User talk:Peckedagain

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Flounder fillet (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Flounder fillet Peckedagain (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello, I'm Raladic. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Transgender rights in the United Kingdom seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The report cited grouped countries in cluster 1 and 2 as least accessible. Raladic (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Transgender rights in the United Kingdom. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. The report grouped cluster 1 and 2 as "least accessible", so saying anything than that is pushing a WP:POV - you may also want to familiarize yourself with MOS:QUOTE for when we use quotes and when we summarize instead and especially in the WP:LEAD - the lead should summarize, briefly what the article is about, but not have more details than the article itself. Raladic (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peckedagain! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Transgender rights in the United Kingdom that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again, at Talk:cass review. I'm talking specifically about your section titles here, which are incredibly POV-pushy and come across as calls to action in support of a cause, which is not allowed under WP:TALKHEADPOV. Please be aware that POV pushing for long enough inevitably ends in a ban. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Licks-rocks - many thanks for the tip - I'll take it on board.

Wiki editing has different rules to what I'm familiar with.

In my day job, I've learnt a style which recommends that a sub-heading is more helpful if it summaries the point, and is not just the subject matter; as that helps the reader know the 'outcome' of the paragraph, without having to read the detail if they don't want to.

ie

Analysis of combustion engines - diesels produce most NO2
is better than
Analysis of combustion engines

Peckedagain (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia generally prefers a neutral posture where you argue towards your position from a neutral starting point, whereas I suspect your job has taught you a more aggressive posture, because the end goal in writing for a job is usually to get people to do a thing, (buy a product, join a project etc.) whereas the end goal here is usually to arrive at a consensus based on logic, and that means you can only state your position after you've logiced your way toward it. It's kind of like how you need to show your methods during a math exam so you can still get points even if your solution is only part correct 👍 --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(also, be aware that the notice below is also meant to warn you about prior consensuses! Wikipedia as a whole has already had a lot of arguments about this, so a lot of things are set in stone already, and arguing against those things is seen as disruptive, because it's re-litigating a settled issue. This includes things like MOS:GENDERID, but also a lot of the medical stuff, where we've already collated hundreds of sources to figure out what a "correct" representation of the literature looks like.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's a very helpful analogy, thanks @Licks-rocks Peckedagain (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, where can I find a list of issues that are "set in stone already... a settled issue.. medical stuff... a "correct" representation of the literature" Peckedagain (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly that's the kind of thing that ends up being really crucial but also spread out over the entire encyclopedia without necessarily a single place to check it. Which is why we always recommend new editors start in the less controversial topic areas until they get a feel for how everything works. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you are here @Licks-rocks:, perhaps you can help.

Whats the URL of the WPATH report you had in mind when you wrote:

" (Cass) is not the most credible and important source out there. WPATH for example publishes similar reports, which are read and used worldwide, and released at regular intervals to keep up with the state of the science." Peckedagain (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the SOC's. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Licks-rocks

Thanks, that's helpful. The actual report is this URL

I realise you have said that SOC8 is more 'credible and important source' than Cass

I'm not sure I'm seeing that: in what wwy:

'credible' than Cass - and why?
'important' than Cass -and why ?

Also - what did SOC8 do that was comparable to York University.'s review of published research? Peckedagain (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Licks-rocks (talk • contribs) 13:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Your edit to Puberty blocker has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. ⸺RandomStaplers 05:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RandomStaplers - you haven't stated what exactly about my edit broke Copyright? It would have been helpful to have given specifics. Especially as now in the page my edit is deleted altogether even from History?

Can you please tell me what it was I wrote?

many thanks. Peckedagain (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

For the record, you're obviously aware of this discussion. To prevent people from repeatedly inserting the same content against consensus, as you did in these two edits, we have a very strict edit warring policy, with it's own noticeboard. It is considered very bad form to reinsert content while discussion about it is still ongoing, and can quickly lead to a ban. My suggestion: don't risk it. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I said in the Talk page just now, I have edited the page with a balanced PoV as suggested by others on the Talk page:ie which includes a sentence of the reasoning of those making the high court challenge -and a sentence from the court that explains their thinking in dismissing the challenge. Peckedagain (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put some snarky comment here about how everyone thinks they edit with "a balanced POV", but I can tell you actually put in some effort to faithfully implement what I suggested in a way that both me and Colin can live with, so my apologies for the initial cynicism, and good job! --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Licks-rocks Peckedagain (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello, I'm Raladic. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Transgender health care seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Puberty blocker. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Raladic

I have replied as you suggested on your talk page - and also in the Talk page for Transgender health.

As I wrote there, I have reverted your deletion since your statement: "This page is not here to try to whitewash conversion therapy" is demonstrably not the case, as my edit mentions conversion therapy twice, the 2nd is quoting scathing criticism of it by UKCP! Peckedagain (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Cal Horton. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WP:BLPTALK Raladic (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Cal Horton. Stop repeating defamatory claims on biographies of living people. Raladic (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is getting out of hand

Raladic

This is getting out of hand. Everything I posted on the Cal Horton talk page was content that existed in the Cass talk page. Or was sourceable in Horton's own PhD paper.

Yet you not only revert me - but you somehow make my text disappear from history.

I rewrote my Talk comment with nothing much but a quote from the Cass page and context: and again you have deleted it and removed it from History.

So we can't even have a calm talk about what words you think were defamatory - you dont tell me what content it as that was defamatory.

So for the third time I will post to the Horton talk page. Please do not delete it again. This time my post ill be identical to last time except for one thing: I removed the quote from the Cass talk page: (which came from: part of it:

------------------- my post -----------------------------

Cal Horton's comments were not considered substantive enough for the Cass Review page

The page did once include some of their statements and claims - but as the [Review Talk] page records. it was not considered due enough. So the Cass Review page for months has nothing about Horton.

Cass Talk has for example about Horton: that they are:

whereas on the Puberty Blocker page, a whole sizeable paragraph is given to Hortons views, which to my reading, are exactly contradictory to statements on the Cass page about the very same things.

There is now more indepth discussion on the Puberty Blocker talk, about the need to address the fact that it and Cass page are stating 100% contradictory things.

I guess I'm asking, on the chance that on reviewing the Puberty Blocker page the Horton content is removed from it: would that mean that this Horton page itself is no longer due on wiki? Or not?

PS Raladic - I've worked hard to rephrase this comment, so I hope it is now acceptable to you, so won't be 100% deleted again. Many thanks. Peckedagain

------------- end of my post ---------------- Peckedagain (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone it, because you defamed a biography of a living person, this is a very serious issue. Note that I did not delete the revision from the history, that was done by an independent administrator - @Daniel Case - who I had to ask for help to delete the revision from public view as defamation can be a problem for Wikipedia as a whole. Raladic (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small clarification: the revision was not deleted from the history, merely its content. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification @Daniel Case.

@Raladic - I understand finally that the objection -was that I quoted text from one talk page (Cass Review) about Horton, into the Talk page of Horton. It would have saved alot of time if you'd said that specifically at the start. If those are the wiki rules, then those are the wiki rules, I'll live by them.

Would it breach the rule if instead of quoting from the Cass talk page, I simply put in a link to that section? Because there is useful discussion there about why the editors reached their conclusion about the same content about Horton in the Cass page that exists still today in the Puberty Blocker page. In the Cass page, the consensus was to remove that content. And right now the two pages are in stark opposition: saying opposing things about the same specific issues, which is not ideal. Peckedagain (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Peckedagain. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic

I am confused about hat exactly this arbitration enforcement is all about.

Why did you not contact me first before going all guns blazing?

I could have saved you the embarassment, as you claims there are empty: eg

"Edit-warring with continuous POV pushing as warned by User:Licks-rocks on their talk page" - @Licks-rocks has since praised my edit on my talk page !
"Adding undue content trying to whitewash Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy, violating NPOV, UNDUE" -as I wrote on the Transgender healthcare page and to you above: "my edit mentions conversion therapy twice, the 2nd is quoting scathing criticism of it by UKCP!"

Please will you revert the 'arbitration process' you started. Peckedagain (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying here, just so discussion stays a little centralized. I do recognize the pattern the others are talking about. I pointed this out in my original interaction with you about the WPATH stuff, but Wikipedia does not play nice with people who come in too hot. You've run into the wall here because you have a really strong opinion and you mostly edit pages related to that opinion, which causes you to run straight into the Wikipedia iceberg of hidden rules and cultural values. I warned you back then that I always tell new editors to earn some stripes elsewhere so they're more familiar with the culture and are less likely to do the kind of things that land them in hot water.

If I'm guessing right, you're getting either a topic ban or a site-ban out of this, both usually appealable in six months.What you want to do is read WP:NOTHERE and make really sure that everybody can see you're indeed here to build an encyclopedia, and not just to win brownie points on the internet or whatever the kids call it these days. You do that by apologizing profusely for your transgression into contentious topic space without knowing the rules and pledging to do good work on articles that do not fall under the contentious topics procedures. Good luck! --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Licks-rocks - the thought of a 'Wikipedia iceberg of hidden rules and cultural values' is surprising to me.

Yes, as an editor, some areas interest me more than others. I have tried (badly I guess) to apply a neutral perspective. On the Cass page and others, there are many who also seem to post on one side of the debate - <names deleted>. I would never criticise them for that.

There are those who have vandalised that page twice - will Raladic be taking formal action against them -as that is clearly not good faith?

I have tried to open up editorial discussion (see the Puberty Blockers page where I listed the ways it was old and contradictory to the content of the Cass Review page. A debate among editors includes those who back up the fact of that contradiction eg "Amazingly, we give less space to the NICE review, Zepf et al and Taylor et al than we do to one activist/researcher's opinions on the NICE review. This is severely imbalanced".

Radalic has pointed out issues with me posting that the UKCP's body statement that validates exploratory therapy - whilst they say: "Exploratory therapy should not in any circumstances be confused with conversion therapy, which seeks to change or deny a person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Conversion therapy as so defined is harmful and must not be practised."

They suggested posting that to Conversion Therapy - so I did, and they deleted that again.

The UKCP statement reads as pretty balanced, -- maybe if I had handled it differently, would have found a page it could have been home to it.

You suggest a 6 month ban may be possible - phew that seems draconian. Peckedagain (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the giant blue warning template! What is written there essentially boils down to the fact that you should already know the rules before you start editing in a contentious topics area. Remember: wikipedia admins are very busy volunteers who are very tired of cleaning up after other people's messes.

"On the Cass page and others, there are many who also seem to post on one side of the debate - <names deleted>. I would never criticise them for that." for the record, this is (barely) allowed. Having opinions isn't banned, but you need to be incredibly careful in following the rules while expressing them.

PS: on that note, you're not allowed to leave comments in the "statement by ..." sections at AE. There's also a 500 word text limit. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Licks-rocks. What do you suggest I do with my comments in the EA. I made them with the intention of providing more facts against the specific criticisms they made.

If I delete them, that extra usual info is lost to the arbitration panel.

So I as going to move them to the block where my statement is - but with a 500 word limit, there is not enough space - 475 are already used.

I will have to edit my first block I guess? Peckedagain (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them. Don't try to answer every charge or resolve every confusion. It takes up a lot of space and doesn't really help anyone. be short and to the point. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HI @Raladic

I have put back [Review&diff=prev&oldid=1241198713|the part of my post that as not about the arbitration].

Can you suggest a correct way to phrase this, so I can add it: "There is an arbitration against me. I'm told I will probably get a 6 month ban: so it may have to fall to others to do the work of updating the Puberty Blocker page" Peckedagain (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the best advise I could give you is to assess your actions and the replies you've received on your talk page here and in the AE thread from others and maybe pause and find another area on Wikipedia that is less contentious to edit.

Also note that the re-write of the article based on a single country's review content as you tried to summarize is not WP:DUE as was (tried to) explained to you by myself and several others, we write a global encyclopedia and represent the world view. No matter how often editors have tried to explain, it appears you appear to not hear the message, which led to the filing of the AE request to prevent further disruption of the area. Raladic (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> Also note that the re-write of the article based on a single country's review content

But that is not what was being done. The Cass page , after consensus of editors on many sides, makes some statements that are universal and not limited to one country. Not least regards the lack of good evidence about the effectiveness of puberty blockers for those with gender dysphoria. The Cass review included all worldwide evidence: so that can't be minimised as 'just 1 country stuff'.

The Blockers page contains some claims of universal truth that are contradicted in the cass page. Which had more Talk-page detailed discussion too.

So it is only logical, to review the PB page: because the 2 pages do 100% contradict themselves in some of the claims of universal truth.

Yes it is also true that where Cass is talking about specific stuff (eg what went wrong at UK clinics.... UK whisteblowers: that is not relevant to the PB page. We would both agree 100% on that, I guess. Peckedagain (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned as a result of this AE report

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish I have just read this: and realise I made a couple of edits in the last 2 hours that may fall foul of this ban - that was not intended.

An indefinite ban seems very long. I don't know what to say. Peckedagain (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be generous and not report your violation of the topic ban. Please make sure that you know what "broadly construed" means above. It means you stay away from the topic completely, even in articles which are not wholly about the topic. You are possibly, maybe, not entirely banned from editing Rosie Duffield, per se, but your edits today were a very clear violation of the topic ban. This is your last chance to avoid being blocked indefinitely. Please take it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans are usually indefinite and appealable after 1 year. Please read the linked articles in the welcome message above to learn Wikipedia policies and guidelines and then start editing something unrelated to the conflict area. I'd recommend either editing other areas you're interested in or, since you seem to be enthusiastic about copyediting, learning how to copyedit right and contributing at the guild of copy editors. Flounder fillet (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you just violated the active topic ban against you with your edit here.

The edit has been reverted per WP:BANREVERT.

Please do not violate it again as next time someone may go straight to ANI. Raladic (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Aalberts

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Aalberts, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban., you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify 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"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."