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 Callanecc (talk | contribs) at 00:23, 22 April 2013 (→‎Amendment request: GoodDay: Archiving closed amendment request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Ebrahimi-amir ban appeal none none 14 April 2013
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal|Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal]] none none 5 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: 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:

[1]


Statement by Ebrahimi-amir

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 [2] [3] [4] 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 consensus.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein- I was told that my edits on Wikipedia's policies and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision have been constructive, not destructive. So the ban is unfair and I appeal the sanction. Please attention to talk and consensus on the article talk page (here and here) and also ask for help (To improve the mapping used in the article).--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xodabande14

I concur with Sandstein. The user reverted to a map that he had created in wiki commons (amongst other baseless nationalist maps) and had erased all Armenians in Karabagh and much incorrect information, and none of his sources supported such a map. Also any possible changes in previous behavior is seen after I filed the AE request and even then, the user was defending tendentious editing . So even if the user has had some good suggestions or edits, it does not rule out his bad edits and nationalist POV pushing. Also outside of this English Wikipedia, he was pushing viewpoint of the Medes being Turks in Turkish Wikipedia using fringe nationalist sources. I believe the user seriously needs to read WP:fringe, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:synthesis. Please note this ridiculous map [5]. The fact of the matter is that Ethnologue has no such map! Also furthermore, the latest version of Ethnologue (which is what the user should be using) has 15 million Azeris (and 45.5 million Persians) [6] and the previous version of ethnologue (2008/2009) had 11 million Azeris. He ignores the two latest and updated versions of ethnologue. What is important is that ethnologue has no map. So he has no source for drawing such a map (justifies it by out-dated source that lacks any map) and attributes false information to them and then puts it in different Wikipedias. These are just a few example where the user pushes nationalist POV in different Wikipedias. However, English Wikipedia now has some good laws and eventually, nationalist users either have to play by WP:RS or get sanctioned and eventually banned for good. So I support the decision (note also the statement of Dbachmann who has the most experience dealing with nationalist POV in Wikipedia) for the user to remain topic banned for 6 months. This will ensure nationalistic POV pushing which AA2 was created for is reduced and minimized.--Xodabande14 (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only amendment I suggest (not for this case) but int he future is that English Wikipedia like Russian Wikipedia gets a group of expert admins to make binding decisions. Else dealing with countries and ideologies who obsess about racial pride and ethnicity, and users who push nationalist POV, might overwhelm the admins in the future. --Xodabande14 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I issued an Armenia-Azerbaijan topic ban to Ebrahimi-amir at WP:AE recently because of tendentious editing as discussed there. To the extent this is meant to be an appeal of or request for clarification about that sanction, I can't offer a substantive reply, because I do not quite understand what Ebrahimi-amir wants to say with their above statement. But it seems that they do not understand the reasons for the sanction, as discussed in the AE thread, so I can't recommend a modification or a lifting of the topic ban.  Sandstein  19:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • There is a history of concern over Ebrahimi-amir's maps, and also of his tendency to edit war. He has been warned, and blocked, and warned, etc. He knows his maps are controversial and disputed. And he has been specifically warned to discuss making edits that are known to be controversial and disputed. He has also agreed not to edit war. Despite this, he reinstated one of his controversial maps after it had been removed from an article. He did not discuss this first. He only entered into discussion when the matter became a slow moving edit war, with him as part of it. Because Ebrahimi-amir was edit warring; because he was making a controversial edit that is clearly disputed without first discussing it and getting consensus; and because he was not abiding by his own unblocking agreement not to edit war, I feel a topic ban is appropriate. It is not the place of the Committee to discuss if Ebrahimi-amir's maps are appropriate, but while they are disputed, I feel it would be unwise to use them in sensitive articles without first having a discussion and getting consensus. Forcing them in by edit warring, and talking about it afterwards is not doing the right thing. Decline. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I'm not convinced that the sanction is incorrect, let alone so problematic that requires intervention by this Committee. T. Canens (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per TC. NW (Talk) 19:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When reviewing a discretionary sanction, ArbCom should not substitute their collective judgement to that of the admin who imposed the sanction being appealed, but only make sure there were neither abuse of discretion nor procedural errors; in this case, there are none. Actually, in my opinion, a topic ban was very much needed. So, decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline the sanction appears to me to be very much warranted. Courcelles 19:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sanction was warranted, because Ebrahimi-amir's edits to this topic have clearly been disruptive (and very much not, as he argues, "constructive"). The sanction was proportionate and its imposition was procedurally sound. I therefore see no merit to this appeal, and would counsel Ebrahimi-amir to consider what lessons he can learn from this situation and what other topic areas he can contribute to now that he is topic banned from Armenia–Azerbaijan. Decline. AGK [•] 11:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this is a reasonable and proportionate discretionary sanction and that therefore the Committee should not take any action. (Procedurally, we could have referred this appeal to the AE administrators rather than process it ourselves, but at this point it is best for us to go ahead and decide it here rather than waste time by having the discussion start over again in another forum to reach an inevitable result.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 [8]. 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: [9]. 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 [10][11][12]. 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 [13] about a separate issue (one surrounding issues about olive mentioning discretionary sanctions in unusual circumstances [14] and my comment about that which ched replied to: [15]. 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 [16] is ridiculous. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, this is the height of our interactions: [17]. 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: [18]. 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 [19] 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.[20][21]

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 [22], 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 Cardamon

As a general comment, simply asking an editor whether they have a conflict of interest (COI) on a topic is not outing.

@AGk: There seems to be a conceptual problem with the idea that individuals cannot legitimately conclude that a COI exists, while groups can.

On Wikipedia, groups reach conclusions mostly by consensus (although sometimes by voting), so a group can reach a conclusion only as a result of individuals reaching the same conclusion.

So, preventing individuals from concluding that a COI exists would also prevent groups from concluding that a COI exists. Cardamon (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Collect

Noting the above argument by Cardamon:

An individual certainly might suspect a COI - but under Wikipedia policies that individual should not make accusations based on their own surmise or on their own research concerning the person. More importantly, no individual has the right to act on their own surmise to the detriment of the other editor. If an editor makes an accusation on any talk page based on their own "research" (beyond using an editor's name if the editor is not using a 'nom de Wiki') then that is contrary to policy as "outing."

An individual might mention a surmise, and others might concur, but is is again not up to any such group to act on a surmise to the detriment of any other editor.

What Wikipedia has is a noticeboard specifically for making any determinations of COI affecting edits on an article WP:COI/N

It is on that noticeboard that the questions are asked with the goal of determing if a COI exists, and whether the COI affected the editing of the article improperly. Note that simply having a potential COI does not mean that one can not properly edit on a topic, and thus the post above has very little to do with the proper arguments thereon. Collect (talk) 12:54, 16 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=551547889"