Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

MarshallBagramyan

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning MarshallBagramyan

User requesting enforcement

 Sandstein  22:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement

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

MarshallBagramyan made the following excerpted contributions on 20 or 21 January 2011 to Talk:Caucasian Albania#WP:CHERRY:

1. [1] "The same cannot be said about those scholars working in Azerbaijan, who are apparently too preoccupied with attacking Armenians and too absorbed with trumpeting their own purported achievements"
2. [2] "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality, since much of what they say is backed by a multitude of sources. ... I object to using any and almost all Azerbaijani sources because they have an invariable vested interest to distort and misrepresent what the sources say. The fact that almost all their works reflect the position of official state propaganda and are published in Baku or elsewhere by themselves is enough to suggest that their works hold little to no academic value."
3. [3] "We all know that the works produced by scholars in Azerbaijan would not have a snowball's chance in hell in surviving a critical review, but to see them posted here in full, as if they're reliable sources, is a waste of time for all us serious editors who actually wish to improve this article."

As in the cases of Xebulon and Tuscumbia, whom I topic-banned for 3 and 6 months respectively for similar statements, MarshallBagramyan has disrupted the Wikipedia editing process by making these sweeping statements which are based on nationalist prejudice rather than on policy, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Users national background and neutrality: "Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view."

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

Warned by AGK in 2009; has since been subject to sanctions under this case.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

This is not a request but an announcement of intent to take enforcement action, see comments below.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I make this post in my capacity as uninvolved enforcing administrator. While I could simply take enforcement action without any discussion, I prefer to use this board as it provides for proper documentation, a forum in which to reply and easier review of arbitration enforcement.

Tuscumbia has pointed out in his appeal above that in the nationalist exchange at Talk:Caucasian Albania#WP:CHERRY only he and Xebulon were sanctioned, but not MarshallBagramyan. This should be remedied as a matter of fairness. Without admin objections, therefore, I intend to topic-ban MarshallBagramyan for six months, like Tuscumbia, because he too was already made subject to a three months topic ban for similar misconduct.

Tuscumbia and Xebulon should remember that they may not comment in this thread, which does not concern them, because of their topic bans.  Sandstein  22:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning MarshallBagramyan

Statement by MarshallBagramyan

Alright, I think I now see the basic gist in this misunderstanding: nowhere in the statements above have I said that we should reject authors on an ethnic or national basis. What I took objection to, and what has apparently been misunderstood, were sources emanating specifically from Baku and the country of Azerbaijan, since it is essentially ruled by a repressive regime which regularly jails dissidents for criticizing the administration or for voicing unpopular opinions and because many of the sources are published under close government sponsorship. That does not even come anywhere close to saying that all scholars who happen to have Azeri heritage should now be disqualified from consideration as a reliable source. Such a statement would personally go against my own editing activities, since I have greatly profited and made use of valuable sources written by Azeri authors relating to the history of medieval and early modern Iran and Ottoman Turkey and the article on the Nagorno-Karabakh War. In my statements, I have been extremely careful in distinguishing the people from the entity: by Azeri I refer to ethnicity and by Azerbaijan I refer to works published in the current-day Republic of Azerbaijan.

Nor, as it is alleged, have I acted upon making my arguments on the basis of "nationalist prejudice rather than on policy." They have, instead, been predicated entirely on on what scholars and other individuals in the field have stated. Seraphimblade makes an excellent point below in saying that sources that are excluded must be given adequate reasoning. To facilitate in the attempt to clear up this understanding, therefore, I have quoted several authors below regarding the unreliability of such sources and I ask that everyone fully read their statements. Robert Hewsen, a historian from Rowan College and the acknowledged authority in this field, wrote in his book Armenia: A Historical Atlas, published by no less a respectable a publisher as Chicago University Press:

Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291

The British journalist Thomas de Waal documented the systematic attempt to remove Armenians from history in his influential 2003 work on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict:

I gathered that Mamedova had taken the Albanian theory and used it to push the Armenians out of the Caucasus altogether. She had relocated Caucasian Albania into what is now the present-day Republic of Armenia. All those lands, churches, and monasteries in the Republic of Armenia—all had been Albanian. No sacred Armenian fact was left unattacked. Armenia’s conversion to Christianity in the fourth century a.d.? It had actually taken place thousands of miles to the south of present Armenia, on the River Euphrates. The seat of the Armenian church at Echmiadzin? It had been Albanian right up until the fifteenth century, when the Armenians relocated there...

The urbane Mamedova is the sophisticated end of what, in Azerbaijan, has become a very blunt instrument indeed. The crudest version of the Albanian argument has swept through Azerbaijan. Not once did I hear any pre–nineteenth-century church in the entire country called any-thing other than “Albanian.” The Albanians have even spread to the distant southeastern region of Nakhichevan, all of whose surviving Armenian churches have been declared to be Albanian.

A 1997 pamphlet entitled “The Albanian Monuments of Karabakh,” by Igrar Aliev and Kamil Mamedzade, ducks the issue of the medieval Armenian inscriptions altogether. The front cover bears a drawing of the façade of the church of Gandzasar, but the draftsman has carefully left out all the Armenian writing. All the photographs in the church were taken from a safe distance, so the Azerbaijani reader has no idea that there is any Armenian writing there at all. Aliev and Mamedzade finish their historical overview by saying: "The undisputable conclusion follows from everything said above that the so-called Armenians of Karabakh and the Azerbaijanis as such (who are the descendants of the Albanian population) of northern Azerbaijan share the same mother. Both of them are completely indisputably former Albanians and therefore the Armenians as such on the territory of Nagorny Karabakh, into which they surged in huge numbers after the first quarter of the nineteenth century, have no rights."
-Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. New York: New York University Press, 2003, pp. 167-69.

Professor Victor Shnirelman, a senior researcher of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, authored a monograph titled The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity, and Politics in Transcaucasia in 2004. While his book is too extensive to quote from, he took objection to the manner in which historiography progressed in modern Azerbaijan, as can be gleaned from the following chapter titles: "The birth of the Azeri nation", "The search for historical concepts, and major politics", "The Median temptation and Soviet Patriotism", "Between Media and Caucasian Albania and the Turkic World: Thirst for a new view", "Revisionists: the Pan-Turkic assault", "The struggle between conservatives and revisionists and a school education".

There are at least half a dozen other sources which I can quote, all of which speak about how political ideology has compromised the academic reputation of scholars working in Azerbaijan, regardless of their ethnicity. But what everyone above is saying or alluding to is that sources which intentionally edit or remove people from the pages of historical sources, which reconsecrate historical monuments and give them new identities, or distort the data that is available should be avoided as best possible.

I have therefore been not so much airing my views but merely repeating what others have already stated. My chief objection was to sources originating from Azerbaijan, not sources whose authors are Azeri. To the contrary, and as I emphasized several times to Tuscumbia during our long exchange, what mattered to us was not whether a scholar was Armenian, Azeri, or Martian, but the "breadth of their scope and their acknowledged expertise" in the area. And even then, my objection stemmed from the politically repressive climate that exists Azerbaijan, not its nationality. This has turned out to be a misunderstanding on massive proportions and I don't think I can emphasize it enough that my arguments were never predicated on the basis of excluding sources on the ethnic or national heritage of someone and I ask that the administrators to please ask me to clarify anything which might seem unclear since this is, after all, a very difficult and complex topic. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, please understand that no one is more fed up with these useless debates than I am. But as the authors I quoted above make clear, historiography in Azerbaijan is geared toward certain purposes and, unfortunately, no one is spared, no matter your profession. If a poor, underpaid scholar, who through no fault of his own, chooses not to toe the government or popular line, he might be deprived of funding or even face persecution. And so he is encouraged or forced to say or write something that holds official approval. Note how even some innocent Azerbaijani youths were brought up for questioning by the Ministry of Internal Affairs after the 2009 Eurovision contest because they chose to vote for the "wrong" (i.e., the Armenian) candidate. The history of Armenia, according to Azerbaijan's leadership, begins in the 19th century, only after the Russians "brought" and settled them into the region. This is the deplorable situation that now prevails in Azerbaijan, although it can be argued that similar, if less oppressive, climates now exist in other fragile post-Soviet countries, the current Republic of Armenia not being an exception. This was the prevailing situation until the early 1990s in the Republic of Turkey, when all scholars - regardless of political or ethnic distinction - were forced to not speak about or question controversial topics, especially the Armenian Genocide or human rights issues involving the Kurds. But every now and then courageous faces decide to spurn political ideology and censorship, such is the case with luminaries like Taner Akçam and Halil Berktay, who are widely respected academics in their field, not because of their ethnic heritage, but because of their laudably objective approach to controversial issues.

My statements must thus be viewed as responses within this context. The journalist de Waal presents this point in a very interesting manner when he says that "All those lands, churches, and monasteries in the Republic of Armenia — all had been Albanian. No sacred Armenian fact was left unattacked. Armenia’s conversion to Christianity in the fourth century a.d.? It had actually taken place thousands of miles to the south of present Armenia, on the River Euphrates. The seat of the Armenian church at Echmiadzin? It had been Albanian right up until the fifteenth century, when the Armenians relocated there...The crudest version of the Albanian argument has swept through Azerbaijan. Not once did I hear any pre–nineteenth-century church in the entire country called any-thing other than 'Albanian.' " And now it seems that the same arguments have spilled over onto Wikipedia. The article on the thirteenth century monastery of Gandzasar has borne witness to all this, as numerous authors have attempted to deprive this monument of its Armenian identity for politically-motivated reasons. We can speak about and question certain aspects of the church but to question its most fundamental aspects, which almost all other scholars caution us not to, would be an incorrect step to take. The most visible manifestation of this campaign has been the intentional destruction of an Armenian medieval cemetery inside Azerbaijan. While the Azerbaijani government still denies that it ever took place, it does say that the cross-stones found at the cemetery were not even Armenian to begin with but, again, were of Albanian origin. How does one exactly react to this after the second or tenth time this claim is put forward? How exactly do we react to those who repeatedly make disingenuous attempts to deny the Holocaust? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, I am not at all implying that disagreeing with my viewpoint here is now tantamount to denying the Holocaust (another unfortunate instance of misspeaking, one which I had second thoughts after posting *sigh*). I was simply trying to illustrate that questionable sources which challenge established facts are often viewed with a certain degree of skepticism. My point backfired, like so many other things said on the internet, and so, unless you guys ask me any direct questions, I'm just going to lay back here and stop typing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I know I said that I would recuse myself from making further comments unless asked to, but could someone please evaluate Atabey's comments below in the "Result concerning MarshallBagramyan" section. For some reason, I feel that comments like "Well, of course, he does. He is Armenian contributor who demonstrated inability to detach his personal biases from his contributions" to be extremely insensitive considering that this is, afterall, a discussion on ethnicity and nationalism.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning MarshallBagramyan

Sandstein, I was unable to locate what is it exactly about the lines that you have selected from his contributions that you think justifies imposing sanctions upon MarshallBagramyan. How exactly do they violate the established remedies concerning the topic area? Are you recommending this topic ban simply because this user was not topic banned initially when the other two were "as a matter of fairness"? Am I to understand that the very participation in similar exchanges irrespective of user conduct or substance of responses will now warrant a topic ban?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

To address your points in order: I'm sorry to hear that. Please see my explanation above. No. No.  Sandstein  00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

[Commenting as someone completely uninvolved]. One should read complete statements at the article talk page (like here), rather than only quotation above. MarshallBagramyan makes an argument that a number of Armenian historians are internationally recognized scholars (which is factually correct); they published a lot of manuscripts and can be regarded as reliable sources. This is a legitimate argument. Biophys (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

His praise for Armenian scholars is not at issue. His inflammatory blanket dismissal of Azerbaijani scholars is.  Sandstein  23:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

He explained at the article talk page: this is because of wide-spread censorship in the state of Azerbaijan. This is a legitimate argument. Of course, it would be best not to use any Azerbaijani or Armenian sources on Azerbaijan-Armenian conflicts. Use Western sources (that is what I usually did).Biophys (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Volunteer Marek

Having looked through this I also don't really see any justification for any kind of sanction, except a warning to be careful in statements. There does not appear to be any kind of a "peg" that you can hang a topic ban or other editing restriction on.

Basically, I agree with Seraphimblade below. Some of the wording of the comments is less than satisfactory. But these do not appear to be motivated by either WP:BATTLE or bad faith, but rather are simply a result of an editor commenting quickly and off the top of their head in midst off a heated discussion. If you edit in a controversial topic area (and we do need editors willing to do so) at some point or other you're going to be unclear, imprecise and maybe even a little frustrated and this is in fact just a natural part of how human interaction usually takes place. There's no evidence here of any kind of wrong doing. A reminder to be more careful (which we - especially content editors, since non-content editors rarely ever actually deal with difficult content issues - could all use sometimes) is sufficient. Volunteer Marek  23:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I got to add that Sandstein's characterization of MB's second statement [5] with I am much less impressed with MarshallBagramyan's second comment, which does not address his conduct and instead appears to argue at length why disagreeing with him in the content dispute (which AE does not care about) is equivalent to denying the Holocaust. seems to be on the whole quite inaccurate. The 2nd statement consists of two (fairly long) paragraphs and in them MB essentially reiterates the distinction between Azeri scholars and Azeri-government-produced sources which is the locus of confusion here. In fact he explicitly states that a similar distinction could apply to Armenia and Turkey in the early 1990's. This is just an elaboration on a previous point. At the end of these couple paragraphs, the statement does stray into "content disputes" but this is really just a reflection of the fact that as much as you try, at the end of the day, you can't clearly separate out "behavior disputes" from the "content disputes" that underlie them (and his point is valid - is Holocaust denial on Holocaust related articles a content or a behavioral dispute? - though it is a bit of a Godwin Law violation). I would also encourage admins involved in this discussion to try and put themselves in the shoes of someone who has just all of sudden been brought to AE and for whom severe sanctions have been proposed - it's a stressful situation and honestly, it's often quite hard to know how to properly react, which issues to address and which topics are relevant (that's actually why in real life we do have lawyers). Nothing here. Volunteer Marek  00:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Atabey

Check out MarshallBagramyan's recent edit here. For Nth time, removing the map from Azerbaijan Democratic Republic page, while arguing in favor of map at Democratic_Republic_of_Armenia. And this and numerous other POV edits by MarshallBagramyan fit well with his eloquently expressed: "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality, since much of what they say is backed by a multitude of sources." Well, of course, he does. He is Armenian contributor who demonstrated inability to detach his personal biases from his contributions, thus resulting in non-neutral edits. Atabəy (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I find this comment by Atabəy to be unhelpful. His wording about MarshallBagramyan "He is Armenian contributor who demonstrated inability to detach his personal biases" smacks of all-too-familiar racial battleground attitude. I suggest the following. 1). do not penalize MarshallBagramyan at this time. 2). stick to the suggestion of Biophys above not to use sources coming from Azerbaijan or Armenia, unless those are un-discredited, unadulterated primary sources. This informal policy has been in place a long time ago and it seems that MarshallBagramyan has been suggesting in his comments to continue sticking to it in the future. Thanks. Vandorenfm (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandorenfm, I only sought to demonstrate that MarshallBagramyan continues to revert war on other pages with the same POV position, while his case goes on in AE. I don't see why MarshallBagramyan saying "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality... almost all Azerbaijani sources because they have an invariable vested interest to distort and misrepresent" is not considered racist, while my comment that MarshallBagramyan does represent Armenian POV is? Can you explain me the difference? If this is about sources, again I would like to find out based on which sources MarshallBagramyan removes one map for Nth time, while doing exactly the opposite about the same area here? Thank you. Atabəy (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning MarshallBagramyan

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

• I would agree with Sandstein's assessment, and would add that a blanket refusal or even reluctance to use sources simply because of the nationality of the source's author is odious and unacceptable. If the source really is unreliable, you should be able to find a good reason why. Otherwise, if it meets the standards, it does—period. I don't think editors with such a view could even possibly edit neutrally in areas where such sources might be necessary, and so I support the topic ban proposal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In light of the new statements here, I must say that I'm also impressed with the responses. I would still state that MarshallBagramyan's phrasing of the statements he made was poor (to say the least), and that he would have done better explaining things in this manner before it came to this point than after, but his response shows careful thought. I would suggest, given these new developments, that a requirement be placed on MarshallBagramyan that, if he believes a source is not reliable, he is required to come up with reasoning as to why that particular source is unreliable, and not dismiss it due to where it was written or who wrote it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I am much less impressed with MarshallBagramyan's second comment, which does not address his conduct and instead appears to argue at length why disagreeing with him in the content dispute (which AE does not care about) is equivalent to denying the Holocaust. That is not a good sign at all. It is clear that he holds strong opinions about the dispute that was the focus of the arbitration cases, and I remain unconvinced that he can approach it from a neutral point of view.  Sandstein  23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I fully agree that he needlessly inflamed the situation, and that sanctions are called for. I think the only question is what form they should take in order to most helpfully address the issue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• I think that Marshall Bagramyan has come up with a fair response to Sandstein's assessment. I would prefer to see other evidence that Marshall is POV pushing before I would support a topic ban. NW (Talk) 07:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate MarshallBagramyan's measured comment. It is true that our article Human rights in Azerbaijan and the most recent reports by Freedom House ([6]) and Human Rights Watch ([7]) indicate that Azerbaijan is an unfree country, and that there are therefore good reasons to take much more care with sources published in that country, especially with respect to political issues that the state cares much about. We can and should assess sources for their reliability, including on the basis of whether or not there is reason to believe that they may have been written under the influence of state coercion.

  But I remain concerned that in the statements at issue, MarshallBagramyan did not address the reliability of any individual source or writer, on the basis of specific evidence pointing to its unreliability, but repeatedly and sweepingly dismissed all "scholars in Azerbaijan" as unreliable on the basis of broad generalizations, rather than discussing the specific sources at issue in the content dispute. As a consequence (and also because of similar conduct from the other, now-banned disputants) the discussion devolved into a nationalist shouting match rather than remaining focused on the sources and the content at issue. This is very inflammatory and unhelpful conduct in a topic area that is so much characterized by nationalist hatred and prejudice, on all sides, that it took two arbitration cases to bring it somewhat under control, and in which exceptional discipline is therefore required from all participants. For these reasons I still believe that MarshallBagramyan's conduct was sanctionable, but I am open to suggestions as to what sanction might be adequate.  Sandstein  08:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • I think that a warning to refer to specific sources rather than overgeneralize would suffice at this time. I think that this is enough of a gray area that a topic ban is not necessary, but still something that Marshall would be advised to avoid in the future.

      However, moving on to Atabəy. For needlessly trying to inflame this AE request, and considering a past history of sanctions, I'm thinking a three month topic ban would be appropriate. NW (Talk) 02:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

NW and others, I did not seek to inflame any debate, or claim that MarshallBagramyan's ethnicity is a reason for his editing, and I am sorry, if my words were perceived that way. I only wanted to emphasize that the nature of complaint and the concurrent activity of MarshallBagramyan clearly emanates from a one-sided POV (he could be of any other background pushing the same POV). This conflict has been going on for years now, and I don't see how your warnings address the problem. And why topic ban me for telling the truth? Did I insult MarshallBagramyan by saying which side's POV he represents? No. He does represent Armenian POV, that is a fact already established by several Arbitration cases, and in fact spelled out by himself above.

Before trying to apply arbitrary topics bans to people expressing their opinion on AE, why don't you take a closer look and see whether your actions would help to resolve the problem. I would like to find out based on which sources MarshallBagramyan removes one map for Nth time, while doing exactly the opposite about the same area here? You may argue that this is topic-related, but it's about a topic discussion going on for months if not years now over a plain POV pushing involving MarshallBagramyan.Are your topic ban or warning proposals going to help resolve these issues, or would it be more practical to find someone to get involved on these page discussions and enforce a single position?

To give you a clearer idea, if I now revert Democratic Republic of Armenia page removing the POV map, MarshallBagramyan will be all over me with even harsher language and you would be discussing another long AE thread. I won't do that, of course, but I do not believe it is fair to put everybody opining on this case into Catch 22 position. Atabəy (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement appeal: Littleolive oil

• Appealing editor

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

• Sanction being appealed

  [8]; Three month topic ban to TM articles; Notification: [9] Discussion:[10]

• Administrator imposing the sanction

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

• Notification of that administrator

  [11]

• Reason for appeal

  Evidence of wrong-doing is based on false and assumptive information, guilt by association, illogical argument, and clear assumptions of bad faith.

Statement by Littleolive oil

Reasons given for ban

• Nuclear Warfare banned me for tendentious editing, pointing to two threads as evidence.[12] [13].

He seems unfamiliar with the history of the articles and the contentious nature of the sentence under discussion. The ongoing discussion on this sentence (let's call it X :) being discussed is months long. Will Beback began the thread, “Bone of Contention”, an explicit recognition that there was an unresolved issue. And by way of resolution, WB himself put in a compromise version of X. I participated in good faith. Nothing is gained by once again repeating the same points on a topic that has been discussed many times over months. I suggested we get outside help rather than continue. here and here, hoping we could move this log jam. None of this is tendentious behavior, and topic banning an editor for taking part in a difficult discussion, started by someone else, and then trying to resolve the issues with mediation, is illogical.

• Doc James also points to this as an implied reason for wrong doing: "In this edit on Jan 14th 2011 [14] User:Littleolive oil again changed a summary of the research that was decided on in this RfC. A change which she was previously put under a 1RR for."

This is misleading on many counts: There was no consensus in this RfC. I was taken to AE for these two edits, the only reverts I'd made in months, (Will Beback made 2 edits in that same time. Doc made 5) . I was sanctioned and the case closed before I could comment. Now I'm being described, because of this sanction, as a disruptive editor.

..."again changed a summary of the research":(Quote above James)

I moved content that contained a sentence X, to the TM article which already had a sentence X in the lead. Will had already changed the X in the lead but was reverted, and supported Doc's revert of the sentence. I adjusted the X in the content I'd moved, to closely reflect the sources by actually quoting the sources and by referencing the studies, assuming the quote would satisfy everyone in terms of accuracy. I also didn't think we needed two of the same sentence in one article. I was reverted. Will and I both made edits to this same sentence, X. Will says his edit [15] is bold.[16] Doc cites my edit [17] as an implied reason to topic ban. This is a double standard which isolates one editor and looks a lot like ownership by two others. By what Wikipedia standard is a good faith edit considered impetus to ban an editor for three months.

There are now 4 instances of sentence X in three articles: [18]-lead, [19], [20]-lead, [21]-lead.

Other accusations

• According to Nuclear Warfare[22]

but James has pointed out many issues with the filer's actions. Personally, I think that the POV pushing/tendentious editing exhibited in continuously trying to use sources to make sure their point of view is gotten across rather than just picking the best 20 or 30 sources and writing the article is something that discretionary sanctions was designed to prevent. NW (Talk) 14:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

He incorrectly implies I’ve added sources on the research. I haven’t. The rest of the statement falsely hinges on that assumption.

• Comment James:[23]

…we have a serious issue here. We have a small group of editors who primarily or only edit TM articles who continue to misuse and misquote sources in an attempt to prove that TM has a degree of scientific support which is not shown by a careful review of the scientific literature. They have been taken much information out of context and are trying to use Wikipedia for advertising.

James personalized a comment that isolates a group of editors, creates a we/them environment into which he, James, Wikipedia and the admins on the page is the “we” and the good guys, the rest including me are the “them”, the bad guys. He makes some serious accusations, accusing editors of misusing and misquoting, but does so with out a single diff. The TM research is a source of contention, and no editor has the definitive opinion on the research. As another example of ABF, he accuses editors of using Wikipedia for advertising purposes, a COI, yet no COI was found in the TM arbitration. If he has new proof of COI he should take it to the COI Noticeboard.

So do we wish Wikipedia to be written by those who are here to write an encyclopedia or those who are here to promote a religious movement?

[24]

He creates a false premise here, another personalized comment, ABF, and more guilt by association.

Nuclear Warfare seems to be banning me for an affiliation with a whole group of editors, and that group as identified and characterized by James.

James has a history of personalizing comments and assumptions of bad faith. These are a few:[25] [26][27].

• Comment: Nuclear Warfare:[28]

The problem with littleoliveoil's editing is not now a propensity to edit war, but more disruptive and tedious editing, and attempting to use AE to win the disagreement, something this forum is not designed for.

I came to the AE in good faith asking for a warning for an editor who had made 8 removals of reliably sourced content without prior discussion That 8 was an excessive number of removals was based on a standard set by Will Beback[29] when he warned me here fro a single move of content to the talk page. Six of the sources James removed were WP:MEDRS compliant. All were reliably sourced.

What I got was another layer in an ongoing, falsely construed narrative that casts me as a disruptive and now tendentious editor, setting me up in this most recent situation for a topic ban. Add , per the TM arbitration,” if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia.” and "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision." [30]. I wasn’t warned.

I also realize this is not a simple case for any admin. dealing with it.

Case in point: The opinion of any editor on the TM research is of zero consequence. I could care less. Like any research it has its good and its weaker points. The concern is using a personal opinion of the TM organization/research as basis to judge another editor.(olive (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC))

Note: @ Anthony. Thank you for updating the format . I had trouble with the template so "posted by hand".

AKG, you are making sweeping generalizations for which you provide no proof, but your personal opinion. Its impossible to defend myself against generalizations. Implied in your comment is that in removing one editor from a discussion, everything will improve. Implied further within that idea is that one editor or one side of a debate is the source of all the problems, and that I am on the wrong side. In fact everything will be quieter if you remove either side from a debate, but better or not is a value judgement probably based on a point of view. I don't see that Wikipedia functions on a system that removes editors from either side because they disagree. Wikipedia functions on standards that support collaboration and with the knowledge that multiple views and multiple sources of knowledge will help build better articles. I am a good faith editor, thank you for recognizing that. What I have as a gaol is that the articles I work on are both accurate and neutral. I am a civil editor respecting that other editors have opinions different than mine and will see and find sources that I don't see or discover. I don't have to agree with other editors and they don't have to agree with me, but I have on many occasions compromised even when I thought something wasn't right. On contentious articles such as the TM articles its a given that there will be prolonged discussion because there are lots of sources and lots of opinions. An editor who is working collaboratively when things get bogged down, and as the TM arbitration specifies, should look for dispute resolution. If I were truly being vociferous about my editorial position why would I ask for outside eyes to come in and help us through difficult points when such scrutiny could lose me my "favoured" position. What you are saying about me and my actions is contradictory. As well, you see me as a good faith editor, but you recommend removing me rather than complying with the TM arbitration which specifies a warning prior to a sanction.

(Response to above) There are multiple instances of discussions in which you have refused to recognise when consensus is clearly against you. As an example, see the diff cited here on your talk page immediately after the ban. What I assert regarding your conduct is not contradictory and you omit one important component of my thinking: I do believe you are a good-faith editor, yes, but I also believe that your approach of arguing against changes and discussing old topics ad nauseum is so frustrating to the other editors as to be disruptive.

In response to the additional argument you entered, that the initial sanction is invalid because you were not warned about the existence of discretionary sanctions and educated, I will say that that does appear to be true, and that I am unsure why NuclearWarfare did not take account of that. But it is within an administrator's general discretion to remove disruptive editors by blocking, and perhaps you were simply banned from the article in lieu of, say, a two-week block—a rather good idea for you, in my view. AGK [•] 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to cite an instance of the so called multiple instances when I have refused to recognize consensus, you might consider not citing Will Beback's version of a sequence of events, and note what really happened which is as outlined above: that I did not change the original version in the article which was under discussion, but adjusted a version added in other content. The adjustment was a copy edit, quote, as well as a citation of the studies, a more specific rendering of the same sentence so we didn't have a case of redundant text and so the text was close to the source...You'll note that Will Beback left ce for syntax in place some. You also seem to forget that Will Beback made a much larger change to the text removing the sentence completely and replacing it with a summary ... but Will did it so It seems acceptable. And no AGK I don't ignore consensus.

When an editor continues with a behaviour as Doc James does of unilateral editing which eventually emboldens him to delete reliably sourced content , yes I do comment on it, and eventually after 8 times try some kind of intervention. What is it you think I need a block for. Commenting here. Trying to set a record straight that has been scewed. Concerns about repeated use of DR to try and render an editor unable to edit or even move for fear some admin with a bias will show up and once again with out really knowing what's going on, slap some sanction on me. I'm sorry you use the kind of manner you do here. I've admired your fairness in the past and your even tone and handedness. And while you have the power to block, ban, or sanction if you do so you do it not understanding or knowing what's going on. You might take into consideration that in the TM arbitration all editors but one came out of that arbitration on the same footing. I wasn't the bad guy as you seem to depict me here. (olive (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

Reply Will Beback's claim that I "declined to discuss"

FYI, you should be aware that the dispute over this material dates back to June or July, not just to December. Here are two of the main threads started by Olive on the topic: NPOV_violation_of_lead Inaccuracy_in_the_lead As far as this material goes, I wouldn't characterize Olive's behavior as POV pushing. It's more a matter of tendentious editing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To the extent that a POV is being promoted, it's one that promotes relatively poor research which finds positive effects from TM while minimizing the highest quality research which does not find much special effect from the technique. Will Beback talk 01:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a change to a version of the sentence because it was the second time the same sentence would have appeared in the article, not the original one you had removed and summarized Will, and what I did, which was as I have said repeatedly, to make it more specific, per the content, with syntax changes. I also then quoted from the source. I assumed the reason to repeat the same sentence would be obvious and would be acceptable to everyone. I did not analyze which of the sources/reviews was better; I simply randomly chose one as an example. If you didn't like it you could have said so, and it could have been added.

I have said repeatedly what the problems were for me, as I do here:

Selecting a few studies to support a view while ignoring others, and ignoring a summary of the content in the article itself to present a one sided view constitutes and creates a POV, and creates a lead that is patently absurd. The lead must summarize and reflect the article. if this paragraph is not pulled out and rewritten to comply with NPOV and WP:LEAD standards we need to ask for formal mediation. Enough is enough. (olive (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC))'

and again here:

We've been through this before, but we have two reviews here. The wording inaccurately suggests all reviews have found these results, which isn't true. We should name the reviews

I didn't decline to discuss. I'd discussed in the "Bone of Contention" thread. I 'd stated my position several times. I couldn't see doing another round of the same and thought, per the TM arbitration which suggests DR instead of endless discussion, that a mediation would be the best way to proceed.(olive (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

Further to Will:

Will's judgment that I somehow deliberately changed content to a more POV is based on one basic assumption, and that is, that I was aware that my editing was wrong somehow. I didn't. I was simply working with content trying to make it fit into another article. While I see that Doc has taken a rigid position on a sentence, Will actually removed the whole thing earlier. The urgency Doc seems to feel to have this sentence appear as he wants it too and in several articles was already being addressed by the version already in the article. Further I can't second guess how Will thinks the articles should be written. Its risky to assume another editor's motives, seems to me.

Note per Cirt and Involved editor status

Perhaps Cirt 's comment should be moved to "comments from involved users" since he has edited/written a TM article, TM and Cult Mania [31].(olive (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

Statement by NuclearWarfare

AGK notes one thing above: "In response to the additional argument you entered, that the initial sanction is invalid because you were not warned about the existence of discretionary sanctions and educated, I will say that that does appear to be true, and that I am unsure why NuclearWarfare did not take account of that." I hardly think that after being instructed and reminded in the original ArbCom case, as well as having been sanctioned for behaving tendentiously in the past[32], that any further warning was necessary. NW (Talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was sanctioned with two reverts given as evidence. As far as I know the tendentious comment was directed at another editor.(olive (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

Statement by involved User:Jmh649

It is interesting that my comment "it seems that TM publishes a huge amount which they like to brag about, little of the work [however] has any real scientific substance to it. " is refereed to as "personalizing comments and assumptions of bad faith". It enforces the concerns regarding WP:COI that I bring up in the next two diffs Olive mentions. If my comments regarding TM are taken as personal attacks against Wikipedia editors than some may be too close to the subject matter to continue editing neutrally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by involved User:Will Beback

The text in question was added following an RfC back in August 2010. Olive has repeatedly objected to that RfC, but has not specified what is actually wrong with the material. On January 14, after changing the text without discussion, she said that it "does not accurately reflect the sources",[33] that "accurate sourcing is imperative",[34] that she "checked refs and once again was struck by the inaccuracies of what we are saying".[35] When asked about the purported misrepresentation she again asserted it without any specifics: "The sentence is inaccurate per the sources."[36] When asked to get consensus before making changes to the much-discussed text,[37] she replied "I intend to edit this content so that it is accurate per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and accurately represents the sources. How that is worded exactly is certainly open to discussion, but representing the sources accurately isn't."[38] Again I ask her to point to the inaccuracies.[39] She replied by saying that the errors were obvious, but "If you'd like to discuss this sentence again, and its been discussed before we could certainly do that. Why don't I start another thread." However instead of discussing the errors she again complains about the old RfC.[40] I again ask her to explain the problems with the actual current text.[41] She again complains about the August RfC and the previous AE case, and again says she will discuss the errors in the future.[42] She says my position is clear, but fails again to point out any errors.[43] Again I ask her to point to the errors.[44] She says it's been discussed in the past, but doesn't link to any previous discussions of errors.[45] Again I ask her to point to the errors.[46] Finally, she says she won't do so because it's already been discussed too much.[47] It's very frustrating to deal with an editor who keeps insisting something is wrong but won't say what it is.

Thanks for the detailed information, Will. I hope it's alright to respond in your section here; if not, let me know and I'll happily refactor elsewhere

Looking back at the RfC you seem to be talking about - this one, correct? - there doesn't seem to have been any consensus reached here at all. In fact, I see Olive offer a short and seemingly neutral suggestion, DocJames presenting a counter suggestion that is heavily steeped in skeptical sources, and then assorted quibbles, disagreements, and rants involving perhaps five or six editors. not really a prime example of the consensus system in action, if you ask me... Apparently, however, DocJames' version was declared to have consensus (I'm not sure how or why), and the discussion immediately goes into 'NPOV violation' mode in archive 34, with Olive and others objecting to a perceived bias in the lead, and Doc and others sticking to their guns to preserve that particular version. That state continues to the present, and includes requests for mediation or other DR that (apparently) never came to any fruition.

With respect to "inaccuracy per sources" issue: I believe that refers to the dispute over this edit where the only difference between the two versions is that Olive's version attributes the clam (An independently done systematic review, the Opsina meta-analysis, has not found...), whereas your version generalizes it (Independently[64] done systematic reviews have not found...). and in fact, Olive's version does seem to better reflect the sourcing (unless there's some reason to believe that that independent review should be used without attribution). I don't know why Olive didn't point out that this was the only difference, and I don't know why you didn't note it yourself, but it does seem like a fairly self-evident point. I can understand why Olive was getting frustrated - there was clearly a two-way miscommunication going on here between you and she, and it was aggravated on her side by DocJames, who was making some fairly pushy reverts and changes to the article while this discussion was ongoing. but I'm still not seeing ban-worthy material here. In fact, I would probably have been much grumpier about this than she was, though I probably would also have expressed myself more clearly. Trust me, it is incredibly aggravating to feel tag-teamed (which is the feeling one gets when one is bogged down in a discussion with one editor while another editor starts making rampant and contentious edits to mainspace).

In short, I understand that (and why) you were annoyed, and I also understand that (and why) Olive was annoyed. What I can't understand is the talk page dynamic in which none of her concerns got met, while you and James ran a bit roughshod over article content. Nor can I understand why that dynamic (with obvious miscommunications and problematic edits all around) ended up with only people opposed to your side getting sanctioned. --Ludwigs2 01:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite knowing that this material was disputed Olive made a significant change without any discussion, or even a clear edit summary. Here are the sequence of edits:[48] Note that there are at least two reviews cited - she just omits mentioning the most important one while leaving the citation but without explaining why she deleted reference to it. That's a bit deceptive and is not helpful to the article. In general, she's kept complaining about the RfC from five months ago rather than working towards a consensus solution. There was a miscommunication because Olive refused to communicate her problem with the material. She kept saying there were obvious errors, but would not say what they were.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Olive was not alone in knowingly making disputed edits on that page, so I'm not sure where you're going with that first line. with respect to that sequence of edits, here's what I see happening:

• she changes wording to attribute the 'independent research' to the Opsina meta-analysis. seemingly non-problematic
• she removes some argumentative language about "devotees [...] tied to Maharesh Yogi" to talk about research associated with TM using biased participants. also non-problematic.
• she adds a couple of (what seem to be) reliable sources that have published material on TM, without any obvious bias that I can see. is there a problem there?

It took me a while to see what you meant by omitting one of the sources (messy diffs), but that could easily have been fixed by replacing the first source with the more important one or attributing both of them (e.g. "independent studies by Ospinal and Krisanaprakornkit found no significant...") which either you or she or Doc could have done as a compromise; I'm not sure why that never came up on the talk page either.

As far as complaining about the RfC five months later... It was a bogus result (an RfC with no consensus closed as though it had one); What did you expect her to do? Again, she showed more restraint than I would have in the same circumstance, and I can just imagine your and Jim's responses if she had been the one to close it preemptively in her favor.

Look, Will, I don't really want to start casting blame in any direction here; this just strikes me as an unfortunately mucked up talk-page. If you want a summary of my opinion on all this, it's as follows: I don't see a whole lot of difference between you and DocJames and Olive with respect to behavior (you're behavior is less problematic than the other two, but they're about equal, and no one is really rocketing off into the deep end). Consequently, I don't understand why there is such a significant and pronounced difference in punishment here. Is it just that you two are admins and she isn't? because if that's the case, that's just plain sad wrong. and that's the least-bad explanation I can think of, barring some pretty damning diffs I haven't seen. If I can offer a compromise, why don't you all un-ban Olive, and I will do what I can on the talk page to make sure communications don't get mucked up again. TM is not something I know a lot about, but I can usually find decent compromises when it's just wording and structural issues like this.--Ludwigs2 02:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I kept offering to discuss the issue and asking Olive to point to the problems with the text, and she kept complaining about the August RfC and saying she would discuss the errors later, but she never did. I don't see what I could have done any differently to get her to discuss the problem with the text, rather than the problems with the RfC in August.   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 wrote: she changes wording to attribute the 'independent research' to the Opsina meta-analysis. seemingly non-problematic

No, that's mistaken. Olive changed text that referred to two independent reviews and made it about only one review, leaving off the other, more important one (while keeping the footnote to it). Since that other review, from the Cochrane Collaboration, does not support the POV that TM has unique benefits that deletion affected the POV of the material.   Will Beback  talk  05:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by involved User:Fladrif

The claim that the interim topic ban was improperly imposed because of a lack of prior notice is WP:Wikilawyering at its worst and in and of itself a prime example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Olive asserts this defense every time she is involved in an AE dispute. It was extensively discussed when she sought "clarification" of the sanctions imposed upon her and two other editors last fall. The members of the ArbCom committee who actually decided the TM ArbCom weighted in on the subject, and made it clear that, in the case of the involved editors in the TM ArbCom, no further warning was necessary before imposing AE sanctions, and that olive's claim of lack of notice was a complete red herring.

• Arbitrator User:Roger Davies wrote:

"Catching up belatedly on this, the purpose of the neutral warning is to avoid a revolving door approach ("here's your warning, here's your summons", delivered in the same envelope) and thus reduce the prospect of biting newcomers either to the topic or the encyclopedia. However, that scarcely applies here and I don't think there's much doubt that in this instance the editors involved have had ample and sufficient warnings by a variety of other means.[49] [Emphasis added]]

• Arbitrator User:Shell Kinney wrote:

"Who warned who is a complete red herring here (though I don't disagree with the best practices mentioned above). Frankly I don't understand how editors who were involved in a case can later claim they were unaware of the discretionary sanctions or should have received better/more warnings or that someone should have more clearly explained to them what the problem was. All of the editors who appealed these sanctions were involved in the case, repeatedly warned before things got to the level of a case and should by this time know how Wikipedia works. The findings in the case they were involved in clearly set out the problems in the area, the relevant policies and what sanctions might happen if things continued to be a problem - exactly how much more clear could anyone be?[50] [Emphasis added]]

The reviewing uninvolved admins should not only reject out of hand olive's lament that she wasn't warned by an uninvolved admin first, but should regard her frivolous claim, forcefully rejected over four months ago by the ArbCom members who actually decided the caser, as evidence in and of itself, of grossly inappropriate editor conduct on her part meriting AE sanction. Fladrif (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Littleolive oil

• (Procedural note) I have updated this request so that it complies with the prescribed format. AGK [•] 13:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• As was opined in the initial Arbitration Enforcement thread, the right result was reached in relation to Littleolive oil (hence Olive), but for the wrong reasons. I disagree with NuclearWarfare (hence NW), the administrator who initially imposed the sanction, and agree with Olive, in the above argument that Olive did not initially file an AE thread in order to win a content dispute - but simply to ask "for a warning for an editor who had made 8 removals of reliably sourced content without prior discussion".

  Having said that, I argue that it would be undesirable to allow Littleolive oil to resume editing the Transcendental Meditation article. Having had peripheral experience in this topic area (as the Mediation Committee member who evaluated a recent request for formal mediation of this topic), and having re-examined the discussions that are ongoing between Olive, Will Beback, Doc James, et al, it is obvious that there is little support for the editorial positions that Olive is promulgating. In my view, Olive has became an unhelpful influence by protesting in support of those positions for so long and so vociferously.

  The main questions in this respect that need to be resolved are: whether other administrators agree that Olive's influence on the article has become unhelpful; and, if so, whether it is appropriate to use discretionary sanctions to eliminate from an article an editor whose behaviour is not acting in bad faith but who is still a damaging influence. My preliminary inclination is to decline this appeal on these bases. AGK [•] 14:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with everything stated in the above analysis by AGK (talk · contribs). The above comment by AGK is indeed sound, logical, rational, and covers multiple aspects of assessment relating to the problematic behavior by the user in question. I support the preliminary inclination of AGK in this matter. -- Cirt (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Hmmm... I need to to look over the page more carefully, but I will say that on a superficial examination this looks like an unjustified ban. I don't see anything in Olive's behavior that is offensive, uncivil, or even outright POV-pushing, and I find the idea that a sysop might be imposing a ban because he does not like the editor's perspective on a topic to be extremely troubling. I'll look into the issue further, but I am tempted to support this appeal pro tem. --Ludwigs2 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Olive was sanctioned not because of their viewpoint in relation to the subject matter but because of the way they went about promulgating that viewpoint. This sanction was based on behavioural, not content, grounds. AGK [•] 22:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That is what would need to be said in order to legitimize the sanction, yes, but whether or not that is actually true is the matter under contention. I've just been reading through the talk page and last archive (particularly the 'Bone of Contention' threads, that seem to be the fulmination point) and what I'm seeing (frankly) is Olive getting a bit sandbagged by Will and Doc James. This whole problem seems to have occurred because DocJames made some edit that Olive objected to as POV (apparently without discussion or consensus), and then Will and James started digging in their heels when she tried to revert it back. I need to look a bit more deeply to see what the original change that Olive objected to was, but as far as I've read Olive is not looking like the unreasonable one here. I might not be quite as suspicious of it all if I hadn't seen (and been subject to) this kind of tactic in the past, but I have, so... --Ludwigs2 23:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I just went through every diff of the article from december 19th to the present, and what I see is Jim in particular and to a lesser extent Will trying to use page structure and attribution to portray TM as both a religious movement and a pseudoscience (this includes the addition of skeptical-POV sources like the Cochrane review, the removal of sources favorable to TM, efforts to hide attribution so that particular studies appear to be generalized scientific conclusions, and generally moving text around to highlight the movement as a religion). I do not see any evidence of Olive pushing a POV - the worst I can find has olive moderating the tone of skeptical statements without actually changing the meaning. So again, I'm at a loss as to why Olive is under sanction here. AGK, you say this sanction was based on behavioral grounds - can you please provide diffs of the behavior it is grounded in? Because I just can't find anything worthy of a ban. --Ludwigs2 23:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, you should be aware that the dispute over this material dates back to June or July, not just to December. Here are two of the main threads started by Olive on the topic: NPOV_violation_of_lead Inaccuracy_in_the_lead As far as this material goes, I wouldn't characterize Olive's behavior as POV pushing. It's more a matter of tendentious editing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To the extent that a POV is being promoted, it's one that promotes relatively poor research which finds positive effects from TM while minimizing the highest quality research which does not find much special effect from the technique.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

yeah, I read back that far. the IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue seems to be spread around among several editors, if you ask me. However, I don't really see that kind of promotion anywhere. What I see is Olive trying to minimize a number of overstatements about the ineffectiveness of TM, which is far different than trying to promote the practice. Further, I can't say I really agree with you on the quality of research like Cochrane. Cochrane is not an unbiased source - it's clearly and intentionally skeptical. It's useable and useful, mind you, but one cannot ignore the fact that they have a few sticks in the fire.

More to the point, the question here is not whether Olive behaved like a perfect saint (she was certainly civil and communicative throughout, but we could debate the IDHT and tendentiousness issues), but whether she did anything worthy of a three-month ban. As far as I can tell, she didn't do all that much wrong and behaved no worse than anyone else on the page (and in some ways a bit better than DocJames, and certainly far better than editors on other pages who've never received so much as 24 hour block), she seemed to have some decent content points that ought to have been addressed, and yet she seems to have been singled out for a sanction. It doesn't seem justified in either absolute or relative terms. That needs explaining. and if it can't be explained, the ban needs to be lifted. --Ludwigs2 01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Will opened the recent "Bone of Contention" discussion implying there was an unresolved issue, and Will deleted the contentious sentence replacing it with a summary again implying there were other ways of dealing with the research than this single sentence. Per the POV point above: I have suggested adjusting the sentence to make sure it summarized the content in the article, and suggested the studies were named in-line so as not to imply two studies spoke for an entire body of research as presented in the article. As well the sentence does not accurately describe what the studies say as far as I can tell, but I haven't argued that point. (olive (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

Result of the appeal by Littleolive oil

Finding myself in agreement with AGK and Cirt above, and seeing that nobody has so far expressed any views in support of Olive's appeal (after 48hrs), I suggest closing this as declined fairly soon, unless somebody still wishes to take up her case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Noting here that I'm aware of Ludwig's and Olive's comments and will respond later when I have time. I'm reconsidering my position on this appeal and would ask that we hold off on closing this appeal pending ongoing discussion and in light of there not yet, in my view, being a clear consensus. AGK [•] 13:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning ZuluPapa5

User requesting enforcement

Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBCC#ZuluPapa5's battlefield conduct and Wikipedia:ARBCC#ZuluPapa5_topic-banned

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

User:ZuluPapa5 maintains climate change-related material in his user space that arguably violates his sanctions in the Climate Change case. This material has been nominated for deletion (here and here). The concern is not so much the material itself, which is being considered through the usual process for such things, but ZuluPapa5's wholly inappropriate behavior toward those who have in good faith nominated the material for deletion. In response he has developed the concept of "deletion harassment" (here), which is admittedly difficult to fathom with its references to laws on stalking. A sample of problematic diffs include:

1. [51] Inappropriate continuation of "battlefield" (or worse) conduct in response to a routine and civilly-worded notification.
2. [52] Self-explanatory.
3. ...

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

1. This user talk thread shows User:Ronz trying but failing to get him to work cooperatively.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Whatever it takes to either calm him down, or remove him from the field of battle. I do not think the usual short punitive block (few days to a week) would be effective. On the other hand I hope a siteban or similarly harsh measure is not needed. Perhaps something like an interaction ban would be appropriate.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This comment by User:MastCell is a good summary of the overall problem.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification. I waited a few days to see if he would calm down but the situation only became worse.

Discussion concerning ZuluPapa5

Statement by ZuluPapa5

see: User:ZuluPapa5/Deletion_Harassment for evidence. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning ZuluPapa5

• Remedy 4.6 specifically instructs participants to clear/delete their evidence subpages - so why is this still available? And this? This? It seems that the look into ZuluPapa5's apparent use or misuse of subpages is warranted, and there are more MFDs to come to decide this issue. I don't think a case can be made out for "deletion harassment". It is obvious, even to an user who is uninvolved with CC, that there are problems with the continued existence and/or maintenance of some such subpages; MFD is the last option to address those pages. What is also troubling is ZuluPapa5's recent insertion of "Florida laws" on stalking (and sentences for breaches of these laws) and his repeated references to other editors as "assholes".
• Given that he is already topic banned due to the battleground issue, it would be unacceptable to allow the continuation of such battleground behavior. Accordingly, should he continue to be unwilling to conduct himself appropriately during the MFDs or upon being notified of them, a block which enforces the topic ban appears to unfortunately be the only viable option left. The duration of such a block would be fixed and for the duration of the MFDs - until the Community has made its decision on them. Hopefully after that, there will be no further excuses for him to continue the battleground behavior, absent further violations of his topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Slightly modified this comment for clarity on duration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, it may be similar to the weed type issue I described at 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Okay, so I found this at MFD. His response in the MFD was to call a user "asshole" in the MFD, then make a "get off my talk page" comment in response to the MFD nomination — both blatant violations of WP:CIVIL. He's apparently been called out on his civility before (see User talk:ZuluPapa5#Talk:Civility), where a tl;dr discussion suggests that he's got some bad faith issues. He also made this lovely user subpage in which he slings mud at other users and falsely accuses them of stalking. It's clear that he's not even trying to be civil, and just wants to stir the pot. As Ncmvocalist points out, a block is pretty much the only other option at this point. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• It appears that ZuluPapa5 is implicitly accusing other editors of engaging in criminal acts. User:ZuluPapa5/Deletion Harassment was recently expanded to include a summary of Florida laws on stalking, including maximum sentences. Aside from being a cut & paste copyvio from an external site (www.e how.com/list_6647727_florida-stalking-laws.html), this edit seems particularly ill-advised in light of both WP:NLT and WP:BLP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• I have nominated a similar page for speedy deletion: User:ZuluPapa5/WMC_RFE_Case_Index. He has no legitimate reason for keeping it. He claims to be taking a break, but he obviously hasn't learned anything. Since there isn't a shred of evidence that he's repentent or understands the problems he's created by his attitude, we know that when he returns we'll just see more of the same. I don't think he should be allowed to come back for some time. How about a three month block?
  Sometimes there are editors who rarely do anything constructive to aid Wikipedia's functioning or make any constructive article edits here, yet they are involved in all kinds of articles, discussions, attempts at policy changes, etc.. The majority of their activities involve very unconstructive edits, reverting and getting reverted, complaints, obstruction, stonewalling, endless circular arguments, ownership behavior, baiting, refusal to uncollaborate, refusal to respond constructively to reasonable communication, and generally create controversy. Sometimes this happens without directly violating any rules like NPA, but they often fail to AGF and are definitely disruptive. Sometimes they are so lacking in competence, maturity, cognitive abilities or language skills that they are a burden here. They serve as huge time sinks and need to be weeded out because they are just in the way and keep normally productive editors from doing constructive things. Topic bans or outright blocking may be necessary. In this case both are necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• BullRangifer, do you have any strong personal feelings about Zulu's contributions to Wikipedia that are inhibiting collaboration, cooperation, and compromise between you two? For example, I see that you just nominated a page in Zulu's userspace for speedy deletion that was already blanked, with a very pejorative message. If you do have strong personal feelings towards Zulu, then this is the kind of situation that interaction bans are designed to resolve. Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• My position on this is that he baited and goaded JPS and then treated MastCell's very civil and patient comments with disdain. He hasn't attacked me like that nor told me to leave him alone. My efforts have been directed toward defending those he has offended and trying to get him to stop such things and to get him to understand that others aren't harassing him. He has no right to be "left alone" from the normal business of running Wikipeida: MfDs are not harassment; warnings are not harassment; questions for clarification from admins is not harassment; deletion or changing of his contributions is not "deletion harassment". He thinks he owns his contributions and has a right to be an island, and allowed to do exactly as he pleases, without any interference. Well, things don't work that way here. He has treated several admins here like dirt and I've told him it must stop.
  His general attitude is best described with these words: uncollaborative, stonewalling, personal attacks, constantly assumes bad faith, makes false charges of hounding/"deletion harassment"/general harassment, acts like others don't have a right to touch his contributions, shows a strong ownership attitude, etc.. Even to the last he's gaming the system.
  Even his blanking (at your suggestion) of the subpage in question was so it would be protected so he could return to it (at your advice). (His edit summaries are very interesting reading.) You and I know he has no good purpose with that page. It's part of his battle with WMC which he'll return to. THAT'S where an interaction ban would be good. His "I'm sorry"s are obviously not sincere, as the context in which he says them, and his actions after them reveals.
  His replies turn things around and he treats those who are giving him good advice (I'm not even thinking of myself here) as if they were at fault and that they should leave him alone. When he called MastCell an "asshole" on his talk page and then wrote ASSHOLE elsewhere, he didn't seem to realize he had offended anyone. When he was first confronted with it he had the temerity to ask who he had offended.[53] When I told him that writing that "wasn't very smart",[54] he then made a so-called apology: "Sorry Wikipedia, I wasn't very smart. Please forgive me."[55] There was no apology to the ones he had offended, and no apology for doing it, just that he "wasn't very smart" (quoting me). If I hadn't said anything I doubt he would have said "I'm sorry" at all. He just doesn't seem to have the ability to have a clue, which is why I added that long paragaph about "timesink" editors. It fits him pretty well.
  It's simply not an attitude that inculcates much hope for him being a good editor. I still haven't seen him do anything constructive. Instead he tried to collect evidence of how he was being mistreated, when in fact it wasn't good evidence at all, and often showed him in a bad light. He never showed any real understanding of why everyone was criticizing him. Without repentence there is no real hope. IF there had been a glimmer of hope, I would have been overjoyed. I have no desire to block or ban anyone, but if someone acts like he does, I wouldn't hesitate a moment because editors like him are just not worth the grief they cause here. We have better things to do. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm not bothered by the name-calling here and here, which is well below the sticks-and-stones threshold. I don't really need to be defended in this case, although I appreciate the thought. Whether this particular incident is actionable (in the context of the climate-change probation) is a question I'll leave to the reviewing admins.

  I'm more bothered by the big picture. The combination of incoherence and aggression seems like a particularly poor fit for a collaborative project aimed at producing a reputable reference work. ZuluPapa5 responded to this site's standard, recommended deletion process by posting Florida criminal codes for cyberstalking (including maximum prison sentences), and then framing the MfD nomination in the language of those statutes, as a "malicious" and (by implication) criminal act. It should be obvious that there is something seriously wrong here, and it's much more fundamental than calling someone an asshole in a moment of frustration. MastCell ^Talk 07:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning ZuluPapa5

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

I agree that posting Florida laws on cyberstalking is a violation of WP:NLT, and have deleted the "Deletion Harassment" page, in lieu of blocking. Other admins may wish to take other actions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the legal threat in no way retracts it. We need a block here, and his userspace needs a major culling per 4.6 of the ARBCC decision (Which does not allow blanking as a substitute for deletion). Courcelles 15:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked for the textbook NLT problem, not in any way an arb enforcement block. Any admin can unblock him when he unambiguously states he won't take any legal action, per standard procedure in this situation. Courcelles 15:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces

Request concerning The Four Deuces

User requesting enforcement

Martin (talk)

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned, Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. Made a gratiously unhelpful and inflammatory comment attacking my editing record, was clearly referring to my person: "While I have sympathy for Martintg's ethnic nationalism, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, not a right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV". TFD has no idea of my political beliefs and insinuating I hold an extreme right wing ethnic nationalist POV due to my membership of a particular ethnic group (which his assumes) is an egregious violation of the afore mentioned case.

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

1. TFD was previously warned formally [56] for making an inapproriate edit comment "Reverse pro-fascist edits". This latest incident confirms this unacceptable trend.
2. Formally placed on notice [57]
3. [58] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

block or EE topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It was suggested previously [59] it would be highly likely he will continue to characterise anyone he disagrees with as harbouring pro-fascist or extreme right wing sympathies. This is unacceptable that he continues to do so. --Martin (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is outrageous that in order to escape his culpability in his personal attack on me that he should go on to commit an egregious BLP violation by claiming his comment relates to the viewpoint of Professor Lauri Mälksoo, a scholar in international law from the University of Tartu, and linking sources that have nothing to do what so ever with his viewpoint. Apparently the only basis for TFD's slur is the ethnicity of Professor Mälksoo. --Martin (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• @2overO, Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned makes no distinction between wikipedia editors themselves or persons discussed by Wikipedia editors, it states "—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—". This was one of the central findings of that case which resulted in a twelve month site ban for one of the participants for doing precisely that. Note that TFD's last point concerns the accusation of "double genocide". "Double genocide" is a form of Holocaust denial, as discussed in numerous sources such as this. TFD was explicitly warned about this previously, it seems incredulous that 2over0 should be suggesting yet another warning. TFD is not unaware of the heightened tensions within the EE topic area and the need to not associate people with certain ethnicity with far-right viewpoints. --Martin (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[60]

Discussion concerning The Four Deuces

Statement by The Four Deuces

My comments were about the POV of the quote that Martintg presented rather than his personal point of view. The far right in the former Communist states seeks to re-write history in order to villianize ethnic minorities within their borders, in particular Russians, whom they believe are within their countries illegally. The connection of this POV with the far right is well-documented. Not only do they argue that the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal, which is a mainstream view, but that (as Martintg presented) " - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR". The implication is that Russian and other ethnic minorities are illegally in the Baltic states.

• "Territorial disputes in Eastern Europe have an impact not only on domestic politics, international relations and regional security in this area, but also on the European identity and cooperation of the extreme right at the transnational as well as European levels. The traditional geopolitical rule “your neighbor is your enemy – the neighbor of your neighbor is your partner”, when transformed into the extreme right-wing milieu, currently determines many relations within the European extreme right, mostly in the Eastern part of the continent." ("The Extreme Right in Eastern Europe and Territorial Issues")[61]
• "In fact, aspects of such a development can be witnessed in certain republics of the former Soviet Union where the transition to democratic rule has paradoxically been accompanied by a drive to create "ethnically pure" states. Proposals to grant citizenship on the basis of ethnic criteria have been advanced in Georgia as well as in the relatively more advanced Baltic republics."[62]
• "The far right nationalist myth is a use of history for political propaganda and to advance hatred and fear of Putin's "neo-Stalinist" Russia in order to promote an anti-Russian alliance of states, NATO and complete fealty to US policies, including the neoliberal policies that created so much poverty."[63]
• "The three Baltic states in the late 1990s set up state-sponsored commissions to study Nazi and Soviet crimes, but not in an open and democratic spirit. This was a project of ultra-nationalist revisionism with an active political agenda that meant much more to the politicians than this or that historical volume produced for minute readerships. That political agenda was in short, to rewrite the history of the second world war and the Holocaust by state diktat, into a model of "double genocide"." (The Guardian)[64]

Reply to Martintg's additional comments: Martin, just because you have found a source that calls the "double genocide" theory "comparative trivialization" (not btw "holocaust denial") does not mean that I called it that. The double genocide theory is merely the belief that the crimes of Stalin and the Nazis had equivalency. Here is a link to the discussion of the topic in the source your provided. It says, "Central to the notion of comparative trivialization is the so-called double genocide or symmetry approach to the Holocaust in post-Communist East Central Europe". The term "double genocide" does not imply comparative trivialization, although you have found a source attacking the double genocide theory as comparative trivialization. I notice that you googled "double genocide"+"holocaust denial". TFD (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning The Four Deuces

Comment by Sander Säde

Editors have been blocked for far, far less than the direct personal attack by TFD. Of course he commented directly on Martin and not "about the POV of the quote that Martintg presented", it is completely clear from the diff ([65]). This is not the first time he has directed comments on the editor and not content - in fact, this is his usual modus operandi. I would recommend an indefinite ban from all Eastern Europe and politics-related topics, which could be lifted only by appeal after six months.

Extended content

However, what is truly outrageous are his comments on this very arbitration page - basically, twisting the facts to suit his viewpoint, claiming some kind of "far right in the former Communist states seeks to re-write history in order to villianize ethnic minorities within their borders, in particular Russians" and "the connection of this POV with the far right is well-documented". Both claims are, of course, simply lies. He then brings quotes torn out of the context: "The Extreme Right in Eastern Europe and Territorial Issues" discusses extreme right-wing organizations in Hungary, Russia and Serbia, not Baltic states. Quote from "Nationalism, ethnicity and democracy: contemporary manifestations" is missing the key point about Baltic states - in neither Georgia nor Baltic states, ethnicity did not become into play on granting citizenship at all (I am not sure about other countries, but at least in Estonia, such a racist approach was never even mentioned). ""Double Genocide" and Lithuania" is simply a blog post, which seems to miss its target completely. "Why red is not brown in the Baltics" is a response to a book by Timothy Snyder. The latter replied here, pointing out the shortcomings in Katz' piece. However, the commissions that TDF's quote mentions - the commission was set up only in Estonia, Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity, with no Estonian members, only high-profile international politicians and scientists, with several Jews among them. The results of the Commission are so respected that they are used not only by professional historians worldwide but also, for example, European Court of Human Rights. No political agenda, no rewriting history, no state sponsorship, no national revisionism. This is also the usual TFD's way to deflect criticism. Google a couple of articles and use some brief quotes from them that seem to support his viewpoint, in hopes that no one bothers to analyze the articles.

Furthermore - as I just realized, I fell into his trap. The quotes he brings here are completely irrelevant. This is a case about direct personal attack, not "right-wing extremism", "rewriting history" or something else. This is a case where The Four Deuces smeared an another editor, something which he has often done and he sees nothing wrong in portraying his fellow editors as fascists or "ethnic nationalists". No quotes from anywhere will change that fact. Please don't be misled by his intentionally inflammatory comment, like I was.

--Sander Säde 08:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic, but as a food of thought. Union of Pro Patria and Res Publica (IRL) is considered to be the rightmost major Estonian party. We have elections coming in March. Two main election slogans for the IRL are free university education (something that already exists in Estonia) and mothers getting a pension increase in relation to the number of children. Their views are quite a bit left of U.S. Democratic Party.

Estonia also has an actual nationalist party, Estonian Independence Party. In 2007 elections they got 0.2% of votes, in 2011 they will probably get even less than that. Right-wing nationalism simply has no support in Estonia.

As for me, I consider myself to be somewhere between the center and a Social Democrat, although Social Democratic Party (Estonia) probably won't get my vote this time, as their behavior has been a pretty spineless lately.

--Sander Säde 09:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning The Four Deuces

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

While TFD has made intemperate comments in the past, I do not find anything in the evidence presented or their recent contributions that would rise to the level of requiring a sanction here. The furthest I might go would be to point out that in topic areas where disputes often become heated (including anything covered by our several ethnic disputes discretionary sanctions), it might be best practice to avoid any comment that might be construed as reflecting on an editor rather than an edit, and that sources may be best rebutted with better sources, not personal analysis (howsoever obvious it may be). Recommend close without action. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)