Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 23 January 2011 (→Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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.

Jmh649

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

Request concerning Jmh649

User requesting enforcement

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

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

Misplaced Pages: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. 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. Examples/list of journals that have published TM research. James cites WP:OR. Moved to talk page
3. 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. 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. Source details: Gian Mauro Manzon, Relaxation training for anxiety: a ten-years, systematic review with meta-analysis", BMC Psychiatry 2008. Removed
6. 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. 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. 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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. .

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified:

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

• Then his bad faith comments further violate:

• 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 , 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))

Discussion concerning Jmh649

Statement by Jmh649

1. I posted here 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 . I have not subsequently removed it. A group of them continuously re add removed questionable text such as in this edit here

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

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)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) 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 Here is the study on visual acuity mentioned . It involved 48 men and was done by the Maharishi International University, Fairfield, Iowa. The angina study was neither controlled nor blinded.

8. The discussion of this removal is here . 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 Misplaced Pages for advertising purposes.

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 and for which User:TimidGuy was topic banned . The other editor involved User:Edith_Sirius_Lee has been subsequently topic banned and has not edited any other area of Misplaced Pages since.

When I made my first edit to this topic area Jan 19th, 2010 in this edit 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 . It has been contentious ever since with it conclusions being brought up many times . 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? The arbitrators time analyzing this case is as always appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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 is social science (the study of religion). This edit TimidGuy made 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 . 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 :

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 . This is the same unblinded NON placebo controlled study of 30 people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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.

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 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

Comment by Will Beback

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment by TimidGuy

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:

• 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jmh649

Comment by Woonpton

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 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)

Comment by Fladrif

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 Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines has more than passing merit. Fladrif (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Jmh649

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)
• Concur with above. There's nothing actionable here. Courcelles 11:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TFighterPilot

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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)

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.

Statement by TFighterPilot

I didn't revise twice. I edited once and revised once. My first edit was not a revision. I'm only trying to make Misplaced Pages 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.

Statement by HJ Mitchell

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)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TFighterPilot

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

Result of the appeal by TFighterPilot

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)
• 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)

GHcool

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

Request concerning GHcool

User requesting enforcement

 nsaum75  18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages: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.

On January 8, 2011 User:Supreme Deliciousness removed several categories (terrorism in Lebanon, Islamic Terrorism and Islam and Anti-semitism) from the Hezbollah article 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 re-adds Islamic Terrorism category. He/she again reverts SD's removal On 1/22 at 00:12am then again at 1/22 at 18:56

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

1. GHCool 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. 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

Discussion concerning GHcool

Statement by GHcool

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Comments by others about the request concerning GHcool

Result concerning GHcool

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)

Supreme Deliciousness

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

Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

User requesting enforcement

 nsaum75  18:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages: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.

On January 8, 2011 SD removed several categories (terrorism in Lebanon, Islamic Terrorism and Islam and Anti-semitism) from the Hezbollah article 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. On 1/22 at 4:23am, SD reverts GHCool's removal of Islamic Terrorism from the article Hezbollah 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 then at 4:25 he re-adds the BBC section. Realizing he's technically in violation of 1RR he self-reverts and and waits until 20 more minutes have passed before re-reverting the changes and .

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

1. Supreme Deliciousness and 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

Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

Comments by others about the request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness

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 hours, as explained in the block note. Courcelles 18:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 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)