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

Important information

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Edit this section for new requests

add new reports to the top of the section

User:194.9.5.12

194.9.5.12 (talk · contribs), a dispruptive (pro)German anonymous IP, was put on revert parole by the arbcom. He is limited to 1 revert per article per week. Which he broke on the article Walhalla temple by reverting twice in three days. His edit summary (of the 2nd revert) was: "I have reverted your unfounded rv 2) you know me, Rex 3) even if you do not like it, German inventions, philosophy and literature are great...".

Diff evidence:

Rex 16:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a link to the arbitration case, please. Thatcher131 16:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz is the relevant case. There is a clear violation if this is one of the editors placed on revert parole and probation in that case, but the log of blocks and bans reflects some uncertainty on who's who, so I will defer to Thatcher's greater knowledge of IP ranges and assignment methods. Newyorkbrad 17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who is who here as the IP was included in the arbcoms sanctions later on. (see here [1])Rex 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See last item at the very bottom of the arbitration case page. Newyorkbrad 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. Arbcom probations were installed on him/her too. Rex 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(As can be seen with the link I already provided)Rex 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see ... I saw the additional remedy was the same date as the note about the checkuser finding, but I didn't realize the new motion came AFTER the checkuser. However, the remedy is against 194.9.5.12. These edits were by 194.9.5.10. Can we tell if this is the same editor? If so I would block for 48h with a warning that the next block would be much longer. Newyorkbrad 19:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these users are the same person. This can easily be seen from their contributions:

User:194.9.5.10 ([2])

User:194.9.5.12 ([3])

Rex 20:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rex, you added weasel words, 195 removed them (which could be counted as a first revert) then you reverted to re-add them, then he reverted to remove them. I suppose it's a 1RR violation but I don't like weasel words, no one discussed in on the talk page, and if Ludwig's intent was to honor German achievement, it seems reasonable to mention that, even if some of the things he honored were arguably not of German origin. I'm unwilling to act without a second opinion. Thatcher131 02:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher is generally stricter than I am, so I will accept his opinion on this. However, please return if problems continue. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those weasel words are even in parens. Not really very handy, it's better to either provide a reference or remove entirely if you're unsure about things. I would be inclined to tolerate this once, but I'm notoriously soft. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Of course we shouldn't get a similar complaint a second time, right?

Rex has changed the article twice without giving any explanation and I have simply restored the original version. By the way, it is a fact that the hall was built for that purpose. (194.9.5.10 13:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

PS: please note that Rex has violated the arbcom probation and,hence, he should be blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rex_Germanus/archive5#Blocked_for_violation_of_Arbcom_probation (194.9.5.12 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No 194.9.5.12 (talk · contribs), nowhere did I break my arbcom restrictions. You did. As for "weasel words" I don't think adding "supposably" to a temple (built during the heyday of European nationalism) which claims half the scientists, leaders and writers of western Europe as German (including people who could never have been germans, like arminius who lived 2000 years ago) is a weasel word. Do you (directed at admins, not pro german IP) Rex 15:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HALF of the honored persons are not German? You should check this again! Anyway, I do not see the point as the article clearly states the selection criterias applied: "As being "of the German tongue" was the main selection criterion for the original 160 persons representing the 1,800 years, the King included persons from modern-day Sweden, Austria, Poland, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Russia, Switzerland and the Baltic States." However, if you want to discuss the article`s content, do that on the respective talk page. (194.9.5.12 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)) ps: what is wrong about being "pro-German" in a patriotic but non-nationalistic sence? At least, I do not hate other nations as you obviously do according to your constant anti-German contributions.[reply]

User:Fedayee

Fedayee (talk · contribs) is placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan.

Fedayee has been placed on revert parole and limited to one revert per page per week. [4] However on March days article he made 2 reverts within the last 2 days.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

March Days, Fedayee reverted the article [5] to this version: [6]

March Days, Fedayee reverted the article [7] to this version: [8]

Summation

As can be seen from above, Fedayee is in violation of his parole.

Reported by: Grandmaster 04:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

April 11 Grandmaster removes section about muslim allegience [9], Fedayee re-adds [10]
April 12 Atabek makes a substantial rewrite [11], Fedayee reverts most of it [12] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Response I'm going to block for 24 hours. There seems to be some improvement in that the parties are discussing the issues on the talk page, but I feel I need to block for 3 reasons. One, in the current environment changes should be discussed before reverting them, not after; two, I don't want to inadvertantly create an impression of selective enforcement, and three, without strong enforcement, the parties might begin to take additional liberties and the situation could rapidly deteriorate. Thatcher131 14:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tommysun

Tommysun (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction. The final decision in the case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience.

Judgement was passed against User:Tommysun in the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience. Included in this decision was 'Tommysun is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience.' Tommysun made a large number of edits to Systems theory. Immediately following these edits, User:Fixaller, a single-purpose account for the Systems theory article, made its first edit and Tommysun ceased editing the page. Fixaller's edits to Systems theory show blatant COI, and are similar in tone to those of Tommysun. Fixaller has recented stated an intention to request an account under the name 'Tom Mandel', stating that this is his real name. I seem to recall Tommysun signing with this name, but haven't dug for the relevant posts yet. See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tommysun.

Addendum: User:Tommysun signed postings at the ArbCom decision proceedings, and was referred to as, 'Tommy Mandel'. Michaelbusch 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following diffs show the offending behavior:

Systems theory, see [| article history] from September of last year.

Systems theory is an article related to science and pseudoscience. If User:Fixaller is a sockpuppet of User:Tommysun, it is being used to evade the ArbCom decision.

Summation: I suspect User:Fixaller of being a sockpuppet of User:Tommysun, for the purpose of trying to evade the ArbCom Decision on Psuedoscience. Because User:Tommysun is now dormant, a normal request for Checkuser is insufficient.

Reported by: Michaelbusch 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reminded him of the ArbCom ban. I'm prepared to give him a second chance. Thatcher131 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Mandel has been editing the Systems theory article again, this time as User:Tom Mandel. He is ignoring warnings. Michaelbusch 00:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response blocked for 24 hours. Thatcher131 01:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user Ombudsman

user:Ombudsman continues to make disruptive edits to mediucal articles in violation of the Arbcom restriction. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=116167517 He has in fact made no change to his behaviour, and continues to attack other users - particularly me - and the rest of the medical establishment. Midgley 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide at least a few diffs showing disruptive behavior and personal attacks. I would rather not have to browse his entire contribution history myself. thanks. Thatcher131 20:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impression (having reported him here once before) is that he remains as tendentious and disruptive as ever on medical topics, if not more so - but he has not been editing much recently, so it's hard to justify a block as preventive. If he became more active and continued his current modus operandi, that would be a different story. His removal of well-meaning talk page comments with nasty edit summaries ([13], [14]) is uncivil but not block-worthy by itself. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, remember that the reason he is on probation is that ArbCom has already found him to be disruptive; the threshhold for taking action on the probation is much lower than it would be for a user who had not previously been through the dispute resolution process. Article and article talk page bans are a fairly mild remedy, since it would allow him to edit any of the other 1.5 million or so articles. Things don't have to get unbearable before requesting action. Thatcher131 11:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General request: in case a fresh admin comes by and takes a look at this page, please include a link to the relevant arbitration case where it isn't clear from the context. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROOB323

User:ROOB323 is in violation of 1RR injunction (let alone a revert parole) on Khachkar destruction article here: [15] [16] He practically reverted the article to this version by deleting the same section about khachkars in Armenia: [17] Grandmaster 05:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Blocked 24 hours. For the future, new requests go at the top of the section, and please include a link to the arbitration case. Thatcher131 11:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I will bear that in mind. Grandmaster 11:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnski

User:Johnski is in violation of the arbitration decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision) and is once again using meatpuppets to revert Dominion of Melchizedek article. I strongly believe User:Harvardy, User:Oregonic and User:125.212.108.206 is Johnski or an organizational contact of DoM.

[18] Nov 9, 2006 (Harvardy)

[19] Nov 25, 2006 (Harvardy)

[20] Dec 2, 2006 (Harvardy)

[21] April 4, 2006 {Oregonic)

[22] April 6, 2006 (IP 125.212.108.206)

Immediately follow the above edits these two occured 46 minutes later and 1 hr 9 minutes later by Harvardy also on April 6th: [23]

[24] April 7, 2006

The finding of fact was that Johnski was "Johnski, and his numerous puppets, are reasonably believed to be associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek and are capable of using a wide variety of IPs to access Wikipedia."

The proposed decision was as follows: " Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so."

Currently the DoM article has been semi-protected by User:Tom harrison, however the meatpuppet is continuing to be a constant problem. Given the fact that the arbitration decision only gave two vague tools to combat the problem of Johnski and his sock/meatpuppets, I am asking for stronger enforcement of this decision.

Harvardy has attempted to bypass the DoM talk page by using a subpage of another user to make editing changes where no one else could discuss it and then proceeded to revert the DoM article [25]. That page has been shut down by Tom Harrison and redirected to the DoM page.

Furthermore, Harvardy has been reverting his user page constantly, which have been the only edits he has made to Wikipedia. The reverts are in response to the sockpuppet tag on his page, which he adds, "Believe it or not" at the bottom. This is done to try to create a cover and whitewash his poor behavior regarding reverting DoM articles. His page has been protected by an Admin so he no longer revert that page. Davidpdx 09:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response It appears that admin Tom Harrison has indefiinitely blocked Harvardy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per the arbitration ruling that obvious sock puppets of Johnski may be banned. I'm not sure there is enough evidence yet regarding Oregonic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but you can report it if he continues to make characteristic edits. Thatcher131 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed Poor

Ed Poor (talk · contribs) has made recents at WP:NPOV [26] and [WP:NPOV dispute] [27] [28]. He also created the article Belief in global warming [29] which looks like it may be a potential POV fork. --Minderbinder 13:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I wrote, although it was reverted less than one hour later:

Note that the undue weight provision is intended to avoid giving undue weight to a minority view about the subject in question. It should not be used to justify giving a lot of weight to criticism of a minority view. [30]

Making an edit or two, letting other revert that edit, and then discussing the matter politely on the relevant talk pages is a far cry from "tendentious editing". So I don't see what you're getting at.

And the redirect I created was not an article. It just fills in a red link from a talk page discussion. I've been doing that for 5 years, and you are the first one I can ever recall objecting to this. If you think a red link is better, just deleted it or ask an admin to speedy it. --Uncle Ed 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, my mistake. It was an article, but I have userfied it and left a speedy delete tag behind. If information about Belief in global warming is not considered an encyclopedic topic, I will not push it. It might be relevant to the Global warming controversy article, though. But it's not "tendentious" to create a new article and then agree to let it be deleted or userfied. Not tendentious on my part, anyway. --Uncle Ed 15:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recovered from edit conflict

But you didn'tcreate a redirect. You made a barely coherent amalgamation of essay and dicdef. That said, I am willing to WP:AGF. Ab e g92contribs 15:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that, it wasn't a redirect, it was originally a short article which has since (after my initial post on this pagea) been moved to User:Ed Poor/belief in global warming [31]. I'd like to AGF, but it doesn't instil confidence when there isn't honesty about a link in question. --Minderbinder 15:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used strike out codes to mark up the part where I made a mistake. I confused the article creation with a redirect. The article is now in my userspace, even though I disagree about whether it is an "essay" or a bona fide article. --Uncle Ed 15:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response (In the future, please provide a link to the closed case.) This certainly looks like a POV fork(s) intended to evade consensus already reached on established articles. However the remedy in the case, article probation, does not apply since Ed is messing around with an article he created, not an existing article. If you don't like it as an essay, see miscellany for deletion. I think the issue Ed is trying to raise at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute is complex and would benefit from thoughtful discussion. I do not believe Ed's behavior on those pages is (at present) disruptive within the meaning of his probation. Thatcher131 15:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the case link, I copied it and forgot to paste. --Minderbinder 15:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Thatcher. See also my new essay, Wikipedia:Consensus version. If asked to do so, I am willing to confine all my 'project page' edits regarding the complex issue I'm trying to raise, to this essay. --Uncle Ed 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to discuss these policy changes on the policy talk page before trying to implement them, and I see no reason as yet to invoke your probation to ban you from those talk pages. Thatcher131 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, please stop playing it so close to the line. You were doing better than this. Newyorkbrad 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take this as a request to avoid making edits to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Is it okay if I discuss these two articles at their talk pages? --Uncle Ed 17:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring more to the "global warming" issue. I concur with Thatcher that talkpage discussion on the policy pages is fine. Newyorkbrad 18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit I recall making re: global warming was a comment to Raymond Arritt, who then flew off in a snit. What were you referring to? I'll stay away from any specific page, on request. Not being noble, the terms of my probation would seem to require this. --Uncle Ed 21:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the snit flier, or whatever charming label you think is appropriate for me, I'd like to add that the example discussed above is merely one instance of Ed engaging in rather strange redirects and the like. Unilateral page moves that come out of the blue, like this one and this one cause confusion. And no one knew quite what to think about this. There's a difference between being bold and creating chaos. Raymond Arritt 16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the global warning page cited above doesn't exist any more, I'm not requesting that you keep away from anything in particular, just edit in general in accordance with the spirit of your probation and collaboration. Newyorkbrad 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]