public believe Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

    @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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)
    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)

    Statement by iantresman

    1. 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.
    2. 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" a fact (not a truth) that remained stable for about a decade until around July 2013. While there are indeed some editors arguing for a this change, there are other editors who are happy with the original.
    3. 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, myself, Barleybannocks, Tumbleman, Annalisa Ventola, and Blippy. The onus is on editors to provide diffs supporting this allegation. There are none, per WP:ASPERSIONS.
    4. I am also concerned with Guy's possible COI as an WP:INVOLVED Admin, with strong opinions about the subject, towards Barleybannocks and Alfonzo Green (2013):
      • 30 Nov: "one more black mark against you"
      • 5 Dec: "You are now on notice"
      • 25 Dec: "One of us is an admin. It's not you. I strongly suggest you take the hint"
    5. 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 Misplaced Pages-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)

    @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)

    @Editors. Which part of "Misplaced Pages: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)

    @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)

    @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 made that don't", contradicted by, for example: 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)

    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)

    Statement by Tom Butler

    Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

    @Tznkai I understand that a consensus to violate a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.) 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 Misplaced Pages. Tom Butler (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
    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 Misplaced Pages, it poisons the water for any free discussion about frontier subject content. Tom Butler (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
    @ Iantresman the comment buy Guy at 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

    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)

    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)
    Agree fully and suggest an indefinite topic ban. He has had plenty of chances already. NW (Talk) 03:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
    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)
    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 Misplaced Pages 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)
    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  06:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that requests should link to the remedy to be enforced, in this case, Misplaced Pages: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)

    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 Misplaced Pages:ARBAB#Single purpose accounts. I support a topic ban from everything to do with Rupert Sheldrake.  Sandstein  12:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

    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)
    @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)
    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 - Misplaced Pages 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)
    @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. Misplaced Pages 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)
    You misspelled his name three times above. Please fix that, to avoid any implication of impropriety. --Joy (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
    Corrected, and my thanks.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see you have a conflict of interest (or involvement). Enact away. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

    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)

    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)
    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  01:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    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)
    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)
    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

    1. 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)]
    2. 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)
    3. 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)
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/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
    1. stop whitewashing! 26th October Calling edits by other user whitewashing.
    2. 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.
    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. get lost 23rd December Stating "get lost" in edit summary in regards to other user is a clear case of personal attack.
    6. 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:

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

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

    1. 27th October request by Dougweller (talk · contribs) to stop personal attack.
    2. Request by me to remain civil and not use personal attackson 1st November 2013
    3. 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)

    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 Misplaced Pages) 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)


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified

    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 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)

    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 , POV and disruption (, - note the persistent use of inflammatory language (local Germans as 'colonists') despite being told this is not NPOV), as evident from third party reactions . 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 , , . 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)

    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 or the one who is removing it? Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    • 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 Misplaced Pages: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 01:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    • After considering Estlandia's additional statement, the accusations leveled in it by Estlandia against MyMoloboaccount appear unfounded. The first reported diff, , 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)

    MilesMoney

    Wrong forum, please use WP:AN or WP:ANI.  Sandstein  20:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning MilesMoney

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Darkness Shines (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    MilesMoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Edit warring. again
    2. Calls an editor a liar
    3. Accusations of stalking
    4. Accusations of outing
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on First guy sanctioned under these community imposed restrictions.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    No, it can be dealt with here. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning MilesMoney

    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 MilesMoney

    Darkness Shines is unhappy because I reverted (once) his attempt to archive an active discussion. In the archive comment, he called us a "shower of cunts" and told us to "grow up". I asked him to self-revert and he insulted me some more. This is a violation of WP:NPA.

    I could respond to the diffs, but the fact is that none of them involve Austrian Economics in any way, and all of them are issues that are already being handled (or have been handled) elsewhere. This is therefore the wrong forum and this report appears to be a waste of time. I recommend trouting Darkness Shines (or worse) for both his vulgarity and for wasting everyone's time here. MilesMoney (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    This is the wrong place, and there's nothing to be dealt with except for your anger management issues. MilesMoney (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by MrX

    Umm, I think this was a community imposed sanction, so enforcement requests should be posted to WP:AN.- MrX

    Please post in your own sections. DS, please read the banner at the top of this page:
    Arbitration Enforcement is not the place for anything other than enforcement of a closed Arbitration Committee ruling. It is not for:... Community or administrator decisions, breach of these should be raised at the administrators' incident noticeboard or in exceptional cases, cited as evidence in a request for arbitration.

    Statement by S. Rich

    With regard to the OUTING (#4), please see the following section on my talk page: User talk:Srich32977#Your recent edits to ANI. To recap, a comment on the ANI by MilesMoney included an IP address. I replied to the IP, who appeared to be Miles based on Miles' previous talk page history. Miles came back to the ANI and signed the comment, plus changed the comment I posted to the IP. These changes have been suppressed and I have apologized to Miles for my transgression. – S. Rich (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    Right, I wasn't nuts to accuse you of outing, but as you say, the issue has been dealt with. Moreover, it never had anything at all to do with Austrian Economics. I'm sorry you were dragged into this. MilesMoney (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    Result concerning MilesMoney

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

    I am closing this section because, as MrX points out, this forum is the wrong venue in which to seek the enforcement of community sanctions. This board is for enforcing arbitral decisions only. I recommend making such requests in an administrators' noticeboard.  Sandstein  20:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    Phoenix7777

    This request is rendered moot by he closure of the requested move. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Phoenix7777

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Lvhis (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 20:16, 25 December 2013 Disruptive misbehaviour in talk page. During an ongoing RM/CM Talk:Senkaku_Islands#Requested_move, Phoenix7777 applied a subtitle "Argument against replacing "Senkaku Islands" by moving to other name" listing a number of users (PBS, AjaxSmack, Jonathunde, Blueboar, Qwyrxian, and benlisquare) under this subtitle but arguments of those users were not as this subtitle tells. Using this cheating subtitle he intentionally misled readers and closure admin by violating talk page guideline "Do not misrepresent other people".
    2. 20:56, 22 December 2013 Disruptive misbehaviour in talk page. He disruptively changed a format that have been edited by several users without discussing this change before he was allowed to do so, to try to confuse readers and closure admin by violating talk page guideline Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning.
    3. 00:27, 21 December 2013 Disruptive misbehaviour in talk page and edit warring. Reverted an edit that properly put his own argument under his argument part. Two days later he moved his such argument to his argument part that meant his previous revert is an edit warring on the talk page.
    4. 00:53, 21 December 2013 Disruptive misbehaviour in talk page and edit warring. Within one hour he did 2RR on the talk page.
    5. 00:50, 23 December 2013 Disruptive misbehaviour in talk page and edit warring. Reverted to his disruptive format changing.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on 19:05, 23 December 2013 by Lvhis (talk · contribs) I (Lvhis) clearly warned Phoenix7777 if he kept doing that kind of disruption again, "the immediate right place for him to go is Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement board".
    2. Warned on 02:19, 23 December 2013 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) In reply Phoenix7777's soliciting request to close the ongoing RM/CM, admin EdJohnston also warned him "Misbehavior during the discussion may lead to sanctions".
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Phoenix7777's misbehavior has in certain extent disrupted or distracted the ongoing RM/CM. Note that Phoenix7777 was an involved party of Arbitration case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands and he has been fully aware this topic is under discretionary sanctions. He himself mentioned this discretionary sanctions on 00:49, 21 December 2013 and also ever threatened other users "risk an indefinite ban from this article." on 04:51, 23 December 2013. Phoenix7777 should be topic banned. --Lvhis (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified user Phoenix7777.

    Discussion concerning Phoenix7777

    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 Phoenix7777

    The contention of this RM is mostly derived from my addition of two discussions which are hardly disruptive. One is a list of users who voted Oppose and another is a section "Relevant Policies and Guidelines". These additions are quite inconvenient for users supporting the move. Lvhis and Benlisquare removed or collapsed these inconvenient additions for them. Please note that these additions are now kept in the talk page because I warned them a possible enforcement if they remove the edits again. See my additions currently in the talk page:Talk:Senkaku Islands#Collection of oppose points, Relevant Policies and Guidelines

    • Lvhis created only a list of users who voted Support. So I added a list of users who voted Oppose in order to show the both side of discussions.
    • Lvhis removed.]
    • Benlisquare removed again.
    • I added "Relevant Policies and Guidelines" section in order to summarize the Policies and Guidelines related to this RM.
    • Benlisquare collapsed.
    • Lvhis removed an item just because it is not RM but RfC although the RfC is the most recent decision to keep the current article name.
    • Benlisquare made personal attacks
    • After I moved "Relevant Policies and Guidelines" from the unilaterally collapsed section, Benlisquare posted a personal attack in my talk page.
    • After I added a list of users who voted Oppose, Benlisquare posted a personal attack in my talk page again using "shit" and "fuck".
    Also RM discussion page using "fuck" and "tomfoolery".

    Note: Recently Lvhis added a list of users against retention of "Senkaku Islands" by combining the section "Argument for moving to "Pinnacle Islands"" and "Argument for moving to "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands"". This shows how Lvhis obsessed to these lists.

    I ask admins to enforce a topic ban to Lvhis and Benlisquare. Lvhis's past three month ban should be taken into consideration.

    Statement by Ubikwit

    Though there doesn't appear to be need to admin action beyond the blocking of the SPA, I would note that there has been a dearth of substantive discussion based on RS, and an excess of appeals to statistical data in the form of readily manipulable ngrams, as demonstrated by this comment Beijing is currently buying up African media companies for example.
    . The page has been flooded with such comments, and there are some language issues (non-native speakers).
    So while I can appreciate the concerns of the OP and believe he is posting in good faith and has been editing in good faith (on this contentious topic), it would seem that he is not aware of the fact that, due to language limitations and the like, some of his own posts related to ngrams and the like could be seen as contributing to the flood of flotsam and jetsam making it difficult to navigate the discussion (what there is of it). Earlier today I posted a wikilink to Misplaced Pages:Source counting

    As a note to the closer, I'd like to draw your attention to a couple of passages that misrepresented the sources in the article proper. First, this edit was a patent misrepresentation of both reality and the source. Second, as I touched on in the RM discussion, the origins of the Japanese name were also misrepresented (a connected point) in the article. So, aside from deleting the misleading sentence, I added the following paragraph to the Senkaku_Islands#Early_history section

    A Japanese navy record issued in 1886 first started to identify the islets using equivalents of the Chinese and English terms employed by the British. The name "Senkaku Retto" is not found in any Japanese historical document before 1900 (the term "Senkaku Gunto" began being used in the late 19th century), and first appeared in print in a geography journal published in 1900. It was derived from a translation of the English name Pinnacle Islands into a Sinicized Japanese term "Sento Shoto" (as opposed to "Senkaku Retto", i.e., the term used by the Japanese today), which has the same meaning.

    I kept that paragraph as brief as possible, using "Sinicized" for example to describe the important distinction between different compound terms composed of Chinese characters as used in Japan and China, respectively, and would be willing to elaborate on that if it is relevant to the closing of the RM. I haven't (yet) checked to see when that misleading sentence misrepresenting the source was added to the article, but it is indicative of a general state of less than optimal editorial conduct on this contentious topic--as with many.
    --Ubikwit見学/迷惑 06:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Phoenix7777

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

    I have read the requested move discussion that this concerns and intend to close it tomorrow, if nobody else does so in the meantime. I hope that closing the move discussion will moot this request, as there doesn't seem to be a very clear-cut case for action at first glance.  Sandstein  00:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

    • From glancing at the discussion, this seems to be retaliation as Phoenix777 has the opposite argument of Lvhis. More of a WP:BOOMERANG here and should be closed. I'm more worried about Ryk72 (talk · contribs) who clearly ain't a new user. Secret 03:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Update I blocked Ryk72 indefinitely, and considering the page is under ArbCom sanctions and his only edits was basically to disrupt the closure of the Senkaku Islands page move, the block falls under the arbitration decision of the case. I don't see any evidence that Phoenix777 is disruptive enough for a sanction, and like Sandstein said, the closure of the move discussion will make the request moot. Secret 03:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Closing the move discussion would be a reasonable step. I hope User:Sandstein will consider doing so. That might allow this AE to be closed without additional action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I have now move closed the move request and recommend that this request be archived without action (although any administrator remains of course free to take action). The discussion contains quite a bit of nastiness, edit-warring, inappropriate language and confrontational attitude by various participants, but I think that little would be gained by sorting all of that out now. However, I've added a general talk page conduct warning.  Sandstein  10:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

    RoslynSKP

    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 RoslynSKP

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    RoslynSKP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute#RoslynSKP_revert_restriction
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on 2013/12/27 by Nick-D (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    • Sorry to say this again, but as with the filing of the initial arbcom case I've never done one of these enforcement paperwork things, so if I botched something or you guys need me to add or subtract from whats here then please drop me a line and I'll get to it as soon as I can.
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified

    Discussion concerning RoslynSKP

    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 RoslynSKP

    I am sorry that I have contravened the revert part of the ruling. It was not my intention to do so and it was only after the event that I realised my mistake. Since then, I have taken my concerns about the article to the talk page, in particular here , and here but it appears that quite important information, which I have also detailed here , continues to be cut by Jim Sweeney. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

    I have no knowledge of Nick-D's warning and cannot find it via the diff provided. --Rskp (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves

    Well, it appears that the editor did not understand the definition of a revert, and has acknowledged such. That, combined with the possibility that there were no intervening edits (which would possibly make it a single revert), IMHO, we let the editor off with a warning at this point in time. Their edits have been problematic - hence their restrictions are in place. Skirting the edges, or making any edit(s) that appear problematic are just as dangerous ES&L 13:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

    Comment by Nick-D

    RoslynSKP has recently been pushing against an editing restriction and ignoring the concerns over her conduct which were raised in the arbitration case:

    I think that it's really disappointing that RoslynSKP is making the same basic mistakes which lead to the arbitration case so soon, and it must be very frustrating for the other editors who are working on these articles. I'd strongly encourage her to "drop the stick" over these issues, and move on. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

    @MarcusBritish: Marcus, it's normal for AE requests to be handled relatively slowly as the admins like to discuss appropriate responses and also see a statement from the party who enforcement is being requested against, and for them to respond to any proposed sanctions (or at least to allow sufficient time for them to be able post a statement if they so wish) before taking any action: this isn't ANI, and given the weight accorded to arbitration sanctions the admins aren't going to short circuit established processes. Please note also that it's customary for initial requests for arbitration enforcement to be handled particularly carefully, and generally result in a warning or the like. Your rude posts really aren't helpful. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

    Comments by MarcusBritish

    • Hate to say it, but RoslynSKP has bigger balls than every admin to view her record to date. Over 2-years we have strong evidence of dozens of misdemeanours forming a significant disruptive pattern, but to date, before the ArbCom case, not one official warning or block issued.. ArbCom gives a ruling and block options which is like shaking a carrot at a donkey, and our donkeys all decide they're blind. The closure of the ANI thread, with no admin responses, was pure ignorance. Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile.. I think RoslynSKP has not only taken that mile, but run a marathon in laps around everyone, and I'm disgusted how utterly useless ANI has proved in following Arbcom's "Standard Enforcement" mandate. Even if 4 reverts do only count as one, which I accept, the fact remains that in all 4 cases RoslynSKP covered-up those reverts with a misleading set of edit summaries. Balls, gentlemen.. please reach under your impotent manhoods and find them. I see many an admin listed as "willing to make difficult blocks", but can only laugh.. RoslynSKP clearly has them by the balls to. I bet she's in hysterics at how much she can and has got away with, even under scrutiny. Ma®©usBritish 02:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

    I think it would be more accurate to note that RoslynSKP is on a "suspended topic ban" which is technically a form of probation than a declined topic ban, ergo they did not make it so that this case has to take standard baby steps through all forms of dispute resolution to achieve a result, it has already been processed at the highest level by ArbCom as the end result and the ruling provides a clause for admins to skip lower forms of resolution–notably because they have proved ineffective due to RoslynSKP's unwillingness to cooperate with involved or third-parties–and move directly to blocks with the added notion that the topic ban be unsuspended. I think all the prattle being discussed above undermines not only ArbCom's ruling, but is seriously disrespectful to the MilHist project and those parties who put dozens of hours into presenting an ArbCom case from 2 years of unstable edit history across dozens of articles, only to have admins come along and make low-quality and even more arbitrary determinations as to what should and should not be done about the matter. The fact remains that the ArbCom case presents a chain of paperwork proving the disruptions at hand, and the further fact remains that not only have lessons not been learned as a result of the case, but that admins are unwilling to consider that several MilHist members invested a lot of time into bringing this case forward to secure a result. Whilst each disruption as a whole may appear a "low grade edit war" as Tznkai puts it, we should remember that a whole is the sum of its parts. A minor slap on RoslynSKP's wrist for this ANZAC article isn't going to do anything to prevent her from carrying on across the numerous other articles she has disrupted previously, against Jim Sweeney. This reads to me like a court making a ruling but the police can't be arsed to arrest the offender. How, Tznkai, can you only suggest that "both parties need to start working together" when we have 2-years of this proving impossible? Do you think if anyone thought this would work it would ever have gone to ArbCom in the first place? Both parties have different views on the content of the articles being disputed, but where Jim is generally open to comment and able to provide a variety of sourcing, RoslynSKP is firm in her opinions, unwilling to give ground and often won't provide sourcing beyond a few choice titles. It's like arguing with a fundamentalist who only cites the Bible as "fact" against all else man has ever learned and published.. if you've ever been in one of those debates you'll know how inflexible, determined and often blind-sighted they can be against all reason, and it is that very reason that is undermining resolution of this case, because no matter how many times you argue with RoslynSKP, no matter how many talk pages or noticeboards or ANI threads you take her to, she can't see past the end of her own nose. One week after the ArbCom case ruling she reopened the "Ottoman vs Turkey" debate on MilHist.. after 2 years of defending her castle do you really believe she's going to bend and see reason on a talk page with the very editor who she reverts more than anyone? Pah! IMO, we're dealing with an overwhelming egotist now, more than a reasonable editor. The only way to deal with someone like this is to come down harder on them, not pussyfoot around them, which is simply playing into their hands. As someone once said, possibly TomStar81, once you start blocking bad editors and wasting their time instead of ours life can get very difficult and the need to cooperate becomes more apparent. Being a member of Wiki is not a right if you're going to abuse it, and all the evidence suggests that RoslynSKP is willing to keep stepping on toes to have her own way. Clearly ArbCom needs to impose stronger remedies and less leniency to reduce the chances of that and the fallout this case is having. I could support a number of motions suggested by HJ Mitchell but I don't think they're broad enough as proposed to avoid carry-over from one article to another. All I can see is a chain of these useless WP:AE requests resulting in nothing but bureaucracy with little or no action at the end of consequence. Jim Sweeney suffers, MilHist suffers, Wiki suffers.. those are the victims here.

    TLDR; This WP:AE is proving pointless as people are unwilling to act on the established facts and by playing "by the rulebook" too closely it's resulting in too much freedom for RoslynSKP to cause mischief and fly under the radar of ArbCom and its rulings. Jim Sweeney is receiving more flak than deserved, which is good for RoslynSKP (and probably a motive for her) as it dirties his name and could allow for a witch hunt against her detractors in MilHist, but this doesn't help matters as far as the wider disruptions are concerned. Ma®©usBritish 05:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

    @Nick-D: By making an absolute demand that RoslynSKP "drop this issue permanently" you backed her into a corner from which she was bound to fight rather than accept; making such a demand was a) not your decision to make, b) did not represent ArbCom's ruling, and c) is contrary to Wiki policy such as WP:CCC, where I had more luck requesting she wait for 6 months until WWI centenary you obsessively sought to contradict that, which was damaging to the ground gained – I am sure you are unwilling to accept this fact.
    Tznkai: I have nothing to gain by battling and have always worked towards a mutually-beneficial solution, how dare anyone suggest otherwise in order to alienate my comments. If you're looking to challenge my views by showing passive-aggression towards me, fine, but do not attempt to censor my opinions me making demands as you have. Ma®©usBritish 07:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    There has been a load of edits and moving of comments all in short time, I am lost as to who said what, being both tired and frustrated by the responses posted here. Regardless, it's too late to redact things that have already been said. I can only redirect several some of the context at Tznkai who clearly has not done enough background research into this case, and therefore his accusations of WP:BATTLE are assumptive and incorrectly placed. He would do better to reconsider his views than to attack mine given that he appears to be unable to follow the history of this case, or my involvement, with reasonable level of clarity. As someone who does NOT edit WWI articles I have NOTHING to gain from these proceedings, whether RoslynSKP stays or goes, I gain nothing personally, I only justify my role to prevent further long-term disruptions which affect MilHist and its pool of members, as such long-term disputes only serve to polarise views rather than strengthen collaborative bonds. Ma®©usBritish 08:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    @Tznkai: "I am also loathe to allow even the appearance of allowing users to even accidentally win a content dispute by taking advantage of an editor's restrictions." – "win"? Is that implying that Jim also has WP:BATTLE-like view? Isn't it more reasonable to rationalise that articles should follow a uniform naming convention, and that if an article already uses "Turkish" where RoslynSKP is adding fresh material using "Ottoman" rather than changing existing content it could be construed as circumventing the ArbCom ruling? I'm with Jim in expressing disappointment, as several times now you have specifically targeted parties but the one this case relates to, and there is a huge amount of bias in your POV because you've suggested that we might take advantage of her restrictions, rather than the more obvious case that she might exploit loopholes in her restrictions, as may be the case. Can you please explain your negativity towards myself and Jim, as I find it lacks the impartiality I would come to expect from a reasonable sysop? Your unrequired "loathe" also fails to WP:AGF in Jim for bringing his concerns forward to the appropriate noticeboard. Please assume a less pre-judgemental approach to your views, as that is twice now you have done so and I am getting severally pissed off by your harassive candour as there too many implications being hinted at which are not in your remit. Perhaps you forget we are all volunteers on wiki, and expect to be treated as equals, not as liars with COI. In short, if you can't be bothered to look at the evidence fairly, leave it to those who will. Ma®©usBritish 09:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by TomStar81

    Alright, everyone please take a deep breathe and let it out slowly. Then lets remember that by allowing ourselves to be agitated over this issue RSKP wins, so the less we debate the (in)action here the better it is for all of us. I for one have no intention of letting this issue run my life, that is why I've commented here only in a limited capability. The longer this gets drawn out and the more we invest into it the more wound up we are going to be, so lets all remember that we are and rightly should be editors first, ok? Once we remember who we are then we remember that this is all above our pay grade, meant to be left to the people who participate here cuz its what they do, not what we do. Each editor depends on one another to help support them in their hour of need, and editors in turn rely and admins to act or refrain from acting fro the betterment of the project. If it makes you feel better here, remember that RSKP's got a whole year - thats 52.5 weeks, 365.25 days, 525,600 minutes, etc - to make the needed alterations to her behavior. Missing the first mine in a minefield doesn't mean the field won't work in the long run, and to get bent out of a shape over it is ridiculous in my opinion.

    Let it go. That is my advice, and while it may not be what you want, it is most certainly what you all need to do.

    Let it go, before it become the all consuming factor that dictates your wiki-life. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by Jim Sweeney

    Can this edit also be checked, in my belief its against the first Arbcom restriction.

    RoslynSKP is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article.

    By adding a map of the 1913 Ottoman Empire to an article about a British Empire (Australian/British/New Zealand) army formation, that was formed in 1916. Not only is the reason for its use doubtful in this article, by adding Ottoman an article where Turkish is in use, is surely against the restriction. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

    So its your understanding they they can not change Turkish to Ottoman but can introduce as many sentences with Ottoman in, or as in this case maps, that they want? Unbelievable really can not see why anyone bothered with going to Arbcom.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


    Result concerning RoslynSKP

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

    If I'm not mistaken, the four edits listed at WP:AN/I were made consecutively with no intervening edits by another user, meaning they count as only one revert, so it looks to me as if this request is not actionable. Gatoclass (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

    Agreed. Per WP:3RR, "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Because the edits in question were consecutive, they are one revert. However, RoslynSKP should remember that also per WP:3RR, "'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". This can be closed without further action.  Sandstein  15:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    • There's not really anything here that would justify a draconian sanction, such as a block or some form of topic ban, though it is alarming to see an AE request less than a week after the closure of the arbitration case. I fear this may not be the last we see of of this dispute, and it may be prudent to nip it in the bud if we can. Perhaps one or a combination of the following measures might strike the balance between deterrence and fairness:
      • A stern warning to RoslynSKP that it is not acceptable to merely carry on with conduct that led to sanctions in an arbitration case, and that much more draconian sanctions are almost certain to follow if she does not change her ways. Possibly accompanied by a warning to Jim Sweeney to make sure his own conduct at the very least meets (and would preferably exceed) the conduct expected of those he is in dispute with.
      • 0RR on ANZAC Mounted Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (with scope for widening if necessary) for RoslynSKP and possibly Jim Sweeney.
      • Require RoslynSKP to gain consensus for edits to that article (and others if necessary) before she makes them.
      • Ban RoslynSKP from the article for a few weeks to allow dust to settle after the arbitration case.
      • Require all editors on that article to clearly mark reverts (including partial reverts) as such.
      • More drastically, a period of full protection for ANZAC Mounted Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), forcing all editors to gain consensus for edits before they are made.
      • An interaction ban between RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney (if problems continue between RoslySKP and other editors, there will be a more compelling case for stiffer sanctions against RoslynSKP; if things die down, it should allow the dust to settle).
    • I suspect that if we close this request with no action at all, things in the topic area will not improve, and we will be back here before long discussing essentially the same facts. I'd appreciate other admins' thoughts and those of the involved editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    • In a sense that is why this is here, its meant to show RoslynSKP that we are watching. Even if no action is taken, the fact that someone bothered to go the extra mile and take this here should show that we will be making sure that both parties (in this case RSKP, perhaps later Jim as well) adhere to the arbcom ruling. Ideally, this would result in action, but that it came here is for me enough to know that we did our 50%. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Marcus, I sympathise with your frustration, but perhaps tone down the rhetoric a little. Most admins here are thick-skinned enough to brush it off, but it's unlikely to help your case. We are limited in what we can do by the ArbCom ruling; our remit here is to deal with disruption within the scope of that case. Now, I've proposed a variety of possible actions that might go some way towards that. Hopefully other admins will comment, and we'll come to a consensus on what, if anything, we should do. Your feedback on the suggestions would be welcome, as would Roslyn's, and you are welcome to continue to demonstrate how you believe Roslyn's conduct is violating the arbitration remedies, but please don't expect that some admin is going to swoop in and make a unilateral action without waiting to hear other opinions first—that would only lead to an even bigger mess. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    If I'm reading the case correctly, @HJ Mitchell:, we cannot do what you are suggesting under Arbitration Enforcement. The only enforcement mechanism reads "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." Any block would also immediately trigger a topic ban, which would further be enforceable by blocks. I need to delve into the article history a bit more to know for sure, but this looks at first glance like a low grade edit war that would normally result in short term page protection (everyone sits on their hands and figures it out) rather than blocks for edit warring. If that bares out, no action is appropriate. Even if it does not, we need to be aware that we will be going from zero to topic ban when ArbCom declined to do so.--Tznkai (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    Having reread the diffs, and looked into the case history a bit, I think TomStar81 buried the lead here. These two users have an established history of edit warring with each other, and that is exactly what is happening here. ArbCom chose to restrict one editor and not the other, which ties our hands considerably, but that is the way it is. It seems to me the correct solution is for both parties to start working together, mostly by sitting on their hands, and discussing on the talk page. If creative enforcement becomes an option somehow, I would start with discussion on the talk page under kindergarten rules: I statements only. In lieu of enforcement authority, I make that my strong suggestions to both @Jim Sweeney: and @RoslynSKP:--Tznkai (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    (e/c)@MarcusBritish:, I dislike enforcing formalisms, but I like reading rants when trying to come to a conclusion even less. Please move your comment to the appropriate section, or better yet, reconsider it entirely. You have said your piece, and then you said it again. Continued repetition suggests that you are interested in engaging in battles on Misplaced Pages instead of writing about them. If you believe that there is new, actionable evidence of misconduct we have missed, kindly list and link such items in your section.--Tznkai (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)timestamp is incorrect

    Having taken a closer look at the article's history page, it appears to me that RoslynSKP may indeed have breached her 1RR restriction and on more than one occasion. I'm still checking the diffs but I think I should be able to post some evidence shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

    @Jim Sweeney:, the restriction is against changing Turkey to Ottoman, not adding information that references the Ottoman empire. I did see that edit and find it questionable, but that it is a content call, and does not fit within the sanctions levied by ArbCom. ArbCom had the opportunity to grant discretion to administrators or levy different sanctions. They did not. We are unable to expand or re-litigate here. I am also loathe to allow even the appearance of allowing users to even accidentally win a content dispute by taking advantage of an editor's restrictions. We will see what Gatoclass comes up with.--Tznkai (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

    Non-admin reply by Jim Sweeney moved up to the corresponding section.  Sandstein  10:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    It is my understanding that RoslynSKP cannot be specially sanctioned for the action you cited. It can however, be handled through normal means. As an analogy, imagine one gets pulled over for drunk driving, and the magistrate lays down a probation that includes the provision "if you get pulled over for DUI again, you lose your license forever." That person then goes to a bar, gets drunk, and gets into a bar brawl. That person cannot have their driving license pulled under the provision, but still would be guilty of getting drunk and brawling.--Tznkai (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

    Okay, having taken another look at the article history, it appears to me that a breach of RoslynSKP's revert restriction has indeed occurred. Per the original case, Rosylyn was prohibited from making more than one revert on a given page in a 72-hour period. Roslyn made an edit on 22:56 25 December with the edit summary reinsert notable campaign and battles in infobox per Template. Without this information readers may not know when and where the division served, a revert of this edit. Jim Sweeney then made a number of intervening edits (example)and on 00:04 27 December RoslynSKP made another edit, with the edit summary reinstate direct quote in note for clarity as the paraphrase is misleading which is clearly a revert of this edit by Jim Sweeney. That's two reverts in little more than 24 hours. I should add that this is not the only content Roslyn reverted in the space of about 24 hours, but because she broke her reverts over a sequence of consecutive edits, it's not so easy to show how much content was reverted in violation of her 72-hour 1RR.

    Additionally, I note that at 00:08 27 December, RoslynSKP repeated her revert of 25 December with the edit summary reinsert notable battles in infobox per template guide which under the circumstances might be considered edit warring, especially since this is at least the third time she has added this info. This is not the only example of repeated restoration of contested content that Roslyn has engaged in on this page over the last few days, as noted above.

    I might add with regard to two of RoslynSKP's reverts listed above that they arguably breach the spirit if not the letter of her prohibition on changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article; I think Roslyn would be well advised to steer clear of any content related to the naming controversy. Regardless, this request does appear to be actionable after all. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2013‎ (UTC)

    Given RoslynSKP's statement that she misunderstood the definition of "revert," and that the immediate result of any action here would be to unsuspend a lengthy topic ban, in addition to the concerns I laid out before, I would decline the enforcement request at this juncture. On the other hand, it is incumbent on sanctioned users to learn the boundaries of their sanctions by asking for clarification or frankly, reading the relevant policies. Several of the cited diffs have suggested the underlying problem presented in the arbitration case is in play here. Certainly RoslynSKP has not been a model of collaborative editing on this article. Given that, I will stand aside for any administrator who wishes to act.--Tznkai (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    I'd be interested to know why Arbcom chose to impose a "suspended" indef ban in the first place; it's a rather unusual sanction that tends to limit the discretion of administrators. Strictly speaking, however, the ban is unsuspended on the imposition of a block, so presumably other types of sanction would not activate it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for the thorough analysis, Gatoclass, with which I agree. Per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute#Enforcement by block, this calls for a block in enforcement of the revert restriction. I think that two weeks (within an allowed range of up to a month) would be appropriate, given how recent the decision was and how little consideration RoslynSKP seems to have given to the decision. Per #RoslynSKP suspended topic ban, the block will automatically activate RoslynSKP's ban from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I.

    In reply to Tznkai, by going right back to confrontative editing in the same topic area after an arbitration decision that stopped a hair short of immediately topic-banning her, and apparently without giving much consideration of the terms of that decision, RoslynSKP assumed the risk of being sanctioned for her actions. I see neither grounds for leniency, nor do I believe that we have any discretion not to take action: the revert restriction is a Committee decision, which is binding and final, and therefore must be enforced.  Sandstein  10:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

    Gatoclass, the only enforcement mechanism authorized in the case is a block, which then unsuspends the topic ban, thus leaving us with the options of block up to 1 month and topic ban or no action. Technically, a block of 1 second would activate the topic ban. Sandstein, I do not believe there is an affirmative duty on administrators to execute Arbitration remedies, even if we must, like any editor, comply with them. We always have the discretion to sit on our hands, which is what I believe is most appropriate in this case.--Tznkai (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    Tznkai, I don't see where it says in the Arbcom decision that a block is the only permitted sanction, how do you come to that conclusion? Gatoclass (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    The Enforcement section reads, in its entirety, as follows

    Enforcement by block 0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked,' initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Emphasis added)

    There is simply no provision for non-blocking sanctions, just that an administrator may block up to a month. We'd be looking at going back to AN/I for a community restriction if we want to try something more creative.--Tznkai (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, but the next section states that Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section ... , so I think the statement in the previous section is only intended to summarize the provisions related specifically to blocking. Gatoclass (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I agree that we always have the discretion to sit on our hands. I do not agree that this is most appropriate in this case. AGF fails me. I don't think this is a user trying intentionally to be disruptive. But I believe it's a user who is Not Getting It. Enough chances were given prior to the case. If they didn't understand the significance of the case or findings or restrictions then their competence to work with the community of editors, collegially and collaboratively, is in question. In a case like this, a topic ban can be viewed as much as a measure to try and separate a possibly rehabilitatable editor from the area that they're in and causing them to exhaust community patience. What I have seen so far responding to this does not give me a positive sense of short-term rehabilitation and behavior change, short of enacting the block and triggering the topic ban. We can always say 'not this time' one more time, but at some point that shifts to enabling rather than merciful. Perhaps the line's one more goof down the line rather than here; I would support more discussion rather than pulling a trigger myself now. But I'd like to see a better case for this actually being a rehabilitative act of tolerance rather than enabling. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    @Tznkai, more 'creative' solutions may not be available under the arbitration remedies, but we as ordinary administrators surely have the ability to impose such in lieu of a block; we're not robots—we're human beings and experienced editors, and that's why we're trusted with the responsibility of deciding these requests, not because we'll mindlessly enforce the letter of ArbCom's rulings for them (even they, in their infinite wisdom, probably wouldn't want that). @Sandstein: I agree with you in principle, but the topic ban that a block would automatically trigger seems out of all proportion to the offence, especially given that Roslyn may not have fully understood the definition of a revert. We should also take into consideration that others have not been behaving as well as they should, and that less drastic actions (such as some of those I proposed above) may be as effective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    It is not our job to second-guess the Committee and determine which sanction would be most appropriate for a violation of the revert restriction. The Committee has already decided this for us: a revert restriction violation entails a block, which activates the suspended topic ban. Our only job here is to, indeed, mechanically enforce the Committee's decision. If that is deemed to be not an appropriate outcome for this particular set of circumstances, then only the Committee, not we, has the authority to reconsider its decision and decide on a different sanction. If we were to do so in their place, we would usurp their authority.  Sandstein  11:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    (e/c)Maybe banning policy has changed in the last year or so while I've been gone, but administrator discretion is pretty compressed outside of "community consensus" or an arbitration remedy, or at least it that is how it seemed has been any time I've tried something even slightly out of the box, or seen someone else who has. The gray area seems to be unblocking with conditions.
    My argument in favor of doing nothing at this point is that, under AE, our only options end in a topic ban, which forecloses the possibility of RoslynSKP returning to edit in the topic area of interest, which means one less editor with content knowledge. My review of her (I've been under the impression the editor is a her, someone correct me if I am wrong) disputed edits suggests that we're dealing not with an egregiously bad behaved editor, but someone who has yet to learn and apply Misplaced Pages norms. Her talk page entries, while hardly nice, are pretty much endemic among users all over the project, and restricting them and shaming them into behaving better has not paid dividends. Incompetence more than malice, in other words. If RoslynSKP is unwilling to learn, it isn't like it is difficult to sanction, but the enforcement section makes it a one-way ratchet. While I understand the argument to come down hard because she has resumed bad behavior so soon after a case, I have the exact opposite reaction. I think it is important to give a little time and not ratchet up when ArbCom had the option to do so themselves. ArbCom seems to believe that Roslyn editing in the dispute area under revert restriction is an acceptable circumstance. I do not want to override that decision, even if they gave us a narrow channel with which to do so. I think we should see if collaborative discussion is possible before throwing the book. I see nothing in the behavior of any of the parties that suggests that it is not, even if it is likely to descend into alphabet soup bickering. If the situation does not improve, I suspect there will be plenty of opportunities to activate the topic ban.--Tznkai (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    Roslyn's been editing for 3 1/2 years, she hardly qualifies as a new editor still learning the ropes. Also, on reflection I think I must agree with you that blocks are the only authorized sanction here, as discretionary sanctions were not authorized for this case. HJMitchell raises the possibility of applying a different sanction based on administrator discretion but I'm not sure admins have the authority to apply novel remedies outside the remit of DS. So it may be that the only alternatives here are a warning or a block, the latter which will of course trigger the automatic topic ban. Gatoclass (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that this is not a "new editor" problem. But I believe the editing culture is such that one can edit for years without ever even seeing best practices, let alone internalizing them. Restrictions can force users to do that. Many, perhaps most even, fail. I certainly understand why people advocate simply blocking and letting the topic ban activate. I'm a little annoyed that ArbCom squished our options in this way, but that is how they did it, so those are the choices we have. As I said before, I am willing to stand aside, and for better or worse, any one of us can take the decision out of the other's hand anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    @Tznkai , I lean slightly closer to 'doing nothing' than to triggering an automatic indefinite topic ban, mainly for the reasons you list, but I'm not comfortable with doing absolutely bugger all. I think it's necessary to make it clear that carrying on regardless after being the subject of arbitration remedies is not acceptable, even if it's only in the form of a warning that Roslyn is skating on thin ice and that further misconduct will almost inevitably lead to blocks and thus the un-suspension of the topic ban. I do, though, think that the topic ban would be grossly out of proportion to the offence. The authority for the middle ground comes from it being essentially a substitute for a block: if Roslyn (or any other sanctioned editor) decides not to abide by it, then they can simply be blocked as they would have if we had decided not to cut them some slack.
    @Sandstein apologies for the typo in my previous edit, I disagree. We're not robots; ArbCom is perfectly capable of coming up with a process for 'automatically' enacting its remedies that doesn't involve admins using their judgement. The very fact that the process for enforcement is one that requires the judgement of several administrators suggests that we are expected to use that judgement to decide the best (or least worst) outcome for the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    Are there any precedents for the imposition of sanctions other than blocks in AE cases where discretionary sanctions were not authorized? If so, it might strengthen the case for doing the same here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not aware of any within the framework of AE (unless there are cases where ArbCom has specifically authorised other sanctions), but admins here too often overlook the option of ordinary administrative action when it may be better suited than the very narrow options available to us under arbitration remedies. @RoslynSKP, how would you feel about a 0RR restriction on ANZAC Mounted Division (ie, you wouldn't be allowed to revert any edit or any part of any edit on that article for any reason whatsoever) for, say, six months, as opposed to the two-week block Sandstein proposes and the indefinite topic ban that would trigger? Obviously, if you violated the 0RR, you would be blocked and the topic ban would come into force; my hope is that this will give you just enough rope and that you won't hang yourself with it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions Add topic