Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ebrahimi-amir (talk | contribs) at 19:29, 14 April 2013 (→‎Statement by your name). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal|Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal]] none none 5 April 2013
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Transcendental Meditation movement|Clarification request: Transcendental Meditation movement]] none none 29 March 2013
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Procedural issues at at WP:AE|Clarification request: Procedural issues at at WP:AE]] none none 15 March 2013
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Monty Hall problem|Amendment request: Monty Hall problem]] none none 11 March 2013
Clarification request: Ebrahimi-amir ban appeal none none 14 April 2013

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal

Initiated by IRWolfie- (talk) at 23:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by your IRWolfie-

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Investigating_conflicts_of_interest: "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, editors must comply fully with the outing policy. Editors repeatedly seeking private information (either via on-wiki questioning or via off-wiki investigations) contribute to a hostile editing environment, which may rise to the level of harassment. Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the COI guideline."

I have recently begun editing John Hagelin, after noticing specific issues with the article with regards to fringe claims. The article had become a good article fairly recently. One of the editors, TimidGuy has an established COI as they are a member of (Redacted) (as you are aware). Another editor, Littleolive oil (or olive), has cited the above "Investigating conflicts of interest" as a reason for her not to declare whether she works with Hagelin or not [2]. if true, that would make at least 2 of the editors on this page both working in the same institute and on the same article for the good article review without disclosure during the review.

She further says that it is not my business whether she works at (Redacted): "I'm sorry, but where I work or don't is no one 's business. I suggest you review the TG arbitration for further information on the implications of pursuing editors based on making COI connections" . I think it is self evident that editors with a COI should be open about their conflicted interests when they edit topics in which they have a clear conflict of interest. To me this seems contradictory to the openness generally expected in declaring conflicts of interests. The uncertainty surrounding possible Arbcom sanctions creates a chilling effect on looking at any possible conflict of interest. I am looking for clarification on what Littleolive oil can be expected to answer, and what I can ask. I am not asserting that having a COI is necessarily problematic, I am specifically trying to ascertain what I can ask to find out about a COI, and what is a reasonable response, and what I can do without being accused of harassment. Is asking someone if they work in the same place as an article subject a request for private information? If I went to COIN now would that have been harassment?

Also, due to the lack of specific denial, I think it is also reasonable to assume the conflict of interest exists. Can I make this assumption? can a consensus of editors make this assumption? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Olive. I'm not sure what point you are making about my speed. I made a 413 word statement after deciding to post after your initial reply. How long do you think I require? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dreadstar, Fringe promotion is a POV issue, that is exactly what I highlighted. Look to articles for POV issues, not user talk pages. There is no need for the aggression. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Silktork, your argument is an argument against ever dealing with civil POV pushing, and against having openness around COI issues. If someone consistently pushes a POV with their edits, or they have an undisclosed COI when they make the POV edits but they argue in a civil way when people fix it, then that is ok by you? If not, in what way does your position contrast with this? By extension, I presume you support paid advocates editing articles since we should focus on the contributions only? Can you highlight why not if you disagree?
John Hagelin is a director at the Maharishi University of Management. TimidGuy works at the Maharishi University of Management, and has disclosed his conflict of interest elsewhere. That's fine with me as long as there is transparency (he didn't disclose his COI at the article which is disappointing). Having a COI does not mean editing is necessarily problematic, and I'm not asserting it is. Olive also edited the topic, but has disclosed no COI in any location. Neither disclosed a conflict of interest at the Hagelin article or during the good article review. The article had serious POV issues, I suggest you review the version that passed GA yourself: [3]. There is a real concrete issue with fringe promotion with that version, and a deliberate confusion of mainstream science and fringe work, see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_Hagelin/1. Olive says she worked to the best of her ability to make it neutral, but it is evidently far from that. Assuming good faith, that indicates that the COI is getting in the way, or the editor is unable to edit neutrally. That perhaps multiple people from MUM are the ones who made the article like this, don't you think that is problematic and that clarity and honesty is needed?
I'm not trying to beat Olive in the head with this, but if there is a POV issue, a COI and they are here for the long haul but they are civil, don't you consider that problematic? They can simply out wait any other editor. At this stage, it feels like if I even put up COI tags on the article, for those who have an already disclosed COI, I will be accused of harassment. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to highlight that the three posters (olive, Dreadstar, and Keithbob) have focused on attacking me personally, rather than commenting on the specifics of the request for clarification. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NW, very well. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how ever TM practioner who has commented here has tried to associate Will Beback with anyone who finds issue with their edits, and some have used the implicit threat of sanctions to beat people over the head [4][5][6]. I still ask any arb who hasn't done so to view the article that Keithbob, TimidGuy and Littleolive oil thought was neutral for GA, and are currently defending at: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_Hagelin/1, Timidguy doesn't seem to know what was possibly wrong with the previous version and wants more examples. The random mention of discretionary sanctions by Olive, is also interesting in that discussion.

I think their COI is making them unable to see the bias. I understand you will take no action for simply having a COI as NW highlighted, but surely you can at least acknowledge the COI itself exists? Skin shows conclusive evidence for the connection to the BLP (i.e the CU report). That's on-wiki evidence, it's not off-wiki. It's not outing either, its not reporting on private information which isn't available on-wiki. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Dreadstar's attacks against me

@Dreadstar, That is utterly and completely dishonest of you. You have taken a diff completely out of context [7] about a separate issue (one surrounding issues about olive mentioning discretionary sanctions in unusual circumstances [8] and my comment about that which ched replied to: [9]. I was then discussing the incident with Ched on his talk page. It was not about this request for clarification, but related to the GAR. ) and have tried to twist it against me. How are you an admin? Also, the idea that I followed Olive to an article to an article she hasn't edited in 2 months, rather than following from the wikiproject Transcendental meditation search list [10] is ridiculous. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, this is the height of our interactions: [11]. Only one article shared across both our many edits. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreadstar, this is what it's about: [12]. It is about comments raised at the John hagelin GAR, a GAR I started before this clarification request. It has no direct connection to this request for clarification, and it's quite frankly bizarre that you suggest it is. An even basic look at the discussion should show that it's about comments made at the GAR. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar, You are being silly. I suggest you look at the differences in edit times in the articles you appear to think are relevant; they are measured in the weeks to months apart (so far apart that Scottywong's tools don't seem to pick them up). You are taking editing the same articles months or years apart, to different parts of the respective articles, and construing them as being relevant, by showing them in a list which does not timestamp. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Arbs, Can someone please stop Dreadstars making the conspiratorial allegations about me. He is acting as though me recently taking an interest in transcendental articles, all of which Olive hasn't edited until months before somehow means I was stalking that particular editor. Keithbob, TimidGuy and Olive have edited many of the 85 wikiproject transcendental project pages, so naturally if I edit any of those articles you can pull out a diff showing that at some time in the past one or the other edited the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive oil

I'm surprised this long, articulate post was posted so quickly, with in minutes of IR Wolfie telling me he was going to. Amazing really. I've heard these arguments before including the, "Also, due to the lack of specific denial, I think it is also reasonable to assume the conflict of interest exists." a very typical Will Beback statement directed at me multiple times. I asked for a GA review in good faith; many editors worked on the John Hagelin article and had input on it. I, to the best of my ability worked on the points/ concerns the reviewer made and had including a weeks long overhaul of all the refs. I have been open to making changes to the article to make sure it complies with Wikipedia GA standards. (olive (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  • Per Skinwalker's post: The edits Skinwalker has posted is content dispute material which if cited on a NB or in discussion would also have context which Skinwalker has not included here. Further, these are serious allegations about editor conduct and again are based on edits taken out of context of the articles, their discussion pages, and the sources, in short are based on a lack of information. Citing a group of editors like this is not in my mind a simple AE clarification problem but points to the same kinds allegations, oddly, in much the same language, that brought us to arbitrations in the past. (olive (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Skinwalker's assertions about the TM research article are so inaccurate that I have a hard time understanding how he could have actually looked at the TM research article and come up with the assertions he made. The article doesn't rely on primary sources, as he alleges, but relies almost exclusively on research reviews, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses -- all of them compliant with MEDRS. And contrary to his assertion regarding low-impact journals, sources in the article indicate medical research on TM has been published in top journals, including journals put out by the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association.
  • Nuclear Warfare: You are deliberately encouraging two editors here to set up a situation in which editors can be sanctioned. I find that suggestion to be concerning coming from a neutral arb especially given Skinwalker's post here which even from a superficial glance contains numerous errors indicating that the allegations of POV Skinwalker is posting are misplaced. I'm afraid this feels like some editors are being set up, and by an arbitrator. This is wrong. (olive (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Dreadstar

This looks to be a possible violation of WP:OUTING by User:IRWolfie-, and an attempt to intimidate Littleolive Oil by forcing her to out herself or be guilty by faulty reasoning such as "Also, due to the lack of specific denial, I think it is also reasonable to assume the conflict of interest exists". I do not see anything here or on Littleolive Oil's talk page about POV editing, which is the real key to showing violations of WP:COI. And this is the same tactic and wording used over and over again by User:Will Beback, which lends some credence to the idea that he does a lot of manipulation off-wiki and may be involved in this incident. I think it is a natural suspicion. This looks to me to be purely WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT by IRWolfe, plain and simple. Dreadstar ☥ 02:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • IRWolfe- and outing, There's been very light comment on this and some denials, so here is the detail I'm commenting on above: User:IRWolfie- asked Olive this question (Redacted)
This "guessing" of Olive's workplace is a clear violation of WP:OUTING where it says: "“Posting another editor's personal information is harassment,....Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.”" (bolding is mine)
Whether correct or not, User:IRWolfie- posted where he thinks she works (Redacted) Wow, talk about tactics of intimidation! Then add to that the various actions IRWolfie- has initiated against Olive - including this very Clarification, and the numerous articles he has followed her to, that she edits; this is turning into a massive case of harassment. Dreadstar ☥ 20:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding redacted PI per WP:OUTING: "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing." Dreadstar ☥ 20:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what I've revdeleted, the key is that when an editor redacts PI, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia - no matter what the method of removal. It's a matter of safety. Additionally, Any "COI issue" would actually be regarding the edits, not the editor's purported affiliations - if the complainants are not sticking to discussion about actual edits and NPOV, then they just want to ’win’ with guilt by association. Win by NPOV, that's what I say. And leave real people their safety and security. Dreadstar ☥ 05:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hat this to focus on the real issue here. Outing and harassment. Dreadstar ☥ 05:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@IRWolfie- :There's no other way to read this thread; cherry-picking from different talk page discussions [13] only serves to obfuscate what seems to be clearly stated in that singular thread; there's no dishonesty from me on this. As for the hounding, WP:DUCK and goose, not just one, a gaggle actually. (Not that I have the time now to look at them all, but taking a quick scan over the past few months, it's definitely more than one, silly rabbit. 11, - 22, - 33, - and lest we forget this one, and -Following Keithbob too? Mebbe just coincidence....) Dreadstar ☥ 23:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you do not actually realize what this thread says; you might want to re-read it and make a few changes and possibly apologies. Then again, I see much broader implications to your statements and actions, I still think your intent is to intimidate - and perhaps your apparent Fruedian slip in that thread is most telling. But by all means, try to get ArbCom to shut me up, that's probably the most telling thing you've said so far; get ArbCom or whoever to shut up anybody and everybody who disagrees with you and Will Beback. Or by all means, de-admin me because of your faulty communications style. I'm sure you're not trying to intimidate me too, eh? Nice. Dreadstar ☥ 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm going to repeat this here, because I think it's damned well important:

  • And speaking of courtesy, then I ask that you and the other ArbCom members give the courtesy of addressing the Outing issues that have been raised in this case. Yes, I (and others) can certainly make some statements on Wikipedia that are insulting, but those can be left on the computer screen. Outing has resulted in real life consequences for people, threatening and harassing phone calls and emails, threatening calls to their jobs, their families, to local businesses where the person lives...some of these people don't edit Wikipedia any more because of those...real. Life. Threats. If anyone here has posted personal information and then redacted it, then it behooves us to not repeat it on Wikipedia. Doesn't it? Dreadstar ☥ 22:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Keithbob

I'm glad IRWolfie has opened this thread. There are some issues lurking in the shadows in regards to IRWolfie's editing and I think it's time they saw the light of day. I'll flesh out my thoughts in a post later on today. Thanks for your patience. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I think the information below speaks for itself. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Timid Guy Ban Appeal Final Decision Feb 2012:

  • Burden of proof and personal attacks--When editors request or place sanctions in whatever forum on Wikipedia, the onus is on the editors requesting or placing those sanctions to provide the evidence to prove their claims. Failing to do so may constitute a personal attack. The longstanding "No Personal Attacks" policy states that "serious accusations require serious evidence".
  • Conflicts of Interest-- Editing with a conflict of interest ("COI") is discouraged but not prohibited. This is because conflicts of interest can lead to violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance.
  • Investigating conflicts of interest-- When investigating possible cases of COI editing, editors must comply fully with the outing policy. Editors repeatedly seeking private information (either via on-wiki questioning or via off-wiki investigations) contribute to a hostile editing environment, which may rise to the level of harassment. Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the COI guideline.
  • Responding to accusations of conflicts of interest-- Editors accused of having a conflict of interest are not required to disclose private information by way of defence.
  • Focus on the edits not the editor--Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.
  • Harassment-- It is prohibited by policy to disrupt other editors' enjoyment of Wikipedia by making threats, making repeated unwanted contacts, making repeat personal attacks, engaging in intimidation, or posting personal information. (From: "This Page in a Nutshell", Wikipedia:Harassment)
  • Battleground conduct-- Wikipedia is not a battleground. Prolonged and repetitive use of community processes to perpetuate ideological and/or content disputes is extremely disruptive and creates a toxic environment.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TM movement Arbitration Case May 2010:

  • Neutrality and conflicts of interest-- Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies. These does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship, but urges editors to be mindful of editing pitfalls that may result from such a relationship. For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies.

TM movement Arbitration Requests for Clarification Aug 2011

  • The principle you reference says that "an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies" - so it really depends on the edits themselves. If you think an editor who may have a conflict of interests is not observing relevant site policy/guidelines with their editing, then you should engage the discretionary sanctions provided for in the remedies by seeking enforcement at WP:AE. –xenotalk 20:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • What Xeno said. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Xeno, although I would add that the first step might be to discuss your concern directly with the editor in question himself or herself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur with Xeno and Newyorkbrad. Keep in mind the converse is also true; those who have a personal belief system that is in direct conflict with the philosophies of Transcendental Meditation (or for that matter, any other belief system) must also bear in mind their own potential conflict of interest and edit neutrally or not at all. Risker (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I too concur with Xeno and Newyorkbrad. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There has never been an outright prohibition against conflicts of interest on Wikipedia (for many reasons, not the least of which is the inability to properly define "conflict of interest" in the first place). What COI entails, however, is a higher risk that one's editing unwittingly strays into being tendentious or otherwise problematic. This is why editors in a plausible conflict are counseled to propose edits to talk pages to raise consensus: it's insurance. Ultimately, however, it's the quality of the edits that count. If the pope edited the articles on Christianity while remaining rigorously neutral, then few people would find cause to argue. — Coren (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur with those who have spoken before me SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Skinwalker:

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

@IRWolfie: In my (albeit limited) experience editing Wikipedia, most COI concerns are overblown, and in the relatively few instances where a COI editor does serious harm to the encyclopedia, little to nothing is ever done about it. So, my question to you is this: Can't you improve the article by focusing on content instead of the contributor?

As for the GA status of that article, that sounds like you should bring this up at WP:FRINGE/N. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skinwalker

The elephant in the room - which we apparently are not permitted to acknowledge upon threat of a siteban - is that a small number of Transcendental Meditation students and employees, nearly all of whom edit from overlapping IPs in a highly specific geographic location, have systematically collaborated to extol TM and to remove well-sourced criticism of the movement and its devotees. They have interpreted the outcomes of the two TM cases as Arbcom Stamps of Approval® to continue this behavior. But don't take my word for it. Let's look at the content differences they have implemented in TM articles since approximately December 14, 2011 - the day the Timidguy ban appeal case was accepted:

  • Transcendental Meditation December 11, 2011 - March 29, 2013:
    • The lead now has a strong emphasis on the number of practitioners of TM, noting the Maharishi's "scientific presentation". Well-sourced criticism of TM health claims from the Cochrane Collaboration and TM science claims from Carl Sagan are removed.
    • The history section, like the lead, has new verbiage that yet again emphasizes the size of the TM organization. This information is sourced to books written by TM adherents.
    • The technique section has lost information about the cost of TM courses. A note that a US district court disallowed the teaching of TM in schools on religious grounds is gone. This is particularly relevant as TM has over the past three decades forcefully denied that they are not a religious organization but instead are a secular self-help group.
    • In the further reading section, a long list of medical articles demonstrating no health effects of TM practice has been removed.
    • A lot of content was ostensibly forked out to Transcendental Meditation technique and a few other subpages. Moving on to those...
  • Transcendental Meditation technique November 24, 2011 - March 22, 2013:
    • POV tag removed.
    • The lead notes that over 340 medical studies on TM have been published (the source for this is not WP:MEDRS compliant) - ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the studies have found null results for TM health claims and that the studies that have found positive results have almost exclusively been published by TM affiliated researchers in low-impact journals. The lead further minimizes the religious nature of TM, juxtaposing a two critical references with multiple denials from TM.
    • The Selection section now states that the Maharishi's selection of a student's mantra is "foolproof".
    • In the Course Description section, material from a textbook on how to use TM to fight crime has been introduced.
    • A section on TM-Sidhi has been added. This section uses numerous low-quality studies to support the claim that TM-Sidhi has various beneficial effects on society at large, including the reduction of crime, illness, terrorism, and the improvement of international relations and crop yields. This section also contains the statement on pseudoscience removed from the lead of the main article, buried at the bottom and shorn of the Cochrane Collaboration material.
    • In the TM Teachers section, reliably sourced information on the steep costs of TM courses has been deleted.
  • Transcendental Meditation research December 8, 2011 - April 3, 2013:
    • POV tags were removed and then added recently. An advertisement tag was also added last month.
    • The summary in the lead about the lack of efficacy of TM health claims has been rewritten to downplay the preponderance of evidence from reliable medical sources.
    • I'm going to stop detailing the problems with this article to avoid TLDR. The general trend has been to juxtapose primary, poorly executed studies against MEDRS-compliant sources together to give an overall impression of TM efficacy.

I could make similar analyses with articles like Maharishi Effect, which presents paranormal claims of the TM organization as virtual fact and buries criticism at the end. Or, consider John Hagelin, a laudatory BLP which was recently promoted to good article status with absolutely no review of the fringe and original research problems in the article.

One particular behavoiral problem stems from the a principle from the first TM arbitration - "Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess." A tactic observed across most TM articles has been to overload the article with poor-quality sources, and then to threaten enforcement with this principle on an editor who removes these sources.[14][15]

I've focused here on the content, not the contributor to show serious and systemic problems with our TM articles. I fully expect to be told that these are not behavioral problems, content noticeboards are thataway, etc, etc. Despite various claims otherwise, these are behavioral problems stemming directly from a group of professionally connected editors being permitted to push a non-neutral POV for years. The results from TM arbitrations have created a chilling effect on editors who disagree with the party line on TM articles. These editors end up threatened, admonished, or sitebanned. Skinwalker (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to various:

  • I chose to analyze the articles beginning in late 2011 because they have been almost exclusively edited by TM advocates since then. The talkpages of the affected articles consist of these editors vehemently agreeing with each other. Other editors have been scared away by the constant threat of sanctions.
  • I note that the reactions of TM advocates have been attempts to associate me with banned editor Will Beback and blanket denials of POV - ignoring the specifics of my analysis of their changes to TM articles.
  • I further note the threats of sanctions made by Littleolive oil, Keithbob, and others. This is typical behavior - when an editor makes a content change they disagree with, they revert and insinuate that the offender may be sanctioned. This is textbook disruption, and it needs to stop. I'm going to post an edited version of my analyses at AE after the various clarifications die down and see where that goes. Skinwalker (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fladrif

It would appear that IRWolfie is only the latest editor to inadvertently wander into the walled garden of the TM articles. I sympathize, as I had the same misfortune about 4 years ago. The direct conflict of interest of TimidGuy and LittleOlive Oil with respect to this subject matter was definitively established at COIN years ago. The coordinated editing of the TM-related articles by a handful of editors pushing the identical POV was well documented at the TMArbCom. ArbCom, for reasons that I disagree with but which I understand, took a different approach than it did in the Scientology cases, and declined to impose wide-spread topic bans. The more generalized sanctions did, nonetheless, lead a number of subsequent blocks and bans through AE for continued POV pushing and violation of the TMArbCom decision. The TimidGuy appeal case, which led to WillBeback's ban, again did not lead to any further sanctions against POV-pushing editors, though a number of ArbCom members expressed their thoughts that such sanctions were in order. And, the more recent refusal of ArbCom to consider WillBeback's unblock request, without having the integrity or transparency to explain to either him or the community the basis for that refusal can hardly encourage anyone who questions what is going on in these articles

What I have witnessed in the aftermath of that case in particular, is that a small group of editors, working in concert, have been working diligently ever since the WBB ban to rewrite very substantially a large number of TM-related articles, with essentially no outside involvement. Why no outside involvement? Given the green light that ArbCom has given to these editors, and the message it has given to other editors, which I characterized at the time: "Complain about it once, you will be ignored; complain about it twice, you will be warned; complain about it three times, you will be banned" I'm certain that other editors who might otherwise think about entering the discussion or disputing the edits are frankly scared away from the topic area. The only time I've stepped in to the discussions in those articles is when someone has done something so obviously outrageous and improper that it is not even a close question. Other than that, I've stayed away, discretion being the better part of valor. The fact that the same cast of characters, including their guardian angel Dreadstar, show up like a Greek chorus to threaten sanctions against any new editors who question them, underlines that they view this as a winning strategy.

I agree with the analysis above that these TM-related articles are being rewritten in a systematic fashion to change the tone of the articles, make them more promotional, to minimize any controversies, to present it as accepted science, and remove or obscure any criticism or material which does not fit the preferred narrative of the TM organization. I don't know whether to laugh or cry over the claim being made at the Hagelin GA reassessment discussion that the article is the result of some collaborative effort among many editors (including myself). It would take hundreds of pages of diffs and comparison of sources and analysis of text which no-one is going to read to document all the changes. Just read the "before" and "after" versions, and come to your own conclusion. Now, I am sure that this will be closely followed with a long list of diffs in which the editors claim "You can't claim I'm POV-pushing, because in edit "x", I removed something that was positive about TM, and in edit "y" I added something that was negative, and in edit "z", when somebody questioned some change, we came to agreement. They've been very smart about doing precisely that to create a track record of plausible deniability. I could also point, on the opposite side, to tendentious tag-teaming on the talk pages that IRWolfie, DocJames and others have become embroiled in, showing extensive removal of reliable sources, addition of sources that don't meet RS or MEDRS, and the gross mischaracterization of sources in service of the narrative. Frankly, I have neither the time nor inclination to pursue this, and it is clear that ArbCom for reasons known only to themselves, have no interest in doing anything about it. If ArbCom doesnt' care, why should anyone else? Go ahead and let the TM Organization and any other organization/company/movement/political party/religion just rewrite the articles about themselves, their beliefs, and their products any way they want and ban anybody who questions it. Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreadstar. Give it a rest already. You know full well that Olive voluntarily disclosed her COI, that it was extensively discussed at COIN in multiple threads, that she was directed to comply with COI policy, she defiantly ignores those decisions and directives. You then personally blanked her userpages containing the disclosure of her COI. Enough with the tired, blustering threats. Fladrif (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreadstar #2. You do not have WP:Oversight rights [16], thus your redaction of Olive's voluntary COI disclosure is not covered by the cited policy, and reference to her voluntariy self-disclosure is not WP:OUTING notwithstanding your redaction. Moreover, her COI and the self-disclosure is extensively documented at multiple COIN threads, none of which have been redacted or oversighted. So again, give it a rest. Fladrif (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now we have editors unilaterally deleting, reverting, hatting on this thread and apparently elsewhere, etc, the fact that TimidGuy and Olive have both, repeatedly, revealed who their employer was. Are we going to next disappear the COIN findings as to their conflict of interest? And the ArbCom findings that TimidGuy had a revealed conflict of interest? This is getting absurd. The policy is quite clear, having voluntarily revealed their COI, it is no violation of Outing to refer to it. None of the editors who are busily trying to unring this bell have Oversight rights on Wikipedia. Fladrif (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Dreadstar is trying to rewrite the Harassment policy yet again to his own liking above. Once an editor has revealed his employer, voluntarily, simply deleting it does not unring the bell. Has Oversight removed the multiple, voluntary, disclosures of his employer across multiple userpages, article talkpages, noticeboards, AE, ArbCom, and probably half a dozen I've forgotten? Otherwise, this effort to whitewash the facts is directly contrary to policy. Fladrif (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DavidLeighEllis

If a group of editors is POV pushing on TM, and there is clear, unambiguous evidence to back this up, then that is a user conduct problem that can be resolved administratively or by arbitration, if nothing else will work. What is totally unacceptable is to claim that because an editor is, or is alleged to be, a member of a religious group, their editing on the topic is ipso facto biased. You wouldn't try to ban Jews from articles on Judaism, or Christians from articles on Christianity, would you? Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is primarily hortatory, cautioning editors about a factor that might lead them into the temptation of biased editing. The guideline also allows blatant COI problems, such as editing as a paid advocate for an organization, to be dealt with harshly. Again, it should not be assumed that any member of a religious group is ipso facto a paid advocate, and the allegation should not be made speculatively. If Littleolive oil/Keithbob/etc are biasing TM articles, their editing itself is sufficient evidence against them, without straying into argumentum ad hominem. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • When looking at content, if users concentrate on contributions rather than contributors they won't go far wrong. If there is a problem with content, deal with the content. A contributor comes into focus when their conduct becomes a cause for concern. So if a user is dealing with problematic content, and a contributor is being obstructive or disruptive, that would be the time to look at their behaviour - but it would be their on-Wiki behaviour one would look at, not assumptions about their private life. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skinwalker: I am very sympathetic to your position. I'm not sure if a majority, or even a sizable minority, of the Committee is at this time. In the meantime, perhaps there might be some knowledgeable individual administrators at WP:MED who might be interested in reviewing articles, talk page, and archives for sanctionable behavior if you put together a well-argued post that shows evidence of civil POV pushing.

    @IRWolfe: There is an unresolved (and perhaps unresolvable) tension between our principles of allowing pseudonymous editing and discouraging articlespace edits by those who have a conflict of interest, as I believe a past Arbitrator once put it. There is no good solution to this, so I would give you the same general advice as I gave Skinwalker. NW (Talk) 20:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my view, one editor individually cannot legitimately conclude that a conflict of interest exists, but a group of uninvolved editors can. AGK [•] 19:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dreadstar, your statement seems mostly speculative in nature, and it would be appropriate for you to rescind or substantiate it. AGK [•] 22:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may add more later, but for now I would say that editors who edit topics in which they have a clear professional or personal involvement should disclose that. My rule of thumb is that if you were publishing something under your real name, and your prior involvement in that topic on a professional or personal level would lead people to question the objectivity or motivation for what you were writing on Wikipedia, then you need to disclose that you have a COI (conflict of interest). Failing that, if you are unwilling to disclose or discuss potential COIs, you should chose to edit something else (a new interest, unrelated to previous and current professional or personal interests). This also applies to those who may arrive at an article with the intention of promoting or denigrating a topic, though that is technically POV pushing.

    More generally, what Wikipedia needs is generalists willing to work on a wide range of articles, and willing to look at an article that they have little prior knowledge of, and assess potential sources objectively and dispassionately. Such editors would work with others (including specialists, advocates, critics, and others who have willingly disclosed their connections to the topic area) to achieve a well-written article that serves our readers. Put the article through some recognised review process, and then move on to do the same on other articles.

    Anything else is horrendously inefficient and prone to protracted arguments between pseudonymous people who (in some cases rightly) question each other's motives and why they disagree on the right approach to sourcing and writing such articles. It should be not about what the editors need (protection from each other?), but what the articles need, and they need editors from a range of backgrounds willing to work together on the articles and improve them efficiently. And that should always include someone with little prior knowledge of the topic, able to provide objectivity, and to whom those editing the article will listen. Carcharoth (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Transcendental Meditation movement

Initiated by — Keithbob • Talk • at 15:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Keithbob

Regarding this talk page tag which appears at Transcendental Meditation talk: Error: The code letter tm for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

  • At present it only appears on the talk page of the one, main article (above). Wouldn't it be appropriate to have it on all the articles in the topic area?

If yes, can I add the tag or does it need to be done by a clerk?

Comment by Keithbob

COMMENT: The Findings of Fact, Locus of dispute section from the case says: 'This dispute broadly concerns the articles within the Transcendental Meditation movement category and its sub-categories. In particular, the focus has been on the following articles: Deepak Chopra, John Hagelin, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools, TM-Sidhi program and Transcendental Meditation. It would seem to me that the tag should at least be placed on the articles mentioned in this FoF, yes? Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: do the discretionary sanctions apply to all articles in the topic area, broadly defined? Or just those articles that have the DS tag?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Silk Tork's concern that there is the possibility that an involved editor could add the tags to articles outside the topic area, thereby creating some confusion. However as Risker, NW, Rich wales and Callanec have said below, the tag is just a talk page notice. It doesn't confer sanctions upon an article clearly outside the topic just by virtue of its presence. Specific to the TM case, an editor placing the tag on any article that is clearly within the topic area as defined by the ArbCom case (see my comment above) and any article in the TM template and TM category as Risker has pointed out, also seems safe and appropriate to me. To be very specific, my intention is to, over time, place the tag on any of the articles in the TM template that do not currently have the tag. [Note: 4-5 talk pages have been recently tagged by User:Callennecc as a result of this thread] Does anyone find my intention to tag the remaining articles objectionable? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added the tag to John Hagelin, Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health and TM-Sidhi program all of which were mentioned in the TM ArbCom finding of fact quoted above. I also added the DS tag to Maharishi Effect which is a split of the TM-Sidhi program page and which contains contentious content. I am satisfied, at present, that all of the main pages have a DS tag. However, per consensus in this discussion, any editor may add the DS tag to additional pages within the topic area, either now or in the future, should they feel it would be helpful as a communication aid in providing additional information to editors who may be unaware of the discretionary sanctions imposed at the TM movement Arbcom in October 2011. Thank you everyone for your contributions to the discussion. It has been very helpful. Best Wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Looie496

I have no opinion on the question, but I would like to note that Keithbob originally asked this at the Teahouse and was advised by two experienced editors to ask here instead. Looie496 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Richwales

An article is covered by discretionary sanctions by virtue of the Arbitration Committee's having said so, regardless of whether any notice appears on the article's talk page or not.

A discretionary sanctions tag may appropriately appear on the talk page of any article in a covered topic area — though there is no real need to add a tag to the talk page of an article where no problems have arisen yet.

Although the {{uw-sanctions}} template is primarily intended as a warning to be placed on user talk pages, I don't see any problem with using this template — in the present case, {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=tm}} — on an article's talk page in order to supply more detail about exactly what "discretionary sanctions" means.

As far as I'm aware, placing a discretionary sanctions tag on an article's talk page is not considered sufficient warning per WP:AC/DS — an individual editor must still be individually warned on his/her own user talk page before having sanctions imposed on him/her. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Callanecc

Drawing on the last question from Keithbob and SilkTork's comment. It has always seemed to me that the tag was merely an optional (in that it didn't have to be there for DS to apply) reminder to editors. I would have thought the tag was fairly low impact - (hopefully) an admin isn't going to take action under DS based solely on the presence of the tag. So what's the worst that can happen from allowing any editor to add the tag (apart from removing a fairly trivial task from an already busy admin group)? However I can also see an argument for only allowing uninvolved admins to add the tag - because they have to decide if the article is within the area of the dispute and is then subject to DS.

Comment by NewsAndEventsGuy

A lowly editor, I find the reasoning of SilkTork (talk · contribs) highly persuasive and note that this reasoning works against my own desires. I am an example of what SilkTork was talking about, where I want to expand an ARB ruling to articles further than other editors good faith interpretation of the ruling. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dreadstar

I don't see it matters who adds the tags, so I'll be happy to add them; just provide me a list via email or on my talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 18:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • In my view, the tag can be added (preferably by an uninvolved user) to any articles in the topic-area that have encountered issues with edit-warring, POV, etc. There is no need to add it to articles that have not had any problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, what NYB said. While it is preferable for an uninvolved user to add the tag, it can be any editor who adds it. NW (Talk) 02:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discretionary sanctions apply to any article in the topic area, tagged or not. The tag merely serves as a reminder to those editing those particular articles that more stringent standards apply to such articles. Any editor informed about discretionary sanctions via the procedure laid out at WP:AC/DS may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for edits that the administrator believes violate Wikipedia's standards in the topic area. NW (Talk) 18:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think such tagging is within ArbCom procedures, but I may be wrong. I think such tags are helpful, though the question of who should place them is worth discussing. Currently "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict...", and it may be prudent for the placing of such tags to also be restricted to "uninvolved administrator"s. It may be worth formalising the matter of using these tags by putting some appropriate wording on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions page, for which we would probably need a motion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can be tagged. I don't see why this should be restricted to administrators at all, and would suggest that even "involved" editors would not be in any kind of conflict in adding the tag, provided the article is within Category:Transcendental Meditation; it's just a notice at the top of a talk page, and there is no inherent threat to it. Risker (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning for why an uninvolved admin should do it, is because the tagging appears to put the tagged article under ArbCom restrictions. We've had formal queries from time to time regarding which articles are under ArbCom sanctions, as some topics may be tricky to precisely pin down. Some users may wish to extend ArbCom sanctions to neighbouring articles of their own accord. Other users may wish to remove tags and thus apparent ArbCom protection from other articles. If the tags in themselves are to mean something (and I think they should) then some guidance on their use and some control on their placement seems appropriate, in the same way that guidance and control is given for advising individuals that sanctions are in place. A warning on an article has a wider impact than a warning to an individual. It may be seen as disproportionate that a warning to one can only be done by an uninvolved admin, but a warning to everyone can be done by anyone. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The tags themselves mean nothing; they are a standardized additional reminder that sanctions may apply in a topic area and that editors ought to be careful when editing. The presence of a tag on an article does not by itself mean that an editor can be sanctioned without individualized warning. If any such tagging is contested, then I see a reason to track down an uninvolved administrator. But otherwise, I think it's simpler and more beneficial to allow any other editor to do it. Additionally, since discretionary sanctions applies more to the content of the edits than the specific pages (that's the intent anyway, though it is quite poorly worded for sure), the tags by themselves don't mean anything. Edit warring on United States over whether Roe v. Wade ought to be mentioned is covered by the Abortion discretionary sanctions, but that doesn't mean Talk:United States needs the {{discretionary sanctions}} tag. NW (Talk) 17:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this tag today, while working on the tree shaping article: {{ArbCom discretionary sanctions}}. It may be worthwhile combining this and any other templates which inform readers that an article is under sanctions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per all of my colleagues, I hold that the tag can be added to any article that falls within the scope of the sanctions, but also that the tag should usually only be added in the event that there is a significant volume of contention, disagreement, or misconduct on the article or article talkpage. The tags are merely a courtesy reminder to contributors that they may be sanctioned if they misconduct themselves on the article; they are not "warnings" in the sense used by the standard discretionary sanctions, and have no substantive effect other than to assist with communication to disputants. I would be inclined to recommend restraint to Keithbob or to any editor who considers adding these tags en masse; the tags should only be added where they will be helpful. AGK [•] 09:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Procedural issues at at WP:AE

Initiated by Gatoclass (talk) at 04:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Gatoclass

Firstly, my apologies to the Committee for adding to your current workload. However, hopefully these issues can be resolved quickly and with a minimum of fuss.

This request relates to a number of procedural issues that have recently arisen at WP:AE, which I think are probably best handled by the Committee. There are four in total—the first two raised at AE by Sandstein and the latter two raised here now by myself:

1/ Sandstein recently declined to act in a request regarding breach of 1RR at AE as he sees the 1RR restriction on certain pages subject to discretionary sanctions as having been a "community ... decision" rather than made by an administrator acting by authority of, and with stated reference to, those discretionary sanctions. The issue of whether or not 1RR can legitimately be adjudicated at AE therefore needs clarification. I don't think Sandstein himself objects to 1RR being adjudicated at AE; he apparently just wants a clear statement of the principle, so I am referring the matter here. The discussion regarding this issue can be found in the "Results" section of the recently closed Soosim request.

2/ Sandstein again declined to act on a recent request on the basis that the respondent had yet to receive an official warning, in spite of the fact that the respondent was a named party to the original Arbitration case.[18] As I have always taken the view that warnings are not required when a user is already clearly aware that discretionary sanctions apply in a topic area—a principle that I believe has been upheld in at least one previous Arbcom clarification request (when it was decided that participants in a previous AE request with regard to a particular topic area under discretionary sanctions don't need a formal warning)—so again this should not be a difficult matter to resolve, but I think it needs resolution so that we can avoid similar debates in future.

3/ In a recent appeal against the length of an AE sanction by a sanctioned user, Sandstein commented on the appeal in the "Result" section in spite of having participated in the adjudication of the request which led to the original sanction.[19] Though I don't think there is any formal prohibition against doing this, IIRC the convention at AE has always been that adjudicators of the original case confine their comments to the "Statements" section of an appeal. Regardless of precedent, however, I believe that it is a sound principle for admins to follow to allow appeals of cases they have adjudicated to be handled by different administrators, just as appeals in legal proceedings are handled by a different court made up of different judges. Therefore I am requesting that Arbcom formally endorse this principle, as I think users have a right to have their appeals reviewed by administrators independent of the original decision.

4/ In the same request referred to in 2/ above, Sandstein decided to issue a warning to the respondent before the request was concluded.[20][21] Since the outcome of a request is something to be decided by consensus of uninvolved administrators—whether it be no action, a reminder, an advisement, a warning, a topic ban etc.—I felt that issuance of this warning was out of process as it effectively pre-empts the consensus decision of the adjudicating administrators. I believe it is out of process even if the particular discussion looked to be heading to at least a warning for the respondent in any case. I am therefore requesting that Arbcom formally recognize the principle that remedies not be implemented in AE requests until discussion by uninvolved admins has concluded and a consensus view reached.

Thank you for your consideration. Gatoclass (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sandstein for your quick and comprehensive response. I will not respond to all the points you raise as I am trying to keep this submission brief, except to concede that you are probably correct to say that there is no formal requirement for consensus amongst uninvolved admins involved in adjudicating an AE request, and that I was mistaken to suggest otherwise. However, I don't think the current wording of the standard discretionary sanctions was intended to suggest that consensus amongst adjudicating admins can be ignored or pre-empted by administrative fiat, and I think it would be unwise for obvious reasons to endorse such a principle. Gatoclass (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I am in agreement with the general thrust of your comments. With regard to issue 1/, it is of no consequence to me whether or not 1RR is enforceable under AN3 as well as at AE, so long as there is no confusion that 1RR can be enforced at AE as a legitimate AE remedy. With regard to your comment about "elapsed time" since the original case, I can accept the argument that a new warning may be the most appropriate response after a long period since the last warning, just as long as a new warning isn't considered a necessary precondition for imposition of a sanction. With regard to your comment on 4/, I would agree that an editor still actively engaged in disruptive editing might justifiably be sanctioned at any point by any admin without the necessity of establishing consensus, and that such a sanction may even at times obviate the need for further action at the AE request. However, such action should only be permissible IMO when the editor concerned is continuing his disruptive editing even as the request proceeds; I can't conceive of any other reason why pre-emption of consensus might be considered appropriate. Perhaps I should also clarify that I have no issue with the notion of an admin imposing an AE sanction on his own outside of an AE request; just as long as remedies imposed as a result of AE requests themselves are imposed by consensus and not unilaterally. Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

I have always held that 'if remedy affecting a user is changed - and the remedy is updated/superseded or otherwise changed - then the user would be, by virtue of being affected by the previous remedy, affected by the new remedy. This is especially the case when the user is a party to the original case with the now-superseded remedy. As the user was informed of the update to the remedy, he should - at the very minimum - be considered "notified and warned" due to previous involvement.

I believe that we used to notify (and warn, if appropriate) people immediately in certain cases (though I cannot name one right off the top of my head) when the remedy would be DS/Article Probation/etc. Maybe this needs to be the default action. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Sandstein

Thanks, Gatoclass, for bringing these issues here for clarification. I apologize for being the originator of so many AE-related procedural questions lately; I suspect, that being a lawyer, I do have the tendency to see procedural problems where more practically minded people don't – and vice versa. I anticipate that we'll not be able to fully answer all questions here, but hopefully the issues raised here can be addressed in the general review of DS/AE procedure that I understand is forthcoming, and the answers codified on the appropriate pages.

1) Yes, my problem is not with 1RR as such, but rather what I think is the unclear legal (for lack of another word) status of Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction. My understanding is that a restriction can be enforced through AE only if it was made with the authority of the Arbitration Committee, that is (a) by a majority decision of the full Committee, or (b) by an individual administrator as provided for by WP:AC/DS. The problem is that Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction is not labeled as either. Although at one time it was apparently the subject of a Committee motion amending it, it is described on the case page as having been made "per community discussion and decision" – and community sanctions are not subject to AE. If the Committee could clarify what exactly the status of that restriction is, I'd appreciate it.
There's also another problem related to the legal status of that restriction. As written, the 1R restriction applies to all topic-area articles without requiring that users be first notified of it. I'm not sure that the authors of the restriction meant it to apply such that a new editor, who has no idea that there has been an arbitration case, or what arbitration and 1RR even mean, should be blocked without warning for making two reverts in a row to, say, the section Tel Aviv#Fashion, just because the article it is in "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". As written, therefore, I suspect that the restriction is overbroad. Now, if it is a Committee decision, editors are bound by it nonetheless, although I assume that individual administrators (who have no duty to act on AE requests) can still decline to be the ones to enforce it. But if it is a discretionary sanction, then it is unenforceable if the user has not previously received the kind of warning described in WP:AC/DS#Warnings (e.g. in an edit notice) – and probably a specific warning about 1RR, too, rather than a general warning about the decision, because if the restriction is a discretionary sanction rather than a Committee decision, then it is not part of the decision proper.

2) As currently written, WP:AC/DS#Warnings provides that "prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions". This wording does not make an exception for editors who were party to the original case or who are otherwise assumed to be aware of the case. Therefore, in a conservative interpretation of the wording so as not to accidentally overstep AE authority, I am of the view that a warning is still required even for such editors. Whether that makes any sense is another question, and one that is for the Committee to answer. I suspect that it has to do what the purpose of these "warnings" is supposed to be, a question that has come up a lot recently: If they are meant to serve only as notifications about the possibility of discretionary sanctions, then a separate notification to users who already know about the decision is superfluous. If however they are meant to warn the user to desist from a specific action, then there is still a point in requiring them to be issued to users who are aware of the decision. I understand that AGK is preparing a motion about precisely this question, which will hopefully resolve this.

3) That's indeed a thorny issue, and I would very much appreciate clarification (and, if needed, correction) from the Committee about this. I discussed it with another editor and suggested to AGK that it be also addressed in his upcoming motion. As I explain below, I think that Gatoclass misunderstands the AE process when he suggests that an administrator who comments on the merits of an enforcement request "participates in the adjudication of the request". Rather, the only person who adjudicates the request is the individual administrator who imposes a sanction, if any, in response to the request. Nonetheless, the question of whether an administrator who voiced an opinion about an enforcement request is involved (in the sense of WP:INVOLVED) in any future appeal is a valid one, made more difficult by the fact that there are currently very few, if any, rules about how an appeal at WP:AE is to be conducted.

In principle, I agree that it would be preferable, to prevent the appearance of bias, if an appeal were heard only by people who have not previously expressed an opinion about the matter. However, I think that there are also valid arguments for not considering an administrator in the situation I described to be involved:

  • First, WP:INVOLVED excludes actions made in an administrative capacity (which I believe commenting on the merits of an AE request is) from triggering involvement, so technically an administrator who comments as uninvolved in a discussion about an AE request can be seen as remaining uninvolved in any followup discussion, including an appeal. (If not, would they also be considered involved in any future discussion about the same user, or even the same topic area? That would exhaust the admin pool pretty quickly).
  • Second, there are few administrators who participate in AE, perhaps understandably given the amount of stress one can be exposed to in that role. This means that if commenting on a request excludes participation in a future appeals discussion, one of two things will happen:
  • Either fewer administrators (or possibly none at all) comment on AE requests, so as not to exclude themselves from a future appeal. That is undesirable, as it will tend to reduce the quality of the decisions made. It will cause additional stress to whoever does make a decision, because when challenged about it they can't point to the support of colleagues. And it may also lead to an unwelcome division of labor among AE admins, where one group focuses on responding to requests and the other on second-guessing those decisions on appeal.
  • Or, and this is the second possibility, it may result in there being too few uninvolved administrators to form a useful consensus about the outcome of any appeal, because most have already voiced an opinion about the initial request. In extremis, one remaining uninvolved administrator could by themselves overrule, on appeal, the unanimous opinion of five others who commented about the request being appealed.

I hope that the Committee's clarification will help define recusal rules that take these various concerns into account.

4) I think that Gatoclass is subject to a misconception when he says that "the outcome of a request is something to be decided by consensus of uninvolved administrators". No rule that I know of provides for this. Rather, all enforcement provisions that I know of, including WP:AC/DS, provide that "an uninvolved administrator" – singular – may act in enforcement, that is, without necessarily having to take into account anybody else's opinion. It is only as a matter of practice that administrators working at AE have become used to exchanging opinions about the merits of enforcement requests and possible courses of action before one of them acts on the enforcement request. That's obviously a good thing particularly in complicated cases, but it does not mean that discussion, much less a consensus, is required. In that sense, one administrator deciding to take action (in this case, issuing a warning, because I am of the view that it was required and not previously given, see point 2 above) does not preempt any other administrator from taking any other action that they deem possible and appropriate (such as a block), which I made a point of noting. However, a clarification about this aspect of AE procedure could also be helpful.  Sandstein  07:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update to 4): Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions clarifies that "best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case". This means, e contrario, that in all other (i.e. most) cases administrators are not expected (let alone required) by the Committee to discuss (and much less to seek consensus for) sanctions with others.  Sandstein  09:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

I don't believe that a DS warning was originally meant as a sanction. That is, a person misbehaves, is warned, misbehaves again then recieves a sanction. I think the word 'warning' was always meant as closer to the definition of 'notification'. That is a person who has not necessarily misbehaved is warned that there are rules which they may not be aware of.

This follows with the logic that it is unfair to sanction someone who reasonably was not aware of the special rules. They must be warned (notified) of the rules before a sanction can fairly be applied. So any knowledge of the special rules counts as a person being "warned".

Treating it as a sanction unfairly provides a procedural Get out of Jail Free card for people aware of the rules, yet not warned (sanctioned) because a warning is mandatory.

Really, Arbcom could solve this AND the Who Can Issue Warnings? issue by clearly separating warning (sanction) and warning (notification). Any editor can warn (notify), an uninvolved admin is required for a warning (sanction). Now use different words for the two meanings. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, and this would also address the appeals issue. A warning (notification) can't be appealed but a warning (sanction) can. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ErikHaugen

Regarding (1), T. Canens makes a great point about the community sanctions helping define what "expected standards of behavior" means, but also in this case notice that EdJohnston argued that "Since Arbcom touched the 1RR in 2012, I think they own it now". It seems a little squishy, but I'm sympathetic to this argument as well.

Regarding (2), I wish warnings were just notices and never implied guilt; it would be nice to move away from this conception that this is a "2 strikes" kind of thing where the first warning is "you did something bad, stop it or else we'll block/ban/whatever you." I don't like these because they're kind of a big deal to receive, yet I think people issuing them don't necessarily realize how odious it is to get them. Once we clarify this, we can also clarify that sanctions don't require prior special warnings as long as it is clear that the editor knew about the DS in question—for example, if the user was a party to the case and got the notice of the results on the user talk page.

Regarding (3), it does seem strange to appear to be on a panel deciding the appeal of an administrative action that you took! I do some RMs—I would never consider closing a move review of an move request closure I made, for example. This may not be as clear-cut, but still.

Regarding (4), I think if the warning is a notice and not a statement of guilt, then it is fine. Anyone should be able to slap it on anyone's talk page, anytime. This warning, which AFAICT is the one we're talking about here, appears to be a notice, not a statement of guilt, so I think what Sandstein did is ok. Here is an example of a warning that is a statement of guilt, not simply a notice: "...If you continue to misconduct yourself..." etc. This difference in language is huge. Both let the noob who wants to edit something like Tel Aviv#Fashion know what's up, one also serves as a rap sheet. I'm probably trying to get at the same thing here that 204. is trying to get at. HaugenErik (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Given that all these issues concern Sandstein's conduct and he was previously the subject of an arbitration request regarding his conduct at AE, which led to an "advisement" about his actions there, I think there should be serious consideration given to examining this editor's actions. He has become incredibly domineering over the process. The stuff he is doing at the Marek case is extremely unnecessary and confrontational, but he seems to think being an admin means he can just do whatever he likes there. I am honestly thinking about initiating some process against him because his current monopolization of the process is a problem when he conducts himself in such a fashion. Should Arbs here think it is enough concern, perhaps they could consider evicting him from the AE process without stripping Sandstein of his administrator status. I am certainly tempted to file an arbitration request against him because of what he is doing, but since this request is practically all about him I feel it can be settled here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, I have to say your response on point 3 is rather unsettling. You should not in any way encourage the idea that an admin can help reject any clemency regarding administrative actions they explicitly supported so long as they didn't act on that support personally. Should three admins support a restriction, only one is going to be the admin of record because that is simply how it works as you said, but that does not mean those other two admins should feel like there is not a very serious conflict of interest for them to then reject any appeals of the restriction as "uninvolved" administrators. Many times an AE decision is defended by the acting administrator because other admins supported it so their support is usually integral to any resulting enforcement action.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

The Devil's Advocate has intervened above to make a series of points which appear to be an all-out attack on Sandstein. They are unrelated to the procedural rules for WP:AE being discussed here.

As such his statement should be disregarded.

It was written in the heat of the moment shortly after reverting some of Sandstein's administrative edits during an WP:AE request [22] in which I am also participating. After being warned, he launched into an outspoken personal attack on Sandstein,[23][24] calling him an "officious little jerk" and "petty tyrant".

The purpose of this clarification request is not to examine Sandstein's record as an administrator at WP:AE, but to give general procedural guidance for enforcing sanctions or administering warnings.

Given his animosity towards Sandstein, it was inappropriate for The Devil's Advocate to have exploited this opportunity to take potshots at Sandstein without justification. Mathsci (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive oil

I can't begin to describe how wrong it is to consider that a warning put in place in an arbitration warns or notifies a specific editor on an article. Such a view assumes that all editors have the same perspective on actions or discussions which is clearly not the case. Certainly reverts for most admins are easy to see, but not so other less concrete violations. Why is there a rush to block or ban with out a specific warning. If Wikipedia is not punitive, editors should be allowed and even encouraged to remedy objectionable behaviour. Further, using a general warning to apply to a specific situation will and has led to gross and unfair mistakes based on at best a misunderstanding of what has gone on. A simple warning would have alerted an editor that discussion they thought was appropriate was being seen in another light, and at worst, the ban was a deliberate attempt to remove an editor. With all respect to the lawyers here, this, at least in my mind, is an issue that can be simplified and reduced to an issue of being humane and fair, and little else.(olive (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • We are currently working on something that will, among other things, address questions 2 & 3. For 1, I think the best way to parse this under our current DS framework is that the 1RR is a community consensus that partially defines the "expected standards of behavior [and] normal editorial process" in this topic area, such that a violation is ground for application of discretionary sanctions in the form of a block. The provision for "block without warning" can be read to mean only that a block does not require a 1RR warning on the user's talk page, and so interpreted, does not conflict with the overall warning requirement for discretionary sanctions, which can be satisfied by a warning in the editnotice. As to 4, AE actions do not require a consensus of admins; on the other hand, in most cases it may well be preferable, out of courtesy, to refrain from taking action while an admin discussion is ongoing.T. Canens (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a fellow lawyer (not just wikilawyer), I can understand the each of the procedural issues that Sandstein has raised. Trust me, I could write several paragraphs of detailed analysis in response to each of Gatoclass's questions. But as important, I can equally understand the perspective of all the non-lawyers out there, who are simply trying to edit articles that are the subject of DS in peace. They must feel that the AE process has degenerated into a quasi-incomprehensible bureaucratic quagmire, one which even its administrators and the arbitrators do not fully understand. The purpose of arbitration enforcement is to enforce the remedies enacted in arbitration committee decisions, as well as discretionary sanctions that follow from those remedies, in a way that is fair both to the editors against whom enforcement is sought, as well as to other editors and ultimately the readers of the disputed articles. With this in mind, I would say in response to question 1 that it makes little difference to me whether 1RR restrictions (a blunt instrument to put it mildly) are enforced at AE or at AN3. Isn't the better question which venue will lead to more equitable and efficient enforcement?, rather than which is correct according to some rule book? As for the issue of warnings, I suggest that if there is legitimate doubt whether an editor is on notice of possible sanctions, then a warning rather than a more severe sanction should be given. Where an editor who was named in the decision immediately reoffends soon after DS is imposed, I doubt the need for another warning; but if substantial time has elapsed since the decision, giving a final warning may be preferable. The 204 IP's comment that there is a distinction to be made between "warning" as notice and "warning" as sanction has merit. In response to Gatoclass's point (4), while ultimate decisions at AE are often best made by consensus rather than unilaterally, but I would think that a single administrator can still issue a warning during the discussion in an attempt to avoid further disruptive editing while the discussion is pending; compare in-chambers opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for commenting so late on this. My views, which I will keep short to provide clarity, are: (1) The matter of 1RR may need to be discussed and handled separately, including a detailed review of the discussions that led to 1RR being included in discretionary sanctions. (2) Participation in an arbitration case should count as a notification (and I agree that the language of warning/notification needs clarifying and I think this will be addressed in the pending clarifications being worked on), though common sense should be applied if the case was a long time ago. (3) Admins working at AE should exercise caution when commenting on appeals and let others comment first if they commented in an earlier round of discussion. (4) Issuing warnings during an AE discussion does seem unwarranted. Let the discussion conclude first. TDA, thanks for reminding us of the advice provided to Sandstein in a previous case (Mathsci is correct to point out the intemperate language you used, but let's leave that there and refocus this request for clarification on the issues being discussed here). Sandstein, please re-read that earlier advice and ask if you need any clarification on that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC) To clarify what I said here about Sandstein and TDA which was a general comment not directly related to this clarification request, please see here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate how thoughtfully Gatoclass has framed this request, and I would reassure him that, even in times where we are an exceptionally busy committee, editors should not hesitate to approach us to ask for clarification on any aspect of our rulings. Even clarification requests concerning administration and procedure (or "bureaucracy", if one wishes to be unkind) have a direct effect on editors who are writing the encyclopedia, and we are therefore happy to receive them at any time. Your four-point structure has greatly simplified this request, so I will respond using the same chronology of points:

    (1) The 1RR restriction was plainly enacted as a discretionary sanction, and is therefore under the auspices of arbitration enforcement. Complaints that the 1RR restriction has been breached can be referred to the enforcement noticeboard.

    (2) I hope this committee can resolve that ambiguity in the omnibus discretionary sanctions motion I am preparing (and which we agreed on the mailing list will be due early next month), but according to long-standing community convention editors who are named in an arbitration case can be considered duly "notified" and "warned" (in the sense used for discretionary sanctions) if discretionary sanctions are later enacted in that same case.

    (3) A hypothetical would help me answer this point more succinctly. If administrators A and B opine in an enforcement request that editor Z should be topic banned for a month, and administrator C reviews the enforcement request, agrees with A and B, and enacts the topic ban, then administrator C is the "acting administrator". When editor Z appeals the month-long topic ban, administrator C would be ineligible to contribute to the "consensus of uninvolved administrators" required to overturn an enforcement action. Administrator C could opine on the appeal as an involved party, but he should do so outwith the uninvolved administrators' discussion section. However, administrators A and B did not enact the topic ban (only a single administrator, the "acting administrator", can be responsible for an enforcement action). Merely agreeing that something is a good idea does not confer involvedness. I therefore disagree with my colleagues above, and would contend that A and B are eligible to contribute to Z's appeal as "uninvolved administrators". However, I would agree that, for practical purposes, A and B should try to defer the decision concerning Z's appeal to administrators who are fresh to the topic ban, and should try not to dominate the appeal discussion unless there are no other administrators available to comment in a timely way. (Again, point (3) is something we hope to disambiguate in the forthcoming motion.)

    (4) Sandstein seems to have been merely correcting a procedural deficiency with a particular enforcement request, so I would not agree he overrode the developing consensus of his fellow administrators. AGK [•] 21:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Monty Hall problem

Initiated by Martin Hogbin (talk) at 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 3
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Information about amendment request
  • Request removal of discretionary sanctions.

Statement by Martin Hogbin

Civil discussion on ways to improve the article now takes place on the talk page and general discussion about the subject that is relevant to improving the article continues on the arguments page. There has been no incivility, edit warring, or other bad behaviour connected with the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ningauble

Although the situation has improved since a time when the discussion page saw frequent, explicit personal attacks, our 17th most talked about article continues to be the locus of unproductive and unconstructive contention.

A handful of frequent participants have effectively reached an agreement to disagree more or less civilly about their divergent views; but virtually any attempt to actually improve clarity, neutrality, and due weight in the article, especially by anyone outside this group, is overwhelmed and thwarted by tendentious objections and voluminous digressions, as the regulars seize opportunities to re-grind their favorite axes. This environment of antagonistic browbeating is so severe that Guy Macon, a member of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, has repeatedly (most recently in the thread started here) called for the regulars to just go away and let somebody else work on improving the article.

Aside: My own view that editor contention has resulted in undue emphasis on contention within the article itself, and that the article interprets sources in ways that misrepresent what sources say, is supported by closing statements in last year'sRfC; but I would be nuts to try to improve it in this environment. (I have tried occasionally, so it is fair to say I sometimes do go nuts.) Distortions in the current article, such as the inadequately sourced and apparently incorrect narrative under A second controversy, and the (mis-)interpretation of the context sources refer to under Criticism of the simple solutions, appear to me to result from a kind of Groupthink consensus among a handful of disputants to defend the one thing they agree about – that the article should express their disagreements.

I recommend against removal of discretionary sanctions. If anything, I think there has been inadequate moderation of the discussion page, from which all but the most pugnacious or masochistic contributors are regularly driven away. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the "Statement by Guy Macon" below:  Although I cited Guy's earlier recommendations along these lines as testimony about a dysfunctional editing environment, I should clarify that his prescription is not something I can endorse.

    Personally, as someone who has always striven to respect the need for consensus, and who has repeatedly stepped away for weeks, months, and even years at a time when consensus seemed unattainable, I do not like the idea of being presumptively banned for having occasionally tried to improve the article or break a stalemate. What is proposed here goes far beyond the existing discretionary sanctions, and I wonder if there is any precedent for this sort of "inverse semi-protection" that allows only newcomers.

    In saying that I think there has been inadequate moderation, I mean that the existing discretionary sanctions have not been used as effectively as they might to intervene in unconstructive discussion. Of course, it is not easy to do so without reviewing prodigious quantities of past discussion to ascertain whether, e.g, dead horses are being beaten. It is far easier to indiscriminately send everyone away but, as Richard Gill has suggested,[25] it may be counterproductive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Richard Gill

Why the article will never stabilize: MHP appears to be a simple problem which you can solve with common sense. Most people's initial common sense solution is however wrong. So new editors will keep coming to the page wanting to rewrite the article according to their common sense understanding (right or wrong). But wikipedia articles have to be based on published sources, not on individual editors' common sense!

Next probem: there is a huge literature on MHP because it interests ordinary folk (people who like solving fun brainteasers), and it interests educationalists, and cognitive scientists, and mathematicans, and statisticians, and decision theorists. The mathematicians and statisticians and decision theorists have developed tools and language to solve problems like this in a systematic way ... precisely because ordinary human cognition tends to go wrong as soon as probabilistic reasoning. People have been debating what probability means for 300 years and there is still no consensus. There are a number of different schools who nowadays live mostly in peaceful coexistence.

Conclusion: the talk page of the article will always be a debating ground. The article will always be a big article, because it's a big topic. Yet right now, in my opinion, the article is reasonably balanced, comprehensive, and it's a fantastic resource. So there is no problem needing a fix.

Ningauble's small print comments -- inadequately sourced and apparently incorrect narrative under A second controversy, and the (mis-)interpretation of the context sources refer to under Criticism of the simple solutions -- should be raised on the talk page of the article. The inadequate sourcing is easy to fix. As to his claims of incorrect narrative and misinterpretation of context - I'm not aware of errors.

I agree that the "regulars" ought to move on now and give newcomers a chance.

Finally: I recommend lifting of discretionary sanctions. It would make the talk page of the article a more welcoming place to newcomers. Richard Gill (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kmhkmh

I mostly agree with Richard Gill's statement regarding the nature of the problem and the state of the article. However I don't quite agree with his final conclusion regarding lifting the discretionary sanctions. The article will always be subject to "opinionated" edits and always be high maintenance (unless it gets locked down completely in a somewhat reasonable state). Though it might helpful if old editors stay away (many actually did) to remove personal confrontation and frustrations, I seriously doubt it will improve the situation in the long run, because due to the nature of the problem chances are the new editors will sooner or later pick up exactly where the old ones left off. We will get the same or similar conflicts just with new players. The discretionary sanction may help to keep those conflicts under control. Moreover since the state of the article it somewhat reasonable, there is no need for an urgent improvement but the danger of a rapid deterioration.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

In my considered opinion, we should rethink this issue and consider new solutions.

This is the longest-running content dispute on Wikipedia, and is featured at WP:HALLOFLAME.

I have been making periodic efforts to resolve this content dispute for the last two years. Some of my efforts have been:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Evidence#Evidence presented by Guy Macon (outside observer, uninvolved with editing the page in question)
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments/Archive 8#A Fresh Start
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 23#A Fresh Start
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 24#Consensus
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 24#We Won an Award!
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 25#How far have we come?
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 25#Longstanding Content Dispute Resolution Plan Version II
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 29#The Final Solution
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 29#Ten Years And A Million Words
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 33#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 35#The longest-running content dispute on Wikipedia
...and those are just the places where I created a new section.

After well over a million words, we have not reached a consensus on article content. To this day Talk:Monty Hall problem is full of spirited debates about what the content of the Monty Hall problem page should be. Another million words are unlikely to change that.

This has reduced the quality of the page, as evidenced by the fact that it is a former featured article. A comparison of the present page with the with the (featured 2005 version) is instructive.

Every avenue of dispute resolution has been tried, some repeatedly. Unlike many articles with unresolved content disputes, this does not appear to be the result of any behavioral problems. Instead, it is an unfortunate interaction between editors, each of whom is doing the right thing when viewed in isolation.

In my opinion, it is time to ignore all rules and start considering new ways to solve this, the longest-running content dispute on Wikipedia.

I propose applying a 6-month topic ban -- no editing of the MHP page or MHP talk page -- on every editor who was working on the page two years ago, one year ago, and is still working on the page today (this of course includes me). I predict that within a few months the remaining editors (and perhaps those who have gone away discouraged) will create an article that is far superior to the one we have now, and they will do it without any major conflicts. Giving the boot to a handful of editors who, collectively, have completely failed to figure out what should be in the article will have a positive effect. Of course it should be made clear that this does not imply any wrongdoing on anyone's part, but rather is an attempt to solve the problem with a reboot.

Two years is enough. It is time to step aside and let someone else try. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related:
Talk:Monty Hall problem#The "there is no content dispute" hypothesis
Talk:Monty Hall problem#view from the outside
Talk:Monty Hall problem#Discretionary sanctions
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about this, and on reflection I would not favor an arbcom-imposed topic ban (which I think is unlikely to happen as result of a clarification request anyway). What I would like to see instead is whether any arbcom members agree with my theory that there are ongoing and unresolved disagreements about what the content should be, and whether they think that those who have been discussing the content of the page for years should consider voluntarily stepping back for some period of time and letting someone else try. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I think that someone brought this up the other day on the mailing list the idea of doing a general cleanup of the sanctions ArbCom has handed out over the past several years. Monty Hall problem was on that list, if I recall correctly. We have a lot on our plate now, so I think it might take a few weeks or months before we get to this, but I personally would support such an action. NW (Talk) 23:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the amount of tense discussion still occurring on the talkpage (which apparently amounts to well over a million words), I feel that loosening restrictions at this stage might be premature. I don't see that the sanctions are hindering progress, and may well be assisting contributors to discuss matters on the talkpage. Decline for now, though quite willing to look again as part of the general clean up that NW mentions above. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely convinced that we should be removing this topic area from discretionary sanctions. In principle, I don't think sanctions should be hanging over the heads of constructive contributors; but in practice, I do not think a topic area can completely reform itself in a year or two, even if the roster of active contributors completely changes or the existing set of regulars reform their conduct. I would decline this amendment request, without prejudice to reconsidering in six or twelve months. It's a little too soon for my comfort. AGK [•] 23:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Guy Macon (and Risker/Carcharoth) that parties who have become embedded in this dispute need to voluntarily withdraw. I recommend all this article's long-term disputants read and reflect on the first parts of this committee's "sober eyes" and "fresh eyes" principles:

    Wikipedia contributors are expected to pursue dispute resolution if local discussion alone does not yield consensus on a matter of content. This is particularly so when a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion. Insulating a content dispute from the views of uninvolved contributors for long periods can lead to the disputants' positions become entrenched.

    Part of "dispute resolution" is yielding an article to the wider community; there is no shame in stepping back and letting somebody else take over a problematic article. I would also counsel those disputants that if their conduct is brought back to us in future, we are likely to take remedial action like topic-banning. AGK [•] 10:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we can address this as part of the general sanctions cleanup, I think it's best to decline this for now, unless there's some special reason why we should address this immediately. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Are there any specific editing practices or article improvements that the discretionary sanctions are interfering with? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read over the talk page (or at least bits and pieces of the ones linked above, I find myself moving toward Guy Macon's view. Perhaps we should consider having those who have more than 5 edits to the article talk page in the last six months (or an alternate metric) just step away from the article for one year. I don't know if it will ultimately change things for the article, but good faith editors who move away from a longterm controversy start finding out whether it's the editing or the arguments that draw them to Wikipedia. (I'm expecting most if not all of the editors involved here will find it's the editing.) Risker (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Risker makes a good point here. I would prefer that the editors who have found themselves enmeshed over a long period in trying to resolve aspects of this content dispute, step away voluntarily rather than have that sort of solution imposed by ArbCom. A voluntary agreement among the current editors of that page, if you like. And then look at this again in a year or so and see if there are editors unable to do something like this voluntarily. Carcharoth (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Ebrahimi-amir ban appeal

Initiated by Ebrahimi-amir (talk) at 19:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by your name

The complaint was in two editions:

The second edition of one year ago (29 April 2012). You can read discussions about it in here.

I've also participated in the discussion earlier in this article [26] [27] [28] and other articles.

"Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view", it's one of the "Five pillars". I'm involved in discussions and respect to consensus. If it was a mistake I will try to fix. I think my participation in article is helpful than ban it. Article should be written based on reliable sources and neutrality. I think my contribution can help it. Obviously I'll be away from the editing war and respect the agreement.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=550353886"