Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:18, 6 June 2017

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!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
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.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126

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

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126

Shortcut

WP:ARCA

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Transcendental Meditation movement	none	(orig. case)	18 May 2017
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3	none	(orig. case)	3 June 2017
Clarification request: GamerGate	none	(orig. case)	6 June 2017

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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:

Manul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

TimidGuy (talk · contribs) has declared a conflict of interest[1] but has ignored requests to follow WP:COI.[2][3]

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]

Contra SlimVirgin's statement, here is the correct timeline, with evidence:

I informed Olive about adding her to the connected template at Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement.[33]
Olive protested but ultimately accepted, adding herself as a connected contributor with the deleted link included.[34] This is incredibly significant. Olive would slime me with baseless aspersions (outlined earlier [35]), but, importantly, would not take the more concrete action of removing her name from the template.
The second (and only the second) addition of the connected template was at Talk:John Hagelin, and I went out of my way to inform Olive about this respectfully: Hello, I've added the connected contributor template to Talk:John Hagelin. Leaving this message this seems like a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situation. Informing you could be interpreted as a provocation, given your earlier reaction, while not informing you would seem rude. If you'd rather not be notified in the future then I'll respect that; whatever you wish.[36] Olive did not respond.
The rest of the additions came a month or more after that. Given the slowdown of my own editing pace and the obvious problems I saw at TM articles (e.g. [37]), it seemed in the best interest of Wikipedia to tag these articles for future editors to check.

As a measure of respect to the departed, please note that IRWolfie did not speculate on the real-life identity of Olive. That was the aspersion made upon which he got railroaded. There is no evidence that IRWofie did this, and of course he denied that he did. The toxic atmosphere in which those events occurred is partly the reason for this ARCA. Manul ~ talk 21:56, 25 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 [38] 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.[39]"

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 [40] and this discussion [41]

COI accusations

History of the removed link

The link [42] 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 [43]

Number of edits to TM technique article - 2 [44]

Number of edits to TM Movement -5 [45]

Number of edits to John Hagelin article: 18 [46]

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 [47], Aug 2016 [48] 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 [49], then Sept 2016, [50]where while saying the problems he sees aren't my fault he implies they are, then Feb 2017[51] 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."[52] 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))"[53] 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.[54] 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]

- - - I do not work for the place revealed in the removed content and have not for 10 years. No one tells me what to edit and never has. No organization tells me what to edit and never has. I do not get paid to edit. I am self-employed, an artist, hopefully a writer, and former artistic director for a improv movement/ dance company.
    - I believe there has to be evidence of POV pushing; there isn't any such evidence. Jytdog has tried to reduce the choices the arbs have to two choices. I hope the arbs can see that Jytdog goes wrong when he reduces and then dictates choices ~~to the arbs~~. He is advocating that I reveal my connections - my COI. ~~or the arbs should deal with me as if I am a long -time POV pusher.~~ I can reveal something, something not yet revealed I assume, or I will be dragged further down this path to AE or even an arbitration. As a teacher and parent I am very familiar with the technique one can use when a child wants to do something we don't want them to do. We offer them two other choices which distracts them. There is a parallel here. And make no mistake, this is a threat. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

apologies the auto edit summary added "add quote" on my last summary as I saved when I had only written "add"...slippery little auto edit.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

- Jytdog wrote, "If Littleolive oil will not confirm or deny relevant external relationships, the recourse is to bring a long term POV pushing case."(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Final Comment. I can't spend my days here rebutting every cmt that comes along. Life is too precious and too short. Thanks to the arbs for reading this long post. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@SlimVirgin: A few years earlier, Worm that Turned whom I believe was an arb at the time had told an admin that he would deal with the information but when I asked him to do so (I think I was the one who asked but might have been the admin) Worm declined saying it was already on the internet. I can't agree with that but also didn't feel I had any recourse. I had done as much as I could, at the suggestion of a lawyer, to remove personal information from public domains including shutting down a Facebook account. While the lawyer was concerned about the way personal information had potentially led to harassment Wikipedia seemed to care much less. One of the issues I have with the way editors are dealt with on Wikipedia is that incivility seems to be fine if you like the editor but if you don't like that editor or dislike the article or subject matter any kind of behaviour is acceptable. This isn't a professional standard. The Deepak Chopra article is a good example of an article where distaste for the subject has led to a talk page environment that in my mind violates our BLP talk policy, but that's another subject.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Gorilla Warfare: Thanks Gorilla Warfare. I may be misunderstanding you but I don't think I've ever linked to the removed content. I created the content as a new editor, was harassed off wikipedia, then asked an admin to remove and hide the content. Nuclear Warfare posted the link; he may have been the first but I'm not sure. I would be happy to have the content over sighted but as for what exactly to remove well, I can't see it since I am not an admin. I will look through my archives probably tomorrow and email you with as much information as I can find given my inability to see those archives. Thank you again.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

- This simply isn't true. I don't want to continue with the back and forth shoe chewing but this is so outrageous in either misunderstanding or mischaracterization that It should be dealt with.

" Olive protested but ultimately accepted, adding herself as a connected contributor with the deleted link included. This is a mischaracterization. I had trouble with the template as I tried to remove it and had no time to fuss with it, as my comment indicates, "undo until can fix..." so reverted. (Please scroll down to see the problem) [55] Ultimately, I did not want to engage in a potential edit war. I did not accept Manul's allegations as Manul states; the rest of the edit summary states... "my position stands" Later SV removed the links she could find. "I've removed that link, which I only just noticed. Manul, how were you able to link to a deleted revision from years ago? SarahSV (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)"

Statement by TimidGuy

Statement by MastCell

Statement by SlimVirgin

To resolve the COI issue, Littleolive oil might consider disclosing her personal details to someone who is familiar with COI. That person can then inform the community whether she has one in relation to TM.

What has happened here is not the way to handle COI. We've had a lot of discussion about this recently, with arbs and functionaries expressing strong views about WP:OUTING, yet the deleted revision from Littleolive oil's page has been posted here without action. Should it not be suppressed, even at this late stage? Pinging GorillaWarfare and Fluffernutter. WP:OUTING says:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment [unless that person has disclosed it on Wikipedia] ... If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia.

The text in question was deleted (deleted, not just removed) from Littleolive oil's user page in 2009. It can't be argued seriously that posting links to deleted revisions doesn't amount to posting personal information. Manul could have emailed the link to the committee per WP:COI#Avoid outing.

The link was first posted on Wikipedia in 2013. That September IRWolfie/Second Quantization opened an AE against Littleolive oil, alleging advocacy and COI in relation to TM. During that complaint, NuclearWarfare (then an arb) supplied IRWolfie with a link to the deleted text; IRWolfie had apparently emailed NW about it after finding it on mirror sites. Seraphimblade closed the AE by topic-banning Littleolive oil for six months, and banning IRWolfie indefinitely from speculating publicly about the real-life identities of any TM editor.

Between August and October 2016 Manul repeatedly posted the link while adding the {{connected contributor}} to TM-related talk pages. [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] Littleolive oil was upset about this and told Manul that she felt harassed. I first noticed the link at Talk:John Hagelin in February this year and removed it. I advised Littleolive oil to ask a functionary to suppress it. [68][69] I would normally have emailed the functionaries myself, but I was puzzled that Littleolive oil had let the link sit there since 2016, so I decided to let her make the request. With hindsight, I wonder whether she felt so harassed that she was letting things happen that she would normally have dealt with.

However the committee handles this, I hope Manul will be asked to change his approach. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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'".
Does Littleolive oil have a conflict of interest regarding TM?
- Possible answers: "yes", "no"
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]

In response to the comments entered here, most of which are generating more smoke than light, I think the following points must be considered by the Arbs:

The current case has ZERO to do with the TM case.
The apparent filing appears to be because Olive stuck to her guns on an article describing policies and guidelines; there was absolutely no connection between the topic and any restriction she has been given now or in the past. She correctly reverted an edit as undiscussed, and was well within both the WP guidelines and policy to do so.
Olive is NOT engaging in undisclosed paid editing.
Olive has not socked.
Where she worked 10 years ago may suggest a POV, but such would be true of any of us. Should someone be forced to declare a COI if they worked for, say, McDonald's when they were in High School because they still hit the drive-through for a burger now and again? Seriously, where does the line get drawn?
Doug Weller has it in one -- Olive has not edit-warred or engaged in any inappropriate behavior in any period relevant to the situation before the Arbs -- the last kerfuffle appears to date to 2013, which is old news and not in the least relevant here. I'm seeing diffs posted above dating clear back to 2007. These are Irrelevant.
Olive is a productive and useful wikipedian who has edited many articles across multiple subject areas (she helped me with Evans cherry, for example). She is not an Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet out to impose a secret agenda on the rest of us.
Olive has been unfailingly polite and even when advocating her position, I see nothing, even at the peak of the old TM case, that suggests anything worse than sticking to her guns, and she is quick to back off when questioned.
Seems to me that she is being Hounded by a group of editors who appear to wish her off WP altogether. That is not appropriate.
There has been an immense amount of "poisoning the well" occurring in the statements of some of the other users here, (example) particularly the filer and one of the supporters of the filer. I strongly advise the Arbs to actually read the diffs, note the date stamp, and ignore the current commentary.
The policies on undisclosed paid editing are clear; the definition of a POV or bias or a COI is far more fuzzy -- and the UPE and COI are not the same. Should committee members such as DGG look at the COOI issue, one must ask: Where is the line between working for an employer a decade ago versus being a member of a service club or someone who donates to, say, National Public Radio? WP:COI asks that we take a look at our biases and realize that they affect us emotionally, but it is not a ban on editing or even a requirement that we out ourselves or place a tag on every article where we have an interest in order to be allowed to edit. I once worked at a library over 15 years ago, does this mean I cannot edit articles about libraries?

I strongly encourage the committee to refuse this case and to refuse any other alternative drama that may be filed elsewhere. If others persist in further hounding, then I strongly advise trout and boomerangs all around. Montanabw^(talk) 02:57, 24 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:

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.
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".
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.

2017-01 Kavdiamanju (nondisruptive, just ToU)
2017-01 FoCuSandLeArN (nondisruptive, just ToU)
2017-01 Scorpion293 (socking and ToU) SPI

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]

Littleolive oil in this diff you have misrepresented what I wrote at a very basic level. It is clear that they Arbs may decline to judge at all, and I said that. You are just generating off-topic drama and shooting yourself in the foot to boot. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Littleolive oil. In your first comment you described me as saying "or the arbs should deal with me as if I am a long -time POV pusher." and I never wrote that. My advice was to Manul. What you quote in your response is from the summary section. What I wrote is very clear to anyone who is competent or actually disussing these matters in good faith. I will not clutter up this clarification request dealing with this behavior of yours further. But thank you for displaying the tendentious behavior that has led to Manul filing this case. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gerda

I have been asked by an arbitrator to add cat images to ARCA (which I would avoid otherwise). I have known Littleolive oil for years as a reasonable editor of integrity who makes helpful edits. We all come with our point of view and tendencies. I think enough eyes are on TM (where I am uninvolved) to correct tendentious editing IF it happens. - Several articles could have been created with the writing skills invested here. Off to write a new one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 3 June 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've had the newer posts on this request on my mental list of stuff to read for at least a week now, and keep getting distracted by other things. A few points:
    - This is not a venue for soapboxing about paid editing (which hasn't even been alleged in the request), nor for general personal views about COI. Some of the above material is off topic and irrelevant.
    - Determining as a finding of fact that someone has a COI is not really within arbcom's scope. Certainly not as a clarification of a seven-year-old case on the basis of evidence that a) precedes the case itself, and b) is almost a decade out of date. I can see why Manul framed the request this way, thinking that a definitive statement "arbcom says Olive has a COI" would solve his problems, but it is not a realistic expectation.
    - To the extent that it matters whether Olive has a COI or is pushing a POV, that needs to be evaluated based on recent behavior. Unfailingly polite POV-pushing is a very well-documented behavioral pattern on Wikipedia. Olive, to the extent that you're willing to take some advice, it is extremely obvious from reviewing the past history of editor interactions on this topic that a lot of otherwise very sensible editors do not believe that your editing is neutral in this area. I do not know if your thoughts on COI still reflect the comments in this August 2016 thread, but the comparison between the "COI" of a TM practitioner on TM articles and a physician on medical articles does not inspire confidence. While you don't seem to have edited TM articles much recently, you do seem to have quite diverse editing interests and would be well advised to continue concentrating on other topics. The usual Wikipedia truism is that nobody is personally responsible for dealing with a particular issue and if there really is a problem, you can reasonably expect that someone other than you will step in to deal with it.
    - Independently of all of this, those "connected contributor" tags are not IMO particularly useful, and the idea that articles need to be tagged to indicate Olive's involvement seems to be a distraction best left alone.
    - In short, I appreciate the level of frustration that is obvious in this request, but I see nothing for arbcom to do at this stage. The topic is under DS; if someone is not editing neutrally, regardless of what real-world situation you believe is the reason for that behavior, the thing to do is demonstrate that their editing is not neutral. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:01, 2 June 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]
- Jeez no. Of course we aren't going to take a case. Sorry. Same point though. I'd feel much happier discussing a clarification based on diffs showing recent problems. Doug Weller talk 05:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)o[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]

@Littleolive oil: Yes, we certainly won't close this up before tonight or tomorrow. If you can add your response within the next couple of days there should be no problem. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: It seems that it was Littleolive oil who posted the link to the now-deleted revision. I'm not going to remove the link to it, since it's their own userpage/deleted edits and they're certainly welcome to link to it as they please. However, Littleolive oil, if you would like to have the revisions suppressed, feel free to email me or contact the oversight team. I'm not going to suppress anything without your request, since it's been there for quite some time (and is probably duplicated in mirrors, etc) and since there are quite a lot of revisions in the deleted page history and I'd rather speak more to you about what you want removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 25 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: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Shrike at 06:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Palestine-Israel articles 3 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:

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Shrike

The restriction reads "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc."

Does user that don't meet the criteria can !VOTE in RFC? Because it would be a big loophole to allowing non-ECP editors to influence the outcome of a RFC.The situation right now that the vote in the RFC was allowed [[70]]--Shrike (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC) The same question is about move discussions too of course Shrike (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:ThryduulfThe intent of the remedy was circumvent sock participation in the area.I don't see any difference between casting a vote in AFD and RFC. -- Shrike (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Thryduulf But this the whole point of the remedy there is no way to know if someone a sock except obvious cases and that the reason that all new users are limited.You should read the arbcom case and see why such sanction was enacted in the first place Shrike (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re PIA3)

I think it is helpful here to include the first part of the remedy not just the exception:

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.

[The second exception is related to article creation and not relevant to this request]

My reading of that is that if an RfC (or move, etc discussion) is being held on an article talk page that is not ECP protected, then editors who do are not extended confirmed may contribute to the RfC provided that: (a) their comments are constructive, and (b) their conduct is not disruptive. If the RfC is being held at any other venue then only extended confirmed editors may participate.

I am not involved in the topic area, but allowing constructive comments from editors who are not disruptive seems like a Good Thing. The intent of the remedy seems to me to be clearly to prevent disruption not to prevent all new editors from influencing article content. Even if most disruptive users are not extended-confirmed this does not imply that most users who are not extended-confirmed are disruptive.

I would also therefore strongly argue against choosing the venue of an RfC on the basis of who may participate (rather than where it is most relevant). I would regard ECP protecting a talk page solely to prevent non-extended-confirmed editors from participating in an RfC, without evidence of disruption on that talk page, to be contrary to the protection policy. I should note that I am not alleging either of these has happened, I have not looked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: if the commenter is a sockpuppet then the comment is disruptive and not permitted. If sockpuppets are disrupting the page then it can be protected under the terms of this remedy, if the page is not being disrupted then there is no problem to solve. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: As for the difference between an RfC and an AfD, one is about making improvements to the article the other is about deleting it. Non-extended-confirmed users are explicitly permitted to make constructive comments and requests towards improving the article, some of these comments will require discussion - including discussion about whether they are improvements. I see no material difference between a discussion about changes to the article and an RFC about changes to the article. RfCs about things other than changes to one or a small number of closely related articles should not be being held on article talk pages. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: So if a comment is constructive and not disruptive (on its own or in combination with others) and the conduct of the commenter is constructive and not disruptive (on their own or in combination with that of others), why does it matter if the user is a sockpuppet or not? How is permitting such users to make constructive comments on articles outside the context of an RfC different from permitting such users to make constructive comments on articles in the context of an RfC? If the exception was a causing a problem then you would be seeking an amendment to remove it all together, as you are not doing so strongly suggests that in practice it is not causing issues. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 3 June 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.

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

Clarification request: GamerGate

Initiated by Salvidrim! at 03:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: GamerGate 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:

Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Salvidrim!

This is a request for clarification of the scope of the Gamergate discretionary sanctions, particularly the second segment about its appplicability to any gender-related dispute or controversy. There arose a situation where there is a dispute (and slight edit warring) on the article philoSOPHIA (a feminist journal named after a goddess of feminity) over the inclusion of a list of advisory board members (original dispute on article talk). The dispute itself rests on arguments mostly about the weight WikiProject essays have, with WP:OWN-like issues within WikiProjects, with precedent and common practice for other journal articles, and with WP:UNDUE/WP:PROMO/WP:OR and other content policies. The article, by itself, is gender-related. During the course of the dispute, SlimVirgin added a DS tag to the talk page, which led Headbomb to react by opening the AN thread linked lower. These are generally agreed upon, unambiguous facts.

To my neutral eye, this could be summed up as "a dispute unrelated to gender, on a gender-related article". The content dispute itself is being hashed out on WP:AN and is not the focus of this ARCA. The issue requiring clarification is whether the placing of the DS tag on the article's talk page was appropriate: the DS applies to "gender-related disputes", not "gender-related articles" (a journal article is not intrinsically a dispute), but does "broadly construed" mean that, in practice, it is applicable to any gender-related article topic?

This ARCA flows right off of this AN thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Dispute over philoSOPHIA article, in which I have done my best to act as mediator. I ultimately consider myself neutral on the topic of the applicability of DS to this article (I can see it from both sides). In order to de-escalate and in the spirit of BRD, I have requested that SlimVirgin remove the DS tag temporarily pending this ARCA, but she declined to do so. I'm hoping Headbomb will calmly leave it as status quo while this is pending clarification.

The questions to clarify here are:

Whether this type of article falls within the DS (in which case a refining of the DS wording might be examined), or at least whether this specific article does.
Whether it was appropriate for an editor involved in a content dispute to add a DS tag to the talk page

I'd also personally like to see it clarified by what process the addition of a DS tag, once disputed, can be discussed or appealed. My instinct and experience says "ARCA" but that is not really mentioned anywhere on WP:ACDS and ArbCom procedure, of all things, benefits the most from clear directions. Perhaps the clerks can chime in on that.

The parties will be notified (although I've spoked to them both about the referral to ARCA beforehand anyways) and will surely present their positions in their own sections in due time. A short summary of both sides (direct quotes only, so as to not misrepresent):

SlimVirgin: You're reverting two women who are trying to write an article about a feminist journal, and you keep removing the names of the women who run it. It doesn't get more gender-related than that.

Headbomb: Admin User:SlimVirgin wants to put me under discretionary sanction by shoehorning a content dispute into a gender issue, when they themselves are involved in said dispute. (...) Having lost consensus, they now slap me with horseshit discretionary sanctions, saying this is somehow a gender-related dispute.

RE: Johnuniq - As outlined above, the content dispute included an element of edit warring, as I've already pointed out on AN everyone involved should be trouted for that (edit warring should never be part of dispute resolution, etc.) but I don't think the dispute nor warring over the list of advisory members to be particularly relevant to either of the questions asking for clarification here. I've deliberately chosen not to rehash the content dispute or the warring to focus this here on the DS tag itself, as that is all ArbCom should concern itself with. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

Headbomb arrived at the article—a new article about philoSOPHIA: A Journal of Continental Feminism—wanting it to be deleted, calling it a "special snowflake", and being aggressive and insulting. He removed the names of the editorial board five times between 31 May and 3 June, reverting against three editors. [71][72][73][74][75]

Headbomb based the removal on WP:JWG, an essay he and RandyKitty wrote for WikiProject Journals that says editorial boards need independent sources that discuss them in more than just passing, and that using the journal itself or the publisher isn't enough. It was Randykitty who added those words to the essay. Randykitty arrived at the article on 4 June and removed the names three times in under eight hours. [76][77][78] On 5 June Headbomb removed them again, [79] after which Randkitty slapped two tags on the article, [80] and Headbomb removed a secondary source that a new editor had mistakenly placed in External links. [81]

This is disruption. Because of the reverting, I posted a DS alert on talk, to Headbomb and to Randykitty, which led to more insults from Headbomb on WP:AN: "utter fucking horseshit", I should be desyopped, I'm engaged in "toxic feminism". He alleged that by posting the alerts I had abused the tools, but informing editors that a page is subject to DS is not an admin action. Anyone can do that ("Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict"), and must do it if a complaint under DS might be made.

As to whether this is a "gender-related dispute or controversy ... broadly construed", it's gender-related in every sense: male editors arriving to tell female editors how they're allowed to write about women, in an article that references the exclusion of women from philosophy. The names they keep removing include women known for their work on gender and sexism, including Judith Butler, Kelly Oliver, and Linda Martín Alcoff—and specifically on how philosophy has been affected by its treatment of women. There's an enormous dispute about this in academic philosophy: because of sexual harassment, the type of material that is taught, and the way it is taught. [82][83] The article refers directly to this, citing one of philoSOPHIA's articles: "one of the functions of the journal is to ask what the daughter's responsibilities are toward the father: 'Must the daughter be patricidal?'"

I created the article as part of an effort to improve the coverage of women in philosophy. I recently improved {{Feminist philosophy sidebar}} and created {{Feminist philosophy}}. The other editor working on the article, Hypatiagal, is a newish editor, a woman with a PhD in philosophy, who should be encouraged, not put through this. We would like to include the names of the editorial board in that article, and I plan to write about their ideas using the journal as an RS. Headbomb has decided that this isn't allowed. I am therefore invoking the gender-related DS as part of dispute resolution in the hope that it will end the disruption. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kelapstick, you're confusing the content with the behaviour. The content issue can be resolved with an RfC, but the behaviour (the serial reverting, the aggression) cannot. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that would help is if the committee were to reorganize the gender DS alert so that Gamergate isn't mentioned first. Editors involved in gender-related dispute have regularly wondered why they're being told about Gamergate. This would be less confusing: "(a) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (b) pages related to GamerGate, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed". SarahSV ^(talk) 08:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kelapstick, every aspect of this dispute oozes sexism from my perspective. Two women are not allowed to write an article about a feminist philosophy journal, and include the names of the women who run the journal, without three men—who know nothing about feminist philosophy—arriving with instructions about what kind of sources they will allow, two of them edit warring very aggressively to impose their preference. One of the men uses sexist language: "special snowflake" and "toxic feminism". This is sexism and "gender-related, broadly construed".

One of the big issues causing the content gender gap has been the type of sourcing we require, which can have the effect of excluding women. In this case, Headbomb and Randykitty have come up with an especially stringent rule: that editorial boards must have independent sources that discuss them in detail, not just in passing. That is going to exclude all but the most notable, which places journals run by women and people of colour at a disadvantage. SarahSV ^(talk) 09:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Headbomb

There is zero gender component to the dispute, it is purely and solely about on whether or not editorial boards should be listed on journal articles since those usually violate WP:PROMO (we allow them when we have WP:IS discussing the role of the editorial board/specific members, otherwise we restrict ourselves to editors-in-chief and equivalent positions). I'll offer User talk:Randykitty#A request as material to consider here. I feel it was highly inappropriate of SV to shoehorn the dispute in a a gender-related issue so she could add the tag, placing the article under discretionary sanctions via admin fiat despite being WP:INVOLVED, and threatening to take us to WP:AE if we removed the tag. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is indignation User:Johnuniq, it is because I do not appreciate being lumped with troglodyte cavemen GamerGaters, or because SV abuses her authority to deny my rights and that of others as editors, or being generally being bullied into submission because of my gender by sexists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm: WP:ACDS states "Discretionary sanctions may be placed by administrators within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee has authorised their use". If an article doesn't have discretionary sanctions, then an admin places {{Ds/talk notice}} which states in plain bold "This page is subject to discretionary sanctions", how is this not putting the article under discretionary sanctions??? Or a violation of WP:INVOLVED? Especially since normal editors can't remove the sanctions, and admins can't without consent of the original admin? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re to SV

"Headbomb arrived at the article—a new article about philoSOPHIA: A Journal of Continental Feminism—wanting it to be deleted, calling it a "special snowflake", and being aggressive and insulting.

This is patently false. I made a comment in the AfD that I didn't understand how the keep !votes were based in policy, and argued that this journal should follow WP:JWG because it was not a special snowflake, unlike SV who pleaded that because the journal was small and feminist, WP:JWG did not apply. I insulted no one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

If Headbomb is confident about being on the correct side, why all the indignation? Indignation often indicates that there is an underlying issue responsible for the enthusiasm with which arguments are presented. Headbomb removed the text six times (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) and should know that if he is correct, the best procedure would be to wait per WP:NODEADLINE rather than harass good editors with belligerence. 04:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Discretionary sanctions apply to topic areas. An article may be covered by the topic area and so be subject to potential sanctions in the event of a dispute, but applying the DS template as an Admin (which Headbomb correctly points out, a non-admin cant remove) while in a content dispute about a non-gender issue - then templating the people you are in dispute with - this is a clear attempt to chill any opposition and is sub-standard admin behaviour. If as an admin you take an action that a non-admin cannot revert while in a content dispute, its textbook involved. Its using your advanced permissions to win an argument. And frankly if SV doesnt want her actions to be described as 'toxic feminism' she should spend less time escalating bog-standard minor disputes into 'this is because I/we are women (or) you are not a woman' territory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 6 June 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.

GamerGate: Clerk notes

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

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

Without (yet) speaking to their applicability in this particular situation, it's currently my thoughts that:
1. Actions which do not have to be logged at the arbitration enforcement log, such as placing {{Ds/talk notice}} on talk pages and/or {{alert}} on user talk pages for the purpose of notifying editors that discretionary sanctions have been authorized for a topic area, do not constitute an administrative action and may be done even when involved
2. Any actions that must be logged at AEL, such as using the discretionary sanctions system to place restrictions on pages or editors, constitute an administrative action and may not be done while involved.
My thoughts are not set in stone, so I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say on this ARCA before I come to my final conclusions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Headbomb: It's a bit of an unfortunate collision in wording, to be honest. The talk page notice states that the page is subject to the system of "discretionary sanctions", but does not actually place any "discretionary sanctions", if that makes sense. "Discretionary sanctions" refers to both the system that can be used to enact sanctions as well as to the actual sanctions enacted under the system. {{Ds/talk notice}} and {{alert}} merely notify that the system applies, and placing them does not require logging at AEL. They do not actually enact any sanctions under the system, which can only be done by uninvolved administrators and must be logged at AEL. It's like warning someone for edit warring versus actually blocking for it: The notification can be done while involved, while the administrative action can only be done by an uninvolved administrator. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While the subject of the article could (very) easily become the subject of a "gender-related dispute", every content dispute on the article is not inherently gender-related. Superficially (i.e. simply the removal/re-addition of the content) this dispute does not appear to be gender-related. What does drive this in that direction is Headbomb evoking the snowflake clause and referencing to toxic feminism. Noting that both examples are taken (somewhat) out of context (and that is a large assumption of good faith towards Headbomb), they do largely point to motive. Having said that, both DGG and Randykitty appear to be siding with the removal without resorting to such arguments, and under no such motivation. In fact, the arguments for removal are all this is the way we write articles about journals on Wikipedia (noting that Wikipedia works on consensus not precedent). As such, we can't simply say that the removal by all parties in an effort to remove them because they are women advising on a journal about feminism. The proper way to curb disruption/edit warring would have been to request full protection (which you would not have been allowed to edit through) until consensus was reached on the talk page. And while I don't doubt that you may see this as a gender-related dispute, in my opinion it is not. It is an editorial dispute, which can be remedied by the RfC which has been started on the talk page.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your second question Salvidrim!, as a general rule (to which there will always be exceptions) I would say no, a user shouldn't tag an article as being under discretionary sanctions on an article in which there is a content dispute in which they are involved (in an effort to further their position). However, as SlimVirgin has not replaced the material since the addition of the template, I would say no-harm no-foul in that respect in this particular instance. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, this ARCA was asking two specific questions, if the article should be subject to discretionary sanctions, and if an article should tagged by someone involved in a content dispute. To which my views are "no (or at least not yet)" and "not usually". Serial reverting and behaviour can usually be taken care of without resorting to applying DS as the first step. Regarding your wording reorganization suggestion, that seems sensible. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, if you would like me to state on the record that I believe that Headbomb has acted like a jackass, than yes I believe he has. However your desire to change sourcing requirements in order to bridge the content gender gap (noble an effort as it may be) is not a matter for the Arbitration Committee. As an aside (related to the comment three men—who know nothing about feminist philosophy), I wrote the article Henriette Alimen, which is about a woman who was a paleontologist. Should I not have done that because I am not a woman, and know nothing of paleontology? (Rhetorical question of course, there is no need to answer that, unless you really think I should not have, in which case a more appropriate venue would probably be my talk page). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I agree with Ks0stm. Being placed "under" sanctions or being alerted to sanctions is not actually sanctioning anyone. As {{Ds/talk notice}} says, "This template warns people on the talk page that arbitration discretionary sanctions have been authorised." I see this as the same as placing an alert on another editor's talk page. Anyone can do that but only uninvolved Administrators can sanction editors. Note also that WP:ACDS#Alerts states that "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned." I don't see evidence that's what's happened here. It's unfortunate that WP:ACDS doesn't have a section on placing talk page notices but it doesn't, nor does it restrict placing such notices to Administrators. The default is that anyone can place talk page notices. We don't seem to have set a procedure for removing a sanctions talk page notice although we have amended {{WP:ACDS]] specifying that editors may request the removal of restrictions at WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 468: / Line 468: @@
 :If there is indignation [[User:Johnuniq]], it is because I do not appreciate being lumped with troglodyte cavemen [[GamerGate]]rs, or because SV abuses her authority to deny my rights and that of others as editors, or being generally being bullied into submission [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=784019863 because] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty&diff=next&oldid=783834266 my gender] by sexists. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 04:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 {{ping|Ks0stm}} [[WP:ACDS]] states "Discretionary sanctions may be placed '''by administrators''' within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee has authorised their use". If an article doesn't have discretionary sanctions, then an admin places {{tl|Ds/talk notice}} which states in plain bold "'''This page is subject to discretionary sanctions'''", how is this not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=784025592 putting the article under discretionary sanctions]??? Or a violation of [[WP:INVOLVED]]? Especially since [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_by_sanctioned_editors|normal editors can't remove the sanctions]], and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Modifications_by_administrators|admins can't without consent of the original admin]]? <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 05:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
+;Re to SV
+"Headbomb arrived at the article—a new article about philoSOPHIA: A Journal of Continental Feminism—wanting it to be deleted, calling it a "special snowflake", and being aggressive and insulting.
+:This is patently false. I made a comment in the AfD that I didn't understand how the keep !votes were based in policy, and argued that this journal should follow [[WP:JWG]] because it was not a special snowflake, unlike SV who pleaded that ''because the journal was small and feminist, WP:JWG did not apply''. I insulted no one. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 12:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 === Statement by Johnuniq ===