User requesting enforcement

Sol (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles 1RR, tendentious editing, WP:OWN

Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so

1. 19:20, 15 January 2011 Here Emmanuelm reverts a fifteen day old edit with a month old disscusion on the grounds that it "must first be discussed."
2. 20:22, 15 January 2011 After I'd reverted back to the older version, Emmanuelm rewrites the section with the same title and some of the same problem content. The title alone is a clear 1RR violation.

Diffs of prior warnings

Not applicable. It's right there at the top of the talk page.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Indef article ban with 3 month review.

Additional comments

I truly do not have the patience to try and list every time Emmanuelm has reverted various edits in Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations on the grounds that they were not discussed first (without any actual policy reason given). Let's just say it's a lot. Here's an excellent [1]. The only problem is that there was an active talk discussion, one that Emmanuelm had abandoned a week before the edit was made.

Now we have another example in which Emmanuelm has reverted on the grounds that there was no discussion, despite being involved in the discussion a month earlier and abandoning it. That it also involves a 1RR violation and the same BLP issues raised a month ago (calling Jean Ziegler "anti-Israeli" and saying he accused Israel of "starving Palestinian children") is just too much. Emmanuelm apparently sees no problem with it. The article is a mess. It's a huge WP:Coatrack of various accusations against the UN and covers very little in terms of actual information on the three groups' history or interactions. I invite any interested editor to look at the talk page and archives and see the numbers of editors who have tried to improve the article only to have the same above tactics employed against them. Emmanuelm engages in talk, disappears, and then reverts on the baseless grounds that there was no discussion (which is not a valid policy reason). I'm sorry it's come to this but Emmanuelm's display of WP:OWN is now actively deterring any efforts to clean up the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sol Goldstone (talk • contribs)

I've been involved in this. It really is difficult to get Emmanuel to understand even the basics of sourcing. I took out material sourced only to op-eds and he accuses me of bias on the basis that I have "passionately" opposed use of the Boston Globe. I don't mind working gradually to improve the article, but as Sol says this is really getting tiresome. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked 31 hours. NW (Talk) 19:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#AndroidCat topic-banned

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

1. [2] Adds ^{[citation needed]} tag to article in Topic Area
2. [3] Initates discussion on Talk page
3. [4] Additional edit to topic

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

1. [5] Warning by Mailer diablo (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block of indiefinite (but not infinite) duration. User has extrmely low activity no garuntee that a block of shorter duration would even be noticed.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Article Rick Ross (consultant) was a WP:BATTLEGROUND in the conflict that Arbcom ruled on. The Subject is an activist against groups he perceives to be Cults. Prior to the advent of Scientology versus the Internet Rick Ross we perhaps The Critic of Scientology along with associates at Cult Awareness Network. Ross has been involved in extensive litigation with the Church of Scientology, most notably the Jason Scott case. AndriodCat activity in the topic area pre-WP:ARBSCI indicates he is well aware of the connection between CoS and Rick Ross. In fact such a connection is extremely obvious by reading of our own aritcle on Ross. These Edit come on the Heals of User:Scott MacDonald blocking him for violation of Topic Ban due to two edits that were both blatant Violations of the topic ban. Even by the Narrowest construment of the topic ban Rick Ross (consultant) is well within the Scientology Topic Area thus enforcement is requested. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndroidCat notified

Additonal commemt @GWH and EdJohnston I am really unsure whether We can really just drop this so easily. While AndroidCat has not been editing malicously in topic area a good number of edits in 2010-2011 do seem to be this type of edging the boundary of their topic ban. AndroidCat seems to have edit alot of different articles that as long term contributor to the topic area should know are within the boundaries of the topic ban. Cumulative suggesting a pattern of disregaurd where they think they can get away with it. Thumbing through contributions I am listing a of blantant ones but there are a couple of boderline cases in the contributions.

CESNUR, an orginzation that promotes Religious freedom with an emphasis on minority religions that has advocated in favor of CoS in the past and is a favorite target for Anti-CoS rhetoric [6] [7]

Dick Anthony Notable Pyschogist has been sharply criticized by Anti-CoS activists as a cult apologist. [8]

J. Gordon Melton Same as above [9]

Louis Jolyon West promoter of the brainwashing theory used commonly by anti CoS acitivist [10]

Anti-psychiatry CoS cheif political activism topic area [11]

Additional Comment as of 15:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The link between CESNUR and CoS is very strong, Though there is no financial connection as CESNUR but CESNUR has been key advocate in the European "Cult Concflict" and has been involved in court cases with CoS. CESNUR hosts a large bibliography on CoS and the founder Massimo Introvigne who founded CESNUR is key academic in CoS struggle for legitimacy. Alos Jayen466 pointed out on my talk that Dick Anthony testified as an expert Witness in the Fishman Case. Also J. Gordon Melton mentioned above was has written a book on CoS. I dont condone BLP violations as his edit was removal was that removal. But It seems to me he could have asked a third party Such as Cirt or Will Beback John Carter to do it for him. The discussion on the talk page of Rick Ross (Which was in the scope of ARBSCI) Which he initiated was unrelated to that Removal of BLP violations and I think Sanctions combined with the above evidence of disregard for topic ban by editing articles with similar links to CoS might require more action. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

On first impression - Open and shut violation of topic ban terms; the ban is total and perpetual, and the article is specifically listed as one of the ones in the decision. Did it in December, was blocked for 48h for it, so should be fresh in their memory.

That said...

The edits in question seem to have been good content edits, which makes me wonder if part of this discussion should be to consider whether the editor has moved beyond the behavior that got the Arbcom case sanction applied in the first place, and if there is agreement on that to see if a case amendment to remove the restrictions (or modify them with less than total ban, or whatever) would be appropriate.

I'm not 100% familiar with the history of this account and want to dig more before I establish a firm position on the question I just posed, but I think it's worth asking for more of a widespread review. They're a slow motion editor and unlikely to do anything disruptive before we're done deliberating slowly anyways, so I think it's harmless to review now and in context. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Personally, I wouldn't have reacted to these particular edits. They are harmless, and indeed may be removing a BLP issue. However, they are clearly a breach of the topic ban, so they are actionable. I couldn't disagree more with GWH here. This editor doesn't edit much, but since the ban three of his few edits have been to Scientology articles or discussions. The first was trolling, the second a clear violation and it got him blocked, the third .... well if I was assuming extraordinary good faith pushing the ban in the good cause of BLP protection, and if I was not, then he's pushing the envelope with a borderline violation to see what he can get away with. There's simply no consistent good editing to justify reviewing the ban. If he pushes the envelope again, even just a little bit, a very lengthy block would be in order.--Scott Mac 01:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am reluctant to say that a topic ban takes precedence over a BLP violation. There is language at WP:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans which indicates that reverting obvious violations of BLP is recognized as an exception to a topic ban. Other admins might consider whether Rick Ross "had handled more than 350 illegal deprogramming cases" is an obvious violation of BLP. (AndroidCat removed the 'illegal', which had been added by User:Tromatic on 1 January). If you agree that Tromatic's 'illegal' qualifies as an obvious BLP violation then you should close this enforcement request with no action. AndroidCat was validly blocked 48h for his previous editing of Scientology-related material, which occurred on 25 December. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The edits were inadvisable, as due to the topic ban AndroidCat has basically thrown himself onto (for lack of a better phrase) the "mercy of the court" that we would see it as a BLP problem that is exempt from a ban. That said, I do see it that way- we were without any citation whatsoever calling a BLP a criminal. I'm in favour of closing without action, but with a note that not all admins would see it this way, so another method than making the edit himself would be advisable in the future. Courcelles 04:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The edits were clearly a violation of the ban, and thus some action is required. However, we should also take into account that there was a valid claim to a BLP exemption, so anything we do should be more lenient than the ordinary course of action. I am uninvolved per the Arbcom decision, but see User:The Wordsmith/COI to put my suggestion in context. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I recommend that enforcement be declined in this borderline case. The article edits (or at any rate the removal of the "illegal" assertion) are exempt from the topic ban as clear WP:BLP enforcement, and the talk page edit relates to CESNUR, which is not obviously related to Scientology. But AndroidCat should refrain from making such edits in the future, or they may cross the line into sanctioable territory, and get a lengthy block.  Sandstein  09:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

User requesting enforcement

Tuscumbia (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

ASALA7.08.1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2

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

1. [12], reverts to his highly POV version
2. [13], reverts to his highly POV version
3. [14], reverts to his highly POV version
4. [15], reverts to his highly POV version
5. [16], reverts to his highly POV version
6. [17], reverts to his highly POV version
7. [18], obviously pastes his version over again, but looks like to be acting on somebody's guidance since this is not event a revert. It looks like a copy-paste operation where he pasted the same text multiple times by mistake
8. [19], reverts to his highly POV version
9. [20], reverts to his highly POV version
10. [21], reverts to his highly POV version, adds more Armenian websites
11. [22], corrects the "No Armenian men, woman, child or old men remaining in Baku could survive" to "Very few in number of Armenian men, women, children or old men remaining in Baku could survive" (thank you so much, first thousands of Armenians in Baku were killed, but then he thought to give some a chance to live) - This edit proves how aggressively fueled his overall intent is.
12. [23], links certain parts of text as direct links to an outside nationalist source
13. [24], to his highly POV version
14. [25], to his highly POV version

PS: The article is about a part of Baku unofficially called Ermenikend by the local Azerbaijani population due to concentration of much of the Armenian minority in the area of the city. The Russian version of the article seems to have been deleted right away [26] in Russian Wikipedia.

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

1. [27] Warning by Twilight Chill (talk · contribs) with reference to AA2
2. [28] Warning by Tuscumbia (talk · contribs)
3. Another warning by Tuscumbia (talk · contribs) and notice of AN report

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block or topic ban. The edits of the user, including his comments on the talk page clearly pinpoint to his intent fueled by nationalistic emotions. I think the user has been warned enough to at least not to add extreme POV. He uses words like bestially; burnings after thrown of oil; nurses refused to treat half-dead Armenians; blood-soaked clothes were burned to hide all traces of the genocide; Main parts of this efforts are still sucsessful for children and grandchildren of bloody killers; genetical continuation of their former vandalism; I have nothing to say to those "people"; How can people try murderers when murderer of a nation still at large and enjoy its impunity ([29]).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

He's also been editing Turkish articles and making POV edits like [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]

His comments on talk pages include POV such as [35] (view deriving from Greater Armenia concept), [36] (POV), [37] (please see extreme POV edit comment which would not make any sense to anyone whatsoever), [38] (acting as messanger of "truth"), [39] (his entry about him being a messanger of "truth"), [40] (extreme nationalism reflected in words like Main parts of this efforts are still sucsessful for children and grandchildren of bloody killers, genetical continuation of their former vandalism, I have nothing to say to those "people", How can people try murderers when murderer of a nation still at large and enjoy its impunity), [41] (aggressive nationalism), [42].

I had previously filed a multiple user report which included the User:ASALA7.08.1982 [43] due to the fact that all reported users started editing at around the same time. The admin suggested the report had more to do with an SPI than with edit-warring due to its content.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[44]

Yikes! This revert war looks pretty ugly, although it seems that ASALA7.08.1982 is not the only editor who is unable to restrain himself and settle down and discuss things. The fact that other editors (and even an anonymous IP) were instantly reverting his edits, which in fact appear to be content related, seems to suggest that he may not be alone in fault here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user shows no intention to discuss constructively his POV changes reverted by other users. Instead he wrote his nationalistic comments like this one. Although somebody may say that his edits are content related the fact of ignoring WP:WAR and WP:CONSENSUS is indisputable. Just look at his name which commemorates murder of innocent people commited by ASALA on 07.08.1982. As I see Wikipedia is only a battlefield for the user. --Quantum666 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also ask administrators to clarify whether the user's name violates the Wikipedia:Username policy. --Quantum666 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another revert made even after notification about this request. No comments. --Quantum666 (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taking into consideration the evidence presented, which shows that ASALA7.08.1982 is persistently disrupting Wikipedia by ethno-nationalist tendentious editing in violation of WP:NPOV, by edit-warring and by personal attacks, all within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2;
noting especially that the username of ASALA7.08.1982 evokes the Esenboğa Airport attack, a terrorist attack within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, which in the context of the user's edits cannot be interpreted other than as a sign of approval of that terrorist attack and the resulting deaths, and that the username is therefore highly offensive to many other editors;
noting that ASALA7.08.1982 has chosen to continue to edit-war rather than to respond to this request;
I conclude that the continued editing of ASALA7.08.1982 is detrimental to Wikipedia and am blocking him indefinitely. The first year of this block is an arbitration enforcement block in application of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, Additionally, in application of the same remedy, I am indefinitely topic-banning ASALA7.08.1982 from Armenia and related issues, as described at WP:TBAN; this topic ban remains in effect should the block of ASALA7.08.1982 be lifted for any reason.  Sandstein  19:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of fringe science relations. According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions, "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; 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 did not happen. (Diff to sanction: [45].)

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[46]

Please let me know what I can do to improve!

The below is merged from three other appeals by JPS. T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal 1

Part of sanction appealed: The topic ban shall have the meaning described at WP:TBAN, and the topic area from which you are banned shall encompass (but is not limited to) all topics covered by the descriptions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision, sections 15 to 17.

Reason: Commenting members of arbcom has agreed that this ruling being referred to should not be construed as a content ruling (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Pseudoscience_2) Therefore, Sandstein's reference to these sections of an ancient arbcom case to solve his own personal demarcation problem was beyond his remit and essentially is a content-decision.

Appeal 2

Part of sanction appealed: "The topic ban shall have the meaning described at WP:TBAN"

Reason: Accrording to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#ScienceApologist_topic_banned, topic bans for myself from pseudoscience pages are to be done from article space only, not talk space or meta space. This was because the committee recognized that I have provide a valuable expertise and help for editing these articles. Throughout my previous topic ban, I was permitted to edit in all areas except article space. Extending to WP:TBAN is well-beyond the remit given by arbcom from that case.

Appeal 3

Sanction appealed: Enforcement against myself of a topic ban for one year

Reason: This diff indicates that Sandstein has injected himself into Wikipedia controversies surrounding the purveying of pseudoscience firmly on the sides of those defending the purveying of pseudoscience. As such, he is an involved administrator and should not have made any enforcement against me per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions where it specifically requires "uninvolved administrators" to make this determination. Sandstein's bias in these proceedings is obvious.

This appeal seems to consist only of spurious procedural complaints, rather than any objections to the substance of the sanction, and I recommend that it be declined for this reason:

Complaint concerning lack of a warning

The warning and required by the sanction was given at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist cautioned; it was notified with a link to the decision to Joshua P. Schroeder (then editing as ScienceApologist) at [47] by Thatcher (talk · contribs).  Sandstein  16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...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...." You did not do this. Nor did anyone else. jps (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sanction reads: "... where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps ...". The caution read: "... is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility." In conjunction with the findings concerning you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist is uncivil et seq., as well as later at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#ScienceApologist, that is all the advice you needed to avoid the sanction I imposed on you. You should have taken it.  Sandstein  16:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to where I was uncivil to another user and how I can be more civil towards them? jps (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained the reason for your topic ban at length in the respective section above.  Sandstein  00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal 1

I do not understand what Joshua P. Schroeder is trying to say here.  Sandstein  00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal 2

The now-elapsed topic ban on editing articles cited by Joshua P. Schroeder was imposed on him by the Arbitration Committee in the "fringe science" case. It does not restrict the ability of administrators to impose other sanctions, including wider-ranging topic bans, on him in accordance with the discretionary sanctions remedy of the separate "pseudoscience" case, as was done here.  Sandstein  00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal 3

In that discussion I opposed an admin candidacy because the user had a divisive soapboxing userbox on their user page. I did so not because of my opinion about the real-life dispute at issue (which I have minimal knowledge about or interest in), but because I believe that admins (and other users) should not have polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia on their user pages, per WP:UP#POLEMIC. I do not see how this makes me involved for the purposes of this dispute. In fact I said in that diff that "I guess I even agree with the sentiment [expressed in the userbox] as a matter of policy". From what I understand about this issue, that would not put me on what Joshua P. Schroeder describes as "on the sides of those defending the purveying of pseudoscience", but on the other side (of course, I consider myself not to be on any particular side).  Sandstein  00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment

Those who believe that the sanction was excessive may want to consider Joshua P. Schroeder's comment to the effect that he intends to leave Wikipedia for the duration of his topic ban but that he intends to evade it by sockpuppetry: "If I happen to see egregious errors in the meantime, I'll be fixing them through anonymous, untraceable, unblocked proxies. They will not be traceable to this account, but I encourage those who dislike me to scour the edit histories carefully to look for my calling card." Like the edits cited by Tony Sidaway, these are not the actions of a person who understands the collaborative nature of Wikipeda; rather, they are the actions of a person who treats Wikipedia as a battleground in which everything he does is justified because he is right. In view of this, I maintain that the year-long topic ban is appropriate. Additionally, in the event of any ban evasion, I believe that a lengthy block and a topic ban of indefinite duration would be appropriate.  Sandstein  07:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might discontinue mocking behavior like that evidenced here: User_talk:Lar#Warnings ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not helpful, Lar. Those statements are not cited above nor are they covered by the "remedy" here. jps (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My response was directed at "Can you point to where I was uncivil to another user and how I can be more civil towards them?" ... I have given such an example, per your request. Your inability to get along with others is endemic, not just confined to this particular matter. ++Lar: t/c 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And your comments to me noted in my initial comments above seem rather to indicate an extraordinary level of incivility. Including suggestions of stalking, tagteaming, and excessive involvement in "fringe" topics. I need not iterate the diffs, I trust. Collect (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not cited in the rationale either. And, moreover, these comments can continue according to the remedy. jps (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I ask Sandstein to acknowledge that the diffs represented your incivility clearly. As the ruling was partially based on incivility in general, it is well within his purview to state that these examples also apply. Thanks for your interesting legal argument here :). Collect (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should do that above. This is not the correct venue. You're welcome, if there's one thing we might agree upon it's that Wikipedia's governance structure is problematic. jps (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Area for improvement: Maybe try to stop and reflect on your actions, before you write. That would allow for time and space development and the correct path will be shown to you by others or no-one, as if left in silence, with all but your own disturbance to fade away on their own, like they originated. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, kudos to T. Canens for noticing the baiting and misbehaving made by some editors in relation to jps [48].

jsp has been editing well since the end of his ban. So, a 1 year ban looks excessive. Three months would have been enough to carry the message that he mustn't fall back to his previous behaviour. Care to adjust the ban length? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something quite terrible is happenning here before our eyes. jps is being banned from a field for desperately trying to defend the integrity of wikipedia from a vocal group of editors promoting fringe POVs. He is doing so in combative style. This sanction will simply vindicate his opponents. If admins have Wikipedia's sanity at heart, they should immediately lift this sanction and try to find a remedy that will preserve jps's contribution to this important area. I don't think the letter of his appeal has merit, but admins need to have the bigger interests of Wikipedia at heart. - BorisG (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very sad. Indeed, there are people who are quick to declare "non-science" everything they do not like, including valid criticism of scientific theories, important minority views, etc. However, JPS is not one of them. He knows all content policies including BLP and sounds as a voice of reason, for example, here. Banning him for a long will make more harm than good if you think about the content (agree with Boris).Biophys (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic-banning of JPS is provided for at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Motion to sanction ScienceApologist, and so the first cause for appeal is without merit. It has been established at #Statement by Sandstein by Sandstein, under "Complaint concerning lack of a warning", that JPS was counselled, by Thatcher, on how to rectify his problematic editing; but as this is not required by the topic-ban provision of Fringe science, in any case the objection that no counselling took place is invalid, and so the second cause for appeal is without merit. This comment by the blocking administrator is in my mind a statement of opinion regarding administrators who display userboxes that are divisive on topical issues, and not a comment on the content of the actual userbox in question. It seems absurd to me that an editor would take sides in a content dispute not on an actual article but in an RFA. I find no merit in the third cause for appeal also.

  The case for appeal here has been made on procedural grounds and on grounds other than the actual merits of the initial sanction. Absent any compelling explanation as to why JPS did not deserve to be topic-banned in the first place, or any convincing justification for granting him a second chance, I would decline the appeal. AGK [•] 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest that this appeal be considered from the perspective of what is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. On that basis and recognising the importance of content, the outcome of this appeal should see modifications to the sanction imposed. Since even ArbCom recognised the value of JPS' contributions to content and declined to impose the sort of topic ban Sandstein has chosen, comment on article talk pages should most certainly be allowed. Irrespective of whether Sandstein had the technical authority to impose so broad a sanction, it was manifestly not in the best interests of the encyclopedia to do so. The length of the punishment (and in its current form it is a punishment) is grossly disproportionate to the offence. To me, the present ban is a classic example of the triumph of the civility policy over content policy. Remember that the accusation of vandalism by the editor who requested the sanction was repudiated by administrators and Cla68 was admonished. The circumstances existing when JPS made his comments were described as inappropriate and inflammatory and the MfD recognised the FAQ question as having serious NPOV problems and should never have been created - so it is not like JPS was tilting at windmills. Yet, none of this was recognised to mitigate the severity of the offence. An excessive focus on past problems when JPS was SA was used to reach a conclusion that is objectively unreasonable. We are talking about incivility surrounding a page that was not policy compliant and was never likely to become so. We are talking about an editor defending content policies and in the process allegedly violating civility policy. I say "allegedly" because I note the characterisation of the discussion as "vigorous debate" by an uninvolved admin. The collateral damage that will be done to encyclopedic content over the coming months from fringe and pseudoscience POV pushing if this ban is allowed to stand demands that a more objectively reasonable result be achieved. Please, stop worrying about whether this i is dotted or that t is crossed and start looking at the global picture, and think about the encyclopedia. EdChem (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed in principle, but I haven't considered the merits of the initial sanction because JPS did not comment on them at all. That to me is worrying. AGK [•] 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Joshua and I have ever crossed one another's paths before, but in reviewing recent edits at Wikipedia:Activist today for an unrelated arbitration matter I was directed by User:Collect to these edits: 16:10, 12 January 2011, 16:58, 12 January 2011. To my mind they don't seem to speak of a willingness to work in a collegial way with other editors on controversial subjects. Although I suspect that Joshua and I would agree on most matters concerning fringe science, I do not think he is ready to edit in the topic again. --TS 22:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Ed Chem. I've been away from this discussion for a few days so maybe I've lost the thread of things, but I recollect that it began with edits JPS made to a problematic and troublesome FAQ, magnified by a topic-banned editor making scurrilous accusations of vandalism. Assuming that's still the case and there are no other high misdemeanors thrown in, then this block would seem to be grossly punitive and overwrought. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It is my view that all four grounds raised by JPS should be rejected as meritless.
  • Warning: As of 4 November 2008, JPS (then as SA) was banned from WP:FRINGE by Elonka (talk · contribs) citing the Pseudoscience case; as of 5 December 2008, he was warned and placed under a restriction by FT2 (talk · contribs), explicitly under the authority of the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. These actions serve as ample warning and satisfy the warning requirement.
  • Involvement: Under the applicable discretionary sanctions provisions, "an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions". The diff provided by JPS falls far short.
  • Talk page: The discretionary sanctions provision authorizes "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" and "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". That arbcom in one case decided not to ban JPS/SA from talk pages does not mean that admins suddenly lost their ability to do so under a discretionary sanctions regime enacted in another case.
  • Definition: This is pure wikilawyering. The imposing admin is perfectly allowed to refer to existing definitions instead of reinventing the wheel. Sandstein could equally have written "the topic area from which he is banned shall encompass (but is not limited to) theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus; theories which have a following, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community; and theories which have a substantial following, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience". That other aspects of the principles - the examples - may have been disclaimed by arbcom does not mean that admins are prevented from referring to them.

I'm frankly very disappointed. I was prepared to accept an appeal claiming that the duration of the sanction was too long, as I have already said in my comments at the original thread. Instead, what I see is excessive amounts of wikilawyering and deliberate violations of the ban, reminiscent of the aftermath of the closure of the fringe science case, which resulted in a three-month site ban. JPS would do well to avoid going down that path again.

Given the behavior since the topic ban, I'm no longer convinced that shortening the sanction at this moment is a good thing to do. I'd be willing to consider another appeal in three months, but if it is going to be anything like this, then please kindly refrain from wasting everyone's time. As to the appeals before us right now, I think they should all be declined. T. Canens (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • @BorisG: I certainly understand where you are coming from, and I sympathize with your concerns, but I'm having serious difficulty coming up with something that would justify a lesser sanction yet does not go into the "admins deciding questions of content" territory. That is, in order to say that JPS is "defend[ing] the integrity of wikipedia", and thus perhaps deserving of a lesser sanction, don't we have to decide that he is right in the content dispute, something that admins are not supposed to do? Perhaps the "right" POV is easy to see here, but I'm struggling to come up with something that would not be misused in, say, an WP:ARBPIA case. T. Canens (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with AGK that "The case for appeal here has been made on procedural grounds and on grounds other than the actual merits of the initial sanction. Absent any compelling explanation as to why JPS did not deserve to be topic-banned in the first place, or any convincing justification for granting him a second chance, I would decline the appeal." I also agree with T. Canens that the procedural grounds are without merit, for the reasons given. In particular, the allegation that Sandstein was involved is entirely unjustified. Therefore I support this appeal being declined.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with AGK, T. Canens, and Mkativeratra, that I see no reasonable basis for an appeal here. --Elonka 05:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with most of the above. This appeal is purely on procedural grounds, and not very good ones at that. The ban stands unaltered. I'll close this discussion shortly. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

User requesting enforcement

olive (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Peremptory_reversion_or_removal_of_sourced_material

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

1. [49] Moves this content and source to the talk page citing a need for a better source. "However, Phil Goldberg in his 2010 book American Veda, in reviewing the state of the research on TM, says that most of the experts he spoke to said that the bulk of the 600 TM studies "rise to professional standards.", but leaves in this content, ...The Jerusalem Post, The Canadian, and the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology, some of the research has been "criticized for bias and a lack of scientific evidence".
2. [50] Examples/list of journals that have published TM research. James cites WP:OR. Moved to talk page
3. [51] Content removed is sourced to a chapter authored by three scientists from the National Institutes of Health and by an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center. Vogel, the first editor of the book, is a former president of the American Heart Association. Removed
4. [52] Source details: Yin Paradies, "A Review of Psychosocial Stress and Chronic Disease for 4th World Indigenous Peoples and African Americans," Ethnicity & Disease, Volume 16, Winter 2006, p. 305. Removed
5. [53] Source details: Gian Mauro Manzon, Relaxation training for anxiety: a ten-years, systematic review with meta-analysis", BMC Psychiatry 2008. Removed
6. [54] Source detail: Micozzi, Marc (2007), "Complementary and Integrative Medicine in Cancer Care and Prevention: Foundations and Evidence-Based Interventions", New York: Springer Publishing Company. Source cited research done at the Niwa Institute for Immunology in Japan and Loyola University Medical School -- information that the author says is consistent with a large body of research of some nearly 40 studies done at a broad range of universities. The deletion also removed information that cited studies funded by the National Cancer Institute. Removed
7. [55] Source details: Pelletier, Kenneth (2000), The Best Alternative Medicine, New York:Simon & Schuster. Pelletier, M.D., Ph.D., is a Clinical Professor of Medicine at theUniversity of Arizona School of Medicine and a Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco; he was formerly a Clinical Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine. Removed
8. [56] Source details:Black DS, Milam J, Sussman S (August 2009). "Sitting-Meditation Interventions Among Youth: A Review of Treatment Efficacy". Pediatrics 124(3): e532. According to the website, Pediatrics "has the highest 5-year impact factor among journals in the pediatrics field... "is among the top 2% most-cited scientific and medical journals" and, "is the most-cited journal in the field of pediatrics." "This review summarizes the results from four randomized controlled trials on Transcendental Meditation, three of them funded by the National Institutes of Health. Removed

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

To my knowledge James has not received a formal warning per the TM arbitration He has received informal warnings from fellow involved editors warning he has deleted sourced content including my evidence presented during an AE. [57]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

While I personally don't see that James shows any signs of changing his behaviour, it is also critical to me and to the proper function of Wikipedia arbitrations that the correct and fair procedures be followed. I request a formal warning for James rather than sanctions or ban unless the admin dealing with this sees differently. If the pattern of removing RS content continues, I will be back here asking for a topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is an ongoing pattern of behaviour that seems to be based on a point of view. [58][59].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified:[60]

Replies/Comments:

• Perhaps Doc doesn’t understand the word “preemptory”…his own evidence is proof that he removed sourced content in a manner which violates the arbitration

[61]

• Then his bad faith comments further violate:

[62]

• Eight instances of removing reliably sourced content is more than enough to recommend that a editor be warned his actions may be moving into an area that is sanctionable per an Arbitration. The TM research is a controversial topic. There is no definitive or right position and statements on this page that imply otherwise are just opinion. The arbitration does not allow for removal of sourced content because an editor thinks his opinion is the right one.

• Where are the diffs supporting sanctionable, tendentious editing? I have no idea why a 1RR sanction is being suggested as template for action here.

• Per "poking": James has attempted to have me topic banned before. He succeeded here where Future Perfect sanctioned me for making two legitimate reverts in months, and with out allowing me to defend myself. In the same time period, James made 5 possibly 6 reverts. In the second AE here James attempted to have me sanctioned for one strongly worded comment, he failed and was reprimanded for ABF comments and for the trivial nature of bis request.

• I'm dismayed to see an admin suggest a vaguely-construed, topic ban for three editors, on the back of this request for warning, with out presenting one single diff to support, while at the same time suggesting discussion on this page is a basis for banning. His use of two Notice Board discussions where discussion is controversial and the topic is highly contentious to imply some vague wrong doing is also concern. His suggestion that a new editor with under 1,000 edits [63], who is still learning the ropes, should be topic banned again with out diffs or reason is inappropriate from any neutral admin.

• This is not the place to debate the "interior" aspects of the sources themselves. If they are controversial, Arbitration clearly demands collaborative discussion is the way to deal with the issues, not peremptory deletion.(olive (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

@Courcelles: This is the standard established by Will Beback based on his understanding of the TM arbitration and which he applied to me when I moved content from an article to a talk page because I missed the necessary text in the source. This is the standard all editors with one exception abide by on the TM pages.

He says:

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)

I made one move of content. How is it then, that Doc James made 8, but his deletions of sourced content are neither disruptive nor harmful but my one move is.

Where are the edits of my tendentious editing. Are requests for mediation I've made, and am in the process of making again, rather than prolonging circular discussion, tendentious moves. What "argument" am I trying to win by asking an editor be warned. Where are the diffs of that argument.

Is it OK for Will Beback to ask for a warning for one move but not for me to ask for a warning, for 8.

Is it Ok for James to take me to AE for one strongly worded comment and for him to be reprimanded for that, but asking for a warning for 8 deletions of reliable sourced content is reason to request an extensive topic ban.

Courcelles this is a double standard, in addition to that you are accusing me of something I didn't do and are doing so without evidence.(olive (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

1. I posted here [64] regarding the us of the Goldberg source for the text we see. This is the text that was added "says that most of the experts he spoke to said that the bulk of the 600 TM studies "rise to professional standards."" Which basically says I polled my friends and they agree with me. The text was returned in this edit [65]. I have not subsequently removed it. A group of them continuously re add removed questionable text such as in this edit here [66]

2. I have edited many thousands of articles and never seen a list in which journals articles on the topic have been publish ( especially not in the lead ). The TM movement is continually trying to associated there practices with legitimate scientific institution as one can see here [67]

3. Discussed in depth here and here with discussion at WP:RS here

4. The diff does not support the info provided

5. Why are we attempting to refute a 2006 Cochrane review with a "a 1989 meta-analysis". Per WP:MEDRS we should be using research in the last 5 years. One can read the conclusions of the Cochrane review here Krisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M (2006). "Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1): CD004998. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2. PMID 16437509. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Cochrane reviews are the foremost evidence based source.

6 and 7. This source does not meet WP:MEDMOS for health claims. Is discussed here Here is the amazon page for the book [68] Here is the study on visual acuity mentioned [69]. It involved 48 men and was done by the Maharishi International University, Fairfield, Iowa. The angina study was neither controlled nor blinded. [70]

8. The discussion of this removal is here [71]. It was removed because the reference does not support the text in our article. The text was "reported that randomized controlled trials on Transcendental Meditation found a reduction in blood pressure and improvement in vascular function relative to health education." It failed verification

Summary

To summarize we have a serious issue here. We have a small group of editors who primarily or only edit TM articles who continue to misuse and misquote sources in an attempt to prove that TM has a degree of scientific support which is not shown by a careful review of the scientific literature. They have been taken much information out of context and are trying to use Wikipedia for advertising purposes.

In this edit on Jan 14th 2011 [72] User:Littleolive oil again changed a summary of the research that was decided on in this RfC. A change which she was previously put under a 1RR for and for which User:TimidGuy was topic banned [73]. The other editor involved User:Edith_Sirius_Lee has been subsequently topic banned [74] and has not edited any other area of Wikipedia since.

When I made my first edit to this topic area Jan 19th, 2010 in this edit [75] the best quality piece of research in the field of TM had been kept from the article. What I refer to is a 2007 review of TM and other meditation techniques by the AHRQ [76]. It has been contentious ever since with it conclusions being brought up many times [77]. So do we wish Wikipedia to be written by those who are here to write an encyclopedia or those who are here to promote a religious movement? The arbitrators time analyzing this case is as always appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The dif of prior warning does not link anywhere. My so called POV as linked here [78] is explained in this 2008 systematic review article published by AHRQ [79]

Reply to TimidGuy

There is ongoing confuse wrt what type of source is required to make what kind of claim. If we are discussing a social/religious movement than one would use a textbook of religious studies, if one is trying to claim that a herb or meditation improves vision or reduces heart disease a review article in a well respected scientific journal would be required. The section on "maketing of TM" that TimidGuy links to [80] is social science (the study of religion). This edit TimidGuy made [81] adds medical claims and links to an alt med textbook with the conclusions presented as scientific fact.

The section on "Amrit Kalash" improving heart function has again been returned by TimidGuy in this group of edits [82]. The one statement added "Research suggests that Amrit Kalash can reduce the frequency of angina in patients as well as lower systolic blood pressure and improve exercise tolerance" is supported by "Nezu, Christine; Tsang, Solam; Lombardo, Elizabeth; Baron, Kim (2003), "Complementary and Alternative Therapies", in Nezu, Arthur; Nezu, Christine; Geller, Pamela et al., Handbook of Psychology: Volume 9: Health Psychology, Hoboken: Wiley, pp. 591-614" Pg 569 says [83]:

The herbal mixture MA-631 may be used

to prevent and treat atherosclerotic vascular disease (Hanna, Sharma, Kauffman, & Newman, 1994). Herbal mixtures MAK-4 and MAK-5 have been found to be effective in angina patients in signi“cantly reducing angina frequency and systolic blood pressure, and in improving exercise tolerance

(Dogra, Grover, Kumar, & Aneja, 1994).

But why are we using a psychology textbook to make health claims of herbal remedies? Well lets look at the ref she quotes found here [84]. This is the same unblinded NON placebo controlled study of 30 people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here is the link to WP:RSN which TimidGuy claims shows consensus accepting the validity of the "McGraw Hill Medical book" in the way it was used. [85]

User:Hipocrite"The book appears generally reliable, but the paragraph presented substantially over-reaches, doing a deep-dive into the text to twist it into saying what it dosen't say"?

User:ScienceApologist"Hilariously, the hypertension study quotes p values as high as p=0.2 and has no control (it only compares to another stress-reduction technique that doesn't claim magical basis). Their conclusion is about as biased in favor of their preferred technique as they could muster. The other study is multimodal so is not really indicative as to whether relaxation techniques actually helped or not since a variety of other lifestyle modifications were involved. To say that either of these studies is worthy of inclusion as WP:MEDRS for the TM article is POV-pushing, obviously. Rather sad."

Topic ban

Based on this discussion I would like to request a topic ban of User:Littleolive_oil, User:TimidGuy and User:Early morning person. The 1989 review that is being used to contradict a 2006 Cochrane review has been re added again here. Have brought to WP:RS [86] was previously discussed at WP:RS here and support was for its removal.

Comments made elsewhere about this case

Per Olive's posting at ANI

The article in question, Transcendental Meditation research, is largely devoted to presenting research on that technique's physical and medical effects on the human body. The Wikipedia community has developed an enhanced guideline for deciding which sources are suitable for writing about medical claims. WP:MEDRS It is appropriate and necessary to apply those higher standards to this article.

Jmh649 asserts that he is a practicing emergency room physician. If so he has received an extensive education in medical science and been certified to a high level of competence in that field. As a part of his professional duties he would necessarily read and evaluate the same kinds of studies that are discussed in this article. By comparison, I believe Littleolive oil has said her expertise is in the visual arts. No one else editing the article has claimed any special scientific training either. It is not surprising that one of us humanity major-editors could mis-read or mis-evaluate a technical paper, and a more knowledgeable editor should clean up after us.

It's important that Wikipedia exclude sketchy medical information for the same reason that it's important to exclude sketchy material on living people. First, do no harm. TM is in some respects selling a medical product. The research article should not become an advertisement which relies too heavily on movement sources or gives undue weight to remarkable claims. Jmh649 is not promoting any fringe views: quite the opposite.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS indeed. Here are the sources with research reviews deleted without consensus by Jmh649 (and in most cases deleted without any prior discussion):

• Pediatrics
• BMC Psychiatry
• Journal of Ethnicity and Disease
• Integrative Cardiology: Complementary and Alternative Medicine for the Heart (McGraw-Hill Medical)
• Complementary and Integrative Medicine in Cancer Care and Prevention: Foundations and Evidence-Based Interventions (Springer)
• The Best Alternative Medicine (Simon & Schuster)

Here are some of the sources regarding scientific research on TM dded by Will Beback and Jmh649, or proposed for addition[87][88][89]:

• Christian Research Journal
• The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation (a book published in 1985)
• The Skeptic's Dictionary
• 'The Canadian (newspaper)
• The Jerusalem Post
• Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology
• Student BMJ

At the same time, Jmh649 tries to get MEDRS changed so that he can exclude a widely used standard medical textbook on heart disease that says that TM has been shown to have benefits.[90]

Let's look at some of Jmh649's counterclaims:

3. He neglects to say that he deleted this McGraw Hill Medical book without consensus and that the eventual consensus at RSN was in favor of it as a reliable source

4. He says the diff doesn't support the info provided. The deleted source appears at the end of the diff: "Yin Paradies, A Review of Psychosocial Stress and Chronic Disease for 4th World Indigenous Peoples and African Americans, Ethnicity & Disease, Volume 16, Winter 2006, p. 305"

5. He doesn't understand WP:NPOV, claiming that a source is a refutation of his favored source and should be deleted. He explains that he deletes this research review published in 2008 because it referenced a meta-analysis of 146 studies published in 1989, yet he defends replacing it with a narrow 2006 Cochrane review that looked at a single study with 38 subjects on TM published in 1980. (The Cochrane review only looked at studies on adults who were diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, whereas the other anxiety research is on a broader population.)

6&7. It's fine if he thinks these studies are without merit, but in Wikipedia we generally go with what reliable secondary sources say. He needs to explain why this book from a top academic publisher isn't a reliable source.

8. He says the source didn't support the text in the article that said that randomized controlled trials have found a reduction in blood pressure. Here's what the source says: "Study Design: RCT ... TM group decreased from before to after test in SBP, HR, and CO during acute stress simulation, and in SBP to a social stressor compared to controls; marginal differences in DBP" and "Study Design: RCT ... TM group decreased daytime SBP and marginally decreased DBP compared to controls"

Jmh649 has repeatedly deleted sourced material without consensus and without prior discussion. Per the arbcom, this is a problem, and he should be warned. TimidGuy (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched the TM and TM-Sidhi pages for almost three years, since TimidGuy alerted me to the problems with TM-affiliated editors defending poor-quality TM-affiliated research [91] by responding on my talk page to a chance comment I made somewhere to the effect that a particular TM claim was not supported by data. The refutation he suggested I should look at, that he apparently expected would effectively answer my concerns about the claim, was so partisan, so apparently clueless as to the conventional protocol for scientific debate, so replete with ad hominem attacks on the critic, so bereft of actual responses to the important criticisms of the research, so obviously without substance or merit, that red flags went up all over the place in my mind; if this was the best the TM-affiliated researchers could come up with as a rebuttal to criticism of the research, then the research must be even worse than I thought. That was in February 2008; I've had those two TM pages on my watchlist on and off ever since, and actively participated there for a few months in 2009-2010 until becoming demoralized by the futility of the effort. (In the interest of clarity, I should probably add that AFAIK there were no problems identified with my editing, and I was not included as a party to the arbitration even though I was actively editing the TM pages at the time.)

Were I still participating there, I would argue on that talk page that none of the sources in the paragraph cited (I think this is being discussed elsewhere simultaneously, so I'm not sure I saw that paragraph here or somewhere else) are very high quality sources, and would suggest that better sources, such as the fairly recent independent meta-analyses that spell out the inferior quality of most of the TM research in detail, should be used to establish the poor quality of the research. But having watched endlessly repeated arguments where those higher quality sources have been rebutted and "refuted" and nitpicked almost out of existence in service of a POV, I can guess why poorer quality sources are being reverted to. If someone here can do something to address this problem, it would be a great service to the encyclopedia. Woonpton (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the assessment of this by Woonpton, Will and the uninvolved Admins who have commented below, as well as with Doc's response. The problem in these articles is not Doc's quite proper insistence that medical claims be sourced in accordance with WP:MEDRS, the problem is in the persistent efforts of other editors who insist on (i) including low-quality, questionable and non-reliable sources to advance extraordinary health claims for various TM-Movement techinques and products (ii) misinterpreting and attempting to obfuscate the conclusions of high-quality independent reliable sources which do not support those extraordinary health claims and which find fault with the sources they would prefer to rely upon and cite. The editors, other than the complaining editor, most actively doing so have been TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to have been slowed only a little in this endeavor by the TM ArbCom and his subsequent temporary topic ban at AE. The editor second most active in this regard has been Early morning person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Clearly, no AE sanction is warranted with respect to DocJames. He has not violated the TM ArbCom decision by merely following WP:MEDRS. The suggestion by the Admins below that AE sanctions may be warranted against other editors whose improper editing Doc is merely trying to correct and clean up in accord with Wikipedia policy and guidelines has more than passing merit. Fladrif (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No action, frivolous request. No tangible case has been made that the edits described above were either "peremptory" or "to excess". The Arbcom ruling referred to can obviously not be interpreted as if it forbade any and all removal of sourced content; that would hamper editorial responsibility excessively. There can always be valid editorial reasons (due weight, balance, structure of article) for removing content. There is no sign the removals in this case were not motivated in good faith by a desire to improve the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with above. There's nothing actionable here. Courcelles 11:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. There is no action to take against Doc James, but James has pointed out many issues with the filer's actions. Personally, I think that the POV pushing/tendentious editing exhibited in continuously trying to use sources to make sure their point of view is gotten across rather than just picking the best 20 or 30 sources and writing the article is something that discretionary sanctions was designed to prevent. NW (Talk) 14:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I agree, the filers conduct does need to be examined. My earlier comment was only to the extent that the original complaint is without merit. I note that the filer was on a 1RR restriction around three months of last year, but am not yet sure that returning to that is proper. Courcelles 14:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure that a revert restriction would really help much; tendentious editing is often something that can only be dealt with via a topic ban. Do you think that would be a good idea? NW (Talk) 21:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I would. The 1RR restriction, if it was designed to stop the disruption, has failed. (It was largely worth mentioning to put the history into context.) The problem with littleoliveoil's editing is not now a propensity to edit war, but more disruptive and tedious editing, and attempting to use AE to win the disagreement, something this forum is not designed for. Some time (under 90 days) away from the topic for Littleolive oil would be, IMO, beneficial for all sides. Courcelles 18:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. NW (Talk) 21:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think my colleagues above are reaching the right result for the wrong reasons. In particular, the principle says essentially that excessive peremptory removals are disruptive. The question to ask should therefore not be whether the editor is acting in good faith, but whether the removals, taken objectively, have a disruptive effect. Good faith edits that have a disruptive effect are still sanctionable if the editor is unable or unwilling to correct them.

  In this case, I think that it has not been demonstrated that the edits have an objectively disruptive effect, and therefore I concur that no action should be taken with respect to Doc James. I voice no opinion with respect to the propriety of any action against the filer. T. Canens (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

TFighterPilot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TFighterPilot (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

1 week block

Administrator imposing the sanction

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

I didn't revise twice. I edited once and revised once. My first edit was not a revision. I'm only trying to make Wikipedia NPOV, but being in a minority, I don't have an army of revisers like the Palestine crowd has. I'm bound to make more edits, because if I won't, no one else will.

This is TFighterPilot's second block in three days for violation of the 1RR restriction at Hummus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Upon the expiry of the previous block, he appears to have jumped straight back into the same edit war. The second revert (which lead to the first block) was reverted by a third party while TFP was blocked and TFP twice reverted that today. He didn't label the first revert as a revert, but it changed the term "Palestine" in the same sentence as the previous edit war was about.

• First revert, 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Second revert, 18:17, 19 January 2011 (this was the direct cause of the first block)
• Third revert (first today) 09:13, 22 January 2011
• Fourth revert (second today) 12:31, 22 January 2011 The second and current block is a direct result of this edit.

The blocks both came through WP:ANEW. And, just for the avoidance of doubt, I am opposing this appeal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For the reasons given by HJ Mitchell I agree with this block and would decline the appeal.  Sandstein  20:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm amazed that we live in a world where hummus is considered politically sensitive. That said, extra care need to be taken where there are cultural or ethnic disagreements and a 1RR restriction followed up by escalating blocks when violated is an appropriate response. User:TFighterPilot's appeal is not convincing why this block was an inappropriate remedy to a fairly clear-cut violation. I'm declining the appeal, and will close this request in a few hours unless others weigh in with contrary opinions before then. henrik•talk 17:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline this appeal, and if it happens again, give serious consideration to a topic ban from the Hummus article. Courcelles 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

User requesting enforcement

 nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles - 1RR addendum.

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

The article Hezbollah has been in the Islamic Terrorism category since at least January 2009[92].

On January 8, 2011 User:Supreme Deliciousness removed several categories (terrorism in Lebanon, Islamic Terrorism and Islam and Anti-semitism) from the Hezbollah article[93] and stated that they didn't belong in the article and when they were re-added he stated there was no consensus for their inclusion. Since then there has been edit warring and 1RR gaming over their inclusion with SD removing the category/criticism and USer:GHcool re-adding it. There has been extensive talk page discussions about their use, with "Islamic Terrorism" seeming to be the the most touchy category, but no definitive resolution so-far. The article is under ARBPIA 1-RR rules, and as evident, both editors have violated the law several times if not in actuality, then in spirit by waiting until exactly 24 hours has passed.

GHCool's violations

1. On 1/17 at 21:21[94] re-adds Islamic Terrorism category. He/she again reverts SD's removal On 1/22 at 00:12am[95] then again at 1/22 at 18:56[96]

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

1. GHCool [97] Warning by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
   

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Enforcement as admins see fit

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The article Hezbollah has been in the Islamic Terrorism category since at least January 2009[98]. Since the article has been in the category for at least two years, I will leave it up to the Admins to decide who must bare the burden of proof, ie: should it remain in the category until a decision is reached at the talk page, or should it be removed from the category until a decision is reached at the talk page. I will be filing a separate AE enforcement for 1-RR against SD.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

I re-add the category every time I have met the burden of proof. Before, the article had no section on academia's labeling Hezbollah as an Islamic terror organization. Since then I added several academics. Supreme Deliciousness moved the goalpost and said I needed academics from countries other than the US and Israel. I met that challenge when I added academics from other countries. Supreme Deliciousness then made all sorts of special pleading, reverted the category, and then lowered his own goalpost by adding the view of an ex-British MP who has no authority on terrorism or Islam or any other topic I can think of. I tried to remove this idiocy as a violation of WP:Undue weight, but Supreme Deliciousness doesn't appear to play by his own rules, much less Wikipedia's. If Supreme Deliciousness wants a "grab bag" section of "other views" on Hezbollah, I don't mind since such a section will open the floodgates to the dozens (hundreds?) of non-experts who think Hezbollah is terrorist. --GHcool (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Blocked for 55 hours. Second violation of the I-P 1RR this month. Courcelles 18:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

User requesting enforcement

 nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 18:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles - 1RR addendum.

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

The article Hezbollah has been in the Islamic Terrorism category since at least January 2009[99].

On January 8, 2011 SD removed several categories (terrorism in Lebanon, Islamic Terrorism and Islam and Anti-semitism) from the Hezbollah article[100] and stated that they didn't belong in the article and when they were re-added he stated there was no consensus for their inclusion. Since then there has been edit warring and 1RR gaming over their inclusion with SD removing the category/criticism and GHCool re-adding it. There has been extensive talk page discussions about their use, with "Islamic Terrorism" seeming to be the the most touchy category, but no definitive resolution so-far. The article is under ARBPIA 1-RR rules, and as evident, both editors have violated the law several times if not in actuality, then in spirit by waiting until 24 hours has passed.

On 1/21 at 4:12am SD removes the category[101]. On 1/22 at 4:23am, SD reverts GHCool's removal of Islamic Terrorism from the article Hezbollah [102] and at 4:27 he reverts the removal of a section from the BBC. The both edits are added back and on 1/23 at 4:23am he re-removes the category[103] then at 4:25 he re-adds the BBC section[104]. Realizing he's technically in violation of 1RR he self-reverts[105] and [106] and waits until 20 more minutes have passed before re-reverting the changes[107] and [108].

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

1. Supreme Deliciousness [109] and [110] Warning by Daniel J. Leivick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Oren0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Enforcement as admins see fit

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since the article has been in the category Islamic Terrorism for at least two years, it might help calm things if the Admins would decide who must bare the burden of proof, ie: should it remain in the category until a decision is reached at the talk page, or should it be removed from the category until a decision is reached at the talk page. I have also filed an AE request against GHcool for 1-RR violations.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

• - copied over as requested from the user talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Courcelles: I did not revert 3 times within 48 hours. I did not at any point make more then 1 rv within 24 hours. Thats some reverting against a user who is forcing his pov into the article, there were at least 4 (or 5) editors who objected to that cat with only GHcool wanting it in. The talkpage shows clearly that there is no consensus to have them, and me following what happened at the talkpage and not breaking the 1rr is not "gaming the system".

Reply to GHcool: In June 2009 Ghcool repeatedly added the cats. [111] [112]

Although I was not there at that time, I was told that "We have discussed them before, and only GHschool kept adding them."

Ghcool also notified WP Israel, [113], and not any Arab notice board.

At the recent talkpage discussions, only GHcool wants the cats, no one else, (These two comments are by two socks:[114][115] )

Me, Funk Monk, Lihaas and علی ویکی all object to its inclusion.

I have not "moved the goalpost" as GHcool claims, I have always said the same thing, I objected to its inclusion based on that its a minority pov only held by a handful of countries and individual people, and GHcool has still not shown any source saying anything else.

I never removed the views by those academics he had added, but they are povs by individuals that Hezbollah is "terrorist" not facts, they are minority views. So I added the British Mp and U.S. Representative views in the same position, not as "facts" but as views from those people. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-add the category every time I have met the burden of proof. Before, the article had no section on academia's labeling Hezbollah as an Islamic terror organization. Since then I added several academics. Supreme Deliciousness moved the goalpost and said I needed academics from countries other than the US and Israel. I met that challenge when I added academics from other countries. Supreme Deliciousness then made all sorts of special pleading, reverted the category, and then lowered his own goalpost by adding the view of an ex-British MP who has no authority on terrorism or Islam or any other topic I can think of. I tried to remove this idiocy as a violation of WP:Undue weight, but Supreme Deliciousness doesn't appear to play by his own rules, much less Wikipedia's. If Supreme Deliciousness wants a "grab bag" section of "other views" on Hezbollah, I don't mind since such a section will open the floodgates to the dozens (hundreds?) of non-experts who think Hezbollah is terrorist. --GHcool (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by un☯mi

Enigma cites repeated gaming of the system and "past history", is that something that could be substantiated / explained further? un☯mi 20:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Supreme Deliciousness has been topic banned before. [116] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Aliwiki

I don't see any example of Wikipedia:Gaming the system in Supreme edits; but obviously user GHcool was gaming the system when he wrote a YES on the talk page, then he self-interpreted his YES as consensus of Wikipedian users and tried to mispresent the view of just 5 countries on behalf of 192 existing countries. Indeed this is a great disdain toward all Wikipedia users and all citizens of those 187 countries.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Blocked 24 hours. Three reverts in 36 48 Courcelles 19:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC) hours, as explained in the block note. Courcelles 18:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a medium-term (maybe 2 or 3 months) topic ban might be appropriate here in addition to the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur. In light of the repeated gaming of the system, and the past history, I think something more than a 24 hour block is in order, and a topic ban seems appropriate. Enigma^msg 19:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with the topic ban, though I would favour one for both parties than for just one. Courcelles 19:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I meant to suggest it for both parties. How about 2 months each, then? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Go ahead, though in my mind it should be for the entire area of conflict rather than this specific article, though I'll leave that decision up to the drafter. Two months strikes me as fair. Courcelles 02:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –

Sanction being appealed

Extent of the topic ban, want an amendment (suggestion below)

Administrator imposing the sanction

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[117]

I was blocked for 24hours, and on top of that later given a 2 months topic ban from all Arab-Israeli conflict articles as a result of this enforcement: [118]

The enforcement is about me doing several reverts at Hezbollah.

I'm not saying that all my reverts there were right, they were not, but you have to take into consideration that I was reverting back to the consensus version according to the talkpage where GHcool was the only one who wanted to have the cat, and everyone else did not.

This is not an excuse for what I did, but it has to be taken into consideration. I was also active on the talkpage and there was no problem with any of my comments or the content of my edits, only the amount of reverts.

Based on my reverts at Hezbollah, I don't believe that a 24 hour block and on top of that a 2 month topic ban from all Arab-Israeli articles are appropriate, the "punishment" does not fit the "crime". It is way out of proportion.

So I am suggesting an amendment to the topic ban:

• Considering that I have already been blocked for 24hours.

• That my 2 month topic ban is changed so its only for the Hezbollah article.

• And on top of that, I'm put on a 1 rv per week restriction on all Arab-Israeli conflict articles for the duration of the two months topic ban from Hezbollah.

Reply to T. Canens: You don't think my suggestion is more fair?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is where that WP:IPCOLL "battleground statistics" page could have come in handy, I don't off the top of my head recall how often SD has been found at fault for their approach to editing, this could be selective memory but I don't remember any recent actionable reports against the editor. In light of this I find the 2 month topic ban appearing punitive relative to the posited alternative of 1 revert per week on Arab-Israeli articles.

I hope the enforcing admin considers the merits of the alternate sanctions offered above. un☯mi 16:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon being blocked for edit warring (admittedly, against me), Supreme Deliciousness responded to the block by quoting the Gospel of Luke: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." In choosing this quote in the context of a dispute with a Jew, Supreme Deliciousness is guilty of not-so-suble anti-Semitism and a monstrous ego. Comparing one's self with Jesus on the cross, comparing Wikipedia administrators to Romans, and virtually calling me a Christ killer should be a disturbing sign of Supreme Deliciousness's lack of sincerity. Supreme Deliciousness's appeal should be denied. --GHcool (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If HJ Mitchell wants to modify the sanction, it is of course his prerogative. Otherwise, I'm not convinced that the two-month topic ban is so grossly excessive or fundamentally unfair that it exceeded the enforcing admin's discretion, and think that the appeal should be declined. T. Canens (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• @SD: Okay, I'll explain a bit more. The question at an appeal like this is not "what is the fairest sanction for this misconduct". Since fairness is a highly subjective concept, there may not even be an answer to that question. Rather, for each case of misconduct there is a range of reasonable sanctions that could have been imposed. All of them are fair; perhaps some are fairer than the others - again, it depends on the viewer. For us to intervene on the substantive (as opposed to the procedural) aspects of the sanction, you need to show that your sanction is outside that range of reasonable sanctions - in short, that the sanction is unreasonable. We will not, or at least should not, second-guess the enforcing admin on the fine details. T. Canens (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. While I might not have imposed that ban myself, discretionary enforcement actions are called "discretionary" because the ArbCom has recognized that enforcing admins enjoy considerable discretion. Such actions should therefore not be modified except for compelling reasons, which are not presented here.  Sandstein  21:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The complainant has not so much made a convincing argument as to why the initial sanction was excessive or unjustified, as he has tried to barter us down to a less severe level of restriction. He should do less of the second and more of the first in any future appeal. Decline. AGK [•] 01:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Tuscumbia (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

AA2, ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct

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

1. [119], the User Xebulon uses an extreme nationalistic and racist language to express his feelings on Azerbaijani editors such as Importantly, this casts doubt whether Wikipedia editors with Azerbaijani passports are fit to contribute to this encyclopedia. Keep this in mind and think twice when violating Wiki rules.
2. [120], please see incivil/disrespectful comments
3. [121], response to editor reporting him for violation of Wikiquette
4. [122], one of responses to an editor requesting him to use reliable sources
5. [123], a response to an admin placing tags in the article with POV reference to Azerbaijan
6. [124], another emotional response

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

1. [125] Warning by Tuscumbia (talk · contribs)
2. [126] Warning by Tuscumbia (talk · contribs)
3. [127] Warning by Tuscumbia (talk · contribs)
4. [128] Warning by Pol430 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. [129] Warning by Ronz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
6. [130] Warning by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

WP:block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For some time now, the user has been engaged in edit-warring but apart from that he makes impolite and disrespectful remarks (diffs provided above). The last one he did on Caucasian Albania talk page Importantly, this casts doubt whether Wikipedia editors with Azerbaijani passports are fit to contribute to this encyclopedia. Keep this in mind and think twice when violating Wiki rules is completely of racist nature and unacceptable. The user has been warned against his conduct a number of times on various boards including one on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but still continued to use inadequate language. Please take measures. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The response from Xebulon below is just another emotional collection of paragraphs. "Poor English"? Really? Since when? Birth? You are not here to judge the "authoritarian and repressive" country, but to assume good faith and be respectful to your fellow editors. And, please don't be misquoting what I wrote. My statement was "I am saying they are naturally biased, not necessarily because they have written and continue to write in favor of Armenian version of history but because they dismiss any reference to anything good Turkish/Turkic" in response to User MarshallBagramyan who dismissed and discredited Azerbaijani authors putting Armenian ones higher as if they were credible because their works were published in US. Authors of both Armenian and Azerbaijani heritage are likely to be biased no matter what. It's only natural, Hewsen being one of them.

Yes, you are trying to invent history here. Google Shusha and you'll see when it was founded. And yes, I have been topic banned but continued to edit and create many other articles. So what? Your account as well as accounts of several other users have been reported for edit-warring and in an SPI cases ([131], [132]) because these accounts were started at times when major puppeteers have been blocked and the new emerging accounts seemed to be quite professional in Wiki-editing and were a part of a coordinated effort. Reviewing one of the last cases on Meowy is good enough. Some accounts are related, some have the same behavioral patterns. Some of Meowy's and Andranikpasha's SPIs I filed were successful because the admins found the accounts were socks. Find me one substantial evidence where I have not assumed good faith. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ashot that notice was placed on Wikiquette alerts due to your comment here [133] in reference to an editor. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xebulon, not sure what you mean by The misspelled word "invent" suggests that User:Tuscumbia undoes the good edits frivolously and mindlessly, simply by "driving-by." below. It's just a misspelled word and your argument does not make any sense. By the same token, are you are here by "driving-by" as well? Anyhow, I understand you're trying to evade the subject of this report by these additions [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139] to the report, but please take a look at why this report originated. If you need to file a report against me with all those accusations, please feel free to start a new one. This report is related to your ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct." Some people may hold a hypothesis that Azerbaijani citizens are encouraged by their government to advance POV views and spread these views in forums like Wikipedia. Foreign governments where the Internet is censored, like in Azerbaijan, may induce Wikipedia editors to behave in a certain way. See here how China does that: [140].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[141]

User:Tuscumbia is an abusive account that apparently found a new way of edit warring: reporting his opponents to administrators by falsely accusing them of transgressions that he himself was accused of several times recently. His usual mode of operations include making frivolous and untrue accusations against his opponents [142], and then showcasing these false warnings as a record of purportedly improper conduct. Because of his poor English, User:Tuscumbia does not understand the flow of discussion, and unreasonably considers some remarks as offensive.

Most of what User:Tuscumbia does in Wikipedia can be qualified as Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and his most common pattern of disruptive behavior is Refusal to "get the point" as described here in the Rules [[143]]. User:Tuscumbia is constantly enveloped in perpetuated disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation (see here: [144] and here [145]). This irritates good-faith editors, provoking them to engage in controversial conduct. Another characteristic of User:Tuscumbia is Wikipedia:WikiBullying; this also raises the heat in a debate and provokes good-faith editors.

I commented on a well-known fact that Azerbaijan is an authoritarian and repressive country as categorized by Freedom House, Amnesty International and Transparency International. Azerbaijani state limits public access to the Internet (see former President Clinton’s remarks here: [146], and its leadership made public statements inviting its citizens to attack Armenians in public Internet-based forums. My remark is not incivility or ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct. However, I regret if it may have sounded that way. In China, which manages and often directs Wikipedia involvement of its citizens, state agents modified an article on a Nigerian poet, see here: [147]. Disturbed by POV-pushing tactics by User:Tuscumbia, I just hypothesized that a similar situation may be in play here too since Azerbaijan evidently censors Wikipedia as well.

Despite this, User:Tuscumbia himself makes offensive, ethnically-motivated attacks on his opponents. Talking about Wikipedia editors and Armenian authors, User:Tuscumbia says here [148]: “I am saying they [Armenians] are naturally biased.” Here [149] he says: “And, please, for the love of God, don't refer to Hewsen. Why would he ever write anything in favor of Azerbaijan, Baku or Azerbaijanis considering the fact that he's of Armenian heritage and quite possibly biased.” User:Tuscumbia attacks reputed academics for their alleged (and unconfirmed, by the way) Armenian identity. This is a typical ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct.

User:Tuscumbia continuously removes well-sourced, good-faith edits (here: [150]), complementing his acts of vandalism with such uncivil remarks: “what exactly are trying to ionvent?” (see here: [151]). The misspelled word "invent" suggests that User:Tuscumbia undoes the good edits frivolously and mindlessly, simply by "driving-by."

User:Tuscumbia was blocked here [152], as early as in March 2010. Here, despite the warning, User:Tuscumbia continued edit warring and was warned more severely here [153]. Shortly thereafter he was topic-banned to edit article on Armenia and Azerbaijan for as many as three months here [154]. Then, User:Tuscumbia when emerged from this ban, went back to his habit of edit warring and blunt refusal to engage in civilized dialogue when invited to do so. User:Tuscumbia’s most widespread type of abuse are unreferenced reverts that he fails to address on talk pages. Here are the examples. When asked in discussions to present evidence from external sources or from stable Wikipedia articles, User:Tuscumbia evades dialogue [155].

The most recent notice of sanctions filed against User:Tuscumbia by a Wikipedia administrator accuses him of refusal to assume good faith (here [156]), after which User:Tuscumbia engaged in a meaningless refutation of his misdeeds. This is not the first time User:Tuscumbia engages in false attacks on his opponents [157]. Not surprising, this and that [158] frivolous reports were both dismissed. However, he then makes yet another frivolous request against me, here: [159], which was likewise naturally dismissed.

I suggest to block User:Tuscumbia for a serial lack of compliance with "Assuming Good Faith" requirement since it is evident that he allocates a good portion of his time to frivolously attacking other users. Xebulon (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sandstein, please reconsider your intention of temporary ban. As I noted above, I regret succumbing to Tuscumbia's provocative conduct, and promise to be extra vigilant as to the letter and spirit of Wiki regulations. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Xebulon (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have a personal experience of noticeboard misuse by User:Tuscumbia. See [160] (my last comment regarding his report on me and the whole discussion above). -- Ashot  ^(talk) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tuscumbia routinely violates Wikipedia:Harassment by making editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the targets of his attacks; he tries to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. Xebulon (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Waiting for statement by Xebulon.  Sandstein  08:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Xebulon: Your statement is mostly beside the point per WP:NOTTHEM. This is about you, not others. [161] is an unacceptable personal attack, as is much of your commentary about Tuscumbia above, and [162], "this casts doubt whether Wikipedia editors with Azerbaijani passports are fit to contribute to this encyclopedia", is far beyond the pale of acceptable conduct.

  Tuscumbia: Your comments at [163], "Armenian authors ... are naturally biased ... because they dismiss any reference to anything good Turkish/Turkic", and at [164], "Why would he ever write anything in favor of Azerbaijan, Baku or Azerbaijanis considering the fact that he's of Armenian heritage and quite possibly biased", are likewise unacceptable.

  Both: Entering into conflicts about either editors or sources on the basis of any ethnic, national or other background, rather than on the basis of their individual reliability or the strength of their arguments, is entirely at odds with WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#BATTLE, as well as strongly morally objectionable, and is exactly the sort of misconduct that this remedy was intended to prevent. Therefore, if no administrator objects, I intend to ban Xebulon for three months and Tuscumbia for six months from editing the topic. Tuscumbia's ban is set to be longer because he has already been subject to a three months ban in 2010 for similar misconduct.  Sandstein  00:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Xebulon: You clearly cannot collaborate effectively on articles within this subject area. Your topic ban will allow you to put your editing abilities to good use on articles that are not as heated. I second Sandstein's proposed action. AGK [•] 01:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sandstein's proposed sanctions sound reasonable to me. T. Canens (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• OK. In enforcement and application of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, therefore, Xebulon (talk · contribs) and Tuscumbia (talk · contribs) are topic-banned from Armenia and Azerbaijan, including notably any conflicts with other countries or peoples, as defined at WP:TBAN. Tuscumbia's ban lasts for six months and Xebulon's ban lasts for three months.  Sandstein  10:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

ZScarpia   13:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles - 1RR addendum.

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

Between 08:18, 25 January 2011 and 03:19, 26 January 2011, a period of less than twenty-four hours, AnonMoos edited the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine article three times. I think that reverts were made in the second and third of these edits.

1. [165] : First edit by AnonMoos. No reversion involved. NickCT then reverted AnonMoos.
2. [166] : First revert by AnonMoos. Text removed by NickCT re-added.
3. [167] : Second revert by AnonMoos. Altered text elsewhere in the article.

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

1. Not applicable.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

At arbitrator's discretion.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I alerted AnonMoos on his user talk page and on the article talk page that I thought he had exceeded the 1RR restriction on the article and gave him the opportunity to revert the last edit that he had made. The opportunity was turned down.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification on user talk page.

The second revert was technically a violation of 1RR, but ZScarpia himself made it impossible for me to change anything back (and also rendered my edits rather irrelevant) when he completely rewrote the sections in question. The third edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine&action=historysubmit&diff=410100018&oldid=410092551 wasn't a violation of anything, since it concerned text which was not involved in any of the earlier edits, and I really don't understand what ZScarpia is trying to say when it claims that it was a violations of something (what, I don't know, since obviously not 1RR). I also really don't understand why ZScarpia has chosen to escalate to this level of bureaucracy, when he himself took actions which rendered my technical 1RR violation nugatory and otiose, while my third edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine&action=historysubmit&diff=410100018&oldid=410092551 obviously has no relevance to anything in particular here... AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting to note that ZScarpia is reporting someone for an edit he has "no problem with" [168]. Way to collaborate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would hold off on actioning this request for at least a further 12 hours, to allow AnonMoos to submit a statement, but I am inclined to sanction the respondent for combative editing by excluding him from this topic area for 7 days (enforceable by block if violated). Looking at the history of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, I see multiple reversions by AnonMoos - including ones with edit summaries such as "I'll find a source within a few days if you really want -- add a citation-needed tag if you must, but do not delete something which is a very important historical detail", which smacks of ownership. It seems to me that AnonMoos does not understand the consensus decision-making model, in that, when other editors disagree with him, his response is to blindly revert in order to preserve the preferred version. He should endeavour to work on this if he does not want to become a negative influence on this and other topic areas.

  I have also, further to this complaint, asked ZScarpia to use edit summaries in future. Holding for 12 hours to await comment from AnonMoos. AGK [•] 16:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not concerned about that edit summary. It reads more of WP:PRESERVE than WP:OWN in my mind. I agree with Fut.Perf. on this one. henrik•talk 09:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The third diff is not a revert. Thus I see no violation of 1RR. - BorisG (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has the word revert gained a special meaning as far as the ARBPIA 1RR limit is concerned? My understanding is that a revert includes anything which changes text previously added. In the case of the 3rd diff, existing text (which had been added shortly beforehand by me) has been reworded.     ←   ZScarpia   17:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, if "anything which changes text previously added" were a revert, then every edit would be a revert. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, I see no grounds for any sanction here. These three edits were his first to this article since one edit in November, and one in July. Only one of the recent edits is a revert, while the one in November (which also happened to be one) was quite obviously and undisputably justified and necessary. I see neither signs of "ownership" here (with five edits in half a year), nor edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos's third edit replaces text that was already present in the article, it doesn't just add new text.     ←   ZScarpia   18:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's a normal edit. Those never count as reverts. And it was a fairly trivial replacement at that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by a normal edit (obviously not all edits replace pre-existing text without adding anything new), but I accept that the third edit didn't change the meaning of what pre-existed. If the replacement of existing text with other text which has the same meaning doesn't count as a revert then I apologise for wasting everybody's time. You say that the change was trivial and you're entitled to your opinion of course. I'll just comment that I've avoided making more trivial changes than that in order to avoid breaching the 1RR restriction.

A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. The understanding I gained from previous cases was that a reversal meant any modification (that is, removal or replacing) of text that was currently in the article or the replacement of text which had previously been removed.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At the very least, AnonMoos should be sanctioned for using the words "nugatory and otiose" is his statement or perhaps given a barnstar. One of those 2 options. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• On the one hand, Sean provides two compelling options. On the other hand, the neutrality policy, which is is non-negotiable, calls us to provide sanctions or barnstars to both parties. C'est moi qui parle ... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing to see yet another AE request where the non-definition of a revert is being discussed. Funny enough nobody was interested enough in fixing the policy. There was a RfC that got archived. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Not seeing anything actionable here. Suggest close. Courcelles 18:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am concerned about the general approach of AnonMoos to this article, irrespective of the volume of reverts he made. AGK [•] 21:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• AnonMoos is not logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles as having received the required notification for sanctions beyond the 1RR enforcement. If you want to formally notify him, or if he's on that list under a different name, then so be it, but if he's not, then the only sanctions we cna hand out would be for the 1RR, which I maintain saying he violated here is a real stretch. Courcelles 21:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Such notifications are not required under the terms of the community-imposed sanctions that are being cited in this complaint (see links at start of thread). But a formal notification is more in line with what is deserved here, certainly, so I think I'll impose that on AnonMoos and then allow somebody else to close this complaint as otherwise unactionable. Good thinking :). AGK [•] 12:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

Tuscumbia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tuscumbia (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, imposed at [169], logged at [170]

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[171]

In my understanding, the sanctions were imposed without sufficient review of the diffs/wikilinks provided.

The statement by admin Sandstein regarding User:Tuscumbia said:

Tuscumbia: Your comments at [172], "Armenian authors ... are naturally biased ... because they dismiss any reference to anything good Turkish/Turkic", and at [173], "Why would he ever write anything in favor of Azerbaijan, Baku or Azerbaijanis considering the fact that he's of Armenian heritage and quite possibly biased", are likewise unacceptable.

The review of the comments [174] and [175] posted by Sandstein were apparently reviewed only as provided, and not in the context of the discussion at Talk:Caucasian_Albania#WP:CHERRY. The replies by me were only responses to User:MarshallBagramyan's comments:

1. [176]: Were I not already acquainted with Brand's habit of surreptitiously removing any notion of Armenia or Armenians in these articles (the line on the partition of Armenia, of Mashots' credit for inventing the alphabet, etc.), I would have been far more indulgent in evaluating the validity of his points. But because I am so familiar with his edits and because his above arguments are so poorly formulated and poorly supported, I'm afraid that assuming good faith will not do us any good here. We all know that the works produced by scholars in Azerbaijan would not have a snowball's chance in hell in surviving a critical review, but to see them posted here in full, as if they're reliable sources, is a waste of time for all us serious editors who actually wish to improve this article.;
2. [177]: I object to using any and almost all Azerbaijani sources because they have an invariable vested interest to distort and misrepresent what the sources say. The fact that almost all their works reflect the position of official state propaganda and are published in Baku or elsewhere by themselves is enough to suggest that their works hold little to no academic value ...Armenian authors may be biased, yes, to their own side, which is natural. But for a few exceptions, they almost never let that compromise their academic standing;
3. [178]: ...The same cannot be said about those scholars working in Azerbaijan, who are apparently too preoccupied with attacking Armenians and too absorbed with trumpeting their own purported achievements. After independence, Azerbaijan's bold claims seem to have been magnified several fold, as they have been making even more grandiose and embarrassing assertions that would have ever been permitted in the USSR. If anything, we should be warier than ever to even consider consulting them for such sensitive topics

In addition to that, the word "naturally" in comments naturally biased in my statement reviewed by Sandstein is not to be interpreted in this context as "biased by nature" but as "of course" and "surely" as confirmation to MarshallBagramyan's own comment Armenian authors may be biased, yes, to their own side, which is natural at [179]. I know how to be civil and assume good faith regardless what kind of arguments and insults can come from the opposing users ([180], [181], [182]) and my comments were just misinterpreted and misunderstood.

I am requesting a thorough review of the discussion on Talk:Caucasian_Albania#WP:CHERRY to see a clearer picturer and lifting a topic-ban. I'm an auto-confirmed user by now with 298 created and extensively edited articles (with 267 of them being completely new), creating on an average of 1-3 good articles per day. Please re-consider your decision.

Response to BorisG: Boris, I agree and while the retraction of statements is a good recommendation, please note that my statements on the talk page provided as links above were replies and not original statements by me. The reason I am stating that is that a special entry needs to be made to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, specifying issues of discreditation and dismissal of authors and sources with the tone seen in Caucasian Albania talk page. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sandstein: With all due respect, Sandstein, I never use Wikipedia as a battleground. If I ever had, I wouldn't have survived until now. All my statements were in the form of replies. What can you tell to a person who discredits and dismisses authors from one side while crediting all from the other after you first inquire about his views [183]? Yes, it does matter if I said biased by nature or biased as a matter of course because the former represents prejudice, the latter confirmation of the statement by the other user. This detail can't be just overlooked. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AGK: AGK, on your user page, you claim to be an Eguor administrator promising to "offer a fair hearing to editors who present a well-documented case that they've been mishandled in some way." Well, the previous case was not handled fairly or at least properly because not all the details were reviewed before the action was taken. Even the admin T. Canens mentioned the mistake.

Let me elaborate. The user A (me) filed a report on user B (Xebulon) for his ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct as recommended by the administrator Sandstein (See the diff [184]) since the quote used by User B (Importantly, this casts doubt whether Wikipedia editors with Azerbaijani passports are fit to contribute to this encyclopedia. Keep this in mind and think twice when violating Wiki rules) was of racist nature. So, when the reported user came back with 15 hasty edits on the report page trying to do anything to pull me in, he pasted the diffs of my responses to User C (MarshallBagramyan) only. So, this was not properly handled since the actual communication between User A and User C was not reviewed while the whole attention was concentrated on User A. Note that, the whole communication between me and MarshallBagramyan involved similar messages. So, singling me out is quite unfair. Therefore, either conduct of all 3 users (A, B, C) were to be reviewed under the Xebulon case, or only the reported one (Xebulon) should have been reviewed. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal is unpersuasive and should be declined. Whatever others said may be grounds for sanctions against them, but does not make Tuscumbia's contributions less problematic. Likewise, it does not matter whether Tuscumbia meant to say that Armenians are biased by nature or biased as a matter of course. The problem is more broadly that by arguing about article content on the basis of generalizations rooted in nationalist prejudice rather than on the basis of the individual reliability of individual works, he misuses Wikipedia as a battleground for real-life conflicts. Making good content contributions, while laudable, does not exempt him from the requirement not to misuse Wikipedia as a battleground and is therefore not relevant to the sanction.  Sandstein  18:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would invite you to opine on my comment in the below section. AGK [•] 23:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what exactly "naturally" means. The problem is more generally that by broadly disqualifying sources or other editors on the basis of their nationality, the sanctioned editors violated, among other applicable rules, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Users national background and neutrality: "Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view." Whether they did so in reply to others is immaterial. The behavior of these others can be examined if an AE request is brought against them (by users who aren't topic-banned), but any misconduct on the part of others is not grounds to grant this appeal.  Sandstein  06:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that seems fair. AGK [•] 13:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think expressions of prejudice regarding inherent biases of editors of a certain ethnic origin are disturbing. I think editors from both sides should not be allowed to resume editing of articles in the area of conflict until they retract those statements and repudiate those views. In my view, this approach should apply to both sides. - BorisG (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When three uninvolved admins have agreed to the sanction, it's generally rather unlikely that it will be overturned on appeal at AE immediately afterwards barring some procedural mistake. Just saying... T. Canens (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this appeal could be closed with no action. Wikipedia is vast, the appealer could still contribute outside their ban area. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tuscumbia: Such statements as "Were I not already acquainted with Brand's habit of surreptitiously removing any notion of Armenia or Armenians in these articles" are so sweeping as to be useless. An appeal must, to be successful, have an evidenced explanation as to why the initial sanction was wrong and/or excessive. (Disclaimer: I supported, though did not implement, the initial sanction.) AGK [•] 12:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, hmm, I didn't really understand what you meant by Such statements as "Were I not already acquainted with Brand's habit of surreptitiously removing any notion of Armenia or Armenians in these articles" are so sweeping as to be useless. What do you mean by sweeping as to be useless? Tuscumbia (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the statement was a generalisation. It is a part of your argument but is not evidenced, and, as we cannot take your word for it, thus has to be discounted. You criticise me above for not giving you a fair hearing, but you haven't presented a convincing argument; as an Eguor administrator I will be fair, not a milquetoast. I do find your argument that "the word "naturally" in comments naturally biased in my statement reviewed by Sandstein is not to be interpreted in this context as "biased by nature" but as "of course" and "surely"" more convincing, however, and I would invite comment from other uninvolved administrators on the prospect that Sandstein may have misinterpreted Tuscumbia's remarks. AGK [•] 23:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscumbia has a long record of dismissing and ridiculing well-known and well-reviewed Western academics sources solely because of their purported Armenian origin. I can bring examples if you deem it necessary. Xebulon (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Decline I see no reason to grant this appeal. "Everybody else was doing it too" isn't a valid argument. Tuscumbia's comments contributed to the toxic atmosphere, and so the ban should be upheld. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline -- It appears that Tuscumbia, like Xebulon, got topic-banned for some amazingly tactless remarks at Talk:Caucasian Albania. Editors who categorically denounce the books written by people of other ethnicities are viewed dimly here. The sanction appears correct, since there is no evidence of remorse that I can see. EdJohnston (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per EdJohnston and the others. AGK [•] 13:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per EdJohnston. Courcelles 13:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

}

• Appealing editor

  Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Sanction being appealed

  [190]; Three month topic ban to TM articles; Notification: [191] Discussion:[192]

• Administrator imposing the sanction

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

• Notification of that administrator

  [193]

• Reason for appeal

  Evidence of wrong-doing is based on false and assumptive information, guilt by association, illogical argument, and clear assumptions of bad faith.

Reasons given for ban

• Nuclear Warfare banned me for tendentious editing, pointing to two threads as evidence.[194] [195].

He seems unfamiliar with the history of the articles and the contentious nature of the sentence under discussion. The ongoing discussion on this sentence (let's call it X :) being discussed is months long. Will Beback began the thread, “Bone of Contention”, an explicit recognition that there was an unresolved issue. And by way of resolution, WB himself put in a compromise version of X. I participated in good faith. Nothing is gained by once again repeating the same points on a topic that has been discussed many times over months. I suggested we get outside help rather than continue. here and here, hoping we could move this log jam. None of this is tendentious behavior, and topic banning an editor for taking part in a difficult discussion, started by someone else, and then trying to resolve the issues with mediation, is illogical.

• Doc James also points to this as an implied reason for wrong doing: "In this edit on Jan 14th 2011 [196] User:Littleolive oil again changed a summary of the research that was decided on in this RfC. A change which she was previously put under a 1RR for."

This is misleading on many counts: There was no consensus in this RfC. I was taken to AE for these two edits, the only reverts I'd made in months, (Will Beback made 2 edits in that same time. Doc made 5) . I was sanctioned and the case closed before I could comment. Now I'm being described, because of this sanction, as a disruptive editor.

..."again changed a summary of the research":(Quote above James)

I moved content that contained a sentence X, to the TM article which already had a sentence X in the lead. Will had already changed the X in the lead but was reverted, and supported Doc's revert of the sentence. I adjusted the X in the content I'd moved, to closely reflect the sources by actually quoting the sources and by referencing the studies, assuming the quote would satisfy everyone in terms of accuracy. I also didn't think we needed two of the same sentence in one article. I was reverted. Will and I both made edits to this same sentence, X. Will says his edit [197] is bold.[198] Doc cites my edit [199] as an implied reason to topic ban. This is a double standard which isolates one editor and looks a lot like ownership by two others. By what Wikipedia standard is a good faith edit considered impetus to ban an editor for three months.

There are now 4 instances of sentence X in three articles: [200]-lead, [201], [202]-lead, [203]-lead.

Other accusations

• According to Nuclear Warfare[204]

but James has pointed out many issues with the filer's actions. Personally, I think that the POV pushing/tendentious editing exhibited in continuously trying to use sources to make sure their point of view is gotten across rather than just picking the best 20 or 30 sources and writing the article is something that discretionary sanctions was designed to prevent. NW (Talk) 14:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

He incorrectly implies I’ve added sources on the research. I haven’t. The rest of the statement falsely hinges on that assumption.

• Comment James:[205]

…we have a serious issue here. We have a small group of editors who primarily or only edit TM articles who continue to misuse and misquote sources in an attempt to prove that TM has a degree of scientific support which is not shown by a careful review of the scientific literature. They have been taken much information out of context and are trying to use Wikipedia for advertising.

James personalized a comment that isolates a group of editors, creates a we/them environment into which he, James, Wikipedia and the admins on the page is the “we” and the good guys, the rest including me are the “them”, the bad guys. He makes some serious accusations, accusing editors of misusing and misquoting, but does so with out a single diff. The TM research is a source of contention, and no editor has the definitive opinion on the research. As another example of ABF, he accuses editors of using Wikipedia for advertising purposes, a COI, yet no COI was found in the TM arbitration. If he has new proof of COI he should take it to the COI Noticeboard.

So do we wish Wikipedia to be written by those who are here to write an encyclopedia or those who are here to promote a religious movement?

He creates a false premise here, another personalized comment, ABF, and more guilt by association.

Nuclear Warfare seems to be banning me for an affiliation with a whole group of editors, and that group as identified and characterized by James.

James has a history of personalizing comments and assumptions of bad faith. These are a few:[207] [208][209].

• Comment: Nuclear Warfare:[210]

The problem with littleoliveoil's editing is not now a propensity to edit war, but more disruptive and tedious editing, and attempting to use AE to win the disagreement, something this forum is not designed for.

I came to the AE in good faith asking for a warning for an editor who had made 8 removals of reliably sourced content without prior discussion That 8 was an excessive number of removals was based on a standard set by Will Beback[211] when he warned me here fro a single move of content to the talk page. Six of the sources James removed were WP:MEDRS compliant. All were reliably sourced.

What I got was another layer in an ongoing, falsely construed narrative that casts me as a disruptive and now tendentious editor, setting me up in this most recent situation for a topic ban. Add , per the TM arbitration,” if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia.” and "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." [212]. I wasn’t warned.

I also realize this is not a simple case for any admin. dealing with it.

Case in point: The opinion of any editor on the TM research is of zero consequence. I could care less. Like any research it has its good and its weaker points. The concern is using a personal opinion of the TM organization/research as basis to judge another editor.(olive (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: @ Anthony. Thank you for updating the format . I had trouble with the template so "posted by hand".

AKG, you are making sweeping generalizations for which you provide no proof, but your personal opinion. Its impossible to defend myself against generalizations. Implied in your comment is that in removing one editor from a discussion, everything will improve. Implied further within that idea is that one editor or one side of a debate is the source of all the problems, and that I am on the wrong side. In fact everything will be quieter if you remove either side from a debate, but better or not is a value judgement probably based on a point of view. I don't see that Wikipedia functions on a system that removes editors from either side because they disagree. Wikipedia functions on standards that support collaboration and with the knowledge that multiple views and multiple sources of knowledge will help build better articles. I am a good faith editor, thank you for recognizing that. What I have as a gaol is that the articles I work on are both accurate and neutral. I am a civil editor respecting that other editors have opinions different than mine and will see and find sources that I don't see or discover. I don't have to agree with other editors and they don't have to agree with me, but I have on many occasions compromised even when I thought something wasn't right. On contentious articles such as the TM articles its a given that there will be prolonged discussion because there are lots of sources and lots of opinions. An editor who is working collaboratively when things get bogged down, and as the TM arbitration specifies, should look for dispute resolution. If I were truly being vociferous about my editorial position why would I ask for outside eyes to come in and help us through difficult points when such scrutiny could lose me my "favoured" position. What you are saying about me and my actions is contradictory. As well, you see me as a good faith editor, but you recommend removing me rather than complying with the TM arbitration which specifies a warning prior to a sanction.

(Response to above) There are multiple instances of discussions in which you have refused to recognise when consensus is clearly against you. As an example, see the diff cited here on your talk page immediately after the ban. What I assert regarding your conduct is not contradictory and you omit one important component of my thinking: I do believe you are a good-faith editor, yes, but I also believe that your approach of arguing against changes and discussing old topics ad nauseum is so frustrating to the other editors as to be disruptive.

In response to the additional argument you entered, that the initial sanction is invalid because you were not warned about the existence of discretionary sanctions and educated, I will say that that does appear to be true, and that I am unsure why NuclearWarfare did not take account of that. But it is within an administrator's general discretion to remove disruptive editors by blocking, and perhaps you were simply banned from the article in lieu of, say, a two-week block—a rather good idea for you, in my view. AGK [•] 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to cite an instance of the so called multiple instances when I have refused to recognize consensus, you might consider not citing Will Beback's version of a sequence of events, and note what really happened which is as outlined above: that I did not change the original version in the article which was under discussion, but adjusted a version added in other content. The adjustment was a copy edit, quote, as well as a citation of the studies, a more specific rendering of the same sentence so we didn't have a case of redundant text and so the text was close to the source...You'll note that Will Beback left ce for syntax in place some. You also seem to forget that Will Beback made a much larger change to the text removing the sentence completely and replacing it with a summary ... but Will did it so It seems acceptable. And no AGK I don't ignore consensus.

When an editor continues with a behaviour as Doc James does of unilateral editing which eventually emboldens him to delete reliably sourced content , yes I do comment on it, and eventually after 8 times try some kind of intervention. What is it you think I need a block for. Commenting here. Trying to set a record straight that has been scewed. Concerns about repeated use of DR to try and render an editor unable to edit or even move for fear some admin with a bias will show up and once again with out really knowing what's going on, slap some sanction on me. I'm sorry you use the kind of manner you do here. I've admired your fairness in the past and your even tone and handedness. And while you have the power to block, ban, or sanction if you do so you do it not understanding or knowing what's going on. You might take into consideration that in the TM arbitration all editors but one came out of that arbitration on the same footing. I wasn't the bad guy as you seem to depict me here. (olive (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

FYI, you should be aware that the dispute over this material dates back to June or July, not just to December. Here are two of the main threads started by Olive on the topic: NPOV_violation_of_lead Inaccuracy_in_the_lead As far as this material goes, I wouldn't characterize Olive's behavior as POV pushing. It's more a matter of tendentious editing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To the extent that a POV is being promoted, it's one that promotes relatively poor research which finds positive effects from TM while minimizing the highest quality research which does not find much special effect from the technique. Will Beback talk 01:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a change to a version of the sentence because it was the second time the same sentence would have appeared in the article, not the original one you had removed and summarized Will, and what I did, which was as I have said repeatedly, to make it more specific, per the content, with syntax changes. I also then quoted from the source. I assumed the reason to repeat the same sentence would be obvious and would be acceptable to everyone. I did not analyze which of the sources/reviews was better; I simply randomly chose one as an example. If you didn't like it you could have said so, and it could have been added.

I have said repeatedly what the problems were for me, as I do here:

Selecting a few studies to support a view while ignoring others, and ignoring a summary of the content in the article itself to present a one sided view constitutes and creates a POV, and creates a lead that is patently absurd. The lead must summarize and reflect the article. if this paragraph is not pulled out and rewritten to comply with NPOV and WP:LEAD standards we need to ask for formal mediation. Enough is enough. (olive (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC))'

and again here:

We've been through this before, but we have two reviews here. The wording inaccurately suggests all reviews have found these results, which isn't true. We should name the reviews

I didn't decline to discuss. I'd discussed in the "Bone of Contention" thread. I 'd stated my position several times. I couldn't see doing another round of the same and thought, per the TM arbitration which suggests DR instead of endless discussion, that a mediation would be the best way to proceed.(olive (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Further to Will:

Will's judgment that I somehow deliberately changed content to a more POV is based on one basic assumption, and that is, that I was aware that my editing was wrong somehow. I didn't. I was simply working with content trying to make it fit into another article. While I see that Doc has taken a rigid position on a sentence, Will actually removed the whole thing earlier. The urgency Doc seems to feel to have this sentence appear as he wants it too and in several articles was already being addressed by the version already in the article. Further I can't second guess how Will thinks the articles should be written. Its risky to assume another editor's motives, seems to me.

Perhaps Cirt 's comment should be moved to "comments from involved users" since he has edited/written a TM article, TM and Cult Mania [213].(olive (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

(Comment to Olive and also to Will Beback) I've taken this matter up off-AE with Cirt[214]. AGK [•] 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Discretionary_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." I cannot recall participating in a content dispute as an editor in articles within the topic. If I have, I will gladly admit being mistaken about that, and move my comments. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif neglects to mention that New York Brad drafted the original version of this part of the TM arbitration and that this is what he intended [215]. Fladrif also states Roger Davies and Shell Kinney decided the outcome of the TM arbitration, untrue. Further, editors have the right to expect the arbitration decisions and remedies be upheld and that the arbitrators support their own decisions. While different arbitrators may interpret the decisions in diverse ways, asking that the decision as read be adhered to is not Wikilawyering but a right every editor has. I have been taken to AE twice. Both times by Doc James: In the first instance, based on 2 reverts in months, where the sanction was handed down by Future Perfect before I could comment and the case closed within about 45 minutes by Cirt an involved editor. In the second instance for one strong comment, not uncivil, I wan't sanctioned or warned. I don't find Fladrif's comment to be particularly accurate.(olive (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The TM arbitration took almost four months to come to a decision/conclusion, included hundreds of diffs. and multiple pages of evidence. Nowhere in the decision was I or any other editor sanctioned for any of the actions Doc James and Fladrif are accusing me of below. Using this old evidence once again as if its points to some sanctionable wrong doing, when both Doc and Fladrif know the arbitration didn't find wrong doing seems deliberately misleading, even dishonest.(olive (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

There are certain procedural processes laid out by arbitration and supported in official forums by the committee. A warning, one of these processes, is not something that should be handed out for those who subjectively are seen to deserve them. Clearly worded neutral warnings are a right every editor should have if these editors are thought of as people with abilities to edit, but who may be at some threshold where they may need to be guided. Those processes must be applied evenly and not with opinion as basis for applying them even if the opinion is an arbitrator's. The arbitration says "if, after a warning", not "if after what is construed to be a warning". I asked for a warning for Doc James to suggest a unilateral editing style and eventual deletion of sourced content was a problem rather than try to trap him so that he could be removed. In my case the warning was a simple recognition of due process that had been neglected. I respect process realizing that unless we adhere to it fairly and consistently, and with out bias, Wikipedia will start to look like something out of an old cowboy movie. I don't think anything Fladrif says allows for this process to be ignored, whether I'd done something that needed a warning or not. This is probably something ArbCom has to clear up.(olive (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

"Olive has continued to work to diminish the the prominence of the most reputable scientific reviews of TM

Will you're making the same old comment with out a single shred of evidence. Repeating a false hood over and over doesn't make it true. And, the quality of the TM research, fringe science, my so called lack of education are all beside the point... (Sheesh. Nine years in university and copy editing for one of the top corn botanists in the world and apparently I can't read and understand a research paper.)(olive (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

@ Fladrif. Why the rush? Burying the body even before its cold?(olive (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

AGK notes one thing above: "In response to the additional argument you entered, that the initial sanction is invalid because you were not warned about the existence of discretionary sanctions and educated, I will say that that does appear to be true, and that I am unsure why NuclearWarfare did not take account of that." I hardly think that after being instructed and reminded in the original ArbCom case, as well as having been sanctioned for behaving tendentiously in the past[216], that any further warning was necessary. NW (Talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was sanctioned with two reverts given as evidence. As far as I know the tendentious comment was directed at another editor.(olive (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for responding, NuclearWarfare. In light of your comment and also per #Statement by involved User:Fladrif, I would agree that there was no need for Olive to be formally notified before being sanctioned. There does exist the unresolved argument, floated primarily by Ludwigs elsewhere in this thread, that Olive did not deserve to be sanctioned, but that is an entirely different matter. AGK [•] 20:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that my comment "it seems that TM publishes a huge amount which they like to brag about, little of the work [however] has any real scientific substance to it. " is refereed to as "personalizing comments and assumptions of bad faith". It enforces the concerns regarding WP:COI that I bring up in the next two diffs Olive mentions. If my comments regarding TM are taken as personal attacks against Wikipedia editors than some may be too close to the subject matter to continue editing neutrally.

To say that Cochrane is a biased source I find astonishing. This is not a view held by either the scientific community at large or those who edit over at WP:MED. We have guidelines regarding what should be used as a reference here WP:MEDRS.

Evidence

In this edit Olive changes the conclusions of the research [217] Will reverted this change [218] and she changed it again Jan 14th 2010 [219]. This was the same content she attempted to alter back in Aug of 2010 for which she was place under a 1RR [220] and TimidGuy was banned.

The version she was attempting to change was discussed here at a RfC July 31st 2010 [221] and received support from two independent editors. The other versions put forwards got no independent support. During talk page discussion I have encouraged her to get further outside input [222] and [223]. This passage has been brought up dozens of times [224].

When I made my first edit to this topic area Jan 19th, 2010 in this edit [225] the best quality piece of research in the field of TM had been kept from the article. What I refer to is a 2007 review of TM and other meditation techniques by the AHRQ [226]. Fladrif comments an edit wars that take place in Feb 2009 to keep this from the article [227] and [228] by Olive and TimidGuy [229]

Further evidence can be found here. Olive has an admitted WP:Conflict of interest (as a practitioner of TM and working at the Maharishi University of Management). She has a very long history (in the order of many years) of attempting to remove / playdown the best pieces of scientific research regarding this subject. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ludwigs2

To this "I happen to think that EBM is a neologism with very little substance and no standing whatsoever in the philosophy of science, EBM clearly began as an effort to refute alternative medicines (it was called 'evidence-based' specifically to exclude medical practices which were not developed according to western scientific standards of evidence)." this is not really much one can say. We do however have an ArbCom that deals with pseudoscience (an area in which Ludwig extensively edits). This statement is like saying that physics was developed to refute cultural relativism and the flat earth people and biology was developed to refute Christianity. You opinion is that of a very small minority. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Cirts independence has been scrutinized should we also look at that of User:Ludwigs2? Has been recently warned regarding his involvement in the pseudoscience topic are [230] by a couple of editors. This I assume would fall into that area. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text in question was added following an RfC back in August 2010. Olive has repeatedly objected to that RfC, but has not specified what is actually wrong with the material. On January 14, after changing the text without discussion, she said that it "does not accurately reflect the sources",[231] that "accurate sourcing is imperative",[232] that she "checked refs and once again was struck by the inaccuracies of what we are saying".[233] When asked about the purported misrepresentation she again asserted it without any specifics: "The sentence is inaccurate per the sources."[234] When asked to get consensus before making changes to the much-discussed text,[235] she replied "I intend to edit this content so that it is accurate per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and accurately represents the sources. How that is worded exactly is certainly open to discussion, but representing the sources accurately isn't."[236] Again I ask her to point to the inaccuracies.[237] She replied by saying that the errors were obvious, but "If you'd like to discuss this sentence again, and its been discussed before we could certainly do that. Why don't I start another thread." However instead of discussing the errors she again complains about the old RfC.[238] I again ask her to explain the problems with the actual current text.[239] She again complains about the August RfC and the previous AE case, and again says she will discuss the errors in the future.[240] She says my position is clear, but fails again to point out any errors.[241] Again I ask her to point to the errors.[242] She says it's been discussed in the past, but doesn't link to any previous discussions of errors.[243] Again I ask her to point to the errors.[244] Finally, she says she won't do so because it's already been discussed too much.[245] It's very frustrating to deal with an editor who keeps insisting something is wrong but won't say what it is.

Comment to Olive

In a recent case I said that an admin posting in the discussion section was actually involved. User:Sandstein replied:

• As long as Scott MacDonald does not intend to take enforcement action himself, the question about whether he is involved is mostly immaterial, and even if he does take action himself, the issue of involvement can be raised on appeal.[246]

So apparently the regulars here don't really care too much about who posts where.   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ludwigs2

Much of the disputed material in this topic concerns WP:Fringe theories. Just because a fringe theory is supported by a range of published studies does not necessarily mean it has gained academic acceptance. Fore example, the TM movement asserts that it trains followers in a technique that will allow them to levitate and fly from place to place, and which can beam a peace-inducing field from thousands of miles away. See TM-Sidhi program. This immediate dispute concerns another assertion of them movement which is not accepted by the scientific community: that the Transcendental Meditation technique is uniquely capable of producing a variety of health benefits. Olive is not a scientist: she says she is an artist and has never claimed any scientific training. OTOH, Jmh649 (Doc James) says he is an emergency room physician. Physicians receive training in science, and routinely read and evaluate the types of studies involved in this dispute. It is important that, as a respected reference work, Wikipedia does not give excess credence to fringe theories, especially those concerning medical issues and which involve significant expenses. Despite numerous warnings and complaints, Olive has continued to work to diminish the the prominence of the most reputable scientific reviews of TM, which is a violation of NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the interim topic ban was improperly imposed because of a lack of prior notice is WP:Wikilawyering at its worst and in and of itself a prime example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Olive asserts this defense every time she is involved in an AE dispute. It was extensively discussed when she sought "clarification" of the sanctions imposed upon her and two other editors last fall. The members of the ArbCom committee who actually decided the TM ArbCom weighted in on the subject, and made it clear that, in the case of the involved editors in the TM ArbCom, no further warning was necessary before imposing AE sanctions, and that olive's claim of lack of notice was a complete red herring.

• Arbitrator User:Roger Davies wrote:

"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.[247] [Emphasis added]

• Arbitrator User:Shell Kinney wrote:

"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?[248] [Emphasis added]

The reviewing uninvolved admins should not only reject out of hand olive's lament that she wasn't warned by an uninvolved admin first, but should regard her frivolous claim, forcefully rejected over four months ago by the ArbCom members who actually decided the case, as evidence in and of itself, of grossly inappropriate editor conduct on her part meriting AE sanction. Fladrif (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ludwig - The argument that olive is not guilty of POV pushing is just astonishing, particularly in light of the ArbCom ruling. The dispute documented above isn't a month old, it isn't six months old, it's years old, and Olive was part of the group warned and admonished at ArbCom for this conduct. Olive has been a part of the tag-team editing to exclude from the article any source that actually meets WP:MEDRS for literally years.[249] The argument that it's just an inadventent oversight that she deleted a RS that doesn't agree with her employer's PR doesn't pass the laugh test. That you would argue, apparently in seriousness, that a Cochrane Review is just a biased POV-pushing source, when it meets the highest standards of WP:MEDRS, indicates a fundamental misunderstanding and misconception of what Wikipedia polichy is and should be about. That she would seek to perpetuate a discussion contesting whether independent meta-analyses of meditation research are actually independent, or, even if independent, are somehow given undue weight by being indentified as indepenent, after another editor was subjected to a six-month topic ban for, inter alia, "general absurd [wiki]lawyering e.g. regarding the word "independently""[250], is an astonishing blindness to consensus. As another editor put it in the prior talkpage discussion, "the editing process cannot survive it, and editors who care about this subject need to take a stand". Fladrif (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK - To suggest that admins who have had to deal with, and have in fact dealt with, at AE in prior cases, the misconduct of an editor are somehow "involved" and disqualified from further exercise of Admins powers, is painfully misguided. Were Wikipeida to buy into such patent nonsense, it would disqualify, for example, all the member of ArbCom from ever dealing with a recurring issue. Such nonsense should be rejected out of hand for what it is - nonsense. It is a recurring theme with olive that she claims to have done nothing wrong - ever; that no warning, no sanction, no admonition whatsoever by any uninvolved editor or adminstrator has ever been meritorious, and that every such action has failed to conform to her own unique conception of "due proces" and that everyone who has every issued such a warning, sanction or admonition has never done so for a valid reason. She is, as always, an innocent victim of animus and conspiracy. At COIN, at RSN, at Project Medicine, at ArbCom, at AE, and in every rejected appeal. Entertaining and indulging this self-serving delusion month after month and year after year in the face of overwhelming objective evidence to the contrary does not serve the interests of Wikipedia. Fladrif (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable standard for overturning an AE remedy is simple and straightforward:

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or] (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.

It is clear to me, and should be painfully clear to everyone, that there is no clear, substantial and active consensus of uninvolved editors to lift the sanctions imposed. More importantly, there is no such consensus among uninvolved admininistrators. As such, no-one other than the admin who imposed the temporary topic ban may lift that sanction. There is no reason to prolong this discussion, which has long since spun off into tangents wholly unrelated to the merits of the appeal. Further discussion is only going to get more and more remote and irrelevant. This should be closed now as a denial of the appeal. Fladrif (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created my own section for further responses, at Will's request.

(refactored from a section he hatted)

Thanks for the detailed information, Will. I hope it's alright to respond in your section here; if not, let me know and I'll happily refactor elsewhere

Looking back at the RfC you seem to be talking about - this one, correct? - there doesn't seem to have been any consensus reached here at all. In fact, I see Olive offer a short and seemingly neutral suggestion, DocJames presenting a counter suggestion that is heavily steeped in skeptical sources, and then assorted quibbles, disagreements, and rants involving perhaps five or six editors. not really a prime example of the consensus system in action, if you ask me... Apparently, however, DocJames' version was declared to have consensus (I'm not sure how or why), and the discussion immediately goes into 'NPOV violation' mode in archive 34, with Olive and others objecting to a perceived bias in the lead, and Doc and others sticking to their guns to preserve that particular version. That state continues to the present, and includes requests for mediation or other DR that (apparently) never came to any fruition.

With respect to "inaccuracy per sources" issue: I believe that refers to the dispute over this edit where the only difference between the two versions is that Olive's version attributes the clam (An independently done systematic review, the Opsina meta-analysis, has not found...), whereas your version generalizes it (Independently[64] done systematic reviews have not found...). and in fact, Olive's version does seem to better reflect the sourcing (unless there's some reason to believe that that independent review should be used without attribution). I don't know why Olive didn't point out that this was the only difference, and I don't know why you didn't note it yourself, but it does seem like a fairly self-evident point. I can understand why Olive was getting frustrated - there was clearly a two-way miscommunication going on here between you and she, and it was aggravated on her side by DocJames, who was making some fairly pushy reverts and changes to the article while this discussion was ongoing. but I'm still not seeing ban-worthy material here. In fact, I would probably have been much grumpier about this than she was, though I probably would also have expressed myself more clearly. Trust me, it is incredibly aggravating to feel tag-teamed (which is the feeling one gets when one is bogged down in a discussion with one editor while another editor starts making rampant and contentious edits to mainspace).

In short, I understand that (and why) you were annoyed, and I also understand that (and why) Olive was annoyed. What I can't understand is the talk page dynamic in which none of her concerns got met, while you and James ran a bit roughshod over article content. Nor can I understand why that dynamic (with obvious miscommunications and problematic edits all around) ended up with only people opposed to your side getting sanctioned. --Ludwigs2 01:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite knowing that this material was disputed Olive made a significant change without any discussion, or even a clear edit summary. Here are the sequence of edits:[251] Note that there are at least two reviews cited - she just omits mentioning the most important one while leaving the citation but without explaining why she deleted reference to it. That's a bit deceptive and is not helpful to the article. In general, she's kept complaining about the RfC from five months ago rather than working towards a consensus solution. There was a miscommunication because Olive refused to communicate her problem with the material. She kept saying there were obvious errors, but would not say what they were.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olive was not alone in knowingly making disputed edits on that page, so I'm not sure where you're going with that first line. with respect to that sequence of edits, here's what I see happening:

• she changes wording to attribute the 'independent research' to the Opsina meta-analysis. seemingly non-problematic
• she removes some argumentative language about "devotees [...] tied to Maharesh Yogi" to talk about research associated with TM using biased participants. also non-problematic.
• she adds a couple of (what seem to be) reliable sources that have published material on TM, without any obvious bias that I can see. is there a problem there?

It took me a while to see what you meant by omitting one of the sources (messy diffs), but that could easily have been fixed by replacing the first source with the more important one or attributing both of them (e.g. "independent studies by Ospinal and Krisanaprakornkit found no significant...") which either you or she or Doc could have done as a compromise; I'm not sure why that never came up on the talk page either.

As far as complaining about the RfC five months later... It was a bogus result (an RfC with no consensus closed as though it had one); What did you expect her to do? Again, she showed more restraint than I would have in the same circumstance, and I can just imagine your and Jim's responses if she had been the one to close it preemptively in her favor.

Look, Will, I don't really want to start casting blame in any direction here; this just strikes me as an unfortunately mucked up talk-page. If you want a summary of my opinion on all this, it's as follows: I don't see a whole lot of difference between you and DocJames and Olive with respect to behavior (you're behavior is less problematic than the other two, but they're about equal, and no one is really rocketing off into the deep end). Consequently, I don't understand why there is such a significant and pronounced difference in punishment here. Is it just that you two are admins and she isn't? because if that's the case, that's just plain sad wrong. and that's the least-bad explanation I can think of, barring some pretty damning diffs I haven't seen. If I can offer a compromise, why don't you all un-ban Olive, and I will do what I can on the talk page to make sure communications don't get mucked up again. TM is not something I know a lot about, but I can usually find decent compromises when it's just wording and structural issues like this.--Ludwigs2 02:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kept offering to discuss the issue and asking Olive to point to the problems with the text, and she kept complaining about the August RfC and saying she would discuss the errors later, but she never did. I don't see what I could have done any differently to get her to discuss the problem with the text, rather than the problems with the RfC in August.   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs2 wrote: she changes wording to attribute the 'independent research' to the Opsina meta-analysis. seemingly non-problematic

No, that's mistaken. Olive changed text that referred to two independent reviews and made it about only one review, leaving off the other, more important one (while keeping the footnote to it). Since that other review, from the Cochrane Collaboration, does not support the POV that TM has unique benefits that deletion affected the POV of the material.   Will Beback  talk  05:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again, that was an easy mistake for her or (or anyone) to make, and easily resolved by adding in the second source or discussing the issue in talk rather than engaging in wholesale reverts. Or do you disagree?

WIll, I keep trying to point out how everyone on this page made some minor and unfortunate mistakes, and you keep trying to elevate Olive's mistakes to major offenses while minimizing/avoiding what I say about you and Doc. That's not nice, or reasonable. Frankly, f this is the worst thing that you can say about Olive (that she neglected to mention a source she should have mentioned - OMG!), then I am even more puzzled by a three-month topic ban. How do you justify that on the basis of that? --Ludwigs2 17:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs, please note that this is an appeal of a sanction on Olive. It's perfectly normal and natural that the focus here is on her editing. Olive has a long history with this topic, so it's reasonable to say that any enforcements are not based purely on one or another edit. Tendentious editing is never found in a single edit. As you can see from my posting above, and from the postings in the thread which led to the enforcement, the omission of one study is not the sole reason we're here. It's just a part of a series of actions.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, the few times I've run across Olive on project (there's not too many - our interests overlap some but not a huge amount), I have found her to be unfailingly polite to both me and the people she's debating (she has a tendency to get frustrated, yes, but it's nowhere near as pronounced or strident as my own, so I tend to discount it). Olive and I do tend to share a middle-of-the-road academic perspective on fringe issues, and I know from long, painful personal experience that middle-of-the-road academic perspectives are treated as fringe advocacy on-project, and editors who argue for them slowly develop unjustified bad reputations because of the protracted efforts of anti-fringe editors to discredit them. If you had any idea how many times I've had some <expletive deleted> skeptic publicly accuse me of being a scum-sucking, POV-pushing Fringe advocate your jaw would drop (I've had weeks where words to that effect have been thrown at me a dozen times a day, and no admin ever blinked twice about it). So you'll forgive me if I do not take your word that Olive is a problem editor, or that there is any problem with her editing at all except that she is stubborn for unpopularly neutral positions.

The last time I asked for help with a tendentious editor at ANI (who will remain unnamed, unless you push me), he had (i) left 50 angry messages on my talk page over the course of a couple of days, (ii) made completely specious BLP claims to try to prevent verification of a source, (iii) engaged in multiple undiscussed reverts, and (iv) tangled the talk page and two noticeboard threads in what one admin described as the "worst example of IDHT and tendentious editing that [s/he] had ever seen". He faked retirement, got absolutely no punishment, and was back editing in a week (and editing the same article again in three, though with a bit more caution). Now, let's take that three weeks he took off as a self-imposed topic ban - someone needs to show where Olive has engaged in behavior that's four times more disruptive than that debacle (which would seem to be required for a topic ban four times as long), or someone has to start 'fessing up that the system is not being remotely fair or honest towards her.

I'm not accusing you (or anyone) of anything, I'm simply asking for evidence against Olive that will convince me that this ban is fair and justified compared to punishments (or the lack thereof) I've seen given to different editors for similar or worse behavior. Can you or someone else do that please? And if not, can we dismiss this topic ban as spurious and specious, like, immediately? --Ludwigs2 00:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs2, could you say which articles or talk pages you've worked on with Olive? That might help us understand your interactions. However Olive's behavior on non-TM articles is not the issue here. It's not uncommon for a primary purpose editor to act like bulldogs on the topic of interest but be charming elsewhere. (Not accusing anyone of being a bulldog- just pointing out that editors may bring different approaches to different topics.)

Ludwigs2, you have indeed accused me of a variety of things, including not being nice or normal and of engaging in the same problematic behaviors as Olive. You have not provided a single diff or example. This appeal does not concern my behavior - it is about Olive. I suggest saving your commentary about my activity to a different thread. You're also welcome to post to my talk page with your concerns.   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't honestly remember what articles they were. It seems to me that times I run into Olive are when we both happen to respond to the same thread on the Fringe or NPOV noticeboards. I can't remember a time when we both just happened to end up editing the same article out of interest (not saying we never did, I just can't remember one).

Now the only reason I mentioned your behavior at all was to point out how innocuous Olive's behavior has been on that page. No one's perfect, everyone makes occasional errors of judgement (I pointed out a couple of yours above; e.g. where you condemned Olive for not including the second source rather than simply adding in the second source yourself, or where you provided a diff of Olive's "problematic" edits but none of them actually seemed to be problematic at all). I think even you would agree that that kind of mis-presentation (unintentional and mild though it may be) is not the best way to address the issue: perfectly understandable, yes; generous, sympathetic and reasonable, no. Either way, I'm not here to condemn you for being subject to the ills that all human flesh is heir to. I'm really just trying to figure out how Olive (whose behavior appears to be well within a standard deviation of your own) is being singled out for fairly extreme sanctions, particularly when I have seen editors act in ways that make Olive look like Mother Teresa and yet have failed to have any sanctions levied against them at all.

Trust me, we are not getting away from this fairness issue until it's resolved, so we might as well avoid the tangential discussions and get right down to business. Do you have any evidence which shows that Olive deserves this sanction, or not? --Ludwigs2 05:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

second response to Will, per his 3 February post I'm not arguing that TM is is the epitome of rational thought (I'm an academic scientist myself, with very thorough training in the philosophy of science among other things, not that it matters any). I'm arguing two things:

1. To my mind, articles of this sort should aim to give a clear and neutral description of the topic, moderated by scientific critiques sufficiently to prevent advocacy, but not so much that it becomes a 'critique' article. I don't have a problem with Cochrane as a source, but we cannot write the article from the perspective of Cochrane, because that would not give a clear and neutral description of TM. We do not have to argue that TM is factually wrong; we merely have to say what it is and point out that its claims are not accepted as scientific.
2. Persistant reliance on the qualifications of editors is not the way wikipedia works - that is part of the problem that I've been complaining about here. there is an unfortunate focus on painting a picture of Olive as a bad editor, without real diffs or substantive material. In fact, you have yet to demonstrate that Olive has done anything more than argue over levels of attribution and weight for these sources - is she getting a three month topic ban because of a difference of opinion over proper attribution and weight? I get that you think she's a bad person with bad beliefs, I just don't think that should be a factor in administrative decisions of this sort. --Ludwigs2 03:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your first paragraph of evidence:

• Clearly, Olive is not changing the results of anything; she is changing the attribution from a universal statement to a statement attributed to sources.

With respect to your second paragraph of evidence:

• The first link point to the RfC, which (as I said before and anyone can clearly see) reached no consensus - there were (I think) four in favor and three against, and a whole lot of bickering.
• The second and third links shows you superciliously dismissing the input of three editors on the assertion that they all practice TM. and you say you've done this dozens of times? (I hope I'm misunderstanding that). The fact that someone might practice or have practiced TM does not make them unfit to edit this article, not does it give them a conflict of interest, and if you wanted to make either of those cases you have a much higher burden of proof than your simple off-the-cuff assertion. Honsetly, your statement shows a pronounced prejudice against TM and a decided lack of both wp:AGF and wpCIV that might render you unfit to be editing that article.

With respect to your third paragraph of evidence:

• Your first two diffs are (again), the diffs that we are talking about above, that don't appear to have been removed from the page at any point since - I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
• Your third diff is just a pointer to the complaints about the mishandled RfC
• Your last point (reference to Fladrif): This is an edit war from 2009, over a different issue. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here. Worse, if you look at what happen there, we have two editors popping suddenly onto the page to do reverts:
  • Judyjoejoe (talk · contribs), who currently has only 43 edits over 3 years, most of them to to TCM related articles
  • Rracecarr (talk · contribs), who suddenly stopped his sports and physics related editing make three reverts and a couple of talk page posts.

The first of those looks awfully like a sock-puppet account used for wp:BAITing purposes (how much do you want to bet that most of those other edits were part of TM edit wars), and the second looks like a meat-puppet doing a favor for a friend. I can't prove either of those, of course, but I can say from my own experience that I expect (and usually plan for) random skeptical editors to appear out of thin air and make contentious reverts whenever I work on fringe articles. it's practically de rigueur. The fact that Olive isn't as jaded about it as I am (and thus is more vulnerable to that kind of gaming) shouldn't really be held against her.

With respect to your last evidence - I'm sorry, but I can't find the admission that you're pointing to in that section. Where does olive admit to practicing TM? More to the point, who cares? As I said above, asserting COI takes more than that - or are you suggesting that all editors with physics training should be prohibited from editing physics articles? Assuming Olive does practice TM, you'd still have to show that she's trying to promote TM for some unfortunate reason, and I have seen absolutely no indication that that's the case (and you certainly have not presented any here, thus far).

Finally, with respect to Cochrane: the Cochrane review's own web page [252] states unequivocally that they "advocate evidence-based [medical] decision-making". Now whatever you think about EBM (and I happen to think that EBM is a neologism with very little substance and no standing whatsoever in the philosophy of science), EBM clearly began as an effort to refute alternative medicines (it was called 'evidence-based' specifically to exclude medical practices which were not developed according to western scientific standards of evidence). That does not impact on the accuracy of Cochrane evidence, but it does impact on its reliability with respect to non-mainstream medicine, since it would have to be viewed as a biased source in those cases. I can go into more detail on this if you like, but I hope this suffices. --Ludwigs2 07:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second response to DocJames: You are welcome to disagree with me, but you don't seem to have actually said anything in your response. you neglected to discuss all of my substantive points, and focused instead on my opinion about Cochrane (in the process displayed a fairly extensive lack of knowledge both of the history of the term 'evidence-based medicine' and of the philosophy of science in general). If you want to have a debate about Cochrane and EBM, I'm happy to oblige, but we should do that elsewhere. Now, why don't we get back to the fact that your evidence against Olive is thinner than a soufflé in a drum factory. --Ludwigs2 18:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third response to DocJames: With respect to [253] this comment]... lol - yeah, since you can't support your position, please feel free to try attacking my reputation. I'm in the mood for a circus anyway. . --Ludwigs2 02:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif, point by point:

1. Can you please source the assertion that Olive is employed by the TM organization (per your 'agree with her employers' comment). Will only claims she practices TM, and I haven't seen any diff which has Olive making any assertion about it one way or another
2. Can you please provide a diff of the sanctions that Olive received? I have not seen the sanctions you're talking about, and I don't see it in the diffs you provided.
3. if you want to discuss Cochrane, MEDRS, and the proper interpretation of policy, by all means lets do that. elsewhere... I find such converstations interesting, but it is not appropriate here. but, to be clear, please don't misrepresent me. I did not say (as you so ungraciously assert) that Cochrane is "just a biased POV-pushing source". I said that Cochrane has a distinct bias. Many reputable sources have distinct biases, and those biases need to be taken into account when the sources are used.
   • Incidentally, that was your first misrepresentation of me, and so it's a freebie. I will be very gracious about the next time you offer such a drastic misrepresentation of what I say as well, but the third time you do it I will begin to accuse you of being uncivil, because by the third time it will become clear to all that you are intentionally misrepresenting my statements, which (as a general rule) makes me very angry. Just so we're on the same page.
4. MEDRS is a guideline, not policy in the strict sense. And even as a guideline, MEDRS only applies to biophysical material, which probably doesn't cover TM in the strict sense. we could debate that further, however.
5. Last point: I have no connection to TM whatsoever, and yet I am not unconvinced by Olive's position, and will probably start editing the page myself to work towards a decently neutral compromise. Therefore I don't really buy your POV-pushing argument and find your insistence on it (frankly) kind of rude. If you want to discuss problems with content with me, you will do better to discuss content and leave discussion of editors out of it. If you want to discuss problems with editors, then I would appreciate it if you would provide diffs that you consider to be clear and unambiguous, so that i can see that you're not just magnifying some trivial problem.

Thanks. --Ludwigs2 01:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (Procedural note) I have updated this request so that it complies with the prescribed format. AGK [•] 13:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As was opined in the initial Arbitration Enforcement thread, the right result was reached in relation to Littleolive oil (hence Olive), but for the wrong reasons. I disagree with NuclearWarfare (hence NW), the administrator who initially imposed the sanction, and agree with Olive, in the above argument that Olive did not initially file an AE thread in order to win a content dispute - but simply to ask "for a warning for an editor who had made 8 removals of reliably sourced content without prior discussion".

  Having said that, I argue that it would be undesirable to allow Littleolive oil to resume editing the Transcendental Meditation article. Having had peripheral experience in this topic area (as the Mediation Committee member who evaluated a recent request for formal mediation of this topic), and having re-examined the discussions that are ongoing between Olive, Will Beback, Doc James, et al, it is obvious that there is little support for the editorial positions that Olive is promulgating. In my view, Olive has became an unhelpful influence by protesting in support of those positions for so long and so vociferously.

  The main questions in this respect that need to be resolved are: whether other administrators agree that Olive's influence on the article has become unhelpful; and, if so, whether it is appropriate to use discretionary sanctions to eliminate from an article an editor whose behaviour is not acting in bad faith but who is still a damaging influence. My preliminary inclination is to decline this appeal on these bases. AGK [•] 14:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with everything stated in the above analysis by AGK (talk · contribs). The above comment by AGK is indeed sound, logical, rational, and covers multiple aspects of assessment relating to the problematic behavior by the user in question. I support the preliminary inclination of AGK in this matter. -- Cirt (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm... I need to to look over the page more carefully, but I will say that on a superficial examination this looks like an unjustified ban. I don't see anything in Olive's behavior that is offensive, uncivil, or even outright POV-pushing, and I find the idea that a sysop might be imposing a ban because he does not like the editor's perspective on a topic to be extremely troubling. I'll look into the issue further, but I am tempted to support this appeal pro tem. --Ludwigs2 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Olive was sanctioned not because of their viewpoint in relation to the subject matter but because of the way they went about promulgating that viewpoint. This sanction was based on behavioural, not content, grounds. AGK [•] 22:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what would need to be said in order to legitimize the sanction, yes, but whether or not that is actually true is the matter under contention. I've just been reading through the talk page and last archive (particularly the 'Bone of Contention' threads, that seem to be the fulmination point) and what I'm seeing (frankly) is Olive getting a bit sandbagged by Will and Doc James. This whole problem seems to have occurred because DocJames made some edit that Olive objected to as POV (apparently without discussion or consensus), and then Will and James started digging in their heels when she tried to revert it back. I need to look a bit more deeply to see what the original change that Olive objected to was, but as far as I've read Olive is not looking like the unreasonable one here. I might not be quite as suspicious of it all if I hadn't seen (and been subject to) this kind of tactic in the past, but I have, so... --Ludwigs2 23:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just went through every diff of the article from december 19th to the present, and what I see is Jim in particular and to a lesser extent Will trying to use page structure and attribution to portray TM as both a religious movement and a pseudoscience (this includes the addition of skeptical-POV sources like the Cochrane review, the removal of sources favorable to TM, efforts to hide attribution so that particular studies appear to be generalized scientific conclusions, and generally moving text around to highlight the movement as a religion). I do not see any evidence of Olive pushing a POV - the worst I can find has olive moderating the tone of skeptical statements without actually changing the meaning. So again, I'm at a loss as to why Olive is under sanction here. AGK, you say this sanction was based on behavioral grounds - can you please provide diffs of the behavior it is grounded in? Because I just can't find anything worthy of a ban. --Ludwigs2 23:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you should be aware that the dispute over this material dates back to June or July, not just to December. Here are two of the main threads started by Olive on the topic: NPOV_violation_of_lead Inaccuracy_in_the_lead As far as this material goes, I wouldn't characterize Olive's behavior as POV pushing. It's more a matter of tendentious editing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To the extent that a POV is being promoted, it's one that promotes relatively poor research which finds positive effects from TM while minimizing the highest quality research which does not find much special effect from the technique.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I read back that far. the IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue seems to be spread around among several editors, if you ask me. However, I don't really see that kind of promotion anywhere. What I see is Olive trying to minimize a number of overstatements about the ineffectiveness of TM, which is far different than trying to promote the practice. Further, I can't say I really agree with you on the quality of research like Cochrane. Cochrane is not an unbiased source - it's clearly and intentionally skeptical. It's useable and useful, mind you, but one cannot ignore the fact that they have a few sticks in the fire.

More to the point, the question here is not whether Olive behaved like a perfect saint (she was certainly civil and communicative throughout, but we could debate the IDHT and tendentiousness issues), but whether she did anything worthy of a three-month ban. As far as I can tell, she didn't do all that much wrong and behaved no worse than anyone else on the page (and in some ways a bit better than DocJames, and certainly far better than editors on other pages who've never received so much as 24 hour block), she seemed to have some decent content points that ought to have been addressed, and yet she seems to have been singled out for a sanction. It doesn't seem justified in either absolute or relative terms. That needs explaining. and if it can't be explained, the ban needs to be lifted. --Ludwigs2 01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will opened the recent "Bone of Contention" discussion implying there was an unresolved issue, and Will deleted the contentious sentence replacing it with a summary again implying there were other ways of dealing with the research than this single sentence. Per the POV point above: I have suggested adjusting the sentence to make sure it summarized the content in the article, and suggested the studies were named in-line so as not to imply two studies spoke for an entire body of research as presented in the article. As well the sentence does not accurately describe what the studies say as far as I can tell, but I haven't argued that point. (olive (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Finding myself in agreement with AGK and Cirt above, and seeing that nobody has so far expressed any views in support of Olive's appeal (after 48hrs), I suggest closing this as declined fairly soon, unless somebody still wishes to take up her case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this comment by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The impression that Future Perfect and Cirt are uninvolved administrators has been contested. AGK [•] 00:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting here that I'm aware of Ludwig's and Olive's comments and will respond later when I have time. I'm reconsidering my position on this appeal and would ask that we hold off on closing this appeal pending ongoing discussion and in light of there not yet, in my view, being a clear consensus. AGK [•] 13:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, I think this statement by Fladrif is relevant, as are the quoted comments from two Arbitrators. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rule governing this appeal, at WP:ARBTM#Discretionary sanctions, is: "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 without either (i) the agreement of the imposing administrator or (ii) community consensus or Arbitration Committee approval to do so." This appeal has now been discussed for a week, and it is clear that the discussion has not resulted in community consensus for vacating the ban. I am therefore closing the appeal as unsuccessful. Any subsequent appeals should be directed to the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  23:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]