Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:50, 1 February 2011

• WP:AE

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

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

MarshallBagramyan

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

Request concerning MarshallBagramyan

User requesting enforcement

 Sandstein  22:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement

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

MarshallBagramyan made the following excerpted contributions on 20 or 21 January 2011 to Talk:Caucasian Albania#WP:CHERRY:

1. "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"
2. "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality, since much of what they say is backed by a multitude of sources. ... 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."
3. "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."

As in the cases of Xebulon and Tuscumbia, whom I topic-banned for 3 and 6 months respectively for similar statements, MarshallBagramyan has disrupted the Misplaced Pages editing process by making these sweeping statements which are based on nationalist prejudice rather than on policy, in violation of Misplaced Pages: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."

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

Warned by AGK in 2009; has since been subject to sanctions under this case.

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

This is not a request but an announcement of intent to take enforcement action, see comments below.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I make this post in my capacity as uninvolved enforcing administrator. While I could simply take enforcement action without any discussion, I prefer to use this board as it provides for proper documentation, a forum in which to reply and easier review of arbitration enforcement.

Tuscumbia has pointed out in his appeal above that in the nationalist exchange at Talk:Caucasian Albania#WP:CHERRY only he and Xebulon were sanctioned, but not MarshallBagramyan. This should be remedied as a matter of fairness. Without admin objections, therefore, I intend to topic-ban MarshallBagramyan for six months, like Tuscumbia, because he too was already made subject to a three months topic ban for similar misconduct.

Tuscumbia and Xebulon should remember that they may not comment in this thread, which does not concern them, because of their topic bans.  Sandstein  22:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning MarshallBagramyan

Statement by MarshallBagramyan

Alright, I think I now see the basic gist in this misunderstanding: nowhere in the statements above have I said that we should reject authors on an ethnic or national basis. What I took objection to, and what has apparently been misunderstood, were sources emanating specifically from Baku and the country of Azerbaijan, since it is essentially ruled by a repressive regime which regularly jails dissidents for criticizing the administration or for voicing unpopular opinions and because many of the sources are published under close government sponsorship. That does not even come anywhere close to saying that all scholars who happen to have Azeri heritage should now be disqualified from consideration as a reliable source. Such a statement would personally go against my own editing activities, since I have greatly profited and made use of valuable sources written by Azeri authors relating to the history of medieval and early modern Iran and Ottoman Turkey and the article on the Nagorno-Karabakh War. In my statements, I have been extremely careful in distinguishing the people from the entity: by Azeri I refer to ethnicity and by Azerbaijan I refer to works published in the current-day Republic of Azerbaijan.

Nor, as it is alleged, have I acted upon making my arguments on the basis of "nationalist prejudice rather than on policy." They have, instead, been predicated entirely on on what scholars and other individuals in the field have stated. Seraphimblade makes an excellent point below in saying that sources that are excluded must be given adequate reasoning. To facilitate in the attempt to clear up this understanding, therefore, I have quoted several authors below regarding the unreliability of such sources and I ask that everyone fully read their statements. Robert Hewsen, a historian from Rowan College and the acknowledged authority in this field, wrote in his book Armenia: A Historical Atlas, published by no less a respectable a publisher as Chicago University Press:

Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291

The British journalist Thomas de Waal documented the systematic attempt to remove Armenians from history in his influential 2003 work on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict:

I gathered that Mamedova had taken the Albanian theory and used it to push the Armenians out of the Caucasus altogether. She had relocated Caucasian Albania into what is now the present-day Republic of Armenia. All those lands, churches, and monasteries in the Republic of Armenia—all had been Albanian. No sacred Armenian fact was left unattacked. Armenia’s conversion to Christianity in the fourth century a.d.? It had actually taken place thousands of miles to the south of present Armenia, on the River Euphrates. The seat of the Armenian church at Echmiadzin? It had been Albanian right up until the fifteenth century, when the Armenians relocated there...

The urbane Mamedova is the sophisticated end of what, in Azerbaijan, has become a very blunt instrument indeed. The crudest version of the Albanian argument has swept through Azerbaijan. Not once did I hear any pre–nineteenth-century church in the entire country called any-thing other than “Albanian.” The Albanians have even spread to the distant southeastern region of Nakhichevan, all of whose surviving Armenian churches have been declared to be Albanian.

A 1997 pamphlet entitled “The Albanian Monuments of Karabakh,” by Igrar Aliev and Kamil Mamedzade, ducks the issue of the medieval Armenian inscriptions altogether. The front cover bears a drawing of the façade of the church of Gandzasar, but the draftsman has carefully left out all the Armenian writing. All the photographs in the church were taken from a safe distance, so the Azerbaijani reader has no idea that there is any Armenian writing there at all. Aliev and Mamedzade finish their historical overview by saying: "The undisputable conclusion follows from everything said above that the so-called Armenians of Karabakh and the Azerbaijanis as such (who are the descendants of the Albanian population) of northern Azerbaijan share the same mother. Both of them are completely indisputably former Albanians and therefore the Armenians as such on the territory of Nagorny Karabakh, into which they surged in huge numbers after the first quarter of the nineteenth century, have no rights."
-Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. New York: New York University Press, 2003, pp. 167-69.

Professor Victor Shnirelman, a senior researcher of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, authored a monograph titled The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity, and Politics in Transcaucasia in 2004. While his book is too extensive to quote from, he took objection to the manner in which historiography progressed in modern Azerbaijan, as can be gleaned from the following chapter titles: "The birth of the Azeri nation", "The search for historical concepts, and major politics", "The Median temptation and Soviet Patriotism", "Between Media and Caucasian Albania and the Turkic World: Thirst for a new view", "Revisionists: the Pan-Turkic assault", "The struggle between conservatives and revisionists and a school education".

There are at least half a dozen other sources which I can quote, all of which speak about how political ideology has compromised the academic reputation of scholars working in Azerbaijan, regardless of their ethnicity. But what everyone above is saying or alluding to is that sources which intentionally edit or remove people from the pages of historical sources, which reconsecrate historical monuments and give them new identities, or distort the data that is available should be avoided as best possible.

I have therefore been not so much airing my views but merely repeating what others have already stated. My chief objection was to sources originating from Azerbaijan, not sources whose authors are Azeri. To the contrary, and as I emphasized several times to Tuscumbia during our long exchange, what mattered to us was not whether a scholar was Armenian, Azeri, or Martian, but the "breadth of their scope and their acknowledged expertise" in the area. And even then, my objection stemmed from the politically repressive climate that exists Azerbaijan, not its nationality. This has turned out to be a misunderstanding on massive proportions and I don't think I can emphasize it enough that my arguments were never predicated on the basis of excluding sources on the ethnic or national heritage of someone and I ask that the administrators to please ask me to clarify anything which might seem unclear since this is, after all, a very difficult and complex topic. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, please understand that no one is more fed up with these useless debates than I am. But as the authors I quoted above make clear, historiography in Azerbaijan is geared toward certain purposes and, unfortunately, no one is spared, no matter your profession. If a poor, underpaid scholar, who through no fault of his own, chooses not to toe the government or popular line, he might be deprived of funding or even face persecution. And so he is encouraged or forced to say or write something that holds official approval. Note how even some innocent Azerbaijani youths were brought up for questioning by the Ministry of Internal Affairs after the 2009 Eurovision contest because they chose to vote for the "wrong" (i.e., the Armenian) candidate. The history of Armenia, according to Azerbaijan's leadership, begins in the 19th century, only after the Russians "brought" and settled them into the region. This is the deplorable situation that now prevails in Azerbaijan, although it can be argued that similar, if less oppressive, climates now exist in other fragile post-Soviet countries, the current Republic of Armenia not being an exception. This was the prevailing situation until the early 1990s in the Republic of Turkey, when all scholars - regardless of political or ethnic distinction - were forced to not speak about or question controversial topics, especially the Armenian Genocide or human rights issues involving the Kurds. But every now and then courageous faces decide to spurn political ideology and censorship, such is the case with luminaries like Taner Akçam and Halil Berktay, who are widely respected academics in their field, not because of their ethnic heritage, but because of their laudably objective approach to controversial issues.

My statements must thus be viewed as responses within this context. The journalist de Waal presents this point in a very interesting manner when he says that "All those lands, churches, and monasteries in the Republic of Armenia — all had been Albanian. No sacred Armenian fact was left unattacked. Armenia’s conversion to Christianity in the fourth century a.d.? It had actually taken place thousands of miles to the south of present Armenia, on the River Euphrates. The seat of the Armenian church at Echmiadzin? It had been Albanian right up until the fifteenth century, when the Armenians relocated there...The crudest version of the Albanian argument has swept through Azerbaijan. Not once did I hear any pre–nineteenth-century church in the entire country called any-thing other than 'Albanian.' " And now it seems that the same arguments have spilled over onto Misplaced Pages. The article on the thirteenth century monastery of Gandzasar has borne witness to all this, as numerous authors have attempted to deprive this monument of its Armenian identity for politically-motivated reasons. We can speak about and question certain aspects of the church but to question its most fundamental aspects, which almost all other scholars caution us not to, would be an incorrect step to take. The most visible manifestation of this campaign has been the intentional destruction of an Armenian medieval cemetery inside Azerbaijan. While the Azerbaijani government still denies that it ever took place, it does say that the cross-stones found at the cemetery were not even Armenian to begin with but, again, were of Albanian origin. How does one exactly react to this after the second or tenth time this claim is put forward? How exactly do we react to those who repeatedly make disingenuous attempts to deny the Holocaust? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, I am not at all implying that disagreeing with my viewpoint here is now tantamount to denying the Holocaust (another unfortunate instance of misspeaking, one which I had second thoughts after posting *sigh*). I was simply trying to illustrate that questionable sources which challenge established facts are often viewed with a certain degree of skepticism. My point backfired, like so many other things said on the internet, and so, unless you guys ask me any direct questions, I'm just going to lay back here and stop typing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I know I said that I would recuse myself from making further comments unless asked to, but could someone please evaluate Atabey's comments below in the "Result concerning MarshallBagramyan" section. For some reason, I feel that comments like "Well, of course, he does. He is Armenian contributor who demonstrated inability to detach his personal biases from his contributions" to be extremely insensitive considering that this is, afterall, a discussion on ethnicity and nationalism.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning MarshallBagramyan

Sandstein, I was unable to locate what is it exactly about the lines that you have selected from his contributions that you think justifies imposing sanctions upon MarshallBagramyan. How exactly do they violate the established remedies concerning the topic area? Are you recommending this topic ban simply because this user was not topic banned initially when the other two were "as a matter of fairness"? Am I to understand that the very participation in similar exchanges irrespective of user conduct or substance of responses will now warrant a topic ban?-- Ευπάτωρ 23:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

To address your points in order: I'm sorry to hear that. Please see my explanation above. No. No.  Sandstein  00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

. One should read complete statements at the article talk page (like here), rather than only quotation above. MarshallBagramyan makes an argument that a number of Armenian historians are internationally recognized scholars (which is factually correct); they published a lot of manuscripts and can be regarded as reliable sources. This is a legitimate argument. Biophys (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

His praise for Armenian scholars is not at issue. His inflammatory blanket dismissal of Azerbaijani scholars is.  Sandstein  23:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

He explained at the article talk page: this is because of wide-spread censorship in the state of Azerbaijan. This is a legitimate argument. Of course, it would be best not to use any Azerbaijani or Armenian sources on Azerbaijan-Armenian conflicts. Use Western sources (that is what I usually did).Biophys (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Volunteer Marek

Having looked through this I also don't really see any justification for any kind of sanction, except a warning to be careful in statements. There does not appear to be any kind of a "peg" that you can hang a topic ban or other editing restriction on.

Basically, I agree with Seraphimblade below. Some of the wording of the comments is less than satisfactory. But these do not appear to be motivated by either WP:BATTLE or bad faith, but rather are simply a result of an editor commenting quickly and off the top of their head in midst off a heated discussion. If you edit in a controversial topic area (and we do need editors willing to do so) at some point or other you're going to be unclear, imprecise and maybe even a little frustrated and this is in fact just a natural part of how human interaction usually takes place. There's no evidence here of any kind of wrong doing. A reminder to be more careful (which we - especially content editors, since non-content editors rarely ever actually deal with difficult content issues - could all use sometimes) is sufficient. Volunteer Marek  23:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I got to add that Sandstein's characterization of MB's second statement with I am much less impressed with MarshallBagramyan's second comment, which does not address his conduct and instead appears to argue at length why disagreeing with him in the content dispute (which AE does not care about) is equivalent to denying the Holocaust. seems to be on the whole quite inaccurate. The 2nd statement consists of two (fairly long) paragraphs and in them MB essentially reiterates the distinction between Azeri scholars and Azeri-government-produced sources which is the locus of confusion here. In fact he explicitly states that a similar distinction could apply to Armenia and Turkey in the early 1990's. This is just an elaboration on a previous point. At the end of these couple paragraphs, the statement does stray into "content disputes" but this is really just a reflection of the fact that as much as you try, at the end of the day, you can't clearly separate out "behavior disputes" from the "content disputes" that underlie them (and his point is valid - is Holocaust denial on Holocaust related articles a content or a behavioral dispute? - though it is a bit of a Godwin Law violation). I would also encourage admins involved in this discussion to try and put themselves in the shoes of someone who has just all of sudden been brought to AE and for whom severe sanctions have been proposed - it's a stressful situation and honestly, it's often quite hard to know how to properly react, which issues to address and which topics are relevant (that's actually why in real life we do have lawyers). Nothing here. Volunteer Marek  00:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Atabey

Check out MarshallBagramyan's recent edit here. For Nth time, removing the map from Azerbaijan Democratic Republic page, while arguing in favor of map at Democratic_Republic_of_Armenia. And this and numerous other POV edits by MarshallBagramyan fit well with his eloquently expressed: "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality, since much of what they say is backed by a multitude of sources." Well, of course, he does. He is Armenian contributor who demonstrated inability to detach his personal biases from his contributions, thus resulting in non-neutral edits. Atabəy (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I find this comment by Atabəy to be unhelpful. His wording about MarshallBagramyan "He is Armenian contributor who demonstrated inability to detach his personal biases" smacks of all-too-familiar racial battleground attitude. I suggest the following. 1). do not penalize MarshallBagramyan at this time. 2). stick to the suggestion of Biophys above not to use sources coming from Azerbaijan or Armenia, unless those are un-discredited, unadulterated primary sources. This informal policy has been in place a long time ago and it seems that MarshallBagramyan has been suggesting in his comments to continue sticking to it in the future. Thanks. Vandorenfm (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning MarshallBagramyan

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

• I would agree with Sandstein's assessment, and would add that a blanket refusal or even reluctance to use sources simply because of the nationality of the source's author is odious and unacceptable. If the source really is unreliable, you should be able to find a good reason why. Otherwise, if it meets the standards, it does—period. I don't think editors with such a view could even possibly edit neutrally in areas where such sources might be necessary, and so I support the topic ban proposal. Seraphimblade 01:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In light of the new statements here, I must say that I'm also impressed with the responses. I would still state that MarshallBagramyan's phrasing of the statements he made was poor (to say the least), and that he would have done better explaining things in this manner before it came to this point than after, but his response shows careful thought. I would suggest, given these new developments, that a requirement be placed on MarshallBagramyan that, if he believes a source is not reliable, he is required to come up with reasoning as to why that particular source is unreliable, and not dismiss it due to where it was written or who wrote it. Seraphimblade 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I am much less impressed with MarshallBagramyan's second comment, which does not address his conduct and instead appears to argue at length why disagreeing with him in the content dispute (which AE does not care about) is equivalent to denying the Holocaust. That is not a good sign at all. It is clear that he holds strong opinions about the dispute that was the focus of the arbitration cases, and I remain unconvinced that he can approach it from a neutral point of view.  Sandstein  23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I fully agree that he needlessly inflamed the situation, and that sanctions are called for. I think the only question is what form they should take in order to most helpfully address the issue. Seraphimblade 20:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• I think that Marshall Bagramyan has come up with a fair response to Sandstein's assessment. I would prefer to see other evidence that Marshall is POV pushing before I would support a topic ban. NW (Talk) 07:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate MarshallBagramyan's measured comment. It is true that our article Human rights in Azerbaijan and the most recent reports by Freedom House () and Human Rights Watch () indicate that Azerbaijan is an unfree country, and that there are therefore good reasons to take much more care with sources published in that country, especially with respect to political issues that the state cares much about. We can and should assess sources for their reliability, including on the basis of whether or not there is reason to believe that they may have been written under the influence of state coercion.

  But I remain concerned that in the statements at issue, MarshallBagramyan did not address the reliability of any individual source or writer, on the basis of specific evidence pointing to its unreliability, but repeatedly and sweepingly dismissed all "scholars in Azerbaijan" as unreliable on the basis of broad generalizations, rather than discussing the specific sources at issue in the content dispute. As a consequence (and also because of similar conduct from the other, now-banned disputants) the discussion devolved into a nationalist shouting match rather than remaining focused on the sources and the content at issue. This is very inflammatory and unhelpful conduct in a topic area that is so much characterized by nationalist hatred and prejudice, on all sides, that it took two arbitration cases to bring it somewhat under control, and in which exceptional discipline is therefore required from all participants. For these reasons I still believe that MarshallBagramyan's conduct was sanctionable, but I am open to suggestions as to what sanction might be adequate.  Sandstein  08:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • I think that a warning to refer to specific sources rather than overgeneralize would suffice at this time. I think that this is enough of a gray area that a topic ban is not necessary, but still something that Marshall would be advised to avoid in the future.

      However, moving on to Atabəy. For needlessly trying to inflame this AE request, and considering a past history of sanctions, I'm thinking a three month topic ban would be appropriate. NW (Talk) 02:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement appeal: Littleolive oil

• Appealing editor

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

• Sanction being appealed

  ; Three month topic ban to TM articles; Notification: Discussion:

• Administrator imposing the sanction

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

• Notification of that administrator

• 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.

Statement by Littleolive oil

Reasons given for ban

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

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 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 is bold. Doc cites my edit 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 Misplaced Pages 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: -lead, , -lead, -lead.

Other accusations

• According to Nuclear Warfare

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:

…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 Misplaced Pages for advertising.

James personalized a comment that isolates a group of editors, creates a we/them environment into which he, James, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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: .

• Comment: Nuclear Warfare:

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 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 Misplaced Pages.” 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." . 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))

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 Misplaced Pages functions on a system that removes editors from either side because they disagree. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Will Beback's claim that I "declined to discuss"

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 as I have said repeatedly was make it more specific, per the content with syntax changes, and then quoted from the source to be exact. I assumed the reason to not have a repeat of 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 used 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 go.(olive (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

Statement by NuclearWarfare

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, that any further warning was necessary. NW (Talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

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))

Statement by involved User:Jmh649

It is interesting that my comment "it seems that TM publishes a huge amount which they like to brag about, little of the work 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 Misplaced Pages editors than some may be too close to the subject matter to continue editing neutrally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by involved User:Will Beback

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", that "accurate sourcing is imperative", that she "checked refs and once again was struck by the inaccuracies of what we are saying". When asked about the purported misrepresentation she again asserted it without any specifics: "The sentence is inaccurate per the sources." When asked to get consensus before making changes to the much-discussed text, she replied "I intend to edit this content so that it is accurate per Misplaced Pages'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." Again I ask her to point to the inaccuracies. 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. I again ask her to explain the problems with the actual current text. She again complains about the August RfC and the previous AE case, and again says she will discuss the errors in the future. She says my position is clear, but fails again to point out any errors. Again I ask her to point to the errors. She says it's been discussed in the past, but doesn't link to any previous discussions of errors. Again I ask her to point to the errors. Finally, she says she won't do so because it's already been discussed too much. It's very frustrating to deal with an editor who keeps insisting something is wrong but won't say what it is.

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 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)

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: 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)

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)

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)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Littleolive oil

• (Procedural note) I have updated this request so that it complies with the prescribed format. AGK 13:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

Result of the appeal by Littleolive oil

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)

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

ZuluPapa5

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

Request concerning ZuluPapa5

User requesting enforcement

Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:ARBCC#ZuluPapa5's battlefield conduct and Misplaced Pages:ARBCC#ZuluPapa5_topic-banned

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

User:ZuluPapa5 maintains climate change-related material in his user space that arguably violates his sanctions in the Climate Change case. This material has been nominated for deletion (here and here). The concern is not so much the material itself, which is being considered through the usual process for such things, but ZuluPapa5's wholly inappropriate behavior toward those who have in good faith nominated the material for deletion. In response he has developed the concept of "deletion harassment" (here), which is admittedly difficult to fathom with its references to laws on stalking. A sample of problematic diffs include:

1. Inappropriate continuation of "battlefield" (or worse) conduct in response to a routine and civilly-worded notification.
2. Self-explanatory.
3. ...

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

1. This user talk thread shows User:Ronz trying but failing to get him to work cooperatively.

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

Whatever it takes to either calm him down, or remove him from the field of battle. I do not think the usual short punitive block (few days to a week) would be effective. On the other hand I hope a siteban or similarly harsh measure is not needed. Perhaps something like an interaction ban would be appropriate.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This comment by User:MastCell is a good summary of the overall problem.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification. I waited a few days to see if he would calm down but the situation only became worse.

Discussion concerning ZuluPapa5

Statement by ZuluPapa5

see: User:ZuluPapa5/Deletion_Harassment for evidence. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning ZuluPapa5

• Remedy 4.6 specifically instructs participants to clear/delete their evidence subpages - so why is this still available? And this? This? It seems that the look into ZuluPapa5's apparent use or misuse of subpages is warranted, and there are more MFDs to come to decide this issue. I don't think a case can be made out for "deletion harassment". It is obvious, even to an user who is uninvolved with CC, that there are problems with the continued existence and/or maintenance of some such subpages; MFD is the last option to address those pages. What is also troubling is ZuluPapa5's recent insertion of "Florida laws" on stalking (and sentences for breaches of these laws) and his repeated references to other editors as "assholes".
• Given that he is already topic banned due to the battleground issue, it would be unacceptable to allow the continuation of such battleground behavior. Accordingly, should he continue to be unwilling to conduct himself appropriately during the MFDs or upon being notified of them, a block which enforces the topic ban appears to unfortunately be the only viable option left. The duration of such a block would be fixed and for the duration of the MFDs - until the Community has made its decision on them. Hopefully after that, there will be no further excuses for him to continue the battleground behavior, absent further violations of his topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Slightly modified this comment for clarity on duration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Okay, so I found this at MFD. His response in the MFD was to call a user "asshole" in the MFD, then make a "get off my talk page" comment in response to the MFD nomination — both blatant violations of WP:CIVIL. He's apparently been called out on his civility before (see User talk:ZuluPapa5#Talk:Civility), where a tl;dr discussion suggests that he's got some bad faith issues. He also made this lovely user subpage in which he slings mud at other users and falsely accuses them of stalking. It's clear that he's not even trying to be civil, and just wants to stir the pot. As Ncmvocalist points out, a block is pretty much the only other option at this point. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• It appears that ZuluPapa5 is implicitly accusing other editors of engaging in criminal acts. User:ZuluPapa5/Deletion Harassment was recently expanded to include a summary of Florida laws on stalking, including maximum sentences. Aside from being a cut & paste copyvio from an external site (www.e how.com/list_6647727_florida-stalking-laws.html), this edit seems particularly ill-advised in light of both WP:NLT and WP:BLP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning ZuluPapa5

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

I agree that posting Florida laws on cyberstalking is a violation of WP:NLT, and have deleted the "Deletion Harassment" page, in lieu of blocking. Other admins may wish to take other actions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces

Request concerning The Four Deuces

User requesting enforcement

Martin (talk)

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned, Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. Made a gratiously unhelpful and inflammatory comment attacking my editing record, insinuating I edit from a "right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV". TFD has no idea of my political beliefs and insinuating I hold an extreme right wing ethnic nationalist POV due to my membership of a particular ethnic group (which his assumes) is an egregious violation of the afore mentioned case.

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

1. TFD was previously warned formally for making an inapproriate edit comment "Reverse pro-fascist edits". This latest incident confirms this unacceptable trend.
2. Formally placed on notice
3. Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

block or EE topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It was suggested previously it would be highly likely he will continue to characterise anyone he disagrees with as harbouring pro-fascist or extreme right wing sympathies. This is unacceptable that he continues to do so. --Martin (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning The Four Deuces

Statement by The Four Deuces

The Digwuren sanctions do not cover "gratiously unhelpful and inflammatory comment" of which Martintg is well aware. Furthermore my comments were about the POV of the quote that Martintg presented rather than his personal point of view. The far right in the former Communist states seeks to re-write history in order to villianize ethnic minorities within their borders, in particular Russians, whom they believe are within their countries illegally. The connection of this POV with the far right is well-documented. Not only do they argue that the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal, which is a mainstream view, but that (as Martintg presented) " - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR". The implication is that Russian and other ethnic minorities are illegally in the Baltic states.

• "Territorial disputes in Eastern Europe have an impact not only on domestic politics, international relations and regional security in this area, but also on the European identity and cooperation of the extreme right at the transnational as well as European levels. The traditional geopolitical rule “your neighbor is your enemy – the neighbor of your neighbor is your partner”, when transformed into the extreme right-wing milieu, currently determines many relations within the European extreme right, mostly in the Eastern part of the continent." ("The Extreme Right in Eastern Europe and Territorial Issues")
• "In fact, aspects of such a development can be witnessed in certain republics of the former Soviet Union where the transition to democratic rule has paradoxically been accompanied by a drive to create "ethnically pure" states. Proposals to grant citizenship on the basis of ethnic criteria have been advanced in Georgia as well as in the relatively more advanced Baltic republics."
• "The far right nationalist myth is a use of history for political propaganda and to advance hatred and fear of Putin's "neo-Stalinist" Russia in order to promote an anti-Russian alliance of states, NATO and complete fealty to US policies, including the neoliberal policies that created so much poverty."
• "The three Baltic states in the late 1990s set up state-sponsored commissions to study Nazi and Soviet crimes, but not in an open and democratic spirit. This was a project of ultra-nationalist revisionism with an active political agenda that meant much more to the politicians than this or that historical volume produced for minute readerships. That political agenda was in short, to rewrite the history of the second world war and the Holocaust by state diktat, into a model of "double genocide"." (The Guardian)

Comments by others about the request concerning The Four Deuces

Result concerning The Four Deuces

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