Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mkdw (talk | contribs) at 07:19, 23 May 2017 (comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
An admin advising another user to deliberately introduce errors   1 July 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection Motion none 15 May 2017
Clarification request: Transcendental Meditation movement none (orig. case) 18 May 2017
Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions (2014) none none 19 May 2017

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection

Initiated by BU Rob13 at 03:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Arbitration_motions_regarding_extended_confirmed_protection

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by BU Rob13

Way back when extended-confirmed protection (ECP) was first created, the Committee developed a motion about how extendedconfirmed as a user right interacts with discretionary sanctions and other specific remedies. Among this motion was a prohibition on individual administrators removing "extendedconfirmed" either as a discretionary sanction or to avoid an arbitration enforcement procedure. At the time, this prevented 100% of unilateral removals of the "extendedconfirmed" flag, as ECP was only allowed in areas defined by the Committee.

Since then, the community has developed its own protection policy for applying ECP, but no policy is in place about adding or removing the "extendedconfirmed" flag. I had assumed the original motion prevented administrators from unilaterally removing the flag, since even removals unrelated to sanctioned areas would have unintended consequences on an editor's ability to edit those areas. Xaosflux pointed out to me that this isn't necessarily the case. I'd like to clarify this. Did the Committee intend for this motion to prevent administrators from unilaterally removing the extendedconfirmed flag in all cases? If no, are such removals acceptable in the absence of any community policy to the contrary / do they fall under admin discretion? ~ Rob13Talk 03:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Newyorkbrad: The original motion by the Committee is linked above as the case/decision affected by this ARCA. The original RfC to allow admins to apply ECP to combat disruption occurred here. ~ Rob13Talk 01:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Opabinia regalis: I'll preface this question by saying I'm undecided on this issue, so this is rhetorical, not my viewpoint. Vigilant Admin revokes Disruptive Editor's extendedconfirmed flag because they disruptively edited through ECP (e.g. edit-warring through ECP, etc). Disruptive Editor happens to participate in the Israeli-Palestinean conflict topic area in a constructive manner. Almost all IP conflict pages are under ECP solely because of the ArbCom motion requiring that all editors in that topic area have 500 edits and 30 days on-site. What happens now? Disruptive Editor is functionally topic banned from the IP conflict topic area under the existing ArbCom remedy and its current method of implementation. The only possible method to address this would be to remove ECP from any articles Disruptive Editor wants to edit in the IP conflict topic area and handle enforcement via blocks, but that is inconsistent with the current guidance at WP:ARBPIA3#500/30.

    Basically, I see this as under ArbCom's purview because it either turns an existing ArbCom remedy into a de facto topic ban on certain editors or affects enforcement of the remedy. ~ Rob13Talk 01:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the Committee doesn't see this as within its scope, I'm perfectly fine with that, but we still need to know what happens in the situation I outlined above. Does an editor whose extendedconfirmed flag was removed for reasons unrelated to arb enforcement become pseudo-topic banned from the IP conflict topic area, for instance, under current ArbCom remedies? If the answer is yes, that's fine, but it needs to be clear. ~ Rob13Talk 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, Opabinia regalis. If that's the answer, I'm fine with that. It probably means WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 can/should be re-written to ban editors without the extendedconfirmed flag from editing in the topic area, since that is simpler and more accurate. Future remedies restricting editing in such a way should also use such language. (And to be clear to other Committee members, I'm not and have never asked the Committee to control extended-confirmed protection itself outside arbitration areas - not sure why some people are commenting about controlling ECP. This is about the flag itself, which affects arb matters no matter why it's removed).
  • @Mkdw: That's conflating the extendedconfirmed flag with extendedconfirmed protection (ECP). They are different. The Committee should absolutely not interfere with community based extendedconfirmed protection. No-one is arguing that. It's more questionable whether the Committee can/should interfere with removing the "extendedconfirmed" flag, which is currently used as the basis of arbitration remedies. I can certainly understand why arbitrators would say the extendedconfirmed flag is outside their jurisdiction - that is one reasonable view. That's very different from saying community-based extendedconfirmed protection is outside their jurisdiction, which is the only reasonable view on that separate issue. ~ Rob13Talk 23:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xaosflux

My understanding is that only alterations of this user permission related to arbitration remedies are under the control of the arbitration committee - and that any other use is up to the community. Even directly related to use against sanctioned articles, administrative removal of this access has occurred, following community discussion, in instances where the prerequisites have been "gamed" (not as a discretionary sanction). My suggestion would be that the community should further discuss the revocation guidelines and process regarding this access group and document the administrator expectations. — xaosflux Talk 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mz7

I'm inclined to agree with the arbitrators so far and say that the Committee cannot restrict revocations of the extendedconfirmed right outside of arbitration enforcement.

With that being said, I am not sure I like the idea of removing the flag as an enforcement measure for either community policy or arbitration. The extended confirmed flag was not intended to be a "special" user right, such as rollback, for example. If rollback is abused, the natural response is to simply revoke the rollback right. However, I see extended confirmed differently: revoking it as an enforcement measure is beyond the role that the community had originally envisioned for it, which is merely a technical checkbox that ticks for editors that have made 500 edits with 30 days account registration.

If an editor is truly editing disruptively (e.g. violating a topic ban, edit warring), we would use a block to prevent and deter further disruption. Revoking extended confirmed to respond to disruptive editing strikes me as a kind of "partial" or "lesser" block, which, as far as my knowledge goes, is unprecedented. Despite the absence of community policy regarding this, I would strongly advise administrators to wait until the community has discussed whether this kind of enforcement measure is acceptable before unilaterally applying it. I don't see it as part of admin discretion. Mz7 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

All other user rights that can be granted by a single admin can also be revoked by a single admin. This is as it should be and I believe we are in the realm of unintended consequences here. I believe the committee should act to clarify that its past standing on this issue either now invalid or only applies to arbitration enforcement actions. Again, I don't believe this was the intent but the committee appears to have created policy by fiat, which is not how it works. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection: Clerk notes

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

Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @BU Rob13: Could you please give us links to the policy pages and other discussions you are referencing? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regard to revocation of extended-confirmed status, my understanding of the status quo is that it should not be removed as a sanction for poor-quality editing (e.g. in lieu of a topic-ban). However, it should be subject to removal when it was obtained illegitimately by gaming (e.g. with 500 trivial sandbox edits) in the first place; that is a different situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newyorkbrad:, these are the motions from immediately after last year's rollout of the extendedconfirmed user group and protection level. (According to the history and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions, they were archived to the talk pages of the affected policies, but the links no longer work because the talk pages themselves have been archived; the protection policy one is here and the user right one is here.) Grnklaagheq!%$@# why do we do this, in the alternate universe where I'm Queen of Wikipedia, all arb business gets its own subpage in arbspace so it's actually searchable and doesn't have linkrot grumble mutter everybody get off my lawn.
    @BU Rob13:, your interpretation is how I originally wanted to do it last year (in fact, I wanted to make it technically irrevocable to remove the temptation), but after discussion the conclusion was that arbcom could only regulate admins' discretion to revoke the user right on matters directly under our scope, i.e. AE/DS matters. If an admin wanted to remove the user right due to disruption on pages that are ECP'd for other reasons, it would be up to the community to decide if that's acceptable. Personally, I think that's an undesirable inconsistency likely to lead to confusion (as this request shows). On the other hand, I feel less strongly about revoking EC now that we've had some experience with the system. On the third hand, I'm not sure that my change of view is actually well-informed or if it's just creeping complacency. The proliferation of user rights, and thus of opportunities for admins to try to "pull rank", doesn't seem to have slowed down any. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • BU Rob13 The argument I made last year (which I'm no longer so convinced of) is that ECP would never have come into existence as an option without the 30/500 remedy from the PIA3 case. There was never a community consensus for a new protection level; it was pulled out of someone's ass as an ad-hoc gamergate AE action and worked well enough that it was scaled up the next time a remedy was needed for a topic area beset with persistent, disruptive, and frequently offensive socking. Since the availability of ECP is 100% a consequence of an arbcom decision, that means that a) its general use is arguably still "our problem", and b) the part where arbcom makes policy even though it's not technically supposed to already happened when the PIA3 remedy was passed.
      As for your specific case, I think it's the same as any other user right - if you're disruptive using it for one thing, and you can't/won't stop the disruptive behavior, then you risk losing the ability to contribute even in other areas where you're not disruptive. We don't talk about a "topic ban on templates" if someone edits templates productively but loses their TE right because they edit-warred to put pictures of squabbling children in the ANI editnotice. Just kidding, actually I'd give that person a barnstar ;) Of course I hope that we see a great deal of caution from admins looking to remove the right for any reason other than gross abuse (500 sandbox edits repeatedly posting "I like pie" and so on), because the ability to unilaterally tell another editor "you're not good enough to sit at the big-boy table" has a high potential for toxic effects. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to dictate how ECP is applied (or removed) outside of arbitration remedies. As I see it, we only have the authority to impose the limits we imposed in that remedy when they are a part of a set of restrictions created for a particular arbitration case. Applied more broadly, this would be a case of the Arbitration Committee dictating policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BU Rob13: You do have an interesting point about the possible grey area of an administrator removing the extendedconfirmed flag from a user who has been disruptive on articles that are 500/30-protected (but not by arbitration decisions) and who actively edits articles under arbitration-related 500/30 protection. I think it's reasonable to trust administrators to make this kind of judgment call if and when it comes up, and either err on the side of caution and pursue other resolutions, or at least provide a solid justification for the removal based on the editor's behavior in the articles protected outside of arbitration decisions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can provide clarification on ECP in regards to ArbCom remedies and sanction areas only, and I'm inclined to agree with Xaosflux that the community must decide how they'd like to handle it in all other situations. Mkdw talk 03:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: The main question in your initial statement was:

Did the Committee intend for this motion to prevent administrators from unilaterally removing the extendedconfirmed flag in all cases?

I don't think anyone thought you were asking the Committee to control areas outside arbitration areas, but it's a point of clarity needed to answer your question which asks about "all cases" (including outside arbitration areas). We're saying it's not and why (being it's outside our authority on the matter). Mkdw talk 21:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: I've been talking broadly about ECP meaning to include XCON, which I could have been more specific or accurate about, because my point is that anything outside an ArbCom area relating to ECP including how the user right is managed should be in the hands of the community. It's for the community to decide, in those cases, whether it's managed at the discretion of administrators or not, and not something ArbCom can answer or motion into existence. The best I think this ARCA could do is highlight that gap and the community could seek to put something in place. That's why I've put an emphasis about jurisdiction. If that makes sense. Mkdw talk 03:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that in regard to ECP we do not have the authority to control it outside Arbitration remedies that include it. In all other cases it is up to the community. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BU Rob13:, I don't interpret the motion as preventing " 100% of unilateral removals of the "extendedconfirmed" flag". If we meant it that way we would have worded it that way. We gave. as you point out, two instances of when it couldn't be removed, "as a discretionary sanction" and "as a means of bypassing arbitration enforcement procedures". I don't read that as forbidding an Administrator from removing ECP from someone whose only edits are sandbox edits. At least for me, one of the reasons for 500 edits is to aid new users in understanding our policies and procedures and to interact with other editors, and 500 sandbox or other trivial edits don't do that. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the original motion was designed to handle how the new permission would be handled with regards to ArbCom related matters (with its usage outside ArbCom matters to be determined by the community), its usage and scope has grown significantly since then. In response to your question Did the Committee intend for this motion to prevent administrators from unilaterally removing the extendedconfirmed flag in all cases?, the answer is no (although like OR, my preference as an editor/administrator would for it to have been technically irrevocable). It was only intended to prevent removal as a discretionary sanction or to avoid having to enact a topic ban. It may be worth reviewing the merits of that motion again, as the usage of Extended Confirmed has spread well beyond its original intended use. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the others. Use outsides Arb remedies is a matter for the community, unless the specific matter should happen to come within jurisdiction for some reason.I'm glad we were able to find something the community considers more generally useful, but that's up to the community. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Transcendental Meditation movement

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

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Manul

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

In the final decision it says,

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

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

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

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

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

Details

  • Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) (hereafter referred to as Olive) has a conflict of interest.[4] That deleted link points to Olive's own statement and does not give any identifying information. I have assured Olive that I respect her privacy and that following WP:COI is compatible with maintaining her privacy.[5] The link was supplied by then-arbitrator NuclearWarfare inside this AE request.
  • MastCell says that Olive has a conflict of interest. Please read his comment on the matter[6] which includes the above quote from him.
  • After bringing up the Olive's COI I have been on the receiving end of her attacks. It does feel like, in MastCell's words, that she questions my very humanity. For details please see my message to her.[7] Note that, even after my plea for decency, she continued assuming bad faith and continued down the road of conspiracy, still not looking at the AE request and still imagining that I obtained the deleted link by some nefarious means.[8]
  • Olive has been sanctioned three times in the area of Transcendental Meditation.[9][10][11] The first was an editing restriction that she shared with Timid Guy. The second and third were topic bans for tendentious editing.
  • For more context, please see my message to her[12] in which I thoroughly explained the issue, demonstrating that she can't recognize, or seems indifferent to, TM propaganda in Wikipedia articles. This also covers the above-mentioned case of a GA reviewer calling the TM article "a skillfully written piece of propaganda".
  • Despite having written what she did on her user page[13] (in the AE case NuclearWarfare mentioned how non-admins may obtain the text; I will not repeat it here), Olive says, perplexingly, that she does not have a conflict of interest. And by using phrases such as "despite arbitrations"[14] and "the arbs knew"[15] she appears to intimate that the committee concluded that she does not have a conflict of interest. That is, it would appear her argument is that she doesn't have a conflict of interest because the arbitration decision doesn't contain a statement to the effect of "Olive has a conflict of interest". On the other hand, I read the COI section of the final decision as referring to Olive and others.
  • In another twist, SlimVirgin has accused NuclearWarfare of outing Olive in 2013 by supplying the deleted link.[16] Outing is perhaps the most serious charge one editor can make against another. I believe it is wrong for SlimVirgin to make this accusation toward NuclearWarfare and, by extension, toward me. Although she did clarify that she was not fingering me directly,[17] the implication remains.

Questions for the committee

  • Does this text in the final decision

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

    mean that following WP:COI is merely recommended for editors with a conflict of interest -- that they are ultimately free to ignore WP:COI? Or is this a non-optional "should"?
  • Given Olive's own statement[18] in conjunction with her previous sanctions and behavior discussed above, does Olive have a conflict of interest? And regardless, is she perceived (per the wording of the decision) as having a conflict of interest?
  • Did NuclearWarfare, an arbitrator at the time, out Olive in September 2013 by offering a link that (1) is not publicly visible (deleted); (2) does not contain any identifying information; and (3) was written by Olive herself on her user page?

Preemptive answers to expected questions for me

  • Q: Aren't you harassing Olive by trying to out her?
A: Absolutely not. I have made clear to Olive that I respect her privacy and that following WP:COI does not require revealing any personal information at all.[19] I have not asked Olive for any personal information, and such information is not the least bit necessary.
  • Q: Why haven't you taken this to Arbitration Enforcement?
A: Indeed there is ample evidence (including recent hounding[20] -- she never edited that page before) for an AE case. However the last AE case went very poorly, with the submitter being railroaded on the false claim that he was trying to out Olive. He ultimately left Wikipedia largely as a result of this, it seems. Any future AE case would greatly depend upon the committee's answers to the above questions, so this ARCA needs to come first. Otherwise I would expect the pattern of the last case to be repeated.
  • Q: Isn't this ARCA just a ploy to impose your own POV on TM articles?
A: My POV, if you can call it that, is merely that policies and guidelines should be followed. The current state of TM articles is quite unfortunate. When I look at a random TM article problems jump out immediately. See for instance [21]. To someone familiar with the topic, it is hard to miss that the Transcendental Meditation technique article is scrubbed of "embarrassing" aspects such as claims that advanced practitioners can levitate or turn invisible.
  • Q: So why don't you just fix the TM articles, then?
A: Indeed I have delved into editing TM articles, and I was stunned at the level of disruption I encountered there. I would like editing in this area to approach something resembling normalcy, and I believe this ARCA is a step in that direction.

Postscript

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

Responses to arbitrators

  • @Opabinia regalis: The two links at "After bringing up the Olive's COI I have been on the receiving end of her attacks..." are from February 2017. The context was the John Hagelin article, the article that the GA reviewer called "a skillfully written piece of propaganda" in 2013. But I could have cited any number of my interactions at TM articles since I joined, and in any case I don't see how this is relevant to the questions I asked to the committee. This isn't an AE case; I'm not seeking sanctions against Olive or anyone else. I'm seeking clarification of the arbitration decision for the future of TM articles generally, which, as I mentioned, are in an unfortunate state. As troubling as the stalking at WP:PAG is, that is not the direct concern here. (The context for WP:PAG is that Olive and SlimVirgin wish to disregard WP:FRINGE at the Hagelin article -- see the current Talk:John Hagelin -- and oh look, SlimVirgin joined in at WT:PAG to continue the push.) Manul ~ talk 01:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doug Weller: An arbitration case is the last thing I had in mind. This a request for clarification, not a request for arbitration. I expected this to be a simple process in which arbitrators would consider the questions in the "Questions for the committee" section. I provided background because I thought it would be helpful; sorry if I gave too much of it. I didn't expect anyone to rehash 2013; the information from 2013 is there because it bears on the questions posed to the committee. Manul ~ talk 21:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, and GorillaWarfare: In my molasses-paced editing, the dispute in February 2017 is recent. It reappeared on the 17th of this month. My February comment is a watershed moment.[22] It is simply not acceptable for an editor to continue making such aspersions against me. That she responded by assuming bad faith and by continuing the aspersions[23] was the end of the line. However instead of pursuing it further, I took time off, hoping the matter would subside.
With the recent hounding on the 17th,[24] this really is the end of the line. Her claim that it is not hounding is not credible. That edit is the only edit she has made to policies/guidelines since 2015, and WP:FRINGE and WP:COI are the only policies/guidelines she has edited since January 2013. The edit comes after she was inactive for five days, and less than three hours after my edit. The edit pertains directly to the February dispute at Talk:John Hagelin where she and SlimVirgin are attempting to impose the view that WP:FRINGE should be ignored. (And the reason she offers[25] is muddled: a change can't be both redundant and inaccurate at the same time.)
Re Opabinia's question, "What is it that you want to do that you feel unable to do without the clarifications you're asking for?" I would like to bring an AE case. However that can't be done until we address Olive's insinuation that the arbitration committee supports her claim that she doesn't have a COI. Part of the flare-up is tied her reactions to me bringing up the COI. That is what she is upset about. Am I justified in asking Olive to follow WP:COI? That is one question. Should WP:COI be followed, or can WP:COI be ignored? That is another question. Please read MastCell's assessment of the situation.[26] The toxicity here is way over the top, and MastCell got it right when he said that Olive questions "not only the arguments but the very humanity" of whistleblowers. By insinuating that the arbitration committee supports her claim that she doesn't have a COI, Olive forces this ARCA because only the arbitration committee can answer that.
Regarding the last question in "Questions for the committee", the current issue -- from February 2017 -- is whether SlimVirgin should be leveling the incredibly serious charge of outing, even considering the caveat she added. Manul ~ talk 18:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Opabinia regalis and RexxS: We know Olive has a conflict of interest because we can read her statement (admins see it automatically; non-admins have to look at what NW said). It is further confirmed by all the aforementioned behavioral evidence (e.g. she literally does not recognize TM propaganda in articles, or is (presumably unconsciously) accepting of its presence[27]). I can't imagine a clearer case of COI. If Olive does not have a COI then nobody ever has. If WP:COI is not meant for Olive then it is not meant for anyone. She shares the same 76.76.* IP range as another editor who actually declared a COI.[28][29][30][31] She does not assume good faith toward whistleblowers, attacking them with a stream of unfounded aspersions[32] (IRWolfie-/Second_Quantization is another example). She is currently teaming up with a longtime admin to lobby for the view that WP:FRINGE can be disregarded.
All of this is toxic for the editing environment and ultimately for the content that environment creates. I am seeking a way forward. Having the arbitration committee put the COI issue to rest once and for all (only they can do so) would be a first step. If only Olive would follow WP:COI and stop attacking others, the proximate issue would be largely solved.
TM is a new religious movement whose followers are concentrated at a particular geographical location, the 76.76.* IP range. The edits coming from this location consistently push TM articles in one direction. The tragedy here is that the thousands of hours people have collectively spent dealing with TM-related disputes over the years could have been avoided by simply viewing the 76.76.* range as one voice. Editors from that range wouldn't be auto-blocked or auto-topic-banned, but just given the appropriate weight when, say, one of them lobbies for ignoring WP:FRINGE. Manul ~ talk 13:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Opabinia regalis: One could ask the question, "Why can't we assume good faith when Olive says that she doesn't have a COI?" The answer is that we can. We can believe that Olive has a COI while simultaneously believing that she believes she doesn't have a COI. I expect the same situation would apply to many editors involved in new religious movements at an institutional level. Indeed I would expect many (even most) of them to believe they represent the neutral perspective -- as Olive believes she does -- when actually they represent the view of the new religious movement. We can also believe that Olive believes she is neutral. Manul ~ talk 14:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive oil

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

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

  • Alleging disruption on TM articles

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

  • Alleged hounding

I watch-list policies and guideline pages and commented on this one despite Manul who has been adversarial, not because he was there. Manul had made a unilateral edit [33] which changed the substance of the guidelines paragraph so that "guidelines" became rigid and resembled policy. My talk page comment here. This concerned me. Such a change should have more community input in my opinion.

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

Manul says, “For details please see my message to her.[34]"

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

  • That I was pushing for inclusion of fringe content.

I don’t push to include fringe content and no diffs show this. I do say that the author of the content may be the definitive source for describing what the fringe content is. For example, it’s a good idea to describe the fringe theory then the criticism and not just add criticism without explaining what is actually being criticized. My position [35] and this discussion [36]

COI accusations

  • History of the removed link

The link [37] is to a statement I made in my early naive days on WP. I was then harassed off-Wikipedia repeatedly over a few years time and eventually asked to have that information removed. User:Dreadstar removed it but did not have oversight rights. By the time of the first T M arbitration, I no longer worked at the place identified in the link and have not for 10 or more years. I was transparent about that link in the first arbitration; I had emailed the arbs about it. The link gives enough personal information to have probably helped create a bad time for me including anonymous phone calls that began 15 minutes after I was in discussion with a particular editor and with 5 minute intervals after that. I couldn’t trace the calls and a lawyer told me to remove as much personal information in public forums as I could, which I did. I have had three separate instances over the last ten years, of this kind of harassment. For Manul to refer to these links in concert with his multiple attempts over several years to have me admit to a COI constitutes harassment in my mind. And yes, I don’t feel particularly happy when an editor uses that link as has happened in the past with Nuclear Warfare and Wolfie and as Manul continues to do even here several times.

  • The history of the Hagelin article

According to Manul

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

What actually happened.

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

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

  • Number of edits to TM article - 16 [38]
  • Number of edits to TM technique article - 2 [39]
  • Number of edits to TM Movement -5 [40]
  • Number of edits to John Hagelin article: 18 [41]
  • I made multiple edits to the Deepak Chopra article only peripherally related to TM. I know very little about Chopra beyond my own reading for this article and don’t edit there much anymore given the article’s rather toxic environment

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

    • Its become clear that surprisingly what this clarification is about is to clear the way for an AE. Manul is not asking me if I have a COI he is telling me I have one and then demanding I admit to this. He has pursued this since Jan 2015 [42], Aug 2016 [43] at which time he templated two articles which linked to the removed link. He added the template to the Hagelin article and again implies I should admit to a COI [44], then Sept 2016, [45]where while saying the problems he sees aren't my fault he implies they are, then Feb 2017[46] and finally here May 2017. I feel harassed.
    • My most recent comment about fringe, "If we are going to include fringe content in this article we must present in in a neutral way. If we don't want the fringe content we can remove it all, but we should not exclude just what agrees with a POV."[47] which belies the idea that I am trying to exclude fringe content.
    • I watch list Policies and Guidelines and for that matter other Wikipedia pages and read what is posted most days I am on Wikipedia. If I don't do so I lose contact with the forms that guide editing. This doesn't mean I see a need to comment. I did in this case because of the way the change was moving guideline to be policy-like. If the community wants that kind of change I have no argument. However, one editor should not be dictating that kind of adjustment. I suggested an RfC to Manul which will include the community and if supported will give Manul support for his change. Part of the comment reads, "I am uncomfortable with the rigidity and redundancy of the change you made so will remove it for now. I believe it changes the meaning substantially. I would suggest a RfC to make that kind of change." He seems to have ignored the usefulness of that collaborative process.
    • Because I in no way want to exclude fringe content or its criticism and was not arguing about guidelines on the Hagelin article I also did not see my comment on Policies and Guidelines talk as connected in any way to the Hagelin article discussion here. This connection is in Manul's mind not mine.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Opabinia regalis Did you see my comment on the John Hagelin article? "I'm actually more than happy to have a neutral editor working on this article so while I may not always agree with everything I am very happy to have your edits and changes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC))" here. I think its an excellent idea to have neutral input on any article and that was Slim Virgin's role. She asked for information here which is why I came to the article and felt I could help. She has a reputation as being one of Wikipedia's best and most neutral editors. (Indeed, she authored many of Wikipedia's original policies.) She did great work on the article to make it more neutral. And Manul fought with her. It appears that he feels that anyone who doesn't share his point of view is someone who is a supporter of fringe views. I also welcomed outside support earlier in the article. "I would be happy to have an uninvolved editor try to make something of this article. (olive (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC))"[48] The editor who is responsible for David in DC's response to the unilateral reversion of his edits was not me. David in DC was/is an uninvolved editor. "The near realtime reversion of edits is just plain annoying. It bespeaks WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS problems at a high degree of magnitude. David in DC (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)". This reverter was Second Quantzation. He took me to AE when the uninvolved editor, David in DC appeared and I was sanctioned for 6 months. Was I frustrated with the discussion, yes, and because of that I wanted and asked David in DC to carry on when he appeared.[49] He was reverted immediately. Am I frustrated with the way things happen on WP and the false narrative that has been created about me. Yes. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by TimidGuy

Statement by MastCell

Statement by SlimVirgin

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Statement by Thryduulf

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

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

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

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

Statement by Montanabw

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

Statement by RexxS

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by OID

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

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

Statement by Jytdog

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

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

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

1) Plain old COI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) PAID

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Transcendental Meditation movement: Clerk notes

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

Transcendental Meditation movement: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @Manul: This is a very thorough discussion of the history, but on a quick look, many of your diffs and links refer to events from 2013. The only recent material I see is a short discussion from February and one revert at WP:PAG yesterday, which I gather is what prompted this request, but I don't see the connection between participating in a discussion about the text of a policy page and all this old stuff. Could you please briefly (very briefly!) summarize what the current issue is, with recent diffs? Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Doug Weller: We're probably not going to take a case here :)
    • @Manul: OK, let me ask a different question. What is it that you want to do that you feel unable to do without the clarifications you're asking for? Edit the Hagelin article? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing wrong with being an editing slowpoke :) OK, this took me a bit since I wasn't familiar with the events of the original case. But having looked it over, I very much agree with RexxS's first post above. This question about "is COI disclosure optional" largely hinges on the semantics of "optional", and at best can be said to be expected in the same sense that assuming good faith absent evidence to the contrary is expected: that is, we can only judge by your observable behavior. We can no more reach into people's off-wiki lives to determine whether they "really" have a COI despite denying one than we can reach into people's minds to determine whether they "really" think the editor they're arguing with is a dirty liar. Real-life COI disclosures can be required because they apply to real-named people whose backgrounds and conflicts can be formally audited. We have no mechanism to do that and no interest in half-assing it via the deleted revisions of userpages from nine years ago. To be clear, there is a difference between having a COI and having a POV; the latter is observable by on-wiki behavior and may well be the case. To the extent that this request is about the editing environment at John Hagelin, it looks to me like what's needed there is more input from parties not already immersed in the history of related disputes. I realize that's a frustrating answer, since RfCs have a tendency to attract partisans of both sides and rather few uninvolved people willing to enter an obviously disputed area. To the extent that this is about long-simmering interpersonal disputes, I will say that it would be wise to use the talk page first rather than reverting someone you have a long-standing dispute with, even if their edit came to your attention for other reasons. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would encourage anyone who feels affected by this request to make a statement if they can. We appreciate any efforts to keep it concise and to the point but I feel it's important to hear from everyone if possible. Mkdw talk 18:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to hear from everyone who feels affected, but only about current issues. I can't see any reason to rehash material from 2013. Sure, it might be background, but it's not going to help us decide whether or not to take a case. We'll make that decision primarily on whether a case is required to solve current problems. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give my opinion as it stands right now, though I'll note we have relatively few statements at this point. Regarding your question 1, I feel the "should" in the COI remedy is the optional version, as it is with COI across Wikipedia. There is no way to know for certain if the average editor has a conflict of interest on one topic or the other unless they say so, which is really the ideal situation. Therefore, there's really no way for the non-optional interpretation to be enforced—we can only enforce it if we know an editor has a COI, and certainly by making it non-optional we discourage folks from declaring their COI. Even if there was a declared interest in a subject, someone would have to make the decision about whether it was enough to create a conflict of interest, and frankly this whole thing is a rabbit hole I don't think anyone needs to go into. As always, if an editor is editing disruptively in a topic area where they have a COI, this can be dealt with by sanctioning the editor for the disruption.
Now that I've made that point, I think question 2 is somewhat less relevant. To be honest I haven't really looked particularly hard at Littleolive oil's contributions at this point, or any statements they may have made regarding a COI. If they're editing disruptively, that is something that we can try to handle; if they have a COI and are not being disruptive, there's nothing for us to do here.
Regarding point 3, I'm not really sure why you are asking this question. I imagine among the fifteen of us we have differing opinions on this, and I'm sure we could answer whether or not it's a violation of policy, but it's also something that happened in 2013, and I don't see what purpose an answer to that question would even serve at this point in time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is that disclosing COI is not optional , but required. (I think the view that it is optional dates from much earlier years, and the consensus of the community has shifted to required. If this remains unclear, than we will need an RfC on the matter. )
The argument that making it required discourages people from declaring it does not make sense to me--what required disclosure does discourage, as it should, is people with COI editing with respect to their COI without disclosing it. Te underlying justification for that is the fundamental policy of NPOV. The difficulties of unambiguously detecting it are real, but that is no more a reason for making the declaration optional than the difficulty is detecting socgpupettry prevents making the avoidance of sockpuppettry optional. All rules have enforcement problems of this sort, which is why they need mechanisms for assessing violations of them. (Based on available information, the COI here was indeed present, but it is possible that it no longer is).
I am not sure I agree that a usable statement of COI can always be made without some degree of personal disclosure. There are various levels, such as a current vs past relationship to the subject, and certainly monetary vs. non-monetary--which, as defined by the WMF, is absolutely required as a matter of site policy (I note that enWP apparently has a somewhat broader definition, which includes employment). If a company or organization is small enough, or the COI is with respect to an individual, the mere statement of COI may well identify the individual to some extent--how this can be handled remains unclear--most suggestions provide for confidential disclosure of some sort).
BTW, I am quite aware that my views here differ from many of the others on the committee. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions (2014)

Initiated by NeilN at 05:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions#2014

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by NeilN

WP:ACDS has instructions for admins placing editing restrictions. To wit, "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)." It has no instructions for admins wishing to modify restrictions placed by other admins. Being the cockeyed optimist that I am, I have to believe that not all restrictions will be needed in the future, especially ones custom tailored to address a current controversy. I'd like Arbcom to clarify the process of getting restrictions removed. I suggest copying the process laid out for modifying sanctions. Briefly, fresh disruption can be met with new restrictions placed by any admin. Restrictions may be lifted only with the agreement of the admin who placed the restrictions. If they are unavailable or disagreement occurs then a request for review may be made at WP:AN or WP:ARCA. Ideally I'd like the lifting-restrictions admin to be allowed to use their judgement if the original admin is unavailable but I realize this could create drama.

Statement by EdJohnston

Most page restrictions are applied as discretionary sanctions. In my view they should be appealable at WP:Arbitration enforcement like any other sanction. Making such appeals go to WP:ARCA risks using up the time of the committee unnecessarily. Someone who wants an existing restriction lifted might start with {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} or a reasonable equivalent. Appeals should be granted or denied using the same venue and consensus rules as for personal sanctions, as laid out at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. The page at WP:AC/DS does not yet have any wording for how to appeal a page restriction. (These restrictions are sometimes referred to in the WP:DSLOG as 'Page-level sanctions'; you can search the log for that term). It looks like there could be a new item for page-level sanctions added below 'Appeals by sanctioned editors.' If the committee agrees to such a change, it would probably need a motion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maile66

Apparently, my applying ECP to Jordan in response to an ECP protection request, which I applied in accordance with instructions I had previously requested on how ECP should be applied, has triggered this discussion. Within a matter of hours, that was questioned on my talk page, and that discussion is currently ongoing at RFPP. I have always been hesitant to apply ECP, because it always seemed too vague to me how it is applied. One of the hottest issues in the world that will outlive all of us, and it has been left to admin discretion on whether or not to apply protection, with no clear guidelines on what "broadly interpreted" means in regards to whether or not the article is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That conflict, and who and what is related to it, really is subjective and dependent upon where one lives and whether or not one has a personal religion in the mix.

As for the applying admin to also change or lift what they applied, I'm uneasy about that regardless of the subject matter. In this particular case, I think it really sets a bad precedence for the applying admin to do a reversal within hours, and opens the flood gates to "hey, you did it for the last person...". There's always a chance an admin will be approached to lift a restriction they applied, and that often depends on how strongly and diligently another editor is in addressing the admin to lift the sanctions. For the sake of being impartial, especially on the ECP issue, I believe any sanctions lifted should come from an uninvolved admin.

Arb needs to give us some clearer guidelines, please. — Maile (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the above post by NeilN clarifies that my edit on Jordan did not trigger this discussion. However, I think the Jordan protection is a good example of why we need clarification. The protection request that first made me ask for guidance on this issue was Celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Liberation of Jerusalem, which had just been created 3 days before the RFPP, and there had been no disruptive edits on it. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN and DrFleischman: With all due respect with however this is seen by the Arbitrators, I have a side request. After this is complete, can we please have a reference (preferred bullet-point list) of (1) Whether or not another admin can lift the applying admin's block protection; (2) The clear path of resolution from Point A to Point B; (3) Details on what "broadly interpreted" means exactly at WP:RFPP. Or as "exactly" as it can be. In all respect to editors who may request block protection, or lifting of block protection, it would be helpful to have a quick reference guide to work from. — Maile (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis I was invited to participate in this discussion, because of Jordan. I fulfilled a request to indef ECP on the article. Within hours, another editor objected on my talk page, their reasoning being that Jordan is not connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict (hence, my question about "broad"). I feel between a rock and a hard place. I've been led to believe that the admin who applies the ECP must be the one to change it. I would feel a lot more comfortable if there were a consensus at RFPP and another admin lifted that protection. Otherwise, ECP protection creates potential yo-yo situations where "indef" is really only a temporary thing until an objecting editor can convince the appying admin to revert their self. And that scenario opens the door to others circumventing the RFPP page to an admin's talk page to have them revert their self at will. My personal goal is that once we get through this with Jordan, I am never ... but never ... ever ... dealing with ECP again. I do not want to set a precedence as a weak, ineffective admiin. — Maile (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DrFleischman

I was the editor who first raised this issue with NeilN and I can assure Maile66 that it had nothing to do with Jordan. I appreciate Neil raising the issue here and I support his proposed solution, as well as Ed's. The problem, in a nutshell, is that it appears that literally the only way to have a DS page restriction removed (outside of ArbCom) is to convince the imposing admin--and if the imposing admin disagrees with you, or has retired, then tough luck, the page will likely remain under DS restrictions forever. I'd like to point out that there are actually two distinct but closely related things wrong with this. The first is that sometimes admins make mistakes, or more broadly speaking, a consensus of admins might not support a particular DS page restriction. The second is that sometimes a DS page restriction might be perfectly appropriate at the time it's imposed, but as Neil notes, perhaps it has outlived its usefulness. I hope that whatever comes out of this request addresses both of these scenarios. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Roger Davies

Removing restrictions is already (comprehensively) covered by the "Modifications by administrators" section at WP:AC/DS.  Roger Davies talk 11:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

In closely related articles to Arab-Israeli conflict, it is obvious that ARBPIA should apply. In farther cases, it should be carefully considered. Especially if its a high level article like for example Jordan, which is an establishment older than the conflict. --Makeandtoss (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions (2014): Clerk notes

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

Discretionary sanctions (2014): Arbitrator views and discussion

  • To be honest, I'd just assumed that people would do this via AE if for whatever reason the original admin declined or was unavailable, so codifying that as Neil and Ed suggest seems reasonable. (I also appreciate Ed's diplomacy in saying that doing this through ARCA "risks using up the committee's time", which is a very nice way of saying "you guys are way too slow" ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Roger's point, I gather that the argument is some combination of "it's not obvious that 'modifying' can include 'removing entirely'" and "those procedures are most naturally read as applying to editor-based sanctions, not page restrictions, protections, etc". Maile66, I think you're asking a different question; it seems to be about how broad "broad" is in deciding whether to apply a restriction in the first place, rather than about the procedures for changing or removing restrictions. Also, did you mean "Whether or not another admin can lift the applying admin's block" (not protection)? Because the block thing has been litigated to death and beyond in the AE cases and if we're going to start on that again I'm going to have to plan a stop at the liquor store tonight ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well shit, if changing your mind makes you a weak and ineffective admin, then I must be completely spineless. But conveniently, I'm an invertebrate ;) But I still think this issue about "how broad is broad" is separate from the current issue of "do we need to change the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Modifications by administrators to be clear that it applies to decisions other than editor sanctions". Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think this would go to WP:AE. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support using WP:AE for these types of situations. Mkdw talk 19:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston and Roger Davies bring forward a good point that there are already instructions at sanctions.modify. Criteria #2 already grants access to AE, AN, ARCA if the enforcing administrator cannot or does not provide affirmative consent. I would take "modifications" to include removal but perhaps the wording could be made more clear. I don't think an entirely new section is warranted just for removals. Mkdw talk 07:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=781790202"