Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cla68 (talk | contribs) at 11:39, 7 September 2013 (→Statement by (username): @ sandstein). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Littleolive oil

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Littleolive oil

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

Moved from Arbitration request to enforcement

This request for arbitration enforcement centers around the six threaded posts on the page where I have been subject to many accusations and emotive commentary from the very start by Olive, where Olive has also been engaged in POV pushing.

I made this edit reverting a bold change to the article . I posted this on the talk page explaining my reasoning: . This was responded with:

"Wolfie: That you think you have the right or expertise to determine what qualifies as a physicists work and what doesn't, that you unilaterally edit based on this determination, that you would deep revert another editor's painstaking work, unilaterally, based on some notion you have about what a scientists work is, and that you would then threaten editors on this page should they disagree with you is ownership and beyond the pale. You are skating on the thinnest of ice. Littleolive oil" - 3 Sept 2013

Later:

"No editor has the right to determine a scientist's work does not qualify as his work. While you can determine that the sources are critical of the work dismissing the research out of hand as not part of a life's work in not your or our business as editors. Further most scientists I know would never take that step, critical of the work sure, but not the next step which you take here by excluding the research from the research section in this article based o n your personal opinion of what is research and what isn't. Such a move clearly illustrates a POV. Further you reverted an editor who has been uninvolved in these discussion after he spent a fair amount of time working on the article. Ownership." - 3 Sept 2013

An example of POV pushing is the defence of an award viewed negatively by the independent reliable sources by proposing that we use the awards own website to offset any negative commentary about the award and framing it as though we are POV for not including positive primary sourced material . All contrary arguments were ignored (WP:IDHT): , (both 2 Sept 2013) response by MastCell: (3 Sept 2013) which accords with standard policy, but was ignored in subsequent discussion: (both 3 Sept 2013)

Note that Littleolive oil has also been demanding that I get consensus before making any edits: (both 17 Aug 2013), despite there being no onus for me to do so in policy for standard cleanup or other edits trying to fix an article. i.e We have WP:BRD on wikipedia. I highlighted as such (16 Aug 2013) at the time and also indicated that the text removed was sourced to primary sources and not a particularly large (16 Aug 2013).

Some other individual comments showing large amounts of rhetoric which make collaboration very difficult, including

"Wolfie. The TM arbitration has specific guides which you chose to ignore. There is no chilling effect when citing a guide for editing. If you chose to ignore that guide that is your choice. You are not understanding me. You deleted with out discussion and with no policy support pertinent content to this article which weakens the article. Further you misunderstand and misuse fringe. Nor have you outlined content that describes Hagelin's research. Your ownership, tone and arguments for deleting content on this article are not acceptable per Misplaced Pages. Please reconsider my points." (17 Aug 2013)

"You are dealing this way with a BLP and another human being's life and do so to satisfy some notion you have of what fringe means. I have been willing from the beginning of the GA process to collaborate with those willing to make this article better. This is not a game Wolfie, this is a man's life. If you had concerns discuss them, collaborate, but leaching out content based on false premises is unconscionable" (18 Aug 2013)

IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is more evidence but I am aware that AE prefer shorter filings. On request I can elaborate on all of the specifics, but reading over the latest 6 or so sections here provides the context: . I also have on-wiki evidence of a conflict of interest that does not involve outing that is in the form of a diff to a rev deleted page, but I am taking extra care in withholding it at present. I would prefer not to show the diff without some sort of approval from an arbitrator, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Olive has already been blocked under the discretionary sanctions and thus is aware of them: . Olive has been asked to stop directing the assumptions of bad faith at me by myself and another: .

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Context: In John Hagelin, the article was edited and achieved GA through the editing of, amongst others, Little olive. This article at the time of its promotion was skewed, see and thus was delisted as having been inadequately reviewed (see Misplaced Pages:Good_article_reassessment/John_Hagelin/1 for more details). Since that time I have been trying to bring the article up to the WP:FRINGE standards as well as WP:RS, WP:OR etc, as I have with other articles such as the Maharishi Effect and Maharishi_Vedic_Approach_to_Health. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade, I have no desire to reveal anyone's identity, nor do I have any intention to do so in any circumstance (also I don't know anyone's identity or any means of ascertaining it that I can think of, but that's not the point). I think I have generally taken due caution to ensure that. Initially I intended to file at Arbitration but they redirected me here (version as of today). At the time, several months ago, I asked Olive a direct question about whether she had a COI in relation to John Hagelin because I didn't know the answer. I have no intention of repeating that in this topic area. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade please note where Olive, at the Arbitration request thread, has misrepresented what you have said: " I am also being sanctioned apparently because I said something about content. ", IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Littleolive oil

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Littleolive oil

Moved from RfArbitration:

• Reminder to all: Removal of sourced content is an aspect of an arbitration discretionary sanction. Like it or not we cannot trump a DS on sourcing with comments here. The sanction specifically notes peremptory deletion, that is deletion with out discussion, and why is that one wonders? I'd guess because deletion of content with out discussion is disruptive to the collaborative process. Wolfie's deep revert of stylistic edits by an uninvolved editor, which to my knowledge he never addressed, while not a removal of RS is also disruptive, shows alack of respect for the editor who made the edits, and implies ownership. An insistence that WP:Bold is a reason to remove content this way, and or to remove RS does not jive with the Arbitration discretionary sanction. If we want to change the sanction, back to the arbs we go and ask for a clarification. Until then, requests that an editor not delete content especially with out reason or discussion, and eventual consensus, and who is potentially, in violation of the discretionary sanction should be respected and those editors should not be accused of POV pushing. That seems wrong to me and at least is an unfair view of the situation.(olive (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Thank you for specifying your concerns (in bold). I’d like to address them:

• behavior in this very thread regarding hyperfocus on sourcing to the exclusion of other content policies)

My comment on this page was a reminder that issues here deal with AE and the arbitration principle that can invite a discretionary sanction. Some comments appeared to be more suited to a content policy notice board. AE does not deal with content, so I assumed I should not discuss content policies here. My comment here in no way excludes my position on content policies discussed in multiple places in an appropriate forum as a reading of the threads on the John Hagelin article demonstrates:

• GA status on the John Hagelin article: I’m not sure why this issue was brought up in reference to me nor why its is being used in some way to support a sanction. I did not mention the GA status of this article.

History:

The John Hagelin article was written with Input from multiple editors.

I applied for GA status.

I and another editor spent weeks working in the article especially on sources to comply with the reviewer concerns.

The reviewer gave the Article GA status

IRWolfie saw what he considered ”fringe” concerns.He goes to a NB. My comment there:

'I'm happy to have more input on the article, and /or a GAR and suggest this discussion be moved to the article talk page. I will add a notice to the article talk page notifying editors of this posting on the Fringe Theories NB. Thanks (olive (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC))

The article is brought to GAReview: My comment:

...I welcome a uninvolved editor review of the article and I am happy to help implement changes to improve the article.(olive (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC))

The article is delisted

Where in this sequence of events is there AE sanctionable behavior.

• Tendentious editing:

In each discussion on the Hagelin page, I discussed my points often citing policy as I see making between 3-5 points, then withdraw when progress was not being made or there was an impasse, noting concerns. For example:

I will withdraw from this discussion now, given this discussion is not progressing. I note the misuse and or misunderstanding of policy in the thread above and in a BLP.

I hope you'll stay. I am sorry an uninvolved editor who spent the time you did on this article was reverted unilaterally. I have little more to say on this article at this time since no progress is being made. This was a GA article which I spent a lot of time working on in compliance with the reviewer. I doubt that it is at that standard now. I would be happy to have an uninvolved editor try to make something of this article. (olive (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)) How is this tendentious behavior?

• Undue weight to fringe viewpoints:

I have no idea what this means and no idea what this refers to this article. This article is a BLP. It in part chronicles a scientist who takes a turn from more main stream science to a more edge of science position. The article must describe both aspects of his career. I did in fact suggest that Wolfie’s mass deletion here weighted the article away from Hagelin’s controversial work towards his more mainstream work.

Thanks(olive (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Comments from an uninvolved(editor)

These comments by an uninvolved editor sum up well my feeling about how this article should be edited. They also describe from a neutral view what is going on, on this talk page.

I've gotta say, on the merits, I think the attempt to link consciousness with physical cosmology seems more than a little nutty. But that's mostly an argument that ought to be settled in the other articles in the TM suite. This here's a BLP. It ought to lay out Hagelin's life and views, without giving undue weight to his critics. They belong here, but not in the same way that they belong on pages like The Maharishi Effect, Transcendental Meditation technique and the like. I fear our project's not-entirely-unreasonable fear of FRINGiness, and of what User:JzGuy has correctly identified in the past as the problem of "polite POV-pushers", is playing out badly in the context of this BLP. The place for full-throated criticism of Hagelin's theories is on pages devoted to those theories. It's not like there aren't enough TM-themed articles on wikipedia for that. Call the theories wacky there. Tread carefully when you're getting close to calling the living theorist wacky here.  

In my view, the proper balance between WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP is misapprehended here. Frighteningly so.   (olive (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

• • Final statement

A sanction against me here would be wrong and unfair. There is no evidence that shows I have violated an arbitration principle, a policy, or a guideline. Nor is there any evidence of tendentious editing.

I want to apologize for not adding diffs about Wolfie's behaviour. I had a very serious real life issue to deal with, and don't feel I can do more here. Anyway,attacking Wolfie would only turn this page into a toxic mess or more so than it is now and frankly there are enough toxic situations on Misplaced Pages. The John Hagelin talk page contains the evidence in this case, and a careful reading from a neutral position and especially noting the analysis added by an experienced editor in the final thread, an editor with no agenda, tells the story. I don't see that anything I can say about Wolfie can be helpful here. If there are concerns about him as I have had, across Misplaced Pages, they will show up in time, and if there are, and if he's smart he will fix them before that happens. Best Wishes.(olive (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

Seraphim. I added content from an editor on the JH talk page which everyone should have read. I say correctly he is an editor in the second line. Its late. I just spent an hour talking to a mother whose child committed suicide. It was a simple mistake, a part of the circumstances I'm in, in RL. What are you suggesting? That I would lie about something that could be checked in a second? I noted in a comment here at the top of the page,"Some comments appeared to be more suited to a content policy notice board. AE does not deal with content, so I assumed I should not discuss content policies here. My comment here in no way excludes my position on content policies discussed in multiple places in an appropriate forum as a reading of the threads on the John Hagelin article demonstrates: that this was not a content discussion and even if an editor did start talking about content... you don't sanction them for six months. What are you talking about here?(olive (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

Wolfie: ..."it is not the place of AE to adjudicate the content dispute. None of us here are deciding who's right, and none of my comments are intended to indicate that either editor's view of the proper content is correct, nor are they an endorsement thereof. We address only conduct. (Comment from below by Seraphimblade)(olive (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

Statement by Keithbob

(Disclaimer: Over the past 14 months there have been 500 edits to the John Hagelin article and I made 10 of those edits -only 3 edits in 2013)

IRWolfie's repeated removal of sourced content

Summary IRWolfie's editing on the TM topic has been disruptive and he has been harassing User:Littleolive oil for several months. This filing and the one yesterday at ArbCom are the most recent examples of this.

• Wolfie has repeatedly deleted large amounts of sourced content, without discussion or consensus, on numerous occasions, despite multiple warnings. Wolfie has repeatedly violated the TM ArbCom principle which says:
• Peremptory reversion or removal of sourced material--Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational.

In the remedies section the TM Arb Com it is made clear that all principles are sanction-able:

• All parties instructed: All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles outlined above, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
• Warnings per descretionary sanctions: (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;)
  • Warned by Keithbob on March 26, 2013 @ Wolfie's user talk
  • Warned by Littleolive oil on August 13, 2013 @ John Hagelin
  • Warned by EMP on August 15-16, 2013 @ Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health
• Wolfie's removal of sourced content within the TM topic since being warned:
  • 3/29/13 John Hagelin
  • 3/29/13 TM and Cult Mania
  • 4/8/13 TM-Sidhi program
  • 4/8/13 John Hagelin
  • 4/8/13 Maharishi Effect
  • 4/15/13 Maharishi Effect
  • 8/10/13 Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health
  • 8/13/13 Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health
  • 8/16/13 John Hagelin

IRWolfie's harassment of Littleolive oil

• Decorum and assumptions of good faith--Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Wolfie has been harassing Littleolive oil (Olive) for several months. Since Olive attained GA status for the John Hagelin article, Wolfie has:

• Removed large amounts of content fron the Hagelin article (see above)
• 4/5/13 Nominated the Hagelin article for GA delisting
• 4/5/13 At an unrelated AE thread and on Olive's talk page, he makes allegations about her real life place of employment
• 4/15/13 Opened an ArbCom request for clarification with Olive and the John Hagelin article as it's focus
• 4/8/13 Wolfie is warned by Ched to stop harassing Olive
• 9/3/13 Wolfie files ArbCom request with Olive as the central figure

@Sandstein - I have, on multiple occasions, invited and welcomed editors to the TM articles and other editors have done the same, after all WP is about collaboration. However, IRWolfie has deleted thousands of words and scores of sources, often in a single day, without communicating with anyone on the talk page, before or after the fact. I'm not suggesting that every one of his deletions was inappropriate only that his/her methods are unilateral, non-collaborative and disruptive. ArbCom has indicated that the repeated peremptory deletion of sourced content, on this contentious series of articles, is confrontational editing. The unilateral removal of sources such as a journal published by the AMA or a journal on the Brandon/Hill list (which is recommended by WP:MEDRS) is wrong and Wolfie has refused to cease and desist despite numerous warnings and talk page objections corresponding to his individual edits. To me that's not acceptable and violates the spirit and the letter of the discretionary sanctions I've cited and quoted above.

Statement by David in DC

I came to this page only to try to clean it up stylistically, and to try to apply common WP:BLP principles to it. I ran into a realtime edit conflict with olive and stopped editing. I woke up the next morning to a pleasant surprise, given the hubbub on the talk page. A greeting on my talk page from olive urging me to continue editing, welcoming me, and making clear that the edit conflict was a genuine case of two people stumbling into one another and nothing more.

I hope the admins reviewing this matter will make some judgements about the tenor of the conversation on the talk page amongst olive, Mast and Wolfie. In my opinion there's way too much rancor there. And the parties' contributions to the escalation of the incivility do not seem evenly split. Not by a long shot.

My interactions with olive have been uniformly civil. I've not interacted with Mast at all on any of this, but have found Mast to be extraordinarily skilled at disagreeing without being disagreeable in the past.

I've read posts by Wolfie before, but never interacted with Wolfie until now. I think these diffs tell the remainder of the story:

A) Posted by me after the first time Wolfie reverted me: and
B) olive's reply:
C) Posted by me after my second attempt at clean up, per MOS and BLP: and
D) Wolfie's first reply to me (see the edits below line 201):
E) Wolfie expands on reply:
F: My reaction:
David in DC (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Sandstein: I see no behavior by olive warranting administrative action. In my view, the only action Wolfie's complaint merits is summary dismissal. However, if an admin were inclined to take action against olive, based on Wolfie's request, that admin would be required to take Wolfie's own editorial behavior into account. My statement is intended as prophylaxis, should an admin head down the path you've just foresworn. David in DC (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Montanabw

I have never touched any of the articles at issue here, but I have had numerous interactions with both Olive and Wolfie in other contexts. I have only had positive interactions with Olive and find her to be a thoughtful and conscientious editor. Wolfie, on the other hand, has given me nothing but grief. He is disruptive and contentious in his editing pattern nearly everywhere he goes and I dread seeing him appear on any article that I care about editing, for he is certain to trash it with unreasonable demands and his own very odd interpretation of WP guidelines. Therefore, I concur completely with the following statement by Davd in DC: "I see no behavior by olive warranting administrative action. In my view, the only action Wolfie's complaint merits is summary dismissal. However, if an admin were inclined to take action against olive, based on Wolfie's request, that admin would be required to take Wolfie's own editorial behavior into account." I will not provide diffs at this time, but if any admin thinks Olive has done anything wrong beyond responding to some of Wolfie's usual WP:BAIT behavior, I will be glad to produce them later. Montanabw 01:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest For Knowledge

I agree with the AE admins that simply being sourced, does not necessarily mean that content belongs in an article. Individual policies such as verifiability should not be considered in isolation. Other policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:BLP, etc. must also be considered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

Keithbob's assertions, even with carefully dated diffs, that IRWolfie's edits constitute harassment of Littleolive oil do not seem credible. From her editing history, Littleolive oil has in the past advocated aspects of transcendental meditation that fall outside mainstream science (yogic flying in January 2010). That kind of advocacy might prevent her from making edits to John Hagelin that are neutral. As far as conduct is concerned, the criticisms of IRWolfie by Littleolive oil (and Keithbob) seem to be unsubstantiated personal attacks. Leaving aside the continual insistence on using sources which might not conform to usual wikipedia standards, the casting of aspersions about perceived opponents creates a chilling editing environment which more often that not might drive editors away from an article. Mathsci (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by PumpkinSky

• Maybe it was just a simple mistake about the person being an admin? PumpkinSky talk 15:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• You're assuming it was intentional. Even Sandstein isn't taking action here. Drop the stick. PumpkinSky talk 20:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Littleolive oil

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

This request does not include evidence in the form of dated diffs. Please provide those and explain how they violate any Misplaced Pages conduct rule. That is not apparent, at least not to me, from this request. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see anything actionable being reported above by IRWolfie-, Keithbob or David in DC. This doesn't mean that there isn't a problem, just that I can't discern it based on these submissions, or that it doesn't need discretionary sanctions to solve.

The comments by Littleolive oil quoted by IRWolfie- are, in part, unduly confrontative and personalized, but not yet to a degree that sanctions would be needed.

The "removal of sourced content" by IRWolfie- may well have occurred for good editorial reasons (determining otherwise would require us to make a content decision, which is beyond the scope of arbitration and its enforcement process), and the evidence does not establish that and how it was done "peremptorily" or "to excess" as envisioned in the principle quoted by Keithbob. The other actions by IRWolfie- may well have occurred in the context of good faith dispute resolution efforts and it is not clear how they might amount to harassment.

The statement by David in DC also does not make clear how any of the reported events might violate any conduct rule.

Finally, nobody but Keithbob has submitted dated diffs as requested above, so I can't easily tell whether most of this happened yesterday or a year ago.

I'll take no action but leave this open for other admins to evaluate. Maybe they see something actionable.  Sandstein  20:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't taken a look through all the diffs here, but a few things concern me.
  • First is that Olive provides several counter accusations against IRWolfie, but no evidence to back them up. This is never appropriate, and I advise Olive to either provide evidence for these accusations or withdraw them.
  • I am quite concerned by IRWolfie's speculation as to Olive's place of employment. That's brushing awfully close to outing, and is not at all appropriate.
  • While we can't make content determinations here, some of the behavior I'm seeing is reminiscent of other instances I've seen of civil POV pushing, which is sanctionable behavior. A major red flag for that is the constant reference to "sourced content", with as far as I can see little or no attempt to address the concerns of undue weight, fringe topic requirements, and synthesis that have been brought up. Being sourced is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion, and any other concerns about even sourced content must be addressed, not ignored.
• This is just from a preliminary look, and I do intend to take a more thorough look tonight or tomorrow, but there are indicators of problems here. I don't believe at this point that they'll yet rise to a sanctionable level on either side, but I'd like to get a better feel for it. Seraphimblade 22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Broadly concur with Seraphimblade above. Protesting about "removal of sourced content" as if sourcing is the sole requirement for inclusion is the cornerstone of civil POV pushing. Looking through the diffs presented by Keithbob above, I think that particular evidence is likely to draw judgements somewhat contrary to what was intended. CIreland (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• After taking a more thorough look here (and after seeing Littleolive oil exhibit I didn't hear that behavior in this very thread regarding hyperfocus on sourcing to the exclusion of other content policies), I've changed my mind from earlier. There is a lot of casting of aspersions here. One excellent example is the listing as an example of "harassment" that IRWolfie listed an article for GA delisting, without mentioning that the article was in fact found not to meet GA standards and delisted. That doesn't indicate harassment, it indicates apparently good judgment.

Littleolive oil has been sanctioned in the past for tendentious editing, and I'm seeing more of the same. Olive is answering concerns about undue weight to fringe viewpoints with nonanswers about the sourcing of that material. Given the previous sanctions and behavior here, I propose that Littleolive oil be topic banned from the area of transcendental meditation, broadly construed, for six months.

Regardless of any other considerations, our policy on outing is there for a reason. I would therefore also propose to ban IRWolfie from speculating on any aspect of the real-life identity of any editor in the TM area, except that concerns regarding such may be communicated privately to the Arbitration Committee.

Finally, some of the edits noted as "removals" by IRWolfie were rearrangement or changes. This is simple editing. I see IRWolfie generally willing to discuss such edits upon request, so I cannot find any evidence of disruptive editing there. Similarly, while IRWolfie and Olive clash often, I do not see conduct which rises to the level of harassment on a large scale for either one of them. Seraphimblade 14:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link NW/IRWolfie, that certainly does help to establish context. Still, if the material had been long-deleted by the time the comment was made, that indicates that Littleolive oil no longer wished that information to be available on-wiki, and we generally respect such wishes from editors in regards to their real-life identities. I understand the concerns about COI, but generally such concerns can be addressed without going into specifics about an editor's exact identity or place of work. If it is necessary to go into such detail in order to fully explain a concern, that's best handled by privately contacting ArbCom. I hope that makes sense? Seraphimblade 21:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Littleolive oil, I'd like to address a couple of things. Firstly, it is not the place of AE to adjudicate the content dispute. None of us here are deciding who's right, and none of my comments are intended to indicate that either editor's view of the proper content is correct, nor are they an endorsement thereof. We address only conduct. Secondly, I'm concerned about the section you recently posted, entitled "Comments from an uninvolved admin". The editor whose comments you cite is not an administrator. While this is not, mind you, to say that only the opinions of admins are or should be valued, it's still a misrepresentation. I'm afraid that convinces me further of the necessity of sanctions. Seraphimblade 05:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • • There's a reason I said "misrepresentation", and not lie. I don't and can't know what was in someone's mind. The only information we have is what they put in their edits. Seraphimblade 16:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

SightWatcher

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning SightWatcher

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mathsci (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBR&I#SightWatcher topic-banned

SightWatcher was given an extended topic ban following his editing on behalf of Captain Occam.

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

1. Prolonged battleground comment about WP:ARBR&I and me. SightWatcher's name had been mentioned only in passing as one in a list of 10 names. SightWatcher used this as a pretext to make a series of heated statements indistinguishable from comments Captain Occam has been making recently on wikipediocracy.

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

After his extended topic ban was imposed in May 2012, SightWatcher has received multiple warnings from arbitrators.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Recent background In 2013, before September, SightWatcher made only 2 edits to wikipedia. On 29 August an ANI thread was opened about Wer900. I added comments about Wer900's conduct in May 2013. (Wer900 had agreed to act as a proxy-editor for Captain Occam starting an RfAr on his behalf about my "ownership of Poland-related articles".) Captain Occam drew attention to the thread on wikipediocracy and kept up a running commentary, including claims that arbitrators had given permission for the RfAr. After emails with arbitrators, it appears no such decision was made by arbcom. Wer900 has in the meantime reiterated his intention to name me as a party in a future arbcom case but without giving any policy-based reason. My understanding is that arbitrators have no interest in seeing any evidence provided by Captain Occam.

SightWatcher's edit SightWatcher's name appeared on ANI in a list of editors associated with Captain Occam, without reference to his editing or conduct. The thread started on 29 August. Captain Occam started his running commmentary on wikipediocracy on August 29. On 2 September SightWatcher made a small number of content edits to wikipedia. Before that he had made 5 content edits in 2012 and 2 in 2013. All other edits relate to WP:ARBR&I. In the edit on WP:ANI on 6 September 2013, SightWatcher wrote:

"Why are you bringing me up again? I've avoided you since the beginning of this year, but you're still talking about me. I do not like my name being brought up in discussions that no longer concern me. I think everyone else is tired of hearing your theories about this, and they don't seem to be getting any traction with arbitrators anymore. For example I see that when you tagged Mors Martell as a sock puppet, an arbitrator removed the tag. "

SightWatcher has been inactive on the project in 2012-2013. He reappeared on wikipedia only after Captain Occam started commenting on wikipediocracy on 29 August. Given the acknowledged pattern of proxy-editing surrounding Captain Occam, it is hard to explain SightWatcher's reappearance out-of-the-blue as a coincidence. (So far Wer900 has been the only person to have given a clear account of how Captain Occam solicits users to edit on his behalf.) Prior to his edit on ANI, SightWatcher's editing or conduct had not been discussed in any way at all: his username merely appeared in a list of editors that have been associated with Captain Occam. His own association was made explicit by arbitrators in the 2012 R&I review based on evidence provided by Ferahgo the Assassin. SightWatcher's heated comments above are indistinguishable from off-wiki commentary on the same issues by Captain Occam. SightWatcher's edit violates his extended topic ban. It also appears to be yet another edit made in collaboration with Captain Occam/Ferahgo the Assassin.

@Sandstein: All those on the list are either banned, blocked or sanctioned. Blocked users include TrevelyanL85A2, like SightWatcher shown in the R&I review to have been in contact with Occam/Ferahgo; they all edited in support of each other. He was indefinitely blocked by Future Perfect in September 2012 after a topic ban violation, reported by me at AE. This report is comparable; I am under no restrictions concerning either. Other blocked users are: Zeromus1, indef blocked by arbitrators as a sockpuppet of Ferahgo the Assassin; Akuri and Mors Martell, both indef blocked by arbitrators as suspicious accounts. All three gradually gravitated towards R&I arbitration proceedings. In December 2012 I already linked to a wikipediocracy posting of Captain Occam in an amendment request. Roger Davies subsequently asked questions about evidence that apparently had been supplied by Occam. This is similar to what has happened between Occam and Wer900.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning SightWatcher

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by SightWatcher

Statement by Alanyst

SightWatcher's response to Mathsci reads to me largely as "get off my back, will ya?" with a bit of commentary about how SightWatcher feels the community regards Mathsci's complaints. It does not read to me as an effort to pursue harassment of Mathsci, to engage in debate about race and intelligence, or to fight any kind of battle.

The text of SightWatcher's R&I topic ban is: "SightWatcher is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Misplaced Pages, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned." Mathsci was the one who mentioned Sightwatcher in the first place, and in my opinion SightWatcher's response was measured and "within reason" as the topic ban allows. I recommend that the requested enforcement action be declined. alanyst 07:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

Sandstein, you might should check this. Cla68 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (other editor)

Result concerning SightWatcher

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

As Alanyst points out, the topic ban contains the proviso that "This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned." The edit reported here is broadly within the scope of that exception, even if the part about Mors Martell is not. I don't see how this report's repeated mention of the website Wikipediocracy or another user, Captain Occam, has any relevance to the alleged topic ban violation being reported. I'd leave it at a warning to SightWatcher.

The post by Mathsci to which SightWatcher replied, in which Mathsci seems to allege without evidence some sort of offwiki conspiracy by editors including SightWatcher, does not strike me as helpful in the least. Considering WP:ARBR&I#Mathsci: admonished, we may want to consider a warning or discretionary sanction with regard to Mathsci. As an aside, the general tone of parts of the ANI discussion is appalling and confirms my impression that the whole noticeboard is now much more a source of disruption than a place in which to resolve it.  Sandstein  07:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)